Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/09/2011 J (w/Naples City Council) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NAPLES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 9, 2011 February 9, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and NAPLES CITY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, February 9, 2011 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 1 :00 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION at the City Council Chamber, 735 Eighth Street South, Naples, Florida. CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Georgia A. Hiller (Absent) Tom Henning (Absent) CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR: Bill Barnett John F. Sorey, III Doug Finlay Teresa Lee Heitmann (Absent) Gary B. Price, II Sam J. Saad, III Margaret Sulick ALSO PRESENT: Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Robert D. Pritt, City Attorney A. William Moss, City Manager Tara A. Norman, City Clerk Page 1 Notice of Joint Meeting and Agenda Naples City Council Collier County - Board of County Commissioners City Council Chamber, 735 Eighth Street South, Naples, Florida City of Naples Mayor: Bill Barnett Vice Mayor: John F. Sorey, III City Council Members: Doug Finlay, Teresa Lee Heitmann, Gary B. Price II, Sam J. Saad III, Margaret Sulick City Attorney: Robert D. Pritt. City Clerk: Tara A. Norman' City Manager: A. William Moss Collier County - Board of County Commissioners Chairman: Fred W. Coyle Vice Chairman: Jim Coletta County Commissioners: Donna Fiala, Georgia A. Hiller, Tom Henning County Attorney: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow . County Manager: Leo E. Ochs, Jr. Welcome to today's Meeting. If you wish to address City Council! Board of County Commissioners following the last item on the agenda, please complete a registration form at the rear of the room and place it in the Speaker Request Box located on the Council dais prior to discussion of that item. We ask that speakers limit their comments to 3 minutes and that large groups name a spokesperson whenever possible. Thank you for your interest and participation in local government. Joint Meeting of the City of Naples City Council and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners Wednesday, February 9,2011 1 :00 p.m. Any information which is provided in advance of this meeting on items listed below may be inspected in the office of the City Clerk or on the City's web site www.naplesaov.com. All written, audio-visual and other materials presented to the City Council during this meeting will become the property of the City of Naples and will be retained by the City Clerk. 1. Roll Call 2. Set Agenda 3. Parks and Recreation 4. Boat Launch and Parking at the Naples Landing Park 5. Discussion Regarding the City's Proposal to Consider an Alternative U.S. 41 Route Designation via Golden Gate Parkway and Goodlette-Frank Road 6. Beach Renourishment Public Comment Adjourn NOTICE Formal action may be taken on any item discussed or added to this agenda. Any pe~n i",bg decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter consflJJi'~cPm Joint Meeting of Wednesday, February 9, 2011 Page 2 this meeting (or hearing) will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be heard. Any person with a disability requiring auxiliary aids and services for this meeting may call the City Clerk's Office at 213-1015 with requests at least two business days before the meeting date. 2of54 February 9, 2011 MAYOR BARNETT: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our joint meeting of the City of Naples City Council and our county Board of County Commissioners. Madam Clerk, please call the role. THE CLERK: For Naples, Mayor Barnett? MAYOR BARNETT: Here. THE CLERK: Mr. Finlay? COUNCILMAN FINLAY: Here. THE CLERK: Mrs. Heitmann? (No response.) THE CLERK: Mr. Price? COUNCILMAN PRICE: Here. THE CLERK: Mr. Saad? COUNCILMAN SAAD: Here. THE CLERK: Mr. Sorey? COUNCILMAN SOREY: Here. THE CLERK: Mrs. Sulick? COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Here. THE CLERK: For the Collier County Board of Commissioners, Chairman Coyle? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Here. THE CLERK: Vice-Chair Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Here. THE CLERK: Ms. Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here. THE CLERK: Ms. Hiller? (No response.) THE CLERK: Mr. Henning? (No response.) MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Will you all join me in the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Page 2 February 9, 2011 MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. A very brief few comments before we set the agenda. First of all, welcome, County Commissioners. We're glad to have you here today. I am a little bit disappointed that we don't have a full quorum today, had I known or we known, we would have changed the date of this meeting. That's all I really want to say about that. Motion to set the agenda? COUNCILMAN SOREY: So moved. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. Mr. Sorey, Mr. Coyle. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MAYOR BARNETT: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COUNCILMAN PRICE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COUNCILMAN FINLAY: Aye. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Aye. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COUNCILMAN SOREY: Aye. MAYOR BARNETT: Opposed? (No response.) MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. Agenda Item No.3. I believe that's ours. Item #3 PARKS AND RECREATION MR. MOSS: Thank you, and good afternoon, Board of Commissioners and City Council. Page 3 February 9, 2011 Just a brief background for the benefit of the viewing audience, this topic pertains to a ten-year funding for an interlocal agreement between the Board of Commissioners and the Naples City Council regarding the funding of City of Naples Parks and Recreation program and sand beach parking. And just briefly, a background history. In 2008, following concerns raised by the City Council regarding the use of park facilities, recreation programs, and the beach parking and beach accesses by residents in the unincorporated area of Collier County, the Board of County Commissioners agreed to provide $1 million annually to the City of Naples to help offset related expenses. The amount provided was intended to be allocated for beach parking in the amount of $500,000, and the balance allocated to the Naples park facilities and recreation programs. At that time and each year thereafter the Naples City Council, while most appreciative of the funding support by Collier County, has maintained that the contribution does not offset the costs to provide services to the residents of the unincorporated area of Collier County that often represents a substantial majority of users. The Naples City Council respectfully requests additional financial support for the parks, recreation, and beach facilities and suggests that an additional $700,000 would be a fair allocation. And from that point, Vice-Mayor Sorey, if you don't mind, would you take it from here? COUNCILMAN SOREY: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Manager. And I extend my thanks for you taking your time to be here today, Commissioners, because I know this is a subject we've had discussions about before. And, you know, the reality is, as we have talked in past meetings, we have about 7 percent of the population and maybe about 22 percent of the county taxes. And I realize that our taxes go to multiple uses, and as Chairman Page 4 February 9, 2011 Coyle indicated, only about 25 percent of the tax actually goes to the County Commission for their use. But of that 25 percent, still a significant number, 22 percent, is from the City of Naples taxpayers. And we all know what the issue is. You are strapped as far as revenue; we're strapped as far as revenue. So one of the things that I think we have an obligation to do is not only look at the issue, but come up with some solutions. So as I look at the alternatives, it appears that we can continue with the process that we have now, and in addition to the property tax subsidy, continue to subsidize the county residents for use of our parks and recs. to the tune of $700,000. I don't think that in our budget cycle, and based on the comments I'm getting from our residents, that's an acceptable alternative. Second thing. Obviously, we'd be able to obtain that money from the county taxpayers from your budget. And I realize that that alternative is very difficult when the last number that County Manager indicated to me, probably somewhere in the $25 million shortfall. So that's a challenging situation. The city could reduce services. I'm not sure that we should duplicate county services, and there are similar programs elsewhere in the county. There are also some not-for-profit programs. So one of the things that we could do would be reduce programs we're providing. Another alternative would be to go to a two-tiered fee system. I don't think that's best for our citizens, and I don't think it's best for either the city or the county. Another item that we might look at -- and obviously it will take some research and maybe even a change as far as the current funding. But an alternative I'd like for you to consider would be the tourist tax money that goes to beach parks and rec. and the possibility of looking at $500,000 a year from the tourist tax to go toward the beach-in funding, because a significant number of the users of the beach-ins in the city are county residents and tourists. Page 5 February 9, 2011 Another alternative that we could do -- if we did that, leave the million dollars in place, and that would go to parks and rec., and an additional $500,000 from a different revenue source might be considered. The last alternative would be to increase the tax that the county residents pay for regional parks, because when you look at our parks, especially Fleischmann, I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that that's, indeed, a regional park. So, Mr. Mayor, those are the suggestions that I would suggest we maybe consider. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, Vice-Mayor Sorey. Comments? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MAYOR BARNETT: Donna. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I could make a comment. Boy, we're all having financial troubles, and we all appreciate -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is your mic on? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. Is it on? MAYOR BARNETT: Yes, is it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, there you go. We all appreciate that the city has such -- has been so cooperative in their beach -- beach access. And we've loved being able to pay for our residents using the beach, and that's great, that's great. And I understand that you have a lot of county residents, according to your figures, using it. I think -- and we're very fortunate in the county also. We have some great things that, I think, city people use, like the sun and splash. Nobody else has that around, and certainly they use that. We have been working very, very hard at creating more boat launch areas, and that's another good thing that we can provide, and we welcome everybody from the city to use them. Of course, we have the Children's Museum that's going to be Page 6 February 9, 2011 opening very shortly. It's not ours, but it is on our North Naples Regional Park property, and that's a wonderful thing. Luckily at North Regional we also have a sports complex so that when teams come in to play the sports and -- you know, nationally. And they stay at the hotels. They don't stay at any in East Naples because we don't have any, but they do stay in the City of Naples and use that park, and we welcome them because the tourism -- that's a new avenue for tourism. And so we're happy to share that with them. We just love it. We also have little things like Little League, for instance. So I think there's been a great cooperative effort between city and county to work together. Now, to address the problem with your lack of money and your need for money from us and with the beach money and the park's money, we're kind of struggling with that right now. I don't have a great suggestion, but I'm sure open for it. But I just wanted to put those other things on the table, too, to emphasize that there has been a cooperative effort. And I know you all know that. I mean, it's not anything I'm telling you that's new. Thank you. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, Donna. Doug? COUNCILMAN FINLAY: I know that we have a pretty good handle on what the percentage of county residents using some of our city facilities are, especially Fleischmann, to some degree Cambier, and our Parks and Recreation programs, but does the county have any numbers that you can -- for example, Donna mentioned, you know, the Sun -- the splash park. Do you have numbers that you can tell us what percent of the users of the splash park are city residents or what percentage of city residents are using, say, county recreational programs in relation to -- maybe it's 7 percent, 5 percent? Do you have those numbers? Page 7 February 9, 2011 MR.OCHS: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR BARNETT: Sure. MR. OCHS : Yes, Councilman. We, in fact, have a brief staff report that we'd like to give when the discussion is done here. And one of the slides you'll see breaks down the use of county facilities by city residents, and it should give you a little bit of a flavor of the types of uses. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Jim and Gary. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I appreciate the fact that you're holding this meeting here today, because I know this is a subject that's been very dear to everyone's heart, you know. We -- back many years ago when this first came up before the Collier County Commission to come up with the million dollars for the beaches and the parks, I was one of the strongest advocates on the commission for that, for just reason, because of the fact that I recognize that what you do in the City of Naples as far as access to the beaches, it can't be duplicated anyplace else. It's very unique, and it's appreciated. And the fact that people have free access to that beach means a lot. I also recognize the fact that there is a certain amount of people within Collier County that find it more convenient to use the parks in Naples; however, with that said, we have to temper with the fact that money is extremely short now. The county isn't a cash cow to the point where we can find money to even meet our own needs right now, and we're talking about another minimum of3 percent cut this coming year. And by the way, that's supposed to be a secret, so don't tell anybody. So let's look at this thing logically, where we are now and where we're going to be able to go with it. You've got to make yourself whole. Your people in the City of Naples expect to have a reasonable return for their taxes, and they're not looking forward to subsidizing something for the rest of the world. Page 8 February 9, 2011 That's a fact. And every day they're knocking on your door, they're coming before you, and they're telling you this. You know, why are we the playground for the whole of Collier County? Well, let's look at this a little bit in a little different frame of mind. I've seen the statistics, and when I first seen them, I got all excited. I thought, oh, my God, these people are absolutely right; how can they put up with this? You know, it's such a small percentage of their own people accessing these facilities, and the rest non-residents overwhelming the City of Naples with the demand. Then I started thinking about it a little bit, and I come to realize that lots of times these people are guests of residents within the City of Naples, lots of times you rent out numerous facilities through this area to people that -- residents rent out their houses, their condominiums and whatever. Those people would be renters. They wouldn't be considered residents for the City of Naples. So I mean, I start to question some of these numbers. Plus a lot of the people who've been coming here are from the hotels, the surrounding hotels. They're not county residents. They're residents of, what, the world, you might say. So the numbers themselves are probably a little bit flawed to begin with, so the overlying problem lies is how do you make yourself whole? And this is going to sound like something that Jim Coletta would never say, but in Collier County we do charge user fees for a whole bunch of different things out there. And, you know, we realize that there's certain things as far as basic access to the parks, but if you want to belong to a team, you have to pay a certain fee. If you want to access something for a large event, you have to pay a fee. And it's all built upon, you know, everybody paying their fare share. So I wouldn't be opposed if you wanted to come up with a special structure for -- in the City of Naples for people that are non-residents that are using your facility. I think that would be an excellent way to go to make up for your deficiency. Page 9 February 9, 2011 MAYOR BARNETT: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But meanwhile, that million dollars is there now. I think it's a wonderful idea, and we should continue with it. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, Jim. Gary. COUNCILMAN PRICE: Thanks, Mayor. I was thinking about what the effect of ten elected officials actually counting on or relying on anyone number, and we'd probably be here for weeks and we'd probably never come up with a usage number. So while I appreciate the fact we can all analyze who's using the parks, I had two fundamental principle questions to ask, or comments. One is, over the last couple years through this economic time, one thing I've noticed is the demand for free recreation has gone up in the 11 years that I've been here. You can look at it from our parks. You can look at the beaches. Look at free zoo day on Saturday, and I've never seen so many people in my life going to the zoo. That's a sign that we have people with needs. And our priorities should be, how do we provide the best recreation available for free? They're already paying for it, by the way, if they're county or city residents. And so -- and as we look at the priorities and as you look at your priorities in this budget year, there's never been a greater demand that I've ever seen for free, relatively free, access to parks and recreation. So as we prioritize, as each of us prioritizes what's important to the people we represent, I think it's critical that we recognize that people are hurting, that they don't have money to go and maybe do some of the things that cost money, and we should make that a priority . The other thing I'll tell you from -- as a consumer, as a family that consumes these parks and goes out and we use the summer Page 10 February 9, 2011 programs, I think we can find some efficiencies and overlap where you have -- there are special-needs camps that we might be overlapping. They're very expensive to do. Maybe we can get together and find out -- let's get together and one of us provide that and one of us provide another type of a camp or service. There's no sense in both of us providing. I know that's happened in the past, because I've seen it. We can find some efficiencies that will -- that maybe will reduce all of our costs and let us collectively try to serve the people we represent. Thank you. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, Gary. Fred. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Councilman Price has really hit the nail on the head here. We've been debating this for -- I remember we debated it when I was a city councilman here -- and we've never been able to resolve it completely, and one of the reasons is that we don't manage our parks together. They're managed independently. And let me illustrate what has happened to put you in this position. The city had a real desire to accommodate the needs of children, many of whom were skateboarding right out here, and they had no place to go. So the city built the skate park. Now, some people in the county would say, what were you thinking? You knew most of the users were going to come from the county . You don't have that many children, or didn't have that many children in the city, but you built the skate park. And now it's become very popular and it's attracting county residents. Now, we could have avoided that had we planned together, as Councilman Price is suggesting. Now, I have made the same suggestion year after year that we need to take all of recreational facilities into consideration when we're establishing levels of service for our entire county. I don't know why we don't do it, but I think it has something to do with territory and the Page 11 February 9, 2011 control. But that follows naturally when you're talking about money. It's very hard to get people to give money to something over which they have no control. So unless we resolve the fundamental problem of managing our recreational facilities together in some way, coordinating them at least -- I'm not talking about the county taking over the recreational facilities. But had the state park been planned jointly with the county, that would have been the perfect time to put the county on the hook for paying some of the costs for maintaining it. And that's one of the key issues here. Nobody wants to see somebody go out and make a decision that will cause the county to incur financial obligations without being involved in the decision making process. So that's where we are today. And we're going to hear statistics, and if we're not careful, we'll leave here just like we did the year before and the year before that and the year before that. And I would hope that before we wind up here we could reach an agreement to establish a coordinating committee that would sit down and take a look at this and find out what is the best way to deal with this problem. And it's going to require fundamental structures in the way we address recreational facilities in Collier County in my opinion, and that's not bad if we can do something that is equitable and we can all agree on. So I would hope that as we go through this debate on numbers, that you'll be thinking about hopefully, at the end of this discussion, creating a committee that will address it and report back to both bodies over time to see if we can't find a fundamental resolution to this. Because just coming up every year during budget time and saying, give me more money, is just not the way to get -- to make any progress on this issue, because at budget time, we're already crunched. And we've got to do something fundamental. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Page 12 February 9, 2011 MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, Fred. Leo, did you have a presentation? MR.OCHS: Yes, sir, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, trying to gauge the temperature of the table here, you know, we were prepared to go into as much detail as the group would like. If you'd prefer not to get into a debate about statistics and if the general tenor of the group is to work towards some joint committee to come back at a later date after we've scrubbed the numbers, then we can dispense with most of that. I think a couple of just general observations from the staffs perspective, when the ten-year agreement was put together a couple of years ago, we thought that -- that obviously that provided an opportunity for both city and county residents to use each other's facilities on an equal footing, so to speak. The other thing it did from a staff perspective, quite honestly, was to give us some level of certainty in our financial planning going forward. Unfortunately, now, you know, less than three years into the deal, we're looking at requests for a 70 percent increase. You know, we're going to be talking to our board about budget guidance in two weeks, so that's difficult for us to react to in that period of time. The only other observation I had, and Councilman Price mentioned it, this seems to be somewhat based on statistics that have been generated that you've seen in your packet. We've looked at them as well. We think there's a lot of merit to them, but we also think that in some cases they're somewhat anecdotal. You're drawing fairly large conclusions on a sample of three programs at Fleischmann Park and one program at Cambier. And as we could -- as we could figure out the statistics, that really we're talking about numbers of participants, not actual registered individuals to these programs. So, again, the figures, I think, need to be scrubbed a little bit more by both the city and the Page 13 February 9, 2011 county to come up with something that we both find reliable. And then the last thing I would say, that in terms of the city and the county getting fair share for each other's constituents, I just wanted to remind the City Council that all of the county's community parks, which are highly recreation-active parks, if you will, ball fields, basketball courts, tennis courts, very similar to Fleischmann and to Cambier except for the band shell at Cambier, are funded entirely by user fees and property taxes paid by residents in the unincorporated areas. The only county-wide property taxes that go to our park system is in what we call our regional park system, which is our beach parks and a couple of our larger parks. And, again, they're funded by a combination of user fees and county-wide property taxes. There is some information in your packet -- I'll let you look at it at your leisure -- but you may be surprised to find that it suggests that the percentage of city taxes that go towards the cost of the county's regional park system on an annual basis is essentially offset by the million-dollar annual transfer back to the city. So that's a long way of saying, I think there's more equity between the systems than you might initially think. MAYOR BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. I think -- I don't want to speak for council, but they can speak for themselves. But I think we're all on the same page. I don't think we want to debate numbers today because we would be here til' midnight, and we wouldn't -- as Chairman Coyle said, we'll be right back where we were years ago. But I do think -- and a consensus of council would be great, or the commission, I think a committee formed with the two bodies through the city manager and the county manager or a little more discussion at one of our workshops and yours as well, come up with a committee that could do exactly what Gary you said and, Fred, you said. I think that's an equitable solution. At least it's working towards one anyway. Page 14 February 9, 2011 Jim, John. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I was going to say, if we're going to have talks taking place between the city and county parks and rec. to see what can be done for efficiencies, can we also invite Marco Island and Everglades City to the table? They may not find an interest in joining us, but -- MAYOR BARNETT: Sure. I think -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- in fairness. MAYOR BARNETT: -- that's a good idea. It never hurts. It's input, and for -- you know, looking for that common goal. John. COUNCILMAN SOREY: Mayor, with the budget coming up sooner than we'd all like for it to be, I think that that's a great idea. And I don't know that we need to go further as far as council getting involved in this committee structure and that sort of thing. I think we just ask the county manager and the city manager. MAYOR BARNETT: Right. COUNCILMAN SOREY: But I do think we should set a target as far as when that group will report back for both -- we're on the same budget cycle -- county and city. So I'd like to maybe ask the county manager and the city manager when you think that you could come back after some analysis to both bodies as far as a report and some recommendations? MR. OCHS : Well, in terms of the city and the county, I don't see it taking that long, but if we're going to invite Marco and Everglades, it will extend the time a little bit. You know, I would like, you know, maybe 90 days to -- MR. MOSS: That sounds great. MR.OCHS: Good. COUNCILMAN SOREY: I think that will still be within budget cycle. And if I heard Commissioner Coletta, we're going to offer them. If they want to be involved, fine. If they don't, we're not going Page 15 February 9, 2011 to wait for them. MR. OCHS: Right, 90 days. COUNCILMAN SOREY: Okay. So 90 days is the target to have a report back. MR.OCHS: Very good. MAYOR BARNETT: Does that bode well with the council? COUNCILMAN PRICE: I know I may be beating a dead horse, but what I'd like to see is them spend time on the overlap of service, not so much who's using the park, for what it's worth. I know that's been said, but I just wanted to put a stamp on that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. So I think we're all in agreement. Leo, you still didn't want to do a presentation, did you? MR. OCHS: No, I think we're done. MR. MOSS: I think we're not talking about ratios and participation. Our focus is going to be on how we can team together to provide the services that we're providing now. COUNCILMAN SOREY: And in the most effective way for the least cost obviously, and if we can eliminate some programs, or maybe if there's some programs that the city's doing really well, that there may be, as was commented as far as fees are concerned, maybe part of this -- to me the scope of work would be, as Mr. Price said. Look at duplication. Secondly, look -- I think this group should look at funding as well. You know, are there any alternatives as far as funding, look at user fees. So I think it should be a general review, but I think we all agree, and Mr. Price said it well, that the key element is, how do we provide the best product for the least cost to all our citizens, city and county. And when we're looking at our young people especially, there's a lot of those folks that -- we don't need to penalize our young people because we both have financial issues, but we need to figure out a way Page 16 February 9, 2011 to provide that service to them within the revenues that we have. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, John. Doug, Dee, and Sam. COUNCILMAN FINLAY : Yeah. I think we have to flesh out the numbers. And Commissioner Coletta is correct. I remember speaking in front of the BCC on this very issue, and to Commissioner Coletta's credit he was understanding of the city's issue on this, as was I believe Commissioner Fiala, I certainly compliment them on that. But I do think that if there is some doubt in people's minds that there are some issues with the numbers, that we need to resolve that, because the numbers are important. You know, how many -- how many county residents use city parks or vice versa, I think, is critical. And I don't see any reason why those numbers can't be fleshed out. You know, I mean, we know we know from registration, you know, what the breakdown is, like in softball or things like that, because you're not dealing with out-of-state residents on that issue. So I think the committee should flesh out the numbers. MAYOR BARNETT: We'll come back to that. I'll hear from Dee and Sam, and then we'll come right back to that. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: And I would just ask that when we consider combining or coordination of different programs within the county/city area, that proximity be given some sense of reality, because that to me is an overriding factor. Part of the reason that so many of the programs in the city are so well attended is because they're close to the school and the people that are there. That's a continuation of the school day or it's easy access for the children, for the parents, et cetera. So just by the very nature of where the population is close into the city makes a difference in the use of those facilities. So to say that you're going to drop a program that we offer in the city because it's offered in the county but it's offered, you know, considerably east in the county, that's not going to help city residents. Page 17 February 9, 2011 So I think those are things that also have to be looked at is location or proximity for the greatest good. MAYOR BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. Sam. COUNCILMAN SAAD: I'll just touch again on what Doug is saying, at the end of the day the city has X dollars to spend, unless we're talking about cutting money out of our parks and rec. budget, we need to be made whole in some fashion for the services that we're providing to county residents. So we should look for overlap, and I think that's what Gary mentioned; but Doug has a very good point, to the extent that we're subsidizing county residents, that's -- that amount should come back into the city, so -- MAYOR BARNETT: Well, I think Leo said that, you know, if we're going to look at numbers, you know, that was going to be part of -- if that was going to be part of it -- COUNCILMAN SAAD: Well, it should be part of -- it should be part of the committee to figure out the metrics involved, I think. MAYOR BARNETT: Well, and I think Leo said that they -- he was not disputing our numbers but they were saying that they need to be scrubbed a little more, as does -- you know, so they're not necessarily -- they're factual, but there's probably more in there that needs to come out. And I just don't know if when we're talking about, the scope of this committee in 90 days, how much -- how much more burden does that put on you? I'm asking the city or county manager. MR.OCHS: We're good. MAYOR BARNETT: Okay. COUNCILMAN SAAD: I just think that as an essential component of any dealings, we figure out what we're talking about before we talk about it. MAYOR BARNETT: Donna and Fred. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I would hate us to get down Page 18 February 9, 2011 to how much you charge versus how much we charge, because then all of a sudden it's, okay, you're going to charge us for county people, but then we should charge you for city people. That isn't -- you know what? That isn't a cooperative effort, and I think we're better than that. I think we should move forward and see what we can do to work together. MAYOR BARNETT: Fred. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I was just going to make the observation that if we start down that road, we will be talking about this next year again. It's not simple to find out who really is a resident and who isn't. And are you going to turn some kid away from the door if he doesn't have proper identification for doing that? You know, it's a very difficult thing to do. But I don't know how you reach a conclusion about how many facilities are necessary and how convenient they would be without looking at your usage. You're going to have to know something about the numbers in order to determine where best to site appropriate recreational facilities, as Ms. Sulick has said. So it -- it's a -- it's the process. But I'd hate to see us get wrapped up in arguing about whether or not this particular category and this particular method of identification is used to establish where this person is from and how many times they are using the facility. It becomes way more complicated than it appears. But you have to have an understanding of the numbers generally, in order to make rational recommendations about what should be located and where it should be located. COUNCILMAN SOREY: I think our two managers and their staff can accommodate those variables and come back to with us a completed staff work that will be acceptable. MAYOR BARNETT: Okay. Thank you, Mayor (sic). Thank you. MR.OCHS: If I may. Page 19 February 9, 2011 MAYOR BARNETT: Yes. MR.OCHS: Just to come off of this, because I left Councilman Finlay hanging. I promised a chart as part of our presentation, but in lieu of that, it's in your packet, sir. The second to the last page. COUNCILMAN FINLAY: Already found it. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. We'll go to Agenda Item No.4, which I believe is the county's. Item #4 BOAT LAUNCH AND PARKING AT NAPLES LANDING PARK MR. MOSS: Yeah. By way of background, I believe it was Vice-Chair Coletta that asked that we have a discussion regarding boat-launch facilities, maybe in general and maybe specifically to Naples Landing. And just by way of background, the City of Naples does operate one boat-launch facility. We have, as I recall, about 37 metered parking spaces and 14 unmetered spaces, and we sell an annual sticker to allow people to park there, as does the county. Collier County operates about five boat-launch facilities, as I recall. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may? MR. MOSS: Vice-Chair? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I probably can shorten this discussion by one heck of a lot. After I put this on -- it was several different issues that were coming up. The one as far as what you charge and how you handle it, it's fine. That's not an issue. Believe it not, it's the smallest little issue in this world, and it has to do with a -- I believe that you have a -- in order to be able to obtain your permit, you have a machine in there that requires quarters. Page 20 February 9, 2011 I belong to the Naples Fishing Club, and I mean, they're always cussing out the City of Naples and the damn quarter machine. Is there some way that you might be able to find a machine someplace that works similar to what we have at the county sites where it allows you to put a credit card in and you can pay for it all at one time, rather than a fistful of quarters? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just replace it with a 50 cent machine. COUNCILMAN PRICE: I was going to say dollar bill machine. MAYOR BARNETT: Did we not have this discussion -- MR. MOSS: We've had this discussion. You know, for our purposes it's really not economical to put in the type of machine for the limited parking, but we do have a change machine, so people shouldn't have to be hunting for quarters. They can put in dollar bills and get change back. But I'll be more than happy to look at that again, Vice-Chair. In fact, I was talking to your staff, and we're going to see if there's any surplus machine around that we might try to work that out. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would think if there's any surplus machines that county staff should go way out of their way to accommodate you in the best interest of all citizens of Collier County. MAYOR BARNETT: Fair enough. And, yeah, we will look at that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. Agenda Item 5, and I believe that was the county's as well. Item #5 DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CITY'S PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE U.S. 41 ROUTE DESIGNATION VIA GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD Page 21 February 9, 2011 MR. MOSS: Agenda Item 5 pertains to an issue proposed by the City of Naples, and I believe the board expressed an interest in having a brief discussion regarding the potential relocation of U. S. 41 to the -- to the Goodlette- Frank Road. And just by way of background, some of you that have been around for a while may recall that the City of Naples strongly resisted the adding of lanes to 41, to make it a six-lane road back in the early 1970's. In fact, it was pretty clear that this committee was very opposed to FDOT's proposed expansion of the road. Essentially, it did occur, but we continue and have continued over the years to really question whether or not that has resulted in a deleterious effect on the cohesiveness and the connectivity of the City of Naples. And there have been numerous studies regarding the potential to relocate U.S. 41. Counsel Member Sulick is -- works with you on the MPO and has taken it upon herself to try to determine whether or not this issue may reach some conclusion that might be of benefit to both Collier County and the City of Naples. And we agreed that we are a long way from making a decision, but at this point we would like the ability to at least provide information to you and your staff as to what might be some of the fatal flaws, if there are any, or what might be the expected cost should such a transfer be made and what might the traffic implications be both to Collier County and to the City. And with that summary, if I may yield to Council Member Sulick. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Thank you. First of all, let me say I've enjoyed the last two-and-a-halfyears working with the County Commission on the MPO board, and I have been acting chairman of the CRA district here in the city for the last year. Everything that I go back and look at as far as the CRA district is concerned, talks about the division that is created by the six-laning of Page 22 February 9, 2011 41, especially from the Gordon River Bridge, perhaps at least to 3rd Street South, maybe even going farther north to Central or up to Golden Gate Parkway. I started to germinate this idea in sitting on the MPO board and listening to Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Cann talk about connectivity, and we're very interested in bicycle paths, pedestrian walkways, and creating that connectivity within our city. And I looked at what in my -- and I've been calling it this for two years now -- the Berlin Wall that runs down the City of Naples, the middle of the City of Naples. In my opinion this is a game changer for downtown Naples if we can foresee and find a way to accommodate this change. When looking at this, I initially went to with Mr. Cann and Mr. Limbaugh because I wanted to make sure I wasn't getting everybody's hopes up with the idea that, you know, we would be told from FDOT that this was a nonstarter. So, ran it past them, and was very, very happily surprised at their reception of this idea in a very positive way. At that point we then went back and, working with Mr. Moss and Mr. Rankee (phonetic), and we started to germinate in terms of how can we come up with a way to do this that would be the least -- have the least number of flaws, worked with Mr. Archibald and put together a committee, and then Kimberly Horne came forward with this proposal of simply rerouting that traffic. And I'm assuming that all of you have the packet that the city had done. And basically what we're talking about at this point is doing a study to find out whether or not this is even feasible in terms of traffic and traffic patterns. And my -- in my opinion what we were looking at is basically taking and doing two lanes westbound from the Gordon River Bridge that would have to turn right going up Goodlette- Frank Road, and then you would have the access to either come across Sun Central -- if this is the game changer that I think it will be, I think we could look at Page 23 February 9, 2011 having 3rd Street come through all the way to Goodlette- Frank Road, which would be another east/west route, but primarily that's just for the traffic. What we're talking about is basically asking the state to change what is the designation -- it's a name only -- of Route 41, coming down 41, turning eastbound on Golden Gate Parkway and then to proceed south on Goodlette- Frank Road to the Gordon River Bridge. And my understanding is from Mr. Archibald that something like 25 percent of the traffic that comes across the bridge actually is not coming into downtown Naples. It is trying to find that route north. So that would be traffic that we would be taking out of the mix here. What it does for the city, I think, is a win-win situation. It reconnects our downtown. It makes the availability and the development of what is the 1041 area in the CRA district -- you know, it brings it to life. It gives it new energy again. I think it makes our entire city much more pedestrian friendly. Right now it is like playing chicken trying to come across 41 at Four Corners, as we all know, and it has been a point of contention. The city's been trying to figure out for years, how do we circumvent that; how do we get people from one side to the other, from the east side of our downtown district to the west side of our downtown district? So that's where this is -- where we're hoping to take this. We would hope that you folks are all onboard with this, because I think what's a win-win for the city a win-win for Collier County, absolutely. So if there's any questions. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, Dee. Jim. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you know, at first blush, I'm -- it doesn't sound like a bad idea. One of the questions that have always come up is, how does the business community feel along 41 ? Because anytime you do anything Page 24 February 9, 2011 to disrupt traffic flow, even though we perceive it would be a positive thing, it could have a negative impact. And so, you know, at some point in time you're going to have to deal with that issue. I was wondering if I might be able to ask Norm Feder, our transportation administrator, ifhe could offer some comments of guidance on this particular subj ect. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: May I just address that point? Kimberly Horne did think -- I mean, we have looked at this. And Kimberly Horne has done a number of studies when the city was talking about the D downtown and the 1041 area. And, in fact, one of the things that hurts the businesses on 41, directly affronting 41, especially in -- from 7th Avenue South is the fact that there is no place to park on the road, and you have to find parking on a side street or down behind those buildings. And everybody's going too fast. So this would slow -- if we can take this, reroute this traffic and then eventually, as the budget would allow, at least for a section of it bring it back down to four lanes and put on-street parking on both of the east and west side of the road, it would help create a sense of, you know, this is a business district. And I've been -- many people foresee this would be a help to businesses along 41 as opposed to a hindrance. MAYOR BARNETT: Okay, thank you. Donna, you want to speak before Norm does? COMMISSIONER FIALA: It doesn't make any difference. I had a couple comments and a couple questions. MAYOR BARNETT: Sure. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: First of all, the first comment -- and I was going to make this comment at MPO, but I'll just say it right now. I just want to commend George Archibald for the outstanding work he's doing. He keeps that traffic moving at Four Corners. I mean, that stuff just keeps rolling through all the time. I think it's just wonderful. And I was going to say it at MPO, but I'll say it right here. Anybody who lives here -- and that's not everybody that uses 41, Page 25 February 9,2011 but anybody who lives here, they're not going to something on 41, they take Goodlette anyway. It's silly to go 41 when you can get much faster, less lights down Goodlette Road. I mean, that's just the way we go anyway. I worry about the merchants. I worry about the merchants on 41. I worry about them on 5th Avenue, because if it's more difficult for people to get there, they're -- they can find someplace else. It's easy to find someplace else to go. So say, for instance, the merchants find that although they've been told this is a wonderful opportunity for them, and 10 and behold it isn't, and now they find their businesses are suffering, how do you change it around? That's my question. MAYOR BARNETT: Okay. Good question. MR. OCHS: Norm. COUNCILMAN SOREY: Before she (sic) does that, you might just comment on some other cities. I mean, we're not doing rocket science work. You might comment on some other cities. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Thank you, Mr. Sorey. Yes. My understanding is that the City of Sarasota is looking at doing this, taking Route lout of their downtown area. They did it on the East Coast essentially creating a way for the city to reconnect. I think by making the city much more pedestrian friendly, that helps the merchants, whether it's on the east side or the west side of 41, and that is the whole -- that is our whole push for this. MR. FEDER: I'm Norman Feder. I'm the growth management administrator in Collier County. And what I'd -- point out just a couple of things. First of all, as I understand it, the city's desire is to study the issue further, and we would be very supportive of doing just that. I would say, though, there are a few things that have been brought up that probably need to be looked at in that study. First of all, I understand why the proposal, at least that we have here, Page 26 J February 9, 2011 is for Golden Gate Parkway, because that's the only other Gordon River crossing besides 41. And that's an emphasis area, as you look at traffic flows today. But I think it does present some significant problems for the city and for the county to come that far north. What you're really trying to do, as I understand it, is react to what is -- whether you want to call it the Berlin Wall-- but a six-lane facility cutting off major portions of your downtown 4110, and that is a problem. Either you put pedestrian overpasses -- and I just used that bad word, overpass -- or a flyover vehicular. You do need to divert the traffic. That'd be a third approach. So the first two probably need to be looked at as well, and then the issue is, how far north do you go? What you're looking at and trying to bring together into a 5th Avenue flair is not everything up to Golden Gate Parkway. So all your businesses between Golden Gate and Central or 3rd are suffering from less traffic that they rely upon when you're not going to be making those improvements in that area. So I think that speaks to what I think a couple of the commissioners have already raised. So one issue ought to be, do we look at maybe -- either if you're looking at diversion of traffic, do we look at that down by Central or 3rd as opposed to as far north as Golden Gate. If you do that diversion at Golden Gate, what you're going to find is traffic diverting as it does naturally now, but it's not going to go to necessarily Goodlette-Frank. It's going to go over to Airport. And right now you have some severe problems at Davis and at 41 on Airport, and that will be further exasperated if you're reducing the capacity of three six-lane facilities down to two-plus, a reduced 41. So I think there's a lot of things you need to look at in that study. I will tell you, $49,000 for a study to really look at these issues when you're also going to have not just the county and city working together on it -- Florida DOT, while they've been supportive in general terms, Page 27 February 9,2011 are going to have a lot of questions and want to see that it works, that the numbers work, and it's going to be very difficult to do that with the type of study or the scope that I see you have designed here. Other than that, of course we'd be more than happy to work with you. We've got some serious reservations about what impacts that may have on the overall infrastructure network, things that need to be studied further, concerns about what it may do to businesses on 41, especially if you come as far north as Golden Gate Parkway as opposed to, as I said, Central or 3rd, which might make a little more sense to really bring the 4110 together and to divert that. And I think -- even if you call it the null alternative, which is only to do nothing, you need to look at the potential of a pedestrian overpass or vehicular fly-over as other options where the pedestrians could go underneath, an upscale structure or, in fact, the pedestrian-in so you bring them down very well (sic). All of these items though are extremely costly. So the other part is, we need to figure out, how do we approach it. The last item I'll put out there -- and I think if you look at the modeling -- and I don't think George is here, but -- MAYOR BARNETT: George is here. MR. FEDER: Okay. One thing that was kept into the needs plan that just recently was brought to the MPO was, again, the second Gordon River Bridge, and that was really only retained, in many respects, to look at this issue. So if you're looking at Central or 3rd in that area, again, I think that raises -- and I'm sorry, but I'm raising all the issues -- raises that specter of a need of a second Gordon River crossing as well if you're going to meet the overall traffic demands. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, Norm. I'll just make one very brief comment. I don't want to hear any more about a second Gordon River crossing. We -- I think that that would be -- although it sounds good -- and, Norm, you probably are Page 28 February 9, 2011 correct, I just -- that won't be in my lifetime, I can tell you that. But we, over the years, if you go and you look back, there were just -- there's just too much red tape in the way, at least -- I mean, not -- if you're talking about a second Gordon River Bridge, you're probably looking 20 years at least before you get through the red tape. You didn't have to debate me, I just wanted to -- MR. FEDER: No, Mayor. I just wanted to point out, as a matter of fact, that it was your staff that wanted to keep it in the needs plan. I fully agree with you. It hasn't been done in 40 years. There's no prospect of it. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you for those words. Any other comment? Fred. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Norm, one of the problems in trying to determine what to do with this traffic is trying to determine where it's going. The traffic -- certainly some of the traffic that's going through the Four Corners here is on the way to Marco or Miami, and there're easier ways to get them to that point if we have the proper signage. So if you -- if you get them off 41 at Golden Gate Parkway, you have a chance to get those who are going a much further distance, like maybe to Miami, to go straight out Golden Gate Parkway and hit the interchange, and then they're -- they've got a straight shot. That drains off some of the traffic that might be coming down Airport Road or Golden Gate Parkway. And I agree that a lot of the people who are familiar with the area are going to take Airport Road if they're going to Marco, as an example. They'll get off Golden Gate, hit Airport Road, go south, and then get tied up down there. But it would be good if we had sufficient information to tell us what percentages of traffic are going where. And if we find there's a fairly large amount of traffic that is on its way to the East Coast or Florida Keys, then the faster we get them out on the interstate the better off we're all going to be. And Golden Gate is a perfect place for Page 29 February 9, 2011 it, and many people are still unaware of that interchange. They just don't even think of it. I know locals who still drive up to Pine Ridge Road when they're going to Fort Myers. But if we do a study, we need to try to identify the segments of traffic that are going along that route. That way -- that way we might be able to mitigate some of the things that Norm is talking about. And -- nevertheless, that would be considered in the study, I presume, right? MAYOR BARNETT: Okay. Thank you, Fred. Doug, then John. COUNCILMAN FINLAY: Hey, Norm. I've got a question for you, because I think you're the one that can probably better answer it. I look on this as kind of, perhaps, a two-stage event. Stage 1 is the redesignation of Highway 41 over to Goodlette- Frank Road with probably Golden Gate Parkway being used, and the second stage would be the road diet, which could follow years later. My question is, is the redesignation of 41, would that alone -- let's put it this way. Would the state continue to fund the maintenance cost of a road that was redesignated? Which I assume that the state would then no longer have control over. Is there any precedent that you know of within the State of Florida where that's happened where the state continues to fund maintenance? MR. FEDER: You have Johnny Limbaugh here from the Florida Department of Transportation, so I'll let him answer it. COUNCILMAN FINLAY: Perfect. MR. FEDER: But I think you do have some precedent. As you note, on the East Coast, U.S. 1 became AlA. It's still maintained by the state, but basically the traffic was moved further over to a new U.S. 1. So you do have some precedent probably. COUNCILMAN PRICE: Hey, Johnny. Did you bring your checkbook? Page 30 February 9, 2011 MAYOR BARNETT: You got money with you? MR. LIMBAUGH: Johnny Limbaugh, Florida DOT, for the record. Typically when we transfer a jurisdiction, we transfer the operation and maintenance costs that go along with that facility with that transfer. Right now we're working with other jurisdictions wanting to do basically the same thing. Sarasota was mentioned. That's one of our talks with Commissioner Sulick, or Councilman Sulick. We talked about, nothing was off the table at this point, but we wanted to see all the numbers and make sure the traffic patterns and the traffic demand was going to be met. That's our main objective is to make sure that the motoring public and pedestrian needs are met as a total package. But to answer your question, if we do get to the point of switching the designation from U.S. 41 over to Goodlette -- which will not just be a Florida DOT decision, it will have to go to AASHTO, which is the national. It's U.S. 41, so ultimately we have to take that through AASHTO, which is the bigger nationwide organization which sets the U.S. designation, so it's not just a local decision at that point. COUNCILMAN FINLAY: Now, let me carry that to number two, because that's just answering the question on the redesignation. Now let's say we take this road and we do a road diet and we go down to four lanes at some point, maybe at Central Avenue, at that point does the -- would the state want to relinquish maintenance, or would they only relinquish maintenance at the point of the road diet, or how does that play into the mix? MR. LIMBAUGH: Well, we would go through that negotiation, I guess, is the -- COUNCILMAN FINLAY: Okay. MR. LIMBAUGH: -- way to get out of that one quickly. But the real answer is, we would probably do the jurisdiction, we would -- if the numbers showed, we would do a survey of Goodlette, Page 31 February 9, 2011 because from the state's perspective, we're going to go look at the roadway, what we're taking on to the state system to make sure that it meets our standards and what -- if it doesn't meet our standards today, what does it need to -- what would Goodlette need to be brought up to a state standard so that we would operate and maintain it. So we'd take that into consideration when we considered a swap. And at that time, if it made fiscal sense to make the jurisdictional transfer, we would swap the operation or maintenance of those facilities at the same time. Basically we would take Goodlette and do what needed to be done to Goodlette to maintain it to state standards and transfer jurisdiction of U.S. 41, which would then probably be named something else at that point, either to the county or to the city at that point. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Barnett Drive. MAYOR BARNETT: A, 41A. COUNCILMAN FINLAY: Thank you. MAYOR BARNETT: Okay. John Sorey and Donna. COUNCILMAN SOREY: Thank you, Mayor. This is another opportunity for collaboration between our two entities. And the last thing we need to do is spend any dollars on the study that does not get the job done. So I think that what we need to do, Mayor, is be sure we have consensus by both bodies, but -- because it is a game changer for the city, and it's very important, but let's let our staff and the county staff put together all the details. And Doug had some good questions, and we've talked about this a lot. But let's put a plan together to move forward on this, and then the facts will be what they are. But I think it's another opportunity for collaboration, and we should seize it and move forward, get Norm and his folks involved and see what the real issues are and what the real costs are. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, John. Donna. Page 32 February 9, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask just a simple question first. The actually issue here is getting pedestrians downtown; is that what you're -- COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Well, it's pedestrian connectivity, but it is also land use, because land use in the CRA, D downtown, 1041 district is what we're looking to, you know, just -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Encourage? COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: -- add to, encourage, add to. I think it's -- that is -- most of the projects and different studies that have been done talk about the land uses within that area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: And they all are requiring connectivity . COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And so -- and you compare this like with -- like with Mercato, for instance. It's one small area, whereas this is a huge area. And then how do pedestrians get there? If they're diverted, how do they get to this area? And we've seen ourselves that people that start out on 5th Avenue from U.S. 41 kind of stay right in there, and the businesses down at the -- farther west are a little concerned because they can't get the people down to their end just because pedestrian traffic doesn't want to go that far. So I think when you're having your study, if you do, that certainly ought to be taken into consideration. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Well, I think what -- and also-- you also have to look at is, what would be the connectivity and pedestrian traffic from 41 to Goodlette- Frank Road. Because if we don't make that section of the city in downtown connected to the rest of our downtown -- it's getting people from there over to 6th Avenue, over to this part of the city, over to be -- having them be able to access west and south of that particular geographic area, and then circulation within that district as well. Page 33 February 9, 2011 So it isn't necessarily trying to get in everybody from Goodlette- Frank Road all the way to the west end of 5th Avenue. It is even just the connectivity right around the Four Corners that doesn't happen because of -- because of the traffic. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. Sam. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Just to reiterate that, I believe we've talked about this for 40 years; is that right? I think that -- well, Ron Wall (phonetic) said that there's memos going back to the late '60s or early '70s on this. So if we're going to do something, let's decide and get it done as opposed to spending another 40 years talking about it, because all that talking actually does cost something in terms of staff time and our time so-- , MAYOR BARNETT: Well, are you in favor of continuing the study or at least doing as John said? COUNCILMAN SAAD: Yeah. Let's make sure that we're committed to it and look for -- put some time lines in place and get -- instead of just talking about it. MAYOR BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. Gary . COUNCILMAN PRICE: In the spirit of Sam's idea, I think there's enough people at this table, after the meeting, that we go out and take the signs out of the ground, move them to Goodlette, and let the staff figure it out. MAYOR BARNETT: So moved. COUNCILMAN PRICE: And that doesn't cost the taxpayers a dollar to actually get the signs moved, because we'll do that on our time. MAYOR BARNETT: I hear that. Thank you. So I think we have certainly consensus on council and county commission to proceed with both. Page 34 February 9, 2011 MR. OCHS: Mr. Mayor, if I may. MAYOR BARNETT: Yes. MR. OCHS: Just very briefly. Commissioner Hiller had forwarded a memo to me and requested that I read this into the record on this topic, if I might very quickly. This is from Commissioner Georgia Hiller dated yesterday. It says, "I support the city's desire to enhance the 5th Avenue business district and have it become a more vibrant economic and tourist destination. Redirection of traffic proposed for discussion in your agenda needs further evaluation." "I am concerned that there may be unforeseen detrimental impacts to commerce along U.S. 41 south of Golden Gate Parkway, which would also adversely impact the desired expansion around 5th Avenue and the overall transportation network, all as a result of redirecting traffic and potential customers away from the area. The goal is to attract as many people as possible to 5th Avenue to bolster business." "Another suggestion to promote economic development is to convert 5th Avenue into a pedestrian mall which has been proven successful throughout major cities in the U.S. and Europe." "I recommend that the city conduct a study in coordination with the county and FDOT to evaluate the potential impacts and options." "Thank you for considering my thoughts." "Georgia Hiller." Thank you, sir. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Can I ask a question? MAYOR BARNETT: Yes. COUNCILMAN SAAD: What are the costs to make the signage changes without -- on the -- the physical cost of actually doing this project, assuming that you were able to get all the approvals from AASHTO and FDOT. What-- Page 35 February 9, 2011 MR. MOSS: The signage maybe would be minimum -- COUNCILMAN SAAD: I'm talking about, to make the actual changes. I mean, I don't know if it requires, you know, light re-timing or putting medians in place. What are we talking about in terms of physical dollars? MR. MOSS: It could require additional turning lanes, it could require changing the signalization. So that's basically what we're going to see with the initial study. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Is it a hundred thousand dollars; is it a million dollar? COUNCILMAN SOREY: I think you'll have to do the study to determine that. MAYOR BARNETT: Yeah, well, probably those numbers will come out. I don't know if anybody can just ballpark it. I don't know if anybody -- Ron or Norm, if you want to take a quick -- you might be putting your neck on the noose doing that. COUNCILMAN PRICE: Don't anybody step up too soon. Don't push each other out of the way to get to the mike. MAYOR BARNETT: Just if you can answer the question easily. MR. WALLACE: The signage, you know, obviously is minimal. And I don't think that's really what is going to be the driving issue. It's the intersection modifications. A perfect example is, if you head west on 41 at Goodlette, you've got one turn lane. It's a very poor turn lane. It has a very tight radius. There needs to be two turn lanes there onto Goodlette. That would have -- would force folks to go -- want to bypass to go that way. That's where your costs are going to be. MAYOR BARNETT: But how much, was the question? MR. WALLACE: You're going to be in the millions if you're talking about doing this comp properly. But it is definitely -- I just want to state that it is our intention to establish a partnership with the county, the state, the local businesses, Page 36 February 9, 2011 the residents, everyone that's going to be involved, because there are numerous issues associated with this, not only with costs, operation and maintenance, you know, designation, the county, the city, the state, they're all going to change ownership. So we'll definitely make sure that they stay in the loop and everyone is a part of the process. COUNCILMAN SOREY: And, Ron, you're going to have a completed report by March at the council meeting; is that right? MR. WALLACE: We actually put them on a very fast timeline, and the reason why -- COUNCILMAN SOREY: Seriously, what do you think it will take to have a meaningful report back to the commission and the council? MR. WALLACE: Middle of the year. I believe within six months. COUNCILMAN SOREY: Before recess we should have it back? Okay, thank you. MR. WALLACE: And they had numerous traffic information with the city. That's why the cost was as low as it was. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. COUNCILMAN SAAD: And I -- you know, I think Gary and I were thinking some of the same things. I mean, it can't be that much to move signs, but I was wondering about if we were going to have to build extra turn lanes. I mean -- MAYOR BARNETT: Now you know. COUNCILMAN SAAD: So millions is the answer, so -- MAYOR BARNETT: Agenda item -- excuse me. Agenda Item No.6. Item #6 BEACH RENOURISHMENT Page 37 February 9, 2011 MR. MOSS: This agenda item pertains to beach renourishment. And if nothing else, this is probably one area that I think we can agree that we're talking about one of the most important assets both to the city and to Collier County. Secondly, I think most of us can agree that this is also an area that we have worked very well together in terms of the appropriate strategies, maintained and improve the beaches. And for that, I can assure you that the City of Naples is most thankful for all of the hard work that the Board of Commissioners has done in this regard. This wintertime has got our attention in terms of the status at the beach. And if I may yield to Vice-Mayor Sorey, who also is your representative on the TDC as well as the CAC. COUNCILMAN SOREY: Thank you, Mr. Moss. Well, as the old saying goes, I've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is, for our next beach renourishment, I think we're in good financial condition. And what I wanted to do today is talk about some other items that Mr. McAlpin, your CAC, and your county staff are working on. Number one, we can't continue to renourish under any financial alternative at the pace that we've had to do it in recent times. So we're looking at a number of items: A, trying to understand the movement of sand, looking at structural changes, which may mean taking out some existing impediments, maybe adding some others. The probability is -- of getting any kind of a surface structure is pretty limited. But there are some reef structures to take some of the energy out of this northwest wind. So, one, your CAC is looking at improvements to increase the line. The other thing we're looking at is the possibility of some envelope changes so that we change the amount of sand we're putting on the beaches, change the envelope so that it lasts longer. So that's the good news. Page 38 February 9, 2011 But what I particularly wanted to talk about today -- and we've got to be looking at this not maybe for our tour of duty on councilor commission, but for the future, is how we're going to re- -- how we're going to finance this next beach renourishment. As I said, I think we've got the resources to do the one that we'll do, and probably the next couple years, but when we look at '22/'24, which seems like a long time out -- but when you look at this kind of project, it's not that long at all. My concern is, if we get the finance of our Federal Government together and quit sending money that we don't have to states and locals, that we get the FEMA money -- the reason we're in good condition for the upcoming beach renourishment is the FEMA money. If we don't get those resources in the future, then we would not have sufficient funds in the next beach renourishment, after the one that will be coming up, to proceed forward. So what I'd like, Mayor and County Commission, is that we start now thinking about the next beach renourishment. The funding -- we've had lots of discussions at TDC and CAC about the tourist tax revenue, the allocation, whether the fifth cent needs to be added and that sort of thing. So I just wanted us to put our strategic hats on today and think about how we do that going forward. And I will commit that the CAC will be the lead driver of that, and we'll come back with you with some alternatives. But I think we need to be thinking about that. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, John. Fred. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And Councilman Sorey, you're absolutely right. I support the efforts to do that. If I could extend our vent horizon out a little bit further though and just ask that you consider, all of us consider this. What we have been doing, replacing sand every two years, simply isn't working. We replace it, and it washes away. We replace it, and it washes away. Page 39 February 9, 2011 It keeps getting more expensive every year to replenish it. N ow is a perfect time, in my opinion, for us to begin working with our federal and state legislators to get more sensible regulations concerning what you can or cannot do with respect to beach protection, and get away from the constant process of having to renourish. There are ways to do this. There are ports all over this nation that have protected inlets so that they do not fill in as frequently as we have experienced here. We simply have to get smarter about what we do. And the purest concept might work at a time when you have money to throwaway, but it doesn't work at a time when you're trying to save money. And now is the perfect time. COUNCILMAN SOREY: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ifwe want to save millions, billions of dollars statewide, then what we'll do is start demanding some rational thought concerning how we protect our inlets. COUNCILMAN SOREY: Good thinking. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I would suggest, of course, try to conserve the money we have, try to find more money to do it, but we don't have the authority to do all the things that are necessary to make long-term decisions concerning the protection of our inlets, and I think we ought to start working legislatively to accomplish those goals. COUNCILMAN SOREY: Great idea. Thank you. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. Sam. COUNCILMAN SAAD: I had a question. You mentioned offshore. Are you talking about building artificial reefs? COUNCILMAN SOREY: Yes. COUNCILMAN SAAD: In the Gulf? COUNCILMAN SOREY: And then I think Commissioner Page 40 February 9, 2011 Coyle has another great point. Right now that is about the only structure that we have a chance of getting approved. For instance, Wiggin's Pass -- and that's not beach renourishment, but a similar situation -- is it's similar challenge. We, fortunately, have the barriers at Gordon Pass -- or at -- and at Doctor's Pass which helps the situation there. But there are some beach -- some waves to help mitigate the wave energy without building surface structures with reefs and that sort of thing. COUNCILMAN SAAD: So basically we're talking about artificial reefs running the length of the city? COUNCILMAN SOREY: That's one of the alternatives, yes. COUNCILMAN SAAD: What does that cost? COUNCILMAN SOREY: Well, to use Mr. Wallace's term, millions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you go down the beaches down south almost to Gordon Pass you will see some artificial reefs that were created there, largely paid for by the residents, that have been very successful in maintaining the width of the beach there, and it has caused no harm or damage to the environment. It has actually collected sand. And in certain places on Marco, the same thing has occurred, but not uniformly. But there are procedures we can follow that are economic- -- environmentally sound that provide a semi-permanent solution to these problems, and I think we ought to begin pursuing them. COUNCILMAN SOREY: We'll add that to our mix of discussions at CAC. Thank you. MAYOR BARNETT: Anybody else? Yes, Doug. COUNCILMAN FINLAY: As far as -- I have no problems, trust me, of exploring this to what Fred brings up. I do know that when you're dealing with the Gulf Coast -- and especially in our area you're dealing with some interesting issues because we do have some hard Page 41 I i ~ February 9, 2011 bottom that's very close, we do have very shallow waters, and -- where you would put these structures, and you have low-tide issues and what people are going to think of a view of a hardened structure coming out of the water that wasn't there. You also have a certain amount of boat traffic that operates within, what, 300 -- 500 feet, I guess, of the shoreline and, therefore, marking reefs. So it's kind of like the 41 bypass. There's a whole lot of issues that have to be surmounted before you can get to that stage. In the interim, trying to get over those hurdles, I think, is going to take a considerable amount of time. And I'll -- I'm a broken record like this on the County Commission. But barring any improvements, in my opinion you're really looking at an eight-year cycle versus a ten-year cycle if you want to keep a healthy beach for the tourists and the residents of Collier County. I did want to bring up another issue since you're here. It has to do with beach renourishment. And it has to do with the easement that beach- front property owners may have to sign prior to the next renourishment. And the City of Naples, I know, has been the hallmark of standards for public access throughout the state to beaches. But you're going to have this easement that essentially is going to, I guess, require that property owners sign off on -- on public access of private property, and that's actually covered by Statute 161. And what I'm wondering is is -- is, are you going to pursue that? Because I have a question -- there's a lot of questions out there in the condominium associations, if the president or the board has the authority to sign, or if you would have to go to literally every single member of that condominium to get a signature to grant public access to what is essentially common element property. I mean, I think it's unnecessary because you have Statute 161 that already takes care of that issue. But are you still moving forward on that issue? And have you considered potential hurdles you'd have to Page 42 February 9, 2011 get over just to get the signatures. MAYOR BARNETT: I'm not 100 percent sure they're prepared to answer that. COUNCILMAN FINLAY: Well, the county attorney is here, so that's why. MR. KLATZKOW: We're preparing the easements. We'll be bringing them to the board. The board will have a policy decision to make. I don't know if the easements are going to be just the unincorporated area of Collier County or for the entire -- COUNCILMAN FINLAY: City? MR. KLATZKOW: Or for the entire county. That will be a board decision. As you said, the city has a long history of public access to beaches. This issue came up when we had a disagreement with a certain condominium as to roping off a beach. And it may be just geared towards the unincorporated area. Again, it's going to be an issue we'll be bringing forward to the Board of County Commissioners for discussion. COUNCILMAN FINLAY: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, Jeff. Fred. CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is another one of those complicated Issues. COUNCILMAN FINLAY: It is. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Those of you who were around here in 1998 here at the city, we had the problem where a few of the property owners did not give their permission for us to renourish the beach in front of their properties, so you can imagine what happened. We had beach extended 20 or 30 feet on each side, and there's this big hole that water gathered in. And you can't even permit that sort of thing to exist. I mean, you have to fill it in. It's a hazard otherwise. So it creates a real serious problem. You require people to sign it. If they don't sign it, what happens? You're going to renourish it Page 43 February 9, 2011 anyway. So there's a -- it's really problematic as to whether -- it probably doesn't make any difference whether they give you permission. You're going to fill it in anyway, okay. And that's probably what the Board of County Commissioners would come up with. We're going to renourish the beaches. And -- but with respect to access, there are general definitions for access now, but access doesn't mean that if I -- if I renourish your beach property that you have to create an easement on your property to let people access it. It means that somewhere along the line there there is public access, and people can access it and come down there and lie on that beach. I don't know of any obligation that exists which would require every home that has their beach renourished would have to grant an easement to cross through their property to get to the beach, unless there's a new -- recent law for that process, but generally it has been considered acceptable, as in the city's case, if you've got a beach-in, you've got parking, you've got access to the beach, that is sufficient. And I think the distance is what, half mile, three-quarters of a mile from the beach-in. And that's one of the guidelines we used for determining whether or not public funding can be used for that purpose. But it's a complicated process, and I guess we'll have to debate it when it gets before us. COUNCILMAN SOREY: Commissioner Coyle, at this juncture in time, the direction from the County Commission to the CAC and to the staff is to prepare an easement document that all owners of property that would be renourished, city and county, has to sign this. And, in fact, this last beach renourishment we had a handful of people in the city that did not sign it, and we did not put sand on their beach. What happens over time, it kind of fills in. But we've had some of those. So if -- you know, we maybe need to revisit that issue at the Page 44 February 9, 2011 County Commission, because right now the guidance, and my understanding of the vote that day, we have been directed to prepare an easement that will be required to be signed by the property owner prior to renourishing that section of beach. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't doubt that. The problem is that I don't recall anything that has said that every property owner that gives you an easement to renourish the beach also has to have a right-of-way for pedestrians to cross their properties to get to the beach. COUNCILMAN SOREY: No, sir. The easement, it says that from the erosion control line -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. COUNCILMAN SOREY: -- basically to the vegetation line is available, not cross it, but utilization of it, and that's what county attorney is working on. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. And that has never changed. That has always been the policy. COUNCILMAN SOREY: But the County Commission has directed staff to develop a document to memorialize that, because that was not a procedure -- and it may be the state statute. But as I understand it -- and county manager, county attorney, tell me if I'm misunderstanding this, but what I thought the direction to CAC was, that this is something that we won't develop, and I thought the consensus and agreement for the County Commission was to develop a document that required -- everyone that wanted sand from the erosion control line to the vegetation line had to sign this, which would give, not access across their property, but access from the vegetation line to the erosion control line, that anybody could utilize that to lie on or whatever, so that's -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah. The -- that really hasn't changed from late 1990's. I mean, that was one of the problems we had when we renourished the beach in '98/'99. But my concern was Page 45 February 9, 2011 the statement which I thought was made that would require an easement across their property. COUNCILMAN SOREY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So if that's not your understanding, then we're in agreement. COUNCILMAN SOREY: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COUNCILMAN SOREY: We have never memorialized that in the document, which is my understanding, we've been directed by the County Commission to include that as a provision of the easement which was not in the previous easement. That's the difference. MAYOR BARNETT: Gary. COUNCILMAN PRICE: Thanks, Mayor. I'm thankful for the healthy dose of common sense that prevailed today. The -- Commissioner Coy Ie, I appreciate what you said about the state and federal regulation. I would call what we've done insane beach renourishment, which is trying to do the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. COUNCILMAN PRICE: And I think that insane beach renourishment, probably not a great plan for our future. And so I propose that we come up with -- the staff come up, create an action plan to seek state and federal assistance to preserve our beaches. And so from your wonderful idea, if we could walk away with a couple things, and those are decent action plans, that we seek federal and state help for changes to the current criteria that will allow us to protect our own beaches. The other thing I'll just say -- and I probably should stop with that. I have a tendency to go too far, but I'll say this because I don't ever get to talk to all of you. I'm concerned about spending TDC dollars on advertising. Page 46 February 9, 2011 I'm concerned about the return on investment. We've had discussions at city council, I know that we've sent direction as a body to the County Commission about the decisions to use TDC dollars, but I don't think that we get the return on the money. I think if we have wonderful beaches and create a great experience, that we don't need to use those dollars on advertising. And so I'm only one of seven, but I'm thankful for all that you do. I'd like to see us create a better experience, and I think -- not that we don't have to advertise. I think that we always will have to compete, but I think we compete on natural resources and providing a great experience for not only our residents, but people coming to visit us. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. And I'm -- Doug, you were next. COUNCILMAN FINLAY: Yeah. I just wanted to clarify, because I think John said it right. This is something new. There is a change in the easement. Again, it's not an easement across property. Actually I think the first draft that was written, there were some people -- I know, Dick Mayford (phonetic), the electric company, was concerned that it was an easement across property. I think it was amended to clarify that issue. But we're talking about essentially use of the private property above the erosion control line. All I'm saying is, is that's already guaranteed in State Statute 161. I believe this was all litigated to the U.S. Supreme Court. I look on it as an unnecessary, because it's guaranteed in the state statutes. But what I'm more concerned about is, is how you're going to deal with this issue with condominiums and who, in fact, sign, because if you need to get every single property owner in a hundred unit building to sign, you're going to have some people that won't sign, and then are you not going to renourish? In addition to the fact, there's a hotel, which I'm not going to name, that I would be frankly surprised is they would sign this document. But -- hopefully they will. But as long as you understand the issue of condominium -- it's a Page 47 February 9, 2011 whole lot different from single-family homes -- and I'll leave it at that. MAYOR BARNETT: Did you want to -- MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, it's a policy from the board. I mean, ultimately -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to bring it to the board. MAYOR BARNETT: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm bringing it to the board for discussion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to tag on something to Gary's suggestion. Can we agree here today that we'll have our staffs get together -- MAYOR BARNETT: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and draft up some proposed changes and regulations concerning beach renourishment with solutions that will be more long term? COUNCILMAN SOREY: Mr. Chairman, I think that as I understand the guidance of the Coastal Advisory Committee, that's within our purview, and I'll commit to you that we will work with both staffs and come back with some recommendations on that. MAYOR BARNETT: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Great. MAYOR BARNETT: Dee. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: I just want to echo Mr. Price's statements about the TDC funds used for advertising. I know that a certain percentage has to, but it seems to keep growing and growing and growing. And I think our real treasure in this county are the beaches and the various venues throughout the county that are generally natural resources and also wonderful amenities that the county has provided and the city has provided. And I think, you know, we need to be wary of continually upping that number to advertisement. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. We're going to go to -- we're going to go to public comment. Page 48 February 9, 2011 MR.OCHS: Mr. Mayor? I'm sorry. MAYOR BARNETT: Oh, sure. MR.OCHS: On last word. Again, this is a memorandum that came to me from Commissioner Hiller on this subj ect, and she asked me to read it into the record, if I might. "I have recently been appointed Chairperson of the Tourist Development Council. The Tourist Development Council is responsible for the proper review, vetting, and due diligence, and recommendation for approval to the BCC for all items receiving TDC funds. "I look forward to working with the city on reviewing projects and funding sources that would benefit the community as a whole." "Thank you. " MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT MAYOR BARNETT: Michelle Ovola. MS. OVOLA: Hi. Michelle Ovola, the executive director of Naples Pathways Coalition. I won't take much time. I'm very happy that I heard you all want to move forward on the study to help our residents and help our visitors alike with the obstruction that 41 has become. I would just encourage you to really think outside the box and look at all the possibilities to improve the traffic flow for pedestrians, for cyclists, and for the vehicles. We have a fair mixture in our membership of city residents and county. There's a good number of county residents that, during season, they just don't go to the city, and businesses suffer when anybody doesn't go. So it's obviously a need that needs to be addressed. And opening up traffic calming to slow down traffic so it is more inviting to stop Page 49 February 9, 2011 being at these businesses, I really think everyone wins. Thank you. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, Michelle. Marcia Cravens. MS. CRAVENS: Thank you. Marcia Cravens. I live in Collier County. I am a master naturalist for coastal systems, and I do a lot of research about these issues. I had actually wanted to speak separately on the beach renourishment issue and just general comments under public comment. On beach nourishment, I think everyone should understand that when you put significant amounts of sand on the beaches, as is done during the beach nourishment for all of the beaches, then when those areas get washed away, they end up shoaling. They cause significant shoaling in the coastal inlets and waterways. That creates a cycle of aggressive dredging. The aggressive dredging is very problematic for our natural resources. And it -- and I really applaud everyone who is going to look to try and find some innovative solutions that are not the same kind of beach nourishment program that we have done in the past. The aggressive dredging I would like to see addressed for the negative impacts that it has to our natural resources. Every time you dredge you lose what's called the benthic areas, which is the food base for the aquatic life. And recognizing that you do need to keep boating channels clear and safe for those areas that utilize them, there needs to be some solution whereby there is not this constant cycle of shoaling, dredging, shoaling, dredging. The second thing I just wanted to comment on was that, in general, I think it's great that the City of Naples has this joint meeting, but there's something like 21,000 residents in the City of Naples, I believe, that you also have other areas that constitute particularly Page 50 February 9, 2011 coastal communities. You've got District 2, North Naples. Certainly there are as much residential numbers of population and businesses there, and then you also have other areas, such as Immokalee, Golden Gate, Marco. And, you know, I would hope that maybe there will be a j oint meeting for those, and to these as well, before decisions are made for expenditures of funds and programs and policies that affect all these people. TDC funds are collected from all over Collier County. Lastly, I just want to point out that -- make a comment. I'm shocked, really, about comments made about concern about TDC funds going towards advertising, because that's the intent of TDC funds. And the fact that Mr. Wert's had to come before the BCC and CAC and request emergency funding be directed toward him actually informs all of us that that funding has not been overly given to advertising; it's been deficient. Thank you. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you for your comments. I want to thank the staffs from both the county and the city for all you do for us, for being here today. Fellow County Commissioners, I think that this was an excellent meeting today . We stayed on the meat and potatoes. And although we might not be on the same paragraph, we are on the same page. So let's not wait four more years to do this. We'll do it in three and a half. Thank you all, and have a good day, and thank you for attending. ******* Page 51 February 9, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:34 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~w.~ FRED COYLE, Chairman , .,~ ." ..>',/ . . "- .~" H'_~~~'c. '*J~ ..!~,'A;,'\"~ The I minutes approved by the Board on ~ t\t~ 2011 , as presented __~ or as corrected . tII TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 52