Loading...
Documents 01/22/2002 RBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 2002 Naples Daily News Naples, FL 34102 Affidavit of PutLication Naples Daily News BOARD OF COUNTY i70MMISSIONERS CHRIS HORTON PO BOX 413016 rAPLES FL 34101 -3016 REFERENCE: 001230 X1200213 58382463 NnTICE OF PU3LIC ME! State of Florida County of CoLLier Befoul- ti-- un &rsigned authority, personally appeared PhiL Lewis, who on oath says that I.e serves as the Editor and Vice President of tl�e Naplas Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, 'in CoLLi'er County, Florida: that thy. attached copy of advertising was pubList.ed in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is i newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier Co4.r7ty, Florida, and that the said newspaper, has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida, each day and h s 'peen entered a: second class mail matter at the post of'ice in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further sr;yy •:hat she has neither paid nor promised any Fersan, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, comfnA ssTcn or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publicti..�n in the said newspaper. PUBLISHED ON: 011?() AD SPACE: 55.000 INCH FILED ON: 01/21/02 ! t- °_ - - -- °- - - -- -- _ _ Signature of Affiant,w�. �_.' - -- A V4 i!- 20_eZ Sworn to and Subscribed Before me this � day of "crsss;ali Ir+own by me or, Nancy Evans MY COMMISSION #E CC849370 EXPIRES o€ July 18 2003 %'r►j ° 3ONDEDTHRU TROY FAIN INSURANCE INC COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS "A-, AGENDA January 22, 2002 9:00 A.M. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY 1 January 22, 2002 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774 -8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Pastor Marty Green, East Naples United Methodist Church 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.) Approved and/or Adopted with changes - 5/0 3. PROCLAMATIONS A. Proclamation to recognize RSVP Volunteer Organization. To be accepted by Ms. Sharon Downey, RSVP Project Director. Adopted — 5/0 B. Proclamation for the Celtic Festival Weekend. To be accepted by Joseph Stude, Mike Ward and Mike Joynt. Adopted — 5/0 C. Proclamation for the National Jaycee Recognition Week. To be accepted by Angela Robinson, Naples Jaycees Chairman of the Board and Daniel Malinowski, Naples Jaycees President. Adopted — 5/0 4. SERVICE AWARDS Presented Five -Year Attendees: 1) Jane Martin, Library 2 January 22, 2002 2) Edward Sturgis, Parks and Recreation 3) John Clements, Building Review 4) Keith Wilt, Wastewater Ten -Year Attendees: 5) Gail Bonham, County Attorney Fifteen -Year Attendees: 6) Adelaide Duffy, Solid Waste Twenty -Year Attendees: 7) Sue Filson, Board of County Commissioners 5. PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation of the EMS Phoenix Awards. Presented B. Presentation to the Transportation Division to award Sponsor of the Year Awards for the Adopt -A -Road Program administered by the Road and Bridge Section of the Transportation Operations Department. Presented 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS AND COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS A. Public Comments on General Topics 1) Vera Fitz - Gerald re traffic from the Granada Shopping Center 2) Al Newman re trucks on 108th Avenue North 3) Lou Newman re traffic on 108th Avenue North 4) Corey McNut re traffic on 108th Avenue North 5) George LaBanca re traffic on 108th Avenue North 6) Brenda Kaiser re traffic on 107th and 108th Avenue North 7) Loretta LaLue re traffic calming on 107th and 108 Ave. North 8) Sally Barker re Dover Kohl Study and Naples Park 9) Carol Lawford re traffic on 1081h Avenue North 3 January 22, 2002 10) Sal Fucarelli re traffic on 1081h Avenue North 11) Ty Agoston re sales tax and Florida Forever 12) Bob Krasowski re zero waste /Collier County B. Public Petition request by Ms. Charlotte Byers to discuss reopening of 108th Avenue North. Did not speak C. Public Petition request by Ms. Vera Fitz - Gerald to discuss configuration of 107th and 1081h Avenue North. Comments made under item #6A 7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 12, 2002 BCC MEETING. Petition PUDA- 2001 -AR -1494, Cindy A. Penney, of PMS, Inc., of Naples, representing Kenco Development Inc., requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD to be known as the Richland PUD for the purpose of reducing the maximum number of dwelling units from 650 to 400 and increasing the commercial acreage from 21.8 acres to 25 acres for property located on the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1) in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 46 East, Collier County, Florida. (Staff's Request) B. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 12, 2002 BCC MEETING. Petition PUDA- 2001AR -431, Tim Hancock, AICP, representing Park East Development Ltd., requesting an amendment to the Founders Plaza PUD by updating the existing PUD for the purpose of including language that permits additional retail and commercial uses on parcels that exceed 150' in depth for property located on both sides of Golden Gate Parkway at the Santa Barbara Canal Crossing in Golden Gate City, Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East. (Petitioner's Request) Moved from Item #17A: C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU- 2001 -AR -1411, Anita L. Jenkins, AICP, of Wilson Miller, requesting conditional use for a fire station, per Section 2.6.9.2 Essential Services of the Collier County 4 January 22, 2002 Land Development Code, on property located on the east side of the Livingston Road right -of -way and approximately 1.75 miles north of Immokalee Road and .25 miles south of future Livingston Road E/W right - of -way in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Res.2002 -44 Adopted -5/0 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Appointment of member to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Res.2002 -45 appointing Charles M. McMahon, Sr. Adopted -5/0 B. Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. Res.2002 -46 appointing Robert Ducharme and Ann Ward Adopted -5/0 C. Appointment of members to the County Government Productivity Committee. Res.2002 -47 appointing Dexter R. Groose and reappointing James R. Gibson, Jr., Janet Vasey, James Horner and Jean Ross - Franklin Adopted -5 /0 D. Appointment of members to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee. Res.2002 -48 appointing Hugo C. Sims and Councilman David Loving and reappointing John L. Pennell Adopted -5/0 E. Resolution regarding anti - terrorism legislation. (Commissioner Coyle) Res.2002 -49 Adopted -5/0 Added: F. Request Board direction for staff to negotiate an agreement with Dr. Leonard Ferenz, Ph.D and International College to conduct an ethics audit. Direct Staff to come up with a particular plan to review current materials and work with Dr. Ferenz and bring back clear recommendations to the BCC within 2 to 4 weels - Approved 5/0 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT 5 January 22, 2002 A. Approval of modified 2002 Tourism Agreement with the Naples Botanical Gardens Inc. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development) Approved -5 /0 B. This item has been deleted. C. This item has been deleted. D. Approve request to authorize the Settlement Agreement between Collier County and the Engineering Firm of Hole Montes, Inc., for costs related to the design and construction of Immokalee Road. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services) Approved -5 /0 E. Resolution opposing continued diversion and /or reduction of funds by the Legislature from the Florida Forever Program and calling for the timely replacement of funds diverted in the 2001 Regular Legislative Session. (Ramiro Manalich, County Attorney) Res.2002 -50 Adopted -5 /0 w/ changes F. Response to Board request for additional information related to the North County Water Reclamation Facility Flow Equalization Tanks, Project 73077. (Tom Wides, Interim Administrator, Public Utilities) Staff recommendation Approved — 5/0 G. Create an Advisory Committee to assist with the hiring of the Hearing Examiner Position. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development) Resolution 2002 -51 Adopted - 5/0 with changes H. THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 8, 2002 BCC MEETING. Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Olde Cypress Tract 12 ". (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development) Staff Recommendation Approved — 5/0 Moved from Item #16B1: I. Status report to the Board on the Davis Boulevard Phase II Median Landscaping Project (Airport Pulling Road to Heritage Trail) and to request direction to proceed with the refurbishment. Approved — 5/0 6 January 22, 2002 Moved from Item #16E1: J. Approval of a contract for professional lobbyist services with Arnold and Blair, L.C. Continued to January 29t''- prior to Strategic Planning Meeting — 4/1 (Commissioner Carter opposed) AT MEETING OF JANUARY 29, 2002, CONTRACT APPROVED IN AMOUNT OF $509000 — 5/0 11. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT A. Request for Board direction regarding a letter purportedly sent pursuant to Section 163.3215, Fla. Stat., complaining that the Bucks Run PUD (Ordinance No. 2001 -67) is not consistent with Policy 5.4 of the Future Lane Use Element of the County's Growth Management Plan. (County Attorney) Previous action of 12/18/2001 acknowledged and BCC determined that Bucks Run PUD is consistent with Policy 5.4 — Approved 5/0 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. FUTURE AGENDAS 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Legislative update presented by Commissioner Carter B. Commissioner Coletta noted that Commissioner Fiala selected as MPO Chairman C. Commissioner Coletta noted that Commissioner Carter selected as Chairman of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Approved and /or adopted w /changes — 5/0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 7 January 22, 2002 1) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Sabal Lake Unit Two ". Res. 2002 -11 2) This item was deleted. 3) This item was deleted. 4) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Quail Walk Phase Four ". Res. 2002 -12 5) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Longshore Lake Unit 4 ". Res. 2002 -13 6) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Longshore Lake Unit 5C ". Res. 2002 -14 7) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Longshore Lake Unit 51)". Res. 2002 -15 8) Approval of a sub - recipient agreement with David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc., to undertake a rehabilitation project at five (5) Collier Housing Alternatives Residences using $47,000 of the County's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. The Board of County Commissioners approved this project as a part of the County's consolidated plan FY01 -02 One -Year Action Plan on May 8, 2001. 9) Adopt Resolutions enforcing liens on properties for code violations. Res. 2002 -16 through 2002 -22 10) Approve funds from development fees in the amount of $220,000 to develop and implement handheld PC wireless technology with the required hardware purchases for use by our building inspectors. 8 January 22, 2002 11) A Resolution supporting F.N.B. Corporation as a qualified applicant pursuant to s.288.106, Florida Statutes; and providing an appropriation of $45,000 as local participation in the qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program for Fiscal Year (s) 2003 through 2007, and providing for an effective date. Res. 2002 -23 w /changes 12) A Resolution supporting Arthrex Metal Works Inc., as a qualified applicant pursuant to s.288.106, Florida Statutes; and providing an appropriation of $48,000 as local participation in the qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program for Fiscal Year (s) 2003 through 2006, and providing for an effective date. Res. 2002 -24 13) A Resolution supporting Arthrex Inc. as a qualified applicant pursuant to s.288.106, Florida Statutes; and providing an appropriation of $44,800 as local participation in the qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program for Fiscal Year (s) 2004 though 2011, and providing for an effective date. Res. 2002 -25 14) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for the Final Plat of "Silver Lakes Phase Two - B". Res. 2002 -26 15) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Silver Lakes Phase Two -D" Res. 2002 -27 16) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Silver Lakes Phase Two -E ". Res. 2002 -28 17) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Silver Lakes Phase Two -F ". Res. 2002 -29 18) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Majorca Unit Two at Fiddler's Creek ". 9 January 22, 2002 Added: 19) CARNY-2001 -AR- 1905, Raymond Holland, President, Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition Inc., requesting a carnival permit to conduct the Collier County Annual Fair on February 1 through 9, 2002, at the Fair Grounds located on Immokalee Road. Carnival Permit CP- 2002 -02 with waiver of Carnival Fee, Occupational License and Surety Bond. 20) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to prepare a Scope of Services and issue a request for proposal for the development of the Naples Park Community Plan. 21) CARNY- 2001 -AR -1852, Duane Wheeler, Carnival Chairman, Rotary Club of Immokalee, requesting a permit to conduct a carnival on January 24, 2002 through January 27, 2002 on County -owned property at the Immokalee Regional Airport. Carnival Permit CP- 2002 -03 B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Moved to Item #10I: 1) Status report to the Board on the Davis Boulevard Phase II Median Landscaping Project (Airport Pulling Road to Heritage Trail) and to request direction to proceed with the refurbishment. C. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1) Approve the piggybacking of a Hillsborough County Contract for liquid sludge management services with Azurix North American for the estimated amount of $138,500. 2) Adopt a Resolution and approve a Declaration of Easement for three water well house sites to be located within a portion of right -of -way acquired for the future extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road. Res. 2002 -30 3) Amend Work Order HAA- FT -00 -02 for Professional Engineering Services related to noise issues at the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant, Project 70063, in the additional amount of $104,500, payable to Hartman and Associates Inc. 10 January 22, 2002 4) Approve a change order to professional engineering services work order with Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. for new test wells related to the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant Reverse Osmosis Raw Water Supply in the amount of $330,000, Project 70075. (This is a shift of funds from one phase of the total project to facilitate fast - tracking.) 5) Approve Disaster Relief Funding Agreement between Florida Department of Community Affairs and Collier County for reimbursement of Tropical Storm Gabrielle Beach Recovery Costs. 6) Award Bid #01 -3297 to furnish and deliver emulsion polymer for sludge dewatering for the Water Reclamation Facility, estimated amount $108,000. Awarded to Fort Bend Services 7) Approve committee selection of firms for contract negotiations for RFP 02 -3313 "Professional GIS Services for Collier County ". As Contained in the Executive Summary 8) Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1992 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Res. 2002 -31 9) Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1993 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Res. 2002 -32 10) Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Res. 2002 -33 11 January 22, 2002 11) Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Res. 2002 -34 12) Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Res. 2002 -35 13) Approve the Satisfaction of Lien documents filed against Real Property for Abatement of Nuisance and direct the Clerk of Courts to record same in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. D. PUBLIC SERVICES E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Moved to Item #10J: 1) Approval of a contract for professional lobbyist services with Arnold and Blair, L.C. 2) Approval of the attached three Resolutions outlining Operational Guidelines for the County's Land Rights Acquisition Program and authorizing the Board of County Commissioners' Chairman, during the 2002 Calendar Year, to execute certain documents required in connection therewith. Res. 2002 -36 through 2002 -38 3) Approval of a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, during the 2002 Calendar Year to execute agreements, deeds and other documents required for the sale of GAC Land Trust Property. Res. 2002 -39 4) Approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute limited use Bare (limited use) License Agreements during the 2002 Calendar Year. 12 January 22, 2002 Res. 2002 -40 5) Reject Bid received on Bid #02 -3300 "Pre- Employment Physicals and Drug Testing ". 6) Approval of a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, to execute deeds and agreements for Deed to Right of Interment for the purchase of burial lots at Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery during the 2002 Calendar Year. Res. 2002 -41 F. EMERGENCY SERVICES G. COUNTY MANAGER 1) Award Contracts (RFP #02 -3317) "Consultant Services for the Preparation of a new Law Enforcement Impact Fee and an update to the existing Correctional Facilities Impact Fee" in the amount of $60,000. Awarded to Henderson, Young & Co H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY I. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous items to be filed for record with action as directed. K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners amend Resolution 95 -552, the Investment Policy to Recognize Changes in the Market and Revisions to Florida Statute 218.415 "Local Government Investment Policies ", since the adoption of the Resolution. Res. 2002 -42 13 January 22, 2002 L. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners enter into a stipulated judgment in the Case of Hanson v. Caxambas Equity Co., Ltd., Case No. 00- 2238- CA -TB, in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Naples, Florida. 2) Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the easement acquisition of Parcels 169 and 769 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Fred R. Sutherland, et al, Case No. 01- 0756 -CA. Project No. 60071. Staff to deposit $8,501.50 into the Registry of the Court 3) Approve the agreed order awarding expert fees as to Parcels 247 and 247T in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Tony Barry, et al, (Golden Gate Boulevard, Project No. 63041). Staff to deposit an additional $13,793.93 into the Registry of the Court 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN. Moved to Item #8C: A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex carte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU- 2001 -AR -1411, Anita L. Jenkins, AICP, of Wilson Miller, requesting conditional use for a fire station, per Section 2.6.9.2 Essential Services of the Collier County Land Development Code, on property located on the east side of the 14 January 22, 2002 Livingston Road right -of -way and approximately 1.75 miles north of Immokalee Road and .25 miles south of future Livingston Road E/W right - of -way in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition AVPLAT200I- AR1559 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the county's and the public's interest in a portion of the 10' wide drainage easement located along the west line of Lots 218 and 219, according to the plat of "Stonebridge Unit 5" as recorded in Plat Book 30, Page 76 through 77, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Located in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Res. 2002 -43 Continued to February 26, 2002: C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU- 2001 -AR -1420, William L. Hoover, AICP, Hoover Planning and Development, Incorporated, representing Pastor Colin Rampton of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, requesting conditional uses "7" and "11" of the "A- MHO" Rural Agricultural Zoning District /Mobile Home Zoning Overlay, for a church and child care center on property located at the northwest corner of Lilac Lane and Immokalee Road in Section 23, Township 47 South, Range 27 East. D. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 12, 2002 BCC MEETING. Petition CU- 2001 -AR -1620, James Weeks, requesting Conditional Use "7" of the "E" Estates zoning district for an earthmining per Section 2.2.3.3.7 of the Land Development Code for property located on Desoto Boulevard North, between 291h Avenue NE and 31St Avenue NE on eastside of Desoto, further described as Tract 143, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 67, in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.62+ acres. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774 -8383. 15 January 22, 2002 4. " 2A :s AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING January 22, 2002 ADD ITEM 9(F): This item will be heard at 1:00 p.m. Request Board direction for staff to negotiate an agreement with Dr. Leonard Ferenz, Ph.D and International College to conduct an ethics audit. (Commissioner Coletta.) ADD ITEM 16(A)21: Petition Carny- 2001 -AR -1852, Duane Wheeler, Carnival Chairman, Rotary Club of Immokalee, requesting a permit to conduct a carnival on January 24, 2002 through January 27, 2002 on County -owned property at the Immokalee Regional Airport. (Staff request.) CONTINUE ITEM 17C TO FEBRUARY 26, 2002 MEETING: CU- 2001 -AR- 1420, William L. Hoover AICCP, Hoover Planning and Development, Incorporated, representing Pastor Colin Rampton of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, requesting conditional uses "7" and "11" of the "A- MHO" Rural Agricultural Zoning District/Mobile Home Zoning Overlay, for a church and child care center on property located at the northwest corner of Lilac Lane and Immokalee Road in Section 23, Township 47 South, Range 27 East. (Petitioner request.) PROCLAMA TION 3A WHEREAS, the RSVP (Retired Seniors Volunteer Program) is a premier volunteer program and the recipient of numerous awards; and, WHEREAS, approximately one thousand volunteers participate in this program; and, WHEREAS, volunteer hours totaled 101,425 hours equating to more than $1,560,000 in services to Collier County and the community during the year 2001; and, WHEREAS, volunteers assist in community events, County government, aid the Habitat for Humanity, Naples Community Hospital, David Lawrence Center, Help for Haiti, Collier County Public Schools, the Public Health Department (f lu shots), the Immokalee school project (in conjunction with the Collier County Public School System and the Seminole Casino) naming just a few; and, WHEREAS, the program is Services (feder the Board of Cal WHEREAS, these .t Mduall "provide an yj alUablo s s: NOW THEREFDRE;11 be it proc %ag ed byte, a Co/liex� C;=ty, ¢;F/arida;a f that :C'a�lie vLAnti and t/teir servk*iS. tQ, tief our &;Y A7;MST. DWIGHV E. BROCK, CLERK for National and Community ,matched funds approved by i ty. rioners of the RSVP PROCLAMA TION B 3 WHEREAS, the Irish American Club of Naples, Inc. (a Florida Corporation established to promote Irish Culture and education in Collier County), has recently established high school scholarships and is now working to support other charities in Collier County, and, WHEREAS, over the past 11 years the Irish American Club of Naples, Inc. has provided entertainment concerts each year at our local High Schools, with proceeds distributed to " Concern" a national organization that works with emergency victims in Honduras and other parts of the world; and, WHEREAS, this new year the Irish American Club of Naples, Inc. has decided it could do a lot more for our community by bringing a Celtic Festival to Collier County, raising larger funds for charities in need in our local;'ttf� WHEREAS, the dif ATTEST: OW E. BROOK, CLERK make a it. vnmissioners of 002 be 2OL72 , CHAIRMAN PROCLAMA TION 3C WHEREAS, the Naples Junior Chamber has been a vital part of the . development of young leaders in our community for over the past forty years; and, WHEREAS, the Naples Junior Chamber of Commerce serve and continue to serve the under privileged citizens in our community, and, WHEREAS, the Naples Junior Chamber of Commerce support the enhancement for professional and business advancement; and, WHEREAS, the Naples Junior Chamber of Commerce promotes and fosters the individual growth and development of young persons across their community; and, WHEREAS, the Naples Junior Chamber of Commerce teaches and impresses DONE AND ORDERED THIS 0 2002 BOARD Of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS � b A �1.4 800108 th Avenue North Naples, Florida 34108 January 21, 2002 Commissioner James Carter 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, Fl. 34112 RE: ROAD BARRIER PETITION ERRORS Dear Commissioner Carter: Let me introduce myself as a resident of Collier County, of Naples Park and of 108th Avenue North. For the record, I am adamantly opposed to re- opening 107" and 108tH Avenues and feel my opinion is important and should be given greater weight because my home is only one block from Route 41. As you are aware, if these avenues re -open, the traffic created would certainly be intolerable with the danger to the children and residents on my street, quite real. I am sure this was at the very heart of the community initiative and agreement which closed these avenues in favor of a traffic light for the Granada Shops, this however, is not my only reason for writing. In reading the petition submitted in support of re- opening, I uncovered numerous errors. This petition is riddled with unverifiable information and signatures. Since I was unable to devote several weeks to verifying the entire petition, I chose only to bring two pages to your attention. These were not chosen at random, or because they were more error prone, no, they were chosen because they had my own home address listed as the home of a supporting petitioner, which I thought portrays well the fatal flaws found in this petition (and it is very irritating). One petitioner signed at least three times using three separate names. As odd as it may seem, my own home address was listed as the home of a supporting petitioner also three separate times. I am sorry to say, I do not recognize any of the names of the signors listed as residents of my home. Some people have even signed the petition more than one time, a practice which is disturbing given the importance of this issue. Due to the very clear language of the petition, it surprised me that some signed the petition knowingly misrepresenting themselves as residents, when absentee landlord perhaps is more appropriate a term. Did they take a moment to read the statement "I, as a resident of Naples Park..." listed at the top of every page specifically requiring residency as a prerequisite for signing? Some addresses listed as a home address do not actually even correspond to a real physical address in Naples Park. In Naples Park gaps in address numbering occur. Such is the case with 105th Avenue. There is a 789 and a 797, but there is no 793, which coincidently is listed prominently as the address of signor Hector Reyes. There is "No record of address" listed with the Collier County Appraiser and combined with a disconnected telephone, it makes you wonder. This pattern repeatedly occurred. Are they vacationers or misinformed transitory tenants, never staying long enough to establish real residency or even learn their real correct address or is it deceit? .. A ..� ` b Also, I must point out that there is no qualifying age prerequisite to this petition, so anyone, even those 8 years of age can sign. Although important, the young should be specifically identified and weighted accordingly. While I cannot point with certainty at an example of and underage signor, I can say it certainly has happened many times. Additionally I find disturbing the lack of a date. There is no way now to tell if the signors truly represent Naples Park today, given the dramatic increase in owner occupied homes. Should our roadways be altered because of the opinion of people who have moved on or should it be residents who decide? In conclusion, I find it is impossible to separate the invalid from those who believe the road should re -open. To verify addresses to a reasonable certainty, I used the Collier County Property Appraiser Database, drove by each listed address, spoke to neighbors, called working telephone numbers, and even used a reverse phone directory to identify disconnected or invalid telephone numbers. I do make mistakes, so in some cases when the slightest doubt existed, I chose to keep my suspicions private in order not to unfairly color or prejudice your opinion. While not accusing any petitioner, I feel confident that the following petitioner names should not be given weight in this argument, or at the very least should be considered invalid. Referring to that page of the petition beginning with the name Cyndi Pence, 575 107th, 593 -9559: Line 6, Jason Gibbons, three signatures signed by one person, no record of address, disconnected phone. Line 7, Isaac Harris, three signatures signed by one person, no record of address, disconnected phone Line 8, Garry Cash, three signatures signed by one person, no record of address, disconnected phone. Line 12, Vanessa Castaneda, wrong address (I live at this address), disconnected phone. Line 13, Anthony Calderone, wrong address (I live at this address), disconnected phone. Line 15, James Watson, no record of address (seemingly vacant lot), no phone indicated Line 16, Amanda Ward, no record of address, phone listed to 459 Golfview Dr. Referring to a page of the petition beginning with the name Frank Grubb, 554 98th, 566 -1785: Line 2, Henry Sampson, not a Naples Park resident. Line 4, Illegible, no address indicated, no phone indicated Line 5, Bill Thompson, no record of address, disconnected phone. Line 9, Vanessa Castaneda, wrong address (I live at this address), phone listed to C. Fammartino at 6363 Old Mahogany Ct. Line 10, Ken Williams, illegible address Line 12 illegible name, no record of address, no phone indicated Line14 Hector Reyes, no record of address, no phone indicated Line 15, Name illegible, no record of address, disconnected phone Line 16, Robert Leary, not a Naples Park resident. b In conclusion, there are questions to be answered. I do not know if misrepresentation was deliberate or simply unintended. The effect is however the same and the questions have created more than enough reason to doubt the veracity of the petition as a whole. One can infer a pattern here, a pattern of false representation, which invalidates the true purpose of this petition. Perhaps the petitioners were not able to a garner sufficient numbers of signatures to substantiate their view, and instead resorted to the very questionable practice of knowingly encouraging, without question, the invalid signature of non - residents, absentee property owners, the transitory, and the young. This would lead to full pages, but at what cost? Therefore, I ask the commission to invalidate this petition and keep these avenues closed. Sincerely, Edward LeClair Edward Leclair CC: Vera Fitz - Gerald P.O.N.P. 634107 th Avenue North Naples, Fl. 34108 Rose Polumbo N.P.A.A. 699106 th Avenue North Naples, Fl 34108 Ingrid Ulring 591 103`d Avenue North Naples, Fl. 34108 Board of Collier County Commissioners 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Fl. 34108 COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS To: Clerk to the Board: Please place the following as a: XXX Normal Legal Advertisement D Other: (Display Adv., location, etc.) Originating Dept/ Div: Comm.Dev.Serv./Planning Person: /103 Date: i :• Petition No. (If none, give brief description):CU- 2001 -AR -1411- North Naples Fire District - Station 48 Petitioner: (Name & Address): Anita L. Jenkins, AICP, WilsonMiller, Inc., 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200, Naples, FL 34105 Name & Address of any person(s) to be notified by Clerk's Office: North Naples Fire District, 1780 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34110 Hearing before D BCC D B D Other Requested Hearing date: January 22, 2002. Based on advertisement appearing 15 days before hearing. Newspaper(s) to be used: (Complete only if important): XXX Naples Daily News D Other D Legally Required Proposed Text: (Include legal description & common location & Size: CU- 2001 -AR -1411, Anita L. Jenkins, AICP, of WilsonMiller requesting conditional use for a fire station, per Section 2.6.9.2 Essential Services of the Collier County Land Development Code, on property located on the east side of the Livingston Road right -of -way and approximately 1.75 miles north of Immokalee Road and .25 miles south of future Livingston Road E/W right -of -way in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Companion petition(s), if any & proposed hearing date: Does Petition Fee include advertising cost? D Yes O No If Yes, what account should be charged for advertising costs: 113 - 138312- 649110 Rev ?. iewe by: gzfed by: 7 Ir?q «�bi Division Head Date List Attachments: County Manager DISTRIBUTION INSTRUCTIONS Date A. For hearings before BCC or BZA: Initiating person to complete one copy and obtain Division Head approval before submitting to County Manager. Note: If legal document is involved, be sure that any necessary legal review, or request for same, is submitted to County Attorney before submitting to County Manager. The Manager's office will distribute copies: D County Manager agenda file: to D Requesting Division D Original Clerk's Office B. Other hearings: Initiating Division head to approve and submit original to Clerk's Office, retaining a copy for file. FOR CLERK'S OFFICE USE ONLY: aL Date Received: IR-Ato ` 0 Date of Public hearing: �--o1nA -0 '4-, Date Advertised: 0 8C RESOLUTION NO. 02— A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE CONDITIONAL USE IN AN "A" RURAL AGRICULTURE AND "A -ST" RURAL AGRICULTURE WITH SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.6.9.2 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67 -1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91 -102) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of an essential service conditional use pursuant to Section 2.6.9.2 of the Land Development Code in an "A" Rural Agricultural and "A -ST" Rural Agricultural with Special Treatment Overlay Zoning District for a fire station on the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A ") that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 2.7.4.4 of the Land Development Code for the Collier County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida that: The petition filed by Anita L. Jenkins, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc. representing the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Exhibit 'B" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein be and the same is hereby approved for an essential service conditional use pursuant to Section 2.6.9.2 of the Land Development Code in an "A" Rural Agriculture and "A -ST" Rural Agricultural with Special Treatment Overlay Zoning District for a fire station in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "C ") and subject to the following conditions: r Exhibit "D" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. Th;- Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: IT,� Maij�M. Student Assistant County Attorney RB /lo /AR -1411 2002. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN A. R 8C FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU- 2001 -AR -1411 The following facts are found: 1. Section 2.6.9.2 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & egress Yes No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) (should not) be recommended for approval DATE: 'A "M 100 _ M EXHIBIT "A" FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR The following facts are found: E.Th 1. Section 2.6.9.2 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & egress Yes No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) (should not) be recommended for approval DATE: 1JEJb'RE?a,: .. � II�lilsior�Mfl/er $� AkwOirectlons In Pfannk+D, Aesfpn & Ei►#ineerxry DESCRIPTION OF ALL OF THE WEST ONE -HALF (W 1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST ONE - QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE - QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE - QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, LESS THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 2619 PAGES 214 -215, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ALL OF THE WEST ONE -HALF (W 1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST ONE - QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE - QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE - QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, LESS THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 2619 PAGES 214 -215, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, SOUTH 88 °20'59" WEST 2650.16 FEET TO THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 114 OF SAID SECTION 13, NORTH 00 °36'06" WEST 2693.36 FEET TO THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, NORTH 00 °36'06" WEST 673.34 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, NORTH 88 °33'35" EAST 237.74 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 2619 PAGE 214, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS NORTHWESTERLY 705.44 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON - TANGENTIAL CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1772.36 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22 °48'18" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 17 °3334" WEST 700.79 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS, ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST I/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13 NORTH 88 °35'53" EAST 298.41 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13 SOUTH 00 034'52" EAST 673.12 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST 12 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WEST 12 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13 SOUTH 88 033'35" WEST 93.76 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. PARCEL CONTAINS 3.4 ACRES MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13, BEING NORTH 00 036'06" WEST. (STATE PLANE) SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION # LB -43. WILSONMfkLER, INC. REMEENGI ER D LAND SURVEYO BY�J. DATE: ANDREW B. BECK P #6065 NOT VALID UNLESS EMBOSSED WITH T14E PROFESSIONAL'S SEAL. REF. 4L -1582 PIN: 03557 -000 -001 DATE: 7/18/01 EXHIBIT "B" Naples Fort Myers Sarasota Bradenton Tampa ""'6 3200 Bailey Lane. Suite 200 Naples, F/Or/da 34105-8507 941 - 649-4040 6' 941 -643 -5716 0 - 01- OST•O'R".N www. wilsonmillercam WHSOnMiller/nr. — A Iic./ 1 r- rnnnrm rA i.v i O W � o � a � M rr J O r� ON ^'pH� ;D '� Q vaAc� : c 8C s e C I I II II • � AGRICULTURAL ZONING m •::j n T Y O •I I II II'• n z � o D rr- - - - - --- I•i 1 I • 1 ' , 1 1 19, � y4 . m1 1 u1 �. `: :..1� 11 11• s � 1 1 1' � N • 1 11 `1. re 4 1 Z 7 . \ O O • p0\ . Z Q ' r Z V'C ^ 'I m C M O 01 A 5 -1 s • � � JJOP• :•i i i i ••i ii �i i i i•� i•�i! i••f•1•f♦ •�•�• 1J'J : ❖1 ... m .. z �r ,r �4 •4 i :f 1 • •r 1 / �• 1 •r s O A C r C m s rp z 2 D AGRICULTURAL ZONING EXHIBIT "C" M0070MAL 00M KIM wilsoomil/e NORTH NAPLES FIRE STATION 048 N.Y . 141!1. br .F•w. fT • lY1� .4 '� 6 q •om r zs m=W o� m T s ° .n a m w F> D gs A-, �m z °v D m Op �m m y z m �c M a � �� '_ A z m �_ ° m p o � Z`O` T r s o °cr m b N D 7 m �a w =z g g � m m 9 m m i m 'ro n <A c T n W O O O O r O W N ca (a V D i °w w° °w i n • M O 01 A 5 -1 s • � � JJOP• :•i i i i ••i ii �i i i i•� i•�i! i••f•1•f♦ •�•�• 1J'J : ❖1 ... m .. z �r ,r �4 •4 i :f 1 • •r 1 / �• 1 •r s O A C r C m s rp z 2 D AGRICULTURAL ZONING EXHIBIT "C" M0070MAL 00M KIM wilsoomil/e NORTH NAPLES FIRE STATION 048 N.Y . 141!1. br .F•w. fT • lY1� "" 8C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CU -01 -AR -1411 a) The Current Planning Manager may approve minor changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by the conditional use. Expansion of uses identified and approved within this conditional use application, or major changes to the site plan submitted as part of this application, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use application, and shall comply with all applicable County Ordinances in effect at the time of submittal, including Division 3.3, Site Development Plan Review of the Collier County Land Development Code. b) Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if, during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity an historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. c) Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the state of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules. In addition, the project is subject to an exotic vegetation removal, monitoring plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation/preservation areas, shall be submitted and approved by the County prior to final site development plan approval. d) The directional median opening shall be for emergency vehicles only. EXHIBIT "D" 8C December 26, 2001 Ms. Pam Perrell Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 34102 Re: CU- 2001 -AR -1411 Dear Pam: Please advertise the above referenced notice on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and kindly send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Thank you. Sincerely, Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk P.O. /Account # 113 - 138312- 649110 SC . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, January 22, 2002, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. The meeting will begin at 9:00 A.M. The Board will consider Petition CU- 2001 -AR -1411 Anita L. Jenkins, AICP, of WilsonMiller, requesting conditional use for a fire station, per Section 2.6.9.2 Essential Services of the Collier County Land Development Code, on property located on the east side of the Livingston Road right -of -way and approximately 1.75 miles north of Immokalee Road and .25 miles south of future Livingston Road E/W right -of- way in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. NOTE: All Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County Administrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. The selection of an individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chair, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISISONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: /s /Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) December 26, 2001 Anita L. Jenkins, AICP WilsonMiller, Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200 Naples, FL 34105 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition CU -2001- AR -1411 Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002, as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure 8C December 26, 2001 North Naples Fire District 1780 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34110 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition CU -2001- AR -1411 Dear Petitioner: Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002, as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure Teri Michaels To: paperrell @napiesnews.com Subject: CU- 2001 -AR -1411 Thanks Pam - CU- 2001 -AR -1411. CU- 2001 -AR -1411. DOC DOC Teri Michaels From: System Administrator [postmaster @naplesnews.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 12:49 PM To: Teri Michaels Subject: Delivered: CU- 2001 -AR -1411 LLJ CU- 2001 -AR -1411 «CU- 2001 -AR -1411» Your message To: ' paperrell@naplesnews.com' Subject: CU- 2001 -AR -1411 Sent: Wed, 26 Dec 200112:29:09 -0500 was delivered to the following recipient(s): Perrell, Pamela on Wed, 26 Dec 200112:49:29 -0500 1 [T Naples Daily News Naples, FL 34102 Affidavit of Publication Naples Daily News BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHRIS HORTON PO BOX 413016 NAPLES IL 34101 -3016 REFERENCE: 001230 1131383126491 58375018 CU- 2001 -AR -1411 NOTI State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersigned authority, personally appeared Angela Bryant, who on oath says that she serves as Assistant Secretary of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida: that the attached copy of the adv.rtising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspbper published at Naples, in said Collier county, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Crllier County, Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of 1 year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that she ha: neither paid nor promised Any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for- the purpose or securing this advertisement for publiction i °+ the said newspaper. PUBLISHED ON: C''/06 AO SPACE: 99.01Y3 INCH FILFIa ON- Ol(07/02 -__ ___ - - - - - -- - ---- ------- - - -- -- --- ---- .... - -- ------------------- k-- - -- f c2�t: � Signature of A.f {iarji _ - - _ __._..- Sworn to and Subscribed before ,6 his day � �%- 20�� Personally known by me 4P Donne Chesney My Commission DD056336 p Expires September 11, 2005 SAN � � 2002 ,Antta L. Jenkins, AICP, of WllsonMlller re• a uss* ffor conditional per SeCMon 10.2 Es eerrfiol servkes of the Collier County ,Land Deve ment on the a�e of the Llvlrw- ston Road rlW-d Way and approximately t.75 miles north of IM lee Rood and .25 miles south of future Llvinnpp stop Road E/W rlgm- of wov in section _13, TRoW WR 4 South, N A11 Persons ageing to speak rea�5 ter with the County Ad m�inistrponlor pry to�� itas m to be addressed In- rdlvl" speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on ahy Item. The selection of M Individual to speak on behalo►�oof on orgdM��p:e�adtl,on if recognised bye7he!Cfibir, a'j a ma V oe aP'' ,toiled 10 minutes to speak on r ori_s wishing to Q'_ um or s Wovni the respective roaring, in any tten mahxtais In- o be Considered o t d stwali be mate *0 aalmlml mum ., .P the rn1WI- Oresentations pJ Hof dwho al o decision ed w111 need a_ re- 8C 8C January 21, 2001 Collier County Board of County Commissioners Re: Livingston Rd. Area southwest of Meditera Development. Owner of Parcel 8, Section 13- 48 -25. Dear Commissioners: As property owner in the area of Collier County Community Character Plan developed by Dover, Kohl and Partners, we are in agreement with the concept of interconnectivity and greater density to be developed in this area. Access to Livingston Road heading both north and south should not be limited. We want to avoid being land lock in the future. Sincerely, HENRY E. BEZOLD 8 C } January 21, 2001 Collier County Board of County Commissioners Re: Livingston Rd. Area southwest of Meditera Development. Dear Commissioners: As property owner in the area of Collier County Community Character Plan developed by Dover, Kohl and Partners, we are in agreement with the concept of interconnectivity and greater density to be developed in this area. Access to Livingston Road heading both north and south should not be limited. We want to avoid being land lock in the future. Sincerely, �,� , �WZ44`� I . r RESOLUTION NO. 02— 4 4 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE CONDITIONAL USE IN AN "A" RURAL AGRICULTURE AND "A -ST" RURAL AGRICULTURE WITH SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.6.9.2 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67 -1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91 -102) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of an essential service conditional use pursuant to Section 2.6.9.2 of the Land Development Code in an "A" Rural Agricultural and "A -ST" Rural Agricultural with Special Treatment Overlay Zoning District for a fire station on the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A ") that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 2.7.4.4 of the Land Development Code for the Collier County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida that: The petition filed by Anita L. Jenkins, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc. representing the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District with respect to the property hereinafter described . *1 Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein be and the same is hereby approved for an essential service conditional use pursuant to Section 2.6.9.2 of the Land Development Code in an "A" Rural Agriculture and "A -ST" Rural Agricultural with Special Treatment Overlay Zoning District for a fire station in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "C ") and subject to the following conditions: Exhibit "D" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of , 2002. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS WrI � � ATTEST-,",Z DWICI�,C��c At- Ct i►�laul's 0 �,11'�``�QI[R� Approved as to Form "at d Legal Sufficiency: Marjo M. Student Assistant County Attorney RB /lo /AR -1411 ' 1 [L FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU- 2001 -AR -1411 The following facts are found: 8C 1. Section 2.6.9.2 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes ✓� No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & egress Yes ✓ No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: ✓_ No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes � No Based on the above findings, this conditiona use should ith stipulations, (copy attached) (should not) be recommended for approval DATE: 17- 2 v Zoo CHAIRMAN: J �Isn�Miller New DirecOrans In Planning, Design & Engineenng 8C DESCRIPTION OF ALL OF THE WEST ONE -HALF (W 1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST ONE - QUARTER (NW I/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE - QUARTER (SW 1 /4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE - QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, LESS THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 2619 PAGES 214 -215, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ALL OF THE WEST ONE -HALF (W 1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST ONE - QUARTER (NW 114) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE - QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE - QUARTER (NE 1 /4) OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, LESS THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 2619 PAGES 214 -215, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 114 OF SAID SECTION 13, SOUTH 88 °20'59" WEST 2650.16 FEET TO THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, NORTH 00 036'06" WEST 2693.36 FEET TO THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, NORTH 00 °36'06" WEST 673.34 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, NORTH 88 °33'35" EAST 237.74 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 2619 PAGE 214, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS NORTHWESTERLY 705.44 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A NON - TANGENTIAL CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1772.36 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22 048'18" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 17 033'34" WEST 700.79 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS, ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 114 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13 NORTH 88 035'53" EAST 298.41 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST I/4 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13 SOUTH 00 034'52" EAST 673.12 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13 SOUTH 88 033'35" WEST 93.76 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. PARCEL CONTAINS 3.4 ACRES MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13, BEING NORTH 00 036'06" WEST. (STATE PLANE) SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION # LB -43. WILSON LER, INC. REGI E ENGI ERS ND LAND SURVEYO . BY �- DATE: 421, / ANDREW B. BECK P #6065 NOT VALID UNLESS EMBOSSED WITH THE PROFESSIONAL'S SEAL. REF. 4L -1582 PIN: 03557- 000 -001 DATE: 7/18/01 EXHIBIT "B" Naples Fort Myers Sarasota Bradenton Tampa 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 341Q5- 8507 941- 649 -4040 `N 941- 643 -5716 j , oearax "w www. wilsonmiller Com WilSnnMill— I— — F/ fir / l r_rnnn i>n rn wa 0 a � M N Q H J+ vaAc� _ 8 V G 11 C � C II II II I m I AGRICULTURAL ZONING od ip1 • yl • T\ O\ • : � •'' `1111 , ' .11 11 ;G o • 2 Q ❖.•o ❖. 9 m ca ❖. ❖. ❖. cn d•2 .. : ❖: o> r = . z W Z. mm Ti mm v A'i..n mm m n 9> m D z m zm �m 0 D O om D = v9 M r m >� n az z v z v 4 ca m T o m .0 r p a� D o Am rr m s °< v C m nG H 0 0 O zD g � m m 0 m o y m m m m 0 n s 0 t1 O N 0 W N A V m n 0 m n m s n s e M00400G AL 9@1 VILM NORTH NAPLES FIRE STATION #48 a d IN . ❖. ❖.•o ❖. . ❖. : ❖: ❖. ❖. ❖. cn d•2 .. : ❖: .. ❖ 3 .. m . z a �o c r a r N 2 D AGRICULTURAL ZONING EXHIBIT "C" Wilsonville Wes.. ►� 8C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CU -01 -AR -1411 a) The Current Planning Manager may approve minor changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by the conditional use. Expansion of uses identified and approved within this conditional use application, or major changes to the site plan submitted as part of this application, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use application, and shall comply with all applicable County Ordinances in effect at the time of submittal, including Division 3.3, Site Development Plan Review of the Collier County Land Development Code. b) Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if, during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity an historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. c) Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the state of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules. In addition, the project is subject to an exotic vegetation removal, monitoring plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation/preservation areas, shall be submitted and approved by the County prior to final site development plan approval. d) The directional median opening shall be for emergency vehicles only. EXHIBIT "D" + 9A RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -45 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING CHARLES M. MCMAHON, SR., TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD. WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was created on November 25, 1975, and was composed of five (5) members; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, on October 25, 1993, adopted Ordinance No. 93 -81 which increased the membership from five (5) members to seven (7) members; and WHEREAS, there is currently a vacancy in the category of Urban Area Community Park District; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice soliciting applications from interested parties; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has provided the Commissioners with its recommendation for appointment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Charles M. McMahon, Sr., is hereby appointed to the Parks And Recreation Advisory Board to represent the Urban Area Community Park District for a 4 year term, said term expiring December 31, 2005. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DATED: January 22, 2002 ATTEST: .' 14T E. BROCK, Clerk e �� l.'biirtan : si9wo"" Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: r 'L David C. Weigel County Attorney DCW /kn BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -46 9B A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN RESTUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, on March 27, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 2001 -90 creating the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Advisory Committee as an ad hoc advisory committee; and WHEREAS, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Advisory Committee (the "Committee ") is to be comprised of ten (10) members from a broad base of citizens and business owners in the regulatory area of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; and WHEREAS, there are currently vacancies on this Committee; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice soliciting applications from interested parties; and WHEREAS, the Committee has provided the Board of County Commissioners with its recommendations for appointment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. Robert Ducharme is hereby appointed to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Advisory Committee to fulfill the remainder of the vacant term, said term to expire on June 26, 2002. 2. Ann Ward is hereby appointed to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Advisory Committee to fulfill the remainder of the vacant term, said term to expire on June 26, 2002. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DATED: January 24, 2002 riGHT k'BROCK, Clerk l \i' Attest t4 chall um'= S igMKW* M11. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: jde��q I r t_.__ David C. Weigel County Attorney DCW /kn BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ■� iii / /i %.�i���� FI]i RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -47 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING AND REAPPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, The County Government Productivity Committee was established by the Board of County Commissioners through the adoption of Collier County Ordinance No. 91 -10, as amended; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 91 -10, as amended, provides that the Committee shall consist of 13 members; and WHEREAS, the terms of six members will expire and a resignation was received, creating a total of seven vacancies on this Committee; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice soliciting applications from interested parties; and WHEREAS, the Committee has provided the Board of County Commissioners with its recommendations for appointment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. James R. Gibson, Jr., is hereby reappointed to the County Government Productivity Committee for a 2 year term, said term to expire on February 4, 2004. 2. Janet H. Vasey is hereby reappointed to the County Government Productivity Committee for a 2 year term, said term to expire on February 4, 2004. 3. James T. Horner is hereby reappointed to the County Government Productivity Committee for a 2 year term, said term to expire on February 4, 2004. 4. Jean Ross - Franklin is hereby reappointed to the County Government Productivity Committee for a 2 year term, said term to expire on February 4, 2004. 5. Dexter R. Groose is hereby appointed to the County Government Productivity Committee for a 2 year term, said term to expire on February 4, 2004. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County hereby waives the provisions of Section Seven B. of Ordinance No. 2001 -55, relating to a limitation of two consecutive terms of office, for the purpose of reappointment of Janet H. Vasey to this Committee. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and unanimous vote. DATED: January 22, 2002 DWIGHT E. BRQCK, Clerk s f =y t*K s1 CAainr�'s p w alb. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: r r David C. Weigel County Attorney DCW /kn 2 9C BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -48 RESOLUTION APPOINTING, REAPPOINTING, AND CONFIRMING THE REAPPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD. WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 75 -6 created the Ochopee Fire District and provides for the establishment of an advisory board; and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 89 -98 confirmed the creation of the Ochopee Fire District Advisory Board and provides that the advisory broad shall be composed of five (5) members and such membership shall consist.of one (1) member from each of the designated areas; and WHEREAS, there are currently vacancies on this Board; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice soliciting applications from interested parties; and WHEREAS, the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board has provided the Board of County Commissioners with its recommendations for appointment to their Board; and WHEREAS, the term of an Everglades City Councilman's position has expired and the Everglades City Mayor has advised the Board of County Commissioners of his recommendation for reappointment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. Hugo C. Sims, representing the City of Everglades, is hereby appointed to the Ochopee Fire Control Advisory Board for a 2 year term, said term to expire on December 31, 2003. 2. John L. Pennell, representing the City of Plantation Island, is hereby reappointed to the Ochopee Fire Control Advisory Board for a 2 year term, said term to expire on December 31, 2003. 3. Councilman David Loving, Representative of the City of Eveglades, is hereby confirmed for reappointment to the Ochopee Fire Control Advisory Board for a 2 year term, said term to expire on December 31, 2003. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and unanimous vote. DAl"Eg. ojaary 22, 2002 �IVT H`i E.! W(3C , Clerk l.J Attest w to cminw's sirsure Mly. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: e , David C. Weigel 27 County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: JAME . COLETTA, Chairman RESOLUTION N0.02 49 ! A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTIONS TO REQUIRE THE SHARING OF IMMIGRATION INFORMATION BETWEEN THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE AND STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND TO PERMIT THE DEPUTIZING OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS WHEREAS, the United States is confronted with the most serious threat to internal security in our Nation's history; and, WHEREAS, local law enforcement officials throughout the nation have commented that the anti- terrorism legislation approved to counter this threat fails to require critical information sharing with local law enforcement authorities; and, WHEREAS, the media reports that at least fifteen (15) of the nineteen (19) hijackers involved in the September 11 attacks had ties to the State of Florida; and, WHEREAS, Florida State and local law enforcement officers could be invaluable in assisting in the enforcement of immigration laws; and, WHEREAS, Collier County Sheriff Don Hunter reports that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has restricted access, to State and local law enforcement agencies, to information concerning those whose non - immigrant visas have expired or are subject to revocation; and WHEREAS, the media reports that INS officials have said that local law enforcement officers do not have the authority to detain someone just because he or she is in the country illegally. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: The Collier County Board of County Commissioners hereby respectfully requests the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States as well as the Florida Legislature to take all necessary actions, including changes to applicable laws as appropriate to support the Governor of the State of Florida, to: 1. Provide State and local law enforcement agencies all identifying information concerning persons whose non - immigrant visas have expired or are subject to revocation; and, 9t 2. Ratify the INS proposal to pilot a Florida statewide program to train and provide delegated authority to State and local officers to strengthen Florida's domestic security. This Resolution adopted this Wo1,# -.l— day of , 2002, after motion, second and majority vote. ATTIRMer� .4" I61:li CROCK, CLERK icii"'s App "d�`as to form and legal sufficiency—: /-/-),7 — /ll Ramiro Manalich Chief Assistant County Attorney H/Ramiro /Resolutions /anti -terr amended BOARD OF COUNTY 10 MEMORANDUM Date: January 23, 2002 To: D.E. "Bleu" Wallace Director, CDES Operations From: Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Modified 2002 Tourism Agreement Between Collier County And The Naples Botanical Gardens Enclosed for your use, please find one original document as referenced above, approved by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002. I am retaining one original for the record. If you should have any questions, please contact me at 774 -8411. Thank you. Enclosure (1) 10 2002 TOURISM AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDENS THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this day of , 2002, by and between Naples Botanical Gardens, Inc., a Florida not - for - profit co oration, hereinafter referred to as "GRANTEE" and Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY ". WHEREAS, the COUNTY has adopted a Tourist Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as "Plan") funded by proceeds from the Tourist Development Tax; and WHEREAS, the Plan provides that certain of the revenues generated by the Tourist Development Tax are to be allocated for the promotion of tourism in Collier County nationally and internationally, for the promotion and advertising of activities or events intended to bring tourists to Collier County and, inter alia, to construct, extend, enlarge and improve museums owned and operated by not - for - profit organizations and open to the public; and WHEREAS, GRANTEE has applied to the Tourist Development Council and the County to use Tourist Development Tax funds to develop and implement the Garden Preview Project; and WHEREAS, The Tourist Development Council has approved this request for funding with Tourist Development Tax proceeds; and WHEREAS, The Collier County Board of County Commissioners has approved the funding request of the GRANTEE; and NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE MUTUAL COVENANTS AND PREMISES PROVIDED HEREIN, AND OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. SCOPE OF WORK: (a) In accordance with the authorized expenditures as set forth in the Budget of the GRANTEE, attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", the GRANTEE shall develop and implement the Garden Preview Project, (hereinafter "the Project "). 2. PAYMENT: (a) The amount to be paid under this Agreement shall be Three Hundred Seventy Seven Thousand Four Hundred ($377,400). The GRANTEE shall be paid in accordance 1 10 �r �. with fiscal procedures of the County for the expenditures incurred as described in Paragraph 1 herein upon submittal of invoices and upon verification that the services or work performed as described in the invoice(s) have been completed or that the goods have been received. (b) GRANTEE shall determine that the goods and services contracted for have been properly provided, and shall submit invoices to the County Manager or his designee for review. (c) The County Manager or his designee shall determine that the invoice payments are authorized and that the goods or services covered by such invoice[s] have been provided or performed in accordance with such authorization. The line item budget attached as Exhibit "A" shall constitute authorization for the expenditure[s] described in the invoice[s]. (d) All expenditures shall be made in conformity with this Agreement. (e) Each invoice submitted by GRANTEE shall be itemized in sufficient detail for audit thereof and shall be supported by copies of corresponding documentation such as vendor invoices and proof of receipt of the goods or performance of the services invoiced. (f) GRANTEE shall certify to the COUNTY in writing that all subcontractors and vendors have been paid for work and materials previously performed or received prior to receipt of any further payments. (g) The COUNTY shall not pay GRANTEE until the Ex- Officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners pre- audits all payment invoices in accordance with law. (h) GRANTEE shall be paid for its actual costs, not to exceed the total amount for any line item nor the maximum amount budgeted pursuant to the attached "Exhibit A ". 3. ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES: (a) Only eligible expenditures described in Paragraph one will be paid by COUNTY. (b) COUNTY agrees to pay eligible expenditures incurred between July 1, 2001 and the expiration of this agreement. (c) Any expenditures paid by COUNTY which are later deemed to be ineligible expenditures shall be repaid to COUNTY within 30 days of COUNTY's written request to repay said funds. K 4A (d) COUNTY may request repayment of funds for a period of up to three years after termination of this Agreement or any extension or renewal thereof. 4. INSURANCE: (a) GRANTEE shall submit a Certificate of Insurance naming Collier County and its Board of County Commissioners and the Tourist Development Council as additional irn cnrati c (b) The certificate of insurance must be valid for the duration of this Agreement, and be issued by a company licensed in the State of Florida, and provide General Liability Insurance for no less than the following amounts: BODILY INJURY LIABILITY $300,000 each claim per person PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY $300,000 each claim per person PERSONAL INJURY LIABILITY $300,000 each claim per person WORKER'S COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY — Statutory (c) The Certificate of Insurance must be delivered to the County Administrator or his designee within ten days of execution of this Agreement by the COUNTY. The GRANTEE shall not commence promotional and advertising activities which are to be funded pursuant to this Agreement until the Certificate of Insurance has been received by the COUNTY. 5. MONTHLY REPORTS: (a) GRANTEE shall provide to County monthly reports on the duties performed and services provided by GRANTEE, its vendors or subcontractors. (b) The report shall identify the amount(s) spent, the duties performed, the services provided and the goods delivered during the preceding 30 days. 6. GRANTEE shall take reasonable measures to assure the continued satisfactory performance of all vendors and subcontractors. 3 10A 7. CHOICE OF VENDORS AND FAIR DEALING: (a) GRANTEE may select vendors or subcontractors to provide services as described in Paragraph 1. (b) COUNTY shall not be responsible for paying vendors and shall not be involved in the selection of subcontractors or vendors. (c) GRANTEE agrees to disclose any financial or other relationship between GRANTEE and any subcontractors or vendors, including, but not limited to, similar or related employees, agents, officers, directors and/or shareholders. (d) COUNTY may, in its discretion, object to the reasonableness of expenditures and require payment if invoices have been paid under this Agreement for unreasonable expenditures. The reasonableness of the expenditures shall be based on industry standards. 8. INDEMNIFICATION: (a) The GRANTEE shall hold harmless and defend the COUNTY, and its agents and employees, from any and all claims, suits and actions including attorney's fees and all costs of litigation and judgments of any name and description arising out of or incidental to the performance of this Agreement or work performed hereunder. This provision shall also pertain to any claims brought against the COUNTY by any employee of the named GRANTEE, any subcontractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed or authorized to perform work by any of them. The GRANTEE's obligation under this provision shall not be limited in any way by the contract price as shown in this Agreement or the GRANTEE's limit of or lack of, sufficient insurance protection. 9. NOTICES: All notices from the COUNTY to the GRANTEE shall be in writing and deemed duly served if mailed by registered or certified mail to the GRANTEE at the following address: Ms. Sondra Quinn President/CEO Naples Botanical Gardens, Inc. 4820 Bayshore Drive Naples, Florida 34112 4 l0A i 10�, All notices from the GRANTEE to the COUNTY shall be in writing and deemed duly served if mailed by registered or certified mail to the COUNTY to: Administrator Community Development & Environmental Services Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 The GRANTEE and the COUNTY may change the above mailing addresses at any time upon giving the other party written notification pursuant to this Section. 10. NO PARTNERSHIP: Nothing herein contained shall be construed as creating a partnership between the COUNTY and the GRANTEE, or its vendor or subcontractor, or to constitute the GRANTEE, or its vendor or subcontractor, as an agent or employee of the COUNTY. 11. COOPERATION: GRANTEE shall fully cooperate with the COUNTY in all matters pertaining to this agreement and shall provide all information and documantation requested by the COUNTY from time to time pertaining to the use of any funds provided hereunder. 12. TERMINATION: The COUNTY or the GRANTEE may cancel this Agreement with or without cause by giving 30 days advance written notice of such termination specifying the effective date of termination. 13. If the COUNTY terminates this Agreement, the COUNTY will pay the GRANTEE for all expenditures or contractual obligations incurred by GRANTEE, with subcontractors and vendors, up to the effective date of the termination so long as such expenses are eligible. 14. If GRANTEE fails to complete the activity budgeted under paragraph one herein during the term of this agreement, GRANTEE shall repay to the COUNTY all funds expended by the COUNTY pursuant to this Agreement, unless the Board of County Commissioners determines that the incompleted activity was sufficiently performed to justify the use of tourist development tax funds. GRANTEE may request an extension of 10A time of up to twelve (12) additional months to complete the Project with the express consent of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. 15. GENERAL ACCOUNTING: GRANTEE is required to maintain complete and accurate accounting records and keep tourism funds in a separate checking account. All revenue related to the Agreement must be recorded, and all expenditures must be incurred within the term of this Agreement. 16. AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS: GRANTEE shall maintain records, books, documents, papers and financial information pertaining to work performed under this Agreement for a period of three (3) years. 17. GRANTEE agrees that the COUNTY, or any of its duly authorized representatives, shall, until the expiration of three (3) years after final payment under this Agreement, have access to, and the right to examine and photocopy any pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of GRANTEE involving any transactions related to this Agreement. 18. PROHIBITION OF ASSIGNMENT: GRANTEE shall not assign, convey, or transfer in whole or in part its interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the COUNTY. 19. TERM: This Agreement shall become effective retroactively to July 1, 2001, and shall remain effective until September 30, 2002. If the project is not completed within the term of this agreement, all unreleased funds shall be retained by the COUNTY consistent with the provisions of paragraphs thirteen (13) and fourteen (14) herein. Any extension of this agreement beyond the one year term in order to complete the Project must be at the express consent of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. 20. The GRANTEE must request any extension of this term in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of this Agreement, and the COUNTY may agree by amendment to this Agreement to extend the term for an additional one year. 21. EVALUATION OF TOURISM IMPACT: GRANTEE shall monitor and evaluate the tourism impact of the Project, explaining how the tourism impact was evaluated, providing a written report to the County Administrator or his designee, along with a final budget analysis by November 30, 2002. D 10A 22. REQUIRED NOTATION: All promotional literature and media advertising must prominently list Collier County as one of the sponsors. 23. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may only be amended by mutual written agreement of the parties, after review by the Collier County Tourist Development Council if warranted. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTEE and COUNTY have respectively, by an authorized person or agent, hereunder set their hands and seals on the date and year first above written. ��11i�srtFtF ;ttr�. lily IQF,I, Clerk /fltf / /lll„�, WITNESSES: BOARD OF COUNTY CO ISSIONERS COLLIER CO , FL By: James Coletta, Chairman GRANTEE: NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDENS, INC. Christie L. Brighton Printed/Typed Name I (2) BY: Harvey Kapnic Sondra Quinn Printed/Typed Name Printed/Typed Name Approved as to form and (corporate seal) legal sufficiency 7 IGA '• EXHIBIT "A" Naples Botanical Garden Garden Preview Project Budget Request Matching Preview Gardens (1.5 acres) $127,400 $35,000 Florida Discovery Garden Children's Adventure Garden World Garden Room $100,000 $395,000 Completion (4,000 square feet) Laboratory Classrooms $100,000 $168,000 Renovation (3,200 square feet) Furnishing and Equipment $50,000 Classroom Total $377,400 $598,000 0 Naples Botanical Garden Garden Preview Project Budget Furnishings & Equipment Request Match Total $50,000 $50,000 Laboratory Classrooms Lab Tables/ Chairs Grow Lab TV Monitor/ VCR/ Cable Connection Terrarium Rolling Cart Storage Cabinets Computers & Projector Overhead Projector Slide Projector Projector Screen Hand Lenses Microscopes Binoculars Potting Benches Digital Camera Image Scanner Hood Pots /Containers Painting Equipment Garden Tools: Garden Hose Wheel Barrel Tarps Refrigerator Trash Containers Office Furniture World Garden Room Chairs / Tables Transport Dollies Projector Screen Slide Projector Projector Carts TV Monitor/ VCR/ Cable Connection P.A. System M JOA Rolling Cart Folding Tables Planters (mobile) Naples Botanical Garden Garden Preview Project Budget Laboratory Classrooms Request Match Total 3200 square feet $100,000 $168,000 $268,000 Categories of Work Interior Design Construction Drawings Permitting Construction Supervision Renovation: Carpentry Floor & Tile Walls & Doors Ceilings Ceiling Fans Shelving Cork Walls/ White Erase Board Plumbing: Sinks Water Supply Vents Fire Protection: Fire Walls Fire Doors & Hardware Sprinklers Smoke & Heat Detection Fire Extinguishers Lighting & Electrical Painting/ Decorating Partitions Window Treatment Signage Herbarium Cabinets Soil Bins/ Storage Bins Dry Storage/ Shelving 10 10A Naples Botanical Garden Garden Preview Project Budget World Garden Room Request 4000 square feet $100,000 Categories of Work Interior Design Construction Drawings Permitting Construction Supervision Electrical Work Mechanical Work Water Features (pond & water fall) Renovation: Carpentry Pavers & Flooring Insulation Moisture Proofing Drywall Fire Proofing Plumbing: Ventilation and Air Conditioning Bathrooms Lighting & Fixtures Signage Grow Lights Equipment Storage Irrigation Painting/ Decorating Event Preparation Area Planters Fire Protection: Fire Doors Hardware Smoke & Heat Detectors Extinguishers 11 Match Total $395,000 $495,000 10 Naples Botanical Garden Garden Preview Project Budget Request Match Total Preview Gardens (1.5 acres) $127,400 $35,000 $162,400 Categories of Work Garden Design Permitting Construction Supervision Infrastructure Site Development & Excavation Structures (shade & Lavatories) Fill & Soil Material Moving Trees & Plants Roadway & Paving Irrigation Water Security & Fencing Walks & Paths Plumbing Electrical & Lighting Plants & Trees, material Signage Planters & Containers Mechanical Drinking Fountains Garden Equipment Lawns 12 .1oa {y 100 MUTUAL RELEASE BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND HOLE MO ES INC. THIS MUTUAL RELEASE is entered into and made on thisvZWx�O(d.ay of immissioners For G ollier 2002 by and between Hole Mantes, Inc. and the Board of County hereinafter referred to as the "County ")County WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Collier County and Hole Mantes, Inc. participated in voluntary Mediation on January 9, 2002 regarding the County's claim that it is entitled to recoup from Hole Mantes, Inc. additional costs resulting from the redesign of the Immokalee Road Project from Interstate 75 to County Road 951 to include slope stabilization of the South bank of the Cocohatchee Canal, [hereinafter `The Project"], and, WHEREAS, this mutual release specifically pertains to the County's claims for damages associated with the redesign for slope stabilization of the south slope of the Cocohatchee Canal as reflected in Change Orders and Supplemental Agreements for the Project and said Mutual Release is limited solely to this dispute; and, WHEREAS, Hole Mantes, Inc. and the County have reduced their settlement to a writing so that it shall be binding upon them as well as their respective owners, principals, elected officials, officers, - employees, ex- employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, insurers, spouses, successors, assigns, heirs and affiliates as to the above state redesign of the Project only and said "Settlement Agreement" is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to this Mutual Release. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and consideration set forth in this Agreement and Release, and with the intent to be legally bound, Hole Mantes, Inc. and the County agree as follows: 1 100 1, Hole Montes, Inc. and the County adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals, sometimes referred to as "Whereas Clauses ", by reference into this Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement as attached in Exhibit "A ". 2, In consideration of the resolution of the dispute, and for other good and !valuable consideration, including a payment to the County of Two hundred thousand 'dollars ($200,000.00), the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the ! County and Hole Montes mutually agree, on behalf of themselves, as well as on behalf of their attorneys, agents, representatives, insurers, heirs, successors and assigns, and hereby expressly release and forever discharge each other, their officers, employees, ex- employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, successors, assigns, insurers and affiliates from any and all claims, demands, causes of actions, damages, costs, attorney's fees, expenses and obligations of any kind or nature whatsoever that they have asserted or could have asserted that arise from additional costs associated with the redesign of the Project to include slope stabilization on the south slope of the Cocohatchee Canal. 3, Notwithstanding anything that may be to the contrary in Paragraph 2 of this Mutual Release, Hole Montes, Inc. and the County agree that either of them shall, in the event of any breach, retain the right to enforce the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release. 4, Hole Montes, Inc. and the County acknowledge and agree that the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release is intended to and shall be binding upon their respective owners, principals, officials, officers, employees, ex- employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, insurers, successors, assigns, spouses, heirs and affiliates. 2 5. Hole Montes, Inc. and the County recognize and acknowledge that the . `Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release memorializes and states a settlement of disputed claims and nothing in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release shall be construed to be an admission of any kind, whether of fault, liability, or of a particular .policy or procedure, on the part of either Hole Montes, Inc. or the County. g, The Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Hole Montes, Inc. and the County have signed and sealed the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release as set forth below. DATED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Muu1VW.wT,,r- 'BROCK. Clerk ess /"X Witness N 1e Mairem"s rV 01r. 4'�Oa/' /0�-74 , j AM WE. ;'rte Date: On Z HOLE MONTES, INC. By: m THOMAS TAYLOR, PRESIDENT Date: 3 goo THIE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE BETWEEN HOLE MONTES, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WAS SWORN TO and subscribed by Hole Montes, Inc. before me, this —a sS— day of 2002 by Thomas Taylor, President who is ✓ Personally Known or produced as identification. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Z'Ja�c eline Hu rd Robinson si tent County Attorney H: Jackie/ Forms/ settlement agreement & release 4 Signature of Notary Public Commissioned Name of Notary Public (Please print, type or stamp) My Commission expires: 14 --L OF F1,u\ DEANE JOHNSON NOT' Ri' o MY Cwnm Exp, 4/20/2002 PUBLIC A No. CC ? 16366 P01wna1Jy Known 11 OtfW I.D. 10E RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 5 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA OPPOSING THE CONTINUED DIVERSION AND /OR REDUCTION OF FUNDS FROM THE FLORIDA FOREVER PROGRAM AND CALLING FOR THE TIMELY REPLACEMENT OF FUNDS TAKEN IN THE 2001 REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION. WHEREAS, the following information has been presented to the Board of County Commissioners ( "Board ") by the Conservancy of Southwest Florida: 1. The Florida Forever Program was established to acquire and preserve environmentally important and sensitive lands in the State of Florida with the protection of over 1.25 million acres; and 2. Preserving Florida's valuable ecosystems for present and future generations is imperative with the rapid development of natural areas; and 3. Publicly owned land not only provides refuge for many endangered and threatened species, it ensures a clean and abundant water supply, unpolluted air and recreational enjoyment for the citizens of Florida; and 4. The Florida Forever Program is especially meaningful for Collier County due to the existence of four "A" list Florida Forever land acquisition projects within its boundaries; and 5. The reduction, diversion, or reallocation of funds from the Florida Forever Program could result in cutbacks to the four land acquisition projects in Collier County; and 6. During the regular 2001 Legislative Session, the Florida Legislature diverted 75 million dollars from the Florida Forever Program to Everglades Restoration, a program independent of Florida Forever; and 7. Given the current economic crisis, it is likely that once more, funds may be siphoned out of the Florida Forever Program in the future for other purposes; and 8. The continued diversion of funds from the Florida Forever Program compromises the validity and original purpose of the Florida Forever Program; and 10E 9. It is vital to the future of the State of Florida to continue to acquire and protect natural resources and equally important for Legislators to fulfill voter intention in the overwhelming passage of the Florida Forever Act of 1998. WHEREAS, the Board has been informed that State Senator Burt Saunders is sponsoring Senate Bill 588 during the current Legislative Session, which bill seeks to preserve the Florida Forever Program funding; and WHEREAS, House Bill 607, co- sponsored by Representative Green, also seeks to preserve Florida Forever Program funding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board strongly supports proposed Senate Bill 588 and House Bill 607 and /or any other legislation that opposes the diversion, reduction, or reallocation of funds from the Florida Forever Program. The Board also strongly supports Senate Bill 588 and House Bill 607 and /or any other legislation that requires that the 75 million dollars that were diverted from the Florida Forever Program in the 2001 Regular Legislative Session be replaced in a timely manner. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DATED: E' 0'2 a— a --�- ATTEST: DWIGHT E.� BROCK, Clerk `` ' •e w r V S f# �• ApprAld'& to form and legal sufficiency: Ramiro Manalich Chief Assistant County Attorney RM /Resolutions BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA C . By: —4::�* JAMES N. COLETTA, Chairman 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -51 10G A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE HEARING EXAMINER ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ASSIST WITH THE HIRING OF A HEARING EXAMINER FOR COLLIER COUNTY WHEREAS, on June 26, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners approved the hiring of a Hearing Examiner for Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner position is to be a full time position whose duties will include final review of variances and recommendations on conditional uses; and WHEREAS, in order to determine an appropriate candidate for this position, the Board of County Commissioners is seeking the assistance of a committee to establish candidate review criteria, interview qualified applicants, rank the recommended candidates, and present a list of ranked candidates to the County Commission for final interview and appointment. NOW, THREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board hereby establishes a Hearing Examiner Advisory Committee (hereinafter the "Committee ") as an advisory committee to the Board of County Commissioners. The membership of the Committee will comprise the following: One member of the Planning Commission One member of the Development Services Advisory Committee One member of the Environmental Advisory Committee One staff member appointed by the County Manager Three "At Large" members with one member having personnel recruiting experience All meetings of this Committee will be open to the public. Where applicable, the Committee will comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 2001 -55, the General Advisory Boards Ordinance. A majority of its membership will constitute a quorum and a majority vote of the entire membership will be required for the passage of motions. The term of office of the Committee will expire on the date that the Committee forwards its final report with recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. DATED:, January 22,, 2002 tttµ4ttlRftftf, ATT�i�1, •,��``'`riff DVI;Cif3lf Jerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: 0 A David C. Weigel County Attorney C. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA /�• ,��r -*4 . , lJ Arnold & Blair, L.C. 1 Ox 117 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Phone 850/2226333 Fax 850/224 -0034 www.lobbyflorida.com Special Session C Budget Update By the first week of December, Florida legislative leaders sealed a deal that cuts the state budget by about $1 billion. The agreement, which reduces funding to public schools by 2.5% and puts several health care programs on life support until July, comes a month after the second special legislative session to address budget issues crumbled into political infighting. This prompted Gov. Bush to call the House and Senate back to the bargaining table and issue a call for a subsequent Session C. Budget writers for the two chambers drafted a plan, which allowed the supplemental budget to be printed and put on lawmakers' desks in time for them to vote on it by the scheduled end of Session C. State law requires a 72 -hour "cooling-off period" before the Legislature can vote to adopt a budget. During the first session, McKay pushed to delay a $128 million tax cut on stocks and bonds as a way to reduce cuts to services. Feeney rejected the delay and, rather than go into conference to work out a compromise, accepted the Senate's slate of cuts and went home, leaving McKay and the Senate to stew. House leadership has subsequently approved the 18 -month delay and the repeal of the so- called "intangibles tax." • Lawmakers spent the last weekend of Session C finessing the remaining differences between the House and Senate. The final issue was how much to cut from public schools, one of the state's largest single expenses. In the end, House members offered to take $25 million from a lottery trust fund and reduce the cut to a level the Senate could accept. In return, Senate leaders agreed to a House condition to free up $9 million to re- assign three of the eight Assertive Community Teams outside the G. Pierce Wood service area to ensure mentally ill patients are taking their medication correctly. The proposed budget cuts public school education by about $309 million, or 2.5 percent. A plan to allow school districts to take a half -mill of property tax designated for construction and use it for operational costs was abandoned as the Senate said important construction projects might go undone. Health and Human Services • The budget cuts health and human services by $147 million, although lawmakers temporarily saved several programs that faced deep cuts, including health care for some pregnant mothers and for certain categories of economically disadvantaged citizens. Funding for many of those programs will be reduced significantly when the budget year ends June 30 unless lawmakers find a way to pay for them during the regular session that starts next month. L Out ' Part of the human services budget includes $39 million to begin closing the G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, a state -owned mental health facility in De -Soto County. Senators agreed to transfer $9 million of that to expand the Assertive Community Treatment teams, which monitor drug use in former patients of the state's mental health system. • The supplemental budget also cuts the criminal justice budget by $155 million, general government by $57 million and spending on transportation and economic development by $39 million. Legislators cobbled together a budget agreement that postpones many hard choices and further programmatic cuts until the 2002 Regular Session of the Legislature. Absent a remarkable, unprecedented economic recovery, 2002 will be on of the most difficult budget years in the states modern history. Special Session "C" Budget Cuts Affecting Counties for FY 2001 -02 Item Current 2001 -02 Session C Budget FY Historical Preservation $17,216,358 Unchanged County Contributions for $55 per month per Unchanged Medicaid (Nursing Homes) person cap Trauma Care Services $1,622,601 $- 11476,158 in trauma related grants Emergency Medical Services $11,761,963 $- 2,500,000 Trust Fund in grants to counties Library Grants $31,400,000 Unchanged, Funds restored by non- recurring dollars Inpatient Hospitalization 35% of costs from (County Contributions) 11 days to 45 days Unchanged $39,000,000 3 of the 8 Assertive G. Pierce Wood Closure Community Teams moved outside the G. Pierce Wood Service Area 16A1 -1, RESOLUTION NO. 02 -11 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN SABAL LAKE UNIT TWO, RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY, AND ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on January 14, 1997 approved the plat of Sabal Lake Unit Two for recording; and WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and maintained the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and as required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 91 -102, as amended); and the Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -17), and WHEREAS, the developer has now requested final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and release of his maintenance security; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Review Department of Community Development Services has inspected the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and is recommending acceptance of said facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that final acceptance be granted for those roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in Sabal Lake Unit Two, and authorize the Clerk to release the maintenance security. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the future maintenance and other attendant costs for the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements that are not required to be maintained by the homeowners association. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DATE: �- ATTE$ DWI T I ROCIT;,CI�ERK Att Approved. as to form and legal su cienc : Patrick G. White Assistant Collier County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: J a m s Ii. C o 1 e t t a, CHAIRMAN 16 A4 "! RESOLUTION NO. 02- 12 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN QUAIL WALK PHASE FOUR, RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY, AND ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE , WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on March 9, 1999 approved the plat of Quail Walk Phase Four for recording; and WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and maintained the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and as required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 91 -102, as amended); and the Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -17), and WHEREAS, the developer has now requested final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and release of his maintenance security; and WHEREAS, the Compliance Services Section of the Development Services Department has inspected the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and is recommending acceptance of said facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that final acceptance be granted for those roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in Quail Walk Phase Four, and authorize the Clerk to release the maintenance security. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the future maintenance and other attendant costs for the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements that are not required to be maintained by the homeowners association. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DATA A'TTISf� D� iGT E IIC K, CLERK mm Apptb °d0o' form and legal S icie atrick G. bite Assistant Collier County Attorney Lim rte // CHAIRMAN, James ff. Coletta 16A5 T RESOLUTION NO. 02 -13 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN LONGSHORE LAKE UNIT 4, RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY, AND ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on March 3, 1999 approved the plat of Longshore Lake Unit 4 for recording; and WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and maintained the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and as required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 91 -102, as amended); and the Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -17), and WHEREAS, the developer has now requested final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and release of his maintenance security; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Review Department of Community Development Services has inspected the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and is recommending acceptance of said facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that final acceptance be granted for those roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in Longshore Lake Unit 4, and authorize the Clerk to release the maintenance security. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the future maintenance and other attendant costs for the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements that are not required to be maintained by the homeowners association. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. aD SIGHT E'. Off. ,= -CLERK 4 t� Approved as to form and legal �ency j ,N Patrick G. White Assistant Collier County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER CO TY, F RIDA By: James N. Coletta , CHAIRMAN 16 A6 I RESOLUTION NO. 02- 14 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN LONGSHORE LAKE UNIT 5C, RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY, AND ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on March 23, 1999 approved the plat of Longshore Lake Unit 5C for recording; and WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and maintained the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and as required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 91 -102, as amended); and the Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -17), and WHEREAS, the developer has now requested final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and release of his maintenance security; and WHEREAS, the Compliance Services Section of the Development Services Department has inspected the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and is recommending acceptance of said facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that final acceptance be granted for those roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in Longshore Lake Unit 5C, and authorize the Clerk to release the maintenance security. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the future maintenance and other attendant costs for the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements that are not required to be maintained by the homeowners association. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. �r. DATA AT�EST:... n .. D�CVICYHT . 14ROC CLERK Attic d S Approved as to form and legal Pciency• CA�7 Patrick G. White ' Assistant Collier County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUN Y, FLORIDA By: James K. Coletta, CHAIRMAN 16A7 RESOLUTION NO. 02- 15 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN LONGSHORE LAKE UNIT 5D, RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY, AND ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on March 3, 1999 approved the plat of Longshore Lake Unit 5D for recording; and WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and maintained the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and as required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 91 -102, as amended); and the Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -17), and WHEREAS, the developer has now requested final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and release of his maintenance security; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Review Department of Community Development Services has inspected the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and is recommending acceptance of said facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that final acceptance be granted for those roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in Longshore Lake Unit 5D, and authorize the Clerk to release the maintenance security. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the future maintenance and other attendant costs for the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements that are not required to be maintained by the homeowners association. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DA"T'F �- a,r, X �I&IGHT F: R(7!C :.CLERK Att it at ta+ trren's s1g"at6fttvol", Approved as to form and legal iciency: C r �nl Patrick G. White Assistant Collier County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: James N. coletta,CHAIRMAN 16A8 AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance # 14.218 HUD Grant # B-01 -UC-1 2-0016 THIS AGREEMENT, is entered into this day of` Ot-J. , 2002, by and between Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, for the use and benefit of its Community Development Block Grant Program, and David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, having its principal office at 6075 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida 34116, for a rehabilitation project by Collier Housing Alternatives, Inc., whose Federal Tax Identification number is 65- 0664158, collectively "the Parties.„ WHEREAS, Collier County has entered into an agreement with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for a grant for the execution and implementation of a Community Development Block Grant Program in certain areas of Collier County, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (as amended); and WHEREAS, Collier County and David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. desire to provide the activities specified in Part II of this Agreement, in * FM rd with the approved Annual Consolidated Plan, and WHEREAS, Collier County desires to engage David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. to implement such undertakings of the Community Development Block Grant Program as a worthwhile County purpose; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, it is agreed by the Parties as follows: David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 2 of 23 PART I DEFINITION AND PURPOSE 16A8 DEFINITIONS (1) "County" means Collier County, and where applicable, its authorized representative(s). (2) "CDBG" means the Community Development Block Grant Program of Collier County. (3) "HUI" means Collier County Housing and Urban Improvement. 4 "Agency" means David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc.. (5 "HUI Approval" means the written approval of the HUI Director or his designee. (6 "U.S. HUD" means the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or a person authorized to act on its behalf. (7) "Low and moderate income persons" means the definition set by U.S. HUD. 8 "Project" means the work contemplated to be performed as set forth in Exhibit "A." 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to state the covenants and conditions under which the Agency will implement the Scope of Services set forth in Part II of this Agreement. At least fifty -one percent (51 %) of the beneficiaries of a project funded under this Agreement must be low -and moderate - income persons. 7T:W SCOPE OF SERVICES The Agency shall, in a satisfactory and proper manner, as determined by HUI, perform the tasks necessary to conduct the program outlined in Exhibit "A," and shall submit each request for reimbursement using the cover sheet in Exhibit "B," both of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof. PART III COMPENSATION, TIME OF PERFORMANCE, METHOD, AND CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT 1. MAXIMUM COMPENSATION The Agency agrees to accept as full payment for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement the actual amount of budgeted, eligible, and HUI Director or designee - approved expenditures and encumbrances made by the Agency under this Agreement. Said services shall be performed in a manner satisfactory to HUI. In no event shall the total reimbursement to be paid hereunder exceed the maximum and total authorized sum of $47,000.00 for the period July 1, 2001 through and including June 30, 2002. Any funds not obligated by the expiration date of this Agreement shall automatically revert to the County, as set forth in sections 4. (7)(e), and 4. (8) below 2. TIME OF PERFORMANCE The effective date of this Agreement and all rights and duties designated hereunder are contingent upon the timely release of funds for this project by U. S. HUD under Grant No. B- 01 -UC -12 -0016. The effective date shall be the latest date of execution of this Agreement, and the services of the Aaencv shall be undertaken and comi,leted in liaht of the DurDOses David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 3 of 23 ffol, i of this Agreement. In any event, all services required hereunder shall be completed by the Agency prior to June 30, 2002. 3. METHOD OF PAYMENT The County agrees to reimburse the Agency for all budgeted costs permitted by Federal, State, and County guidelines. In no event shall the County provide advance funding to the Agency. Requests by the Agency for payments or reimbursements shall be accompanied by proper documentation of expenditures. The Agency shall not request reimbursement for payments made by the Agency after the expiration date of this Agreement. Payment shall be made by the Collier County Finance Department upon proper presentation of invoices and reports approved by the Agency and HUI for reimbursement. For purposes of this section, originals of invoices, receipts, or other evidence of indebtedness shall be considered proper documentation. When original documents cannot be presented, the Agency must adequately justify their absence, in writing, and furnish copies. 4. CONDITIONS ON WHICH PAYMENT IS CONTINGENT: (1) IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT ACCORDING � � w r��yvj wY .a..un n..'.r.v...v. .. n.r ..�, v........... ... ......._. �.... _— ...... �.rr.._�._.— - - -. �.., State, and County laws, ordinances and codes and with the procedures outlined in HUI Policies and Procedures memoranda. The Federal, State, and County laws, ordinances and codes are minimal regulations supplemented by more restrictive guidelines set forth by HUI. No payments will be made until approved by the HUI Director or designee. Should a project receive additional funding after the commencement of this Agreement, the Agency shall notify HUI in writing within thirty (30) days of receiving notification from the funding source and submit a cost allocation plan for approval by the HUI Director or designee within forty -five (45) days of said official notification. (2) FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY The County may have a financial systems analysis and/or an audit of the Agency, or of any of its subcontractors, by an independent auditing firm employed by the County or by the County Internal Audit Department at any time the County deems necessary to determine if the project is being managed in accordance with Federal, State, and County requirements. (3) SUBCONTRACTS Any work or services subcontracted by the Agency shall be specifically by written contract or agreement, and such subcontracts shall be subjject to each provision of this Agreement and applicable County, State, and Federal guidelines and regulations. Prior to execution by the Agency of any subcontract hereunder, such subcontracts must be submitted by the Agency to HUI for its review and approval, which will specifically include a determination of compliance with the terms of the attached Work Program set forth in Exhibit "A." This review also includes ensuring that all consultant contracts and fee schedules meet the minimum standards as established by the Collier County Purchasing Department and U.S. HUD. Subcontracts for architecture, engineering, survey, and planning shall be negotiated fixed fee contracts. All additional services shall have prior written approval with support documentation detailing categories of persons performing work plus hourly rates including benefits, number of drawings required, and all items that justify the "Fixed Fee Contract." Reimbursements for such services will be made at Agency cost. David Lawrence Mental HeaRh Center, Inc. Page 4 of 23 • � i None of the work or services covered by this Agreement, including but not limited to consultant work or services, shall be subcontracted by the Agency or reimbursed by the County without prior written approval of the HUI Director or his designee. (4) PURCHASING All purchasing for services and goods, including capital equipment, shall be made by purchase order or by a written contract and in conformity with the procedures prescribed by the Federal Management Circulars A -110 (Uniform Administrative Requirement for Federal Grants), A -122 (Cost Principal for Non- Profit Organization), and 24CFR Part 84, which are incorporated herein by reference. (5) REPORTS. AUDITS, AND EVALUATIONS Reimbursement will be contingent on the timely receipt of complete and accurate reports required by this Agreement, and on the resolution of monitoring or audit findings identified pursuant to this Agreement. (6) ADDITIONAL HUI, COUNTY, AND U.S. HUD REQUIREMENTS HUI shall have the right under this Agreement to suspend or terminate reimbursement until the Agency complies with any additional conditions that may be imposed by HUI, the County, or U.S. HUD at any time. (7) PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVALS - SUMMARY The following activities require the prior written approval of the HUI Director or designee in order to be eligible for reimbursement. (a) All subcontracts and agreements proposed to be entered into by the Agency pursuant to this Agreement; (b) All capital equipment expenditures of $1,000 or more; (c) All out-of -town travel; (travel shall be reimbursed in accordance with Florida Statutes, Chapter 112.061); �d� All change orders; and e All requests to utilize uncommitted funds after the expiration of this agreement for programs described in Exhibit A, and (f) All rates of pay and pay increases paid out of CDBG funds, whether for merit or cost of living. (8) PROGRAM - GENERATED INCOME All income earned by the Agency from activities financed in whole or in part by funds provided hereunder must be reported to HUI. Such income would include, but not be limited to, income from service fees, sale of commodities, and rental or usage fees. The Agency shall report its plan to utilize such income to HUI, and said plan shall require the prior written approval of the HUI Director or designee. Accounting and disbursement of such income shall comply with OMB Circular A -110 (Uniform Administrative Requirement for Federal Grants) and other applicable regulations incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the foregoing, Program Income, as defined by 24 CFR 570.500(a), may be retained by the Agency: Program Income shall be utilized to undertake activities specified in Exhibit A of this Agreement, and all provisions of this Agreement shall apply to said activities. Any Program Income on hand at or received by the Agency or its sub - contractors after the expiration of this Agreement shall be returned to the County no later than thirty (30) days after such expiration, subject to any Agency requests to utilize uncommitted funds. 16A8 David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Pape 5 of 23 PART IV GENERAL CONDITIONS OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLIANCE The Agency agrees that no person shall on the ground of race, color, disability, national origin, religion, age, financial status, or sex be excluded from the benefits of, or be subjected to, discrimination under any activity carried out by the performance of this Agreement. Upon receipt of evidence of such discrimination, the County shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. To the greatest extent feasible, lower- income residents of the project areas shall be given opportunities for training and employment; and to the greatest feasible extent eligible business concerns located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the project areas shall be awarded contracts in connection with the project. The Agency shall comply with the Section 3 Clause of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1968. 2. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL AND MINORITY/WOMEN -OWNED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, or services to implement this Agreement, the Agency shall make a positive effort to utilize small business and minority/women -owned business enterprises of supplies and services, and provide these sources the maximum feasible opportunity to compete for contracts to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. To the maximum extent feasible these small business and minority /women- owned business enterprises shall be located in or owned by residents of the CDBG areas designated by Collier County in the CDBG Annual Consolidated Plan approved by U.S. HUD. 3. PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES At least fifty -one percent (51%) of the beneficiaries of a project funded through this Agreement must be low- and moderate- income persons. If the project is located in an entitlement city, as defined by U.S. HUD, or serves beneficiaries countywide, more than thirty percent (30 %) of the beneficiaries directly assisted through the use of funds under this Agreement must reside in unincorporated Collier County or in municipalities participating in the County's Urban County Qualification Program. The project funded under this Agreement shall assist beneficiaries as defined above for the time period designated in Exhibit A of this Agreement. The Agency shall provide written verification of compliance to HUI upon HUI's request. 4. EVALUATION AND MONITORING The Agency agrees that HUI will carry out periodic monitoring and evaluation activities as determined necessary by HUI or the County and that the continuation of this Agreement is dependent upon satisfactory evaluation conclusions based on the terms of this Agreement, comparisons of planned versus actual progress relating to project scheduling, budgets, audit reports, and output measures. The Agency agrees to furnish upon request to HUI, the County or the County's designees and make copies or transcriptions of such records and information as is determined necessary by HUI or the County. The Agency shall, upon the request of HUI, submit information and status reports required by HUI, the County or U.S. HUD on forms approved by HUI to enable HUI to evaluate said progress and to allow for completion of reports required of HUI by U.S. HUD. The Agency shall allow HUI or U.S. HUD to monitor the Agency on site. Such site visits may be scheduled or unscheduled as determined by HUI or U.S. HUD. 16A8 David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 6 of 23 5. AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS At any time during normal business hours and as often as HUI, the County, U.S. HUD, or the Comptroller General of the United States may deem necessary, there shall be made available by the Agency to HUI, the County, U.S. HUD, or the Comptroller General for examination all its records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. The Agency agrees to comply with the provisions of the Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, as it pertains to this Agreement and any subcontracts entered into under this Agreement. This will require the Agency to submit a single audit, including any management letter, made in accordance with the general program requirements of OMB Circulars A -110 (Uniform Administrative Requirement for Federal Grants), A -122 (Cost Principal for Non - Profit Organizations), A -133 (Audits of State, Local Governments, and Non - Profit Organizations), and other applicable regulations within one hundred and eighty (180) days after the end of any fiscal year covered by this agreement in which Federal funds from all sources are expended. Said audit shall be made by a Certified Public Accountant of the Agency's choosing, subject to HUI approval. The Agency shall provide such audit to HUI. In the event the Agency anticipates a delay in producing such audit or audited financial statements, the Agency shall request an extension in advance of the deadline. The cost of said audit shall be borne by the Agency. In the event the agency is exempt from having an audit conducted under A -133 (Audits of State, Local Governments, and Non - Profit Organizations), the County reserves the right to require submission of audited financial statements and/or to conduct a "limited scope audit" of the Agency as defined in A -133. The County will be responsible for providing technical assistance to the Agency, as deemed necessary by the County. 6. DATA BECOMES COUNTY PROPERTY All reports, plans, surveys, information, documents, maps, and other data procedures developed, prepared, assembled, or completed by the Agency for the purpose of this Agreement shall be made available to the County by the Agency at any time upon request by the County or HUI. Upon completion of all work contemplated under this Agreement copies of all documents and records relating to this Agreement shall be surrendered to HUI if requested. In any event the Agency shall keep all documents and records for five (5) years after expiration of this Agreement. 7. INDEMNIFICATION The Agency shall protect, defend, reimburse, indemnify and hold the County, its agents, its employees and elected officers harmless from and against any and all claims, liability, expense, loss, cost, damages or causes of action of every kind or character, including attorney's fees and costs, whether at trial or appellate levels or otherwise, arising during the performance of the terms of this Agreement, or due to the acts or omissions of the Agency. Agency's aforesaid indemnity and hold harmless obligation, or portion or applications thereof, shall apply to the fullest extent permitted by law. The Agency will hold the County harmless and will indemnify the County for funds which the County is obligated to refund the Federal Government arising out of the conduct of activities and administration of Agency. 8. INSURANCE Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, the Agency shall, at its sole expense, maintain in full force and effect at all times during the life of this Agreement, insurance coverages, limits, including endorsements, as described herein. The requirements contained herein as to types and limits, as well as the County's review or acceptance of insurance maintained by the Agency, are not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations assumed by the Agency under this Agreement. David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 7 of 23 Wou, 160� (1) COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY The Agency shall agree to maintain Commercial General Liability at a limit of liability not less than $500,000 Each Occurrence. Coverage shall not contain any endorsement excluding Contractual Liability or Cross Liability unless granted by the County's Risk Management Department. The Agency agrees this coverage shall be provided on a primary basis. (2) BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY The Agency shall agree to maintain Business Automobile Liability at a limit of liability not less than $500,000 Each Occurrence for all owned, non -owned and hired automobiles. The Agency shall agree to maintain physical damage coverage for a period not less than 10 years with deductibles not exceeding $1000 for Comprehensive and Collision. Collier County Board of County Commissioners shall be endorsed to the policy as a Loss Payee. The Agency shall agree to be fully responsible for any deductibles, self - insured retention or uncovered losses. The Agency agrees this coverage shall be provided on a primary basis. (3) ADDITIONAL INSURED The Agency shall agree to endorse the County as an Additional Insured with a CG 2026 Additional Insured - Designated Person or Organization endorsement, or its equivalent, to the Commercial General Liability. The Additional Insured endorsement shall read "Collier County Board of County Commissioners. a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida its Officers Em to ees and agents, c/o Department of Housing and Urban Improvement ". The Agency shall agree the Additional Insured endorsements provide coverage on a primary basis. (4) CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE The Agency shall agree to deliver to the County a certificate(s) of insurance evidencing the required insurance is in full force and effect within thirty (30) calendar days prior to the execution of this Agreement by the County. A minimum thirty (30) day endeavor to notify due to cancellation or non - renewal of coverage shall be included on the certificate(s). (5) RIGHT TO REVIEW AND ADJUST The Agency agrees that the County, by and through its Purchasing or Risk Management Department, in cooperation with the Department of Housing and Urban Improvement, reserves the right to periodically review, modify, reject or accept any required policies of insurance, Including limits, coverages, or endorsements, herein from time to time throughout the life of this Agreement. The County reserves the right, but not the obligation, to review and reject any insurer providing coverage because of its poor financial condition or failure to operate legally. 9. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT The intent and purpose of this Agreement is to increase the availability of the Agency's services. This Agreement is not to substitute for or replace existing or planned projects or activities of the Agency. The Agency agrees to maintain, or to cause to be maintained, a level of activities and expenditures, planned or existing, for projects similar to those being assisted under this Agreement which is not less than that level existing prior to this Agreement. 10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Agency covenants that no person who presently exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the Project, has any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in the target areas or any parcels therein, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this Agreement and that no person having any conflict of interest shall be employed by or subcontracted by the Agency. Any possible conflict of W • 1 i David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 8 of 23 interest on the part of the Agency or its employees shall be disclosed in writing to HUI provided, however, that this paragraph shall be interpreted in such a manner so as not to unreasonably impede the statutory requirement that maximum opportunity be provided for employment of and participation of low and moderate - income residents of the project target area. 11. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The Agency shall cooperate with HUI in the implementation of the Citizen Participation Plan by establishing a citizen participation process to keep residents informed of the activities the Agency or its subcontractors will undertake in carrying out the provisions of this Agreement. Representatives of the Agency shall attend meetings and assist HUI in the implementation of the Citizen Participation Plan, as requested by HUI. 12. RECOGNITION All facilities purchased or constructed pursuant to this Agreement shall be clearly identified as to funding source. The Agency will include a reference to the financial support herein provided by HUI in all publications and publicity. In addition, the Agency will make a good faith effort to recognize HUI's support for all activities made possible with funds made available under this Agreement. 13. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS The following documents are herein incorporated by reference and made a part hereof, and shall constitute and be referred to as "the Contract;" and all of said documents taken as a whole constitute the contract between the parties hereto and are as fully a part of the Contract as if they were set forth verbatim and at length herein: (1 This Agreement, including its Exhibits (2� Office of Management and Budget Circulars A -110 (Uniform Administrative Requirement for Federal Grants), A -122 (Cost Principal for Non - Profit Organizations), A -133 (Audits of State, Local Governments, and Non - Profit Organizations), and 24CFR Part 84 (3) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (4) Executive Orders 11246 (Equal Employment Opportunity), 11478 (Equal Employment Opportunity in Federal Government), 11625 (Prescribing Additional Arrangements for Developing and Coordinating a National Program for Minority Business Enterprise), 12432 Minority Business Enterprise Development), the Davis Bacon Act, and Section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1968, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (5) Executive Orders 11063 (Equal opportunity in housing), 12259 (Leadership and Coordination of Fair Housing and Federal Programs, 12892 (Leadership and Coordination of Fair Housing in Federal Programs: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing), the Fair Housing Act of 1988, and Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended �6 Florida Statutes, Chapter 112 7� Federal Community Development Block Grant Regulations (24 CFR Part 570), as amended (8) The Agency's personnel policies and job descriptions (9) The Agency's incorporation Certificate and Articles of Incorporation �10 The Agency's By -laws 11 The Agency's Certificate of Insurance (12 Current list of the Agency's officers and members of its Board of Directors (13� Proof of the Agency's 501 (c)(3) certification from the Internal Revenue Service All of these documents will be maintained on file at HUI. The Agency shall keep an original David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Peg* 9 of 23 of this Agreement, including its Exhibits, and all amendments thereto, on file at its principal office. 14. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS (1) AIR AND WATER The Agency, as Subrecipient, agrees to comply with the following requirements insofar as they apply to the performance of the Contract: • Clean Air Act, 41 U.S.C., 7401, et seq. • Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., as amended, 1318 relating to inspection, monitoring, entry, reports, and information, as well as other requirements specified in said Section 114 and Section 308 (EPA) regulations pursuant to 40 C.F.R., Part 50, as amended. (2) FLOOD DISASTER PROTECTION In accordance with the requirements of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 USC 4001), the Subrecipient shall assure that for activities located in an area identified by FEMA as having special flood hazards, flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program is obtained and maintained as a condition of financial assistance for acquisition or construction purposes (including rehabilitation). If appropriate, a letter of map amendment (LOMA) may be obtained from FEMA which would satisfy this requirement and/or reduce the cost of said flood insurance. (3) LEAD -BASED PAINT The Subrecipient agrees that any construction or rehabilitation of residential structures with assistance provided under this contract shall be subject to HUD Lead - Based Paint Regulations at 24 CFR 570.608, and 24 CFR Part 25. Such regulations pertain to all HUD - assisted hosing and require that all owners, prospective owners, and tenants of properties constructed prior to 1978 be properly notified that such properties may include lead -based paint. Such notification shall point out the hazards of lead -based paint and explain the symptoms, treatment and precautions that should be taken when dealing with lead -based paint poisoning and the advisability and availability of blood lead level screening for children under seven. The notice should also point out that if lead -based paint is found on the property, abatement measures may be undertaken. (4) HISTORIC PRESERVATION The Subrecipient agrees to comply with the Historic Preservation requirements set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470) and the procedures set forth in 36 CFR, Part 800, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Procedures for Protection of Historical Properties, insofar as they apply to the performance of the Contract. In general, concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer is required for all rehabilitation and demolition of historic properties that are fifty years old or older or that are included, on a Federal, state, or local historic property list. 15. TERMINATION In event of termination for any of the following reasons, all finished or unfinished documents, data studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports prepared, and capital equipment secured by the Agency with funds under this Agreement shall be returned to HUI David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Pape 10 of 23 16A8 or the County. In the event of termination, the Agency shall not be relieved of liability to the County for damages sustained by the County by virtue of any breach of the Contract by the Agency, and the County may withhold any payment to the Agency for set -off purposes until such time as the exact amount of damages due to the County from the Agency is determined. (1) TERMINATION FOR CAUSE If through any cause either party shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, or if either party shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Agreement, either party shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement in whole or part by giving written notice of such termination to the other party and specifying therein the effective date of termination. (2) TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE At any time during the term of this Agreement, either party may, at its option and for any reason, terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) working days written notice to the other party. Upon termination, the County shall pay the Agency for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement through and including the date of termination. (3) TERMINATION DUE TO CESSATION In the event the grant to the County under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (as amended) Is suspended or terminated, this Agreement shall be suspended or terminated effective on the date the U.S. HUD specifies. 16. SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby if such remainder would then continue to conform to the terms and requirements of applicable law. 17. AMENDMENTS The County may, at its discretion, amend this Agreement to conform with changes required by Federal, State, County, or U.S. HUD guidelines, directives, and objectives. Such amendments shall be incorporated by written amendment as a part of this Agreement and shall be subject to approval of Collier County. Except as otherwise provided herein, no amendment to this Agreement shall be binding on either party unless in writing, approved by the County and signed by each Party's authorized representatives. 18. NOTICES All notices required to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficient when delivered to HUI at its office, presently located at 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive, Suite #275, Naples, Florida 34104, and to the Agency when delivered to its office at the address listed on page one (1) of this Agreement. 19. INDEPENDENT AGENT AND EMPLOYEES The Agency agrees that, in all matters relating to this Agreement, it will be acting as an independent agent and that its employees are not Collier County employees and are not subject to the County provisions of the law applicable to County employees relative to employment, hours of work, rates of compensation, leave, unemployment compensation and employee benefits. 20. NO FORFEITURE The rights of the County under this Agreement shall be cumulative and failure on the part of the County to exercise promptly any rights given hereunder shall not operate to forfeit or waive any of the said rights. 16A8 David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Pape 11 of 23 21. PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES As provided in F.S. 287.133 by entering into this Agreement or performing any work in furtherance hereof, the Agency certifies that it, its affiliates, suppliers, subcontractors and consultants who will perform hereunder, have not been placed on the convicted vendor list maintained by the State of Florida Department of Management Services within the 36 months immediately preceding the date hereof. This notice is required by F.S. 287.133 (3)(a). 22. COUNTERPARTS OF THE AGREEMENT This Agreement, consisting of twenty -three (23) enumerated pages which include the exhibits referenced herein, shall be executed in two (2) counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts will constitute one and the same instrument. 23. ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING This Agreement and its provisions merge any prior agreements, if any, between the parties hereto and constitutes the entire understanding. The parties hereby acknowledge that there have been and are no representations, warranties, covenants, or undertakings other than those expressly set forth herein. WITNESS our Hands and Seals on this C241� day of 69 . 2001 (AGENCY SEAL) ATTEST: DWIGKT , CLERK B V. y et Sf ,2 M Patrick G. White Assistant County Attorney DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. BY: David Schimmel, President BY: Attorney for Agency (Signature Optional) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COU , FLO ID By: CHAIRMAN /-22--02- David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 12 of 23 16AB EXHIBIT "A" WORK PROGRAM NARRATIVE DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. I. THE AGENCY AGREES TO: A. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: The Agency shall advertise and procure the services of an engineering consultant for this project to provide design services to create plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of five (5) housing units. The Agency shall also prepare, obtain and review bids, prepare contract documents, inspect work in progress, recommend payment to contractor and provide other professional services customarily provided by similar consulting professionals; and the Agency shall also coordinate the design and construction work with the asbestos abatement contractor, should such abatement become necessary All such work and services must be under written contracts complying with the terms of the Contract and must be reviewed and approved by HUI. The procurement process of the consultant shall also incorporate any sub - consultants which shall be funded as reimbursable under the consultant's contract for services. Reimbursement for sub - consultants shall be at cost. Such sub - consultants may include surveyors, testing services, or others as deemed necessary for the nature of the project. B. PROJECT SCOPE : The scope of this project subject to funding availability shall include the rehabilitation of five (5) housing units. Rehabilitation will include the installation of sixty (60) A.B. Chance Helical Piers, three (3) to each corner of each residence at 4121, 4205, 4209, 4315 and 4403 Thomasson Drive in Naples, Florida, all located in Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Section 13, Collier County, Florida, 4121 — Pine View Villas Blk A Lot 39, less E 5 ft of N 60.01 FT 4205 - Pine View Villas Blk A WSFT of lot 37, less S 40FT, all lot 36, ESFT of lot 39, less S 40FT or 1967 PG 1113 4209 — Pine View Villas Blk A Lot 37, less W 5FT of N 60.01 FT 4315 — Pine View Villas Blk A Lot 31 4403 — Pine View Villas Blk A Lot 30 NOTE 1: The Agency shall submit its bid package and drawings /specifications to HUI and obtain a letter of approval prior to bidding the construction work. NOTE 2: The Agency shall prioritize the work in the Project: and shall bid such work in a manner that would allow the receipt of itemized costs from bidders which would then allow the award of items that can be funded by the budget. NOTE 3: The Agency shall not award the construction contract for the Project until sufficient funding is available to complete the established scope of work. All construction work shall be included in one contract. The Agency shall obtain HUI approval prior to awarding the construction contract to be funded through this agreement. After awarding such contract the Agency shall obtain HUI approval prior to executing any change orders to such contract. NOTE 4: The Agency shall not request reimbursement from HUI for materials or equipment received and stored on the project site or elsewhere. The Agency shall only request reimbursement for materials and equipment that have been installed. David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 13 of 23 16A8 The Agency further agrees that HUI, in consultation with any parties HUI deems necessary, shall be the final arbiter on the Agency's compliance with the above. C. BUDGET: Line Item: Rehabilitation — perimeter footings Rehabilitation — perimeter footings Total CDBG Funds Other $ 47,000 $57,000 $10,000 Any indirect costs charged must be consistent with the conditions of this Agreement. If indirect costs are charged, the Agency, as Subrecipient, will develop an indirect cost allocation plan for determining the appropriate Subrecipient's share of administrative costs and shall submit such plan to HUI, on behalf of the County, as the Grantee, for HUI approval, in a form specified by HUI. D. STAFFING: Provide list of staff and time commitments to be allocated to each activity specified in B (Project Scope) and C (Budget) above, if applicable. E. ASBESTOS REQUIREMENTS: The Agency shall comply, and ensure its subcontractors' compliance, with all applicable requirements contained in Exhibit C, attached hereto, for construction work in connection with the Project funded through this Agreement. F. DAVIS -BACON ACT: The Agency shall request the County to obtain a Davis -Bacon wage decision for the project prior to advertising the construction work. The Agency shall incorporate a copy of the Davis -Bacon wage decision and disclose the requirements of the Davis -Bacon Act in its construction bid solicitation and sub - contract(s). G. BONDING REQUIREMENTS: The Agency shall comply with the requirements of OMB Circular A -110 (Uniform Administrative Requirement for Federal Grants) and 24CFR Part 84 in regard to any bid guarantees, performance bonds, and payment bonds. H. CONSTRUCTION PAYMENT RETAINAGE: The Agency shall apply a retainage of at least 5% on all construction draws which retainages shall be released in conjunction with the final draw upon satisfactory completion of the Project. The Agency agrees not to release such retainages until it has obtained approval from the County that the contractor and subcontractors have complied with the requirements of the Davis -Bacon Act. I. FORMER PROJECTS: Failure to adequately maintain any former CDBG funded project may result in the delay of processing reimbursement requests for ongoing activities or in the forfeiture of future CDBG funds. J. WORK SCHEDULE: The time frame for completil 15, 2002. Complete Design & Bid Documents Advertise & Accept Bids Award Contract Start Construction Complete Construction (rehabilitation in of the outlined activities shall be June December, 2001 December, 2001 January, 2002 February, 2002 June 15, 2002 David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 14 of 23 16A8 K. REPORTS: The Agency shall submit detailed monthly progress reports to Housing and Urban Improvement outlining the status of specific activities under the project. Each report must account for the total activity for which the Agency is reimbursed with CDBG funds, in part or in whole, and which is required in fulfillment of their obligations regarding the Project. The progress reports should be mainly in the form of a narrative. The progress reports shall be used as an additional basis for HUI approval of invoices, etc. for reimbursement. L. USE OF THE PROJECT FACILITY: The Agency agrees in regard to the use of the facility whose acquisition or improvements are being funded in part or in whole by CDBG funds as provided by this Agreement, that it will comply with the provision of Exhibit "D." Upon execution of this Agreement the Agency shall also execute and deliver to the County Exhibit D, which the County shall record in the public records. Recording fees associated with this Exhibit shall be charged to the project budget identified in this Agreement. M. SECTION 3 REQUIREMENTS: The Agency agrees to comply with all Section 3 requirements applicable to contracts funded through this agreement. Information on Section 3 is available at HUI upon request. The Agency shall include the following, referred to as the Section 3 Clause, in every solicitation and every subcontract it enters into for every Section 3 covered project: Section 3 Clause a. The work to be performed under this contract is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 170 (Section 3). The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated by HUD assistance or HUD - assisted projects covered by Section 3, shall to the greatest extent lo feasible, be directed to low -and very w-income persons, particularly persons who are recipients of HUD assistance for housing. b. The parties to this contract agree to comply with HUD's requirements in 24 CFR Part 135, which implement Section 3. As evidenced by their execution of this contract, the parties to this contract certify that they are under no contractual or other impediment that would prevent them from complying with the Part 135 regulations. C. The contractor agrees to send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which the contractor has a collective bargaining agreement or other understanding, if any, a notice advising the labor organization or workers representative of the contractor's commitment under this Section 3 clause, and will post copies of the notice in conspicuous places at the work site where both employees and applicants for training and employment positions can see the notice. The notice shall describe the Section 3 preference, shall set forth minimum number and job titles subject to hire, availability of apprenticeship and training positions, the qualifications for each; and the name and location of the person(s) taking applications for each of the positions; and the anticipated date the work shall begin. d. The contractor agrees to include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract subject to compliance with regulations in 24 CFR Part 135, and agrees to take appropriate action, as provided in an applicable provision of the subcontract or in this Section 3 clause, upon a finding that the subcontractor is in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 135. The contractor will not subcontract with any subcontractor where the contractor has notice or knowledge that the subcontractor has been found in violation of the regulations in 24 CFR Part 135. e. The contractor will certify that any vacant employment positions, including training positions, that are filled (1) after the contractor is selected but before 16A8 David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 15 of 23 the contract is executed, and (2) with persons other than those to whom the regulations of 24 CFR Part 135 require employment opportunities to be directed, were not filled to circumvent the contractor's obligations under 24 CFR Part 135. Noncompliance with HUD's regulations in 24 CFR Part 135 may result in sanctions, termination of this contract for default, and debarment or suspension from future HUD assisted contracts. II. THE COUNTY AGREES TO: A. Arrange to provide CDBG funding for the above specified improvements (including consultant services) described in the Scope of the Project as set forth in the stated Budget, during the term of this Agreement, in the maximum amount of $47,000.00. However, the County shall not provide any funding for the construction work until it is assured that sufficient funds are available to complete the project. B. Provide project administration and inspection to the Agency to ensure compliance with U.S. HUD and the Department of Labor, and applicable State, Federal and County laws and regulations. C. Monitor the Agency during the term of this Agreement. Monitoring visits may be scheduled or unscheduled as determined by HUI, be conducted by HUI staff or its agents, and will serve to ensure compliance with U.S. Department of HUD regulations, and that planned activities are conducted in a timely manner, and to verify the accuracy of reporting to HUI on program activities. D. The County shall perform an environmental review of the project, and review and approve project design and bids submitted for the work. The County shall also perform Davis Bacon Act Labor Standards monitoring and enforcement. Environmental review costs incurred by the County may be charged to the project budget identified above. E. Allowable costs that may be paid by the County using CDBG funds under this Agreement in addition to those stated in II.A above: i) Costs of asbestos surveys, asbestos abatement, and abatement monitoring. ii) Cost of soil testing. iii) Reproduction costs of plans and specifications for the Project. iv)Costs of any other services customarily associated with projects of the nature of the project contemplated by this Agreement. HUI shall review requests by the Agency for expenditures on the above items prior to the Agency undertaking the services associated with them, and HUI may approve any such expenditures it deems appropriate for this project. 16A8 David Lawrence Mortal Health Center, Inc. Page 16 of 23 EXHIBIT "B" LETTERHEAD STATIONERY TO: Denny Baker, Interim Director Housing and Urban Improvement 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive, Suite #275 Naples, FL 34104 FROM: Name of Agency /Subgrantee: Address: Phone: RE: INVOICE REIMBURSEMENT Attached, you will find Invoice # , requesting reimbursement in the amount of $ The expenditures for this invoice covers the period through . You will also find attached back -up original documentation relating to the expenditures being invoiced. Approved for Payment by HUI: Signed: DATE: Printed name of HUI representative: David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 17 of 23 EXHIBIT "C" ASBESTOS REQUIREMENTS 16A8 PART A SPECIAL CONDITIONS - ASBESTOS - PROCEDURES FOR REHABILITATION AND DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES: The provisions of this part apply to all rehabilitation and demolition work contemplated in this agreement and described in Exhibit A of this agreement: 1. ASBESTOS NOTIFICATION Federal and state asbestos regulations require, prior to the rehabilitation or demolition of any structure: (1) an inspection for asbestos - containing materials (ACM), (2) removal of specified ACM, and 3 an asbestos notification of rehabilitation or demolition received at least ten (10) business days prior to demolition. To meet requirements #1 and #2 above, the Agency shall secure the services of a qualified company to survey the all structure(s) to be rehabilitated or demolished in connection with this agreement for the presence of ACM and the Agency shall make every effort to remove Regulated Asbestos - Containing Material (RACM) and Category II Non - Friable ACM (e.g. asbestos - cement board and shingles) before commencing any rehabilitation or demolition work on such structure(s). To meet requirement #3 above for rehabilitation or demolition work, the Agency is responsible for submitting a complete and accurate asbestos notification form titled "Notice of Asbestos Removal Project" [i.e. NESHAP notification, 40 CFR Part 61.145(b)], for each separate address where work will be performed to the below listed agencies at least 10 business days prior to demolition. The 4 -copy forms are available from the Department of Environmental Protection. SEND ORIGINAL TO: State Asbestos Coordinator FL Dept. of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2409 SEND PINK COPY OR FAX OF ORIGINAL TO: Collier County Housing and Urban Improvement Department Attn: NESHAP 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive, Suite 145 Naples, FL 34104 FAX: (941) 403 -2331 The Agency must notify the County's HUI Department immediately if the demolition Start Date changes. No demolition may start before the Start Date on the NESHAP notification and no demolition may occur without the notice to proceed from the County. It is the responsibility of the Agency to call and submit revised NESHAP notification to the above listed agencies, adhering to required NESHAP time frames. The Agency is responsible for physical checking the structure(s) before submitting the NESHAP notification to ensure that all RACM and Category II ACM, as ii entified in the pre - rehabilitation or pre - demolition asbestos inspection report, have been removed. If RACM or 16A8 David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 18 of 23 Category II ACM is discovered, the Agency shall immediately contact the County's Project Manager. 2. WORK PRACTICES The Agency will utilize wet methods to control airborne emissions during the demolition process and during loading onto transport vehicles, regardless whether Category 1 is present or not. The Agency is responsible for supplying water meters, hoses, and adequate volume of water to the demolition site. Recycling of any building materials with either presumed or confirmed asbestos - containing Category I (e.g. floor tile, sheet vinyl, and /or roofing materials) is not permitted, unless written authorization is provided to the Agency by the County. 3. OSHA AND FLORIDA STATUTES COMPLIANCE In accordance with OSHA, (reference 29 CFR 1926.1101) in the event ACM is present the Agency must have a competent person onsite who: (1) is capable of identifying existing asbestos hazards in the workplace, (2) is capable of selecting the appropriate control strategy for asbestos exposure, and (3) has the authority to take prompt corrective action to eliminate them. This person must be trained in accordance with Chapter 469 Florida Statutes as an onsite supervisor. Copies of training certificates of the onsite supervisor shall be made available to the County upon request. 4. ROOFING - REMOVAL OF CONFIRMED OR PRESUMED ASBESTOS - CONTAINING BITUMINOUS ROOFING MATERIALS It is the responsibility of the Agency to determine if the roofing materials do not contain asbestos. If the Agency wishes not to sample and analyze for asbestos, the materials will be presumed to contain asbestos and handled accordingly. If the Agency elects to sample the roof system, she/he must first notify the County of the sampling, including date, location, and number of samples to be collected. The bulk sample analyses must be performed by a NVLAP- accredited laboratory (NVLAP is the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program). Results, if proven less than one percent asbestos, shall be provided to the County prior to the start of any work. The Agency will be required to meet all Federal, State, and Local regulations pertaining to the handling, removal, and disposal of confirmed or presumed asbestos - containing roofing materials. This includes, but is not limited to: (1) Meeting the requirements listed in Chapter 469.012(2) & (3) Florida Statutes regarding training of onsite roofing supervisors involved in the removal of asbestos containing bituminous resinous roofing materials, and; (2) Utilizing removal methods that will maintain the roofing material's Category I non - friable status and will not create dust, i.e. employ methods other than sanding, grinding, drilling, abrading, rotary blade or saw cutting. Suggested methods are slicing, shearing, or punch cutting while using wet methods where feasible. In the event ACM is found, the Agency will submit the following documentation to the County department coordinating this project. (1) Copies of training certificates of the onsite roofing supervisor in compliance with the current requirements of Chapter 469 Florida Statutes; (2) Resume of the onsite roofing supervisor documenting asbestos - containing roofing removal jobs performed wit h the last two (2) years; (3) Approval of a landfill to accept confirmed or presumed asbestos - containing roofing material and any conditions associated with its acceptance, and; (4) A plan of action, as specified by OSHA 29 CFR 1926.1101 which addresses: a. Method of removal David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 19 of 23 b. Worker protection C. Protection of building occupants and ventilation systems d. Method and location of disposal PART B SPECIAL CONDITIONS - ASBESTOS - PROCEDURES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION AND DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES The provisions of this part apply to new construction work and to all rehabilitation and demolition work contemplated in this agreement and described in Exhibit A of this agreement: 1. HANDLING AND DISPOSAL OF ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE GENERAL Federal regulations (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M) classify asbestos - cement pipe (AC pipe) as Category 11 non - friable asbestos - containing material. AC pipe must be handled in a manner which will maintain this classification. Therefore, all cutting and disposal of AC pipe must be performed by a Florida Licensed Asbestos Contractor. The Agency will make every effort to identify and quantify the locating of known AC pipe and material prior to onset of work. If the Agency during the course of work observes, uncovers, or otherwise becomes aware of the existence of any asbestos - cement pipe, pieces, or material at the site to which the Agency or any subcontractor, supplier, or other person may be exposed, the Agency shall immediately notify the County and confirm any verbal notice in writing. The County shall promptly consult with the Project Engineer concerning such condition and determine the necessity of the County retaining special consultants or qualified experts. The Agency shall not perform any work near or in connection with the suspect material until receipt of special written instructions from the County. The Agency will ensure that all subcontractors follow these procedures. PRE -WORK SUBMITTALS The Agency shall submit the name of the Asbestos Contractor and a copy of his/her Florida Asbestos Contractor license to the Collier County department coordinating this project, prior to start of work. WORKER PROTECTION Licensed asbestos contractors will comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR 1929.1101 concerning worker protection. EXECUTION OF WORK AC pipe will be kept wet during all phases of removal. No visible emissions are permitted. Wet the pipe using an airless sprayer or utilize available water. Apply dropcloth of 6 -mil poly to the area beneath and a minimum of 3 feet beyond the section of pipe to be cut. Break, cut, or snap pipe into sections suitable in size to the disposal facility. Abrasive disc saws are prohibited. Apply lockdown encapsulant to exposed edges of pipe. Pick up all pipe debris that may have fallen outside dropcloth. Use of compressed air to clean AC pipes is prohibited. At no time should AC pipe or pieces by mixed in with fill. DISPOSAL David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 20 of 23 Wrap pipe in existing dropcloth. Transfer pipe to a clean dropcloth outside the trench, and wrap and secure in second layer of 6 -mil poly. Affix the following labels to the exterior of each separately wrapped section of pipe. Labels are to be waterproof, legible, and large enough in size to be readily visible: First Label: CAUTION Contains Asbestos Fibers Avoid Opening or Breaking Container Breathing Asbestos is Hazardous to Your Health Second Label: DANGER Contains Asbestos Fibers Avoid Breathing Dust Cancer and Lung Disease Hazard Breathing Airborne Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite or Actinolite Fibers is Hazardous to Your Health Third Label: RQ HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE Solid, NOS ORM -E, NA9188 (Asbestos) Fourth Label: Label each container with the name of the generator (owner) and the location at which the waste was generated. Properly dispose of all AC pipe generated each day. All wrapped sections may be stored in a secure, locked enclosure pending disposal, if authorized by owner. At no time are section pieces of AC pipe to be left on the worksite uncapped and unsecured at the end of the workday. All vehicles and/or containers used to haul asbestos - containing waste material shall be lined with a minimum or 6 -mil poly layer. Label trucks used to transport asbestos - containing waste material during loading and unloading as follows (refer to 29 CFR 1910.145(d)(4) for sign format): DANGER Asbestos Dust Hazard Cancer and Lung Disease Hazard Authorized Personnel Only POST WORK SUBMITTALS The Agency or Asbestos Contractor, as waste generator shall complete a Waste Shipment Record (WSR) for each shipment of asbestos - cement pipe disposed. Refer to 40 CFR Part 61, Revision Final Rule for an example of WSR or contact Collier County Risk Management/Loss Control. The Agency or his designated subcontractor will submit the following documents to the Collier County department coordinating this project prior to payment. A copy of the WSR prior to shipment. A copy of the WSR signed by the disposal facility within thirty -five (35) days of shipment. David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 21 of 23 C - SPECIAL CONDITIONS - REGULATIONS: The provisions of this part apply to all s contemplated in this agreement and described in Exhibit A of this agreement: Environmental Protection Agency: 40 CFR Part 61 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Asbestos NESHAP Revision Final Rule November 20,1990. Occupational Safety and Health Administration: 29 CFR 1926.1101 - Asbestos, Construction Industry Standard. Department of Business and Professional Regulations, Chapter 469 Florida Statutes, Licensure of Consultants and Contractors. David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 22 of 23 Prepared by and Return to: Collier County Housing & Urban Improvement 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive, #275 Naples, Florida 34104 EXHIBIT "D" DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS 16A8 David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc., a not - for - profit corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, having its principal office at 6075 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida 34116, the undersigned, hereinafter referred to as "Declarant," for the property described below, in consideration of CDBG funding in the amount of Forty -seven Thousand Dollars ($47,000.00) to be received from (the "County "), does hereby impose the following restrictions against the subject property described as follows: A portion of Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Section 13, Collier County, Florida, more particularly described in the attached legal description denoted as Attachment "A." This Declaration of Restrictions shall be deemed as covenants running with the land and are binding upon the undersigned, their heirs, executors, successors, and assigns. These restrictions can only be terminated if released by Collier County, acting through and by its Board of County Commissioners, and only when executed with the same formalities as this document, effective when recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Collier County is specifically granted the right to enforce this Declaration using all means lawfully available, and is entitled to such costs and fees as may be required to enforce this Declaration. 2. In consideration of the County's grant in the amount of $47,000.00 (of CDBG funds) as provided through a grant Agreement with the County dated av � , 2002, the Declarant hereby covenants and agrees to only use the subject properVj as described in the Declarant's funding application to the County, and as described in said grant Agreement, and as set forth below, for a period of ten (10) years commencing with the expiration date of said grant Agreement (as the term of such Agreement may be amended from time to time). 3. The Declarant agrees, with regard to the use of the facility /property whose acquisition or improvements were funded through the grant Agreement, that for a period of ten (10) years after the expiration date of said Agreement (as the term of such Agreement may be amended from time to time): a. The Declarant may not change the use or planned use, or discontinue use, of the facility /property (including the beneficiaries of such use) from that for which the acquisition or improvements were made, unless the Declarant provides affected citizens with reasonable notice of, and opportunity to comment on, any such proposed change and either: i) The new use of the facility /property, in the opinion of the County, qualifies as meeting one of the national objectives defined in the regulations governing the CDBG program, and is not a building for the general conduct of government; or ii) The requirements of paragraph 3(b)of this section are met. b. If the Declarant determines after consultation with affected citizens, that it is appropriate to change the use of the facility /property to a use which does not qualify under Paragraph David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. Page 23 of 23 16A8 3(a)(1) of this section or discontinue use of the facility /property, it may retain or dispose of the facility for such use if the County is reimbursed in the amount of the current fair market value of the facility /property less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non - CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvements to the facility /property. The final determination of the amount of any such reimbursement to the County under this paragraph shall be made by the County. C. Following the reimbursement of CDBG funds by the Declarant to the County pursuant to Paragraph 3(b) above, the facility /property will then no longer be subject to these restrictions once the County has recorded a release of these restrictions as described above. In the event of any proposed sale, conveyance or transfer of the subject property, the Declarant must obtain approval of the County, through its Housing and Urban Improvement Department (HUI). Any approved sale or conveyance of the subject property by the Declarant will be contingent upon the receipt of the payment by the County in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 3(b) above, or the receipt of a commitment, executed by a subsequent owner acceptable to the County, acknowledging its acquiescence to this Declaration. 4. The Declarant agrees to notify the County in writing through the HUI Department of any liens, judgments or pending foreclosure on the subject property within five (5) working days of the receipt of said notice by the Declarant. 5. Declarant shall submit to the County once each year a report detailing the Declarant's compliance with the terms of the grant Agreement and this Declaration of Restrictions. 6. Declarant relinquishes all rights to alter, amend, modify, or release the covenants set forth in this Declaration prior to the completion of the ten -year period described above. Executed this L-Al)d day of J­,alGecw , 20 DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. By: LL --e_ -.4 (CORPORATE SEAL) David Schimmel, President STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Declaration was acknowledged before me this AL)d day of Jan 2041, by David Schimmel as President of David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. , who is personally known to me or has produced identification and who did (did not) take an oath. )�' , ) �'J � - (Print or type ame) Notary Public Sate of Florida at Large My Commissioner Expires: (_01ac1p2_ as re) J rF ii n, KIMBERLY K. MAYELI (NOTARY SEAL) *; .= MY COMMISSION MCC 755248 P; EXPIRES: June 29, 2002 ''� gr;t5 bonded Thru Notary Public Underwdters 16A 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 16 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: BACON, SILAS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 20, PINE GROVE SUBDIVISION of the town of Immokalee, as shown on the Plat filed for record in Plat Book 2, page 104 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 1905 FOLIO #: 66930680000 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, a certified copy of this Resolution and the Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution pXsed af duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, thisday o , 2002. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) W1110 Clerk ' 0 Approved °as to form and le al sufficiency Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION 4.e6 _ � . Colet—ta Chairman g FLORIDA 16A 9 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN Jai# aq N BACON SR ESTATE, SILAS DATE: f w �va c SILAS BACON JR CO -PR ROAS T BACO N CO -PR < 620 ORTIZ AVE. o� i FORT MYERS, FL 33905 e8�egygZy REF. INV.# 1905 FOLIO #: 66930680000 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 20, PINE GROVE SUBDIVISION of the town of Immokalee, as shown on the Plat filed for record in Plat Book 2, page 104 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed and constituted a violation of county regulations on July 17, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF 18 ". You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 16A 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -1 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: FINEIS, GERALD R. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 38, J & C INDUSTRIAL PARK, more particularly described as: Commencing at the West Y4 corner of Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along the West line of said Section 11, N 0 10' 36" W, 1829.95 feet to the centerline of a road; thence along said centerline N 89 28' 18" E, 4172.60 feet for a POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N 0 31' 42" W, 472.64 feet; thence N 89 26' 18" E, 100.0 feet; thence S 0 31' 42" E, 472.69 feet to said centerline; thence S. 89 28'18" W, 100.0 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; being part of the North Y2 of Section 11, Township 49 South, range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; subject to a drainage easement over the northerly 15.0 feet and subject to a road easement over the Southerly 35.0 feet. Road easement intended for use as public ingress and egress. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 1889 FOLIO #: 00245320008 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, a certified copy of this Resolution and the Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. "H°" '§olution a sed an duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier Ia>1,9xs day of , 2002. � sn 1, .; 0run' ATT •r BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIT',E. COLLIER COUNT LOR A Depuf �i :..�' ,;;. -.Tames C o l e t t a , Chairman Approved as'b` %rm and legal sufficiency: PWL I Qom/ Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION 16A 9 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FINEIS, TR, GERALD R. ITF TRADE CENTER TRUST 2319 J & C BLVD STE 5 NAPLES, FL 34109 REF. INV.# 1889 FOLIO # 245320008 DATE: JAN 2 2 2002 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 38, J & C INDUSTRIAL PARK, more particularly described as: Commencing at the West 1/a corner of Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along the West line of said Section 11, N 0 10' 36" W, 1829.95 feet to the centerline of a road; thence along said centerline N 89 28' 18" E, 4172.60 feet for a POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N 0 31' 42" W, 472.64 feet; thence N 89 26' 18" E, 100.0 feet; thence S 0 31' 42" E, 472.69 feet to said centerline; thence S. 89 28'18" W, 100.0 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; being part of the North 1/z of Section 11, Township 49 South, range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; subject to a drainage easement over the northerly 15.0 feet and subject to a road easement over the Southerly 35.0 feet. Road easement intended for use as public ingress and egress. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed and constituted a violation of county regulations on July 18, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES IN HEIGHT. You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY -FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 18 16A 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: JOYCE, WALLACE L., LAWRENCE H., JOAN J. HUBBARD, BARBARA J. LARSON, PATRICIA J. HAROSKEWICZ, JUDITH J. CORSO & LAUREN JOYCE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 5 and 6, Block D, South Tamiami Heights, as recorded and platted in Plat book 3, Page 44, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE#: 1952 FOLIO #: 74412200000 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, a certified copy of this Resolution and the Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution passed a duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day o , 2002. A7 t d.:v� , "�,, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS D#'R-0.,Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA B` C BY: 1 uty Pk u to Mirw's ames W. Coletta, Chairman ae54C44 ApppOy sdtd form and legal sufficiency: L) 0� Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION 16A 9 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN JOYCE, WALLACE L., LAWRENCE H., JOAN J. HUBBARD, BARBARA J. LARSON, DATE: JAN 2 2 2002 PATRICIA J. HAROSKEWICZ, JUDITH J. CORSO & LAUREN JOYCE 506 QUINNIPIAC AVE NORTH HAVEN, CT 06473 REF. INV.# 1952 FOLIO # 74412200000 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 5 and 6, Block D, South Tamiami Heights, as recorded and platted in Plat book 3, Page 44, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed and constituted a violation of county regulations on August 13, 2001 and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES. You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 16A 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 19 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: JOYCE, WALLACE L., LAWRENCE H., JOAN J. HUBBARD, BARBARA J. LARSON, PATRICIA J. HAROSKEWICZ, JUDITH J. CORSO & LAUREN JOYCE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 5 and 6, Block D, South Tamiami Heights, as recorded and platted in Plat book 3, Page 44, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 1951 FOLIO #: 74412240002 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, a certified copy of this Resolution and the Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. Collier qpw A7 li'M1 This Resolution passed arhd duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of :a�;.e)VAp ♦ridda, this10day of , 2002. r Md?I3' b'fIA B.', 4 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS erk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA bafnan's .C. BY: 41a"m'es ti. Cole tta, Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: F11,124 C Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION 16A 9 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN JOYCE, WALLACE L., LAWRENCE H., JOAN J. HUBBARD, BARBARA J. LARSON, DATE: JAN 2 2 2002 PATRICIA J. HAROSKEWICZ, JUDITH J. CORSO & LAUREN JOYCE 506 QUINNIPIAC AVE NORTH HAVEN, CT 06473 REF.INV.# 1951 FOLIO # 74412240002 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 5 and 6, Block D, South Tamiami Heights, as recorded and platted in Plat book 3, Page 44, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed and constituted a violation of county regulations on August 13, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES. You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 16A 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 2 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: NERO, NICK & COLLEEN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 50, Block 45, Naples Park Unit 4, according to plat thereof of recorded in Plat Book 3, Page(s) 7, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 1937 FOLIO #: 62702520004 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, a certified copy of this Resolution and the Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution p j sed ay duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier Coupty-0, this day o , 2002. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DW1C AT F—,.' , - erk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA as to Cmir"n's B�': 9� So�•� BY: De�u�t�; Clem. •e'p= ��� m e s jj . c o l e t t a ,Chairman rre Fu`'.,b p Approve orm and legal sufficiency: Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION 16A 9 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN NERO, NICK & COLLEEN DATE: JAN 2 2 2002 12930 LYNN DR CHESTERLAND, OH 44026 REF. INV. #: 1937 FOLIO #: 62702520004 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 50, Block 45, Naples Park Unit 4, according to plat thereof of recorded in Plat Book 3, Page(s) 7, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed and constituted a violation of county regulations on August 15, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON- PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES IN HEIGHT. You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 16A 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 21 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit NAME: SAPORITO, DONALD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 15, PINNACLE COVE, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in plat book 17, pages 65 through 66, inclusive, of the public records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE#: 1949 FOLIO #: 67952501700 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, a certified copy of this Resolution and the Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution passed aryl duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this" day o , 2002. ttiFictt� eerf�,�f��a ATT �"�• BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS D clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA t0 CMiM" BX o` BY: A 0; �__t "_ : I3uty °w ®� J es fit. Coletta ,Chairman Ilemss. ,.• �.� '• A orm' rmv ire �t� °F PP ,��� �s and legal sufficient : f I- 1 W''1 o\./I� Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION 16A 9 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN SAPORITO, DONALD % ADRIENNE DRESSEL 203 WALNUT ST ELMHURST, IL 60126 -2635 REF.INV.# 1949 FOLIO # 67952501700 DATE: JAN 2 2 2002 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 15, PINNACLE COVE, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in plat book 17, pages 65 through 66, inclusive, of the public records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed and constituted a violation of county regulations on August 21, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON - PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES. You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY -FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 16A 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 2 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE No. 99 -51, AS SUCCESSOR TO ORDINANCE No. 91 -47, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance No. 99 -51, as successor to Ordinance No. 91 -47, as amended, the direct costs of abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property; and WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a description of said parcel; and WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable no later than twenty (20) days of the date of the Legal Notice of Assessment and interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date this Resolution is recorded at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described as follows, having been abated of a public nuisance after due and proper notice thereof to the owner(s) of said property, is hereby assessed the following costs of such abatement, to wit: NAME: WATSON, LARRY J. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 76, GOLDEN GATE, Unit 2 according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, Pages 65 through 77, inclusive, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. COST: $255.00 REFERENCE #: 1923 FOLIO #: 35780000007 The Clerk shall (by regular U.S. mail) mail a copy of this Resolution along with the Notice of Assessment of Lien to the owner(s) of the above - described property. If within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing that copy, the owner fails to deliver payment in full to Collier County, a certified copy of this Resolution and the Notice of Assessment shall be recorded in the official records of Collier County, and by recording shall constitute a lien against the above - described real property, and to the extent allowed by law, shall also be a lien upon all other real and/or personal property owned by the noted property owner(s) in Collier County. This Resolution passed a duly adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2002. ATTF,i4{ {'rrrr,, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS D , Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA i u _ BY: weputy ��`' JAtt69t &tirW"= mes N. Coletta , Chairman sipature only. 4prov4t 't0j6rm and f,. legal 0f eiency: jj Uv"N �✓1, � Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney F: LIEN/ MSTR RESOLUTION 16A 9 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT WATSON, LARRY J. 2190 41sT TERR SW. NAPLES, FL 34116 REF.INV.# 1923 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN DATE: JAN 2 2 2002 FOLIO #: 35780000007 LIEN NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 76, GOLDEN GATE, Unit 2 according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, Pages 65 through 77, inclusive, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. You, as the owner(s) of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed and constituted a violation of county regulations on August 9, 2001, and ordered the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 99 -51, as amended and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance Is: WEEDS: ACCUMULATION OF WEEDS, GRASS, OR OTHER NON- PROTECTED OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES. You have failed to timely abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of FIFTY -FIVE ($55.00) DOLLARS and an administrative cost of Two - hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of TWO - HUNDRED FIFTY- FIVE ($255.00) DOLLARS. Such cost, by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, shall become a lien on your property when recorded after approval by the Board. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE MAY RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. F: LIENS/ MSTR LNAL 'A 16A11 RESOLUTION NO. 0 2 - 2 3 A RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; SUPPORTING F.N.B. CORP. AS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT PURSUANT TO s.288.106, FLORIDA STATUTES; AND PROVIDING AN APPROPRIATION OF $45,000 AS LOCAL PARTICIPATION IN THE QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRY TAX REFUND PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR(S) 2003 THROUGH 2007, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the business under consideration is corporate headquarters for a financial entity, specifically, F.N.B. Corp.; and WHEREAS, F.N.B. Corp. is located in Collier County, Florida; and WHEREAS, F.N.B. Corp. has its corporate headquarters in Collier County, Florida; and F.N.B. Corp. is an industry targeted by the State of Florida and Collier County for new high -wage job creation; and F.N.B. Corp. has recently acquired a financial entity in another state and is considering locating a centralized technology center to support its customer service center and corporate headquarters; and WHEREAS, F.N.B. Corp. presently employs 200 employees statewide; and WHEREAS, F.N.B. Corp. will create up to 75 additional full -time equivalent new jobs in Collier County (50 in Phase I, 25 in Phase II); and the average wage for the additional jobs will total 115% of the area's average wage; and WHEREAS, Collier County will support the State of Florida Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program with a 20% local match of tax refund dollars. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board of County Commissioners hereby recommends F.N.B. Corp. be approved as a Qualified Target Industry Business pursuant to s.288.106, Florida Statutes, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the necessary commitment of local financial support for the Qualified Target Industry Business for the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program exists in the amount of up to $45,000; that this amount will be encumbered and be available for payment from future revenues generated from the projected ad valorem taxes collected as a result of this project; and that payment will be dependent upon F.N.B. Corp. constructing a new facility. Payment is proposed to be made in the following increments: FY 2003 - $7,500, FY 2004 - $11,250, FY 2005 - $11,250, FY 2006 - $11,250, FY 2007 - $3,750. 16A11 Monies are to be paid to the Florida Economic Development Trust Fund with the stipulation that these funds are intended to represent the "local participation" required by s.288.106, Florida Statutes. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DATED: /-,01 J " 0 pZ ATTEST;; DWI KTtF $,ROCK Atf* man's ' Y ±7 1i, APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: V,O, q " Patrick G. White Assistant County Attorney COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By: James N. Coletta, Chairman Date: /— (5)- 9— -- D 16A19 RESOLUTION NO. 02 2_ A RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; SUPPORTING ARTHREX METAL WORKS, INC. AS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT PURSUANT TO s.288.106, FLORIDA STATUTES; AND PROVIDING AN APPROPRIATION OF $48,000 AS LOCAL PARTICIPATION IN THE QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRY TAX REFUND PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR(S) 2003 THROUGH 2006, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the business under consideration is a manufacturer of high tech medical equipment for arthroscopic surgical procedures, specifically, Arthrex Metal Works, Inc.; and WHEREAS, Arthrex Metal Works, Inc. is located in Collier County, Florida; and WHEREAS, Arthrex Metal Works, Inc. was incorporated in 2001 with its corporate headquarters in Collier County, Florida; and Arthrex Metal Works, Inc. is a medical technology industry targeted by the State of Florida and Collier County for new high -wage job creation; and Arthrex Metal Works, Inc. manufactures high tech medical equipment for arthroscopic surgical procedures, with 83.7% of its sales going outside the state of Florida; and WHEREAS, Arthrex Metal Works, Inc. is a new wholly owned subsidiary of Arthrex, Inc., manufacturing the devices designed and engineered by Arthrex, Inc. WHEREAS, Arthrex Metal Works, Inc. will create 80 full -time equivalent new jobs in Collier County; and the average wage for the additional jobs will total 115% of the area's average wage; and WHEREAS, Collier County will support the State of Florida Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program with a 20% local match of tax refund dollars. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board of County Commissioners hereby recommends Arthrex Metal Works, Inc. be approved as a Qualified Target Industry Business pursuant to s.288.106, Florida Statutes, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the necessary commitment of local financial support for the Qualified Target Industry Business for the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program exists in the amount of up to $48,000; that this amount will be encumbered and be available for payment from the FY 2003/04 Economic Diversity Program Funds for payment in the following increments: FY 2003 - $12,000; FY 2004 - $12,000; FY 2005 - $12,000; FY 2006 - $12,000; and will be paid to the Florida Economic Development Trust Fund with the stipulation 16Al2 Fund with the stipulation that these funds are intended to represent the "local participation" required by s.288.106, Florida Statutes. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DATED: I" aa-- 0a- ATTEST: DWIQHT,Fi ; FROCK :Attest APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Patrick 6. White Assistant County Attorney COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I: James N. Coletta, Chairman Date: /— 9-a- 6a— ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE: (941) 263 -8989 FAX (941) 263 -6021 WWW.ENAPLESFLORIDA CON1 E -MAIL: EDC @ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM 16Al2 �'�6 GENERAL PROJECT OVERVIEW EL)C ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY NAPLES, FLORIDA EVERGLADES CITY • GOLDEN GATE IMMOKALEE • MARCO ISLAND Arthrex Metal Works, Inc. Name of Business New Subsidiary Expansion Project Project Title (1 -5 word description) It is suggested that you contact Enterprise Florida at the below address to discuss your project and application before submitting a formal proposal The completed and signed application must be filed with: Enterpris FLORIDA, Inc. The Atrium Building, Suite 201 • 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 850/488 -6300 • Fax: 8501922 -9595 htti)://www.eflorida.com/ Effective 07/01/01 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAX (941) 263 -6021 WWW.ENAPLEsFLORIDA.COM E-MAIL: EDC @ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM Employer Identification 16Al2 BUSINESS INFORMATION: a) Name of Business Unit: Arthrex Metal Works Inc. b) Mailing Address: 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples FL 34104 c) Name of Parent Company (if applicable): d) Primary business unit contact: Name: Kathy Sparrow Title: HR Director Company: Arthrex Metal Works Inc. Address: 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Phone: 941 - 643 -5553 Fax: 941 - 643 -6218 Email: ksparrow(aparthrex.com Website: arthrex.com e) Business unit's federal employer identification number: 06- 1121728 f) Business unit's unemployment compensation identification number: 1325343 g) Business unit's Florida sales tax registration number: 21 -00- 025562 -14 -7 h) List NAICS and SIC codes of all activities of the business unit: SIC 3841 NAICS 339112 Targeted Industry: Biomedical 0 Describe the business unit's primary business activities: manufacturing of high tech medical equipment for arthroscopic surgical procedures 2. a) Is the business unit minority owned: YES X NO b) If YES, explain: 3. Business unit's tax year (ex: Jan. 1 — Dec. 31): 7/1-6/30 Effective 07/01/01 Page 4 of 5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAx (941) 263 -6021 WWW.ENAPLEsFLORIDA COM E-MAIL: EDC @ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM Project Identification /Information 4. a) Is the business unit a (please choose one): v A new business unit to Florida An expansion of an existing Florida business unit 16Al2 b) If an expansion, how many Florida employees are currently in the expanding business unit',Z? c) How many individuals are employed in ALL Florida locations? 0 5. Full project description: This project will be a new wholly owned subsidiary of Arthrex, Inc. This new subsidiary will incorporate a new business function for the company in that Arthrex will be manufacturing the devices it designs and engineers with its existing operation. 6. Check the appropriate box and complete the line item: ❑ Project's current location address, if applicable:_ r Project's proposed location address, if different from above: Creekside Commerce Park- address not available yet, Naples FL 7. a) Located on Brownfield Site or in a Brownfield Area? YES X NO (Please attach a copy of the official document that designated this area a brownfieid area.) b) Will project be locating or expanding in an Enterprise Zone? YES X NO Which Zone: c) Will project be locating in a designated rural area? YES X NO Which designated rural area: 8. County in which project is /will be located:_ Collier County 9. Indicate the portion of the project (if any) that will be performing headquarters functions 0 % and check the box that best defines your project. Answer a) AND b) : a) ❑ Multistate business enterprise b) ❑ Regional headquarters office v Multinational business enterprise ❑ National headquarters office v International headquarters office 10. Unless this is solely a designated headquarters project, please estimate percentage of gross receipts or final sales resulting from project that will be made outside of Florida: 83.7% 11. Indicate the portion of the project (if any) that will be performing non - headquarters ' Existing Florida employees cannot be included for consideration in certain incentive awards. Z Incentives may not be used in connection with any project that involves the relocation of jobs from one Florida community to another. Effective 07/01/01 Page 4 of 5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAX (941) 263 -6021 WWW.ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM E -MAIL: EDC @ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM 2 1bA1 functions. Enter the industry description and code of each industry included in this project: 5 -6 digit 4 digit NAICS SIC Business unit Activities Code Code Medical Device 100% 339112 3841 12. List the 5 -6 digit NAICS and 4 digit SIC code(s), estimated employment, and the annualized average wage (not including benefits) for activities included in the project: NAICS /SIC 339110 Est. Employment 80 Annualized Wage $ 34,000 NAICS /SIC Est. Employment Annualized Wage $ NAICS /SIC Est. Employment Annualized Wage $ 13. a) Anticipated annualized average wage (not including benefits) of the new to Florida jobs created by the project at the business unit: $-34 000 (Cash performance bonuses and other cash payments to the employees, such as overtime, should be included. The anticipated wage reported here is only an estimate of the average wage to be paid. The wage indicated in response to an incentive attachment, if applicable, will be used in the certification, agreement, and claim evaluation process.) b) Annualized average value of benefits associated with each new job created by the project at the business unit: $835 - $1200 per employee 14. a) Describe the capital investment in real and personal property (examples: construction of new facility; remodeling of facility; upgrading, replacing or buying new equipment. Do not include the value of land purchased for construction of a new building): Construction of new facility, purchase new equipment b) List the anticipated amount (within three (3) years) and type (purchase of machinery/equipment, construction of buildings, etc.) of major capital investment to be made by the applicant in connection with this Florida project: Amount $ 4.3 million Construction /Renovations Amount $ 5.0 million Manufacturing Equipment Amount $ 225,000 Other Equipment c) Estimated square feet of new or newly expanded facility: 40,000 square feet 15. Anticipated date of beginning of construction for this project: 2002 16. Anticipated date project will be in operation: 2003 Effective 07/01/01 Page 4 of 5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAX (941) 263 -6021 WWW.ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM E -MAIL: EDC @ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM 16Al2 Project Impact Information 17. What role will the incentive (or incentives) play in the decision of the applicant to locate or expand in this state? (If there are other states /communities competing for this project, please list which states /communities and what incentives are being offered by these states /communities.) The tax refund requested is needed to help encourage Arthrex's to locate its subsidiary manufacturing operation in the state of Florida. Arthrex has manufacturing done in several different states, including California, Ohio, North Carolina, Massachusetts and Texas. Pending approval of the incentives, some of this manufacturing will be consolidated into the new facility. 18. Provide a brief synopsis on the special impacts the project is expected to stimulate in the community, the state or regional economy, focusing on economic conditions in the area, including the unemployment rate in the community where the project will be located. According to the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, the October 2001 unemployment rate for Collier County is 5.1 %, as compared to the U.S. rate of 5.0% for the same period. Population figures from the Census Bureau ranks Collier County 1" among all 20 Florida MSA's in population growth between 1990 and 2000, with a population increase of 65 %. Collier's population is projected to reach 441,637 by the year 2020. According to the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, the 2000 employment in Collier County is in the following areas. Service 34% Retail 22% Construction 12% Government 10% Agriculture 8% FIRE 6% Other 8% Based on this information, there will be a need for new job opportunities for both the current residents and for the projected growth of Collier County. This business will bring a minimum of 56 jobs over next several years, making Arthrex the largest Biomedical company in Collier County. Arthrex is not a seasonal business, unlike those companies in the service and retail industry. Arthrex will add to the year - round stability of the county's economy. Effective 07/01/01 Page 4 of 5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAx (941) 263 -6021 WWW,ENAPLEsFLORIDA.COM E-MAIL: EDC @ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM 16Al2 19. a) A brief review of the applicant's past activities in Florida and in other states, particularly as they relate to environmental and growth management impacts and how these have been handled. (Basically, what kind of corporate citizen has the applicant been ?) Arthrex, Inc. has been in Florida since 1991. In that time, the company has experienced phenomenal growth and established Arthrex as one of the top arthroscopy companies in the industry. We continue to develop our technology and increase market share in the orthopedic industry through our teamwork approach. Our ability to attract and hire qualified, conscientious employees has been a key ingredient in our success. Arthrex strives to maintain a safe and productive teamwork environment, which, in turn, promotes creativity and growth for our business, as well as our individual employees. Our good community standing is evident in the local and national awards presented to Arthrex. • Industries Park Beautification Award — EDC • Excellence in Industry — EDC • Leadership & Support — United Way • Award for Excellence in Arhhroscopy and Soft Tissue Repair — Knowledge Enterprises • Othopaedic Innovation Award for Handheld Instruments — Knowledge Enterprises • Advertising Achievement Awards — Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery and AORN Journal b) Any criminal or civil fines or penalties and any awards. (If yes, please explain) None 20. You may request that your project information (including the information contained in this application) be confidential per F.S. 288.075, Confidentiality of Records. X YES, we Request Confidentiality NO, we do not Request Confidentiality * * * *Be sure to attach proper incentive sheets) * * ** Effective 07/01/01 Page 4 of 5 16Al2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAX (941) 263 -6021 WWW.ENAPLEsFLORIDA COM E-MAIL: EDC@ENAPLEsFLORIDA.COM Application completed by: (Signature) (Print or Type Name &Title) (Company) To the best of my knowledge, the information included in this application is accurate. (Signature of Authorized Officer) (Print or Type Name of Authorized Officer) `C� 04\ ��� ��� (Print or Type Title of Authorized Officer) (Phone Number) (Company) (Fax Number) (Phone Number) (Date) D /� 5V wcLYv Dw �C .'-t.�( -�A rkg. Lxy (Fax Number) (E -mail Address) (Date) (Contact Person, if different) (E -mail Address) (E -mail Address if different) (Address if different) (Phone if different) Effective 07/01/01 Page 5 of 5 16Al2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAX(941)263-6021 WWW.ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM E -MAIL: EDC @ENAPLEsFLORIDA.COM Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund i r ; ��� �w as an attachment to the General Project Overview for Arthrex Metal Works. Inc. (Name of Business) Must be a business unit or reporting unit of a business unit that is registered with or will be registered with the State of Florida for unemployment compensation purposes. (Project Code or Number) IMPORTANT NOTE: This application must be filed pd9r to making the decision to locate a new business unit in Florida or to expand an existing Florida business unit. The tax refund claim form will be due by January 31 st each year for the number of jobs on December 31St of the previous calendar year. The tax refunds paid per state fiscal year (July 1 — June 30) may not exceed 25 percent of the total tax refund award associated with the phase(s) scheduled. The total award will be equal to $3,000 ($6,000 in Enterprise Zones or Rural Counties) times the number of jobs reported in item 10, plus $1,000 per job if the average annual wage exceeds the area's average by 150% or $2,000 per job if the average annual wage is in excess of 200 %. However, the QTI award may not exceed five times the local financial support paid by the community. 2. Project employment and wages: a) Total number of net new Florida jobs created by the project at the business unit indicated on Overview: 80 b) Are any employees being transferred from another Florida location'? No If employees are being transferred from another Florida location(s), how many and from where? c) If jobs are to be phased in, provide the date when each phase of employment will be fully implemented: (Please limit the job creation to three phases.) Phase Number of net new Florida jobs created in business unit' Date by which those jobs will be created I 80 12/31/2003 I I III ' Existing Florida employees cannot be included for consideration in certain incentive awards. ' Must be a minimum of 10 new jobs or a 10 percent increase (whichever is greater) in existing employment, unless the project is located in a rural community or Enterprise Zone. Effective 07/01/01 - QTI Page 1 of 2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAX(941)263-6021 WWW.ENAPLESFI ORIDA.COM E -MAIL: EDC@ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM 16Al2 3. For purposes of certification, agreement, and claim review, indicate the wage and corresponding threshold (percentage) to which you commit: a) $ 33,986 115% of the 2000 (year) average wage in Collier County b) $ 150% of the (year) average wage in C) $ 200% of the (year) average wage in (Enter the name of the county, MSA, or "Florida ") 4. Amount of "Local Financial Support" identified by local governing body $ 48,000 Type of Support Amount of Support Cash $ 48,000 Ad Valorem Tax Abatement' $ Land Grant by Local Governing Body' $ Waived 1.2 $ ' Refund paid to Business unit will be reduced by this amount. 2 Only available in Rural Counties. (Attach the resolution adopted by the local governing body recommending the applicant be approved as a QTI Business unit and indicating the level of local financial support that has been committed. Clearly indicate waivers requested and justification for such waiver.) PLEASE BE SURE TO ATTACH TO THE GENERAL PROJECT OVERVIEW. Signat re of individua ompleti this portion Date (If different from er I Overview) Address If Different) Signature of Authorized Officer Please print or type name of Authorized Officer Phone Date Effective 07/01/01 - QTI Page 2 of 2 DEC.. -3.ti 0. NOIN) 11 28 EFI -TALL TEL :1 850 922 9595 P.002 16Al2 Enterprise FLORIDA, Inc. December 31, 2001 Ms. Kathy Sparrow, HR Director Ardirex Metal Works, Inc. 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Dear Ms. Sparrow: EnterpriseFlorida is pleased that a medical device m4nufacauing company is considering Collier County as the location for its facility. The State of .Florida offers a number of advantages and incentives to businesses creating new jobs within Florida. Among those is the Qualified Target Industry (QTI) Tax Refund Program, which can provide tax refunds of $3,000 per high -wage job created in a targeted industry. Based on conversations with Tammie McElroy and my understanding of the project, it appears that this project maybe eligible for tax refunds under QTI. A company creating 80 jobs with an average wage that is 115% of the area average could be awarded $3,000 per job for a total award of $240,000 under the QTl tax refund program, EnterpriseFlorlda works cooperatively with OTTED and with the local community to administer these programs and is committed to working within the company's time frame. I look forward to working with you on this exciting project. Please feel free to contact me directly at (850) 487 -2157. Sincerely, Marge He Incentive Support Administrator /mh cc: Ms. Tammie McElroy, Economic Development Council of Collier County Alberta Simmons, Enterprise Florida, Inc. The Atrium Building, Suite 201 •325 John Knox Road • Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (850) 487 -2137 • Fax (850) 922 -9695 RESOLUTION NO. 02 2 5 16A13 A RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; SUPPORTING ARTHREX, INC. AS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT PURSUANT TO s.288.106, FLORIDA STATUTES; AND PROVIDING AN APPROPRIATION OF $44,800 AS LOCAL PARTICIPATION IN THE QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRY TAX REFUND PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR(S) 2004 THROUGH 2011, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the business under consideration is a research and development firm for high tech medical equipment used in arthroscopic surgical procedures, specifically, Arthrex, Inc.; and WHEREAS, Arthrex, Inc. is located in Collier County, Florida; and WHEREAS, Arthrex, Inc. was incorporated in 1984 with its corporate headquarters in Collier County, Florida; and Arthrex, Inc. is a medical technology industry targeted by the State of Florida and Collier County for new high -wage job creation; and Arthrex, Inc. is a research and development firm for high tech medical equipment used in arthroscopic surgical procedures domestically and internationally, with 84% of its sales going outside the state of Florida; and WHEREAS, Arthrex, Inc. presently employs 102 employees locally; and WHEREAS, Arthrex, Inc. will create 56 additional full -time equivalent new jobs in Collier County (18 in Phase I, 38 in Phase II); and the average wage for the additional jobs will total 150% of the area's average wage; and WHEREAS, Collier County will support the State of Florida Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program with a 20% local match of tax refund dollars. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board of County Commissioners hereby recommends Arthrex, Inc. be approved as a Qualified Target Industry Business pursuant to s.288.106, Florida Statutes, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the necessary commitment of local financial support for the Qualified Target Industry Business for the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program exists in the amount of up to $44,800; that this amount will be encumbered and be available for payment from the FY 2004/2005 Economic Diversity Program Funds for payment in the following increments: FY 2004 - $3,600, FY 2005- $3,600, FY 2006 - $3,600, FY 2007 - $3,600 for Phase I; FY 2008 - $7,600, FY 2009 - $7,600, FY 2010 - $7,600, FY 2011 - $7,600 for Phase II of the project. Monies are to be paid to the Florida Economic Development Trust 16A13 that these funds are intended to represent the "local participation" required by s.288.106, Florida Statutes. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DATED: /- a a - 6 0, ATTEST: DWIGH. , E. BROCK r'r���«�if1tl W bran' s APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Patricd.-te Assistant County Attorney he /g/gtiresolution/arthrex COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Z4-e:�69 By: 'fames N. Coletta, Chairman Date: %- 01- G, 03- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAX (941) 2 -6021 WVVW.ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM E -MAIL. EDC@ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM f6A13 GENERAL PROJECT OVERVIEW r1kov ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY NAPLES, FLORIDA EVERGLADES CITY • GOLDEN GATE IMMOKALEE • MARCO ISLAND Arthrex, Inc. Name of Business Home Office Relocation /Expansion Project Title (1 -5 word description) It is suggested that you contact Enterprise Florida at the below address to discuss your project and application before submitting a formal proposal The completed and signed application must be filed with: =pr_ ise FLORIDA, Inc. The Atrium Building, Suite 201 • 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 850/488 -6300 • Fax: 850/922 -9595 http: / /www.eflorida.com/ Effective 07/01/01 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAx (941) 263 -6021 WWW,ENAPLEsFLORIDA.COM E -MAIL: EDC @ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM 16A13 Employer Identification BUSINESS INFORMATION: 1. a) Name of Business Unit: Arthrex Inc. b) Mailing Address: 2885 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 c) Name of Parent Company (if applicable): d) Primary business unit contact: Name: Kathy Sparrow Title: HR Director Company: Arthrex Inc. Address: 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Phone: 941 - 643 -5553 Fax: 941 - 643 -6218 Email: ksparrowC@-arthrex.com Website: arthrex.com e) Business unit's federal employer identification number: 06- 1121728 f) Business unit's unemployment compensation identification number: 1325343 g) Business unit's Florida sales tax registration number: 21 -00- 025562 -14 -7 h) List NAICS and SIC codes of all activities of the business unit: SIC 3841 NAICS 339112 Targeted Industry: Biomedical 0 Describe the business unit's primary business activities: Research & Development, sales of high tech medical equipment for arthroscopic surgical procedures. 2. a) Is the business unit minority owned: YES X NO b) If YES, explain: 3. Business unit's tax year (ex: Jan. 1 — Dec. 31): 7/1-6/30 Effective 07/01/01 Page 4 of 5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAx (941) 263 -6021 WWW.ENAPLESFLORIDA.COIb1 E-MAIL: EDC@ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM 16A13 Project Identification /information 4. a) Is the business unit a (please choose one): ❑ A new business unit to Florida v An expansion of an existing Florida business unit b) If an expansion, how many Florida employees are currently in the expanding business unit "? 102 c) How many individuals are employed in ALL Florida locations? 102 5. Full project description: This project is an expansion of Arthrex's corporate headquarters located in Naples, Florida to allow consolidation of outside manufacturing processes currently done in other states. Expansion of the facility will also allow long -term growth in all areas of the company. 6. Check the appropriate box and complete the line item: ❑ Project's current location address, if applicable:_ Project's proposed location address, if different from above: Creekside Commerce Park- address not available yet, Naples, FL 7. a) Located on Brownfield Site or in a Brownfield Area? YES X NO (Please attach a copy of the official document that designated this area a brownfield area.) b) Will project be locating or expanding in an Enterprise Zone? YES X NO Which Zone: c) Will project be locating in a designated rural area? YES X NO Which designated rural area: 8. County in which project is /will be located: Collier County 9. Indicate the portion of the project (if any) that will be performing headquarters functions 100 % and check the box that best defines your project. Answer a) AND b): a) ❑ Multistate business enterprise b) ❑ Regional headquarters office v Multinational business enterprise ❑ National headquarters office International headquarters office 10. Unless this is solely a designated headquarters project, please estimate percentage of gross receipts or final sales resulting from project that will be made outside of Florida: 83.7% 11. Indicate the portion of the project (if any) that will be performing non - headquarters ' Existing Florida employees cannot be included for consideration in certain incentive awards. s Incentives may not be used in connection with any project that involves the relocation of jobs from one Florida community to another. Effective 07/01/01 Page 4 of 5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAX (941) 263 -6021 WWW.ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM E -MAIL: EDC@ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM 16A13 functions. Enter the industry description and code of each industry included in this project: 5 -6 digit 4 digit NAICS SIC Business unit Activities Code Code Medical Device 100% 339112 3841 12. List the 5 -6 digit NAICS and 4 digit SIC code(s), estimated employment, and the annualized average wage (not including benefits) for activities included in the project: NAICS /SIC 339112 Est. Employment 56 Annualized Wage $ 44,500 NAICS /SIC Est. Employment Annualized Wage $ NAICS /SIC Est. Employment Annualized Wage $ 13. a) Anticipated annualized average wage (not including benefits) of the new to Florida jobs created by the project at the business unit: $ 44,500 (Cash performance bonuses and other cash payments to the employees, such as overtime, should be included. The anticipated wage reported here is only an estimate of the average wage to be paid. The wage indicated in response to an incentive attachment, if applicable, will be used in the certification, agreement, and claim evaluation process.) b) Annualized average value of benefits associated with each new job created by the project at the business unit: $ 835 to $1200 per job 14. a) Describe the capital investment in real and personal property (examples: construction of new facility; remodeling of facility; upgrading, replacing or buying new equipment. Do not include the value of land purchased for construction of a new building): Construction of new facility, purchase new equipment b) List the anticipated amount (within three (3) years) and type (purchase of machinery/equipment, construction of buildings, etc.) of major capital investment to be made by the applicant in connection with this Florida project: Amount $ 10 million Construction /Renovations Amount $ 275,000 Manufacturing Equipment Amount $ 525,000 Other Equipment c) Estimated square feet of new or newly expanded facility: 86,000 square feet 15. Anticipated date of beginning of construction for this project: 2002 16. Anticipated date project will be in operation: 2003 Effective 07101/01 Page 4 of 5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAx (941) 263 -6021 WWW.ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM E-MAIL: EDC @ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM 16A13 Project Impact Information 17. What role will the incentive (or incentives) play in the decision of the applicant to locate or expand in this state? (If there are other states /communities competing for this project, please list which states /communities and what incentives are being offered by these states /communities.) The tax refund requested is needed to help encourage Arthrex's continued growth in the state of Florida. It is our intention to expand our Florida employment through the consolidation of employees from offices in California. 18. Provide a brief synopsis on the special impacts the project is expected to stimulate in the community, the state or regional economy, focusing on economic conditions in the area, including the unemployment rate in the community where the project will be located. According to the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, the October 2001 unemployment rate for Collier County is 5.1 %, as compared to the U.S. rate of 5.0% for the same period. Population figures from the Census Bureau ranks Collier County 1St among all 20 Florida MSA's in population growth between 1990 and 2000, with a population increase of 65 %. Collier's population is projected to reach 441,637 by the year 2020. According to the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, the 2000 employment in Collier County is in the following areas. Service 34% Retail 22% Construction 12% Government 10% Agriculture 8% FIRE 6% Other 8% Based on this information, there will be a need for new job opportunities for both the current residents and for the projected growth of Collier County. This business will bring a minimum of 56 jobs over next several years, making Arthrex the largest Biomedical company in Collier County. Arthrex is not a seasonal business, unlike those companies in the service and retail industry. Arthrex will add to the year - round stability of the county's economy. Effective 07/01/01 Page 4 of 5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAx (941) 263 -6021 WWW.ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM E-MAIL: EDC @ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM 16A13 19. a) A brief review of the applicant's past activities in Florida and in other states, particularly as they relate to environmental and growth management impacts and how these have been handled. (Basically, what kind of corporate citizen has the applicant been ?) Arthrex, Inc. has been in Florida since 1991. In that time, the company has experienced phenomenal growth and established Arthrex as one of the top arthroscopy companies in the industry. We continue to develop our technology and increase market share in the orthopedic industry through our teamwork approach. Our ability to attract and hire qualified, conscientious employees has been a key ingredient in our success. Arthrex strives to maintain a safe and productive teamwork environment, which, in turn, promotes creativity and growth for our business, as well as our individual employees. Our good community standing is evident in the local and national awards presented to Arthrex. • Industries Park Beautification Award — EDC • Excellence in Industry — EDC • Leadership & Support — United Way • Award for Excellence in Arthroscopy and Soft Tissue Repair — Knowledge Enterprises • Othopaedic Innovation Award for Handheld Instruments — Knowledge Enterprises • Advertising Achievement Awards — Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery and AORN Journal b) Any criminal or civil fines or penalties and any awards. (If yes, please explain) None 20. You may request that your project information (including the information contained in this application) be confidential per F.S. 288.075, Confidentiality of Records. X YES, we Request Confidentiality NO, we do not Request Confidentiality * * * *Be sure to attach proper incentive sheet(s) * * ** Effective 07/01/01 Page 4 of 5 16A13 ECUNOMic DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAX (941) 263 -6021 WWW.ENAPLEsFLORIDA.COM E-MAIL: EDC @ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM Application completed by: OEM (Pr nt or Type Name & Title) (Company) qql lei 3 553 (Phone Number) t aq:) Lo --.�-L g (Fax Number) i—`-A — L) (Date) (E -mail Address) (Contact Person, if different) (E -mail Address if different) (Address if different) (Phone if different) To the best of my knowledge, the information included in this application is accurate. (Signature of Authorized Officer) (Print or Type Name of Authorized Officer) (Print or Type Title of Authorized Officer) (Company) (Phone Number) (Fax Number) (Date) (E -mail Address) Effective 07/01/01 Page 5 of 5 16A13 ECONOfv1IC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAx (941) 263 -6021 WWW.ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM E -MAIL: EDC @ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM J Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund as an attachment to the General Project Overview for Arthrex, Inc. (Name of Business) Must be a business unit or reporting unit of a business unit that is registered with or will be registered with the State of Florida for unemployment compensation purposes. (Project Code or Number) IMPORTANT NOTE: This application must be filed fp iorto making the decision to locate a new business unit in Florida or to expand an existing Florida business unit. The tax refund claim form will be due by January 31" each year for the number of jobs on December 31" of the previous calendar year. The tax refunds paid per state fiscal year (July 1 — June 30) may not exceed 25 percent of the total tax refund award associated with the phase(s) scheduled. The total award will be equal to $3,000 ($6,000 in Enterprise Zones or Rural Counties) times the number of jobs reported in item 10, plus $1,000 per job if the average annual wage exceeds the area's average by 150% or $2,000 per job if the average annual wage is in excess of 200 %. However, the QTI award may not exceed five times the local financial support paid by the community. 2. Project employment and wages: a) Total number of net new Florida jobs created by the project at the business unit indicated on Overview: 56 b) Are any employees being transferred from another Florida location'? No If employees are being transferred from another Florida location(s), how many and from where? c) If jobs are to be phased in, provide the date when each phase of employment will be fully implemented: (Please limit the job creation to three phases.) Phase Number of net new Florida jobs created in business unit' Date by which those jobs will be created 1 18 12/31/2004 11 38 12/31/2008 III ' Existing Florida employees cannot be included for consideration in certain incentive awards. ' Must be a minimum of 10 new jobs or a 10 percent increase (whichever is greater) in existing employment, unless the project is located in a rural community or Enterprise Zone. Effective 07/01/01 - QTI Page 1 of 2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY PHONE (941) 263 -8989 FAX(941)263-6021 WWW.ENAPLEsFLORIDA.COM E-MAIL: EDC@ENAPLESFLORIDA.COM 16A13 3. For purposes of certification, agreement, and claim review, indicate the wage and corresponding threshold (percentage) to which you commit: a) $ 115% of the (year) average wage in b) $ 44,330 150% of the 2000 (year) average wage in Collier County C) $ 200% of the (year) average wage in (Enter the name of the county, MSA, or "Florida ") 4. Amount of "Local Financial Support" identified by local governing body $ 44.800 Type of Support Cash Amount of Support $ 44,800 Ad Valorem Tax Abatement' $ Land Grant by Local Governing Body' $ Waived' 2 $ ' Refund paid to Business unit will be reduced by this amount. s Only available in Rural Counties. (Attach the resolution adopted by the local governing body recommending the applicant be approved as a QTI Business unit and indicating the level of local financial support that has been committed. Clearly indicate waivers requested and justification for such waiver.) PLEASE BE SURE TO ATTACH TO THE GENERAL PROJECT OVERVIEW. I- � -oa-- S ature of individual c mpleting Wis portion Date (If different from General Overview) Address If Different) Phone Signature of Authorized Officer Date Please print or type name of Authorized Effective 07101!01 - QTI Page 2 of 2 16A13 Enterprise FLORIDA,Inc. December 13, 2001 Ms. Kathy Sparrow, HR Director Arthrex, Inc. 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Dear Ms. Sparrow: EnterpriseFlorida is pleased that a medical device research and development facility is considering Collier County as the location for its corporate headquarters' expansion. The State of Florida offers a number of advantages and incentives to businesses creating new jobs within Florida. Among those is the Qualified Target Industry (QTI) Tax Refund Program, which can provide tax refunds of $3,000 per high -wage job created in a targeted industry. Based on conversations with Tammie McElroy and my understanding of the project, it appears that this project may be eligible for tax refunds under QTI. A typical per -job award under this program is $3,000. Creating jobs with an average wage that is 150% of the area average would give a bonus of $1,000 per job for a total per job award of $4,000. EnterpriseFlorida works cooperatively with OTTED and with the local community to administer these programs and is committed to working within the company's time frame. I look forward to working with you on this exciting project. Please feel free to contact me directly at (850) 487 -2157. Sincerely, Marge Henry Incentive Support Administrator /mh cc: Ms. Tammie McElroy, Economic Development Council of Collier County Alberta Simmons, Enterprise Florida, Inc. The Atrium Building, Suite 201 •325 John Knox Road • Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (850) 487 -2157 • Fax (850) 922 -9595 16A14 RESOLUTION NO. 02- 2 6 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN SILVER LAKES PHASE TWO -B, RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY, AND ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on September 12, 1995 approved the plat of Silver Lakes Phase Two -B for recording; and WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and maintained the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and as required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 91 -102, as amended); and the Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -17), and WHEREAS, the developer has now requested final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and release of his maintenance security; and WHEREAS, the Compliance Services Section of the Development Services Department has inspected the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and is recommending acceptance of said facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that final acceptance be granted for those roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in Silver Lakes Phase Two -B, and authorize the Clerk to release the maintenance security. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the future maintenance and other attendant costs for the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements that are not required to be maintained by the homeowners association. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DATE: ATTE,'#;;4.;t,A`' °Fr;' DWLIy0,•�ERK li ����'• S'�� 2tti Approv4a §'tolft im'and legal su iency: Patrick G. White Assistant Collier County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: CHAIRMAN, James N. Coletta 16A15 RESOLUTION NO. 02 -27 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN SILVER LAKES PHASE TWO -D, RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY, AND ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE , WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on October 28, 1997, approved the plat of Silver Lakes Phase Two -D for recording; and WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and maintained the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and as required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 91 -102, as amended); and the Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -17), and WHEREAS, the developer has now requested final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and release of his maintenance security; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Review Department of Community Development Services has inspected the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and is recommending acceptance of said facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that final acceptance be granted for those roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in Silver Lakes Phase Two -D, and authorize the Clerk to release the maintenance security. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the future maintenance and other attendant costs for the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements that are not required to be maintained by the homeowners association. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. sit pry -D� CLERK a' Approved as to form and legal su iency: Patrick G. WVite Assistant Collier County Attorney �A- COLLIER COUNTY, CHAIRMAN 16A16 RESOLUTION NO. 02- 2 8 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN SILVER LAKES PHASE TWO -E, RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY, AND ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE , WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on December 15, 1998, approved the plat of Silver Lakes Phase Two -E for recording; and WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and maintained the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and as required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 91 -102, as amended); and the Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -17), and WHEREAS, the developer has now requested final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and release of his maintenance security; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Review Department of Community Development Services has inspected the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and is recommending acceptance of said facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that final acceptance be granted for those roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in Silver Lakes Phase Two -E, and authorize the Clerk to release the maintenance security. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the future maintenance and other attendant costs for the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements that are not required to be maintained by the homeowners association. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. ATT'ti b DWI6 I'` E ;BRM- Ki �LERK At; ' • i�a'mCN� than' s Approved as to form and legal su iency:� Patrick G. White Assistant Collier County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA law, A -- •.•..•irww%�wr� iii 16A17 RESOLUTION NO. 02- '9 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN SILVER LAKES PHASE TWO -F, RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY, AND ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE , WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on September 14, 1999, approved the plat of Silver Lakes Phase Two -F for recording; and WHEREAS, the developer has constructed and maintained the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and as required by the Land Development Code (Collier County Ordinance No. 91 -102, as amended); and the Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -17), and WHEREAS, the developer has now requested final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and release of his maintenance security; and WHEREAS, the Engineering Review Department of Community Development Services has inspected the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements and is recommending acceptance of said facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that final acceptance be granted for those roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements in Silver Lakes Phase Two -F, and authorize the Clerk to release the maintenance security. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County accept the future maintenance and other attendant costs for the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements that are not required to be maintained by the homeowners association. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. N d DA 69-LERK • Otte+ -t's Approved as to form and legal su iency: Patrick G. White Assistant Collier County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: James Colette CHAIRMAN 16A19 Permit No. CP- 2002 -02 PERMIT FOR CARNIVAL EXHIBITION STATE OF FLORIDA: COUNTY OF COLLIER: WHEREAS, Raymond Holland, President, Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition, Inc., has made application to the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, for a permit to conduct the Annual Fair on February 1, 2002, and WHEREAS, Raymond Holland, has presented to the Board sufficient evidence that all criteria for the issuance of a permit to conduct a County Fair as set forth in Chapter 10, Article II, Amusements and Entertainments, of the Collier County Code have been satisfied and that such Annual Fair exhibition will be conducted according to lawful requirements and conditions; and WHEREAS, said Raymond Holland, President, of the Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition, Inc., has requested waivers of the Carnival Application Fee, Occupational License and Surety Bond; NOW, THEREFORE, THIS PERMIT IS HEREBY GRANTED TO Raymond Holland, President, Collier County Agricutural Fair and Exposition, Inc., to conduct a County Fair from February 1, 2002 through February 9, 2002, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the petitioner's application and all related documents, attached hereto and incorporated herein for the following described property: (See attached Exhibit "A ") The request for waivers of the Carnival Application Fee, Occupational License and Surety Bond are hereby approved. WITNESS my hand as Chairman of said Board and Seal of said County, attested by the Clerk of Courts in and for said County this ;L day of , 2002. ATT�ST� - .g «✓ DVv iIl`tT, , Gyl glerk j »Ao� Chsinan's Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: 1� ( Maijori�M. Student Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, F ORIDA: James N. Coletta, CHAIRMAN 16A19 Exhibit "A" Part of Block 489, North Golden Gate, Unit 2, Collier County, Florida All that part of Block 489 of North Golden Gate Unit 2, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 9. Pages 29 through 43, Collier County Public Records, Collier County, Florida and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Block 489: thence along the Northerly line of said Block 489: South 88'08'24" East 2012.89 feet; thence South 1'53'16" West 1184.51 feet: thence North 88108124" West 2038.4 feet to the West line of said Block 489: thence along said West line North 03'27'47" East 914.92 feet: thence continue along said West line North 01'53' 16" East 269.95 feet to the POINT OF THE BEGINNING on the parcel herein described: subject to easements and restrictions of record: (containing 55 acres). Less the following: BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of said Block 489: thence along the Northerly line of said Block 489, South 88'08'24" East 635.75 feet: thence leaving said north line, South 1'53'16' West 800.00 feet: thence South 66'02153" West 423.75:n thence South 1'53'16" West 200.25 feet: thence North 88'08'24" West 279.78 feet to the west line of said Block 489: thence along said West line. North 3'27'4T' East 914.92 feet: thence continue along said West line. North 1'53'16" East 269.95 feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein descn`bed: subject to easements . and restrictions of record: (containing 15.0 acres more or less) (Demised Premises Containing 240 acres) tol,v � Doa /oo�voo g December 7, 2001 THE COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL FAIR and EXPOSITION, INC. Board Of Collier County Commissioners 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34103 Attention: Mr. Robert Mulhere Re: Request For County Fair Permit Dear Mr. Mulhere, Collier County Fair 751 39th Avenue N.E. Naples, Florida 34120 (941) 455 -1444 Fax: (941) 455 -6701 16A19 In accordance with the provisions of Collier County Ordinance No. 75 -11, we respectfully submit the following information and exhibits witnessing to our compliance to those requirements and our evidences of such, in the form of a petition to obtain the subject permit. A. 1. Logo 2. Sketch of site showing basic location of activities 3. Board of Directors 4. Evidence of public liability insurance 5. Activity description 6. Letter confirming refuse service 7. Letter for private john use 8. Letter confirming security from Sheriff 9. Letter confirming emergency services 10. Letter confirming fire safety 11. Land lease authorizing use of property located on Highway 846, North Golden Gate 12. State Permit 13. Tax exempt sheet 16A19• Board of County Commissioners December 7, 2001 Page two B. Waiver of Requirements We are requesting the Board of Collier County Commissioners to waive the following requirements of Ordinance #75 -11 as you have in the past, because the Fair Association falls under the classification of a non - profit organization. 1. Section 1 item 3.a, Surety Bond 2. Section 1 item 3.c, Non - refundable Fee 3. Section 1 item 3.d, Occupational License In review of the request, should any questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact me at 455 -1444. Very Truly Yours C Vv /� Rayt and Holland, President Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition, Inc. RH:asw Enclosures ,NOTE: Please read reverse side Copy: Zoning Director before completing this Copy: Petitioner Petition. Copy: (4) County Manager Original Form: 11/4/75 n CARNIVAL OPERATION PETITION 16A19 PETITION NO. � }!` NLi- 2 UU f — — -11 u'7:> DATE: / f PETITIONER'S NAME: PETITIONER'S ADDRESS: 7 Zia 74L I 2541 2c,/ TELEPHONE: 9 W - 7 ,515 -f7 -T a PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS: Ier TELEPHONE: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: L58 10 h J ry � GENERAL LOCATION: CURRENT ZONING: CURRENT USE: NATURE OF PETITION: THE FOLLOWING. INFORMATION IS INCLUDED IN THIS PETITION. (FOR EXPLANATION, SEE REVERSE SIDE.) 3.a._ 3.b._ 3. c. 3.d._ 3.e.1) X_ 3.e.2)�_ 3.e.3)�_ Comments: 3.e.4) X_ 3.e.5) x 3.e.6)_X_ SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER DATE REVIEWED by Board of County Commissioners: A�Qrovedi - _ . _Disapproved: Conditions of Approval: 3.e.7). x 3.e.9)�_ SIGNATURE OF COUNTY MANAGER 16A19 moamclimm . GENERAL ADMISSION: 12 years & older - $6.00 6 -11 years - $2.00 5 years & under — FREE Parking - $3.00 February 1 — Friday February 2 — Saturday February 3 — Sunday February 4 — Monday February 5 — Tuesday February 6 — Wednesday February 7 — Thursday February 8 — Friday February 9 — Saturday RIDE COUPONS -$1.00 Armbands — $15.00 HOURS 12:00 (noon) — 12:00 (Midnight) 12:00 — 5:00 pm (armband) 9:00 pm — 12:00 — Moonlight Magic Armbands - $15.00 12:00 (noon) — 12:00 (Midnight) 12:00 (noon) — 11:00 pm 4 -H/FFA Day 11 •rr 11 •n 5:00 pm —11:00 pm 5:00 pm — 11:00 pm 5:00 pm — 11:00 pm 5:00 pm — 2:00 am 11:00 pm — 2:00 am ( Midnight madness Armbands — $15.00) 12:00 (noon) — 12:00 (Midnight) Senior Citizens. Day ALL TENTS CLOSE AT 10:00 PM 1;!%'05 /UU U8:34 FAX `J410430`Jbd CULL11"K UU UUMML'f ITT VEN 191uuz "DRESSIN G CSC- 2iLIST 16A19 PLEASE SUBJWT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS I. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLEASE ATTACR 2. FOLIO NUMBERS C) O o'l' © o 3. SURVEY FOR UNPLATTSD PROPSRTjZS - pLEASE ATTACH 4. PR3Jnl4AME �q 5. 6. EXISTING PROJECT. SUPPLY SITE DrVpZopMMrfT PIS NUMMR 7. APPLICABLE TO T$E FOLLOWING PzTTTION TYPES: SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS ADMENDMENTS 710 AM DEVEIAPMENT PLANS CONSTRUCTION PLANSW ATS ALL LAND USE PETITIONS STlE IMPROVEMENT PLANS ADMENDAW -JIM TO SITE i wp"VZAIENT PLANS EXCAVAT7ON BLASTING PERMITS RIGHT -OF -WAY LLEARING/1"I'MATION R.WOVAL STREET NAMM RESOLUTIONS INSUBSTAN77AL CHANGES 8. PROPOSED CONDObW4M DO.CUhWT NAb S J�-V/,0AIUa/ a 91 16A19 r z)a /,5-f - 9-M) 1)17 y /R /'o 1��� 1��a1� (� llGi� , /V017R lTd Neil/ VA-�e. g� —0 FAIR CAMPING 0 0 ao D GATE -1 r ru r r 0o m z0 n u Z co `o H U ❑ a T z z 1 T / A �// - M Zr z 0 EDUCATION TENT v�❑ TO Q n I-1 Ll-- -I Ll -1 l I �r_i � F---F--] m rn 8 g zIVPE B r r 0 0 GEN•4 GEN -3 GEN•2 0-no a n = to O C i Lq m L m Hm nD OVERFLOW PARKING GEN -6 GEN -7 M WAY ARKING MIDWAY CAMPING MIDWAY CAMPING ST NE 16A19 • ME • D i u i' M Zr z 0 EDUCATION TENT v�❑ TO Q n I-1 Ll-- -I Ll -1 l I �r_i � F---F--] m rn 8 g zIVPE B r r 0 0 GEN•4 GEN -3 GEN•2 0-no a n = to O C i Lq m L m Hm nD OVERFLOW PARKING GEN -6 GEN -7 M WAY ARKING MIDWAY CAMPING MIDWAY CAMPING ST NE 16A19 16A19 cnmol8-•1cn<'a0 T my CV ommmcma GiMM' ;G -n _ 5 m �Z "�cm M-zi z M��� � rn z TOO�mOMoo m xOCOOOI z X W Z? CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE ISSUE DATE (MM/DW'I 0734509 9/05/01 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY K & K Insurance Group, Inc. AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS 1712 Magnavox Way CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE P.O. Box 2338 COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Fort Wayne, In 46801 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURED COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL FAIR AND COMPANY A LETTER TIG INSURANCE COMPANY COMPANY B TIG PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY LETTER EXPOSITION, INC. 751 39TH AVENUE NAPLES, FL 33964 COMPANY C LETTER COVERAGES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. Co. TYPE OF INSURANCE. POLICY NUMBER DATE POLICY M*DDNY)EFFECTIVE POLICY LDNY). LIMITS (in thousands) A General Liability ® Commercial General Liability ❑ Claims Made ® Occur. ❑ Owner's & contractors Prot. T7 3803409901 12:01AM 4/15/01 12:01AM 4/15/02 General Aggregate $ NONE Products- Comp/OpsAggregate $ 5000 Personal & Advertising Injury $ 1000, Each Occurrence $ 10001 ❑ Fire Damage (Any one fire) $ 300 Medical Expense (Any one person) $ Participant Legal Liability $ A Automobile Liability ❑ Any auto ❑ All owned autos T7 3803409901 12:01AM 4/15/01 12:01AM 4/15/02 Combined Single Limit $ 1000 Bodily ❑ Scheduled autos ® Hired autos Injury (per erso $ Bodily Non -owned autos ❑Garage Liability Injury (per accident) $ Property ❑ Damage $ A Excess Liability FZ1 STRAIGHT EXS v❑ Other than Umbrella form, KLB3803410702 12:01AM 4/15 /01 12:01AM 4/15/02 Each Occurrence $ 1000 Aggregate $ 1000 Workers' Compensation 12:01AM 12:01AM Statutory B and WC 8047145201 4/15/01 4/15/02 $ 100_ Each Accident Employers' Liability $- 100 Disease - Policy Limit $ Disease -Each Employee 12:01AM 12:01AM AD &D $ 5 A Participant Accident T7 3803409901 4/15/01 4/15/02 Primary Medical $ 5 Excess Medical $ 2.5 Weekly Indemnity $ 75 X 13 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS! LOCATIONS /VEHICLES /RESTRICTIONS /SPECIAL ITEMS THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER IS PROVIDED WITH ON 2/01/02- 2/09/02. PROOF OF COVERAGE REGARDING THE FAIR CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONERS 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FL 34112 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO ATTN: RISK MANAGEMENT THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND .UPON THE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. ei ter, AUTHORIZED REPRES TIVE r 1 ;A�``� THE C:U LL1I=K C:UU 11 1 I I' %A&%"&- A 'J " and EXPOSITION, INC. Collier County Fair 751 39th Avenue N.E. Naples, FL. 33964 (813) 455 -1444 Activity Description List I. Blue Grass Shows A. 25 Amusement Items B. Concessions 1. Cotton Candy 2. Popcorn 3. Candy Apples C. Games For Prizes II. Display Booths A. Red Cross B. Han Radio C. Mental Health_ D. Animal Care E. Civil Defence III. Exhibits A. Agriculture B. Livestock - 4H /FFA C. Horticulture D. Arts E. Crafts 16A19 F. Home Econimists G. Military H. Emergency Medical Services I. Women's Club J. Petting Zoo' F. Hobby G. Culinary Arts H. Canning I. Clothing J. Ornamental V. Concessions, Local Clubs, Organizations b Professional Groups A.Hot Dogs F. Cake B. Hamburgers G. Ice Cream C. Sodas H. Foreign Foods D. Hero Sandwich I. Fruit E. Candy SERVICE AGREEMENT NON HAZARDOUS WASTES WASTE MA1iqf',.GW1-NT OF GGLI.�01i COWN-17! 4500 EXC➢ANGL AVE. NAPLES, FL 341.04 - (941) 649.2212 a (941) 649.5W rba19 No. 0422353 CUSTOMER ACCOUNT NO.- REASON CODE EFFECTIVE DATE BILLING NAME BILLING ADDRESS CITY, ZIP COUNTY TEL. # FAX I CONTACT I EQUIPMENT/SE-RVICE SPECIFICATIONS Loc. System Quantity Size Lids Wheels Lock Frequency On Call Schedule & Route No. Charge(s) ..... . ..... . ......... . . ...... $ - Disposalper Load .............. .................. . ................. .......... ... . . $ - 'Totial per Load ............. ............... ...... .............. ......... ......... ... Delivery Charge ............. ................. .... . ............... $ - Scheduled Charge ..... . . ........ ........ .. . ............ .................. . $ - RemovalCharge...._ ... .............. ... . . ........... Month ❑ $ ❑ hMon.— Tues.— Wed.— Thus_ Fri. -L Sat. -Q Sun.-:-;Ilr- —Lift f*\ 4? Mon.-y- Tues. 5 Wed-_& Thur.2Fn._ySat._L_ Sun.— Month ❑ $ Lift 19 _ A -.0 AAiL�-Q0_Thur._ Fri. =_3" §9 j ff Month E3 Lift ❑ 2 M 0 nth ❑ Mon.— Tues.— Wed.— Thur.— Fri.— Sat.— Sun.— $ Lift ❑ Map Code f Driver Notes: $ Total Mn th 0 Lift 0 312-RROI V Month 0 Mon.— Tues.— Wed.— Thur— Fri.— Sat.— Sun.— $ —Lift 0 Mont ❑ Mon.— Tues.— Wed.— Thur.— Fri.— Sat.— Sun.— $ ft Lift ❑ Month ❑ Mon.—Tues.— Wed.— Thur.— Fri.— Sat.— Sun.— $ Lift ❑ NET CHANGE $ Month 0 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS CUSTOMER DEPOSIT P.O. NUMBER JOB NUMBER RECEIPT REQUIRED? TAXABLE BILL TO ACCT # SIC— DISPOSAL SITE THE UNDERSIGNED INDIVIDUAL SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE/SHE HAS READ AND UNDERSTANDS THE TERMS. AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, ON REVERSE SIDE, AND THAT HE/SHE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF CUSTOMER. TERMS: NET 10 DAYS SCHEDULE OF CHARGES Service Charge per Month ......................................... . .. $ Casters/Locks ................ . ....... . ...... ................................... Extra Pic - Ch Pe r -0 .. U&rX6:t L.G_ POL.. $ 15, Per>K ...... . ..... M.. - I IL-11,5 -.AkiCOW - $ -I- Haulingper Load .................. ............. ..... . ..... . ......... . . ...... $ - Disposalper Load .............. .................. . ................. .......... ... . . $ - 'Totial per Load ............. ............... ...... .............. ......... ......... ... Delivery Charge ............. ................. .... . ............... $ - Scheduled Charge ..... . . ........ ........ .. . ............ .................. . $ - RemovalCharge...._ ... .............. ... . . ........... . ........... . .... . ..... . .... $ - CUSTOMER CONTRACTOR (AL5POFMZED -URE) (AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE) SERVICE AGREEMENT NON HAZARDOUS WASTES ` ,. ' 0a�p .a! Or ;'i �s.. : ? % COU11 T f 5GO EXCHANGE AVE. NAPLES, F� ' 3,4104 `9$x.1 " ^ * (9411 V- -_9- 5f'r-°s�. r, m. ACCOUN 'i PerLift .... -................ .... _ ......... _.._............. .. ...... ............. ................. $ NAME - PerTon........_........._ ........:............. _ ... _ ..................... _- .................. .. $ SERVICE�`�' _ ........ 1 .... __ ................$ 1.._.._ Z ADDRESS _ .......... ...... .. $ Total per Load ........... .................... ............. :..... CITY,ZIPf 1 . ................. . - -$ '' ............................... $ I Mon._ Tues.— Wed._ Thur.— Frij Sat. Sun. COUNTY —:_ L La I I I TEL. #i -�• -_> � ' FAX # CONTACTS s 1'Yj 1�'�. _:- �fi ` 7, t 1bH17 No. 042235 CUSTOMER ACCOUNT NO,� REASON CODE EFFECTIVE DATE BILLING ("? r! NAME '.. H'.r'.� BILLING ADDRESS CITY, ZIP COUNTY�� TEL.# FAX CONTACT EQUIPMENT /SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS Loc. System Quantity Size Lids Wheels Lock Frequency On Call Schedule & Route No. Charge , ) u PerLift .... -................ .... _ ......... _.._............. .. ...... ............. ................. $ PerYard ............................ _.:............................ .................I............. $ PerTon........_........._ ........:............. _ ... _ ..................... _- .................. .. $ Hauling per Load .......... ....... _.-._ ..... _ .... _ ........ 1 .... __ ................$ 1.._.._ Z Disposalper ... ............... ..:................... _ .......... ...... .. $ Total per Load ........... .................... ............. :..... .... .. ....... ::....,:;.:,::. $ DeliveryCharge ...................... _ .... _ ............... . ................. . - -$ Scheduled Charge ..... _ ...... .....:............_. ............................... $ Removal Charge ... _ ..... _ .... ::............... _ .................... Mon._ Tues.— Wed._ Thur.— Frij Sat. Sun. ' �,y l ) ' � �!. ❑ t 1 Mon.4 Tues.5 Wed./{' Thur. Fri. Sat Sun._ ?C wmf _ ..; Month ❑ Mon.—Tues.— Wed._. Thur.— Fri._ Sat._ Sun._ $ Lift ❑ Month ❑ Mon._ Tues.— Wed._ Thur_ Fri._ Sat._ Sun._ $ Lift ❑ Map Code / Driver Notes: - Q Total Month ❑ $ Lift ❑ QQ Month ❑ Mon.— Tues.— Wed._ Thur_ Fri._ Sat._ Sun._ W Lift ❑ Month ❑ Mon._ Tues.— Wed._ Thur.— Fri._ Sat._ Sun._ $ Lift ❑ Month ❑ Mon._ Tues.— Wed._ Thur.— Fri.— Sat._ Sun._ $ Lift ❑ NET CHANGE Month ❑ Lift ❑ SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS P ���� ('Q015-I-`ILA THE UNDERSIGNED INDIVIDUAL SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE/SHE, .'HAS READ AND UNDERSTANDS THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, ON REVERSE SIDE, AND THAT HE/SHE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF CUSTOMER. TERMS: NET 10 DAYS SCHEDULE OF Service Charge per Month:._' Extra Pick -up Charges u PerLift .... -................ .... _ ......... _.._............. .. ...... ............. ................. $ PerYard ............................ _.:............................ .................I............. $ PerTon........_........._ ........:............. _ ... _ ..................... _- .................. .. $ Hauling per Load .......... ....... _.-._ ..... _ .... _ ........ 1 .... __ ................$ 1.._.._ Disposalper ... ............... ..:................... _ .......... ...... .. $ Total per Load ........... .................... ............. :..... .... .. ....... ::....,:;.:,::. $ DeliveryCharge ...................... _ .... _ ............... . ................. . - -$ Scheduled Charge ..... _ ...... .....:............_. ............................... $ Removal Charge ... _ ..... _ .... ::............... _ .................... _ ......... __.... $ CUSTOMER CONTRACTOR �_Jxx"�u (AU _ORIZED I URE) r , (AUTHORIZED SIGNATU E) GES 6�a FRS : Fk," 140. . '341455- 4' _e:�. __ 2.0ci 02: ;1PM P1 BI(: CORKSCREW ISLAND 16A19 FIRE CONTROL &RESCUE DISTRICT 131.40 linmokatee Road Naples, Morida 34120 (941) 348 -8446 (941) 455- 1204 December 12, 2001 Collies County Fair Board: This letter is to confirm that the Big Corksr rew Island Fire Control and Rescue District will supply fire protection services for Lhe 2002 Colder County Fair. All applicable fire codes will be enforced and adhered to throughout the duratJor,, cif the flair, for the safety° of all eonecrned. The amount requested for personnel and equipment will be $200 per day. if you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call (941) 455 -1204. Sincerely, Frank 0. Kovarik. F=ire Chief 6beriff r -< � 16A19 �^. SHERIFF DON HUNTER -COLLIER COUNTY 33 amiami rai as , g ap (941) 774 -4434 www.coiliersheriff.org August 31, 2001 Ms. Ann Ward Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition, Inc. 751 39th Avenue, N.E. Naples, Florida 34120 RE: Fair Security February 1, 2002 through February 9, 2002 Dear Ms. Ward: The Collier County Sheriff's Office will provide security for the 2002 Annual Collier County Fair and Agricultural Exhibit. Security will be per our agreement and contract which will bring the Fair into compliance with Collier County Ordinance, Chapter 8 1/4, Section 5 (2). I look forward to working with you at the Fair this year and if I can be of any further assistance, please call me. DH:dv CC: Sgt. J. Mansberger File -Fair Sincerely, zfiter, hentt CounM Florida "The duty of the Collier County Sheriff's Office is to preserve and protect; the lives, property and constitutional guarantees of all persons." . �•�-- , ;A COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT #1 EMS SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZED AS THE AND #1 EMS SYSTEM IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA September 4, 2001 Ann Ward, Fair Director Collier County Fair Board 751 39a` Avenue NE Naples, Florida, 34120 Dear Ms. Ward, 16A19 3301 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FL 34112 (941) 774 -8459 FAX: (941) 775 -4454 E -mail: http: / /co.collier.fl/us /ems Please consider this letter as confirmation that we would be more than happy to provide Advanced Life Support coverage for the Collier County 2002 Fair! We would appreciate a calendar with the listed fair dates indicating the hours of coverage needed each day, as soon as possible and no later than two weeks prior to the Fair's start date. All of us here are dedicated to doing our part to help the Fair Board achieve another successful and safe Collier County Fair. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me at my office. Respectfully, effPage, EMS Director of Operations COLLIER COUNTY EMS JPP/bb FEB 5 1987 6AI LEASE AGREEMENT ' 1 � THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is entered into this &::!!�day of 1986, between the COLLIER COUNTY PAIR AND AGRICULTURAL EXPOSIIION. INC., hereinafter referred to as "LESSEE ", and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA hereinafter referred as "LESSOR ", and sets forth the terms and conditions for utilisation of property located in Orangetree, aka North Golden Gate, for the purpose of operating a fairground facility. W I T H E S S E T H ARTICL °_ 1. Demised Premises In consideration of the payment of rents, services to the community and facilities provided for community use and the performance of the covenants 'Hereinafter act forth, LESSOR hereby leases to LESSEE and LESSEE hereby rents from LESSOR the property described in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and made a part hereof, and hereinafter called the "Demised Premises ", situated in the County of Collier and State of Florida, for the purpose of operating a fairground .facility. consistent with the North Colden Cate P.U.D. document as recorded in the Official Records of Collier County, Official Record Book 1180. Pages 1561 through 1599. This purpose is to be considered a recreational facility by the Cocaunity Development Division of Collier County. ARTICLE 2. Term of Lease To have and to hold for a term of fifty (50) years, to co =ence January 15, 1987 and to terminate on January 14, 2037. ARTICLE 3. Hinimum Rent LESSEE hereby covenants and agrees to pay as rent for the Demised Premises the sun of One Dollar ( ;1.00) per annum, all of which shall be due and payable in advance on the date of execution of this Lease Agreement by LESSOR. ARTICLE 4. LESSEE'S Default in Payment I In the event LESSEE fails to pay the rental, fees, or charges as required under the provisions of this Lease Agreement, such failure to pay shall constitute a default and LESSOR may, at 1Ca option, terminate this Agreement after ninety (70) days written notice to LESSEE, unless the default be cured within the notice period. ARTICLE 5. Hodiflcations to Demised Premises Prior to asking any changes, alterations, additions or improvements to the Demised Premises, other than those show and described in the site plan attached, hereinafter referred to as Exhibit "B ", attached hereto and made a part hereof. LESSEE will provide to LESSOR, in writing, all proposals and plans for alterations, improvements, changes or additions to the Demised Premises for LESSOR'S written approval, specifying the nature and extent of the desired alteration, improvement, change. or additior:, along with the contemplated starting and completion time for such project. LESSOR or its designee will then have thirty (30) days within which to approve or deny in writing said request for changes, improvenentn, alterations or additions. If after thirty (30) days there has been no response from LESSOR or its designee to said proposals or piano, then such silence shall be deemed as denial to such request of LESSEE. If upon obtaining written consent and commencing said changes, alterations. additions or Improvements, LESSEE fails to complete its work within the -completion time as approved by LESSOR, LESSOR may at its election complete said changes, improvements, alterations, or additions. If any costs are incurred by LESSOR as the result of LESSEE'S failure to begin, start or complete the proposed project and by LESSOR'S completion of the proposed project, then upon demand and within thirty (30) days of the demand, LESSEE shall pay to LESSOR the amount of cost incurred by LESSOR. No election to perform by LESSOR shall constitute waiver of any covenant or obligation of LESSEE or any future default. I LESSEE covenants and agrees in connection with any maintenance. repair vark, erection, construction, improvement, addition or Alteration of any authorized modifications, additions or improvements to the Demised Premises, including those described And shown in Exhibit "B ", to observe and comply with all present and future laws, ordinances, rules, regulations. And requirements of the United States of America. State of Florida, County of Collier, and any and ell governmental agencies. 16A19 All alterations. Improvements, and additions to said Demised 16A1 9 Premises shall be made in accordance with all applicable laws and shall at once, when made or installed, be deemed as attached to the freehold and to have become property of LESSOR and shall remain for the benefit of LESSOR at the and of the terms or other expiration or termination of this Lease in as good order and condition as they were when installed. reasonable veer and tear excepted; provided, however, if prior to the termination of this •Lease. or within ninety (90) days thereafter LESSOR so directs, LESSEE shall promptly remove the additions, improvements, alterations, fixtures and installations which were placed in, on or upon the Demised Premises by LESSEE and which are designated in said notice, and repair any damage occassioned to the Demised premises by such removal and in default thereof. LESSOR may effect said removals and repairs at LESSEE'S expense. - ARTICLE 6. Access to Demised Premises LESSOR, its duly authorized agents, representatives and employees, shall have" fhe right. after reasonable notice to LESSEE, to enter into ( and upon the Demised Premises or any part thereof at all reasonable hours for the purpose of making repairs and for the purposes of inspection for compliance with the provisions of this Lease Agreement. ARTICLE 7. Assi=zent and Subletting LESSEE shall :no[ ':at_aay , time dsaign this Agreement or any. part , thereof without' prior vrit tan - consent of LESSOR, except as othervise provided here- LESSEE shall have full rights and responsibility to contract for the performances, concessions and uses which are to be conducted at the Demised Premises. In the event that a performance, activity or use requires that LESSEE sublet the Demised Premises in whole or in part, for 3 a period exceeding. six i6 91, '� nihs, or any consecutive six (6) month terms, such sublet shall be subject Co the terms and conditions of this Agreement and prior vrittenrappiovah ' ofiLESSOR, which approval shall noc be reasonably withheld. ;Subleases fora period leas then six (6) months shall be subject to the terma_and`condit ions *of this 'Agreement but shall' not '"requira�',prior.-approvil!'�of the LESSOR. 3 16A19 ARTICLE 8. Maintenance / LESSEE shall. at its Sole cost and expense, keep the Demisad ( Premises clean, attractive and in good condition at all times. If said Demised Premises are not kept cleana attractive and in good condition in the opinion of LESSOR. LESSEES manager will be so advised in writing. If corrective action is not takan within five (5) days of the receipt of such notice, LESSOR may cause the same to be cleaned and corrected and LESSEE shall assume and pay all necessary costs and such costs shall constitute additional rent which shall be paid by LESSEE within ten (10) days of receipt of written notice of costs incurred by LESSOR. ARTICLE 9. Indemnity and Insurance LESSEE coovenants and agrees that it will defend, protect and save and keep LESSOR forever harmless and Ind eacaified"against and from any penalty, damage, injury costa, or charges imposed for any violation of any law or ordinance, whether occasioned by the neglect of LESSEE or those holding under LESSEE, and that LESSEE will at all times defend, protect, indemnify and save and keep harmless LESSOR again t and from all claims, loss, injury, costs, damage or expense arising out of or from any C accident or other occurrence on or about the Demised Premises causing injury to any person or personal property whosoever and whatsoever, during the ten of this Lease or any extension hereof. The LESSEE agrees to take cut and maintain with a reputable insurance company, at its sole cost and expense, public liability insurance against property damage or personal injury arising out 'of or growing out of the use of or occurring on or about the Demised Premises. The.,..LcSSEF shall" t'etttia agreemefit' "coaprehen "save' e�e!^a !#st�l moodily injv -y" aad'�roperty'"damigt"'�iti°' ' dve�$uadrad � Thousand Dollars (1500, 000.00)•''eoaibiaed angle 1+� 0 h` "other. amount .of ...insurance or- Collier County to be provided' by `I,fSSEE' �i 3itt2d��sttdT'iegnired by LESSOR'S-Risk Maaa�ement DepecLment n t e event th7 a hereinstate �min�mal incurance coverage is'' not ' co�ameYtTa`IlZ3'1"P!'a$1'�"!" In any event, the amount of protection afforded Collier County by LESSEE shall continually reflect a standard coverage amount as required by the LESSOR'S Risk A 16A19 Ksnagement Department, during the course of this Lease Agreement. Collier County shall be listed as an additional insured on said policy. All insurance policies required above shall be issued and written with a company or companies authorized to engage in the business of general liability insurance in the State of Florida and authorized to do business under the lava of the State of Florida, with the following qualifications as to management and financial strength: The company must be rated no less than "A" as to financial rating in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide published by A.H. Beat Company, Inc. e ar -to-,, LESSOR-_ -c uttxmar w7wi prior._to_,the Occuv&ncv of the Demised P-4..■ rntea. . 8hall _..cl early __. pat -up JDW3r&­ ,&nA —that -LESS EB...has_oboel ' Pe► • iEieatioa�aa...zequiredRF iaase. LESSEE agrees to make no changes, or cancellations of the insurance without thirty (30) days prior written notice to LESSOR. LESSEE shall also ensure that the insurance coverage provided in accordance with this Lease shall require that the company or companies writing such insurance policy shall provide to LESSOR written notice of cancellation thirty (30) days prior to the proposed cancellation. LESSOR reserves the right to reasonably amend the insurance requirements by issuance of notice in writing to LESSEE, whereupon receipt of such notice LESSEE shall have thirty (30) days in which to obtain such additional insurance. b If LESSEE cannot obtain required insurance as stated herein for a period not to exceed three (3) consecutive years, LESSOR may, at its option, terminate this Agreement after thirty (30) days written notice to LESSEE, unless the default be cured within the notice period. Under no circumstance may LESS'�E operate in any capacity on the Demised Premises until such time the required insurance has been provided to LESSOR. 5 ARTICLE 10. Utilitlee and Services 16A19 All utilities and services, including initial hookups of water, septic and electricity shall be the reeponsiblity of the LESSEE. LESSEE shall be responsible for the direct payment to the appropriate company for all utilities and services supplied to the Demised Premises. When such utilities and services are available LESSOR any require LESSEE to hook up to public water and sever lines at LESSEE'S expense. ARTICLE 11. Joint Use of Demised Premises. LESSEE agrees to allow LESSOR, at no cost to LESSOR. to use Demised Premises, when not occupied by LESSEE. Such uses may include, but are not limited to, 4 —R. activities, recreational programs and educational uses. Prior to scheduling of events, LESSOR shall provide to LESSEE in writing a proposed schedule and event for LESSEE'S written approval specifying time and event to take place. LESSEE or its designee will then have thirty (30) days within which to approve or deny in writing said request for use of Demised Premises. If after thirty (30) days there has 'been no response from LESSEE or its designee to said request, then such silence shall be deemed as denial of such request of LESSOR. LESSEE shall not unreasonably withhold its consent to such requested event or scheduling by LESSOR. LESSOR will in no way conflict or compete with LESSEE'.S activities. LESSEE agrees to allow Collier County Agricultural Department to plant trees on Demised Premises. Areas shall be agreed upon by both parties prior to any planting on Demised Premises. Collier County Agricultural Department assumes full responsibility for the - aincainance and care of said trees. These trees are to be used for the purposes of research and study. LESSOR agrees to allow the LESSEE to use all or part of the parking facilities and roadways constructed on the adjacent. County —owned lands during the regularly scheduled Collier County Fair, except in the situation where fair parking would create an undue hardship and interfereuce with regular business activities on adjacent properties, in which case notice will be given to the LESSEE, in writing, by the LESSOR. LESSOR and LESSEE agree that the use of the Demised Premises shall be for the benefit of the general public. To better serve the needs of the general public. LESSEE agrees that LESSOR may develop approximately five 5 -'flbA19 (5) acres of the Oeaised Premises with recreational facilities. Th e exact location of the facility shall be determined by mutual agreement r between LESSOR and LESSEE. Facilities may Include, but are not United to: tot lots, picnic facilities, park benches, rastroom facilities, appropriate lighting, jogging paths, and exercise stations. LESSEE shall have control over the use of the facilities with the understanding that they are for the use of the general public. Said facilities shall be an extension of other improvements constructed on the Demised Premises and may be utilized, where appropriate, to support LESSEE'S activities. LESSOR retains access rights to enter upon the Demised Premises for the purpose of maintaining said recreational facilities. Any water retention areas, as part of this recreational facility or any part of the Demised Premises shall be constructed within two (2) years from the date of the execution of this Lease Agreement. LESSEE and LESSOR shall share equally all maintenance costs of said lake, such maintenance shall be performed by the LESSOR. Furthermore twenty five percent (25X) of the spoil removed from the lake shall belong to and be used by the LESSOR. All spoil shall be used on the Demised Premises. ``- ARTICLE 12. Defaults by Lessee Failure of LESSEE to cocply with any provision or covenant of this Agreement shall constitute a default. LESSOR may, at its option, terminate this Agreement after ninety (90) days written notice to LESSEE, unless the default be cured within the notice period (or such additional time as Is reasonably required to correct such default). Rowever, the occurrence of any of the following events shall constitute a default by LESSEE, and LESSOR may terminate this Lease Agreement notwithstanding the provisions of Article 12 herein: (a) Abandonment of Demised Premises, revocation or dissolution of charter, or discontinuation of LESSEE'S operation, except as provided for in Article 9 of this Agreement. (b) Falsification by LESSEE or any officer or authorized agent of LESSEE of any report required to be furnished to LESSOR pursuant to the terms of thin Lease. In the event of the `occurrence of any of the foregoing defaults in this Article 12, LESSOR. besides other rights and remedies it may have, 3 r!� shall have the immediate right to cancel this Lease and reenter and 6A19 remove all persons and property from the Demised Premises. ARTICLE 13. Default by Lessor LESSOR shall in no event be charged with default in the performance of any of its obligations hereunder unless and until LESSOR shall have failed to perform such obligations within thirty (30) days (or such additional time as is reasonably required to correct such default) after notice to LESSOR by LESSEE properly specifying wherein LESSOR has failed to perform any such obligations. ARTICLE 14. Notices Any notice which LESSOR or LESSEE may be required to give to the other party shall be in writing to the other party at the following addresses: Original to: Collier County Fair And Collier County Manager Agricultural Exposition, Inc. Building "F" P.O. Box 737 Copy to: Naples. Florida 33939 Real Property Management Department 3301 Tamiaml Trail East Building "D" r� Naples, Florida 33962 �— ARTICLE 1-5. Surrender of Premises LESSEE covenants and agrees to deliver up and surrender to LESSOR possession of the Demised Premises and any improvements to the Demised Premises upon expiration of this Lease, or its earlier termination as herein provided, broom clean and in as good condition and repair as the same shall be at the commencement of the term of this Lease or may have been put by LESSOR or LESSEE during the continuance thereof, ordinary wear and tear and damage by fire or the elements beyond LESSEE'S control excepted. ARTICLE 16. Condemnation Clause If the whole property of the Demised Premises shall be taken or ' condemned by any competent authority for any public or quasi— public use or purpose, then in that event this Lease and the term of this Lease hereof shall cease and terminate as to the date upon which the title shall vest thereby in such authority and the rent hereunder shall be apportioned and paid up to`said date or the date in which LESSEE'S business is materially impaired, whichever is earlier. 3 16A19- _. _._. -If only a part of the Demiaed Premises shall be so taken or condemned, this Lease and the term of this Lease hereof shall not cease n or terminate, but the rent payable hereunder after the date on which LESSEE shall be required to surrender possession of the part of the Demised Premises so taken or condemned shall be reduced proportionately as of the date of such condemnation or date in which LESSEE'S business is materially impaired, whichever is earlier. If the remaining portion of the Demiaed Premises is not sufficient for the operation of LESSEE'S business, LESSEE may cancel this Lease by notifying LESSOR within ninety (90) days of the taking of all or portion of the Demised Premises. In Che event of any such taking or condemnation in whole or in part the entire award shall belong to LESSOR without any deduction therefrom in the value of the unexpired tern of this Lease, or for any other estate r or interest in the Demised Premises now or hereinafter vested in LESSEE. Further --.ore LESSEE hereby assigns to the LESSOR all of its rights, title and interest in and to any all such award or awards without any or all rights, estate, or any part thereof. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to permit the LESSOR to make application or clai— or to receive with respect to award :ode for moving expenses an allowance with respect to trade fixtures and equipment belonging to LESSEE. Any re— construction required as a result of any taking as contemplated herein shall be at the sole cost and expense of the LESSOR if compensated by the taking authority for said re— cocstruction, This Lease shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. ARTICLE 17. General Provisions LESSOR and LESSEE recognize that Collier County (LESSOR) originally acquired the Demiaed Premises through a conveyance by the Developer of the Orangetree Planned Unit formall Development ( Y kaowu as North Golden Gate) in accordance with development commitments applicable thereto. It is further recognized that the potential always exists that the Developer of the Orangetres Planned Unit Development or a third . _....._... .,..,.:Yh+1Pt'�'- + ' • . " �V:s relati ^�y ]�c part may litigate ate t ? 44l4 � 7177 *;4i ed Unit Develo t s paint (PUD) Docuae '~'`'� It _ nt (known ;ai :the . "PtJD by Settlement !' document). It is therefore 'aBraed D LESSOR 's Y ana LSSEE that in the event �,,• ; ,• - ..••.,r,thaC. litigation Is dugtj tuted jaAj,,�{Tf''of'1��"� but `urisdietlon .. -., and � ..6A19 such litigation results in a requirement that Collier County (LESSOR) reconvey the Demised Premises to the Developer. this lease @hail be terminated immediately upon such reconveyance and LESSEE shall relinquish all rights in said Demised Premises. LESSEE fully understands that the police and law enforcement security protection provided by law enforcement agencies for the above referenced Demised Premises 1s limited to that provided to any other business or agency situated in Collier County, and acknowledges that any special security measures deemed necessary for additional protection of the Demised Premises shall be the sole responsibility and cost of LESSEE and shall involve no cost or expense to LESSOR. LESSEE expressly agrees for itself, its successor and assigns, to refrain from any use of the Demised Premises which would interfere with or adversely affect the operation or maintenance of LESSOR'S standard operations cc adjacent property or where other operations share common facilities under one (1) roof. LESSEE shall not commit, or allow to be co ®fitted, any waste on the Demised Premises, create or allow any nuisance on the Demised Premises or use or allow the Demised Premises to be used as any unlawful purpose. LESSOR shall not be required to furnish the LESSEE any facilities or services of any kind whatsoever during the term of this Lease, such as, but not limited to, water, electricity, light and power, gardening and outdoor maintenance. LESSOR shall not be required to make any alterations, rebuildings, replacements, changes, additions, improvements or repairs during the said tern of this Lease. The LESSEE will not incur any indebtedness giving a right to a claim of lien on the Demised Premises or upon the LESSEE'S interest under the Lease. The existence of any such claim of lien for a period in excess of sixty (60) days after written notice thereof to LESSEE or eLxty (60) days after knowledge thereof by LESSEE, shall constitute a material breach of this Lease. Upon knowledge or notice LESSEE shall have said claim of lien removed of record within sixty (60) days by paying or bonding same. LESSEE will cause to be filed a Notice of Commencement showing LESSOR and parties to receive notices under the Mechanic's Lien Law. All contracts made by the LESSEE for alteration. Improvements. reconutruction or repair of the Devised Premises shall be at LESSEE'S expense, and the P roduct of'l 6 + the work shall become a part of the Demised Premises. A lending institution or bank, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, may succeed to the rights of the LESSEE in a pledge of credit and will not constitute a default under this Lease. Upon commeaceaent of the Initial term of this Lease, LESSEE shall operate a fairground facility as described above on the Demised Premises in a businesslike and reputable manner. LESSEE covenants and agrees not to use, occupy, suffer or permit said Demised Premises or any part thereof to be used or occupied for any purpose other than described above. ARTICLE 18. Effective Date This Lease Agreement shall become effective upon execution by both LESSOR and LESSEE. IN WITNESS WREREOF, the parties hereto have hereunder set forth their hands and 'seals. r AS TO THE LESSOR: L. DATED:F..,.., cry / BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JA!{E$ ' 6I ES,- .C1crV- COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA G ' ' SyJt . HASSE. JR., Ch n As to LESSOR A$, T4 1:ES S EE: DATE:' i 30E SELVIA, Secretary (CORFORATE SEAL) Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: David C. Weigel Assistant County At racy 11 COLLIER COUNTY FAIR AND AGRICULTURAL EXPOSITION, INC. r //ZH 0 CONNELL. President Ae to LESSEE 1 ^ Q 2 •_ 33 • J z J 0 4 p -i m m r D Z i...w•Y N•. R•••' t ' rYHIDIT "D" 6 1 0 ► ' [ f 1 0 4j. . ( o t O T:•! f z • ; i a { ` s t. t i i D t i o 0 Qi o o i b i o■ • • • • R Q • • : : : i z v z 0 Lo 1 ^ Q 2 •_ 33 • J z J 0 4 p -i m m r D Z i...w•Y N•. R•••' t STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OFAGRICULTURE & CONSUMER SERVICES TALLAHASSEE (850) 487 -4322 FAIR PERMIT November 28, 2001 No. 0118 Application and payment offee in the amount of $275.00 having been made to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services pursuant to Florida Statutes 616.15, for a permit to conduct a public fair or exposition, and having been determined to be qualified by the Department, this Fair Permit is hereby issued to: Collier County Agricultural Fair & Exposition, Inc. 751 39th Avenue Northeast Naples, Florida 34120 to conduct a public fair or exposition at. 75139th Ave. N.E., Naples, Florida for the dates of February 1, 2002 through February 9, 2002. CHARLES H. BRONSON COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE Form 420608 -099 1193 16A19 TAX EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE Having been shown proof that the Commissioner of Agriculture has issued Fair Permit No.0118 to Collier County Agricultural Fair & Exposition, Inc. Name of Fair Association under Chapter 616, Florida Statutes, this TAX EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE is hereby issued to: Blue Grass Shows, Inc. d /b /a Name of Owner Same Trade Name P.O. Box 75244 Tampa FL 33675 Address City Mate Zip This Certificate exempts said traveling show from payment of all Occupational Licenses while operating traveling shows, exhibitions, concessions and other amusement enterprises as defined in Section 616.12, Florida Statutes, in connection with the fair conducted by the above named fair association at: 751 39th Ave. N.E. Naples Collier Place of Performance (Street or other location) City County 2/1/02 Opening Date Date of Issuance Form 06 -102 11/94 2/9/02 Closing Date Collector 7 County INSTRUCTIONS: Execute in quadruplicate as follows: White /Applicant Yellow /Tax Collector Pink /Sheriff Gold /Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services Division of Marketing & Development 541 East Tennessee Street Tallahassee, FL 32308 16A19 Permit No. PERMIT FOR CARNIVAL EXHIBITION STATE OF FLORIDA: COUNTY OF COLLIER: WHEREAS, Raymond Holland, President, Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition, Inc., has made application to the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, for a permit to conduct the Annual Fair on February 1, 2002, and WHEREAS, Raymond Holland, has presented to the Board sufficient evidence that all criteria for the issuance of a permit to conduct a County Fair as set forth in Chapter 10, Article II, Amusements and Entertainments, of the Collier County Code have been satisfied and that such Annual Fair exhibition will be conducted according to lawful requirements and conditions; and WHEREAS, said Raymond Holland, has requested a waiver of the, Surety Bond; NOW, THEREFORE, THIS PERMIT IS HEREBY GRANTED TO Raymond Holland to conduct a County Fair from February 1, 2002 through February 9, 2002, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the petitioner's application and all related documents, attached hereto and incorporated herein for the following described property: (See attached Exhibit "A ") i The request for waiver of Surety Bond is hereby approved. WITNESS my hand as Chairman of said Board and Seal of said County, attested by the I Clerk of Courts in and for said County this day of , 2002. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: CHAIRMAN Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjorie M. Student Assistant County Attorney A P.•. ILrttp 16A19 Extu'bit "A" Part of Block 489, North Golden Gate, Unit 2, Collier County, Florida All that part of Block 489 of North Golden Gate Unit 2, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 9. Pages 29 83,C Collier County Public Records, Collier County , particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest comer of said Block 489: thence along the Northerly line of said Block 489: South 88'08'24" East 2012.89 feet; thence South 1'53'16" West 1184.51 feet: thence North 88'08'24" West 2038.4 feet to the West line of said Block 489: thence along said West line North 03'27'47" East 914.92 feet: thence continue along said West tine North 01'53'16" East 269.95 feet to the POINT of THE BEGINNING on the parcel herein described: subject to easements and restrictions of record: (containing 55 acres). Less rhea followin¢: BEGINNING at the Northwest comer of said Block 489: thence along the Northerly line of said Block 489, South 88'08'24" East 635.75 feet: thence leaving said north line, South 1'53'16" West 800.00 feet: thence South 66'02'53" West 423.75:n thence South 1'53'16" West 200.25 feet: thence North 88'08'24" West 279.78 feet to the west line of said Block 489: thence along said West line. North 3'27'47" East 914.92 feet: thence continue along said West line. North 1'53'16" East 269.95 feet to the point of Beginning of the parcel herein 5e0 rie: acres b] o less) easements and restrictions of record: (containing (Demised Premises Containing 240 acres) LD /� 16A21 DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO BOARD OFFICE AS OF MAY 1, 2002 16C 1 DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO BOARD OFFICE AS OF MAY 1, 2002 16C2 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 3 0 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE DECLARATION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT. WHEREAS, Collier County is desirous of encumbering property currently owned by the County with a utility easement described in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and made a part hereof. WHEREAS, the described easement is a necessary element required for installation and maintenance of utility infrastructure for well -sites and pipelines leading to and serviced by the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant. WHEREAS, the easement will allow Collier County to proceed with expansion of the necessary well -sites in a timely fashion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereby approves the Declaration of Easement described in Exhibit "A ". 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. ADOPTED this :2 $0 day of 2002 after motion, second and majority vote favoring adoption. ATTE& DVS€I:F ?QCIK; k By: M �'' d IM y` - °` D�tiuty Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Ellen T. Chadwell Assistant County Attorney � ,. ar�drr�•��f BOARD OF COUNTY CO-NIM. I5f (#TF OF COLLIER COUNTY, F {OR A, AS *.'• THE GOVERNING BOLT t''OFLY>,IE►R .A COUNTY AND AS EX- JI~FIC3 THE GOVERNING BOARD OP, , ,"Ir—'OLLIER_ COUNTY WAT SEW .I1 C >� By: A Or r James N. Coletta, Chairman BY. [,.�d // Z ANDREW B. BECK, PSM 6065 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZAT10N / LB -43 Not valid without the signature and the original raised seat of o Florida licensed Surveyor and Mapper. DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY 0. R. BOOK 2868, PAGE 3384 PORTION OF SECTION J2, T -48 -5, R -27 -E, --COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA s _ _ _ _10_0.00' \�\ `JO'X100' ST19M0 ACCESS EAS£M£N� O.R. BOOK 1357, PAG 621\ ea nn• 3100'. 40'00' WELL 16C2 lj� EXHIBIT Page _1_.._of- -3_ DESCR010N Of PART OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 FAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORlM. (TEMPORARY 150 X 150' CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT) COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH 114 CORNER OF SECTION 37, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORKA; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 32 SOUTH 8TJ4 05" WEST im iJ FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (A) Of THE EASEMENT HEREIN DESCRIBED, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 87'34'05' WEST 150.00 fE'ET,• THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE NORTH 01' 2535" WEST 150. DO FEET,' THENCE NORTH 8"4'05" EAST 150.00 FEET,- )HENCE SOUTH 0725'35" FAST 150.00 FEET TO THE POINT Of BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. PARCEL CONTAINS 11,500 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 186.13' TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH .Br'+- °J "• rau.— `—POINT OF PROPOSEQ'25' C.U.E. / _ _ _ ` — S�8TJ4'05 "w 151.1 J — — ^ — BEGINNING (------ _ _ _ /J �-- POINT OF POINT Of COMM£NCEM£Il. 80' DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEGINNING (8) SO TH 114 CORNER OF o, 15 ]o so t40 GRAPHIC SCALE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO. 10 PLAT BOOK 4, PAGES 101 -102 TRACT 52 u I. NCRWTP WELL NUMBER 13 WHO _ lrrriw. • tiglrm • Laa4pYlr • angan • to xbwM wd*wb • Mwpwkkm oaw4 * sfao twa Lang eua Sao • A4 * "" =- rMHa T -17tt • w.sdM1 nsd Mreercom DESCRIPTION OF PART OF SECTION J2, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 17 FAST, COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. (PROPOSED 40'X8O' WEYL HOUSE EASEMENT) COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH 114 CORNER OF SECTION J2, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION J2 SOUTH 87'14 ,o5" WEST 221.1) FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (B) OF THE EASEMENT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 8734'05" WEST 80.00 FEET THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE NORTH 0 ?'15 35' WEST 40.00 FEET,• THENOt 'NORTH 87'J4'05" EAST 80.00 FEET,• THENCE SOUTH 02'2535" EAST 40.00 fE£T TO 1HE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. PARCEL CONTAINS 3200 SOLNRE FEET MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. ar NOT A SURVEY n +► i COUNTY — PUBLIC UTILITIES OMSION SKETCH AND DESCRIPTIONS OF PART OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. N8232 -001- 010 —GC000 3 or 4 1L -360 3 2 0 TRACT 51 l � o b LEGEND. O.R.: OMC14L RECORD NCRWTP - NORIN COLLIER REGIONAL WATER 7RFATM£NT PLANT ® ® - PARCELS DESCRIBED o, 15 ]o so t40 GRAPHIC SCALE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO. 10 PLAT BOOK 4, PAGES 101 -102 TRACT 52 u I. NCRWTP WELL NUMBER 13 WHO _ lrrriw. • tiglrm • Laa4pYlr • angan • to xbwM wd*wb • Mwpwkkm oaw4 * sfao twa Lang eua Sao • A4 * "" =- rMHa T -17tt • w.sdM1 nsd Mreercom DESCRIPTION OF PART OF SECTION J2, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 17 FAST, COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA. (PROPOSED 40'X8O' WEYL HOUSE EASEMENT) COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH 114 CORNER OF SECTION J2, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION J2 SOUTH 87'14 ,o5" WEST 221.1) FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (B) OF THE EASEMENT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 8734'05" WEST 80.00 FEET THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE NORTH 0 ?'15 35' WEST 40.00 FEET,• THENOt 'NORTH 87'J4'05" EAST 80.00 FEET,• THENCE SOUTH 02'2535" EAST 40.00 fE£T TO 1HE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. PARCEL CONTAINS 3200 SOLNRE FEET MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. ar NOT A SURVEY n +► i COUNTY — PUBLIC UTILITIES OMSION SKETCH AND DESCRIPTIONS OF PART OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. N8232 -001- 010 —GC000 3 or 4 1L -360 BY: ANDREW B. BECK, PSM 6065 OG / ATE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION I LB -43 Not valid without the signature and the original raised seal of a Florida licensed Surveyor and Mapper. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH TOWNSH1749 SOUTH TRACT 85 MA � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY .FLORIDA O.R. BOOK 2868, PACE J382 N.873J'217. 100.00' $ TEMPORARY 100 X 100 $ CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT \g l \ N.8T_J3'12" . 80.00' 4; Aia N� 3� i� PROPOSED N o z F Nt$, 40'X80' WELL1 a�� thdlg HOUSE fASEMENT � LO W ti ^ i7 uJ LEGEND. I O.R. - OFFICLAL RECORD NCRWTP = NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT ®D = PARCELS DESCRIBED 16C2 EXHIBIT A Page —1—of _. . DESCRIPTION OF PART OF SECTION J2, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (TEMPORARY 100X100' CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT) COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION J2, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 17 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION J2 SOUTH 87'JJ'22' WEST 1478.12 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (A) OF THE EASEMENT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 87'JJ 22" WEST 100.00 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE NORTH 02'26'38' WEST 100.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87JJ'22" EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0276138" EAST 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. PARCEL CONTAINS 10,000 SOUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. POINT OF BEGINNING (A) J2 I JJ S.87J3'12'W. f 478.11' S. BT33'2 ? 'W. 1598. 12' � 101NT OF PROPOSED 25' C. U. E. BEGINNING ----------------- 4 - - - - - -- ----- - - - -5— -- 0. is 30 60 140 GRAPHIC SCALE 80' DRAINAGE EASEMENT COLDrN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO. 10 PLAt BOOK 4, PAGES 101 -102 DESCRIPTION OF PART OF SECTION J2, TOWNSHIP TRACT 86 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PROPOSED 40'XBO' WELL HOUSE EASEMENT) NCRWTP WELL NUMBER 14 •+. NOT A SURVEY ++. Wils onmiller CLIENT: COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC dT1Ll1IES DIVISION TITLE: 1 SKETCH AND DESCRIPTIONS OF PART OF SECTION 32, fthwt , c a,+. L-4. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, � ' "�°"�" WAaonAger, inc. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. � - IhPM • Paf A4r - Avs.Oa . . Tmp, DATE: PROJECT NO.: SNEE7 NUMBER: FILE NO.: "ffD +rim I V19/01 N82J2 -001 - 010 -G0000 2 UT 4 10: J60 COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION .p J2 SOUTH 87*J3'22" WEST 1488,12 FEET TO THE i1 POINT OF BEGINNING (B) OF THE EASEMENT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 87'JJ'22" WEST 80.00 FEET, THENCE LEAVNG S'UD LINE NORTH 02'16J8' WEST 40.00 Ft-ET; w THENCE NORM 87'3J'22' EAST 80.00 FEET. THENCE SOUTH 62'16'J8" EAST 40.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. PARCEL CONTAINS 3100 SQUARE FEET MORE OR I LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. NCRWTP WELL NUMBER 14 •+. NOT A SURVEY ++. Wils onmiller CLIENT: COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC dT1Ll1IES DIVISION TITLE: 1 SKETCH AND DESCRIPTIONS OF PART OF SECTION 32, fthwt , c a,+. L-4. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, � ' "�°"�" WAaonAger, inc. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. � - IhPM • Paf A4r - Avs.Oa . . Tmp, DATE: PROJECT NO.: SNEE7 NUMBER: FILE NO.: "ffD +rim I V19/01 N82J2 -001 - 010 -G0000 2 UT 4 10: J60 BY: Z ANDREW 8. BECK, PSM 6065 OA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION /Y LB -43 Not valid without the signature and the original raised seal of a Florida licensed Surveyor and Mapper. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH TOWNSH! 49 SOUTH BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNT-; FLORIDA 0. R. BOOK 2868, PAGE 3382 N 8733'22" £. 100.00' �1I\ TEMPORARY 100'X100' N\CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT \Ig 013} N.87JJ'22`E. 80.00' /lT�% ` 1;N a PROPOSED g� N I� i I, tNN'2/ 40'x80' WELL l z�7 HOUSE^ EASEMENT �N y - - --4 — — — -t — — — 16C2 EXHIBIT A Gage _,.., -�—Of DESCRIPTION OF PART OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (TEMPORARY IOO'X IOO' CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT) COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, nORLDA; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE Of SAID SECTION J2 SOUTH 87JJ'22" WEST 15736 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (A) OF THE EASEMENT HEREIN DESCRIBED, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 87JJ72" WEST 100.00 FEET THENCE L£ANNG SAID LINE NORTH 02"26'38" WEST 100.00 FEET, THENCE NORTH 87JJ72" E45T 100.00 FEfT' THENCE SOUTH 02'26'38' EAST 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. PARCEL CONTAINS 10,000 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. POINT OF POINT OF COMMENCEMENT BEGINNING (A) SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 32 S.87JJ'11 'W. 157.J6' S.87JJ'22 'W. 277.36' L POINT OF PROPOSED 25' C. U. E. ° 5 — `---- - - - - -- B£CINN/NG(B) JJ 4 80' DRAINAGE EASEMENT 2 3 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO. 10 PLAT BOOK 4, PAGES 4 �I 101 -102 DESCRIPTION OF PART OF SECTION J2, TOWNSHIP TRACT 119 TRACT 120 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 MST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. V (PROPOSED 40X80' WELL HOUSE E45EMENT) °j p COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION J2, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 32 SOUTH 87JJ'22` WEST 167.J6 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (B) OF THE EASEMENT HEREIN II DESCRIBED; LEGEND: THENCE CONTINUING ALONG S41D LINE SOUTH O.R. - OFFICIAL RECORD " 87J3'22' WEST 80.00 FEET, NCRWTP = NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE NORTH 02'26J8' WEST TREATMENT PLANT 40.00 FEET. (A THENCE NORTH 87JJ'22` EAST 80.00 FEET; PARCELS DESCRIBED ®� THENCE SOUTH 0276'JB' EAST 40.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. PARCEL CONTAINS 3200 SQUARE FEET MORE OR _ I LESS. 0, 15 30 140 SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND GRAPHIC SCALE RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. NCRWTP WELL NUMBER 15 + ++ NOT A SURVEY +.. Wilsojamiller LIE "T` COLL /ER COUNTY - PUBLIC UTILITIES D/V/SION TITLE: SKETCH AND DESCRIPTIONS OF PART OF SECTION J2, ph'' E►b • curb • amym . Lmdt N Ardi+cb a"L1go"b TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, WNaorulfaleT, Inc. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 3m OLkTL&A g*. am . * , F�14w• • arwb • &$dWm • Tw, m`"`P"*Nl* -m— °""O'1°/0-rww -vn "�m. ftta AN DATE: 11/19/01 PROJECT NO.: N8232 SHEET NUMBER: FILE NO.: -001- 010 -GC000 1 of 4 1 IL-J60 16C2 PROJECT: NCRWTP PARCEL: 913W, 914W, 915W DECLARATION OF EASEMENT MD THIS DECLARATION is made this- day of 2002, by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIE OUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, having a mailing address of 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112, hereinafter referred to as "Declarant." Declarant is the owner of certain real property situated in Collier County, Florida, more fully described below, hereinafter referred to as the "Property." See attached Exhibit "A ", which is incorporated herein by reference. Declarant hereby declares that the Property is and shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed, used and occupied in accordance with and subject to a non - exclusive easement and privilege to enter upon, construct and maintain utility facilities on the Property as contained in this Declaration, hereinafter referred to as the "Easement." The Easement, as set forth in this Declaration, shall bind, and the benefits thereof shall inure to Declarant and its representatives, agents, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused these presents to be executed the date and year first above written. t`., ;tuttrtftflrr /ff ;,". f1t/�Ct•h1 - -, BQfCs Clerk g.VU11rian's i!� M •t•• "'"''" Deputy erk Approved as to form and leg 1 sufficiency:, �� Ellen T. Chadwell Assistant County Attorney \`;trll�ll9iJJr�JJa BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONS���� '��`f�.• '` OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,-A 'fir THE GOVERNING BODY OF COUNTY AND AS EX- OFFICIO T GOVERNING BOARD OF THE . O ER ��f�.. °"' COUNTY WAT -SEW R ',STRI T `� By : JagW N. Coletta, Br: L - • /A i W/" " ANDREWS. BECK, PSM 6065 ObE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION f LB -43 Not valid without the signature and the original raised seat of a Florida licensed Surveyor and Mapper. DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY 0. R. BOOK 2868, PAGE JJ84 PORTION OF SECTION J2, T -48 -S, R-27-E, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA _ _100.00' N��,� $I ACCESS EASEMEN I O.R. , BOOK ?357, PAC 62 ► I cr nn, 35. S.8T, 40'X80' WELL S.87J4'05 "W.1 16C2 EXHIBIT__�._ Page 1 Of D£SCR/PITON OF PART OF SECTION J2, Ii7WMAP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIN. (TEMPORARY 150X150' CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT) COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH 114 CORNER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, RoR164, THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID SECTION J1 SOUTH 8734'05" WEST to ti FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (A) OF THE EASEMENT HEREIN DESCRIBED,• THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 87)4'05" WEST moo FEET,• THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE NORTH 072555" WEST 150.00 FEET,• THENCE NORIN 8734-05- EAST 150.00 FEET,• THENCE SOUTH 0 ?2555' EAST 150.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. \ \ 4 PARCEL CONTAINS 22,500 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS 3 � 2 3 SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS: RESERVATIONS AND I RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. X00• S.8734'05'W. 186.13' TOWNS HIP 48 SOUTH TOWNSHIP 49 S7-- 351.13' POINT OF PROPOSED 25' CUE BEGINNING (!q -- -_ - - - I POINT OF COMMENCEMENT l 80' DRAINAGE EASEMENT POINT SOUTH 114 CORNER OF BEGINNING (B) SECTION 32 0. Is 30 e0 120 GRAPHIC SCALE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO. 10 PLAT BOOK 4, PAGES 101 -102 TRACT 52 1� i NCRW7P WELL NUMBER 13 Wilmomiller_ 11r.... mow*• • [t,�,iM, . s,vgs, . trm�c. N,ddc 1„r.�7FwroNfa, DESCRIPTION OF PART OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIN. (PROPOSED 40'X80' WELL HOUSE EASEMENT) COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH 114 GARNER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANCE 27 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY, not? A,- THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SND SECTION 32 SOUTN 87)405' W£ST 221. iJ F1'£T TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (B) OF 110E EASEMENT HEREIN DESCRIBED,• THENCE CONANUING ALONG SAID UN£ SOUTH 8734'05" WEST 80.00 FEET,• THENCE LEAVING SLID LINE NORTH 0725'55' WEST 40.00 ,FEET, TTIENO£ NORTH 87)405' EAST 80.00 FEET,• THENCE SOUTH 01'25 55" EAST 40.00 FEET TO rw POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. PARCEL CONTAINS 3100 SOLURE FEET MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. * ** NOT A SURVEY ••+ ? COUNTY N PUBLIC UTILITIES DMSION SKETCH AND DESCRIP17ONS OF PART OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FZOR /DA. PRO.IE� SHEET NUMBER: FILE NO.: T 1 N82J2- 001 - 010 -GC000 3 of 4 1L -J50 3 � 2 3 W � TRACT 51 y i �o LECEND. O.R. - OfT7CA4L RECORD NCRWTP s NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WAIEI? TREAWNT PLANT 00- PARCELS DESCRIBED 0. Is 30 e0 120 GRAPHIC SCALE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO. 10 PLAT BOOK 4, PAGES 101 -102 TRACT 52 1� i NCRW7P WELL NUMBER 13 Wilmomiller_ 11r.... mow*• • [t,�,iM, . s,vgs, . trm�c. N,ddc 1„r.�7FwroNfa, DESCRIPTION OF PART OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIN. (PROPOSED 40'X80' WELL HOUSE EASEMENT) COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH 114 GARNER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANCE 27 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY, not? A,- THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SND SECTION 32 SOUTN 87)405' W£ST 221. iJ F1'£T TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (B) OF 110E EASEMENT HEREIN DESCRIBED,• THENCE CONANUING ALONG SAID UN£ SOUTH 8734'05" WEST 80.00 FEET,• THENCE LEAVING SLID LINE NORTH 0725'55' WEST 40.00 ,FEET, TTIENO£ NORTH 87)405' EAST 80.00 FEET,• THENCE SOUTH 01'25 55" EAST 40.00 FEET TO rw POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. PARCEL CONTAINS 3100 SOLURE FEET MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. * ** NOT A SURVEY ••+ ? COUNTY N PUBLIC UTILITIES DMSION SKETCH AND DESCRIP17ONS OF PART OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FZOR /DA. PRO.IE� SHEET NUMBER: FILE NO.: T 1 N82J2- 001 - 010 -GC000 3 of 4 1L -J50 BY. y tG • / ANDREW B. BECK, PSM 6065 TE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION I LB -43 Not valid without the signature and the original rolsed seal of o norido licensed Surveyor and Mapper. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH TOWI115H/ 49 SOUTM BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY; FLORIDA 0. R. BOOK 2868, PAGE .1382 N.8TJX22'E. 100.00' g \ TEMPORARY 100 X100 CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT 3� N.B7;77/ 7y` b PROPOSED 40'X80' WELL kg�YHOUSLEM EMEN , ESE= mid5odbw TRACT 85 23 W O ti i b 16C2 EXHIBIT_.,..._. Page --.Z--Of __I- DESCRIPTION OF PART OF SEC17ON J2, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (TEMPORARY 100X100' CONSTRUCIMN EASEMENT) COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, BINGE 27 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY, RORIAA; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 32 SOUTH 873J'22' WEST 1478.12 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (A) of THE EASEMENT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 8733'22" WEST 100.00 FEEEP THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE NORTH 02.26:38' WEST 100.00 FEE k THENCE NORTH 87'33 '22- EAST 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0726'38' EAST 100.00 FEET To THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. PARCEL CONTAINS 10,000 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. PaWr OF ASOVAMNG (A) 32 1 33 18733'22'W. 1478.12' _ . ; _ - - - _ _ _ -\\ PW OF _ _ PROPOSED I25' C.U.E. - - 4 S BTJJ 1iW. 1598.12' � ( 1 — _ _ 5_ LEGEND: O.R. - OFFim RECORD NCRWTP . NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL NEATER TREATMENT PLANT ® ® - PARCELS DESCRIBED 6p%�� 0. 15 30 e0 1 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 80' DRAINAGE EASEMENT GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO. 10 PLAT BOOK 4, PAGES 101 -102 DESCRIPTION OF PART OF SECTKNV J2, TOWNSHIP TRACT 86 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PROPOSED 40X80' WELL HOUSE EASEMENT) COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SEC17ON 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAND SECTION 32 SOUTH 873J 72" W£Sr 1488.12 FEET TO TH£ $ POINT R/ DONNINO (8) OF THE EASEMENT HEREIN N (HENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE SOUIN BTJJ 22' WEST 80.00 FEET,' THENCE LEANNG SAID LINE NORTH 02'261J8' WEST 40.00 FEET,• THENCE NORTN 87JJ72" EAST moo FEET, THENCE SOUTH 02'26:38' EAST 40.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. I PARCEL CONTAINS 3200 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS, SUBJECT TO EASEMENT$ RES£RNAAONS AND R£STRICrAM OF RECORD. NCRWTP WELL NUMBER 14 • ++ NOT A SURVEY +.. T CLIENT: : COLLIER COUNTY - PUBLIC UAL/T/ES DMS/ON 1 Wilsoffmiller TmE: SKETCH AND DESCRIPTIONS OF PART OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, ^�""' • °�"�'+ ��ri. • +�"�°+ • L+r�p+Aroli�cA ' Thap+rYbn a°'a""' COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. �� • Mf'ft • /W . r.W DATE: PROJECT NO.: SHEET NUMBER: �1LE NO.: ""`' `kft M M. ^°"'" *" 110 •'� � • �+�+ ++�+►� 11/19/01 N8232- 001- 0l0 -GC000 2 of 4 IL -360 BY: a0411L Z ANDREW B. BECK, PSM 6065 DA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION if L8-43 Not valid without the signature and the original raised seal of a Florida licensed Surveyor 'and Mapper. TRACT 119 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, ,FLORIDA 0. R. BOOK 2868, PAGE 3382 N.87J3'22'E. 100.00' $ I\ TEMPORARY 100'X100' g CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT I9 3� N.873J 22 *E. 80.00' w w PROPOSED 2Pai$/ 40'X80' WELL %HOUSE �A SEMENT ''ly TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH TOWNSHI 49 SOUIA 16C2 11 EXHiBFT A Page �..�f _ — DESCRIPTION OF PART OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, RORILK (TEMPORARY 100 X100' CONSTRUCTNIN EASEMENT) COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION J2, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORXK THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID S£CTTWN 32 SOUTH 87-1322° WEST 157.36 FE£r TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (A) OF THE EASEMENT HEREIN DESCRIBED, THENCE CONTINWNG ALONG SA/0 LINE SOUTH 8711 -22- WEST 100.00 F££T,• THENCE LEAVING S41D LINE NORTH 02.26jr WEST 100.00 FEET,' THENCE NORTH 873322" EAST 100.00 F£Eri THENCE SOUTH 02'26'38* EAST 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. PARCEL CONTAINS /O,000 SOUARE FEET MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMEN73 RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Or RECORD. POINT OF Pmr OF BEGINNING (A) SOUTHEAST CaWIER OF SECAON 32 S.873,1'22-W. 277.36' \_ � (B S.B7JJ22'W. 15ZJ6' PROPOSED 25' C.U.E. 80' DRAINAGE EASEMENT - - - -- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24 i �o �V 10 LEGEND: O.R. - OIf/C1AL RECORD NCRWTP - NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT go- PARCELS DESCRIBED 0. 15 30 eo 120 GRAPHIC SCALE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO. 10 PLAT BOOK 4, PAGES 101 -102 TRACT 120 w I , 33 4 OESCRIPTTON OF PART OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, nORIDA (PROPOSED 40X80' WELL HOUSE EASEMENT) COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAND SECTION 32 SOUTH 873322' WEST 167.J6 FEET 10 THE POINT OF BEGINNING (B) OF THE EASEMENT HEREIN DESCRIBEO,• THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH B7JJ2Y WEST 80.00 FEET,• THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE NORTH 02'26 J8' WESr 40.00 FEET- THENCE NORTH 87J322- EAST 80.00 FEET; THENCE f0U1H 072638' EAST 40.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCR/B£0. PARCEL CONTAINS -1200 SOUAR£ FEET MAR£ OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. NCRWTP WELL NUMBER 15 •ee NOT A SURVEY •�s Wllsoimi�ller CLIENT: TITLE: COLLIER COUNTY N PUBLIC UTILITIES DMS/ON 1 SKETCH AND DESCRIPTIONS OF PART OF SECTION 32, rr own" . taw • anum . L I r I kovack , Thr4wbhw COWAN Al TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 17 EAST km COLLIER COUNTY, FLORja4. yppmr �am m,M ,�✓�SWr�fl•1Mq DATE: PROJECT NO.: SHEET NUMBER: FILE NO.: �`` �"'`'' """' �"'�' •�+�+�� l l /19/01 N813?- 001 - 010 -CC000 1 of 4 1L -360 WORK ORDER # HAA- FT -00 -02 16C3 Amendment No. 4 Agreement for Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services Dated December 8, 1998 (Contract #98 -2835) This Work Order is for professional engineering services for work known as (Title) NCRWTP NOISE ABATEMENT & SUPPRESSION STUDY (Reason for Project) To monitor noise sources ascertain if in compliance, record improvements and provide construction services during implementation of remedial work. The work is specified in the proposal dated December 26, 2001, which is attached hereto and made a part of this Work Order. In accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement referenced above, Work Order #HAA- FT -00 -02 is assigned to Hartman & Associates, Inc. Scope of Work: (List all tasks: Task 1, Task 2, etc.) Task 1: Field Data Collection, equipment Task 3: Draft /Final Tech Memos Task 2: Analysis of Data Task 4: Final Design Services Task 5: Construction Management Services Schedule of Work: Complete work within 360 days from receipt of the Notice to Proceed authorizing start of work. Compensation: In accordance with Article Five of the Agreement, the County will compensate the Firm in accordance with the negotiated lump sum and time & material amounts indicated in the schedule below (if a task is time and material, so indicate and use the established hourly rate(s) as enumerated in Schedule "A" of the Agreement). Task One L. S. $ 14,500 Original Work Order $ 19,730 Task Two L. S. $ 17,760 Previous Amendmnts $ 94,120 Task Three L.S. $ 18,140 This Amendment 4 $104,550 Task Four L. S. $ 26,250 Total New W.O. Amt $ 218,400 Task Five T &M $ 24,900 Miscellaneous T &M 3 000 TOTAL FEE $104,550 Any change within monetary authority of this Work Order made subsequent to final department approval will be considered an additional service and charged according to Schedule "A" of the Agreement. PREPARED BY: �,�w�-� I 3 tJY Peter Schalt, PMP, PLIED Project Manager D to REVIEWED BY:G�� E. Mattausch, Water Dir ctor I bate ATTEST: `+ y° "' ° •�`` A�'' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS B' Dwight E.pc;# cry -.A Collier County, lorida By: { P ` •V B ;,ty �lbt''� ft is do C�ii11' m'! Cl�airman pQ C muw�- a only. Approved a! t,Jk' � Legal Sufficien:jlw ° °ii ° "` ssistant County Attorney Date: January 2, 2002 ATTEST: (Corpora a Secretary) By: Harol.d E. Schmidt, 4-Vice President Type Name and Title (or) witnesses (2) (1 ) Signature Print Name Hartman & Associates, Inc. By: Signature (2) Signature Print Name Mr. Peter Schalt, PMP Project Manager Collier County 3301 East Tamiami Trail County Government Center, Building H3 Naples, Florida 34112 Subject: Collier County North Water Treatment Plant Noise Abatement /Suppression Study and Landscape Berm Design /Construction Management Services — Amendment No. 4 Dear Mr. Schalt: As requested, Hartman & Associates, Inc. (HAI) is pleased to submit our fee proposal, in concert with Engineering Technologies, to conclude and implement the collective comments to the results of the noise study and recommendations relative to the noise abatement and suppression study at the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant ( NCRWTP). The amendment summarizes the additional work that will be required based on our meeting with the County and Mr. Robert Bender. The work will include additional noise readings to determine the effectiveness of the noise suppression improvements designed by others, and the design/construction management of a landscaped berm along the northern side of the property. SCOPE OF WORK For this amendment, we plan on monitoring the County's NCRWTP during four (4) occasions all occurring during the early morning. The sampling events will be scheduled as follows: 1. Sampling Event No. 1 — Pre - construction to monitor the noise emanating from the site. 2. Sampling Event No. 2 — After construction of the HVAC barrier wall is completed to monitor the impacts on noise reduction from this improvement. 3. Sampling Event No. 3 — After installation of the acoustical louvers and construction of the landscape berm to monitor the impacts on noise reduction from these improvements. 4. Sampling Event No. 4 — After construction of the barrier wall surrounding the degassifier units to monitor the impacts on noise reduction from these improvements. Similar to the previous sampling events performed for the County, different operations scenarios will be monitored at various locations. The location of the three (3) samplings sites proposed will include the following: 201 EAST PINE STREET SITE 1000 • ORLANDO, FL 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 839-3955 • FAX (407) 839 -3790 • www.consulthai.com ORLANDO FORT MYERS PLANTATION JACKSONVILLE DESTIN 16C3 MRTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ASSOCIATES: PRINCIPALS: engineers, h dro e'ol s , surveyors & management consultants Gerald C. Hartman, EE., DEE Douglas P. Dufresne, PG. ]on D. Pox, PE. Harold E. Schmidt.Jr., PE., DEE lames E. Golden. P James E. Christopher, RE. Charles W Drake, PG. !n e� if G R3 �. �'" E. Troy E, Layton, P.E. Mark A. Rynning, P.E., MBA Andrew .Woodcock, EE. Grant C. Malchow, MBA Mark L Luke, PS.M. John PToomey, P.E. William D. Musser, P.E. W Thomas Roberts, III, RE. SENIOR ASSOCIATES: Michael B. Bomar, PE. Mark A. Gabriel, PE. C. Zachary Fuller, PE. December 26, 2001 HAI #99- 407.00 (12.0) George S Flint. M.PA. Marco H. Rocca, C.M.C. Jennifer L. Woodall, PE. Roderick K. Castle, PE. L. Todd Shaw. PE. Lawrence E.Jenkins, P.S.M. Mr. Peter Schalt, PMP Project Manager Collier County 3301 East Tamiami Trail County Government Center, Building H3 Naples, Florida 34112 Subject: Collier County North Water Treatment Plant Noise Abatement /Suppression Study and Landscape Berm Design /Construction Management Services — Amendment No. 4 Dear Mr. Schalt: As requested, Hartman & Associates, Inc. (HAI) is pleased to submit our fee proposal, in concert with Engineering Technologies, to conclude and implement the collective comments to the results of the noise study and recommendations relative to the noise abatement and suppression study at the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant ( NCRWTP). The amendment summarizes the additional work that will be required based on our meeting with the County and Mr. Robert Bender. The work will include additional noise readings to determine the effectiveness of the noise suppression improvements designed by others, and the design/construction management of a landscaped berm along the northern side of the property. SCOPE OF WORK For this amendment, we plan on monitoring the County's NCRWTP during four (4) occasions all occurring during the early morning. The sampling events will be scheduled as follows: 1. Sampling Event No. 1 — Pre - construction to monitor the noise emanating from the site. 2. Sampling Event No. 2 — After construction of the HVAC barrier wall is completed to monitor the impacts on noise reduction from this improvement. 3. Sampling Event No. 3 — After installation of the acoustical louvers and construction of the landscape berm to monitor the impacts on noise reduction from these improvements. 4. Sampling Event No. 4 — After construction of the barrier wall surrounding the degassifier units to monitor the impacts on noise reduction from these improvements. Similar to the previous sampling events performed for the County, different operations scenarios will be monitored at various locations. The location of the three (3) samplings sites proposed will include the following: 201 EAST PINE STREET SITE 1000 • ORLANDO, FL 32801 TELEPHONE (407) 839-3955 • FAX (407) 839 -3790 • www.consulthai.com ORLANDO FORT MYERS PLANTATION JACKSONVILLE DESTIN 16C3 Mr. Peter Schalt, PMP Project Manager December 26, 2001 Page 2 1. Site No. 1: The southwest corner at the property line of the NCRWTP. 2. Site No. 2: The northern property line of the NCRWTP. 3. Site No. 3: A pre- approved location in Mr. Bender's backyard. During each of the sampling events, instantaneous noise readings will be documented over a 2 -hour period at each of the locations. The operation scenarios to be monitored include the following: 1. No equipment operational at the WTP. 2. All equipment operational. In addition, during the each of the sampling events, instantaneous noise readings will be documented in the membrane operations building under the following operating scenarios: 1. Only the membrane softening units in operation. 2. Only the reverse osmosis units in operation. 3. Both types of water treatment units in operation. In addition, a landscaped berm will be designed along the northern side of the NCRWTP to reduce the noise emanating from this facility that may impact the condominiums constructed after the NCRWTP became operational. In addition, it is anticipated that the existing drainage system will be incorporated into the design. To accomplish the additional requirements, we have broken the amendment down into five (5) specific tasks, as outlined below: Task 1 — Field Data Collection. Prior to initiating the monitoring program, we will coordinate schedules with the Operations staff to limit the impact of the above two (2) operational scenarios on the overall operations of the NCRWTP. In addition, during this monitoring period a baseline noise level survey will be conducted, which will result in the development of a vicinity map indicating decibel levels at various locations within the extents of the property. All of the four (4) sites will be monitored under each of the three (3) operational scenarios to obtain instantaneous readings over a 2 -hour period. During the monitoring period the equipment will be checked on a regular basis to determine if it is operating properly; general maintenance and repair of the equipment will be recommended and performed by County staff, if needed. All data collected will be downloaded into a computer for analysis. 2. Task 2 — Analysis of the Field Data. The data collected during these four (4) sampling events will be summarized for analysis. The results of the instantaneous readings will be illustrated on figures and summarized with text that will provide the County with the foundation for the Mr. Peter Schalt, PMP Project Manager December 26, 2001 Page 3 16C3 noise abatement and suppression study. After each event, a letter report will be provided to the County summarizing the results of the sampling survey. Included with each letter will be the data summarized in tabular form and a map illustrating the locations of the sampling sites. 3. Task 3 — Draft and Final Documentation. A summary of findings from the instantaneous monitoring of each event will be provided to the County, in draft format, for review and comments. Two (2) technical memorandums (draft and final) will be prepared to supplement the Noise Suppression Report that was accepted by the County. The technical memorandum will summarize the results of the pre- and post - construction noise levels. This technical memorandum will include documentation collected during these monitoring periods and will be compared to the previous work performed for the County. A conference call will be held with County staff to review the technical memorandum and discuss any concerns that the staff may have regarding the results. Immediately following the review conference call, the report will be finalized and submitted. 4. Final Desiv-n Services for Landscape Berm. Upon notice to proceed, HAI will conduct a kick -off meeting with the County that will be accomplished via a conference call. The purpose of this kick -off meeting will be to establish critical decisions so that selected design activities can be initiated. After the kick -off meeting, HAI will prepare a design technical memorandum that summarizes the design decisions and direction agreed to in the kick -off meeting. Upon acceptance of the design memorandum by the County's staff, the project team will undertake the final design of the project. The final design will result in the appropriate number of bid documents, engineering drawings and specifications, which will be reviewed by the County prior to bidding. In addition, a revised opinion of probable construction cost estimate will accompany the 90- percent submittal of the final design documents. To ensure proper planning of the facilities, the project team will discuss and receive approval from the County for any substantial changes in the direction established at the kick -off meeting prior to incorporation in the final design. To complete the project, we have identified three (3) specific tasks, which are summarized below: a. Final Design Services. 1) Prepare construction plans and specifications for the facilities defined in the design technical memorandum. The documents to be provided by HAI shall include engineering drawings and technical specifications covering: a) Cover sheet, index and key map. b) Civil drawings for the landscape berm. c) Project Specifications (Bidding and Technical). Mr. Peter Schalt, PMP Project Manager December 26, 2001 Page 4 16C3 2) HAI will provide the County with five (5) complete sets of the Contract Documents (engineering drawings and specifications), and conduct a review meeting at the 90- percent completion stage of the project. Documents to be submitted to the County for review will include engineering drawings and technical specifications, and opinion of probable project cost estimate. The review meeting will be conducted to discuss concerns and/or comments that they may have regarding the 90- percent design documents. The project team will document the review meeting, and furnish documentation to the County within one (1) week following the meeting for their records. 3) Incorporate the comments received from the County regarding the 90- percent review submittal, and prepare final Contract Documents (engineering drawings and specifications) for bid. 4) Provide the County with a revised opinion of probable cost based on final design plans and specifications (i.e., bidding requirements and specifications). 5) It is anticipated that the permitting services associated with the design of the improvements to the NCRWTP will include a site development permit and possibly minor permitting associated with the drainage modifications. 6) Survey services will be provided to obtain existing topographical conditions for the design of the landscaped berm and verify existing drainage conditions (vertical and horizontal control). 5. Construction Administration Services a. Provide to the County five (5) copies of the Contract Documents (engineering drawings (bluelines, plus one set of reproducible mylars) and specifications) and any addenda, for distribution by the County to their annual fixed term landscape contractors. Additional sets required for bidding will be prepared for the County at a nominal fee approximately equal to the HAI's cost of printing. b. Consult with and advise the County as to the acceptability of subcontractors and other persons and organizations proposed by the Contractor for those portions of the work as such acceptability is required by the bidding documents. c. Consult with and advise the County as to the acceptability of substitute materials and equipment proposed by Contractor when substitution prior to the award of contracts is allowed by the bidding documents. d. Upon award of the contract to the low bidder, HAI will prepare and distribute five (5) copies of a conformed set of Contract Documents to the County and up to five (5) sets for the recommended Contractor. HAI will schedule and conduct a pre - construction Mr. Peter Schalt, PMP Project Manager December 26, 2001 Page 5 SCHEDULE 16C3 conference with the selected Contractor and the County. In addition, during the Construction Phase of the project, HAI shall: 1) Conduct site visits (budget based on one (1) visit per month to be coordinated with the monthly progress meetings) to the construction site to oversee construction of the project. For purposes of this project, we assumed a total of four (4) site visits (1 -pre- construction meeting and 3- progress meetings). These site visits will not be scheduled, as they will be conducted during critical points during the construction of the project and will be determined based upon the Contractor's CPM diagram. These site visits will observe the progress and quality of the construction and its general conformance to the Contract Documents. In addition, HAI will notify the County of observed work, which does not conform to the Contract Documents, make recommendations to the County for its correction and issue instruction to the Contractor to carry out the corrective measures. Additional site visits will be arranged and paid on an hourly basis by the County. 2) Provide interpretation or clarification of the design documents when requested, respond to Contractor issued requests for information (RE's), and prepare change orders required for clarification or minor modification of the Contract Documents prepared by HAI. 3) Review shop drawings and other required Contractor submittals up to two (2) times per submittal for general conformance with the Contract Documents. 4) Review the Contractor's applications for payment and the accompanying data and schedules; determine the amounts owed to the Contractor; and advise the County of the recommended payments to the Contractor. 5) Conduct a substantial site visit and prepare a punchlist for final acceptance. The final site visit will be conducted to determine if the work has been completed in accordance with the Contract Documents, all of the punchlist items completed, and if the Contractor's obligations are fulfilled thereunder, HAI may recommend that the County make final payment to the Contractor. 6) Prepare five (5) sets of signed and sealed blueprints, one (1) set of mylar reproducible record drawings, and one (1) set in an electronic format for the County. These documents will incorporate those changes made during construction based on information furnished to HAI by the County. The schedule for this project will be based on when construction is to begin on the barrier wall being constructed, and when it will be completed. We would need a minimum of 1 -week notice to have the equipment on -site to mobilize our staff. The 90- percent design documents will be completed within 6- weeks from the notice to proceed, and the 100 - percent design documents will be completed within 2- Mr. Peter Schalt, PMP Project Manager December 26, 2001 Page 6 16C3 weeks from receipt of comments from the County. We anticipate a 4 -week bidding period and a construction period of 3- months. Record drawings will be provided to the County within 2 -weeks of the final approval of construction. COMPENSATION Based on the scope of services and the schedule outlined above, HAI has prepared a detailed labor disaggregation for the five (5) project tasks associated with the amendment that is summarized below: Task Description Total Cost 1 Field Data Collection Pre- Construction (Sampling Event no. 1) $3,625.00 Post - Construction (Sampling Event no. 2) $3,625.00 Post - Construction (Sampling Event no. 3) $3,625.00 Post Construction (Sampling Event no. 4) $3,625.00 Subtotal Task No. 1 $14,500.00 2 Analysis of Data Pre - Construction (Sampling Event no. 1) $4,440.00 Post - Construction (Sampling Event no. 2) $4,440.00 Post - Construction (Sampling Event no. 3) $4,440.00 Post - Construction (Sampling Event no. 4) $4,440.00 Subtotal Task No. 2 $17,760.00 3 Draft/Final Technical Memorandums Preparation of draft and final technical memorandums $12,940.00 Presentation/Meetings $5,200.00 Subtotal Task No. 3 $18,140.00 4 Final Design Services $2,500.00 Technical Memorandum Prepare contract drawings and review meeting $14,550.00 Prepare contract specifications and review meeting $9,200.00 Subtotal Task No. 4 $26,250.00 5 Construction Management Services Attend monthly meetings (4- total) $16,000.00 Review shop drawings /pay requests /consult and advisement $3,900.00 Prepare record drawings $2,500.00 Substantial and final completion/certify project complete $2,500.00 Subtotal Task No. 5 $24,900.00 Subtotal — Labor Costs $101,550.00 Direct Costs $3,000.00 A Survey Services Subtotal — Direct Costs $3,000.00 TOTAL COSTS $104,550.00 Mr. Peter Schalt, PMP Project Manager December 26, 2001 Page 7 16C3 We appreciate the opportunity to provide this amendment to Collier County, and we look forward to providing the technical expertise, which you desire in the most cost - effective and viable fashion. Moreover, if you should have any questions regarding this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me at 1- 800 - 881 -3955. Very truly yours, Hartman & Associates, Inc. Harrold E. Schmidt, Jr., P.E., DEE Vice President HES /abg /99- 407.00 /Schaltl 7rev- hes.doc 16C 4 DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO BOARD OFFICE AS OF MAY 1, 2002 16C5 MEMORANDUM Date: January 23, 2002 To: Ron Hovell, PE Coastal Projects Mgr. From: Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Disaster Relief Funding Agreement Between Florida Department of Community Affairs and Collier County - Contract No. 02- RM- *2- 09 -21- 01 -008 Enclosed please find one (1) original Agreement as referenced above, (Agenda Item #16C5), as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 22, 2002. Kindly forward the said document for the required signatures from the Department of Community Affairs and forward one original to the Minutes and Records Department. If you should have any questions, please call me at 774- 8411. Thank you. Enclosures (1) 1605 Florida Department of Community Affairs Contract No. 02- RM- *2- 09 -21 -01 -008 DISASTER RELIEF FUNDING AGREEMENT This Agreement is between the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs (the "Grantee ") and, Collier County Commissioners- Public Utilities (the "Subgrantee "). This Agreement is based on the existence of the following conditions: Tropical Storm Gabrielle had a devastating impact upon the State of Florida. The severity of the damage and losses resulted in a declaration of emergency by the Governor in Executive Order 01 -268. In consequence of Tropical Storm Gabrielle, the President of the United States declared Tropical Storm Gabrielle a major disaster in the following counties: Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Flagler, Manatee, Putnam, Sarasota, St. Johns, Hardee, Highlands, and Lee. The Public Assistance Program was made available to eligible applicants in the counties of Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Flagler, Manatee, Putnam, Sarasota, St. Johns, Hardee, Highlands, and Lee. The Agreement between the State of Florida and the Federal Emergency Management Agency governing the use of such funds re- quires the State to share the costs eligible for federal financial assistance, and the State has undertaken to share those costs with its Subgrantees. A Budget Amendment has been prepared and is being considered to provide for the necessary funds and authority for this event. 1 16C5 Under the Emergency Management Act, as amended, the Department has authority to administer federal financial assistance from the Agency consequent to a presidential declaration of disaster. Based upon the existence of the foregoing conditions, the parties agree to the following: ARTICLE I. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following meanings unless another meaning is specified elsewhere: A. "Eligible activities" are those activities authorized in the FEMA -State Agreement, and in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93 -288, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 5121 -5201; 44 C.F.R. Part 206; and applicable policies of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. B. "FEMA -State Agreement" is the agreement of October 4, 2001 between the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the e State of Florida, for Disaster No. FEMA- 1393- DR -FL. ARTICLE II. APPLICABLE Law. The parties agree to all the conditions, obligations, and duties imposed by the FEMA -State Agreement and all applicable state and federal legal requirements including, without any limitation on the generality of the fore- going, the requirements of 44 C.F.R. Parts 13 and 206, and the policies of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ARTICLE III. FUNDING and INSURANCE. Grantee shall provide funds to the Subgrantee for eligible activities for the projects approved by the Grantee and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as specified in the approved Project Worksheets. Page 2 2 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 Allowable costs shall be determined in accordance with 44 C.F.R. Parts 13 and 206. A. The approved Project Worksheets shall be transmitted to Subgrantee, and shall state the cumulative funding allowed, the scope of the eligible project, and the costs eligible under this Agreement. Project Worksheets may obligate or deobligate funding, thereby amending the total amount of funding. The approved Project Worksheets shall document the total eligible costs and the total federal share of those costs, which shall be seventy -five (75) percent of all eligible costs. Contingent upon an appropriation by the Florida Legislature, the Grantee agrees to provide one -half of any non - Federal share for local government and private non - profit Subgrantees. As a condition of receipt of the funding, and contingent upon an appropriation by the Florida Legislature where required, the Subgrantee similarly agrees to provide any non - Federal share not paid by the Grantee. B. As a condition to funding under this Agreement, the SuIT antee agrees that the Grantee may withhold funds otherwise payable to Subgrantee from any disbursement to Grantee upon a determination by Grantee or Federal Emergency Management Agency that funds exceeding the eligible costs have been disbursed to Subgrantee pursuant to this Agreement or any other funding agreement administered by Grantee. C. As a further condition to funding under this Agreement, the Subgrantee agrees to procure insurance sufficient for the type or types of hazards for which the disaster was declared to cover Page 3 3 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 any and all projects to be funded under this Agreement where insurance is available and reasonable. Subgrantee shall provide Grantee with a certificate of such insurance as a condition to funding under this Agreement. ARTICLE IV. DUPLICATION OF BENEFITS PROHIBITION. Subgrantee may not receive funding under this Agreement to pay for damage covered by insurance, nor may Subgrantee receive any other duplicate benefits under this Agreement. A. Subgrantee shall without delay advise Grantee of any insurance coverage for the damage identified on the applicable Project Worksheets and of any entitlement to compensation or indemnification from such insurance. Subgrantee shall reimburse Grantee without delay for any duplicate benefits Subgrantee may receive from any other source for any damage identified on the applicable Project Worksheets for which Subgrantee has received payment from Grantee, to the extent of any such duplication. B. In the event that Grantee should determine that Subgrantee has received duplicate benefits, by its execution of this Agreement the Subgrantee gives Grantee or the Comptroller of the State of Florida the authority to set off the sum of any such duplicate benefits by withholding it from any other funds otherwise due and owing to Subgrantee. ARTICLE V. COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND PERMITTING LAWS. Subgrantee shall be responsible for the implementation and completion of the approved projects described in the Project Worksheets in a manner acceptable to Grantee, and Page 4 c} FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 in accordance with applicable legal requirements. The contract documents for any project undertaken by Subgrantee, and any land use permitted by or engaged in by Subgrantee, shall be consistent with the local government Comprehensive Plan. Subgrantee shall ensure that any development or development order complies with all applicable planning, permitting and building requirements. Subgrantee shall engage such competent engineering, building, and other technical and professional assistance at all project sites as may be needed to ensure that the project complies with the contract documents. ARTICLE VI. Reauired Documentation Reviews and Inspections Subgrantee shall create and maintain documentation of work performed and costs incurred on each project identified in a Project Worksheet sufficient to permit a formal audit comporting with ordinary, customary and prudent public accounting requirements. Upon the failure of Subgrantee to create and maintain such documentation, Grantee may terminate further funding under this Agreement, and Subgrantee shall reimburse to Grantee all payments disbursed earlier to Subgrantee, together with any and all accrued interest. A. Subgrantee shall submit the following documentation for Large Projects (the Small Project threshold for this declaration is $50,600.00): 1. A Request for Advance or Reimbursement conforming to the sample attached to this Agreement as Attachment A; 2. A Summary of Documentation Form conforming to the sample Page 5 5 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL attached to 1 b C 5 this Agreement as Attachment B, which shall be supported by original documents such as contract documents, invoices, purchase orders, change orders and the like; 3. A request for final inspection; 4. A signed Project Listing upon the completion of all projects; and 5. The Project Listing and Certification specified by Paragraph B of this Article. B. For all projects, Subgrantee shall state on the Project Listing and Certification that all work was performed in accordance with this Agreement and the requirements in each Project Worksheet, and shall state the date of completion. C. Grantee will inspect Small Projects by random selection, and will conduct the final inspections on Large Projects, to ensure that all work has been performed within the scope of work specified on the Project Worksheets. Costs not within the approved scope of work shall not be reimbursed. ARTICLE VII. Cost Sharing. The federal share of the eligible costs specified in the Project Worksheets under this Agreement shall be seventy -five (75) percent of such costs and the nonfederal share shall be twenty -five (25) percent. As a condition of funding under this Agreement, the Grantee shall pay fifty (50) percent of the nonfederal share and Subgrantee shall pay the remaining fifty (50) percent. Payment of all or a specified portion of the nonfederal share of such costs is contingent upon an appropriation defining the apportionment of the Page 6 6 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 nonfederal share. Administrative costs in addition to the Project Worksheets that are otherwise eligible under 44 C.F.R. Part 206 and do not require matching funds will also be funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ARTICLE VIII. Payment of Costs Grantee shall disburse the eligible costs to Subgrantee in accordance with the following procedures. A. Grantee shall disburse the federal and nonfederal shares of the eligible costs for Small Projects to Subgrantee as soon as practicable after execution of this Agreement and formal notification by the Federal Emergency Management Agency of its approval of the pertinent Project Worksheet. B. Grantee shall reimburse Subgrantee for the federal and nonfederal shares of the eligible costs for Large Projects as soon as practicable after Subgrantee has delivered the following documents to Grantee: 1. A Request for Advance or Reimbursement Form conforming to the sample attached to this Agreement as Attachment A; 2. A Summary of Documentation Form conforming to the sample attached to this Agreement as Attachment B, which shall be supported by original documents such as contract documents, invoices, purchase orders, change orders and the like; and 3. A letter or notification certifying that the reported costs were incurred in the performance of eligible work. C. Grantee may advance funds under this Agreement to Subgrantee not exceeding the federal share if Subgrantee meets Page 7 7 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 the following conditions: 1. Subgrantee shall demonstrate to Grantee that Subgrantee has procedures in place to ensure that funds are disbursed to project vendors, contractors, and subcontractors without unnecessary delay; 2. Subgrantee shall submit to Grantee the budget supporting the request; 3. Subgrantee shall submit a statement justifying the advance and the proposed use of the funds, and specifying the amount of funds requested; 4. Subgrantee shall submit a completed Request for Advance or Reimbursement Form; and 5. Subgrantee shall pay over to Grantee any interest earned on advances for remittance to the Federal Emergency Management Agency as often as practicable, and in any event not later than ten (10) business days after the close of each calendar quarter. D. Subgrantee may make improvements to the project facility in conjunction with its restoration of the facility to its predisaster condition in accordance with 44 C.F.R. Part 206 with the prior written approval of Grantee. E. In any case in which Subgrantee certifies to Grantee in writing that the restoration of a damaged public facility to its predisaster condition is not in the best interest of the public, Subgrantee may request Grantee and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to approve an alternate project in accordance with 44 C.F.R. Part 206 before the commencement of any work. Page 8 $ FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 F. Grantee may, in its discretion, withhold its portion of the nonfederal share of funding under this Agreement from Subgrantee if Grantee has reason to expect a subsequent unfavorable determination by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that a previous disbursement of funds under this Agreement was improper. ARTICLE IX. Final Payment. Grantee shall disburse the final payment to Subgrantee upon the performance of the following conditions: A. Subgrantee shall have completed the project; B. Subgrantee shall have submitted the documentation specified in Articles VI and VIII of this Agreement; C. In the case of Large Projects, the Grantee shall have performed the final inspection; D. In the case of Small Projects, the Project Listing and Certification shall have been reviewed by Grantee, or Grantee shall have performed a final inspection; and E. Subgrantee shall have requested final reimbursement. ARTICLE X. Records Maintenance. The funding of eligible costs under this Agreement and the performance of all other conditions shall be subject to the following requirements, in addition to such other and further requirements as may be imposed by operation of law: A. The "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments," as codified in 44 C.F.R. Part 13, as amended; Page 9 9 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 1605 B. Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A -87, "Cost Principles for State and Local Governments," as amended; C. Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A -110, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agree- ments with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non - Profit Organizations," as amended; and D. Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A -122, "Cost Principles for Non - Profit Organizations," as amended. E. Subgrantee will maintain all documentation concerning the projects funded under this Agreement until the occurrence of the following events, whichever is the later: 1. The completion of final inspection and final audit, and the final resolution of any issues identified in the same; or 2. The expiration of three (3) years from the date of final disbursement under this Agreement. F. Subgrantee shall make all documentation concerning the projects funded under this Agreement available and accessible to the Comptroller General of the United States, the Grantee, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays other than official holidays. ARTICLE XI. Reimbursement of Funds If upon final inspection, final audit, or other review by Grantee, the Federal Emergency Management Agency or other authority determines that the disbursements to Subgrantee under this Agreement exceed the eligible costs, Subgrantee shall reimburse to Grantee the sum by which the total disbursements exceed the eligible costs within Page 10 10 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 forty -five (45) days from the date Subgrantee is notified .of such determination. ARTICLE XII. Audit. Subgrantee shall submit an Audit of Agreement Compliance to Grantee, and shall have an independent audit performed by a Certified Public Accountant if its total expenditures of federal financial assistance for the most recent fiscal year equal or exceed $300,000.00. A. Subgrantee will conduct the audit in accordance with the following requirements: 1. The standards established by the Comptroller General of the United States, as specified in the General Accounting Office Standards for Audit of Governmental Organizations, Programs, Activities and Functions; 2. The standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants; 3. The requirements of H 11.45, 216.349, and 216.3491, Fla. Stat. (2001), and the Rules of the Auditor General; 4. The requirements of the Single Audit Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98 -502, as amended, 31 U.S.C. H 7501 -7507, to the extent here applicable; and 5. Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A -133, as amended, to the extent here applicable. B. The audit shall be identified by the serial contract identification number for this Agreement. If the Subgrantee is a private nonprofit organization, it shall submit an organization - wide audit. Page 11 1 ] FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 C. The audit shall be due not later than seven (7) months after the close of the fiscal year for Subgrantee except where Grantee and Subgrantee have mutually agreed upon another date. D. Subgrantee shall conduct such additional audits as Grantee or the Federal Emergency Management Agency may determine necessary to determine the adequacy, accuracy, and reliability fo the internal procedures Subgrantee has in place to protect its assets and to ensure compliance with this Agreement. E. If this Agreement is closed out without an audit, Grantee may recover from Subgrantee any disallowed costs identified in an audit after such closeout. ARTICLE XIII. Noncompliance If the Subgrantee violates this Agreement or any legislation, regulation, statute, rule or other legal requirement applicable to the performance of this Agreement, the Grantee may withhold any disbursement otherwise due Subgrantee for the project with respect to which the violation has occurred until the violation is cured or has otherwise come to final resolution. If the violation is not cured, Grantee may terminate this Agreement and invoke its remedied under the Agreement in accordance with Articles XXI and XXV of this Agreement. ARTICLE XIV. Nondiscrimination by Contractors Subgrantee shall undertake an active program of nondiscrimination in its administration of disaster assistance under this Agreement, in accordance with 44 C.F.R. Parts 7 and 16, and 44 C.F.R Part 206. In addition, Subgrantee shall be subject to the requirements in Page 12 12 FEMA- 1.393•DR -FL 1605 the General Services Administrative Consolidated List of Debarred, Suspended and Ineligible Contractors, in accordance with 44 C.F.R Part 17. ARTICLE XV. Modification. The time for performance of this Agreement may be extended once unless the failure of Subgrantee to close out the project is caused by events beyond its control. A modification extending the time for completion of the project and any other modification shall be in writing, and shall take effect only upon execution by both parties. Modifications to any Project Worksheet to be funded under this Agreement may be requested by Subgrantee through Grantee, but the approval of any such modifications shall reside in the sole discretion of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Any approved modification to a project worksheet shall be noted in a Supplemental Project Worksheet for the project. If otherwise allowed under this Agreement, any extension shall be in writing and shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as those set out in the initial Agreement. ARTICLE XVI. Time for Performance Time shall be of the essence of this Agreement and of the performance of all conditions under it. Subject to any modification extending the time for the performance of this Agreement approved by Grantee or by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the time for the performance of emergency work shall be six (6) months from the date of the Presidential Declaration. The time for the performance of permanent work shall be eighteen (18) months from the date of the Page 13 13 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 Presidential Declaration. For Large Projects the Summary of Documentation and the supporting documents identified in Article VI of this Agreement shall be submitted to the Grantee not later than sixty (60) days after the date of the last modification extending the Agreement. Subgrantee shall submit the completed Project Listing to Grantee not later than thirty (30) days from the completion of all work, or the approval of the Final Inspection by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, whichever is later. The time for the performance of this Agreement may be extended for cause by Grantee. If any extension request is denied, Subgrantee shall be reimbursed for eligible project costs incurred up to the latest approved date for completion. Failure to complete any project will be adequate cause for the termination of funding for that project. ARTICLE XVII. Contracts With Others. If the Subgrantee contracts with any other contractor or vendor for performance of all or any portion of the work required under this Agreement, the Subgrantee shall incorporate into its contract with such contractor or vendor an indemnification clause holding Grantee and Subgrantee harmless from liability to third parties for claims asserted under such contract. ARTICLE XVIII. Termination. Either of the parties may terminate this Agreement by notice in writing delivered to the address specified in Article XXIII of this Agreement. Such termination shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of such notice. Such termination shall not affect the rights, Page 14 14 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 interests, duties or responsibilities of either of the parties or any allowable costs that have accrued as of the date of the notice of termination. ARTICLE XIX. Liability. A. Grantee assumes no liability to third parties in connection with this Agreement. Unless the Subgrantee is a governmental entity covered by § 768.28(5), Fla. Stat. (2001), the Subgrantee shall be solely responsible to any and all contractors, vendors, and other parties with whom it contracts in performing this Agreement. Unless the Subgrantee is a governmental entity within the meaning of the preceding sentence, Subgrantee shall indemnify Grantee form claims asserted by to third parties in connection with the performance of this Agreement, holding Grantee and Subgrantee harmless from the same. B. For the purpose of this Agreement, the Grantee and Subgrantee agree that neither one is an employee or agent of the other, and that each one stands as an independent contractor in relation to the other. C. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver by Grantee or Subgrantee of any legal immunity, nor shall anything in this Agreement be construed as a consent by either of the parties to be sued by third parties in connection with any matter arising from the performance of this Agreement. D. Subgrantee represents that to the best of its knowledge any hazardous substances at its project site or sites are present in quantities within statutory and regulatory limitations, and do Page 15 15 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 not require remedial action under any federal, state or local legal requirements concerning such substances. Subgrantee further represents that the presence of any such substance or any condition at the site caused by the presence of any such substance shall be addressed in accordance with all applicable legal requirements. ARTICLE XX. Reports. Subgrantee shall provide Quarterly Reports to Grantee, on the Quarterly Report Form conforming to the sample attached as Attachment C. The first Quarterly Report shall be due at such time as Subgrantee is notified. All subsequent Quarterly Reports shall be due not later than thirty (30) days after each calendar quarter through final inspection. Quarterly Reports shall indicate the anticipated completion date for each project, together with any other circumstances that may affect the completion date, the scope of work, the project costs, or any other factors that may affect compliance with this Agreement. Interim inspections shall be scheduled by Subgrantee before the final inspection, and may be required by Grantee based on information supplied in the Quarterly Reports. Grantee may require additional reports as needed, and Subgrantee shall provide any additional reports requested by Grantee as soon as practicable. With respect to the Request for Advance or Reimbursement, the Summary of Documentation, and the Quarterly Reports, the contact for Grantee will be the State Public Assistance Officer. ARTICLE XXI. Standard Conditions Subgrantee agrees to the Page 16 16 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 i following conditions: A. The performance and obligation of Grantee to pay under this Agreement is contingent upon an annual appropriation by the Legislature and the disbursement to Grantee of federal funding in accordance with § 252.37(4), Fla. Stat. (2001). B. Bills for fees or other compensation for services or expenses must be submitted in detail sufficient for a proper pre- audit and post- audit. C. Grantee may terminate this Agreement for refusal by the Subgrantee and its contractors and subcontractors to allow public inspection of any records subject to the disclosure requirements in § 119.07(1), Fla. Stat. (2001), that are made or received by Subgrantee or its contractors and subcontractors in connection with this Agreement. Substantial evidence of noncompliance by Subgrantee or its contractors and subcontractors with these requirements shall constitute the nonperformance of a condition under this Agreement, and shall be adequate cause for termination. D. Subgrantee agrees that no funds disbursed to it under this Agreement will be used for the purpose of lobbying the Legislature or any of its members, any employee of the State of Florida, any member of Congress, any officer or employee of Congress, or any employee of a Member of Congress, in connection with this Agreement or any modifications to this Agreement. E. Subgrantee certifies with respect to this Agreement that it possesses the legal authority to receive the funds. F. Subgrantee agrees that responsibility for compliance with Page 17 17 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 this Agreement rests with the Subgrantee, and further agrees that noncompliance with this Agreement shall be adequate cause for the recission, suspension or termination of funding under this Agreement, and may affect its eligibility for funding under future Subgrantee Agreements. ARTICLE XXII. Term. This Agreement shall take effect upon its execution by both parties, and shall terminate upon the approval of closeout by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless terminated earlier as specified elsewhere in this Agreement. Subgrantee shall commence the project(s) specified by this Agreement without delay. ARTICLE XXIII. Notice and Contact., All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered by InterNet, by telefacsimile, by hand, or by certified letter to the following respective addresses. FOR THE GRANTEE: FOR THE SUBGRANTEE: W. Craig Fugate, Director Thomas G Wide Division of Emergency Management Tnterim DirPr•ror Department of Community Affairs _PLbl i c Utilitiegg Diyi Si on 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd 3301 E. Tamiami Trail B1de, H Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100 Naples FT 3411 ARTICLE XXIV. Designation of Agent Subgrantee hereby designates Thnmac r Wir1PC as its primary agent, and designates Rn3r R_ Anrlprcr,n as its alternate agent, to execute any Request for Advance or Reimbursement, certification, or other necessary documentation. ARTICLE XXV. Events of Default Remedies and Termination A. Upon the occurrence of any one or more of the following Page 18 1$ FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 events, all obligations of Grantee to disburse further funds under this Agreement shall terminate at the option of Grantee. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, Grantee may at its option continue to make payments or portions of payments after the occurrence of any one or more such events without waiving the right to exercise such remedies and without incurring liability for further payment. Grantee may at its option terminate this Agreement and any and all funding under this Agreement upon the occurrence of any one or more of the following: 1. Any representation by Subgrantee in this Agreement is inaccurate or incomplete in any material respect, or Subgrantee has breached any condition of this Agreement or any previous agreement with Grantee and has not cured in timely fashion, or is unable or unwilling to meet its obligations under this Agreement. 2. Subgrantee suffers any material adverse change in its financial condition while this Agreement is in effect, as compared to its financial condition as represented in any reports or other documents submitted to Grantee, if Subgrantee has not cured the condition within thirty (30) days after notice in writing from Grantee; 3. Any reports required by this Agreement have not been submitted to Grantee or have been submitted with inaccurate, incomplete, or inadequate information; or 4. The monies necessary to fund this Agreement are unavailable due to any failure to appropriate or other action or inaction by Congress or the Legislature, or due to any action of Page 19 19 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL the Office of the Comptroller or the O C 5 P office of Management an Budget. B. Upon the occurrence of any one or more of the following events, Grantee may at its option give notice in writing to Subgrantee to cure its failure of performance if such failure may be cured. Upon the failure of Subgrantee to cure, Grantee may exercise any one or more of the following remedies: 1. Terminate this Agreement upon not less than fifteen (15) days notice of such termination by certified letter to the Subgrantee at the address specified in Article XXIII of this Agreement, such notice to take effect when delivered to Subgrantee; 2. Commence a legal action for the judicial enforcement of this Agreement; 3. Withhold the disbursement of any payment or any portion of a payment otherwise due and payable under this Agreement or any other Agreement with Subgrantee; and 4. Take any other remedial actions which may otherwise be available under law. C. Grantee may terminate this Agreement for any misrepresentation of any material fact, for the failure or nonperformance of any condition or obligation under this Agreement, or for noncompliance with any applicable legal requirement. D. Rescission, suspension or termination of this Agreement shall constitute final action by the Grantee within the meaning of Page 20 20 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, any deobligation of funds or other determination by the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall be addressed in accordance with the regulations of that Agency. E. Upon the rescission, suspension or termination of this Agreement, the Subgrantee shall refund to Grantee all funds disbursed to Subgrantee under this Agreement. F. The venue of any action or proceeding by either Grantee or Subgrantee for the enforcement of this Agreement or for an adjudication of the rights, interests, or duties of the parties to it shall lie in Leon County, State of Florida. G. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary elsewhere in this Agreement, the rescission, suspension or termination of this Agreement by Grantee shall not relieve Subgrantee of liability to Grantee for the restitution of funds advanced to Subgrantee under this Agreement, and Grantee may set off any such funds by withholding future disbursements otherwise due Subgrantee under this Agreement or any other Agreement until such time as the exact amount of restitution due Grantee from Subgrantee is determined. In the event the Federal Emergency Management Agency should deobligate funds formerly allowed under this Agreement or under any other Agreement funded by the Agency and administered by Grantee, then Subgrantee shall immediately repay such funds to Grantee. If the Subgrantee fails to repay any such funds, then Grantee may recover the same from funding otherwise due Subgrantee in accordance with this Article. Page 21 21 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL ARTICLE XXVI. Attachments. 6 C 5 A. All attachments to this Agreement are incorporated into this Agreement by reference as if set out fully in the text of the Agreement itself. B. In the event of any inconsistencies between the language of this Agreement and the Attachments to it, the language of the Attachments shall be controlling, but only to the extent of such inconsistencies. C. This Agreement has the following attachments: 1. Attachment A "Request for Advance or Reimbursement" 2. Attachment B "Summary of Documentation" 3. Attachment C "Quarterly Report Schedule and Instructions" Page 22 22 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C5 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Grantee and Subgrantee have executed this agreement: FOR THE GRANTEE: FOR THE SUBGRANTEE: DEPARTMENT OF COLLIER COUNTY COMMISIONERS- COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Public Utilities State of Florida, By: ( Subgrantee) W. Craig Fuizate Thomas G. Wides, Interim Public Utilities Director W. Craig Fugate, Director (Name) Division of Emergency Management ATI'ES7:.�.� .`—: w DVVIGHT`g 3 OCK ;Clerk Af eat Ott,. l rim . s #'1r�ty1 e Date.- ,,��'a'j�:''� Public Assistance Program Program Description 02- RM- *2- 09 -21 -01 -008 Contract Number Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: tq line Hubbard Robinson sisil'a'nt County Attorney (Signature) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, By: _ 44�!z Jan es N. Coletta, Chairman Date: l -C7Oq - O a. Federal Employer ID No. 16r.5 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Grantee and Subgrantee have executed this Agreement: FOR THE GRANTEE: FOR THE SUBGRANTEE: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Collier County Commissioners- Public Utilities State of Florida, By: (Subgrantee) W. Craijz Fugate Thomas G. Wides, Interim Public Utilities Direct W. Craig Fugate, Director (Name) Division of Emergency Management (Date) Public Assistance Program Program Description 02 -RM -* 2- 09 -21 -01 -008 Contract Number (Signature) Chairman, Board Of County Commissioners (Title) (Date) Federal Employer ID No. Page 23 23 FEMA- 1393 -DR -FL 16C 6 DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO BOARD OFFICE AS OF MAY 1, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - 31 16C8 A RESOLUTION APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, the Board of County Commissioners on September 19, 1994 adopted Resolution No. 94 -668 authorizing the recording of notices of liens for the delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessments for 1992; and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, requires the Board to approve by Resolution and record in the Official Records a Satisfaction of Lien on all accounts that have been paid in full. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, the Board recognizes full payment and receipt of the 1992 Service Year Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Special Assessment for the following accounts numbered below, subsequent to the adoption of Resolution No. 94 -668, whereupon a lien had been recorded on real property pertaining to the accounts identified herein. The Satisfactions of Lien attached hereto referencing the accounts identified herein are hereby approved and the Chairman is hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, and the Clerk is directed to record this Resolution and these Satisfactions of Lien individually in the official records of Collier County: Account No. 95251 Account No. 111708 Account No. 129004 ' This Resolution adopted this day of , 2002, after motion, ad majority vote. ++ Att4gt ii A- TSTi F. sfat�e only. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I WIGRir'E FROCK, CLERK COLLIER CO U Y, FLO IDA BY: 1 ` 6, James e hairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: 2921594 OR' 296$ PG' 2$63 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09 :35AK DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK David C. Weigel REC FEB 6.00 County Attorney Retn: COPIES 1.00 CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EBT 7240 This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941)774-8400 Property Folio No. 56405080006 * ** 2921595 OR; 2968 PG; 2864 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:35AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BXT 7240 16C8 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Maple, Evelyn 417 Jones St Immokalee, FL 339340000 The Lien was recorded on the 19th day of September 1994, in Official Record Book 1986, Pages 766 through 942, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Three Dollars and Two Cents ($103.02) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: MAINLINE BLK 5 LOT 28 OR 1814 PG 2215 Folio No. 56405080006 Project No. 61000 Account No. 95251 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and r cording of this Satisfactiop,,o #.4jgp by action of the Board thisa�"' day of 2002. ATT* _ t Ap Cha 1I rftn - F S . O COUNTY CO MISSIONERS DWI:G E BROW . CLERK COLLIER COU FL ID 1«y}4g�yy J N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN Approved 19t'talf6 `m and legal sufficiency R BERT ZAellARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941)774-8400 Property Folio No. 62250840003 * ** 2921596 OR; 2968 PG; 2865 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS Of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09 :35AK DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR 16C8 BKT 1240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Troxell, Nina Rae 5213 Trammel St Naples, FL 339620000 The Lien was recorded on the 19th day of September 1994, in Official Record Book 1986, Pages 766 through 942, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Dollars and Seventy -Four Cents ($100.74) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: NAPLES MANOR LAKES BILK 2 LOT 7 OR 1100 PG 2151 Folio No. 62250840003 Project No. 61000 Account No. 111708 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Sat��f0ictto11Apf Lien, by action of the Board this aaln day of Afss� Chairs s :DWI0T Ei01, CLERK .! Fil IN Approv &'d' as to form and Lqg Ls iciency _ ROBERT ZACHARY * ** 2921597 OR; 2968 PG; 2866 * This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941)774-8400 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:35AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FBB 6.00 Retn: COPIES 1100 CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICB 4TH FLOOR BXT 7240 16C8 Property Folio No. 65120800002 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Miller, Samuel =& Elnora 808 Palm Ridge Dr I mmokalee, FL 339340000 The Lien was recorded on the 19th day of September 1994, in Official Record Book 1986, Pages 766 through 942, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Three Dollars and Two Cents ($103.02) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: PALM RIDGE UNIT 1 LOT 20 OR 774 PG 1858 Folio No. 65120800002 Project No. 61000 Account No. 129004 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and r cording of this Satisf#dpn.f Lien, by action of the Board this�day of to cha 11 rs" /'9`'ST'_ MjJ� BOARD OF COUNTY CO MISSIONERS MIGOT ty bt , CLERK COLLIER CO Y, FL ID AKES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN ApproVod'8'$'to form and IggalguffiLciency ROBERT ZAeKARY 16C9 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 32 A RESOLUTION APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, the Board of County Commissioners on September 20, 1994 adopted Resolution No. 94 -694 authorizing the recording of notices of liens for the delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessments for 1993; and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, requires the Board to approve by Resolution and record in the Official Records a Satisfaction of Lien on all accounts that have been paid in full. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, the Board recognizes full payment and receipt of the 1993 Service Year Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Special Assessment for the following accounts numbered below, subsequent to the adoption of Resolution No. 94 -694, whereupon a lien had been recorded on real property pertaining to the accounts identified herein. The Satisfactions of Lien attached hereto referencing the accounts identified herein are hereby approved and the Chairman is hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, and the Clerk is directed to record this Resolution and these Satisfactions of Lien individually in the official records of Collier County Account No. 15066 Account No. 16308 Account No. 22282 Account No. 25506 Account No. 26327 Account No. 28163 This Resolution adopted this ? day of 2002, after motion, second and majority vote. ,AVM Gf Tt` OROCK, CLERK g AMr�iV as tb form and legal suf ' ' y: .A David C. W ge County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ME - James N. Coletta, Chairman * ** 2921571 OR: 2968 PG: 2786 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:28AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1100 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EYT 7240 This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 39267600007 * ** 2921572 OR: 2968 PG: 2787 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09 :28AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD 16C9 INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Mitchell, Edward J Christine A Scanlin 771 14" St NE Naples, FL 339990000 The Lien was recorded on the 22nd day of September 1994, in Official Record Book 1987, Pages 1514 through 1749, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Dollars and Seventy Four Cents ($100.74) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: GOLDEN GATE ESTATE UNIT 49 N 75FT OF S 150FT OF TR 93 OR 1533 PG 1870 Folio No. 39267600007 Project No. 63000 Account No. 15066 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, .av inq,,through its Chairman, directs execution and ecording of this Satisfic #o by action of the Board this,��'�day of , 2002. 6. ti's tutr�n's � TIt81 BOARD OF COUNTY CO M ISSIONERS EMWfdHt L: ' 3R0Q' �:tERK COLLIER COU , F 1 A err; �;i1i� J N. COLS"ITA, CFTAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency ,2 -2-) ROBER ZA HARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 45851480009 * ** 2921573 OR: 2968 PG: 2788 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:28AK DWIGHT E, BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD � 6 � 9 INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Townsend Sr, Willie =& Cynthia % Badcock Furniture 4017 23rd Av Sw Naples, FL 339990000 The Lien was recorded on the 22nd day of September 1994, in Official Record Book 1987, Pages 1514 through 1749, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Dollars and Seventy Four Cents ($100.74) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 193 N 150FT OF TR 110 OR 1502 PG 1425 Folio No. 45851480009 Project No. 63000 Account No. 16308 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and ecording of this Satisf4atigP,,gf.Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. 0w Mly. BOARD OF COUNTY CO MISSIONERS 'J 'GH';i` . BR I>ti, CLERK COLLIER CO , FL ID Y, t IS,••�•F,t,�'` J S N. COLETM C AIRMAN Approv66,8§'to form and legal sufficiency RO ERT RY 16C9 This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 62250840003 * ** 2921574 OR$ 2968 PG; 2789 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of 01/24/2002 at 09:28AR DWIGHT B. Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN COLLIER COUNTY, FL BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Troxell, Nina Rae 5213 Trammel St Naples, FL 339620000 The Lien was recorded on the 22nd day of September 1994, in Official Record Book 1987, Pages 1514 through 1749, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Dollars and Seventy Four Cents ($100.74) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: NAPLE MANOR LAKES BILK 2 LOT 7 OR 1100 PG 2151 Folio No. 62250840003 Project No. 63000 Account No. 22282 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNE Florida, a Approved as to form and legal sufficiency R6BERTZACHARY )F, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, h its Chairman, directs execution and ecording of this )y action of the Board thiso"Q_iday of , 2002. *o Cha t rmn' s COLLIER 1J. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CO •- �• 11 // 16C� This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 65120800002 * ** 2921575 OR; 2968 PG; 2790 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/2412002 at 09:28AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR E %T 7240 16 C9,- SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Miller, Samuel =& Elnora 808 Palm Ridge Dr Immokalee, FL 339340000 The Lien was recorded on the 22nd day of September 1994, in Official Record Book 1987, Pages 1514 through 1749, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Three Dollars and Two Cents ($103.02) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: PALM RIDGE UNIT 1 LOT 20 OR 774 PG 1858 Folio No. 65120800002 Project No. 63000 Account No. 25506 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and ecording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. It as to chai'm-S, t i W* am 1,y. BOARD OF CO TY CO MI IONFRS bWIGFIT E BRkgf, CLERK COLLIER CO Y, F By: J S N. COI.ETTA, CHAIRMAN ar`td;J`iency This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 67286960004 * ** 2921576 OR; 2968 PG; 2791 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:28AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 7240 16C9 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Ingham, James R =& Carol B 518 Ridge Dr Naples, FL 339630000 The Lien was recorded on the 22nd day of September 1994, in Official Record Book 1987, Pages 1514 through 1749, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Dollars and Seventy Four Cents ($100.74) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: PINE RIDGE EXT BLK R LOT 1 OR 687 PG 1375 Folio No. 67286960004 Project No. 63000 Account No. 26327 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and ecording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board thisa2-day of , 2002. � r Ch,r i�'' 1 ran s ATirsl` ~only. Dd`JIGt-IT C CLERK Y � App' wved . .tot fib�'m and 1e6'6ti`suffidency ROBERT ZACHARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 71830400003 * ** 2921577 OR; 2968 PG; 2792 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:28AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 7240 16C9 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Pringle, James G =& Catherine A 3224 Areca Ave Naples, FL 39620000 The Lien was recorded on the 22nd day of September 1994, in Official Record Book 1987, Pages 1514 through 1749, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Dollars and Seventy Four Cents ($100.74) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 11 OR 1703 PG 924 Folio No. 71830400003 Project No. 63000 Account No. 28163 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and ecording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this=0 day of , 2002. 1" 'At � 'S•Ft/' ATTEST:.. to NI M 11*9BOARD OF CO TY CO IS TONERS C�iI OH`T' E, E t ; L: E COLLIER CO Y, FL I By: JAMES N. COLETI'A, CHAIRMAN A P, -as-'dorm and lediil`t�Aciency R BERT ARY 16C10 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - _-i 3_ A RESOLUTION APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. WHEREAS, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, the Board of County Commissioners on August 22, 1995 adopted Resolution No. 95 -475 authorizing the recording of notices of liens for the delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessments for 1994; and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, requires the Board to approve by Resolution and record in the Official Records a Satisfaction of Lien on all accounts that have been paid in full. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, the Board recognizes full payment and receipt of the 1994 Service Year Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Special Assessment for the following accounts numbered below, subsequent to the adoption of Resolution No. 95 -475, whereupon a lien had been recorded on real property pertaining to the accounts identified herein. The Satisfactions of Lien attached hereto referencing the accounts identified herein are hereby approved and the Chairman is hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, and the Clerk is directed to record this Resolution and these Satisfactions of Lien individually in the official records of Collier County: Account No. 22444 Account No. 23980 Account No. 24963 Account No. 26631 This Resolution adopted this 01M. day of A fu, 2002, after motion, second''i` cbrity vote. ATTT: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS aWI(HT,' BROG� ' CLERK COLLIER COON Y, FLO IDA BY. SSA James N. Coletta Chairman Approved as form and u ency: 2921559 OR; 2968 PG; 2742 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL David C. W61gel 01/24/2002 at 09:20AM DWIGHT E. BROCE, CLERK County Attorney REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 7240 This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No: 62772600006 16C10 2921560 OR: 2968 PG: 2743 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:20AN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERIC REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR E %T 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Clark, James M =& Rosa M 73097 1h Ave N Naples, FL 339630000 The Lien was recorded on the 14th day of September 1995, in Official Record Book 2099, Pages 1338 through 1574, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars and Thirty Seven Cents ($104.37), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: NAPLES PARK UNIT 5 BILK 62 LOT 33 OR 1690 PG 147 Folio No. 62772600006 Project No. 64000 Account No. 22444 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. 4 T':' a1 rithn, S Sr qty. roved-os, #o form arjcl/ ciency f ROBERT CHARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No: 65120800002 * ** 2921561 OR; 2968 PG; 2744 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:20AN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN 16C10 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Miller, Samuel =& Elnora 808 Palm Ridge Dr Immokalee, FL 339340000 The Lien was recorded on the 14" day of September 1995, in Official Record Book 2099, Pages 1338 through 1574, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Six Dollars and Seventy Two Cents ($106.72), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: PALM RIDGE UNIT 1 LOT 20 OR 774 PG 1858 Folio No. 65120800002 Project No. 64000 Account No. 23980 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution an recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. Tl`E5i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS t}W;Ct�i1 =B#C1<, CLERK COLLIER COU , FLO A �* - ���� �r By . C AIRMAN • ttett . J S N. COLEPI'A, r CASimn 'I AppdN,6#,as to Torm and iency ROBERT HARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No: 67286960004 16C1 0 2921562 OR; 2968 PG; 2745 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of 01/24/2002 at 09:20AM DWIGHT B. Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR B %T 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY, FL BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Ingham, James R =& Carol B 518 Ridge Dr Naples, FL 339630000 The Lien was recorded on the 14th day of September 1995, in Official Record Book 2099, Pages 1338 through 1574, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred four Dollars and Thirty Seven Cents ($104.37), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: PINE RIDGE EXT BILK R LOT 1 OR 687 PG 1375 Folio No. 67286960004 Project No. 64000 Account No. 24963 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, "acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satiq'� tipri,of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. 'ATTEST `" BOARD OF COUNTY COM ISSIONERS [ 1Nf HT E: JBF OCK, CLERK COLLIER COU , FLO A By � C tt 4; f�i1 lr'11Qn•s J s N. co=A, CHAIRMAN s'1'gr�ati�e'enly Approved as to form and ciency_,,,,-7 ROBERT CHARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No: 71830400003 16C10 2921563 OR; 2968 PG; 2746 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09 :20AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR E %T 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Pringle, James G =& Catherine A 3224 Areca Ave Naples, FL 339620000 The Lien was recorded on the 14th day of September 1995, in Official Record Book 2099, Pages 1338 through 1574, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred four Dollars and Thirty Seven Cents ($104.37), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 11 OR 1703 PG 924 Folio No. Project No. Account No 71830400003 64000 26631 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution an recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this_gq 3,_ day of , 2002. A'�C�ST i W HT E.' skoc k, CLERK es s3��+at�rea�fi�. Approupd s,to form a ciency ROBERT ZACHARY /J J :•A - t • • • • 16C11 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 3 4 A RESOLUTION APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, the Board of County Commissioners on August 1, 2000 adopted Resolution No. 2000 -236 authorizing the recording of notices of liens for the delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessments for 1995; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2000 -236, was recorded on August 8, 2000 in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, which placed a lien on certain properties for the delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessments for 1995; and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, requires the Board to approve by Resolution and record in the Official Records a Satisfaction of Liens on all accounts that have been paid in full. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that pursuant to Collier County Ordinance 90 -30, as amended the Board recognizes full payment and receipt of the 1995 Service Year Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Special Assessments for the following accounts numbered below, subsequent to the adoption of Resolution No. 2000 -236, whereupon a lien had been recorded on real property pertaining to the accounts identified herein. The Satisfactions of Lien attached hereto referencing the accounts identified herein are hereby approved and the Chairman is hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, and the Clerk is directed to record this Resolution and these Satisfactions of Lien individually in the official records of Collier County: Account No. 6884 Account No. 9784 2921524 OR; 2968 PG; 2644 Account No. 11015 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL Account No. 14300 01/24/2002 at 09:03AR DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK Account No. 18089 REC FEE 10.50 Account No. 21911 COPIES 2.00 Account No. 22376 Retn: Account No. 22619 CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Account No. 23634 EYT 7240 Account No. 25360 Account No. 26181 Account No. 28040 16CI OR; 2968 PG; 2645 .. adopted this :This Resolution ado p ��day of 2002, after motion, second and majority vote. 1i4t 4ttit Clfr BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TI$� COLLIER COUNTY, FLO IDA LEI- (S'R'I, CLERK Er%i� ft 6 -4 BY: 44AP� .�{ � Chairman Est ;xtp Cho Im ap' James N. Colleta, s ApprovT r� �'ek o'and I aal ici cv: kv,,David C. WeW I' U County Attorney This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 33480360007 161:11 * ** 2921525 OR: 2968 PG: 2646 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS Of 01/24/2002 at 09:03AN DWIGHT B. Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN COLLIER COUNTY, FL BROCK, CLERK RBC FEB 6.00 COPIES 1.00 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Johnson, Carl =& Deborah 1930 Curling Ave Naples, FL 341091508 The Lien was recorded on the 8th day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Two Dollars and Eighty Nine Cents ($102.89), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: FOUR SEASONS UNIT 2 LOT 9 Folio No. 33480360007 Project No. 65000 Account No. 6884 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and cording of this SEp,xion of Lien, by action of the Board this QA day of , 2002. i. _. p �1 •wAtt@st a: t0 f 'tOARD OF CO Iro, CO ISSIONERS DWIGHT. B CK,r 6LNF�' COLLIER CO L I D By: JAMES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN Approved` as to form and legal sufficiency R BERT Z HARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 36326280002 -a rr n . .. * ** 2921526 OR: 2968 PG: 2647 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:03AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR 16 C1 1 BYT 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Ellis, Charles G 2643 55th St SW Naples, FL 341167525 The Lien was recorded on the 8th day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Two Dollars and Eighty Nine Cents ($102.89), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 227 LOT 16 Folio No. 36326280002 Project No. 65000 Account No. 9784 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and ecording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this alka day of , 2002. V , J: ATTEST: 1 VV,tGHT E. PROCK, CLERK 'Appr ;�s Av\form Atta�t r!t w and "'k�galisiifficiency signatwre ROBERT ZACHARY BOARD OF COUNTY COKWISSIONERS COLLIER CO , FL ID By: JAMES N. COL=A, CHAIRMAN Orly. This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 36813280007 * ** 2921527 OR: 2968 PG: 2648 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS Of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:03AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6100 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR 16C1 I SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Hunter, Bobby Lee 210 29th St SW Naples, FL 341173123 The Lien was recorded on the 8th day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Two Dollars and Eighty Nine Cents ($102.89), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 5 N 150FT OF TR 52 OR 1394 PG 1738 Folio No. 36813280007 Project No. 65000 Account No. 11015 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution an recording of this Satisfaction,of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. to Chs iruan s '/.TTEaT:f only. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (*IiC- E. B1RMK CLERK COLLIER COU Y, FLO ID By: J N. MAN ApWp - 4s'Jo4orm and leg` I's`ufficiency RO ERT Z H RY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 39026400008 * ** 2921528 OR; 2968 PG; 2649 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS Of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:03AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 Retn: COPIES 1,00 CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 7240 16C1 1 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Lyon, Randall 428054 1h Ave NE Naples, FL 341201503 The Lien was recorded on the 8th day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Two Dollars and Eighty Nine Cents ($102.89), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 45 W 75FT OF E 150FT OF TR 75 OR 1396 PG 2353 Folio No. 39026400008 Project No. 65000 Account No. 14300 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisf@Qti®a:,.f,.Lien, by action of the Board thisday of , 2002. ,V• 5ir .aJgv 4 M G,,:. >� to Chi irsaws ATTEST S S I Al t e=.onl BOARD OF COU TY CO ISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BR J r„ CLE�k COLLIER CO , FL ID JAMS N. COLE"IM, CHAIRMAN ApprdV d'i88' 6'form and legal sufficiency �7 ROBERT ZAqWRY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 53352160001 * ** 2921529 OR; 2968 PG; 2650 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:03AN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6,00 COPIES 1,00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 7240 16C1 1 TISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Calder, Sharon N 4005 Harvest Ct Naples, FL 341126239 The Lien was recorded on the 8th day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Two Dollars and Eighty Nine Cents ($102.89), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LAKE KELLY UNIT 2 LOT 65 OR 1163 PG 272 Folio No. 53352160001 Project No. 65000 Account No. 18089 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,. acting. through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this SatAsftfs}f;,tien, by action of the Board this aa day of 2002. All At°t p _as to Chairman's At-tEST IgWg,t ire only. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS p1/1Gk�T E. ..'s; OPK, CLERK COLLIER COU , FLO A By: JAC2S N. MAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency �7 ROBERT 7,.KCHARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 62096800003 * ** 2921530 OR; 2968 PG; 2651 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:03AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 7240 16C1 1 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Kaho, Maria 5345 Hardee St Naples, FL 341137842 The Lien was recorded on the 8th day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Two Dollars and Eighty Nine Cents ($102.89), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: NAPLES MANOR ADD BLK 8 LOT 29 Folio No. 62096800003 Project No. 65000 Account No. 21911 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction, of Lien, by action of the Board this g14-day of 2002. Att.�'li : >r. °o Chi l roan' s A `SST:'. "S ,E pad y BOARD O4C0,614TY C MI ION OWI&T E.; �,. CLERK COLLIER RI By. p JAMES N. COLETPA, CHAIRMAN Approu,s t6 form and legal sufficiency Wr] This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 62250840003 * ** 2921531 OR; 2968 PG; 2652 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:03AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTBROPFICE 4TH FLOOR 16C1 I EYT 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Troxell, Nina Rae 5213 Trammel St Naples, FL 341137735 The Lien was recorded on the 8t" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Two Dollars and Eighty Nine Cents ($102.89), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: NAPLES MANOR LAKES BLK 2 LOT 7 OR 1100 PG 2151 Folio No. 62250840003 Project No. 65000 Account No. 22376 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution an recording of this Satisfy r),of Lien, by action of the Board this<L& day of , 2002. -A?T' . a><t "s to Chatman`S BOARD OF COUN COM ISSIONERS J`VIGHT ES9p+� COLLIER COU , FLO A J S N. COL=A, CHAIRMAN Approved' -as,to form and legal sufficiency ROBERTZA,6HARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attomey Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 62261560000 * ** 2921532 OR: 2968 PG: 2653 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09 :03AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 1240 16CI 1 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Lesende, Ramon 5346 Gilchrist St Naples, FL 341137841 The Lien was recorded on the 8th day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Two Dollars and Eighty Nine Cents ($102.89), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: NAPLES MANOR LAKES BLK 12 LOT 12 OR 1365 PG 1238 Folio No. 62261560000 Project No. 65000 Account No. 22619 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and ecording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board thisaa�day of , 2002. Chaiman's A ,$T: 1glfa qr"e ' BOARD OF CO TY CO MISSIONERS *IdHT E. BR. z �ERK COLLIER fy , F I By. -�,.,; •,. :�� .:` Jas N. Cor;ErrA, CHAIRMAN ApprotNe� " q; arm and legal sufficiency e--I� "'-� --�' R BER ZAdHARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 62772600006 * ** 2921533 OR; 2968 PG; 2654 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:03AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR E %T 7240 16C1 1 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Clark, Rosa M 73097 th Ave N Naples, FL 341082283 The Lien was recorded on the 8th day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Two Dollars and Eighty Nine Cents ($102.89), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: NAPLES PARK UNIT 5 BLK 62 LOT 33 Folio No. 62772600006 Project No. 65000 Account No. 23634 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this,Uday of, 2002. S t to CAa 11yyn't eA lI � ATTEST-.'. ' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS :JjV 1(3HT' -: BF0CK� CLERK COLLIER CO tY, FL ID R'' n'�� r • By: S N. COLEI'TA, C117URMAN Apraye'sY `rdrm and legal t# suArr-ciency = ZX-4 R013ERT ZA Y This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 65120800002 * ** 2921534 OR; 2968 PG; 2655 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS Of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:03AN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 7240 16C1 1 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Miller, Samuel =& Elnora 808 Palm Ridge Dr Immokalee, FL 341424224 The Lien was recorded on the 8t' day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Five Dollars and Twenty Nine Cents ($105.29), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: PALM RIDGE UNIT 1 LOT 20 OR 774 PG 1858 Folio No. 65120800002 Project No. 65000 Account No. 25360 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and ecording of this SatisfaRWP,of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. :1 q. AtU0,14s to Chairman' s `' .only. r"EE7 - BOARD OF CO TY CO ISSIONERS 31114GHT E. 8RQC; K CLERK COLLIER CO , FL ID JAITES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN App rc v i =664 'form and legal sufficiency R BERT zAOHARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 66930160009 * ** 2921535 OR. 2968 PG; 2656 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:03AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN 16C11 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Houston Unlimited Inc PO Box 7294 Naples, FL 341017294 The Lien was recorded on the 8th day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Five Dollars and Twenty Nine Cents ($105.29), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: PINE GROVE LOT 5 Folio No. 66930160009 Project No. 65000 Account No. 26181 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and ecording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. AiTBT BOARD OF COU TY COM ISSIONERS DW,fOHT E':, BR0CtC, "'CLERK COLLIER COU , FLO D • , M a .� �L C :� U CM S N. COLEZ'TA, CHAIRMAN Appr ired s-,* ri signature only. and legal,sa #icf6ncy X01= 3: 4 :4Wlut01 am F -11 ;Y1 This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 71800000200 * ** 2921536 OR; 2968 PG; 2657 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 09:03AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 1240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 16C11 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Riddleberger Sr, Paul L Riddleberger, Barbara A 965 Partridge Cir Apt 202 Naples, FL 341048817 The Lien was recorded on the 8t' day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2707, Pages 3195 through 3273, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Two Dollars and Eighty Nine Cents ($102.89), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: SABLE SHORES OF BLK F LOT 11 Folio No. 71800000200 Project No. 65000 Account No. 28040 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS. WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida „actjV, /therough its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisf, �W 6jj tf�j ; by action of the Board this,�Aday of , 2002. Attest is to Cha Irw A1TiEST: 4 3I � 'pr � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Q1P;'16�Fi1"IiLs C. � ',C�ERK� COLLIER COU , FLO 6A 41— J N. COLF'TTA, C MAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency R BERT ZA HARY �.6C12 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 35 A RESOLUTION APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, the Board of County Commissioners on August 1, 2000 adopted Resolution No. 2000 -237 authorizing the recording of notices of liens for the delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessments for 1996; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2000 -237, was recorded on August 8, 2000 in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, which placed a lien on certain properties for the delinquent solid waste collection and disposal services special assessments for 1996; and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended, requires the Board to approve by Resolution and record in Official Records a Satisfaction of Liens on all accounts that have been paid in full. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90 -30, as amended the Board recognizes full payment and receipt of the 1996 Service Year Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Special Assessments for the following account numbered below, subsequent to the adoption of Resolution No. 2000 -237, whereupon a lien had been recorded on real property pertaining to the accounts identified herein. The Satisfactions of Lien attached hereto referencing the accounts identified herein are hereby approved and the Chairman is hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, and the Clerk is directed to record this Resolution and these Satisfactions of Lien individually in the official records of Collier County: Account No. 2079 Account No. 3696 2921483 OR: 2968 PG; 2492 Account No. 4145 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL Account No. 4886 01/24/2002 at 08:49AN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Account No. 5319 REC FEE 10.50 Account No. 7184 COPIES 2.00 Account No. 7359 Retn: Account No. 18610 CLERK TO THE BOARD Account No. 19897 INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EYT 7240 Account No. 19965 Account No. 21209 Account No. 24675 Account No. 26097 * ** OR; 2968 PG; 2493 * ** Account No. 27203 16012 Account No. 27782 Account No. 28697 This Resolution adopted after this day of , 2002 after motion, second and majority vote. W" r, r ,•� �� •ear,• aQ C TEb. XtTPST QV fIGHI E -W , CLERK Approved a= form APIU e I fi cy: a id C. W igel County Attorney :•�-� • • • 004 �j � A r to Ch91Se9sN. Coletta, Chairman 9011. This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 00219680004 * ** 2921484 OR; 2968 PG; 2494 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:49AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR 16C12 EXT 1240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Mendes, Lucio =& Kathleen 12481 Dewey Rd Bonita Springs, FL 341356302 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars and Thirteen Cents ($104.13) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: 32 48 27 E1 /2 OF NW1 /4 OF NE1 /4 OF NE1 /4 5 AC. OR 1310 PG 41 Folio No. 00219680004 Project No. 66000 Account No. 2079 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and ecording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board thisoU day of , 2002. AT #Fs7. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Dytf:IGf-IT E;`,PRE�CI�; E I�,ERK COLLIER CgN. WFL ID .4 p C f " COLE TA, POM7ARMAN Apor6' Vtd as f ehly* s and 166 11,spfl:i'ciericy RO ERT z4eliARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 01133520003 * ** 2921485 OR: 2968 PG: 2495 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:49AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FBB 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTBROFFICB 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 16C12 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Mosher, Larry D =& Jerrie M PO Box 5051 Everglades City, FL 341395051 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars and Thirteen Cents ($104.13) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: 13 52 29 PAR 24 DESC AS: COMM E1/4 CNR SEC 13, N 68 DEG W 987.57FT, S 42 DEG W 37FT, S 1 DEG W 318.21 FT, N 88 DEG W 585FT TO POB, S 1 DEG W Folio No. Project No. Account No. 01133520003 66000 3696 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, ap Jrtg, lnr }, gh its Chairman, directs execution and ecording of this Satisfaco fVL j�`by action of the Board this day of , 2002. ..7 the t #s , Cha f man , s ATTEST: �i , ' ; . BOARD OF COU TY COM ISSIONERS DWIGF'I °E. ftJ(',MILI =1K COLLIER CO , FL O D I JAMES N. CoLETTA, CFTAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency ROBERT ARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 22421240003 * ** 2921486 OR; 2968 PG; 2496 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:49AN DWIGHT B, BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 16C12 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Paris, Lisa M Audree L Paris 2972 Estey Ave Naples, FL 341044306 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars and Thirteen Cents ($104.13) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: ARLINGTON TERRACE LOT 33 OR 1329 PG 1331 Folio No. 22421240003 Project No. 66000 Account No. 4145 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and ecording of this Satisfaction: of Lien, by action of the Board this,2A day of , 2002. i 1 ATTEST{ bWii3HT E.'.BRQ�;K ;QLERK Appxov a �orm s 19+4st�rrt and legal, suftibiency ROBERT ZACHARY • ' '> This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 24830160002 * ** 2921487 OR: 2968 PG: 2497 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:49AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RIC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1100 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTERFFICE 4TH FLOOR 16C1 2 TISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Glisson, Brian 1320 Pine St Naples, FL 341044261 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars and Thirteen Cents ($104.13) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: BROOKSIDE UNIT 1 BILK A LOT 4 OR 1888 PG 1676 Folio No. 24830160002 Project No. 66000 Account No. 4886 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and ecording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this a;Mday of , 2002. 1 '4 sit �y '. F•r ATTEST:. -Jl' :. BOARD OF COU NTY CO ISSIONERS DWIGHT h:'�BWQK, CLERK COLLIER CO , FL ID Atteet 8$ to CMirJJn S N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN A�pproyed,'ask,tb form signature only. and `legal'sufficiency R BER HARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 26083080005 * ** 2921488 OR; 2968 PG; 2498 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:49AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 1240 16C12 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Haskins, Mary Nell 178 Campbell St LaBelle, FL 339355238 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars and Thirteen Cents ($104.13) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: CHOKOLOSKEE 36 53 29 COMM SE CNR OF NE1 /4 OF NE1 /4, W 622.7FT CONT 20FT OF N 18 DEG E 30.3FT TO N R/W OF N 87 DEG W 150.3FT OF N 83 DEG W Folio No. 26083080005 Project No. 66000 Account No. 5319 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and jecording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board thisoi a. day of , 2002. ATTE$t BOARD OF COUNTY COM ISSIONERS E3VvK0FiT E. BROCKr ERK COLLIER CO U , FLO A f, , �J S N. COLF'I'rA �.r+ature onl C AIRMAN ' ApprpVAd, is Ig i n �. and leigal,,�U-fkf6hcy RIDB TZXCCHARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 33480360007 * ** 2921489 OR: 2968 PG: 2499 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:49AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 7240 16C12 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Johnson, Carl =& Deborah 1930 curling Ave Naples, FL 341091508 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars and Thirteen Cents ($104.13) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: FOUR SEASONS UNIT 2 LOT 9 Folio No. 334080360007 Project No. 66000 Account No. 7184 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of JaANA&% � 2002. 6 . AT7E8 T. s = BOARD OF COUW COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BR©CK,k;CL COLLIER COU , FLO F 9 11tC By: i man s JAMES N. CO=A, CHAIRMAN d Approved as only. and legal suff'tci8iicy RO ER ARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 35644680000 * ** 2921490 OR: 2968 PG: 2500 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:49AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BKT 7240 16C12 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Hayes, Carol 4350 22nd PI SW Naples, FL 341167004 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars and Thirteen Cents ($104.13) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: GOLDEN GATE UNIT 1 BILK 10 LOT 3 Folio No. 35644680000 Project No. 66000 Account No. 7359 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of ,1,�_, 2002. f'" e ATi�I' " BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIQHT E`. BROOK, CLERK COLLIER COU NVV, FLO A Attatt S N. coLEITA, C MAN to ApproVeid � t6 fbrm s 19AAture j ��, tr�� •s and legal sufficiency �`• ROBERT ACHARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 47972440007 * ** 2921491 OR; 2968 PG; 2501 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:49AR DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR 16C12 E %T 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Hamilton, Brian N =& Margaret 1320 Wisconsin Dr Naples, FL 341038801 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars and Thirteen Cents ($104.13) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: GILF ACRES BLK F LOT 8 Folio No. 47972440007 Project No. 66000 Account No. 18610 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board thisqU day of , 2002. :+tstrrr ni S. N ryw ATTE$T„ BOARD OF COUNTY CO ISSIONERS f�/IGHT K,CLERK COLLIER COU , FL ID test J S N. COI=TA, CHAIRMAN Yl i9� Auand eaffienc f RO ERT Z ARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 53352160001 * ** 2921492 OR; 2968 PG; 2502 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:49AN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD 16C12 INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 7240 TISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Calder, Sharon N 4005 Harvest Ct Naples, FL 341126239 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars and Thirteen Cents ($104.13) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LAKE KELLY UNIT 2 LOT 65 OR 1163 PG 272 Folio No. 53352160001 Project No. 66000 Account No. 19897 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and ecording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board thisola day of , 2002. Yom, A17EST: DWIGHT E. "BROI�,aK, CLERK At st so and 8A6i 'suffiPienc s f��t � M 1 fry �_ Y J'• R BERT A HARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 53401080003 * ** 2921493 OR; 2968 PG; 2503 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:49AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR 16C12 BIT 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Gonzalez, Jason Kristen Gonzalez 154 Jeepers Dr Naples, FL 341126500 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars and Thirteen Cents ($104.13) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LAKE SIDE MOBILE EST LOT 28 Folio No. Project No. Account No 53401080003 66000 19965 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board thisQU day of � , 2002. ATTT:' ` `$ ��; BOARD OF COUbkTY COIkJMISSIONERS D�Ut3HT,E. BROC „CLERK COLLIER s " JAMS N. COLD, CHAIRMAN ApIXo.44d-,&s tq 'r` 'Sf9nast r�s so C f . aneg��r,1 "y on d l _ [067 -- : � This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 56656440000 * ** 2921494 OR: 2968 PG: 2504 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:49AN DWIGHT E, BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1100 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 7240 16C12 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Short II, Bill J =& Cindy L 1301 Riverhead Ave Marco Island, FL 341453929 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars and Thirteen Cents ($104.13) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: MARCO BEACH UNIT 1 BLK 9 LOT 17 & THAT PORTION OF LOT 18 DESC IN OR 1544 PG 2290, LESS THAT PORTION OF LOT 17 DESC IN OR 1641 PG 1656 -58, OR 1544 PG Folio No. 56656440000 Project No. 66000 Account No. 21209 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of Mme, 2002. ATTFZ- T; - '' ". BOARD OF COUNTY CO MIS IONERS DWi�HT E. BRObK, 6.!`FRK COLLIER CO Y, F I R J S N. COLETPA, CHAIRMAN ,' aY Approved a0'Co° ,f&6 a 19" Iture M +!try •: and legal s iciency ��'• ROBERT ,ZACHARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 62250840003 * ** 2921495 OR: 2968 PG: 2505 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:49AN DWIGHT B, BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR 16G12 EKT 1240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Troxell, Nina Rae 5213 Trammel St Naples, FL 341137735 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars and Thirteen Cents ($104.13) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: NAPLES MANOR LAKES BLK 2 LOT 7 OR 1100 PG 2151 Folio No. 62250840003 Project No. 66000 Account No. 24675 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this' 1, day of , 2002. ,s ATTES-T [N IGHT; E_. RR(J k :CLERK Attest Apptovde. 241 to -'r' m s fgnet�!e andleg (.s; uffeliency i • • • • • • e C14 f 's r. This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 62772600006 * ** 2921496 OR: 2968 PG: 2506 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:44AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD IHTBROFFICB 4TH FLOOR EXT 7240 16C12 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Clark, Rosa M 730 97" Ave N Naples, FL 341082283 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars and Thirteen Cents ($104.13) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: NAPLES PARK UNIT 5 BLK 62 LOT 33 Folio No. 62772600006 Project No. 66000 Account No. 26097 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfai 49R,pf ?, ien, by action of the Board this 2;J day o 2002. a �F A""flr� 0 BOARD OF COU TY CO ISSIONERS IJM31-ITE. BROOK, "G4ERK COLLIER CO , FL ID WINE By' JAKS N. COL=A, CHAIRMAN sity �:�Jy�! rove a � and legal ►�. t OB ARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 63853280001 * ** 2921497 OR; 2968 PG; 2507 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:49AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BIT 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN 16C12 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Solis, Angelita 920 New Market Rd W Imokalee, FL 341423048 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Six Dollars and Sixty -One Cents ($106.61) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: NEWMARKET SUBD BLK 11 LOTS 11 AND 12 Folio No. 63853280001 Project No. 66000 Account No. 27203 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this a&day of LU , 2002. AT��S i -DWIGHT E. BROCbGrCLERK A pF�ved.`q-- t0'fArm Atto I? I . +t and le..--' s r Fi "ency signature on �lf�.! J'. / it ROBERT ZACHARY ■viii �Ii /���� This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 65120800002 * ** 2921498 OR: 2968 PG: 2508 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:49AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR B %T 1240 16C12, SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Miller, Samuel =& Elnora 808 Palm Ridge Dr Immokalee, FL 341424224 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Six Dollars and Sixty -One Cents ($106.61) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: PALM RIDGE UNIT 1 LOT 20 OR 774 PG 1858 Folio No. 65120800002 Project No. 66000 Account No. 27782 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of 2002. tc BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IJ` L4� HT � . BRQ@ , IIQLERK COLLIER COU , FLO A S N. COLETrA, C AIRMAN ApprQVP' m tq so, 'It as to and legal,,, ie4bnc y Ur46 ta�) ROBERT Z4kCF4ARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 67032160003 * ** 2921499 OR; 2968 PG; 2509 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS Of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:49AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD IMTBROFFICB 4TH FLOOR BXT 7240 16 01 2 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Bennett, Lorraine C 201 Pinehurst Cir Naples, FL 341138332 The Lien was recorded on the 8T" day of August 2000, in Official Record Book 2708, Pages 0199 through 0309, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Hundred Four Dollars and Thirteen Cents ($104.13) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: PINEHURST EST BLK 13 LOT 17 OR 1472 PG 416 Folio No. 67032160003 Project No. 66000 Account No. 28697 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board thisQ day of a , 2002. e'1 d A 't ST- ®, '� BOARD OF COUNTY CO MISSIONERS a'tGHT °3RC CLERK COLLIER CO , FL ID By: ` test is J S N. COLI;rrA, CHAIRMAN ApOp- d leVed. as tofb�'m s f gfldture y �a ih4l� s ROBERT ZA ARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 51393800005 * ** 2921402 16C1 3 OR; 2968 PG; 2161 **' RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER 01/24/2002 at 08:15AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, REC FEE COPIES Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR E %T 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN COUNTY, FL CLERK 6.00 1.00 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Abline, Jacques & Daniele % American Express Bank PO Box 919 Germany The Lien was recorded on 5t" day of July 2001, in Official Record Book 2853 page 2360 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 95, IMPERIAL GOLF ESTATES PHASE I Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this � day of , 2002. ATTE$ ',`; DWIGKI'IE B.ROCK,.('lerk Attost as to Cfi*j' 1S Approved s °to, form and legal s iency ROf3EkT ZkCHARY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLO DA By: JAMES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN 16C13 2921403 OR; 2968 PG; 2162 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: RIC FEE 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1100 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 1240 Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 23370960006 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Andujar, Nelson & Rosemary 40 Constitution Drive Naples, FL 34112 -7310 The Lien was recorded on 17th day of October 2000, in Official Record Book 2732 page 3334 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Three Hundred Ninety Dollars and No Cents ($390.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 30, BAYVIEW PARK Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its ChairAnan, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 24L day of , 2002. ATTr �`'• ` BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DWI rIi L'o COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA At s 1 ' By. s Z4 APES, N. COLErITA, CHAIRMAN ��rirl tY��rt Approved as to form and le al cy �7 ROBE T Z ARY 16C13 2921404 OR; 2968 PG; 2163 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL This instrument prepared by: 01/24/2002 at 08:15AM DWIGHT S. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEB 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 BXT 1240 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 00767440000 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Maybell Anderson 820 Springfield Cir Salisbury, MD 21804 The Lien was recorded on 22'd day of February 1999, in Official Record Book 2515 page 1032 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($2,950.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT #24 MIRRA PARK, BEGINNING AT N.W. CORNER SECTION 20 T -51 -S R -27 -E RAN S 0 016'00" W209.84 FEET TO IRON PIN THEN S 89 027'40 "E 452.35 FEET TO IRON PIN BEING POINT OF BEGINNING, THEN S 0 °12'20 "W 135.0 FEET TO IRON PIN THEN N 89 027'40" W 60.0 FEET TO IRON PIN THEN N 0 012'20 "E 135.0 FEET TO IRON PIN THEN S 890 27'40 "E 60.0 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. LOT #25 MIRRA PARK, BEGINNING AT N.W. CORNER SECTION 20 T -51 -S R -27 -E RAN S 00 16'00 "W 209.84 FEET TO IRON PIN THEN S 890 27'40 "E 392.35 FEET TO IRON PIN BEING POINT OF BEGINNING THEN S 00 12'24W 135.0 FEET TO IRON PIN THEN N 890 27'40 "W 60.0 FEET TO IRON PIN THEN N 00 12'20 "S 135.0 FEET TO IRON PIN THE S 890 27'40 "E 60.0 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 2,9, day of , 2002. TES I3 T,QHT E. BROCK, Clerk Att4ff::oIi1r's sfgaat`tiW���tlli� Approved as to trm an.41777briency ROBERT fACHARY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: X5W JRTES N. MliTrA, CHAIRMAN 16013 * ** 2921409 OR: 2968 PG: 2164 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AN DWIGHT E, BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: REC FEE 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 ExT 7240 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 58104080004 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Sidney Barbet ET UX 1001 City Avenue Wynnewood, PA 19096 The Lien was recorded on 8th day of September 1993, in Official Record Book 1862 page 002304 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Dollars and No Cents ($240.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 3, BLOCK 400, MARCO BEACH, UNIT 13 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board thiO,� day of , 2002. -y ATTEST;-''® BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DW3 'T :. BP,0lC' , t"Jerk COLLIER COUN Y, FLO DA By: JAMES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal s ciency R BERT HARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 58104080004 * ** 2921406 OR; 2968 PG; 2165 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN RBC FEE 6100 COPIES 1100 16C13 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Sidney Barbet ET UX 1001 City Avenue Wynnewood, PA 19096 The Lien was recorded on 5th day of May 1994, in Official Record Book 001943 page 002220 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 3, BLOCK 400, MARCO BEACH, UNIT 13 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. ppr tr., ST ::,.. PyrIGHT E.. $I L C {, Clerk Approved as to form and le al s cy ROl§ERt ZAefKARY COLLIER FOLOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, • FLORIDA I. JAIES N. COLETIT, CHAIRMAN * ** 2921407 OR: 2968 PG: 2166 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: RBC FEE 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 EXT 7240 16C13 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 58104080004 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Sidney Barbet & Libby Barbet 1001 City Avenue Wynnewood, PA 19096 The Lien was recorded on 2"d day of June 1995, in Official Record Book 2065 page 0245 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($250.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 3, BLOCK 400, MARCO BEACH, UNIT 13 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this � day o , 2002. V r c DWIGHT E- BRICK, Clerk sty i C#'i^lrtyn'= Approved as to form and le al iency ROBERT ZKCHARY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER CO TY, FL RIDA By: JAMES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN * ** 2921408 OR; 2968 PG; 2167 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: REC FEE 6,00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR E %T 1240 Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 16 Property Folio No. 58104080004 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Sidney Barbet & Libby Barbet 1001 City Avenue Wynnewood, PA 19096 The Lien was recorded on 24th day of May 1996, in Official Record Book 2187 page 1806 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 3, BLOCK 400, MARCO BEACH, UNIT 13 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this , day o , 2002. ,n Y, �ATTVS�T: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DWIGHT E, fi(O Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA run -i By �i9a�4 y. JAMES N. CoLETTA, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and al ncy ROBERT ZACHARY * ** 2921409 OR; 2968 PG; 2168 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AN DNIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: RIC FEE 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 BXT 7240 16C13 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 58104080004 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Sidney Barbet & Libby Barbet 1001 City Avenue Wynnewood, PA 19096 The Lien was recorded on 4`" day of September 1998, in Official Record Book 2458 page 1426 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 3, BLOCK 400, MARCO BEACH, UNIT 13 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting throu h its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of 144SMAAM, 2002. -'ANTE T: ar Clerk Approved as to form and legal su iency ROBERT Z CHARY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: JAMES N. &O-am , CHAIRMAN * ** 2921410 OR; 2968 PG; 2169 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: RBC FEE 6,00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 B %T 7240 (941) 774 -8400 16C13 Property Folio No. 00073520009 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Berlin, Sol % Norman Somber Esq 7700 N Kendall Dr Ste 610 Miami, FL 33156 -7567 The Lien was recorded on 7`" day of March 2001, in Official Record Book 2787 page 0753 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Thousand One Hundred Seventy Five Dollars and No Cents ($1,175.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF THE NORTHEAST '/4 AND THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST' /4 OF THE NORTHEAST' /4 AND THE EAST %Z OF THE SOUTHWEST' /4 OF THE NORTHEAST' /4 LESS THE SOUTH 40 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH. RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. tV y1 AT ESTI s BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DWIgJij E- 13RO'Ck, dok COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 4 ttes��- �4�'#+R ":��i�i�n •i By. JAMES N. CO A, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and le iency ROBERT/ZACHARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 61840080009 * ** 2921411 OR: 2968 PG: 2170 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AN DWIGHT B, BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN 16C13 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Rose L Casteel 3259 Karen Dr. Naples, FL 33962 The Lien was recorded on 4t" day of October 1996, in Official Record Book 2236 page 0145 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Six Hundred Thirty Six Dollars and No Cents ($636.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 21, TARPON MOBILE HOMES, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NE, CORNER OF LOT 100 OF NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO.'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2, ACCORDING TO PLAT IN BOOK 1, PAGE 27, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THENCE N. 89 °26'40 "W.120 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE S.0 009'00 "W.139.0 FEET, THENCE S. 89 026'40" E.60.0 FEET, THENCE N.0 °09'00 "E. 139.0 FEET, THENCE N. 89 °26'40" W.60.0 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this ACT, day o , 2002. f?f; Fet. ATTEST, a DY�'I iT E. BROCK4. erk `1lttest u t►� uirm ': Approved as to form and le a ' ency RO E T A HARY COLLIER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, • FLORIDA 6--'JAPMs IN. .ii�ur� -vim • /1 V" K HAIRMAN This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 61840080009 * ** 2921412 OR; 2968 PG. 2171 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08 :15AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE INTEROFFICE BIT 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN BOARD 4TH FLOOR 16C13 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Rose L Casteel 3259 Karen Dr. Naples, FL 33962 The Lien was recorded on 27th day of March 1997, in Official Record Book 2299 page 1053 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 21, TARPON MOBILE HOMES, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NE, CORNER OF LOT 100 OF NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO.'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2, ACCORDING TO PLAT IN BOOK 1, PAGE 27, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THENCE N. 89 °26'40 "W.120 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE S.0 009'00 "W.139.0 FEET, THENCE S. 89 °26'40" E.60.0 FEET, THENCE N.0 °09'00 "E. 139.0 FEET, THENCE N. 89 °26'40" W.60.0 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING. Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this � day of , 2002. ATTS t `: DWTGJ47�" : BR I E Jerk -- Iktt.:_�' s , Approve `dorm and lQaaLanffifiency /'? � 4 ROBERT ZACHARY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: JAMES N. MLETT'A, CHAIRMAN * ** 2921413 OR; 2968 PG; 2172 * ** Property Folio No. 74030920005 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Michel Chery Blocker's Rentals #23 Immokalee, FL 33934 The Lien was recorded on 8`h day of September 1993, in Official Record Book 1862 page 002292 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 7, BLOCK 2, SOUTH IMMOKALEE HEIGHTS Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this' ,Q- day o , 2002. �'C:S4t(Efftt!rF t B -k6C "R ':Clerk f ir'an s oat !J�' Approved as to form and le al iency �7 RdBERTZ/A11HARY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLO A By: JAMES N. COLE'ITA, CHAIRMAN RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: RBC FEB 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR BXT 1240 Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 16C13 Property Folio No. 74030920005 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Michel Chery Blocker's Rentals #23 Immokalee, FL 33934 The Lien was recorded on 8`h day of September 1993, in Official Record Book 1862 page 002292 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 7, BLOCK 2, SOUTH IMMOKALEE HEIGHTS Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this' ,Q- day o , 2002. �'C:S4t(Efftt!rF t B -k6C "R ':Clerk f ir'an s oat !J�' Approved as to form and le al iency �7 RdBERTZ/A11HARY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLO A By: JAMES N. COLE'ITA, CHAIRMAN This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 00776280002 * ** 2921414 OR; 2968 PG, 2173 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01(2412002 at 08:15AK DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE BOARD INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 1240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN 16C13 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Bobby Clay TR Royal Park Hammock PO Box 122 Marco Island, FL 34146 The Lien was recorded on 22nd day of February 1999, in Official Record Book 2515 page 1028 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of One Thousand Two Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($1,200.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: THAT PORTION OF NW 1/40F NW 1/40F SW 1/40F NW 1/4 LYING NORTH OF US HIGHWAY #41, THAT PORTION NE 1/40F NW' /4 OF SW 1/40F NW 1/4 LYING NORTH OF US HIGHWAY #41, AND THAT PORTION OF SE 1/40F NW/40F SW 1/4 NW '/4 SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 51 S, RANGE 27E, LYING NORTH OF US HIGHWAY #41 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this d� day of A6&ti , 2002. ATTES,'I DVII��'. I3RCI,l rk s i 9�At`'e..enyr Approved as to form and le 1 s ncy RO14ERT ZACHARY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: JAMES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN * ** 2921415 OR; 2968 PG; 2174 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: REC FEE 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney CLER K TO THE BOARD Office of the County Attorney CLERK 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR E %T 7240 Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 16C13 Property Folio No. 59082280006 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Marlene Eguizabal 3354 S W 123rd Ave Miami, FL 33175 The Lien was recorded on 27th day of July 1998, in Official Record Book 2444 page 2428 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 19, BLOCK 4, MARCO HIGHLANDS SUBDIVISION Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chaiffnan, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this ' day o , 2002. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DWgGHT E. BR,'. C ` .lerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By. A {t�`` :i„ l�M�= JAMES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and le al s . cy �7 ROBERT ZA4H<RY * ** 2921416 OR: 2968 PG: 2175 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: REC FEE 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 E %T 7240 � � C 1 (941) 774 -8400 ,j, 3 Property Folio No. 57867160000 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Eguizabal, Marlene & Casimiro 3354 S W 123rd Ave Miami, FL 33175 The Lien was recorded on 31St day of August 1998, in Official Record Book 2455 page 3247 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 22, BLOCK 341, MARCO BEACH, UNIT 10 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this al day of , 2002. ATTEST. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DWI(41T . E. BROOK; C lark COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA as S By: 31 JAMES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and le al s 'ency ROBER ARY This instrument prepared by: Robert Zachary Assistant County Attorney Office of the County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 57867160000 * ** 2921417 OR; 2968 PG. 2176 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEE 6100 COPIES 1.00 Retn: CLERK TO THE INTEROFFICE E %T 7240 SATISFACTION OF LIEN BOARD 4TH FLOOR 16C1 7. 4 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Marlene & Casimiro, Eguizabal 3354 S W 123rd Ave Miami, FL 33175 The Lien was recorded on 22"d day of February 1999, in Official Record Book 2515 page 0912 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 22, BLOCK 341, MARCO BEACH, UNIT 10 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting throw h its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board thiscc1- day of , 2002. ATTF,'1� k 4 %iV1% 6144 E. BROOK � Clerk Att"t 8 --o C man's S Yq;#A++1'"'.IP Approved as to form and le al ncy R013ERT ZACITARY BOARD OF • UNTY COMMISSIO COLLIER • FLORIDA By:_ X4.CZ6 i * ** 2921418 OR; 2968 PG; 2177 * ** Property Folio No. 70870640002 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Ronald & Nancy Gill 3403 Bayshore Dr. Naples, FL 34112 The Lien was recorded on 9th day of November 1998, in Official Record Book 2478 page 3080 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($3,500.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: SOUTH %2 OF LOT 6 & ALL OF LOT 7, BLOCK D, ROCK CREEK TERRACE Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 9.A day of , 2002. A'1'1"r l3w1oh-T..-K 11 Q0 Clerk �.� yrs rr, y�~ Approved as to form and le 1 ' ncy �7 ROBERT ZACITARY COLLIER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, • FLORIDA JAMES • RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL This instrument prepared by: 01/24/2002 at 08:15AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK RBC FEB 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 1240 16C13 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 70870640002 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Ronald & Nancy Gill 3403 Bayshore Dr. Naples, FL 34112 The Lien was recorded on 9th day of November 1998, in Official Record Book 2478 page 3080 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($3,500.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: SOUTH %2 OF LOT 6 & ALL OF LOT 7, BLOCK D, ROCK CREEK TERRACE Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 9.A day of , 2002. A'1'1"r l3w1oh-T..-K 11 Q0 Clerk �.� yrs rr, y�~ Approved as to form and le 1 ' ncy �7 ROBERT ZACITARY COLLIER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, • FLORIDA JAMES • * ** 2921419 OR; 2968 PG; 2178 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL This instrument prepared by: 01/24/2002 at 08:15AN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Robert Zachary REC FEE 6.00 COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 E %T 1240 (941) 774 -8400 16C13 Property Folio No. 36303160006 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Lake Est., Leon E. 1506 Dads Road Crestview, FL 32536 -9462 The Lien was recorded on 5th day of December 2000, in Official Record Book 2750 page 1989 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 27, BLOCK 187, GOLDEN GATE, UNIT 6 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. zz �sr qr f BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, I JDA I iT E.,B- R,0Q1- Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA x, - �j +` By: A �t..s�t "v , . ttjr't,, +�,,,�,4t f J HAIRMAN S 1944t@ ' � 1y man s Approved as to form and of y 1 ROBERT ZA HARY * ** 2921420 OR; 2968 PG; 2179 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AK DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: REC FEE 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 BXT 1240 (941) 774 -8400 16C13 Property Folio No. 74030920005 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Lalanne, Etzer PO Box 1165 Immokalee, FL 34143 The Lien was recorded on 22nd day of June 1998, in Official Record Book 2432 page 2523 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 7, BLOCK 2, SOUTH IMMOKALEE HEIGHTS Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board thisga day of , 2002. 1 �T. BIOI;, Clerk r Approve "cI �Nsv"Crm ncy ROBERt ZKeHARY BOARD • COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER • FLORIDA /�/ - ��� /'e/ _ ter/ //// 0' JAMES • * ** 2921421 OR: 2968 PG: 2180 * ** Property Folio No. 74030920005 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Lalanne, Etzer PO Box 1165 Immokalee, FL 34143 The Lien was recorded on 22nd day of February 1999, in Official Record Book 2515 page 0922 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 7, BLOCK 2, SOUTH IMMOKALEE HEIGHTS Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. t �ELif4ffEff�iftfsf /r. r. ST':' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, .1)WIGHT E!';BBOCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: •¢�ejpy� JAMES N. COL=A, CHAIRMAN tta4 Approved as to form and 7ency ROBERT ZKCfiARY RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL This instrument prepared by: 01/24/2002 at 08:15AR DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK Robert Zachary RBC FEE 6.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: COPIES 1.00 Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 EXT 1240 � 6C13 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 74030920005 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Lalanne, Etzer PO Box 1165 Immokalee, FL 34143 The Lien was recorded on 22nd day of February 1999, in Official Record Book 2515 page 0922 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 7, BLOCK 2, SOUTH IMMOKALEE HEIGHTS Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. t �ELif4ffEff�iftfsf /r. r. ST':' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, .1)WIGHT E!';BBOCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: •¢�ejpy� JAMES N. COL=A, CHAIRMAN tta4 Approved as to form and 7ency ROBERT ZKCfiARY * ** 2921422 OR; 2968 PG; 2181 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: REC FEE 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1100 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 EYT 7240 (941) 774 -8400 16C13 Property Folio No. 51544807501 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Leister, Karl -Heinz & Heidi Wiesenstr 33 -E 63110 Rodgau 2 Germany The Lien was recorded on 5th day of July 2001, in Official Record Book 2853 page 2358 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 81, IMPERIAL GOLF ESTATES, PHASE V Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of AAA A a A A , 2002. r1f �ltil "'� 4�. � a�'�1P Y.S � ( •��r. AT D t FI .E;. Rte. "Clerk Att .. as 94, ian•s S , App roved` 'f'form and suf cy '*4 b:�_7 <"t,4 ROBER Y BURNS * ** 2921423 OR; 2968 PG. 2182 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: REC FEE 6.00 Robert Zachary COFIBS 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 EXT 7240 (941) 774 -8400 16C13 Property Folio No. 36232400002 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Montenegro, Cal 280 Henley Drive Naples, FL 34104 The Lien was recorded on 5'h day of July 2001, in Official Record Book 2853 page 2334 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 7, BLOCK 155, GOLDEN GATE, UNIT 5 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board thisel. .day of , 2002. � 4y. frtPorsiw BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, P.WVI iHT E. 11) KK, Clerk COLLIER CO TY, FLORIDA • 6 �y 4� ly. JAMES N. co=A, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and le ' ncy 'e-� ROBER ARY * ** 2921424 OR; 2968 PG; 2183 **' Property Folio No. 36232360003 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Montenegro, Cal 280 Henley Drive Naples, FL 34104 The Lien was recorded on 5" day of July 2001, in Official Record Book 2853 page 2336 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 6, BLOCK 155, GOLDEN GATE, UNIT 5 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. AIT5T, �, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, I IGHT E BRpCI , perk COLLIER COUNTY, FLO DA ? irj J t aiT �. By: R = JAMES N. COLEITA CHAIRMAN „!1776; f i!u Approved as to form and ency ROBERT ARY RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS Of COLLIER COUNTY, FL This instrument prepared by: 01/24/2002 at 08 :15AN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Robert Zachary REC FEE COPIES 6.00 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 EXT 7240 16C13 Property Folio No. 36232360003 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Montenegro, Cal 280 Henley Drive Naples, FL 34104 The Lien was recorded on 5" day of July 2001, in Official Record Book 2853 page 2336 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 6, BLOCK 155, GOLDEN GATE, UNIT 5 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. AIT5T, �, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, I IGHT E BRpCI , perk COLLIER COUNTY, FLO DA ? irj J t aiT �. By: R = JAMES N. COLEITA CHAIRMAN „!1776; f i!u Approved as to form and ency ROBERT ARY * ** 2921425 OR; 2968 PG; 2184 * ** Property Folio No. 76210440002 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Perez, Mima A 4392 11th Avenue SW Naples, FL 34116 The Lien was recorded on 17th day of October 2000, in Official Record Book 2732 page 3324 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Nine Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($950.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 14, BLOCK 2, W.H. SURRENCY SUBDIVISION Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this99 day ofAaA&jd&&M , 2002. ATT-r- . w I ; ; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 11 DtI�T •F;,; BRCI, =clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: JAMES N. CC , CHAIRMAN ����1f1it1tte�tceN` Approved as to form s ncy RO ER Z C ARY RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 0E:15AN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: REC FEE 6,00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 EXT 7240 (941) 774 -8400 16C13 Property Folio No. 76210440002 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Perez, Mima A 4392 11th Avenue SW Naples, FL 34116 The Lien was recorded on 17th day of October 2000, in Official Record Book 2732 page 3324 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Nine Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($950.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 14, BLOCK 2, W.H. SURRENCY SUBDIVISION Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this99 day ofAaA&jd&&M , 2002. ATT-r- . w I ; ; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 11 DtI�T •F;,; BRCI, =clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: JAMES N. CC , CHAIRMAN ����1f1it1tte�tceN` Approved as to form s ncy RO ER Z C ARY * ** 2921426 OR: 2968 PG; 2185 **1 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL This instrument prepared by: 01/24/2002 at 08 :15AN DWIGHT E. FROCK, CLERK REC FEB 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn; Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 EXT 7240 941 774 -840 O a 16C13 Property Folio No. 68843920004 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Ramtahal, Rawle 11730 Cranbourne Dr Orlando, FL 32837 The Lien was recorded on 2151 day of August 2001, in Official Record Book 2879 page 0154 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Fifty Five Dollars and No Cents ($255.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 94, QUAIL HOLLOW SUBDIVISION Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this aol— day of , 2002. ,OHT E. BIB -0- CK, Clerk a dvl.IfPlPPte' +�� Approved as to form �qliency R6BEkT ZlknARY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUN Y, FLO DA By: JAMES N. COLE=, CHAIRMAN * ** 2921427 OR; 2968 PG; 2186 * ** RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AR DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: REC FEE 6100 Robert Zachary COPIES 1100 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR EXT 1240 Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 16C13 Property Folio No. 53351240003 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Sams, Dean Morris 4083 New Moon Ct Naples, F134112 -6242 The Lien was recorded on 17th day of October 2000, in Official Record Book 2732 page 3346 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Eighty Five Dollars and No Cents ($285.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 37, LAKE KELLY, UNIT 2 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 2'jc7 day of , 2002. L Oiff 1 , BROak Clerk Ass ss.j 4f OW's ;�e..o t� Approved tesas t form and le 1 s ncy ROBERT ZACNARY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: _ X 4,-:: � JAMES N. COLE'I'TA, CHAIRMAN * ** 2921428 OR; 2968 PG; 2187 * ** Property Folio No. 35988200007 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Spielfogel, Catherine M. 153 Prospect St Neptune City, NJ 07753 The Lien was recorded on 21" day of August 2001, in Official Record Book 2879 page 0156 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Fifty Five Dollars and No Cents ($255.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 22, BLOCK 87, GOLDEN GATE, UNIT 3 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. �'xST a BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ,f3AJIGHT t BAOCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ' By: A!'t sipitwil €� ti�y` ` - JAMES N. CO A, CHAIRMAN . Approved as to form and 1 i cy ROBERT Z Y RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AR DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: REC FEE 6100 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 EXT 1240 16C13 -8400 Property Folio No. 35988200007 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Spielfogel, Catherine M. 153 Prospect St Neptune City, NJ 07753 The Lien was recorded on 21" day of August 2001, in Official Record Book 2879 page 0156 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Fifty Five Dollars and No Cents ($255.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 22, BLOCK 87, GOLDEN GATE, UNIT 3 Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. �'xST a BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ,f3AJIGHT t BAOCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ' By: A!'t sipitwil €� ti�y` ` - JAMES N. CO A, CHAIRMAN . Approved as to form and 1 i cy ROBERT Z Y * ** 2921429 OR; 2968 PG: 2188 * ** Property Folio No. 62256160004 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Whitmer, Bruce T. & Elsye K. 420 Griffith Avenue Owensboro, KY 423013620 The Lien was recorded on 31 st day of August 1998, in Official Record Book 2455 page 3233 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 27, BLOCK 7, NAPLES MANOR LAKES Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 99 day of , 2002. bc, I�wgG1�T E., BPO0 :,'?Clerk Approved as to form and ncy RO ER Z ARY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLO DA By: JAMES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: REC FEE 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 (941) 774 -8400 EYT 9240 16 1 3 Property Folio No. 62256160004 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Whitmer, Bruce T. & Elsye K. 420 Griffith Avenue Owensboro, KY 423013620 The Lien was recorded on 31 st day of August 1998, in Official Record Book 2455 page 3233 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 27, BLOCK 7, NAPLES MANOR LAKES Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 99 day of , 2002. bc, I�wgG1�T E., BPO0 :,'?Clerk Approved as to form and ncy RO ER Z ARY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLO DA By: JAMES N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN * ** 2921430 OR: 2968 PG; 2189 **1 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: HEC FEE 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 BXT 7240 16C13 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 62256160004 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Whitmer, Bruce T. & Elsye K. 420 Griffith Avenue Owensboro, KY 42301 The Lien was recorded on 22nd day of February 1999, in Official Record Book 2515 page 0908 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 27, BLOCK 7, NAPLES MANOR LAKES Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this ola- day of , 2002. ATT h'U BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DVS _,;}3RI, clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA B Ate *& to►an's y' fi1�5< JAMES N. CoLETTA, CHAIRMAN ��r'Fdid16' Approved as to form and cy �7 RO ERT ZACHARY * ** 2921431 OR; 2968 PG; 2190 **1 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL This instrument prepared by: 01/24/2002 at 08:15AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK REC FEE 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 E %T 7240 (941) 774 -8400 16C13 Property Folio No. 62256160004 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Bruce T & Elsye K Whitmer 420 Griffith Avenue Owensboro, KY 423013620 The Lien was recorded on 16"' day of March 1999, in Official Record Book 2523 page 3431 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 27, BLOCK 7, NAPLES MANOR LAKES Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of , 2002. `Pfrr, :Ffp"' ATI D C14rI.G L E: BR& , Clerk Approved as to form and legal suf cy RO ERT ZAX Y BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Loll JAMES N. coLETTA, CHAIRMAN * ** 2921432 OR; 2968 PG; 2191 **1 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AN DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: RBC FEB 6.00 Robert Zachary COPIES 1.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 EYT 7240 6 C ,1 13 (941) 774 -8400 Property Folio No. 62256160004 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Bruce T. Whitmer & Elsye K. Whitmer 420 Griffith Avenue Owensboro, KY 423013620 The Lien was recorded on 16th day of May 2001, in Official Record Book 2825 page 1898 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and No Cents ($245.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: LOT 27, BLOCK 7, NAPLES MANOR LAKES Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board A. thisXday of '2002. vttptirutsr F,, fn ATTTI°' k DW' 66414 h..`13RQCZ erk at, t10 sfg0r!. Approved as to form ' ency RO ERT Z ARY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FL DA JAMES N. COLETIA, CHAIRMAN 2921433 OR; 2968 PG; 2192 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/24/2002 at 08:15AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK This instrument prepared by: REC FEE 10.50 Robert Zachary COPIES 2.00 Assistant County Attorney Retn: Office of the County Attorney CLERK TO THE BOARD 3301 East Tamiami Trail INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR Naples, Florida 34112 B %T 1240 1 (941) 774 -8400 1-6 V r 1.3 Property Folio No. 00136400008 SATISFACTION OF LIEN KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien against: Holy Trinity Church of the Living God, Pillar & Ground Of Truth Inc. % Albert T Bentley PO Box 5339 Immokalee, FL 3413 The Lien was recorded on 17th day of October 2000, in Official Record Book 2732 page 3350 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal sum of Three Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($300.00) plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows: COMMENCING AT THE NW 1/40F THE NE' /4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE EAST 30.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/40F THE NE 1/4; THENCE SOUTH 30.00 FEET ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SOUTH FIFTH STREET TO THE POB; THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 136.28 FEET ALONG SAID LINE; THENCE EASTERLY 272.84 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF BOOKER BOULEVARD; THENCE NORTHERLY 136.58 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF EUSTIS AVENUE; THENCE WESTERLY 272.43 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE POB. Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting through its Chai an, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this A2-.day of 1 2002. Clerk g `°'jr/s � l� t , ra �t � s' fb"' and legal suff 'ency , /<�-' 'f'4 �7 ROBERT ZAeffARY * ** OR; 2968 PG; 2193 * ** 16C13 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUN Y, FLO DA By: JAMES N. 00LETrA, HAIRMAN a9/a 2-- 16E2 RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -_ 3 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DECLARING THAT A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY IS THE PREFERRED INTEREST SOUGHT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AND SETTING FORTH THE RATIONALE THEREFORE. WHEREAS, the construction of transportation improvements, as identified in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan for Collier County, shall in many instances require the acquisition of a right -of -way by either gift, purchase or condemnation; and WHEREAS, the right -of -way for transportation improvements may be purchased or condemned either as an easement over, under, upon and across the land; or the fee simple interest in the land itself may be purchased or condemned; and WHEREAS, full compensation, as required by the Constitution of the State of Florida, for the easement rights purchased or condemned for transportation improvements is tantamouii the full compensation required for the purchase or condemnation of the fee simple estate in property (between 90 percent and 100 percent of the fair market value of the lands so appropriated, depending upon the property's zoning and the appraiser's judgment); and WHEREAS, the purchase or condemnation of the full fee simple estate in lands required for near -term transportation improvements provides the County with a degree of control over the right- of -way which is superior to the control afforded by an easement only, and which, in many instances, may produce cost savings on future public works improvement projects by gaining the maximum flexibility over the uses permitted in the right -of -way so acquired. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that in consideration of long -range planning and present -day costs for transportation improvement projects, and in the interest of exercising the maximum degree of control over the public road right -of -way which may allow the County to realize substantial savings by locating future public works projects within the acquired area, County staff is hereby directed to purchase or condemn road right -of -way in fee simple as the preferred method of exercising maximum control over the right -of -way in order to construct any anticipated capital improvement projects. AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that in those instances in which the purchase of a full fee simple estate cannot be negotiated by County staff, and the costs associated with a condemnation Page 1 16E2 of the full fee simple estate may outweigh the future benefits contemplated by full County ownership of the right -of -way, and when the owner of the property is willing to convey a perpetual, "non- exclusive ", road right -of -way easement over, under, upon and across the property in compliance with the requirements of the transportation improvements, along with the right to construct and install subordinate utility and drainage improvements, together with access and temporary construction easements, County staff may negotiate a reasonable settlement for the purchase of said "non- exclusive" easement, subject to Board approval. AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that, notwithstanding the future benefits to be derived by the County arising from a fee simple acquisition of the public right -of way, there exists those circumstances where the severance damages to remaining lands, as a result of the taking of the fee simple estate for the transportation project, is of such an extent as to warrant the purchase or condemnation of a lesser estate in the form of an easement interest in order to mitigate or eliminate such damages; and in such instances County staff is hereby directed to undertake such analyses of future benefits vs. current costs as are relevant to the determination as to the specific interest in real property the County should acquire for the instant project. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED on this day of , 2002 after motion, second and majority vote. t • wfR DrWt blilf•E. BI Y - CLERK "` t testy Clerk Slott & y • Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney • • i • :w Page 2 16E2 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 3 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF ALL CONVEYANCES MADE TO COLLIER COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND ALL CONVEYANCES MADE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT, WHICH ARE HEREAFTER MADE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENT REQUIREMENTS OF ANY AND ALL ORDINANCES AND AGREEMENTS OR AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is the governing body of Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and in addition is ex- officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Collier County "); and WHEREAS, various interests in real property must be conveyed to Collier County for public use as a requirement of certain development commitments stipulated by Collier County ordinances, in fulfillment of obligations which may now or in the future be contained in agreements between Collier County and any legal entity, and as an integral part of capital improvement projects; and WHEREAS, the formal acceptance by Collier County of such required conveyances is important in that infrastructure maintenance responsibilities are thereby established, and the public right to utilize rights -of -way becomes documented through such acceptance; and WHEREAS, the growth of the County necessitates an increasing number of such conveyances year after year; and WHEREAS, the number of conveyances has caused County staff to bring an increasing number of separate "acceptances" before the Board of County Commissioners via Executive Summary and Resolution; and WHEREAS, it is desirable and in the best interest of Collier County to reduce the staff time and paperwork which is generated by the formalized acceptance process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that all interests in real property which may be conveyed either to Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, or to the Board of County Commissioners as the governing body of Collier County, Florida, and as ex- officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water -Sewer District, and which are conveyed to either entity as a development commitment requirement pursuant to any County ordinance, or in fulfillment of any obligation which may now or in the future be contained in any agreement between Collier County and any other legal entity, or which are required as an indispensable function during Page 1 16E2 the completion of a capital project which has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners, are hereby accepted. AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that in order to document the acceptance of any such conveyance of an interest in real property to Collier County, the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized to affix to any such conveyance instrument, prior to recording in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, a stamp or seal attesting to acceptance on behalf of Collier County. The Real Property Management Director, or his/her designee, shall provide written notification to the Clerk of Court that the conveyance was required by the Board of County Commissioners in fulfillment of an obligation on behalf of the conveying entity or to complete project as approved. AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the calendar year 2002 Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, or any subsequent Chairman, is hereby authorized to execute all documents pertinent to the acceptance of any such conveyance or the clearing of the lien of any encumbrances from any such conveyance. AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the staff is authorized to follow proper real estate closing procedures and record all such documents in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED on this oj.�- day of L��� '2002 after motion, second and majority vote. ATTE�;i I1 � ��ROCK, CLERK y J-1eputy Clerk ,.��,�'� �v.CAa1rs�•s Ap v�"d ae4)6'form and legal sufficiency: L�, d, Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY �OMMISSIONERS By: /"A�Zw &- Chair-man Page 2 16E2 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 3 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTIES, DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE CALENDAR YEAR 2002 CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS INCIDENT TO PROPERTY ACQUISITION ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH CERTAIN ACTIVITIES REQUIRED TO EXPEDITE SAID PROPERTY ACQUISITION, AND WAIVING CERTAIN PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. WHEREAS, the expeditious acquisition of property is of paramount importance to the timely completion of many capital improvement projects, and attaining infrastructure goals in accordance with the Capital Improvement Element of the County's Growth Management Plan; and WHEREAS, accomplishing the property acquisition and construction on or ahead of schedule shall require a properly coordinated team effort among the individual departments and agencies charged with overall responsibility for the projects, the Transportation Engineering and Construction Management Department, the Public Utilities Engineering Department, the Real Property Management Department, the Office of the County Attorney, and the Board of County Commissioners, wherein certain routine processes require streamlining the abbreviation whenever possible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, recognizes the importance of completing the various capital improvement projects at the earliest possible time; and further, the Board recognizes the relationship of the project schedule to meeting the concurrency requirements of Collier County's Comprehensive Plan. AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, recognizes the importance of the land rights acquisition function and its relationship to the overall project schedule; and the Board desires to facilitate and expedite the land rights acquisition process to the extent that it is empowered to do so by law. AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the following measures are reasonably necessary for the efficient and expeditious management and completion of capital projects: 1. The Board of County Commissioners, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 125.355, Florida Statutes, hereby formally waives the requirement for a formal, independent appraisal report for the purchase of a property where the purchase price of the parcel (the compensation Page 1 1-6-E2 due to the property owner) is less than One Hundred Thousand and 00 /100 Dollars ($100,000.00). In lieu of the independent appraisal report, staff is hereby authorized to make purchase offers for the properties, the dollar amounts of which shall be predicated on "staff compensation estimates ", i.e., based upon independent appraisals (and the data there from) obtained on similar properties and upon consideration and application of appropriate market value and cost data pertinent to the subject parcels. 2. Upon the approval by the County Attorney's Office of all documents necessary for the subject property acquisition, Real Property Management Department staff is hereby encouraged to offer immediate delivery to the respective property owners of the full compensation (as established by the appraisal or staff compensation estimates in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 125.355, Florida Statutes), in return for the immediate and proper execution of the respective easements and/or deeds, and such other legal documents and/or affidavits as the County Attorney's Office deems appropriate in order to protect the interests of the County; and the Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes its Chairman and any subsequent Chairman, for the life of the project, to execute any and all agreements and other legal instruments pertinent to such property acquisition which have been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. 3. In those instances where negotiated settlements may be obtained via the "Purchase Agreement" or "Easement Agreement" mechanism, the Transportation Administrator or the Utilities Administrator, or their designee, is hereby delegated the authority to approve the purchase of land interests above the staff compensation estimate or appraised value and pay normally related costs when it is in the best interest of the project, within the pro -rata share of the land rights acquisition budget for the parcel being acquired, only when the difference between the purchase price and the staff compensation estimate or appraised value is less than Twenty -Five Thousand and 00 /100 Dollars ($25,000.00) or the current purchasing limits established by the Collier County Purchasing Department; provided, Project funding is available. This settlement approval authority is delegated by the Board of County Commissioners to the extent that such approvals do not conflict with the provisions of Section 125.355, Florida Statutes. 4. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners is hereby authorized to execute Purchase Agreements and Easement Agreements where the land owner has agreed to sell the required land rights to the County at their appraised value or at that amount considered the "Administrative Page 2 16E2 Settlement Amount" as such term is internally used by the administrative agencies of Collier County. 5. Where the property owner agrees, by sworn affidavit or agreement ( "Purchase Agreement" or "Easement Agreement "), to convey a necessary interest in real property to the County, and upon the proper execution by the property owner of those easements and/or deeds, and such other legal documents as the Office of the County Attorney may have required, the Board hereby authorizes: 1) the County Attorney, or his designee, the authority to execute a closing statement on behalf of the Board, and 2) the Finance Department the authority to issue warrants payable to the property owner(s) of record in those amounts as shall be specified on a closing statement and which shall be based upon the appraisal or staff compensation estimate in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 125.355, Florida Statutes. 6. All title to properties which have been obtained in the manner described above shall be deemed "accepted" by the Board of County Commissioners, as the governing body of Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and as such, staff is hereby authorized to record in the public records of Collier County, Florida, said deeds and such other instruments as may be required to remove the lien of any encumbrance from the acquired property. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED on this day of , 2002 after motion, second and majority vote. t(�L(tfiftfttf,; D' �' V > IR -o `CLERK lt .� " DetClerk fi:i iti llll1 Approved as to form and legal sufficienc Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney :••'D OF • UNTY COMMISSIONER OF • I • • ' It Chairman Page 3 16E3 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 3 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE REAL ESTATE SALES AGREEMENTS AND STATUTORY DEEDS FOR THE G.A.C. LAND TRUST PROPERTY BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD FOR THE 2002 CALENDAR YEAR. WHEREAS, Collier County, Florida entered into an agreement with Avatar Properties Inc. on November 15, 1983 to accept as Trustee 1,061.5 acres of real property in Golden Gate Estates for the purpose of sale to the public; and WHEREAS, Collier County, Florida accepted the acreage in phases: Phase I on November 15, 1983, Phase II and III on February 16, 1988 and Phase IV and V on June 13, 1989; such conveyances have been recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 1988, and March 10, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners approved the marketing procedures for the sale of the Golden Gate Estates property conveyed by Avatar Properties Inc. Thereupon the Real Property Management Department has been actively marketing the property (Phases I through V) for sale to the general public; and WHEREAS, there is a benefit to the County and to the public if the administrative procedures concerning the Real Estate Sales Agreement documents and Statutory Deeds are expedited, while maintaining the safeguards of staff and legal counsel review of such documents; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes the benefit of reducing time for Board approvals and the subsequent closing process on reviewed and approved Real Estate Sales Agreements and Statutory Deeds. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that 1. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute Real Estate Sales Agreements and Statutory Deeds resulting from the Agreement dated November 15, 1983 and the County's administration of such Agreement, whereupon the Real Estate Sales Agreements and Statutory Deeds have been previously approved by the Real Property Management Department, the Finance Department and the County Attorney. 2. The authorization of the Chairman to execute Real Estate Sales Agreements and Statutory Deeds hereunder shall extend solely for the 2002 calendar year. This Resolution adopted this o2 ok day of , 2002, after motion, second and majority vote. ATTEST; DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk eputy Cler Att•ft as to CAa i rs" - f signature only. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency,: Heidi F. Ashton Assistant County Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 02 - 4Q_ 16E4 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF LIMITED USE BARE LICENSE AGREEMENTS BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD FOR THE 2002 CALENDAR YEAR. WHEREAS, there is a benefit to the County and to the public if the administrative procedures concerning Limited Use Bare License Agreements are expedited, while maintaining the safeguards of staff and legal counsel review of such Agreements; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes the benefit of reducing time for Board approval on reviewed and approved Limited Use License Agreements. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute Limited Use Agreements, for those special events listed below, following approval by the Real Property Management Department, the Client - Department, the Risk Management Department and the County Attorney's Office. - Golden Gate Area Chamber of Commerce, Inc. (Golden Gate Festival and Annual Art Show) - Golden Gate Rotary Club (Christmas Tree Sales & Bass Tournament) - The Art League of Marco Island, Inc. (Art and Craft Shows) - Supervisor of Elections of Collier County, Florida (Voter Access) - Golden Gate Fraternal Order of Eagles (Annual Taste of Golden Gate) - Amateur Radio Association of Southwest Florida (Field Day Activities) - East Naples Civic Association (Manatee Festival) - David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. (Annual Fun Skate) - Cool Cruisers of Naples, Inc. (Scholarship Fund Raiser) - Octagon Sequence of Eight, Inc. (Arts and Crafts Show) - St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. (Event Parking) - Naples Italian American Club, Inc. (Event Parking) 2. The authorization of the Chairman to execute Limited Use Bare License Agreements hereunder shall extend only for the 2002 calendar year. This Resolution adopted this Gat* day of 2002, after motion, second and majority vote. TVA WG?7' F. 13?CY, Clerk uty Clerk s'tg�tu ,,,.ii, i„", I:••'D OF • UNTY COMMISSIONER a1 �1..►�/ /�j i. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: dV\,\ Thomas C. Palmer Assistant County Attorney Jame". Coletta -' -I"— , Chairman 16E6 RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 41 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER, COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DEEDS AND AGREEMENTS FOR THE LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY, BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD FOR THE 2002 CALENDAR YEAR. WHEREAS, Collier County acquired a twenty (20) acre site by Warranty Deed dated December 15, 1964 from J.C. Turner Lumber Company and recorded in the Public Records of Collier County in O.R. Book 180, Page 773 on December 21, 1964, for use as a public cemetery known as the Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 82 -105 on July 27, 1982, which governs the rights of interment, administration, maintenance and development of the Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery, said policy including the disposition of indigent deceased; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution 87 -224 on September 22, 1987, which revises Resolution No. 82 -105 regarding the operation of the cemetery; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 90 -214 on April 17, 1990, which reserves a section in the Veterans Section for the purpose of providing a memorial; and WHEREAS, the Board adopted Resolution No. 90 -242 on May 1, 1990, which revises the rules and regulations which govern the administration and development of the cemetery; and WHEREAS, there is a benefit to the County and to the public if the administrative procedures concerning Deeds and Agreements for Deed to Right of Interment for the Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery are expedited, while maintaining the safeguards of staff and legal counsel review of such documents; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes the benefit of reducing time for Board approval on reviewed and approved Deeds and Agreements for Deed to Right of Interment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners does hereby authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute Deeds and Agreements for Deed to Right of Interment for the Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery, pursuant to Resolution No. 90 -242 dated May 1, 1990, and the County's administration of that Resolution, whereupon the Deeds and Agreements for Deed to Right of Interment have been previously reviewed and approved by the Real Property Management Department and the County Attorney's Office. 2. The authorization of the Chairman to execute the Deeds and Agreements for Deed to Right of Interment for the Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery hereunder shall extend solely for the 2002 calendar year. im This Resolution adopted this —day of , 2002, after motion, second and majority vote. �1T `HI`.1✓:Byle-w xl k .0 J, pep ULy Cler run s Approved'as'to form and legal sufficien d -11 1. , j ,, Heidi F. Ashfon Assistant County Attorney • , , • • • • • • ►�y� •:, 9�r/ 16G 1 DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO BOARD OFFICE AS OF MAY 1, 2002 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE FOR BOARD ACTION: 16J1 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for the period: 1. Disbursements for December 26, 2001- January 3, 2002 B. Districts: 1. Immokalee Fire Control District- Notice to Vote for Monthly Meeting 2. Lely Community Development District - Minutes of January 17, 2001, February 21, 2001, March 21, 2001, April 18, 2001, May 16, 2001, June 20, 2001, July 18, 2001, August 15, 2001, September 19, 2001, October 17, 2001, and November 28, 2001 and a list of proposed future meeting dates for 2002 C. Minutes, 1. Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Minutes of September 27, 2001 2. Environmental Advisory Council - Minutes of October 3, 2001, Minutes of December 5, 2001, Minutes of November 7, 2001 3. Value Adjustment Board - Minutes of October 3, 2001, Minutes of October 8, 2001 4. Collier County Planning Commission - Minutes of October 4, 2001, Minutes of October 18, 2001, November 1, 2001, Minutes of November 15, 2001 5. Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee - Agenda for December 5, 2001, for January 2, 2002, Minutes of November 7, 2001200 1, Minutes of December 5, 2001. H:Data/Format a) Clam Bay Sub - Committee - Minutes of November 28, 2001 b) Organization Structure Review Sub - Committee r NQA ITS M Minutes of December 17, 2001 "A JAN 2 2 2002 Pg. 16J1 6. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for December 6, 2001. 7. Rural Fringe Assessment Area Oversight Committee - Minutes of October 12, 2001, October 24, 2001 and November 7, 2001 Minutes of December 5, 2001 and December 12, 2001, Minutes of September 26, 2001, October 10, 2001, October 15, 2001, October 22, 2001 8. Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for December 19, 2001, October 17, 2001 9. Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for December 14, 2001 Minutes of August 10, 2001. 10. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee Minutes for November 9, 2001 11. Enterprise Zone Development Agency - Draft Minutes of September 20, 2001, Minutes of November 29, 2001. 12. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee - , Minutes of October 4, 2001 13. Bayshore Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for January 9, 2002, Minutes, Minutes of November 7, 2001. 14. Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for October 3, 2001, November 21, 2001, Minutes of August 7, 2001. Minutes of September 5, 2001 15. 1 -75 /Golden Gate Interchange Advisory Committee - Minutes of November 14, 2001 16. Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. - Minutes of November 19, 2001 December 17, 2001 17. Collier County Library Advisory Board - Agenda for December 12, 2001. 18. Park and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for November 20, 2001, December 19, 2001, Minutes of October 24, 200lNovember 20, 2001 19. Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board - Agenda for December 13, 2001, Minutes of January 3, 02, 12 -6 -01 20. Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for November 19, 2001, December 10, 2001, Minutes of November 19, 2001, Minutes of October 22, 2001. H:Data/Format 16J1 It 21. Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory — Minutes of August 16, 2001, September 20, 2001 and October 25, 2001. 22. Health and Human Services Advisory Committee — Agenda for December 20, 2001. 23. Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for December 11, 2001, Minutes of November 13, 2001. 24. Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District - Agenda for January 9, 2002. 25. Workforce Housing Advisory Committee — Agenda for December 13, 2001 H:Data/Format 16J1 a Other: 1) Letter from Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector — Tax Collector's Recapitulation of the 2000 Tax Roll for Collier County, Florida.. H:Data/Format 16J1 Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County, Florida Finance & Accounting Department MEMORANDUM Date: 01/03/02 To: Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners From: Constance C. Murray, General Operations Manager Finance Department /Clerk to the Board Re: Board of Countv Commissioners Disbursements Please find attached a listing of the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for the period December 26, 2001 through January 3, 2002. In accordance with Florida Statutes, Chapter 136.06(1) I request that these reports be included as miscellaneous correspondence to the Board of County Commissioners and made part of the official records. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please telephone me at 774- 8481. Co rL". sa "es «: JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 PAGE 1 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 567032 VENDOR 309680 1 NATION TECHNOLOGY 20008742 NI0018577 113 - 138900 - 651910.00000 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 152235 TELEPHONE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 300.00 CHECK NO 566800 VENDOR 111990 3M 20008681 TP70015 101.163630- 653710 -00000 0.00 483.60 0.00 483.60 201144 SIGN SUPPLIES 20008681 TP72058 101 - 163630 - 653710.00000 0.00 244.35 0.00 244.35 201144 SIGN SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 727.95 CHECK NO 566843 VENDOR 161100 AAA GENERATOR & PUMP INC. 20008627 GOL•1258 12/07 188 - 140480- 646970.00000 0.00 106.36 0.00 106.36 201344 12/07 MAINTANCE 20008617 GOL -1249 10/12;10/25;11/6 408- 253221- 634999 -00000 0.00 2,096.76 0.00 2.096.76 200407 SERVICE REPAIR 20008628 GOL -1066 10/24 001 - 122240. 634999 -00000 0.00 87.50 0.00 87.50 201559 PARTS / MAINTANCE 20008628 GOL -1141 11/03 001 - 122240 - 634999 -00000 0.00 166.00 0.00 166.00 201559 PARTS / MAINTANCE 20008628 GOL -1143 11/06 001 - 122240- 634999 -00000 0.00 208.49 0.00 208.49 201559 PARTS / MAINTANCE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,665.11 CHECK NO 567020 VENDOR 299520 - AASHTO 20009060 400565060101 126. 138332- 654110 -33202 0.00 455.00 0.00 455.00 151949 400565060101 12/06 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 455.00 CHECK NO 566931 VENDOR 237370 - ABB WATER METERS INC. 20008618 178572 11/29 408- 253212 - 655100 -00000 0.00 3.234.50 0.00 3.234.50 200195 METERS /PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.234.50 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 566832 VENDOR 147860 - ABE SKINNER, PROPERTY APPRAISER ' JAGE 16 J 1 2 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20009039 1 /01- 03/31/02 COMMISSIONS 155 - 959050. 930600 -00000 0.00 419.83 156- 959050- 930600 -00000 0.00 1,019.53 150 - 959050 - 930600 -00000 0.00 1,338.51 160 - 959050 - 930600 -00000 0.00 2,760.34 149 - 959050. 930600 -00000 0.00 259.91 1 /01. 03/31/02 COMMISSIONS 20009039 1/01- 03/31/02 COMMISSIONS 001 - 959050 - 930600 -00000 0.00 1,362,934.03 114 - 959050- 930600 -00000 0.00 5,151.73 146 - 959050. 930600 -00000 0.00 2.428.99 760 - 959050 - 930600.00000 0.00 1.599.01 130 - 959050 - 930600 -00000 0.00 1.360.92 134 - 959050 - 930600.00000 0.00 16.24 144- 959050 - 930600 -00000 0.00 891.33 111 - 959050 - 930600 -00000 0.00 59,883.58 140. 959050- 930600 -00000 0.00 87.17 206. 959050- 930600.00000 0.00 3,682.63 1 /01- 03/31/02 COMMISSIONS 20009039 1 /01- 03/31/02 COMMISSIONS 136 - 959050 - 930600 -00000 0.00 901.95 148. 959050- 930600.00000 0.00 1,237.57 770 - 959050 - 930600 -00000 0.00 37.90 152 - 959050 - 930600 -00000 0.00 467.53 778 - 959050 - 930600 -00000 0.00 2,126.60 141. 959050- 930600.00000 0.00 46.18 154 - 959050 - 930600 -00000 0.00 16.68 1/01 - 03/31/02 COMMISSIONS CHECK NO 566877 VENDOR 182940 - ACCENT SIGNS 20009154 19576 11/07 001 - 100190. 634999 -00000 152663 19576 11/07 CHECK NO 566697 VENDOR 110 - ACTION AUTOMATIC DOOR CO 20008634 167966 11/28 001. 122240 - 646110 -00000 151610 167966 11/28 20008634 163757 10/26 001. 122240- 646110 -00000 151610 163757 10/26 CHECK NO 567118 VENDOR 345450 - ADAMS MEDIA CORPORATION CHECK TOTAL 0.00 185.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5,798.12 0.00 1,438,035.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,834.41 1,448,668.16 185.00 185.00 0.00 76.00 0.00 76.00 0.00 250.90 0.00 250.90 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 326.90 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16 J LE 3 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 196.25 201511 12/14 REPAIRS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 20009196 25131 6/22 001 - 122240 - 652997 -00000 0.00 200.00 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 201511 25131 6/22 REPAIRS VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20009006 654422 12/07 355 - 156190 - 766100 -00000 0.00 38.88 0.00 38.88 152588 12/07 NON FICTION TITLES 20008622 2027 11 /01 001 - 122240 - 652997 -00000 0.00 62.50 0.00 62.50 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 38.88 CHECK NO 566934 VENDOR 237550 - ADAMS TANK & LIFT INC. 20008622 2047 11102 20008626 83379 62.50 521 - 122450. 646510 -00000 0.00 365.01 0.00 365.01 200830 REPAIRS 20008621 2251 11/30 20008626 83625 3,290.00 521- 122450. 646510 -00000 0.00 45.64 0.00 45.64 200830 REPAIRS 20008625 83923 521 - 122450 - 646510 -00000 0.00 251.80 0.00 251.80 200830 REPAIRS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 662.45 CHECK NO 567050 VENDOR 317580 ADECCO 20008635 581450005 11/26 001. 121152 - 634999 -00000 0.00 44.85 0.00 44.85 152201.58145005 11/26 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 44.85 CHECK NO 567089 VENDOR 335370 ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 20008930 PP #7 001- 000000 - 218810.00000 0.00 97.50 0.00 97.50 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 97.50 CHECK NO 566987 VENDOR 282670 - ADVANCED AIR & REFRIGERATION. INC. 20008633 2356 12/14 001 - 122240. 652997 -00000 0.00 196.25 0.00 196.25 201511 12/14 REPAIRS 20009196 25131 6/22 001 - 122240 - 652997 -00000 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 201511 25131 6/22 REPAIRS 20008622 2054 10/25 001 - 122240. 652997 -00000 0.00 2,096.00 0.00 2,096.00 201511 10/25 REPAIRS 20008622 2027 11 /01 001 - 122240 - 652997 -00000 0.00 62.50 0.00 62.50 201511 11 /01 REPAIRS 20008622 2047 11102 001. 122240 - 652997 -00000 0.00 62.50 0.00 62.50 201511 11/02 REPAIRS 20008621 2251 11/30 001 - 122240 - 652997 -00000 0.00 3,290.00 0.00 3,290.00 203052 11/30 TRANE C/U JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 001 - 122240.634007.00000 0.00 ' PAGE 4 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J1 201510 MAINTANCE SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 20008632 53629 12/06 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 0.00 20.00 0.00 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20009196 24991 6/22 001 - 122240- 652997 -00000 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 201511 24991 6/22 REPAIRS 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 201510 MAINTANCE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6.007.25 CHECK NO 566974 VENDOR 276040 - ADVANCED FIRE SYSTEMS, INC 20008632 53632 12/06 001 - 122240.634007.00000 0.00 88.20 0.00 88.20 201510 MAINTANCE 20008632 53629 12/06 001 - 122240 - 634007 -00000 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 201510 MAINTANCE 20008632 53628 12/06 001 - 122240 - 634007 -00000 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 201510 MAINTANCE 20008632 53625 12/06 001 - 122240 - 634007 -00000 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 201510 MAINTANCE 20008632 53626 12/06 001 - 122240. 634007 -00000 0.00 25.35 0.00 25.35 201510 MAINTANCE 20008632 53627 12/06 001 - 122240 - 634007 -00000 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 201510 MAINTANCE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 193.55 CHECK NO 567047 VENDOR 315350 AEC NATIONAL 20009251 120101 381 - 120402 - 631401.80003 0.00 78,000.00 0.00 78,000.00 203133 TO 12/6/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 78.000.00 CHECK NO 567057 VENDOR 320830 - AEC NATIONAL /WILKISON JOINT VENTURE 20009003 120704 414 - 263611 - 631400 -73060 0.00 7,666.75 0.00 7,666.75 7239 TO 11/30/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 7,666.75 CHECK NO 567121 VENDOR 346800 - AIRMAX SERVICE CORP. 20008613 12161 11/26 001 - 122240. 652997 -00000 0.00 5,920.00 0.00 5,920.00 202663 11/26 CLEAN & REFURBISH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5,920.00 CHECK NO 566985 VENDOR 281770 - ALAN AND PATRICIA BOOLE JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20008516 JAN 2002 JAN 2002 202261 20008515 JAN 2002 JAN 2002 201905 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 061010. 644100 -00000 0.00 001 - 061010 - 644100 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 566879 VENDOR 184390 - ALL STATE BIOGUARD SERVICES. INC. 20009066 36711 11121 111 - 156343 - 634999.00000 201304 11/21 WASTE PICK -UP 20009155 33538 05/09/01 111 - 156349. 634999 -00000 151897 33538 05/09/01 CHECK NO 567151 VENDOR 900050 - ALL WEATHER HURRICANE SHUTTER INC. 301029 303646 ALL WEATHER 113 - 138900 - 322110.00000 303646 ALL WEATHER CHECK NO 566942 VENDOR 253740 - ALLEN,NORTON & BLUE, P.A. 20008879 10/31 M. LEVITT 001 - 010510 - 634999.00000 10/31 M.LEVITT 20008879 005400000080MEL 10/31 001 - 010520- 631100.00000 201754 10/31 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CHECK NO 566797 VENDOR 109450 - ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORPORATION 20008620 234283 12/04 17.00 408- 233352 - 652310 -00000 26.00 200741 12/04 SOD -HYPO CHECK TOTAL 20008620 233030 11/28 100.00 408. 233352 - 652310 -00000 100.00 200741 11/28 SOD -HYPO 100.00 20008619 230617 11/15 207.77 408. 233312 - 652310 -00000 2,482.00 20688 11/15 SOD -HYPO 2.482.00 20008624 233205 11/29 2,689.77 408- 233312 - 652310 -00000 1,801.86 202509 11/29 CHLORINE GAS 1,754.78 20008616 232391 11/27 1,749.82 408 - 233312 - 652310 -00000 1.749.82 202511 11/27 CHLORINE GAS 92.80 16J1 PAGE 5 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 2,100.00 0.00 2,100.00 2,018.80 0.00 2.018.80 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4.118.80 0.00 17.00 0.00 17.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 26.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 43.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 100.00 0.00 207.77 0.00 207.77 0.00 2,482.00 0.00 2.482.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,689.77 0.00 1,801.86 0.00 1,801.86 0.00 1,754.78 0.00 1,754.78 0.00 1,749.82 0.00 1.749.82 0.00 92.80 0.00 92.80 0.00 791.80 0.00 791.80 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20008616 233206 11/29 202511 11/29 CHLORINE GAS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 408 - 233312 - 652310 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 567152 VENDOR 900050 ALPHA BAIL BOND 0.00 301031 98.562 CFA 001 - 431510. 351100 -00000 0.00 0.00 98.562 -CFA ALPHA BAIL BOND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566698 VENDOR 550 ALPHA OMEGA BUSINESS SYSTEMS 40.10 20008727 030834 10/25 -11/25 490 - 144618 - 634999 -00000 0.00 99.15 200835 10/25.11/25 SUPPLIES 290.89 119.30 20009062 031013 10/30.11/30 111 - 156310 - 646710 -00000 0.00 83.25 201294 10/30.11/30 COPIER SERVICE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 20009061 031001 10/30 -11/30 111 - 156349 - 646710 -00000 0.00 201298 10/30.11/30 COPIER SERVICE 20008722 031111 12/01/01- 01/01/02 408 - 210105- 634999 -00000 0.00 200179 12/1/01 - 1/1/02 MAINTANCE 20008612 031065 12/01/01- 1/1/02 113- 138915 - 651210 -00000 0.00 200271 12/1- 1/1/02 RENTAL 20008612 031065 12/01/01- 1/1/02 113 - 138915 - 641950 -00000 0.00 200271 12/1- 1/1/02 RENTAL 20008612 031065 12/01/01- 1/1/02 113 - 138915 - 644600.00000 0.00 200271 12/1. 1/1/02 RENTAL CHECK NO 566908 VENDOR 212540 - ALPINE BROADCASTING 20008512 JAN 2002 LEASE 188 - 140480 - 644600.00000 0.00 JAN 2002 201346 CHECK NO 566906 VENDOR 212040 - AMERIGAS - NAPLES 20008611 A5578- 225958 12/05 001 - 155410 - 643200 -00000 0.00 200572 12/05 PROPANE GAS 16Ji PAGE 6 j, AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 395.90 0.00 395.90 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6.586.96 2,375.00 0.00 2.375.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,375.00 40.10 0.00 40.10 280.87 0.00 280.87 99.15 0.00 99.15 290.89 0.00 290.89 119.30 0.00 119.30 2.35 0.00 2.35 83.25 0.00 83.25 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 915.91 3,503.02 0.00 3,503.02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.503.02 271.20 0.00 271.20 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 271.20 16J1 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 7 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 566806 VENDOR 120960 ANCHOR ENGINEERING 20008998 6471 470 - 173442 - 763100 -00000 0.00 2.090.00 0.00 2,090.00 103924 11 /1- 11/30/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,090.00 CHECK NO 567136 VENDOR 348670 ANNE DODSON 20008630 32 12/06 355 - 156190 - 652670 -00000 0.00 127.75 0.00 127.75 152360 320 12/06 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 127.75 CHECK NO 567113 VENDOR 344460 ANNE RIFFLE 20008487 G WEESE 01- 1497/01 -1498 681 - 421190 - 631990 -00000 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 G WEESE 01. 1497/01 -1498 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 175.00 CHECK NO 567099 VENDOR 339570 ANOTHER PRINTER 20008614 8621 12/05 001. 100130 - 647110 -00000 0.00 1.637.80 0.00 1.637.80 200224 12/05 COPIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,637.80 CHECK NO 566831 VENDOR 147700 APAC OF FLORIDA, INC 20009017 #19 313- 163673 - 763100.63041 0.00 214,672.34 0.00 214,672.34 4575 TO 12/2/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 214,672.34 CHECK NO 567143 VENDOR 349310 - APPA INSTITUTE 20008876 REGISTRATION 2/10.13 681 - 431310 - 654360.00000 0.00 265.00 0.00 265.00 152644 REGISTRATION 2/10 -13 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 265.00 CHECK NO 567110 VENDOR 343990 - AQUA PURE OF SW FLORIDA 20009067 R2000 12/15 118- 144210. 652990 -33781 0.00 49.95 0.00 49.95 202277 01/02 RENTAL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 49.95 CHECK NO 567153 VENDOR 900050 - ARCHITECTURE PLUS INTERNATIONAL INC. JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 301028 306520 ARCHITECTURE 113 - 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 309.15 0.00 306520 ARCHITECTURE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566844 VENDOR 161150 ARDAMAN & ASSOCIATES INC. 20008629 FM29134 12/06 313 - 163673. 631990 -69101 0.00 74.55 0.00 150467 FM29134 12/06 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566971 VENDOR 274430 ARNOLD PROPERTIES, INC. 20008514 JAN 2002 UNIT 13 001 - 061010 - 644100 -00000 0.00 1,338.33 0.00 JAN 2002 201917 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567060 VENDOR 323320 AT & T 20008604 0565948842001 11/27 001 - 122240. 641900 -00000 0.00 15.67 0.00 0565948842001 11/27 20008604 0562839490001 11/27 101 - 163630. 641900 -00000 0.00 13.69 0.00 0562839490001 11/27 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566930 VENDOR 236190 AT &T 20008756 7305104853001 12/06 495 - 192370 - 641900 -00000 0.00 627.65 0.00 7305104853001 12/06 20008603 0303109154001 11/28 001 - 122240 - 641900 -00000 0.00 13.23 0.00 0303109154001 11/28 20008603 0191609636001 11/27 101 - 163630 - 641900 -00000 0.00 36.02 0.00 0191609636001 11/27 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567083 VENDOR 333620 AT &T WIRELESS 20008606 35510026086 12/05 408 - 210130 - 641700 -00000 0.00 109.77 0.00 201522 12/05 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 20008607 35518132332 12/05 408 - 233350 - 641700 -00000 0.00 4.05 0.00 203301 12/05 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 1 PAGE 9 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008609 35510026082 12/05 408 - 210130 - 641700 -00000 0.00 314.53 0.00 314.53 201522 12/05 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 20008605 35510032617 12/05 681 - 421510. 641700 -00000 0.00 212.60 0.00 212.60 201311 12/05 CELLULAR PHONE 20008608 35518131979 12/05 408 - 233350. 641700.00000 0.00 2.02 0.00 2.02 203301 12/05 CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 642.97 CHECK NO 567031 VENDOR 309230 - ATTORNEYS' TITLE INSURANCE FUND INC 20008610 005597 12/04 331 - 163650 - 631650 -60018 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 203104 TITLE SEARCH FEES 20008610 005601 12/04 331 - 163650 - 631650.60018 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 203104 TITLE SEARCH FEES 20008610 005595 12/05 331 - 163650 - 631650.60018 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 203104 TITLE SEARCH FEES 20008610 005598 12/04 331 - 163650 - 631650.60018 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 203104 TITLE SEARCH FEES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 600.00 CHECK NO 566994 VENDOR 286720 - AZTEK COMMUNICATIONS 20009063 1610 12/04 130 - 157710- 634999 -00000 0.00 70.00 0.00 70.00 201265 1610 12/04 20008615 1634 12/12 001 - 122240. 652992 -00000 0.00 830.00 0.00 830.00 203073 12112 20009064 1611 12/04 111 - 156310. 634999 -00000 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 201261 12/4 20009065 1583 11/26 111 - 156310 - 634999 -00000 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 201261 11/26 20008631 1609 12/04 001. 122240. 652992 -00000 0.00 706.80 0.00 706.80 203315 PHONE JACK /LABOR 20008615 1632 12111 001 - 122240. 652992.00000 0.00 4,247.00 0.00 4,247.00 203073 12111 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.933.80 CHECK NO 566813 VENDOR 129820 - B & W GOLF CARS, INC JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16 1 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20008726 64000 521.122410- 646425.00000 0.00 77.52 0.00 202705 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567154 VENDOR 900050 BANKERS INSURANCE CO. 301030 00- 11366 -MMA F.SANDOVAL 001 - 431510 - 351100 -00000 0.00 3,087.50 0.00 00- 11366 -MMA F. SANDOVAL BANKERS INS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567125 VENDOR 347540 BASLER ELECTRIC 20008878 2154616 12/14 408 - 253211 - 655200 -00000 0.00 1,204.57 0.00 202946 12/14 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566922 VENDOR 231290 BEACH TECH 20008725 10117010 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 125.06 0.00 200608 INVENTORY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567144 VENDOR 349340 BEAU NIX 20008875 REIMB GAS 11/04 490 - 144610- 652990 -00000 0.00 47.93 0.00 REIMB GAS 11/04 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566903 VENDOR 209940 BENNETT FIRE PRODUCTS CO. INC. 20008728 120301.1 12/03 350 - 140470 - 652110 -00000 0.00 140.00 0.00 200130 12/03 SUPPLIES 20008724 120301.2 12/03 490.144610- 652110.00000 0.00 360.00 0.00 200158 12/03 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567074 VENDOR 329310 BEST MOVING & STORAGE 20008623 14361 11102 001 - 122240 - 634999 -00000 0.00 885.00 0.00 151612 14361 11/02 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 j PAGE 11 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS j� +{ SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO ANT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 566699 VENDOR 1910 - BETTER ROADS, INC. 20009015 #8 412 - 273511 - 763100 -70071 0.00 7,190.40 0.00 7,190.40 103762 TO 12/2/01 20009015 #8 RETAINAGE 313- 000000.205100.00000 0.00 38,865.35- 0.00 38,865.35- 103762 TO 12/2/01 RETAINAGE 20009016 #3 RETAINAGE 313 - 000000 - 205100 -00000 0.00 43,107.46- 0.00 43,107.46- 106825 TO 1211101 RETAINAGE 20009016 #3 313 - 163673 - 763100 -60071 0.00 431,074.57 0.00 431.074.57 106825 TO 1211101 20009015 #8 313 - 163673.763100 -62031 0.00 388.653.45 0.00 388,653.45 103762 TO 12/2/01 20009015 #8 RETAINAGE 412 - 000000- 205100 -00000 0.00 719.04- 0.00 719.04- 103762 TO 12/2/01 RETAINAGE 20009014 #16 RETAINAGE 313- 000000 - 205100 -00000 0.00 107,797.82- 0.00 107,797.82- 5240 11/5/01 TO 1212101 RETAINAGE 20009014 #16 313 - 163673 - 763100 -60111 0.00 1,077,978.25 0.00 1,077.978.25 5240 11/5/01 TO 1212101 20009211 21984 11102 313 - 163673 - 763100 -61012 0.00 148,041.89 0.00 148,041.89 202987 21984 11102 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,862,448.89 CHECK NO 567054 VENDOR 319580 BILLY BOY CARRYOUT, INC. -C /0 20008496 JAN 2002 001 - 155810 - 644100 -00000 0.00 1,009.99 0.00 1,009.99 JAN 2002 202988 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,009.99 CHECK NO 566700 VENDOR 2310 BOB DEAN SUPPLY, INC. 20008602 887489 11/21 408 - 233352.655100.00000 0.00 123.66 0.00 123.66 201422 887489 11121 20008601 887497 11121 408 - 233352 - 655100.00000 0.00 138.07 0.00 138.07 201422 887497 11121 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 261.73 CHECK NO 566816 VENDOR 133300 - BOB TAYLOR CHEVROLET JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 6 J PAGE 12 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS j• SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008729 115237 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 49.64 0.00 49.64 200845 PARTS 20008729 CM115237 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 34.61- 0.00 34.61- 200845 PARTS 20008729 115220 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 16.17 0.00 16.17 200845 PARTS 20008729 115239 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 1.28 0.00 1.28 200845 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 32.48 CHECK NO 566864 VENDOR 168720 BONITA AUTO SUPPLY /NAPA 20008730 559168 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 51.62 0.00 51.62 200610 PARTS 20008731 559849 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 19.78 0.00 19.78 200610 PARTS 20008730 559046 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 26.64 0.00 26.64 200610 PARTS 20008730 558878 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 20.69 0.00 20.69 200610 PARTS 20008731 559862 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 40.30 0.00 40.30 200610 PARTS 20008731 559911 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 17.40 0.00 17.40 200610 PARTS 20008730 558826 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 8.98 0.00 8.98 200610 PARTS 20008731 559629 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 39.56 0.00 39.56 200610 PARTS 20008730 558830 521 - 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 70.62 0.00 70.62 200610 PARTS 20008731 559706 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 47.76 0.00 47.76 200610 PARTS 20008731 560586 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 56.92 0.00 56.92 200610 PARTS 20008731 559631 521. 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 19.78- 0.00 19.78- 200610 PARTS CHECK NO 567155 VENDOR 900050 - BRUNNER BUILDERS INC. 301034 REF 303876 BRUNNER 113 - 000000- 209102 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 REF 303876 BRUNNER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 16J1 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 13 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO ANT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008731 560519 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 125.94 0.00 125.94 200610 PARTS 20008730 558878 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 121.00 0.00 121.00 200610 PARTS 20008731 559854 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 23.84 0.00 23.84 200610 PARTS 20008731 559711 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 80.60 0.00 80.60 200610 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 731.87 CHECK NO 567006 VENDOR 293380 - BQ CONCRETE 20009210 1150 -11/15 001 - 122240 - 646110 -00000 0.00 7,824.79 0.00 7,824.79 201244 1150 -11/15 CONCRETE /PAVEMENT 20009210 1193.11/14 001 - 122240. 646110 -00000 0.00 1,275.00 0.00 1,275.00 201244 1193 -11/14 CONCRETE /PAVEMENT 20009210 1149 -11/14 001 - 122240 - 646110.00000 0.00 3,655.45 0.00 3.655.45 201244 1149 -11/14 CONCRETE /PAVEMENT 20009210 1151 -11/28 001 - 122240 - 646110.00000 0.00 742.00 0.00 742.00 201244 1151.11/28 CONCRETE /PAVEMENT 20009210 1156 -11/12 001 - 122240 - 646110 -00000 0.00 1,294.63 0.00 1,294.63 201244 1156 -11/12 CONCRETE /PAVEMENT 20009210 1152.11/12 001 - 122240 - 646110 -00000 0.00 5,494.00 0.00 5,494.00 201244 1152 -11/12 CONCRETE /PAVEMENT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 20,285.87 CHECK NO 566976 VENDOR 276700 - BRINKER BROWN FASTENER & SUPPLY INC 20009153 00357332 11/15 306 - 116360 - 652990.80087 0.00 32.26 0.00 32.26 152282 00357332 11/15 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 32.26 CHECK NO 567155 VENDOR 900050 - BRUNNER BUILDERS INC. 301034 REF 303876 BRUNNER 113 - 000000- 209102 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 REF 303876 BRUNNER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 567014 VENDOR 295300 BUMPER TO BUMPER 20008757 I268171 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201289 FILTERS 20008758 I267784 521 - 122410.646425 -00000 0.00 201289 FILTERS 20008750 I268211 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008751 I268009 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008752 I267913 521.122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008759 I268795 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201289 FILTERS 20008759 I268714 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201289 FILTERS 20008757 I268200 521- 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201289 FILTERS 20008759 I268556 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201289 FILTERS 20008750 I268434 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008751 I268167 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008758 I267805 521 - 122410.646425 -00000 0.00 201289 FILTERS 20008750 I268399 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008754 I267915 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008753 I267706 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008757 I268099 521- 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 201289 FILTERS 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC 14.96 1.19 25.52 14.12 8.13 77.49 15.72 37.88 45.03 19.92 7.72 75.83 25.30 43.25 3.22 29.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 14 VCHR NET 14.96 1.19 25.52 14.12 8.13 77.49 15.72 [cfKP 45.03 19.92 7.72 75.83 25.30 43.25 3.22 29.34 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J1 AGE 15 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008757 I268237 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 23.27 0.00 23.27 201289 FILTERS 20008753 I267640 521. 122410- 646425.00000 0.00 25.47 0.00 25.47 201290 PARTS 20008759 I268738 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 23.26 0.00 23.26 201289 FILTERS 20008757 I268001 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 5.44 0.00 5.44 201289 FILTERS 20008753 I267726 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 13.00 0.00 13.00 201290 PARTS 20008752 I267876 521 - 122410- 646425.00000 0.00 66.06 0.00 66.06 201290 PARTS 20008760 I268266 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 31.61 0.00 31.61 201289 FILTERS 20008752 I267797 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 51.98 0.00 51.98 201290 PARTS 20008758 I267516 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 16.18 0.00 16.18 201289 FILTERS 20008752 I267780 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 120.72 0.00 120.72 201290 PARTS 20008758 I267786 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 10.01 0.00 10.01 201289 FILTERS 20008758 I267925 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 18.31 0.00 18.31 201289 FILTERS 20008751 I268196 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 42.96 0.00 42.96 201290 PARTS 20008759 I268515 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 2.79 0.00 2.79 201289 FILTERS 20008751 I268119 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.68 201290 PARTS 20008751 I268207 521. 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 32.76 0.00 32.76 201290 PARTS 20008750 I268464 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 24.83 0.00 24.83 201290 PARTS JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20008752 I267825 201290 PARTS 20008757 I268164 201289 FILTERS 20008751 I268143 201290 PARTS 20008759 I268549 201289 FILTERS 20008759 I268239 201289 FILTERS 20008752 I267822 201290 PARTS 20008751 I268227 201290 PARTS 20008758 I267828 201289 FILTERS 20008751 I268092 201290 PARTS 20008750 I268368 201290 PARTS 20008758 I267779 201289 FILTERS 20008750 I268292 201290 PARTS 20008759 I268747 201289 FILTERS 20008751 I268058 201290 PARTS 20008750 I268446 201290 PARTS 20008757 I267995 201289 FILTERS 20008753 I267659 201290 PARTS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PAGE 16 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 521. 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 PAGE 16 16J1 a AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 6.72 0.00 6.72 16.27 0.00 16.27 49.25 0.00 49.25 7.54 0.00 7.54 38.55 0.00 38.55 1.67 0.00 1.67 12.54 0.00 12.54 19.27 0.00 19.27 14.71 0.00 14.71 19.54 0.00 19.54 24.16 0.00 24.16 23.67 0.00 23.67 29.92 0.00 29.92 243.40 0.00 243.40 36.96 0.00 36.96 13.85 0.00 13.85 16.96 0.00 16.96 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J 1 PAGE 17 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 1 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008752 I267861 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 9.35 0.00 9.35 201290 PARTS 20008759 I268728 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 25.84 0.00 25.84 201289 FILTERS 20008758 I267459 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 49.14 0.00 49.14 201289 FILTERS 20008751 I268036 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 21.05 0.00 21.05 201290 PARTS 20008757 I268042 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 6.73 0.00 6.73 201289 FILTERS 20008751 I268291 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 5.92 0.00 5.92 201290 PARTS 20008750 C23607 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 55.00- 0.00 55.00- 201290 PARTS 20008759 I268846 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 2.23 0.00 2.23 201289 FILTERS 20008752 I267910 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 4.54 0.00 4.54 201290 PARTS 20008753 I267704 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 27.84 0.00 27.84 201290 PARTS 20008758 I268000 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 14.68 0.00 14.68 201289 FILTERS 20008755 I267999 12/05 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 32.45 0.00 32.45 201290 PARTS 20008753 I267641 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 5.57 0.00 5.57 201290 PARTS 20008752 I267802 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 42.28 0.00 42.28 201290 PARTS 20008760 C23593 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 10.56- 0.00 10.56- 201289 FILTERS 20008754 I267922 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 12.41 0.00 12.41 201290 PARTS 20008757 I268188 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 6.26 0.00 6.26 201289 FILTERS JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J 1 'AGE 18 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS .• . 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008758 I267653 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 18.65 0.00 18.65 201289 FILTERS 20008757 I268181 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 32.30 0.00 32.30 201289 FILTERS 20008754 I267921 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 58.17 0.00 58.17 201290 PARTS 20008751 I268275 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 9.00 0.00 9.00 201290 PARTS 20008753 I267771 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 14.78 0.00 14.78 201290 PARTS 20008752 I267801 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 21.14 0.00 21.14 201290 PARTS 20008759 I268683 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 3.33 0.00 3.33 201289 FILTERS 20008760 I268251 521- 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 5.19 0.00 5.19 201289 FILTERS 20008753 I267419 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 170.50 0.00 170.50 201290 PARTS 20008757 I268015 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 41.56 0.00 41.56 201289 FILTERS 20008753 I267455 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 13.09 0.00 13.09 201290 PARTS 20008758 I267813 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 3.19 0.00 3.19 201289 FILTERS 20008758 I267837 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 12.06 0.00 12.06 201289 FILTERS 20008752 I267820 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 1.89 0.00 1.89 201290 PARTS 20008757 I268103 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 8.41 0.00 8.41 201289 FILTERS 20008753 I267685 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 3.70 0.00 3.70 201290 PARTS 20008752 I267826 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 7.83 0.00 7.83 201290 PARTS JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 7.44 0.00 21.75- 0.00 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 1.68 0.00 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 20008752 I267841 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008750 C23592 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008754 I267923 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008754 C23559 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008753 I267510 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008754 I267962 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008757 I268095 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201289 FILTERS 20008751 I268283 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008757 I268212 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201289 FILTERS 20008753 I267457 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201290 PARTS 20008757 I268187 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 201289 FILTERS 20008753 I267775 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 201290 PARTS CHECK NO 566701 VENDOR 2620 - BUSINESS MACHINE SALES 20009068 053823 12/07 313 - 163611 - 644620 -00000 201697 12/07 COPIER LEASE CHECK NO 566883 VENDOR 186290 - BWI /BOOK WHOLESALERS, INC. 20008877 1200330 12/07 355. 156190- 766100 -00000 200562 12/07 CHILDRENS TITLES 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC 98.23 0.00 22.00- 0.00 7.44 0.00 21.75- 0.00 13.68 0.00 1.68 0.00 21.22 36.74 29.88 5.92 13.78 38.97 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 72.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,259.27 0.00 d PAGE 19 VCHR NET 98.23 22.00- 7.44 21.75- 13.68 1.68 21.22 36.74 29.88 5.92 13.78 38.97 2,378.24 72.00 72.00 1,259.27 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J1 PAGE 20 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS y' SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,259.27 CHECK NO 566830 VENDOR 146050 - C & H DISTRIBUTORS INC. 20008649 200832502 408 - 233312 - 764310 -00000 0.00 1,639.70 408 - 233312. 641950 -00000 0.00 265.57 0.00 1,905.27 202733 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,905.27 CHECK NO 566920 VENDOR 230790 - C.E.D. INC. 20008809 4977 - 318524 101. 163630- 634999.00000 0.00 164.49 0.00 164.49 200022 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 20008802 4977 - 319144 001 - 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 30.45 0.00 30.45 201239 ELECT SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 194.94 CHECK NO 566926 VENDOR 234100 - CALIENTE INTERNATIONAL 20008835 940 001 - 122240- 651950.00000 0.00 599.40 0.00 599.40 202260 SOFTWARE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 599.40 CHECK NO 566918 VENDOR 228100 - CAMP DRESSER & MC KEE INC 20008995 80107281/9 414 - 263611 - 631400 -73064 0.00 6,370.00 0.00 6,370.00 103264 9/28- 11/17/01 FINAL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6,370.00 CHECK NO 566702 VENDOR 2860 - CAPRI LAWN & GARDEN EQUIP 20008777 76897 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 29.52 0.00 29.52 200616 SUPPLIES 20008775 076616 521. 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 171.07 0.00 171.07 200616 SUPPLIES 20008793 076972 001 - 172930 - 652990 -00000 0.00 57.76 0.00 57.76 200467 SUPPLIES 20008777 76934 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 27.00 0.00 27.00 200616 SUPPLIES 20008775 076615 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 46.22 0.00 46.22 200616 SUPPLIES JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20008777 76957 200616 SUPPLIES 20008775 76861 200616 SUPPLIES 20008776 76494 200616 SUPPLIES 20008777 077015 200616 SUPPLIES 20008558 076830 152156 PARTS FOR REPAIR 20008793 076617 200467 SUPPLIES 20008777 77039 200616 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0.00 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 521. 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 495 - 192370 - 646410.00000 0.00 001 - 172930 - 652990 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 566888 VENDOR 193540 - CARIBBEAN LAWN SERVICE 20008807 3442 141 - 112555 - 634999 -00000 0.00 200498 ROADSIDE MOWING 11/1.11/30 CHECK NO 567146 VENDOR 349450 - CAROLYNE COLE 20009200 ESTABLISH PETTY CASH FUND 001 - 000000 - 102600 -00000 0.00 ESTABLISH PETTY CASH FUND CHECK NO 566897 VENDOR 201920 - CARTER FENCE COMPANY INC. 20009043 9025 001- 156363 - 646317.00000 0.00 150434 REPAIR PATH GATE CHECK NO 566886 VENDOR 190350 - COW COMPUTER CENTER INC. 20009040 ET65253 111 - 156349 - 651950 -00000 0.00 150998 SUPPLIES 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC 43.50 0.00 4.47 0.00 14.45 0.00 90.93 0.00 79.82 0.00 21.04 0.00 292.46 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 500.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 250.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 223.89 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 PAGE 21 VCHR NET 43.50 4.47 14.45 90.93 79.82 21.04 292.46 878.24 500.00 500.00 50.00 50.00 250.00 250.00 223.89 223.89 16 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA J 1 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK NO 566984 VENDOR 281500 - CDWG 20008560 EX35363 521 - 122410.646910 -00000 0.00 124.00 521 - 122410. 641950.00000 0.00 19.13 0.00 152013 REPLACEMENT BATTERY 20008557 EX48519 001 - 121143 - 651950 -00000 0.00 90.84 0.00 151990 SUPPLIES 20008559 EW40395 521 - 122410 - 646910.00000 0.00 62.00 521 - 122410 - 641950 -00000 0.00 14.02 0.00 152236 REPLACEMENT BATTERY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566892 VENDOR 196910 - CECIL'S COPY EXPRESS 20008806 12634 001 - 000000. 142900 -00000 0.00 450.00 0.00 200054 COPIES 20008806 12624 001 - 000000 - 142900.00000 0.00 90.00 0.00 200054 COPIES 20009046 12596 111 - 163646 - 652990.00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 152666 COPIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567114 VENDOR 345040 CEDAR ENTERPRISE SOLUTION, INC. 20009205 33682 301 - 121125 - 640310.01017 0.00 9,323.07 0.00 201739 10 /01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567156 VENDOR 900050 CELERITY CONSTRUCTION INC. 301011 REF 306592 CELERITY 113 - 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 21.22 0.00 REF 306592 CELERITY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567003 VENDOR 291140 CENTER POINT PUBLISHING 20008808 231584 355. 156190.766100 -00000 0.00 65.88 0.00 201752 BOOKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567105 VENDOR 343050 CENTRAL FLORIDA MULCHES JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 1 i PAGE 23 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 6 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO ANT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20009053 2807 001 - 156363 - 646318 -00000 0.00 2,448.00 0.00 2,448.00 202997 PINE STRAW RULES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,448.00 CHECK NO 566845 VENDOR 161760 - CERTIFIED SLINGS INC. 20008805 247038 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 176.52 0.00 176.52 202226 SUPPLIES 20008805 247032 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 76.54 0.00 76.54 202226 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 253.06 CHECK NO 566907 VENDOR 212530 CHALET OF SAN MARCO 20008501 JAN 2002 188. 140480- 644600 -00000 0.00 1,475.88 0.00 1,475.88 JAN 2002 201345 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,475.88 CHECK NO 566817 VENDOR 133880 CHECKPOINT 20008778 I16228 001 - 122240 - 634999 -00000 0.00 499.00 0.00 499.00 201482 MONITORING 20008778 I16229 001 - 122240 - 634999 -00000 0.00 120.00 0.00 120.00 201482 MONITORING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 619.00 CHECK NO 566856 VENDOR 165950 - CHECKPOINT, LTD. 20008770 172799 001 - 122240 - 646281 -00000 0.00 19.50 0.00 19.50 202346 SECURITY MONTHLY 20008770 178204 001 - 122240 - 646281 -00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 202346 SECURITY MONTHLY 20008770 174110 001 - 122240- 646281.00000 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 202346 SECURITY MONTHLY 20003772 54416 001. 122240- 646281 -00000 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 151613 LABOR SERVICES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 174.50 CHECK NO 566887 VENDOR 193460 - CHEMICAL LIME COMPANY JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J PAGE 24 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008652 00131695 408 - 253211- 652310 -00000 0.00 3,063.33 0.00 3,063.33 202567 SUPPLIES 20008652 00132171 408. 253211- 652310 -00000 0.00 2,832.91 0.00 2,832.91 202567 SUPPLIES 20008652 00131968 408 - 253211 - 652310 -00000 0.00 2,963.29 0.00 2,963.29 202567 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8,859.53 CHECK NO 566703 VENDOR 3190 - CHEVRON 20008803 7898692756111 11 /01 BILL 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 78.04 0.00 78.04 200617 NOV 2001 BILL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 78.04 CHECK NO 566891 VENDOR 196680 CHIVERS AUDIO BOOKS 20008804 S055865 355 - 156190 - 652670 -00000 0.00 346.35 0.00 346.35 201639 BOOKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 346.35 CHECK NO 567129 VENDOR 348340 CHRISTOPHER L. HOGENSON 20009042 DJ 10/19 SPECIAL EVENT 130- 157710 - 634999.00000 0.00 350.00 0.00 350.00 151899 DJ SPECIAL EVENT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 350.00 CHECK NO 566704 VENDOR 3360 CITY OF EVERGLADES 20008792 313 11/25 001 - 061010 - 643400 -00000 0.00 19.40 0.00 19.40 313 11/25 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 19.40 CHECK NO 566924 VENDOR 232440 CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY 20008507 JAN 2002 COLL13 001 - 061010 - 644100 -00000 0.00 285.01 0.00 285.01 JAN 2002 202096 20008508 JAN 2002 COLL13 001 - 061010 - 644100.00000 0.00 555.17 0.00 555.17 JAN 2002 202095 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 840.18 CHECK NO 566799 VENDOR 111750 - CLARK'S NURSERY JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20009044 47739 151717 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J1 PAG 25 DOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 001- 156363 - 646320.00000 0.00 171.50 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 VCHR NET 171.50 171.50 CHECK NO 567015 VENDOR 296230 CLERK OF COURTS - HIGHLAND COUNTY 20008925 PP #7 001 - 000000. 218810 -00000 0.00 177.62 0.00 177.62 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 177.62 CHECK NO 566860 VENDOR 166520 CLERK OF COURTS, DWIGHT E. DROCK 20009198 2598295 001 - 443010 - 651210 -00000 0.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 200986 SALE OF XEROX COPIES 20009198 2598997 001 - 443010 - 651210.00000 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 200986 SALE OF XEROX COPIES 20009198 2602413 001 - 443010 - 651210 -00000 0.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 200986 SALE OF XEROX COPIES 20009198 2598292 001 - 443010- 651210 -00000 0.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 200986 SALE OF XEROX COPIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 21.00 CHECK NO 567096 VENDOR 339200 - CLEVELAND CLINIC FLORIDA 20008562 R. RODRIGUEZ 10/29 -10/30 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 644.02 0.00 644.02 152468 R. RODRIGUEZ 10/29 -10/30 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 644.02 CHECK NO 566876 VENDOR 182370 - COASTAL APPRAISAL SERVICES 20008796 29153 333 - 163650- 631600.60071 0.00 101.25 0.00 101.25 6330 PROF SVC 11/7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 101.25 CHECK NO 566705 VENDOR 3570 - COASTAL COURIER 20008797 4596 001 - 010110 - 641950 -00000 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 200299 COURIER SERVICES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 75.00 CHECK NO 567134 VENDOR 348560 - COASTAL TRAINING TECHNOLOGIES CORP. JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA + 6 J 1 PAGE 26 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008836 275201 120401 518 - 121630.654110 -00000 0.00 1,901.25 0.00 1,901.25 203376 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,901.25 CHECK NO 567124 VENDOR 347190 COLLIER AREA TRANSIT 20008937 PP #7 001- 000000 - 218900 -00000 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 10.00 CHECK NO 567081 VENDOR 332890 COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, 20009026 0342 111. 156332 - 649035 -00000 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 152300 CITATION 20009026 0348 111 - 156332. 649035 -00000 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 152300 CITATION CHECK TOTAL 0.00 150.00 CHECK NO 566694 VENDOR 8050 COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR 20009156 20020032 TAGS & TITLE 408 - 210151.649010 -00000 0.00 52.85 0.00 52.85 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 52.85 CHECK NO 566714 VENDOR 3690 COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY BILLING 20008554 02700700200 10/26.11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 43.50 0.00 43.50 02700700200 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700605700 10/29 -11/29 109 - 182901 - 634253.00000 0.00 91.34 0.00 91.34 02700605700 10/29.11/29 20008554 02700512800 10/29.11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253.00000 0.00 18.05 0.00 18.05 02700512800 10/29 -11/28 20008554 02700507100 10/29 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 5.13 0.00 5.13 02700507100 10/29 -11/28 20008554 02700100800 10/29 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 63.26 0.00 63.26 02700100800 10/29 -11/28 20008554 02700700500 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 87.00 0.00 87.00 02700700500 10/26.11/28 20008554 02700100600 10/29 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 48.96 0.00 48.96 02700100600 10/29 -11/28 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI AGE 27 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008554 02700503800 10/29.11/28 109. 182901- 634253.00000 0.00 5.91 0.00 5.91 02700503800 10/29.11/28 20008554 02700711000 10/26.11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253.00000 0.00 5.26 0.00 5.26 02700711000 10/26 -11/28 20008994 04601343400 11/5 -12/6 490. 144610- 643400.00000 0.00 45.90 0.00 45.90 04601343400 11/5 -12/6 20008554 02700100400 10/29.11/28 109. 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 4.87 0.00 4.87 02700100400 10/29.11/28 20008554 02700201200 10/26 -11/29 109. 182901- 634253 -00000 0.00 46.10 0.00 46.10 02700201200 10/26 -11/29 20008554 02700411300 10/29 -11/29 109 - 182901- 634253 -00000 0.00 55.33 0.00 55.33 02700411300 10/29 -11/29 20008554 02700309200 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901. 634253 -00000 0.00 4.35 0.00 4.35 02700309200 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700708600 10/26.11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 7.08 0.00 7.08 02700708600 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700704100 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901. 634253.00000 0.00 5.39 0.00 5.39 02700704100 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02702336301 10/29 -11/29 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 15.32 0.00 15.32 02702336301 10/29 -11/29 20008554 02700703500 10/26.11/28 109. 182901. 634253 -00000 0.00 43.50 0.00 43.50 02700703500 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700501000 10/29 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 5.26 0.00 5.26 02700501000 10/29 -11/28 20008554 02700121200 10/29.11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 106.76 0.00 106.76 02700121200 10/29.11/28 20008554 02700716800 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 108.11 0.00 108.11 02700716800 10/26 -11/28 20008555 03610634100 10/31.11/30 111 - 156332 - 643400 -00000 0.00 1,784.35 0.00 1,784.35 03610634100 10/31 -11/30 20008656 03600297000 10/30.12/3 001 - 156363 - 643400.00000 0.00 292.96 0.00 292.96 03600297000 10/30 -12/3 20008656 03900149600 10/31 -12/3 001- 156363 - 643400.00000 0.00 24.00 0.00 24.00 03900149600 10/31.12/3 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 28 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J a SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER i FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008554 02700716400 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901. 634253.00000 0.00 5.65 0.00 5.65 02700716400 10/26 -11/28 20008656 03600100801 10/30 -11/30 001 - 156363. 643400 -00000 0.00 12.00 0.00 12.00 03600100801 10/30 -11/30 20008656 03600296900 10/30 -12/3 001. 156363- 643400.00000 0.00 26.88 0.00 26.88 03600296900 10/30 -12/3 20008554 02700308100 10/26 -11/28 109. 182901- 634253 -00000 0.00 66.90 0.00 66.90 02700308100 10/26.11/28 20008779 049000602901 11/5 -12/6 408 - 233351 - 643400 -00000 0.00 60.15 0.00 60.15 049000602901 11/5 -12/6 20008556 03603211900 10/29 -11/30 111 - 163646. 643400 -00000 0.00 1.512.33 0.00 1,512.33 03603211900 10/29 -11/30 20008554 02700715900 10/26.11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253.00000 0.00 4.87 0.00 4.87 02700715900 10/26 -11/28 20008656 03901641100 10/31 -11/30 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 0.00 175.95 0.00 175.95 03901641100 10/31 -11/30 20008656 04803311500 11/7.12/10 111 - 156332 - 643400 -00000 0.00 85.76 0.00 85.76 04803311500 11/7.12/10 20008554 02700703800 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 70.67 0.00 70.67 02700703800 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700705700 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253.00000 0.00 4.35 0.00 4.35 02700705700 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700413500 10/29 -11/29 109- 182901 - 634253.00000 0.00 56.89 0.00 56.89 02700413500 10/29 -11/29 20008554 02700715300 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901- 634253 -00000 0.00 5.65 0.00 5.65 02700715300 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700709300 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 5.26 0.00 5.26 02700709300 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700614800 10/29.11/29 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 47.40 0.00 47.40 02700614800 10/29 -11/29 20008554 02700312900 10/26.11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 4.61 0.00 4.61 02700312900 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700502600 10/29 -11/28 109 - 182901- 634253.00000 0.00 5.26 0.00 5.26 02700502600 10/29 -11/28 JANUARY 03. 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20008554 02700413800 10/29.11/29 109. 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 69.76 0.00 02700413800 10/29 -11/29 20008554 02700711600 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 5.13 0.00 02700711600 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700101000 10/29 -11/28 109- 182901. 634253 -00000 0.00 65.21 0.00 02700101000 10/29 -11/28 20008554 02700500100 10/29.11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253.00000 0.00 5.65 0.00 02700500100 10/29.11/28 20008554 02700605500 10/29.11/29 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 42.52 0.00 02700605500 10/29 -11/29 20008554 02700303900 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 4.48 0.00 02700303900 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700706600 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901. 634253 -00000 0.00 5.65 0.00 02700706600 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700303000 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901- 634253 -00000 0.00 4.87 0.00 02700303000 10/26.11/28 20008554 02700700900 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253.00000 0.00 43.50 0.00 02700700900 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700311800 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901. 634253 -00000 0.00 4.61 0.00 02700311800 10/26 -11/28 20008564 06102282300 10/17 -11/16 001 - 061010 - 643400 -00000 0.00 120.22 0.00 06102282300 10/17 -11/16 20008554 02700301200 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901. 634253 -00000 0.00 87.31 0.00 02700301200 10/26.11/28 20008554 02700307000 10/26.11/28 109 - 182901- 634253.00000 0.00 7.60 0.00 02700307000 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700216700 10/26 -11/28 109. 182901- 634253.00000 0.00 95.37 0.00 02700216700 10/26 -11/28 20008656 04800002700 11/6 -12/7 111. 156332- 643400 -00000 0.00 22.08 0.00 04800002700 11/6 -12/7 20008554 02700302000 10/26.11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 57.80 0.00 02700302000 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700304500 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 46.23 0.00 02700304500 10/26.11/28 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 6 J 1 •1 PAGE 30 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008555 04833302500 11/7 -12/10 111 - 156332 - 643400 -00000 0.00 207.00 0.00 207.00 04833302500 11/7 -12/10 20008554 02700316100 10/26.11/28 109. 182901. 634253 -00000 0.00 4.35 0.00 4.35 02700316100 10/26 -11/28 20008656 03901644200 10/31.11/30 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 03901644200 10/31 -11/30 20008780 05500353702 10/15 -11/14 001- 061010 - 643400 -00000 0.00 92.94 0.00 92.94 05500353702 10/15.11/14 20008563 04500046000 11/2.12/5 408 - 233351 - 643400.00000 0.00 26.88 0.00 26.88 04500046000 11/2 -12/5 20008554 02700700700 10/26.11/28 109. 182901- 634253 -00000 0.00 139.05 0.00 139.05 02700700700 10/26 -11/28 20008656 03904895300 10/31 -12/3 001. 156363- 643400 -00000 0.00 158.16 0.00 158.16 03904895300 10/31 -12/3 20008779 04717634900 11/5 -12/6 408 - 233351. 643400 -00000 0.00 18.09 0.00 18.09 04717634900 11/5 -12/6 20008554 02700308600 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 5.78 0.00 5.78 02700308600 10/26.11/28 20008554 02701074300 10/29 -11/29 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 43.50 0.00 43.50 02701074300 10/29 -11/29 20008656 04500642900 11/2 -12/5 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 0.00 191.60 0.00 191.60 04500642900 11/2 -12/5 20008554 02700100100 10/29 -11/28 109 - 182901. 634253 -00000 0.00 12.07 0.00 12.07 02700100100 10/29 -11/28 20008554 02700605600 10/29 -11/29 109 - 182901 - 634253.00000 0.00 56.50 0.00 56.50 02700605600 10/29.11/29 20008554 02700306500 10/26.11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253.00000 0.00 4.61 0.00 4.61 02700306500 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700120300 10/29 -11/28 109 - 182901- 634253 -00000 0.00 63.26 0.00 63.26 02700120300 10/29 -11/28 20008554 02700413100 10/29 -11/29 109. 182901- 634253.00000 0.00 78.08 0.00 78.08 02700413100 10/29 -11/29 20008554 02700305500 10/26.11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 53.51 0.00 53.51 02700305500 10/26.11/28 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J1 } AGE 31 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008554 02700301900 10/26.11/28 109. 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 4.74 0.00 4.74 02700301900 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700304900 10/26 -11/28 109- 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 4.74 0.00 4.74 02700304900 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700703700 10/26 -11/28 109. 182901. 634253 -00000 0.00 43.50 0.00 43.50 02700703700 10/26.11/28 20008554 02700310500 10/26.11/28 109 - 182901- 634253.00000 0.00 4.35 0.00 4.35 02700310500 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700302300 10/26 -11/28 109. 182901- 634253 -00000 0.00 100.18 0.00 100.18 02700302300 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700412600 10/29.11/29 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 85.10 0.00 85.10 02700412600 10/29 -11/29 20008554 02700615100 10/29 -11/29 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 108.63 0.00 108.63 02700615100 10/29.11/29 20008994 03600100600 10/30 -11/30 490 - 144610 - 643400.00000 0.00 142.33 0.00 142.33 03600100600 10/30 -11/30 20008554 02700504500 10/29 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 5.65 0.00 5.65 02700504500 10/29 -11/28 20008554 02700700100 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 46.62 0.00 46.62 02700700100 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700307300 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 4.35 0.00 4.35 02700307300 10/26.11/28 20008555 03600100901 10/30.11/30 111 - 156332 - 643400 -00000 0.00 1,078.99 0.00 1,078.99 03600100901 10/30 -11/30 20008994 03600100600 10/30 -11/30 001 - 061010 - 643400.00000 0.00 126.22 0.00 126.22 03600100600 10/30 -11/30 20008554 02700313800 10/26.11/28 109. 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 60.01 0.00 60.01 02700313800 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700300300 10/26.11/28 109 - 182901. 634253 -00000 0.00 83.80 0.00 83.80 02700300300 10/26 -11/28 20008554 02700305800 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253.00000 0.00 4.35 0.00 4.35 02700305800 10/26 -11/28 20008656 03902720800 10/31 -12/3 001 - 156363 - 643400.00000 0.00 207.02 0.00 207.02 03902720800 10/31 -12/3 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA QAGE 32 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER ` FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO ANT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008656 03901643700 10/31 -11/20 001 - 156363. 643400 -00000 0.00 52.66 0.00 52.66 03901643700 10/31 -11/20 20008554 02700300901 10/26 -11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 69.24 0.00 69.24 02700300901 10/26.11/28 20008554 02700100300 10/29.11/28 109 - 182901 - 634253 -00000 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 02700100300 10/29.11/28 20008554 02700413600 10/29 -11/29 109 - 182901. 634253 -00000 0.00 106.81 0.00 106.81 02700413600 10/29 -11/29 20008656 03900160900 10/31 -11/30 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 0.00 29.00 0.00 29.00 03900160900 10/31 -11/30 20008656 03901641200 10/31 -11/30 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 0.00 68.36 0.00 68.36 03901641200 10/31 -11/30 20008779 04602512600 11/5 -12/6 408 - 233351 - 643400 -00000 0.00 102.94 0.00 102.94 04602512600 11/5 -12/6 20008656 04502681700 11/2 -12/5 111 - 156332 - 643400.00000 0.00 159.70 0.00 159.70 04502681700 11/2.12/5 20008656 03901644700 10/31 -11/30 001 - 156363 - 643400.00000 0.00 74.02 0.00 74.02 03901644700 10/31 -11/30 20008555 04810397300 11/6 -12/7 111 - 156332 - 643400 -00000 0.00 485.28 0.00 485.28 04810397300 11/6 -12/7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 10,205.23 CHECK NO 567157 VENDOR 900050 - COLLIER CUSTOM BUILDERS 301033 REF 306836 COLLIER CUSTOM 113 - 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 REF 306836 COLLIER CUSTOM CHECK TOTAL 0.00 175.00 CHECK NO 567079 VENDOR 332570 - COLLIER SPORTS OFFICIAL ASSOCIATION 20009047 SOFTBALL 11 /11 /01 111 - 156349 - 634999 -00000 0.00 280.00 0.00 280.00 151001 SOFTBALL 11/11 /01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 280.00 CHECK NO 566916 VENDOR 224110 - COLLIER TEAM SPORTS 20008773 408281 001 - 122240 - 652110 -00000 0.00 434.80 0.00 434.80 150814 SUPPLIES JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 L REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 V SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566917 VENDOR 227020 COLLIER TIRE & AUTO REPAIR 20008801 72966 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 330.20 0.00 200623 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566929 VENDOR 235530 COLOR TEC COPY CENTER 20008798 5112 113 - 138312 - 647110 -00000 0.00 137.10 0.00 200440 COPIES 20008795 5113 114. 178975 - 647110 -00000 0.00 72.76 0.00 200344 COPIES 20008799 5141 111.138911. 647110 -00000 0.00 251.67 0.00 201432 COPIES 20008771 5110 195.110420- 647110 -10508 0.00 299.00 0.00 151910 COPIES 20009052 5081 001 - 010510 - 651210 -00000 0.00 4,477.50 0.00 203722 COPIES 20008799 5074 111 - 138911.647110 -00000 0.00 436.36 0.00 201432 COPIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566956 VENDOR 260030 COLOR WHEEL PAINT 20008838 117035564 111 - 156332 - 646313 -00000 0.00 874.00 0.00 201990 PAINT 20008838 117035432 111- 156332 - 646313 -00000 0.00 218.50 0.00 201990 PAINT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567067 VENDOR 326240 COLOR -TECH COPY CENTER 20008794 5133 470 - 173410 - 647110.00000 0.00 172.66 0.00 201217 COPIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567172 VENDOR 900140 COLUMBINE SERVICES LLC JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J PAGE 34 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER ' FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 301007 J. OVALLE 00- 1648CFA 681 - 421190 - 634401.00000 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 J.OVALLE 00- 1648CFA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 300.00 CHECK NO 567082 VENDOR 333480 COMCAST 20008504 JAN 2002 FIBER LEASE 001 - 121143 - 641400 -00000 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 JAN 2002 201982 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 200.00 CHECK NO 566867 VENDOR 171310 COMMERCIAL ENERGY SPECIALISTS INC. 20009045 60853 111 - 156313 - 646970 -00000 0.00 498.92 0.00 498.92 150150 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 498.92 CHECK NO 566804 VENDOR 115280 COMMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE 20008647 994750 111 - 163646. 634999 -00000 0.00 5,278.68 0.00 5,278.68 200840 MAINTENANCE 20008658 994755 152 - 162541 - 634999.00000 0.00 4,558.99 0.00 4,558.99 201079 LABOR & REPAIR 20008784 994740 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 63.00 0.00 63.00 200446 GROUND MAINT 20008791 994706 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 163.78 0.00 163.78 200844 LABOR & REPAIR 20008780 994739 150 - 162545 - 634999 -00000 0.00 289.00 0.00 289.00 200846 LABOR & REPAIR 20008781 994723 152 - 162541 - 634999 -00000 0.00 102.10 0.00 102.10 201082 LABOR & REPAIR 20008654 994753 111 - 163646. 634999.00000 0.00 3,293.04 0.00 3,293.04 201660 MAINT 20008790 994869 111. 163646- 634999 -00000 0.00 686.50 0.00 686.50 200833 LABOR 20008659 994756 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 1,373.72 0.00 1,373.72 201068 LABOR & REPAIRS 20008781 994741 152 - 162541. 634999 -00000 0.00 140.90 0.00 140.90 201082 LABOR & REPAIR JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J I PAGE 35 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008782 994718 111. 163646- 634999 -00000 0.00 81.68 0.00 81.68 200853 LABOR & MAINT 20008657 994746 150. 162545. 634999 -00000 0.00 210.00 0.00 210.00 200850 LABOR & REPAIR 20008647 994749 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 11,570.00 0.00 11,570.00 200840 MAINTENANCE 20008783 994751 155 - 112593 - 634999.00000 0.00 563.64 0.00 563.64 202160 MAINT 20008791 994872 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 294.80 0.00 294.80 200844 LABOR & REPAIR 20008646 994749 160 - 162518 - 634999 -00000 0.00 11,850.00 0.00 11,850.00 202355 LABOR & REPAIR 20008657 994689 150 - 162545 - 634999 -00000 0.00 2,877.00 0.00 2,877.00 200850 LABOR & REPAIR 20008655 994754 111 - 163646 - 634999 -00000 0.00 4,493.13 0.00 4,493.13 200843 MAINT 20008791 994873 111 - 163646 - 634999.00000 0.00 196.53 0.00 196.53 200844 LABOR & REPAIR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 48,086.49 CHECK NO 567051 VENDOR 318110 CONSEL INC 20008992 10 /15 -THRU 11127 412 - 273511 - 634999 -70057 0.00 41.180.00 0.00 41.180.00 106877 THRU 11/27 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 41,180.00 CHECK NO 567025 VENDOR 304900 CONTEMPORARY CONTROLS & 20009041 3433 111 - 163646- 646321 -00000 0.00 167.88 0.00 167.88 152673 PROTECTION MODULE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 167.88 CHECK NO 566840 VENDOR 156660 - COPY CONCEPTS 20009241 091317 001 - 121110. 646710 -00000 0.00 202.55 0.00 202.55 152831 COPIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 202.55 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 PAGE 36 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 6 J SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 566996 VENDOR 288320 - CPOC REALTY, L.L.C. 20008513 JAN 02 1906 7 CU 113-138900-646360-00000 0.00 159.12 0.00 159.12 JAN 2002 200085 20008522 JAN 02 1902 800 CU LIBRAR 355 - 156175 - 644100 -80259 0.00 1,204.75 0.00 1,204.75 JAN 02 200140 20008517 JAN 02 1906 17 CU 113 - 138900 - 646360 -00000 0.00 303.94 0.00 303.94 JAN 02 200087 20008518 JAN 02 HUI 1905 145 CU 001 - 138710 - 644100 -00000 0.00 1,788.34 194 - 101540 - 644100.00000 0.00 357.66 191 - 138785 - 644100.33751 0.00 1,073.00 121 - 138755 - 644100 -33024 0.00 357.67 0.00 3,576.67 JAN 02 201180 20008521 1102 UTIL /FRAN 1905210 CU 669 - 100220 - 644100 -00000 0.00 2,153.33 0.00 2.153.33 JAN 02 203044 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 7,397.81 CHECK NO 566998 VENDOR 288680 - CPOC REALTY, LLC 20008519 JAN 02 1902 400 CU 001 - 071010 - 644100 -00000 0.00 3,870.45 0.00 3,870.45 JAN 02 201932 20008520 JAN 02 1902 200 CU 001 - 061010 - 644100 -00000 0.00 2,933.33 0.00 2,933.33 JAN 02 201952 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6.803.78 CHECK NO 567071 VENDOR 328250 CREDIT DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 20008800 298378 001 - 157110 - 634999 -00000 0.00 234.00 0.00 234.00 201605 CREDIT DATA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 234.00 CHECK NO 567030 VENDOR 308630 CREEL TRACTOR, CO. 20008788 179095 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 19.10 0.00 19.10 200854 PARTS 20008653 168563 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 129.80- 0.00 129.80- 200854 CREDIT 20008786 178959 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 35.06 0.00 35.06 200854 PARTS JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J 1 PAGE 37 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008788 179135 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 135.89 0.00 135.89 200854 PARTS 20008786 179003 521.122410- 646425.00000 0.00 12.58 0.00 12.58 200854 PARTS 20008788 179130 521 - 122410.646425 -00000 0.00 109.43 0.00 109.43 200854 PARTS 20008787 178856 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 56.74 0.00 56.74 200854 PARTS 20008786 178922 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 102.55 0.00 102.55 200854 PARTS 20008786 178921 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 111.18 0.00 111.18 200854 PARTS 20008787 178881 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 110.63 0.00 110.63 200854 PARTS 20008788 179217 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 10.42 0.00 10.42 200854 PARTS 20008787 178858 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 278.26 0.00 278.26 200854 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 852.04 CHECK NO 566823 VENDOR 137570 CROWTHER ROOFING AND SHEET METAL 20008837 F27430 001- 122240 - 639962 -00000 0.00 1,904.21 0.00 1,904.21 201505 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,904.21 CHECK NO 566715 VENDOR 4400 CULLIGAN WATER CONDITIONING 20008785 811612 11/24 408 - 233352 - 652990 -00000 0.00 50.49 0.00 50.49 200714 BOTTLED WATER 11/24 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.49 CHECK NO 566965 VENDOR 265700 - DADE PAPER COMPANY 20008816 464896 408 - 253211 - 652510 -00000 0.00 52.50 0.00 52.50 200382 TOWELS 12/5 20008815 453594 408 - 233312 - 652510.00000 0.00 145.60 0.00 145.60 200622 JANITORIAL SUP 11/23 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 38 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J 408 - 000000- 115001.00000 0.00 46.90 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 46.90 1 REFUND BELLSINGER 536 103 AVE N. FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008817 448523 408- 233351 - 652510 -00000 0.00 49.28 0.00 49.28 200762 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 11/16 20008814 20008817 449145 408- 233351 - 652510 -00000 0.00 31.50 0.00 31.50 200762 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 11/16 201226 NOV DRY CLEANING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 278.88 CHECK NO 567075 VENDOR 329490 - DAN BOWMAN 20008551 12/11.13 TRVL D BOWMAN 490. 144610- 640300 -00000 0.00 84.10 0.00 84.10 12/11.13 TRVL D BOWMAN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 84.10 CHECK NO 567149 VENDOR 900040 - DAVID BELLSINGER 301036 03300486202 BELLSINGER 408 - 000000- 115001.00000 0.00 46.90 0.00 46.90 REFUND BELLSINGER 536 103 AVE N. CHECK TOTAL 0.00 46.90 CHECK NO 567086 VENDOR 334290 - DAVIDSON'S DRY CLEANERS AND FORMAL 20008814 257951 001. 122255- 634999 -00000 0.00 68.85 0.00 68.85 201226 NOV DRY CLEANING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 68.85 CHECK NO 567091 VENDOR 337090 - DECASTER CAPRIOLE JOINT VENTURE 20008968 JAN 2002 313 - 163611 - 644100.00000 0.00 3,172.59 101 - 163609 - 644100 -00000 0.00 3,172.59 0.00 6,345.18 JAN 2002 200094 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6,345.18 CHECK NO 567078 VENDOR 332420 - DELL COMPUTER CORP 20009204 658632195 412 - 273511. 763100 -70882 0.00 15,910.00 0.00 15,910.00 107811 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 20009204 658624614 412 - 273511 - 763100.70882 0.00 62.00 0.00 62.00 107811 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 20009204 658624606 412. 273511 - 763100 -70882 0.00 5,263.00 0.00 5,263.00 107811 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 21,235.00 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK NO 566951 VENDOR 256190 DELL MARKETING L.P. 20009229 706311719 001 - 144110 - 651950 -00000 0.00 279.00 0.00 150396 DVD W SOFTWARE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566962 VENDOR 263720 DEPT OF BUSINESS & PROF. REGULATION 20009218 PLUMB PLAN EXAM NEVINS, H 113 - 138915 - 652990 -00000 0.00 5.00 0.00 PLUMB PLAN EXAM H. NEVINS 20009217 MECH PLAN EXAM NEVINS, H 113 - 138915.652990 -00000 0.00 5.00 0.00 MACH PLANS EXAM H NEVINS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566980 VENDOR 280330 - DIVCO CONSTRUCTION CORP 20008945 REF 306310 DIVCO 113 - 000000. 115420 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 4004 REFLECTION CT DIVCO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567158 VENDOR 900050 - DIVOSTA BLDG CORP 301022 REF 301805 DIVOSTA 113 - 138900.322510.00000 0.00 46.00 0.00 2745 ISLAND POND LN DIVOSTA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567023 VENDOR 301680 - OLT SOLUTIONS INC 20008313 137837 001 - 122240 - 634999 -00000 0.00 953.00 0.00 202940 AUTO DESK SOFTWARE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566858 VENDOR 166490 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF COURTS 20008921 PP #7 001 - 000000 - 218800 -00000 0.00 1,913.79 0.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566859 VENDOR 166510 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF COURTS 20009247 2609161 191 - 138785 - 651210 -33752 0.00 54.90 0.00 2609161 RECORDING JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20009247 2606465 2606465 RECORDING 20009247 2609292 2609292 COPIES 20009247 2610375 2610375 RECORDING 20009247 2607720 2607720 COPIES 20009247 2611644 2611644 RECORDING 20009247 2606220 2606220 RECORDING 20009247 2610376 2610376 RECORDING 20009247 2598782 2598782 RECORDING COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VCHR DISC SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 681 - 421190 - 649035 -00000 0.00 111. 138911 - 651210 -00000 0.00 111 - 138911. 649030 -00000 0.00 001 - 122310 - 651210 -00000 0.00 191 - 138785 - 651210.33752 0.00 111 - 138911 - 649030 -00000 0.00 111 - 138911. 649030 -00000 0.00 350 - 140470. 649030 -80119 0.00 16J1 1 1 PAGE 40 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 24.00 0.00 24.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 67.50 0.00 67.50 361.00 0.00 361.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 2,446.20 0.00 2,446.20 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,981.60 CHECK NO 566857 VENDOR 166220 - E. B. SIMMONDS 20009253 12865 101 - 163630 - 646510 -00000 0.00 270.00 0.00 270.00 200293 - ELEC WORK US41 & COMM 11/28 20008810 12902 496 - 192341 - 763100 -33377 0.00 5,163.96 0.00 5,163.96 202882 ELEC WORK 12/6 20009253 12884 101 - 163630 - 646510 -00000 0.00 2,074.40 0.00 2,074.40 200293 ELEC REPAIRS ON 11/30 20009253 12863 101 - 163630 - 646510.00000 0.00 1,080.00 0.00 1,080.00 200293 ELEC REPAIRS ON 11128 20009253 12860 101 - 163630.646510.00000 0.00 10,972.90 0.00 10,972.90 200293 ELEC WORK SUNSHINE & 20THPL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 19,561.26 CHECK NO 567126 VENDOR 347820 - EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE 20009221 KEY BOX PYMNT3301TANBLDGL 001 - 122240. 649990 -00000 0.00 155.00 0.00 155.00 KEY BOX PYMNT 3301 TAN BLDG L l JANUARY 03, REPORT 100 -601 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS b J 1 PAGE 41 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 155.00 CHECK NO 566829 VENDOR 145150 - EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT 20008495 JAN 2002 STATION 14 490 - 144610 - 644100 -00000 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 JAN 2002 STATION 14 200106 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 300.00 CHECK NO 567066 VENDOR 325960 - ECLIPSE AUTO TINTING 20009230 1408 681. 431310 - 634999 -00000 0.00 116.00 0.00 116.00 152008 SOLAR GARD WINDOW FILM CHECK TOTAL 0.00 116.00 CHECK NO 566870 VENDOR 174660 - EDISON OIL COMPANY 20008818 189691 408 - 233352 - 652410 -00000 0.00 413.77 0.00 413.77 202532 OIL & GREASE 12/5 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 413.77 CHECK NO 566869 VENDOR 174350 - ELITE FIRE & SAFETY EQUIPMENT, INC 20008819 17587 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 32.90 0.00 32.90 200858 SUPPLIES 20009232 17580 144- 144360. 652110.00000 0.00 94.00 0.00 94.00 152358 SHIELDS 12/5 20009231 17583 146 - 144380 - 652990 -00000 0.00 155.00 0.00 155.00 152331 SUPPLIES 12/5 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 281.90 CHECK NO 566801 VENDOR 114800 - ELLIS K. PHELPS & COMPANY 20008811 057463 408 - 233351 - 655100.00000 0.00 8,983.90 0.00 8,983.90 200766 PUMP PARTS 11/30 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8,983.90 CHECK NO 567063 VENDOR 324180 - EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS 20009223 246904 490 - 144610 - 652720.00000 0.00 46.00 0.00 46.00 152057 PEDS MASK W TUBING 12/5 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 46.00 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS b J 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK NO 567064 VENDOR 325640 - ENCO MANUFACTURING 20008821 23376711 408 - 233352 - 652990.00000 0.00 130.95 0.00 202417 JAW OPENING VISE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566885 VENDOR 187010 ENR 20009220 SUBS F/ CROGRALE 001 - 122240 - 654110 -00000 0.00 81.62 0.00 151615 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566894 VENDOR 199770 ENVIRONMENTAL BIOTECH OF SW FL 20008820 7265 001 - 122240 - 652994 -00000 0.00 601.00 0.00 201503 SERVICE FOR NOV CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566716 VENDOR 6120 - EVANS OIL COMPANY 20009233 217958 408 - 233312.652410 -00000 0.00 34.78 0.00 2020250IL 11/28 20009222 979 11 /1 FUEL PURCH 521 - 122450 - 652410.00000 0.00 2,437.15 0.00 200686 11/1 FUEL PURCH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566910 VENDOR 214900 - F.P.L. 20009201 48425 -34572 11/16 -12/19 408 - 233351.643100.00000 0.00 8,853.94 0.00 48425 -34572 11/16.12/19 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566717 VENDOR 6250 - FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 20008830 4- 003 -72917 001 - 121810 - 641950 -00000 0.00 5.90 0.00 201513 SHIPPING 12/4 20008828 4- 027 -50077 681 - 421510.641950.00000 0.00 74.85 0.00 201314 SHIPPING 12/4 20008825 4- 023.47188 001. 122310 - 641950 -00000 0.00 11.00 0.00 201810 SHIPPING 12/4 20008829 4- 013 -60545 001.443010- 641950 -00000 0.00 6.35 0.00 200991 SHIPPING 12/4 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20008827 4- 033.01244 200332 SHIPPING 12/4 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 111 - 178980. 641950.00000 0.00 CHECK NO 566868 VENDOR 172870 - FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 20008831 4- 034.86593 837241 001. 000000 - 142900 -00000 408. 233351 - 655100 -00000 200057 SHIPPING 12/4 PARTS 11/26 20008832 4- 029 -43902 836670 111 - 138317. 641950 -00000 408 - 233351 - 655100 -00000 200515 SHIPPING 12/4 PARTS 10/28 20008824 4.036 -63020 838222 113 - 138312 - 641950 -00000 408. 233351 - 655100 -00000 200437 SHIPPING 12/4 PARTS 11/28 20009214 5- 051.10477 550.00 001 - 454010 - 641950 -00000 550.00 203519 SHIPPING 8128 0.00 20008826 4- 011 -61482 284.48 470 - 173410 - 641950 -00000 284.48 201208 SHIPPING 12/4 0.00 20008823 4- 023.49185 960.00 408. 210120. 641950 -00000 960.00 201102 SHIPPING 12/4 0.00 CHECK NO 566853 VENDOR 165200 - FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND 20009051 PP END 1/2/02 001 - 000000 - 218500 -00000 PP END 112102 CHECK NO 566780 VENDOR 101860 - FERGUSON ENTERPRISES 20009212 646285 001 - 122240 - 652310 -00000 151616 DUAL TEMP VALVE CHECK NO 566798 VENDOR 110620 - FERGUSON ENTERPRISES 20009239 837241 -1 408. 233351 - 655100 -00000 0.00 200770 PARTS 11/26 8.30 20009239 836670 0.00 408 - 233351 - 655100 -00000 0.00 200770 PARTS 10/28 8.30 20009239 838222 0.00 408. 233351 - 655100 -00000 200770 PARTS 11/28 300.77 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC 7.85 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 PAGE 43 VCHR NET 7.85 105.95 0.00 27.70 0.00 27.70 0.00 115.10 0.00 115.10 0.00 8.30 0.00 8.30 0.00 128.82 0.00 128.82 0.00 8.30 0.00 8.30 0.00 12.55 0.00 12.55 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 300.77 0.00 550.00 0.00 550.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 550.00 0.00 284.48 0.00 284.48 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 284.48 0.00 960.00 0.00 960.00 0.00 92.17 0.00 92.17 0.00 189.05 0.00 189.05 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J + 1 'AGE 44 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER ` FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,241.22 CHECK NO 566786 VENDOR 105760 - FERGUSON UNDERGROUND 20009225 838428 408 - 210130 - 655200 -00000 0.00 76.20 0.00 76.20 200724 PARTS 12/32 20009224 838447 408.233352.652910.00000 0.00 66.63 0.00 66.63 200599 PARTS 12/3 20009202 837893 408 - 253212. 655100 -00000 0.00 8,206.80 0.00 8,206.80 200210 PARTS 12111 20009226 838601 -1 408 - 253221 - 652990.00000 0.00 799.66 0.00 799.66 201624 PARTS 12/7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 9,149.29 CHECK NO 567055 VENDOR 319630 - FIELDTEX 20009235 19070 350 - 140470 - 652720.00000 0.00 132.01 0.00 132.01 152426 EMS DUFFLE BAG CHECK TOTAL 0.00 132.01 CHECK NO 566909 VENDOR 214800 - FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS COMPANY, INC 20009245 16648 001 - 122240 - 646281.00000 0.00 240.00 0.00 240.00 202103 REPAIRS ON 11121 & 27 20009246 16600 001 - 122240 - 646281 -00000 0.00 430.00 0.00 430.00 202105 REPAIRS -IMM SPTS CPLX 11/16 20009246 16426 001.122240. 646281 -00000 0.00 175.00 0.00 175.00 202105 REPAIRS ON 10/4 20009245 16537 001 - 122240 - 646281.00000 0.00 187.00 0.00 187.00 202103 INSP VINEYARDS COM CTR 11 /1 20009245 16428 001 - 122240 - 646281 -00000 0.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 202103 REPAIRS TO BLDG L, 10/23 20009246 16647 001 - 122240 - 646281 -00000 0.00 336.17 0.00 336.17 202105 REPAIRS ON 11/15 20009244 16466 001 - 122240 - 646281.00000 0.00 4,294.50 0.00 4,294.50 201748 FIRE INSPECTIONS, 10/31 20009245 16429 001. 122240 - 646281 -00000 0.00 120.00 0.00 120.00 202103 REPAIRS TO JAIL, 1012 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567024 VENDOR 303710 FIRST ANESTHESIA ASSOC INC 20008833 NAVARRO, R 12/4/01 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 175.50 0.00 201855 NAVARRO,R 12/4 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566959 VENDOR 261220 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NAPLES 20008912 PP #7 001 - 000000. 218910 -00000 0.00 76.56 0.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567052 VENDOR 318400 FIRST UNION FINANCIAL 20008935 PP #7 001 - 000000. 216210 -00000 0.00 133.86 0.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566893 VENDOR 197290 - FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK 20008936 PP #7 001 - 000000.216210 -00000 0.00 253.57 0.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566997 VENDOR 288620 - FLA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY 20009236 21 -08- 0820 -3 11/19 -12/18 001 - 156140. 643400 -00000 0.00 37.22 0.00 21 -058- 0820 -1 -3 11/19 -12/18 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566952 VENDOR 256550 FLORIDA COMMUNITY BANK 20008506 JAN 2002 RENT SHERIFF 001 - 061010.644100 -00000 0.00 960.75 0.00 JAN 2002 201949 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566841 VENDOR 158730 FLORIDA DEPT OF EDUCATION 20008915 PP #7 001 - 000000 - 218900.00000 0.00 85.00 0.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 566718 VENDOR 6670 - FLORIDA ENGINEERING SOCIETY 20009228 POCKET SEAL ORDER TUCKER 114 - 178975 - 654210 -00000 0.00 150335POCKET SEAL TUCHER,A CHECK NO 567103 VENDOR 342640 - FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY 20009237 21 -08. 0824 -0 -1 001. 122240 - 646311 -00000 203099 11/19 -12/18 20009237 21 -08- 0878 -2 -2 001 - 122240 - 646311 -00000 203099 11/19.12/18 20009237 21 -08. 0822 -0 -3 001. 122240 - 646311 -00000 203099 11/19 -12/18 CHECK NO 566983 VENDOR 281320 - FLORIDA MUNICIPAL EQUIPMENT INC 20008812 011510 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 200629 MOLDBOARD 20008812 011510 521 - 122410. 641950.00000 200629 FREIGHT CHECK NO 566720 VENDOR 6790 - FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT 20009197 16070 -47246 11/13. 12/4/01 001 - 122240 - 643100.00000 0.00 16070 -47246 11/13. 12/4/01 42.59 20009197 99914 -46015 11/20 -12/21 001 - 156170 - 643100 -00000 99914 -46015 11/20- 12/21/01 703.07 20009197 63316 -84552 11/6- 12/7/01 669 - 100220. 643100.00000 0.00 63316 -84552 11/6. 12/7/01 169.01 20009197 11744 -78113 11/20 -12/21 160 - 162518 - 643100 -00000 0.00 11744 -78113 11/20- 12/21/01 54.68 20009197 87251 -32073 11/19 -12/20 001 - 156140 - 643100 -00000 0.00 87251 -32073 11/19- 12/20/01 140.52 20009197 70418.33158 11/14.12/17 408 - 253212 - 643100 -00000 0.00 70418 -33158 11/14- 12/17/01 800.66 16 � PAGE 46 J AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 32.50 0.00 32.50 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 32.50 0.00 227.62 0.00 227.62 0.00 42.59 0.00 42.59 0.00 432.86 0.00 432.86 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 703.07 0.00 1.097.58 0.00 1.097.58 0.00 169.01 0.00 169.01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,266.59 0.00 54.68 0.00 54.68 0.00 711.39 0.00 711.39 0.00 140.52 0.00 140.52 0.00 17.73 0.00 17.73 0.00 800.66 0.00 800.66 0.00 7.530.52 0.00 7.530.52 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20009197 77760 -35086 11/19 -12/20 77760 -35086 11/19- 12/20/01 20009197 93380.95574 10 /1- 12/3/01 93380 -95574 10 /1- 12/3/01 20009197 05586 -17171 11/19.12/20 05586 -17171 11/19- 12/20/01 20009197 07782.51314 11/6- 12/7/01 07782 -51314 11/6- 12/7/01 20009197 03801.54062 11/20 -12/21 03801.54062 11/20- 12/21/01 20009197 29323 -04062 11/20 -12/21 29323 -04062 11/20- 12/21/01 20009197 74037 -36130 11/8- 12/11/01 74037 -36130 11/8- 12/11/01 20009197 60927 -43068 11/20 -12/21 60927 -43068 11/20- 12/21/01 20009197 42477 -61549 11/20.12/21 42477 -61549 11/20. 12/21/01 20009197 98397.98049 11/13 -12/14 98397.98049 11/13- 12/14/01 20009197 85942 -34000 11/20 -12/21 85942 -34000 11/20- 12/21/01 20009197 73952 -39168 11/12 -12/13 73952 -39168 11/12- 12/13/01 20009197 40357.28403 11/14 -12/17 40357 -28403 11/14- 12/17/01 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 35.04 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 152 - 162541 - 643100.00000 0.00 408 - 233351 - 643100 -00000 0.00 001 - 122240 - 643100 -00000 0.00 490 - 144610 - 643100 -00000 0.00 001 - 144510 - 643100 -00000 0.00 001 - 061010. 643100 -00000 0.00 150 - 162545. 643100 -00000 0.00 150 - 162545 - 643100 -00000 0.00 134 - 172530 - 643100 -00000 0.00 150 - 162545 - 643100 -00000 0.00 111 - 163646 - 643100 -00000 0.00 408 - 233313 - 643100 -00000 0.00 770 - 162710 - 643100 -00000 0.00 154 - 172520 - 643100.00000 0.00 408 - 233313 - 643100 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 567026 VENDOR 305020 - FLORIDA RESEARCH, INC 20008834 96514 470 - 173410 - 634999 -00000 201233 NEWSLETTER SUB 12/6 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC 21.88 0.00 35.04 0.00 1,204.15 0.00 76.65 212.90 136.26 0.00 13.34 0.00 11.30 0.00 9.09 0.00 25.43 0.00 9.09 0.00 2,379.08 0.00 918.89 0.00 27.45 0.00 9.09 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 59.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 +PAGE 47 VCHR NET 21.88 35.04 1.204.15 425.81 13.34 11.30 9.09 25.43 9.09 2,379.08 918.89 27.45 9.09 14,345.14 59.00 59.00 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WATER SERVICES 6JI REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 0.00 009723515 -4 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 0.00 20009238 009727305 -6 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 470 - 173442 - 643400.00000 0.00 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK NO 566866 VENDOR 169730 - FLORIDA SOCIETY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 0.00 20009219 MEMB REVW WHITE, G 114 - 178975 - 654210.00000 0.00 40.00 0.00 150337 MEMB EVW 20009219 MEMB REVW FELIX,J 114 - 178975 - 654210 -00000 0.00 40.00 0.00 150337 MEMB REVW CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566936 VENDOR 243280 - FLORIDA WATER SERVICES 20009238 009723515.4 11/9 -12/11 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 0.00 0.00 009723515 -4 11/9 -12/11 0.00 20009238 009727305 -6 11/5 -12/5 470 - 173442 - 643400.00000 0.00 009727305 -6 11/5 -12/5 20009238 009738135.4 11/15 -12/12 001 - 156363 - 643400 -00000 0.00 009738135 -4 11/15.12/12 PAGE 48 i VCHR NET 40.00 40.00 80.00 443.85 0.00 443.85 108.07 0.00 108.07 461.67 0.00 461.67 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,013.59 CHECK NO 567048 VENDOR 316800 - FOCUS ENGINEERING, INC. 20009018 #17 414 - 263611. 631400.74023 0.00 27,405.45 6127 11/01 SVS. CHECK TOTAL CHECK NO 566721 VENDOR 6970 FOLGER ADAM COMPANY 20009254 024285 001 - 122240. 652990 -00000 0.00 151617 - PARTS. 11/19 CHECK NO 566941 VENDOR 252050 FPL 20009213 491331 CUST #334957 111 - 163646.763100 -60039 0.00 152676 CHECK NO 567142 VENDOR 349250 - FRED PLOCINSKI 20009240 REIMB FIRE FIGHTER TRNING 490 - 144610 - 654360 -00000 0.00 203668 TUITION REIMB 697.33 CHECK TOTAL 476.00 CHECK TOTAL 1,100.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.405.45 27,405.45 697.33 697.33 476.00 476.00 1,100.00 1.100.00 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1559563 255.84 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 001. 122240- 646286.00000 31.12 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 566999 VENDOR 290310 - FREIGHTLINER OF TAMPA 20009216 115940P 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 202450 AC 200826 MAGRED & KIT 12/3 SVC 20009216 116659P 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 200826 PARTS 12/7 001 - 122240 - 646286 -00000 20009216 116338 521- 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 SVC 200826 PARTS 12/5 20009203 20009215 116706P 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 001 - 122240 - 646286 -00000 200826 PARTS 12/7 202450 AC 20009216 116457P 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 20009203 200826 CABLE 12/6 20009216 116093 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 202450 AC 200826 SWITCH 12/4 SVC CHECK NO 567111 VENDOR 344360 - FSI CLEAN AIR 20009203 1559563 255.84 31.12 001. 122240- 646286.00000 31.12 202450 AC FILTER SVC 118.65 20009203 1565001 215.07 0.00 001 - 122240 - 646286 -00000 62.08 202450 AC FILTER SVC 0.00 20009203 1559561 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 001 - 122240 - 646286 -00000 0.00 202450 AC FILTER SVC 10/5 20009203 1559562 75.00 001 - 122240 - 646286 -00000 202450 AC FILTER SVC 20009203 1559560 001 - 122240. 646286.00000 202450 AC FILTER SVC 20009203 1564999 001. 122240. 646286.00000 202450 AC FILTER SVC CHECK NO 566884 VENDOR 186410 - FT. MYERS BROADCASTING CO. 20009227 00.1216 CFA KIPP JR 681 - 421190. 634401 -00000 00 -1216 CFA KIPP JR 16JI PAGE 49 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 255.84 0.00 255.84 31.12 0.00 31.12 11.16 0.00 11.16 118.65 0.00 118.65 215.07 0.00 215.07 62.08 0.00 62.08 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 693.92 0.00 6.455.00 0.00 6,455.00 0.00 2,624.00 0.00 2,624.00 0.00 1,260.00 0.00 1,260.00 0.00 1,729.00 0.00 1,729.00 0.00 1.625.00 0.00 1,625.00 0.00 1,746.00 0.00 1,746.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 15.439.00 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 75.00 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 567085 VENDOR 333980 G&K SERVICES 20008692 653565 11/30 111 - 156332 - 652130.00000 0.00 201438 11/30 44.33 20008693 651973 11/28 001 - 172930 - 652130 -00000 0.00 202113 11/28 90.00- 20008692 654392 12/3 001. 156363- 652130 -00000 0.00 201438 12/3 73.31 20008703 650404 11/26 408- 233312. 652130 -00000 0.00 200612 11/26 61.73 20008697 921374 12/3 101 - 163630 - 652130 -00000 0.00 200025 12/4 30.41 20008689 .654400 12/3 408 - 210130 - 652130 -00000 35.17 200723 12/3 0.00 20008702 657551 1217 408 - 253221 - 652130.00000 20.15 200420 1217 0.00 20008693 655978 12/5 001 - 172930. 652130.00000 12.51 202113 12/5 20008699 658391 114 - 178975. 652130.00000 200355 12110 20008688 654389 12/3 408 - 233350 - 652130 -00000 200752 12/3 20008691 647136$511/20 111 - 156334 - 652130 -00000 201438 11120 20008700 658392 12110 111 - 163647 - 652130 -00000 200374 12/10 20008694 655143 12/4 111 - 156343 - 634999 -00000 202360 12/4 20008692 653562 11/30 111 - 156332 - 652130 -00000 201438 11/30 20008703 654405 12/3 408 - 233312 - 652130 -00000 200612 12/3 20008696 655163 12/4 470 - 173442 - 652130 -00000 201124 12/4 PAGE 50 16JI AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 0.00 16.12 0.00 16.12 0.00 64.09 0.00 64.09 0.00 44.33 0.00 44.33 0.00 125.53 0.00 125.53 0.00 90.00- 0.00 90.00- 0.00 316.61 0.00 316.61 0.00 73.31 0.00 73.31 0.00 64.09 0.00 64.09 0.00 61.73 0.00 61.73 0.00 29.40 0.00 29.40 0.00 30.41 0.00 30.41 0.00 35.17 0.00 35.17 0.00 33.29 0.00 33.29 0.00 20.15 0.00 20.15 0.00 201.01 0.00 201.01 0.00 12.51 0.00 12.51 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 51 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008688 650388 11/26 408 - 233350 - 652130 -00000 0.00 29.40 0.00 29.40 200752 11/26 20008688 646386 11/19 408 - 233350 - 652130 -00000 0.00 29.40 0.00 29.40 200752 11/19 20008701 654387 12/3 408 - 253211 - 652130 -00000 0.00 80.69 0.00 80.69 200384 12/3 20008705 654390 12/3 408- 233352 - 652130 -00000 0.00 121.36 0.00 121.36 200715 12/3 20008692 654406 12/3 111. 156332. 652130.00000 0.00 30.41 0.00 30.41 201438 12/3 20008704 654404 12/3 408- 233313. 652130 -00000 0.00 16.60 0.00 16.60 200658 12/3 20008699 654396 114 - 178975 - 652130 -00000 0.00 61.73 0.00 61.73 200355 12/3 20008703 46402 11/19 408 - 233312 - 652130 -00000 0.00 230.50 0.00 230.50 200612 11/19 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,637.84 CHECK NO 567095 VENDOR 339190 G&K SERVICES 20008690 654395 12/3 001. 122240. 652130 -00000 0.00 123.27 0.00 123.27 201234 12/3 20008687 655975 12/5 521 - 122410 - 652130.00000 0.00 129.25 0.00 129.25 200954 12/5 20008698 654403$$$$$12/3 109 - 182901 - 652990.00000 0.00 1.95 0.00 1.95 200069 12/3 20008972 921376 11/26 001 - 122240. 652110 -00000 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 151620 BELTS 20008698 654403$$$$$12/3 109 - 182602 - 652130.00000 0.00 16.12 0.00 16.12 200069 12/3 20008695 655149 12/4 101 - 163620 - 652130 -00000 0.00 79.93 0.00 79.93 201127 12/4 20008971 921360 12/3 001 - 122240. 652110.00000 0.00 450.00 0.00 450.00 150819 12/3 20008698 654403$$$$$12/3 109 - 182901- 652130.00000 0.00 49.93 0.00 49.93 200069 12/3 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100.601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF 16J1 `l ?AGE 52 COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 880.45 CHECK NO 566790 VENDOR 108940 GALLS, INC. 20008973 553453450002 111 - 138911.652990 -00000 0.00 103.63 0.00 103.63 152602 PEPPER FOAM CHECK TOTAL 0.00 103.63 CHECK NO 566861 VENDOR 166730 GENERAL CHEMICAL CORP 2008712 11103078 408- 233312 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1,915.73 0.00 1,915.73 200609 CHEM 2008712 11103077 408.233312- 652310 -00000 0.00 1,939.56 0.00 1,939.56 200609 CHEM CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,855.29 CHECK NO 567141 VENDOR 349020 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY SYSTEMS, INC 20008713 00951 408 - 233351 - 652910 -00000 0.00 193.00 0.00 193.00 151182 CABLE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 193.00 CHECK NO 566722 VENDOR 7770 GOLDEN GATE NURSERY 20008714 72911 001 - 155410 - 652210 -00000 0.00 135.00 0.00 135.00 202223 HAY 20008715 72949 408 - 233351 - 646314 -00000 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 201599 GRASS 20008715 72943 408 - 233351 - 646314 -00000 0.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 201599 GRASSURSERY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 225.00 CHECK NO 566902 VENDOR 208010 GOLDEN GATE TROPHY CENTER 20008716 YR 2001 FIELDS 001 - 100130 - 649990.00000 0.00 23.57 0.00 23.57 200221 YR 2001 FIELDS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 23.57 CHECK NO 566960 VENDOR 262800 GOVERNING 20008717 POSTAGE 001 - 155410 - 641950.00000 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 152459 POSTAGE JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 53 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 15.00 CHECK NO 566873 VENDOR 178630 - GRAINGER 20008707 4808374765 408 - 233352. 652990 -00000 0.00 82.91 0.00 82.91 201414 PARTS 20008708 2878483433 408 - 233352 - 652910 -00000 0.00 141.50 0.00 141.50 201415 GLOVES 20008706 483239037 001 - 172930 - 652990 -00000 0.00 470.25 0.00 470.25 200541 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 694.66 CHECK NO 566728 VENDOR 7900 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 20008977 0630217074 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 20.48 0.00 20.48 201488 PARTS 20008976 0630218930 001 - 122240 - 652991.00000 0.00 94.78 0.00 94.78 201488 ELE PARTS 20008977 0630217115 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 254.00 0.00 254.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630212464 001 - 122240- 652993.00000 0.00 416.63 0.00 416.63 201488 PARTS 20008976 0630218930 001- 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 1.39- 0.00 1.39- 201488 ELE PARTS 20008977 0630217138 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 2.15- 0.00 2.15- 201488 PARTS 20008976 0630217842 001 - 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 45.90 0.00 45.90 201488 ELE PARTS 20008976 0630217016 001 - 122240 - 652991.00000 0.00 1.33- 0.00 1.33- 201488 ELE PARTS 20008977 0630217681 001. 122240- 652993 -00000 0.00 10.62- 0.00 10.62- 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630213846 001 - 122240 - 652993.00000 0.00 351.26 0.00 351.26 201488 PARTS 20008976 0630218568 001 - 122240 - 652991.00000 0.00 0.85- 0.00 0.85- 201488 ELE PARTS JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16JI SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20008977 0630215480 001. 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 251.00 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630212272 001. 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 6.60 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630216729 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 36.78 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008976 0630218510 001 - 122240. 652991.00000 0.00 27.52 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008977 0630217074 001 - 122240 - 652993.00000 0.00 0.41- 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630216394 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 165.00 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008710 0630216677 408- 233312 - 655200 -00000 0.00 113.55 0.00 200628 PARTS /DISC 20008977 0630217138 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 123.14 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630217855 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 462.50 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008976 0630216577 001 - 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 34.42 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008709 0630216285 111. 156332- 652991 -00000 0.00 15.00 0.00 201014 PARTS 20008977 0630213846 001 - 122240 - 652993.00000 0.00 6.89- 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008976 0630216864 001 - 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 112.14 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008977 0630217142 001- 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 6.89- 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630217115 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 5.08- 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630218437 001 - 122240 - 652993.00000 0.00 129.00 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630218437 001. 122240- 652993 -00000 0.00 2.58- 0.00 201488 PARTS JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20008977 0630216912 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 2.84- 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630217855 001. 122240- 652993 -00000 0.00 4.63- 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008711 0630214112 408 - 233351 - 655200 -00000 0.00 111.04- 0.00 200780 CREDIT 20008976 0630218702 001 - 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 9.21- 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008976 0630218706 001 - 122240. 652991 -00000 0.00 178.76 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008977 0630212272 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 0.13- 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630217397 001 - 122240. 652993 -00000 0.00 242.04 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630217681 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 531.12 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008976 0630218706 001 - 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 3.58- 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008977 0630216346 001 - 122240. 652993.00000 0.00 1,133.50 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008976 0630217016 001 - 122240 - 652991.00000 0.00 66.68 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008976 0630217844 001 - 122240. 652991 -00000 0.00 1.65- 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008976 0630218986 001 - 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 10.25 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008977 0630217525 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 18.36 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630216912 001 - 122240 - 652993.00000 0.00 147.30 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008976 0630218791 001 - 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 43.80 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008976 0630217844 001 - 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 82.76 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100.601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20008977 0630217142 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 344.46 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008976 0630217882 001 - 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 41.28 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008976 0630217997 001. 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 0.13- 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008977 0630217525 001. 122240- 652993.00000 0.00 0.18- 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630217988 001 - 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 1.53- 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630217552 001. 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 148.15 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630219439 001 - 122240. 652993 -00000 0.00 2,420.00 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008976 0630218568 001. 122240- 652991 -00000 0.00 42.46 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008710 0630216677 408 - 233312. 655200 -00000 0.00 2.16- 0.00 200628 PARTS /DISC 20008976 0630217842 001 - 122240 - 652991.00000 0.00 0.92- 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008976 0630217940 001. 122240. 652991 -00000 0.00 463.01 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008977 0630217988 001 - 122240 - 652993.00000 0.00 86.56 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008710 0630216224 408 - 233312 - 655200 -00000 0.00 1.89- 0.00 200628 PARTS /DISC 20008976 0630217997 001 - 122240. 652991.00000 0.00 13.32 0.00 201488 ELE PARTS 20008977 0630216347 001- 122240 - 652993 -00000 0.00 250.70 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630217397 001 - 122240 - 652993.00000 0.00 4.75- 0.00 201488 PARTS 20008977 0630216346 001 - 122240 - 652993.00000 0.00 22.67- 0.00 201488 PARTS JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20008976 0630214890 201488 ELE PARTS 20008976 0630218986 201488 ELE PARTS 20008976 0630216864 201488 ELE PARTS 20008710 06302116224 200628 PARTS /DISC COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 001 - 122240. 652991 -00000 0.00 001. 122240 - 652991 -00000 0.00 408 - 233312 - 655200.00000 0.00 CHECK NO 566935 VENDOR 239140 - GREAT AMERICA LEASING CORPORATION 20008718 2186385 12/13.1/12 111 - 156310. 644620.00000 202110 12/13.1/12 20008523 2134595 490. 144610- 644650.00000 JAN 02 200371 CHECK NO 566825 VENDOR 138810 - GREELEY & HANSEN 20009019 INV- 0000105001 411 - 273511 - 763100 -70070 105441 TO 11/30/01 20009019 INV- 0000105001 413 - 263611. 631400 -73066 105441 TO 11/30/01 CHECK NO 566788 VENDOR 106780 - GREGORY COURT REPORTING 20008975 S FLACKS 12/26 681 - 410310 - 633033 -00000 0.18- S FLACKS 12/26 0.18- 20008975 J GARRETT 12/26 681- 410310 - 633043.00000 99.41 J GARRETT 12/26 99.41 20008975 PATTERSON 12/26 681. 410310. 633033 -00000 0.00 R PATTERSON 12/26 20008974 D THERIN 12/26 681 - 410310 - 633033 -00000 0.00 D THERINE 12/26 0.00 20008975 R DEVARESTE12 /26 681 - 410310- 633043 -00000 0.00 R DEVARESTE 12/26 0.00 161 _ 57 Jl AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 22.56 0.00 22.56 0.18- 0.00 0.18- 1.12- 0.00 1.12- 99.41 0.00 99.41 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8,839.38 0.00 577.00 0.00 577.00 0.00 489.00 0.00 489.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,066.00 0.00 44,846.00 0.00 44,846.00 0.00 51.917.46 0.00 51,917.46 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 96.763.46 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 48.50 0.00 48.50 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 25.49 0.00 25.49 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 58 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16JI SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 203.99 CHECK NO 567018 VENDOR 299230 - GUARDIAN PERSONAL STORAGE 20008719 D2 153 JAN 111 - 156425 - 644170 -00000 0.00 58.00 0.00 58.00 201720 D2 153 JAN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 58.00 CHECK NO 567116 VENDOR 345360 - GULF COAST LANDFILL 20008996 S1101 -02 408 - 233352 - 634999 -00000 0.00 27,885.12 0.00 27,885.12 201920 TO 12/7/01 20008997 N1101 -02 408 - 233312 - 634999 -00000 0.00 31,353.04 0.00 31,353.04 201918 TO 1217101 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 59,238.16 CHECK NO 566827 VENDOR 141030 - GULF SHORE ASSOCIATES 20008500 JAN 2002 PELICAN BAY 109 - 182601- 644100.00000 0.00 643.92 109. 182900. 644100.00000 0.00 663.43 778. 182700- 644100 -00000 0.00 643.92 0.00 1,951.27 JAN 2002 200065 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,951.27 CHECK NO 566961 VENDOR 263220 - GULF STATES INC. 20009013 #2 414 - 263611 - 763100 -74015 0.00 70,194.88 0.00 70.194.88 105814 TO 11/30/01 20009013 #2 RETAINAGE 414 - 000000. 205100 -00000 0.00 7,019.49- 0.00 7.019.49- 105814 TO 11/30/01 RETAINAGE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 63,175.39 CHECK NO 566729 VENDOR 7990 - GULFSHORE ANIMAL CLINIC 20008720 L ROBINSON 01 -9391 610 - 155410 - 631970.00000 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 200987 SPAY /NEUTER 20008720 L ROBINSON 01.9392 610 - 155410 - 631970 -00000 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 200987 SPAY /NEUTER 20008720 J FOSS 01 9296 610. 155410- 631970 -00000 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 200987 SPAY /NEUTER 20008720 L ROBINSON 01 -9389 610 - 155410 - 631970 -00000 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 200987 SPAY /NEUTER JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20008720 FRIENDS OF GUMNI 01 8241 200987 SPAY /NEUTER 20008720 FRIEND OF GUMNI 200987 SPAY /NEUTER 20008720 L ROBINSON 01 -9390 200987 SPAY /NEUTER 20008720 P DUNN 01 9308 200987 SPAY /NEUTER 20008720 M WUSHKE 01 9124 200987 SPAY /NEUTER COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 610- 155410 - 631970 -00000 0.00 610 - 155410. 631970 -00000 0.00 610 - 155410 - 631970 -00000 0.00 610 - 155410 - 631970 -00000 0.00 610 - 155410. 631970 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 566950 VENDOR 255900 - GUSLEINE DOMOND 20008526 2001100856 111 - 138911. 634804 -00000 0.00 200110856 20008526 2001090912 111 - 138911 - 634804.00000 0.00 2001090912 CHECK NO 566835 VENDOR 152410 - HACH 20008978 2897309 201418 CHEMS 1 PAGE 59 6J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 60.00 0.00 60.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 65.00 0.00 65.00 45.00 0.00 45.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 555.00 245.00 0.00 245.00 245.00 0.00 245.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 490.00 408 - 233352 - 652310.00000 0.00 75.60 CHECK TOTAL CHECK NO 566815 VENDOR 131720 - HARCROS CHEMICALS. INC. 20008721 740056237 408 - 233312 - 652310 -00000 0.00 202508 20008721 740055800 408 - 233312 - 652310.00000 0.00 202508 CHECK NO 566730 VENDOR 8200 - HARMON BROTHERS ROCK CO, INC 20007982 7423 111 - 163645 - 653110 -00000 0.00 202642 ROCK 44.00 1,400.67 CHECK TOTAL 678.50 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.60 75.60 44.00- 1,400.67 1,356.67 678.50 678.50 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 567062 VENDOR 323370 - HARRIS COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT 20008926 PP #7 001 - 000000 - 218810 -00000 0.00 PP #7 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC 179.08 CHECK TOTAL CHECK NO 566787 VENDOR 106690 - HAZEN & SAWYER, ENGINEERS 20009206 #3 -40408 413 - 263611 - 631400 -73950 0.00 44,850.00 603943 10 /01 20009206 #37 413 - 263611 - 631400 -73031 0.00 80.771.58 603943 10 /01 CHECK TOTAL CHECK NO 566731 VENDOR 8430 - HELENA CHEMICAL CO 20008979 22721269 109 - 182901 - 652310 -00000 0.00 201653 DACONIL CHECK NO 566732 VENDOR 8810 - HOLE MONTES AND ASSOC INC 20009208 42523 496 - 192340- 631400.33327 0.00 103671 10/27- 11/23/01 20009209 42524 496 - 192340 - 631400 -33383 0.00 106876 10/27- 11/23/01 CHECK NO 567159 VENDOR 900050 - HOLIDAY BEDERS 301017 295023 HOLIDAY BEDERS 381 - 110430- 363801 -00000 0.00 295023 HOLIDAY BEDERS 301018 295023 HOLIDAY BEDERS 355 - 156190 - 363992 -00000 0.00 295023 HOLIDAY BEDERS 301016 295023 HOLIDAY BEDERS 346 - 156402 - 363990 -00000 0.00 295023 HOLIDAY BEDERS CHECK NO 567160 VENDOR 900050 - HOLIDAY BILDERS INC 301021 295023 HOLIDAY 113 - 000000 - 209050 -00000 0.00 295023 HOLIDAY 912.00 CHECK TOTAL 5,109.10 9,072.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 60 VCHR NET 179.08 179.08 44,850.00 80,771.58 125,621.58 912.00 912.00 5,109.10 9.072.00 14,181.10 117.98 0.00 117.98 299.00 0.00 299.00 820.84 0.00 820.84 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,237.82 1,778.00 0.00 1,778.00 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION . 301020 295023 HOLIDAY 295023 HOLIDAY 301019 295023 HOLIDAY 295023 HOLIDAY CHECK NO 566851 VENDOR 164250 - HOME DEPOT 20009163 2190595 201759 SUPPLIES 20009158 2023611 201486 SUPPLIES 20009163 70318979 201759 SUPPLIES 20009161 3022192 201159 SUPPLIES 20009160 2031599 200912 SUPPLIES 20009161 2011326 201159 SUPPLIES 20009157 985 - 3151036 INV PD 2X'S 201159 INV PD 2X'S 20009158 7281770 201486 SUPPLIES 20009159 5092247 201486 SUPPLIES 20009163 5040294 201759 SUPPLIES 20009163 2031706 201759 SUPPLIES 20009158 4092442 201486 SUPPLIES 20009161 6011050 201159 SUPPLIES 20009160 9070134 200912 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 113 - 138900 - 322110 -00000 0.00 113. 000000 - 209830 -00000 0.00 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC 337.50 0.00 297.45 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 PAGE 61 j VCHR NET 337.50 297.45 2.412.95 306 - 116360 - 763100 -80087 0.00 13.09 0.00 13.09 001 - 122240 - 652989 -00000 0.00 99.96 0.00 99.96 306- 116360. 763100.80087 0.00 21.69 0.00 21.69 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 19.63 0.00 19.63 001 - 156363 - 652990.00000 0.00 1,538.91 0.00 1,538.91 111 - 156332 - 652990.00000 0.00 95.18 0.00 95.18 111 - 156332. 652990 -00000 0.00 3.619.98- 0.00 3,619.98- 001- 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 4.53- 0.00 4.53- 001- 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 213.00 0.00 213.00 306 - 116360 - 763100.80087 0.00 47.68 0.00 47.68 306 - 116360 - 763100 -80087 0.00 89.68 0.00 89.68 001 - 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 43.80 0.00 43.80 111. 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 68.84 0.00 68.84 001 - 156363. 652990.00000 0.00 156.23 0.00 156.23 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 1 J I PGE 62 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20009163 6011853 306 - 116360 - 763100 -80087 0.00 17.17 0.00 17.17 201759 SUPPLIES 20009163 7021050 306 - 116360 - 763100 -80087 0.00 73.28 0.00 73.28 201759 SUPPLIES 20009158 0071359 001 - 122240 - 652989 -00000 0.00 29.95 0.00 29.95 201486 SUPPLIES 20009161 6010191 111 - 156332 - 652990.00000 0.00 116.32 0.00 116.32 201159 SUPPLIES 20009158 7080252 001 - 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 50.26 0.00 50.26 201486 SUPPLIES 20009160 6030555 001 - 156363 - 652990 -00000 0.00 56.24 0.00 56.24 200912 SUPPLIES 20009161 3041954 111. 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 49.00 0.00 49.00 201159 SUPPLIES 20009164 2190608 313 - 163673 - 763100 -66066 0.00 74.50 0.00 74.50 201974 SUPPLIES 20009163 3011309 306 - 116360 - 763100 -80087 0.00 76.63 0.00 76.63 201759 SUPPLIES 20009158 202478 001 - 122240. 652989 -00000 0.00 320.30 0.00 320.30 201486 SUPPLIES 20009161 4041147 111 - 156332 - 652990.00000 0.00 1,219.10 0.00 1,219.10 201159 SUPPLIES 20009158 0090758 001 - 122240 - 652989 -00000 0.00 83.88 0.00 83.88 201486 SUPPLIES 20009161 3011237 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 59.85 0.00 59.85 201159 SUPPLIES 20009162 2270239 101 - 163620 - 652990 -00000 0.00 94.58 0.00 94.58 201182 SUPPLIES 20009160 7202250 001. 156363. 652990.00000 0.00 31.79- 0.00 31.79- 200912 SUPPLIES 20009160 8032035 001 - 156363 - 652990 -00000 0.00 27.73 0.00 27.73 200912 SUPPLIES 20009159 6091974 001. 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 16.85 0.00 16.85 201486 SUPPLIES JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20009159 2082241 201486 SUPPLIES 20009161 3041953 201159 SUPPLIES 20009161 9011669 201159 SUPPLIES 20008648 M. GILOT 1707 N 6TH AVE 201419 GILOT 75212240007 20009161 5032011 201159 SUPPLIES 20009158 5100895 201486 SUPPLIES 20009163 9040900 201759 SUPPLIES 20009162 3072090 201182 SUPPLIES 20009160 8131038 200912 SUPPLIES 20009161 9020781 201159 SUPPLIES 20008660 3210353 200953 GILOT 75212240007 20009161 2012204 201159 SUPPLIES CHECK NO 567072 VENDOR 328710 - HOME DEPOT 20009072 6070489 152439 PARTS 20009070 6130486 151946 SUPPLIES 20009071 9042477 152140 PARTS 20009069 8082415 152242 PAINT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16JI q PA 63 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 1 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 001 - 122240 - 652990 -00000 0.00 48.00 0.00 48.00 111 - 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 34.00- 0.00 34.00- 111- 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 26.81 0.00 26.81 191 - 138785 - 884200 -33751 0.00 5,196.16 0.00 5,196.16 111. 156332 - 652990 -00000 0.00 141.93 0.00 141.93 001 - 122240. 652991 -00000 0.00 71.41 0.00 71.41 306. 116360 - 763100.80087 0.00 4,082.84 0.00 4.082.84 101 - 163620 - 652990 -00000 0.00 38.86 0.00 38.86 001- 156363 - 652990 -00000 0.00 31.79 0.00 31.79 111 - 156332 - 652990.00000 0.00 79.50 0.00 79.50 191 - 138785. 884200 -33751 0.00 1,921.99 0.00 1,921.99 111 - 156332 - 652990.00000 0.00 294.28 0.00 294.28 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 13,016.60 111 - 163647 - 652990 -00000 0.00 1.08 0.00 1.08 111 - 163647 - 652990 -00000 0.00 12.15 0.00 12.15 146 - 144380 - 646110 -00000 0.00 186.75 0.00 186.75 111 - 163647 - 652990 -00000 0.00 14.01 0.00 14.01 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20009070 5080953 111 - 163647 - 652990 -00000 0.00 52.78 0.00 151946 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567042 VENDOR 314010 . HORSESHOE DEVELOPMENT L.C. 20008967 JAN 2002 408 - 210151.644100 -00000 0.00 4,968.40 473 - 173413 - 644100 -00000 0.00 4,968.40 0.00 JAN 2002 200598 20008505 JAN 2002 101 - 163612 - 644100 -00000 0.00 4,240.77 0.00 JAN 2002 200520 20008969 JAN 2002 001 - 172910 - 644100 -00000 0.00 5,697.49 0.00 JAN 2002 201506 20008966 JAN 2002 101 - 163610 - 644100 -00000 0.00 13,058.50 0.00 JAN 2002 200495 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567056 VENDOR 319770 IAFF 3670 20008934 PP #7 001- 000000 - 218700 -00000 0.00 217.00 0.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566819 VENDOR 134560 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST -457 20008914 PP #7 001 - 000000.217001.00000 0.00 26,740.19 0.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566928 VENDOR 234960 IEC OF SW FL, INC. 20008981 2001 02 6 G GARCIA 001 - 122240 - 654370 -00000 0.00 450.00 0.00 151611 APPRENTICESHIP TUITION GARCI CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566927 VENDOR 234180 - IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 20008983 12562837 10/23 -11/26 001 - 432020 - 646710 -00000 0.00 130.69 0.00 202381 10/23.11/26 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16JI PAGE 65 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER � FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 567102 VENDOR 341540 - IMMOKALEE AIR & APPLIANCE COMPANY 20008651 1648 191 - 138785 - 884200 -33751 0.00 3,500.00 0.00 3,500.00 203354 SANCHEZ 77161040000 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,500.00 CHECK NO 566733 VENDOR 9180 - IMMOKALEE DISPOSAL CO 20009074 464 /l /1 -1/31 495. 192330- 643300 -00000 0.00 118.98 0.00 118.98 464 1/1/- 1/31/02 201753 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 118.98 CHECK NO 566833 VENDOR 147920 - IMMOKALEE WATER & SEWER DISTRICT 20008988 2104011800 11/20 -12/20 111 - 156334 - 643400 -00000 0.00 10.05 0.00 10.05 2104011800 11120 -12120 20008988 2126066400 11/16 -12/18 111 - 156334 - 643400 -00000 0.00 87.41 0.00 87.41 2126066400 11/16 -12/18 20008986 67630 11/3.11/30 496. 192340- 649010 -33383 0.00 312.50 0.00 312.50 152586 11/3.11/30 20008988 2126060700 11/16 -12/18 111 - 156334. 643400 -00000 0.00 12.77 0.00 12.77 2126060700 11/16 -12/18 20008985 67270 9/29 -11/2 496 - 192340 - 649010.33383 0.00 338.00 0.00 338.00 152316 9/29 -11/2 20008987 67273 9/29.11/2 301 - 120402 - 762200 -80196 0.00 496.25 0.00 496.25 151561 9/29 -11/2 20009073 2111161500 11/12 -12/11 111. 156334- 643400 -00000 0.00 797.93 0.00 797.93 2111161500 11/12 -12/11 20008984 67633 11/3 -11/30 496 - 192340. 649010 -33327 0.00 420.00 0.00 420.00 152587 11/3 -11/30 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,474.91 CHECK NO 566890 VENDOR 196420 - IMSA 20008982 G GARCIA IMSA MEMBERSHIP 101 - 163612 - 654210 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 IMSA MEMBERSHIP G GARCIA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 50.00 CHECK NO 566734 VENDOR 9270 - INDUSTRIAL AIR PRODUCTS JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 66 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS � SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC ANT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008989 34395 408 - 233352 - 652910 -00000 0.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 202418CYLINDER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 5.00 CHECK NO 566919 VENDOR 228980 - INSTRUMENT SPECIALTIES INC. 20008991 20255 12/4 408 - 253212 - 652910 -00000 0.00 665.00 0.00 665.00 203143 PARTS 20008990 20262 412 - 273511 - 646510 -70881 0.00 210.00 0.00 210.00 101865 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 875.00 CHECK NO 567000 VENDOR 290590 INTELITRAN 20008637 TDPC 11 /01 126 - 138330 - 634999 -00000 0.00 3,450.21 0.00 3,450.21 202387 11 /01 VASQUEZ 20008637 CCDOT 1101 126. 138330- 634999.00000 0.00 702.00 0.00 702.00 202387 11 /01 20008662 CCDOT 11/01 126 - 138330 - 634999 -33722 0.00 29,857.00 0.00 29,857.00 106739 11 /01 20008662 CCDOT 1101 126 - 138333 - 634999.33274 0.00 7,325.00 0.00 7,325.00 203621 11 /01 20008662 CCDOT 1101 126 - 138333 - 634999 -33274 0.00 9,643.75 0.00 9,643.75 203621 11 /01 20008637 CCDOT 1101 126 - 138330. 634999 -00000 0.00 664.00 0.00 664.00 202387 11 /01 20008662 CCDOT 11 /01 126 - 138330 - 634999.00000 0.00 29,924.66 0.00 29,924.66 202387 11 /01 105575 CCDOT 11/01 126 - 138333 - 634999 -33278 0.00 3,444.09 0.00 3,444.09 105575 11 /01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 85,010.71 CHECK NO 566818 VENDOR 134360 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 20008916 PP #7 001 - 000000 - 218900 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 PP #7 20008917 PP #7 001 - 000000- 218900 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 PP #7 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J1 ' PAGE 67 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 100.00 CHECK NO 566925 VENDOR 234030 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 20008918 PP #7 001 - 000000 - 218900 -00000 0.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 150.00 CHECK NO 567094 VENDOR 339070 J &J WHOLESALE NURSERY 20009038 1323 322 - 183825. 646320 -00000 0.00 148.50 0.00 148.50 202771 PLANTS 20009038 1323 322 - 183825 - 646320.00000 0.00 167.50 0.00 167.50 151106 PLANTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 316.00 CHECK NO 566923 VENDOR 231810 - J. M. TODD COMPANY 20009031 67980 111- 156313 - 646710 -00000 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 201491 11/2 -12/1 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 25.00 CHECK NO 566737 VENDOR 10570 J. W. CRAFT 20009034 24222 111 - 156334 - 644600 -00000 0.00 140.00 0.00 140.00 201970 10/28 -11/24 20009034 24217 111 - 156332. 644600 -00000 0.00 70.00 0.00 70.00 201970 10/28 -11/24 20009034 24216 001- 156363 - 644600.00000 0.00 70.00 0.00 70.00 201970 10/28 -11/24 20009034 24218 111. 156334- 644600.00000 0.00 280.00 0.00 280.00 201970 10/28 -11/24 20009034 24223 111 - 156332 - 644600 -00000 0.00 140.00 0.00 140.00 201970 10/28 -11/24 20009034 24220 111 - 156332 - 644600 -00000 0.00 140.00 0.00 140.00 201970 10/28 -11/24 20009034 24219 001 - 156363 - 644600 -00000 0.00 70.00 0.00 70.00 201970 10/28 -11/24 20009034 24221 111 - 156334 - 644600 -00000 0.00 140.00 0.00 140.00 201970 10/28 -11/24 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 566921 VENDOR 231020 - J.M. TODD COMPANY J I 20008747 67983 VCHR DISC 408 - 233313. 651210 -00000 0.00 0.00 200668 11/22 - 12/21/01 0.00 20.00 20009032 67973 29.10 001 - 010510 - 651210 -00000 0.00 134.00 201680 10/30 -11/29 457.61 CHECK TOTAL 20009033 68076 0.00 669. 100220 - 644650 -00000 0.00 36.78 202745 11/01 0.00 20009032 68503 0.00 001 - 010510- 651210 -00000 0.00 0.00 201680 11/9 -12/8 0.00 126.84 CHECK NO 566735 VENDOR 9540 JACK AND ANN'S FEED 0.00 20009030 65471 111 - 156349 - 652910.00000 0.00 0.00 265.54 CHECK TOTAL 111. 156349 - 652990.00000 0.00 25.23 201490 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 20009030 64668 111 - 156349 - 652910 -00000 0.00 111 - 156349 - 652990.00000 0.00 201490 SUPPLIES 20009029 65507 111 - 156334 - 652990 -00000 0.00 201054 SUPPLIES 20009029 65714 111 - 156334 - 652990.00000 0.00 201054 SUPPLIES 20009030 64669 111 - 156349 - 652910 -00000 0.00 111 - 156349 - 652990 -00000 0.00 201490 SUPPLIES 20009030 65470 111 - 156349. 652910 -00000 0.00 111 - 156349. 652990 -00000 0.00 201490 SUPPLIES CHECK NO 567148 VENDOR 900030 JACQUELINE HART 301012 TRAVEL 12112101 J HART 113 - 138936 - 640200 -00000 0.00 J HART 12112101 TRAVEL 16 68 J I ,PAGE AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,050.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 29.10 0.00 29.10 134.00 0.00 134.00 457.61 0.00 457.61 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 640.71 0.00 36.78 0.00 36.78 0.00 8.39 0.00 8.39 23.71 0.00 23.71 126.84 0.00 126.84 0.00 91.90 0.00 91.90 47.07 218.47 0.00 265.54 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 553.16 25.23 0.00 25.23 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 25.23 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA b J Z. REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK NO 566796 VENDOR 109260 JACQUELINE SILANO 20009035 GG 11/13/01 136 - 162590 - 649990 -00000 0.00 305.88 0.00 200175 GG 11/13/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567147 VENDOR 349460 JAMES FITZEK 20009199 ESTABLISH CHANGE FUND 111 - 000000 - 102600 -00000 0.00 4,800.00 0.00 ESTABLISH CHANGE FUND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567161 VENDOR 900050 JEAN EDWARDS 301015 SWIMCAMP J. EDWARDS 111.156313- 347275.00000 0.00 55.00 0.00 SWIMCAMP REFUND J EDWARDS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567004 VENDOR 292620 - JM TODD, INC. 20008748 68513 001 - 121810 - 634999 -00000 0.00 271.00 0.00 202348 COPIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566736 VENDOR 10160 - JOHN COLLINS AUTO PARTS, INC. 20008746 741754 408- 253211. 655200 -00000 0.00 79.84 0.00 201802 PARTS 20008745 741720 408.233351- 652990 -00000 0.00 2.72 0.00 201738 PARTS 20008745 742042 408 - 233351 - 652990.00000 0.00 42.36 0.00 201738 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567133 VENDOR 348490 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 20009050 722072 111 - 163646 - 646311 -00000 0.00 3.39- 0.00 203372 PARTS /DISC 20009050 722073 111- 163646 - 646311.00000 0.00 241.39 0.00 203372 PARTS /DISC 20009050 722073 111. 163646 - 646311 -00000 0.00 4.83- 0.00 203372 PARTS /DISC JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16 PAGE 70 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS J 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20009057 726767 109 - 182901- 646311.00000 0.00 13.17- 0.00 13.17- 203343 PARTS /DISC 20009059 745881 109 - 182901 - 646311 -00000 0.00 16.42- 0.00 16.42- 203343 PARTS /DISC 20009050 730619 111- 163646. 646311.00000 0.00 64.29 0.00 64.29 203372 PARTS /DISC 20009057 726767 109 - 182901 - 646311 -00000 0.00 658.51 0.00 658.51 203343 PARTS /DISC 20009059 745881 109 - 182901 - 646311 -00000 0.00 820.99 0.00 820.99 203343 PARTS /DISC 20009049 748317 412. 273511 - 655100 -70881 0.00 766.90 0.00 766.90 203446 PARTS /DISC 20009058 734250 109 - 182901 - 646311 -00000 0.00 374.36 0.00 374.36 203343 PARTS /DISC 20009050 722072 111- 163646. 646311 -00000 0.00 169.74 0.00 169.74 203372 PARTS /DISC 20009058 734250 109 - 182901 - 646311 -00000 0.00 7.49- 0.00 7.49- 203343 PARTS /DISC 20009050 730619 111 - 163646 - 646311.00000 0.00 1.29- 0.00 1.29- 203372 PARTS /DISC 20009050 726747 111. 163646 - 646311 -00000 0.00 141.00 0.00 141.00 203372 PARTS /DISC 20009049 748317 412 - 273511 - 655100 -70881 0.00 15.34- 0.00 15.34- 203446 PARTS /DISC 20009050 730618 111 - 163646. 646311 -00000 0.00 103.20- 0.00 103.20- 203372 PARTS /DISC 20009050 726747 111 - 163646 - 646311 -00000 0.00 2.82- 0.00 2.82- 203372 PARTS /DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,069.23 CHECK NO 566992 VENDOR 285980 JUANITA PANIAGUA 20008858 12/3/01 TRAVEL 111 - 156349 - 640200 -00000 0.00 28.13 0.00 28.13 PANIGUA 12/3/01 TRAVEL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 28.13 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J 1 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK NO 567131 VENDOR 348470 KATHERINE WHITTIER 20009086 K. WHITTIER 12/6 -27 111 - 156310 - 640200 -00000 0.00 24.36 0.00 K. WHITTIER 12/6 -27 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567162 VENDOR 900050 KEENE CONSTRUCTION CO. 301035 REF 306702 KEENE 113 - 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 224.34 0.00 REF 306702 KEENE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567163 VENDOR 900050 KELLY LISTENBERGER 301025 K LISTENBEREGER REFUND PK 130 - 157710 - 347290 -00000 0.00 55.00 0.00 K LISTENBERGER REFUND PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567164 VENDOR 900050 - KESSELRING BLDG RESTORTATION CONTRS 301023 REF 306356 KESSEERING 113 - 000000- 115420 -00000 0.00 150.00 0.00 123 PALM DR KESSELRING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566696 VENDOR 349300 KINGSTON PLANTATION 20008939 209497C RICE 2/9/02 681 - 431310- 640300.00000 0.00 416.00 0.00 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566937 VENDOR 244150 KISSIMMEE RIVER DEPOT 20009168 492 198- 157410 - 652990 -00000 0.00 500.00 0.00 152169 HISTORIC CLOTHING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566836 VENDOR 152610 KOMLINE- SANDERSON ENGINEERING CORP 20008493 M12404 408 - 233312 - 655200.00000 0.00 583.15 0.00 200703 BLADE SCRAPERS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566738 VENDOR 10890 KRAFT CONSTRUCTION JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA I b J I REPORT 100 -601 BOARD F 0 COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20009252 0126P -01 381 - 120402 - 631401 -80003 0.00 8,865.00 0.00 202299 TO 11/26/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566896 VENDOR 201000 - KRIS JAIN & ASSOCIATES INC. 20009022 0018 -5 412. 273511- 634999 -70058 0.00 2,400.00 0.00 7289 PROFESSIONAL SVS. 11 /01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567028 VENDOR 305820 LANDMARK AUDIOBOOKS 20008965 88885 355 - 156190 - 652670 -00000 0.00 148.00 0.00 152624 AUDIOBOOKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567040 VENDOR 312940 LANDSCAPE FLORIDA 20009087 110703 111 - 156332 - 646314 -00000 0.00 339.15 0.00 151714 110703 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567127 VENDOR 347970 LASALLE COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK 20008931 PP #7 001 - 000000. 218810 -00000 0.00 132.00 0.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567165 VENDOR 900050 LAURIE BADAME 301027 L BADAME REFUND PARKS 111 - 156380 - 347400 -00000 0.00 8.00 0.00 L BADAME REFUND PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566820 VENDOR 135200 LAWN EQUIPMENT CENTER 20008488 48209 109 - 182901 - 652910 -00000 0.00 275.96 0.00 151108 CHAINSAW 20008489 48174 109 - 182901 - 652990 -00000 0.00 327.52 0.00 200406 EQUIP PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 73 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 1 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 566739 VENDOR 11110 - LEE CO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE 20009248 20195 - 114172 11/16 -12/18 001 - 156160 - 643100 -00000 0.00 1,692.45 0.00 1,692.45 20195. 114172 11/16.12/18 20008525 20195 101180 11/8.12/10 001 - 155810 - 643100.00000 0.00 1,657.10 0.00 1.657.10 20195 101180 11/8 -12/10 20008525 20195 159280 11/19 -12/19 111 - 156334 - 643100 -00000 0.00 69.39 0.00 69.39 20195 159280 11/19 -12/19 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,418.94 CHECK NO 566740 VENDOR 11240 - LEO'S SOD & LANDSCAPING 20008491 23322 111 - 163645 - 646314 -00000 0.00 79.80 0.00 79.80 200879 BAHIA 20008490 6944 408 - 253212 - 646314 -00000 0.00 39.80 0.00 39.80 201993 BAHIA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 119.60 CHECK NO 566783 VENDOR 105260 - LESCO SERVICE CENTER 20008492 2B29Q2 109 - 182602 - 652990 -00000 0.00 27.20 0.00 27.20 200096 CHEMICAL MIXING SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 27.20 CHECK NO 567166 VENDOR 900050 - LINDA MINCK 301026 L MINCK REFUND PARKS 111 - 156380 - 347290.00000 0.00 220.00 0.00 220.00 L MINCK REFUND PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 220.00 CHECK NO 567049 VENDOR 317210 - LINDA SUJEVICH 20008550 10122.12117 TRVL L SUJEVI 001 - 122310 - 640200 -00000 0.00 13.63 0.00 13.63 10/22.12/17 TRVL L SUJEVICH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 13.63 CHECK NO 566847 VENDOR 164110 - LOYAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO 20008919 PP #7 001 - 000000- 218400 -00000 0.00 218.29 0.00 218.29 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 218.29 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK NO 567080 VENDOR 332820 - LYNN CLARKE 20009085 L. CLARKE 12/4 -27 111 - 156425 - 640200 -00000 0.00 26.68 0.00 L. CLARKE 12/4.27 TRAVEL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566979 VENDOR 280100 - MAIL STATION COURIER 20009174 17137 113 - 138312 - 641950 -00000 0.00 30.00 0.00 201907 DELIVERY SVC 11/16 -30/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566778 VENDOR 100800 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERVICES 20008906 30026623 001 - 156110. 649990.00000 0.00 458.85 0.00 152579 TEMP HELP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566991 VENDOR 285890 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERVICES 20008907 30023587 001 - 121810 - 649990 -00000 0.00 346.68 0.00 152582 TEMP HELP 20008898 30022820 001 - 121810 - 649990 -00000 0.00 566.00 0.00 201540 TEMP HELP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567034 VENDOR 309870 - MARCO ISLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 20009176 15345 495 - 192370 - 654210 -00000 0.00 205.00 0.00 152515 2002 DUES /BOB TWEEDIE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566741 VENDOR 11770 - MARCO ISLAND EAGLE 20009175 1 YR SCRIPT ACCT# 1026457 307 - 156110 - 652650 -00000 0.00 25.00 0.00 EXPIRES 2/1/03 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566964 VENDOR 264860 - MARCO ISLAND FILM FESTIVAL 20009004 CC103101 194 - 101540 - 882100 -10298 0.00 1,196.96 0.00 105573 10/15 -31/01 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 566812 VENDOR 127090 - MARCO OFFICE SUPPLY 20009171 111290051 001 - 156363 - 651110 -00000 9.38 200888 SUPPLIES 79.00 20008891 112070545 001 - 010110- 651110.00000 38.18 200303 SUPPLIES 38.18 20009173 111200573 001. 121810- 651110 -00000 22.52 201575 SUPPLIES 24.95- 20008894 112030657 490 - 144610 - 651110 -00000 3.88- 200114 SUPPLIES 3.88- 20008869 112100733 495 - 192370 - 651110 -00000 474.84 201669 CREDIT 176.07 20008895 112100686 126 - 138332 - 651110 -33202 237.18 106210 CREDIT 237.18 20008866 111160662 113 - 138910 - 652990 -00000 7.49- 201883 SUPPLIES 292.70 20008896 112030618 313 - 163611 - 651110.00000 158.00 200063 SUPPLIES 158.00 20009170 112030613 408- 233351 - 651110 -00000 79.94 200789 SUPPLIES 11.90- 20008890 111140023 144 - 144360 - 651110.00000 27.15 200594 CREDIT 27.15 20009169 112030619 408- 233312 - 651110 -00000 132.27 200705 SUPPLIES 20008884 112180529 470 - 173435 - 651110.00000 201205 SUPPLIES 20008869 112040736 495 - 192370 - 651110.00000 201669 SUPPLIES 20008870 111270723 495 - 192370 - 651110 -00000 201669 CREDIT 20008880 112120638 681. 410710- 651110 -00000 201339 SUPPLIES 20009195 112040699 001 - 421040 - 651110.00000 203042 SUPPLIES 16J1 PAGE 75 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,196.96 0.00 9.38 0.00 9.38 0.00 79.00 0.00 79.00 0.00 38.18 0.00 38.18 0.00 22.52 0.00 22.52 0.00 24.95- 0.00 24.95- 0.00 3.88- 0.00 3.88- 0.00 474.84 0.00 474.84 0.00 176.07 0.00 176.07 0.00 237.18 0.00 237.18 0.00 7.49- 0.00 7.49- 0.00 292.70 0.00 292.70 0.00 158.00 0.00 158.00 0.00 79.94 0.00 79.94 0.00 11.90- 0.00 11.90- 0.00 27.15 0.00 27.15 0.00 132.27 0.00 132.27 JANUARY 03. 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 6 J PAGE 76 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008890 111140028 144 - 144360 - 651110.00000 0.00 4.34 0.00 4.34 200594 SUPPLIES 20008900 112120581 001. 432020- 651110 -00000 0.00 6.05 0.00 6.05 202380 SUPPLIES 20008896 111290552 313 - 163611 - 651110 -00000 0.00 408.08 0.00 408.08 200063 SUPPLIES 20008892 111290610 113 - 138930 - 651110 -00000 0.00 140.79 0.00 140.79 200276 SUPPLIES 20008883 112040700 681 - 421510 - 651110 -00000 0.00 197.56 0.00 197.56 201317 SUPPLIES 20008869 112030553 495. 192370 - 651110 -00000 0.00 43.82 0.00 43.82 201669 SUPPLIES 20008887 111260566 408 - 233350. 651110 -00000 0.00 71.80 0.00 71.80 200755 SUPPLIES 20008883 112120646 681. 421510 - 651110 -00000 0.00 395.87 0.00 395.87 201317 SUPPLIES 20008888 111270561 408 - 210130. 651110 -00000 0.00 127.90 0.00 127.90 200728 SUPPLIES 20008873 111290697 408. 210125 - 651110.00000 0.00 27.33 0.00 27.33 201550 SUPPLIES 20009171 111270023 001 - 156363. 651110 -00000 0.00 18.56 0.00 18.56 200888 SUPPLIES 20008890 110040587 144. 144360- 651110.00000 0.00 137.04 0.00 137.04 200594 SUPPLIES 20008882 112070649 681 - 431310 - 651110 -00000 0.00 379.01 0.00 379.01 201332 SUPPLIES 20008870 111260569 495 - 192370 - 651110.00000 0.00 38.15 0.00 38.15 201669 SUPPLIES 20008897 112030527 101 - 163630 - 651110 -00000 0.00 32.74 0.00 32.74 200030 SUPPLIES 20008889 112060617 001 - 000000- 142500 -00000 0.00 47.98 0.00 47.98 200636 SUPPLIES 20008871 112050648 001 - 157110- 651110 -00000 0.00 520.64 0.00 520.64 201608 SUPPLIES JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 O ! PAGE 77 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS •i SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008889 111060536 001 - 000000 - 142500.00000 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 200636 SUPPLIES 20008895 111150563 126 - 138332 - 651110 -33202 0.00 3.88 0.00 3.88 106210 SUPPLIES 20008865 112040568 001 - 122310 - 651110.00000 0.00 130.00 0.00 130.00 201812 SUPPLIES 20009172 111260555 111. 156332 - 651110 -00000 0.00 30.27 0.00 30.27 200976 SUPPLIES 20008870 111290612 495 - 192370 - 651110 -00000 0.00 67.41 0.00 67.41 201669 SUPPLIES 20008867 111270567 113. 138910 - 651110 -00000 0.00 23.80 0.00 23.80 201875 SUPPLIES 20008890 111090568 144 - 144360. 651110 -00000 0.00 159.01 0.00 159.01 200594 SUPPLIES 20008885 112110519 518. 121630- 651110 -00000 0.00 143.94 0.00 143.94 201072 SUPPLIES 20008869 112050519 495 - 192370. 651110 -00000 0.00 8.03 0.00 8.03 201669 SUPPLIES 20009171 111270043 001. 156363- 651110.00000 0.00 5.58 0.00 5.58 200888 SUPPLIES 20008881 112070648 681 - 410510. 651110 -00000 0.00 140.49 0.00 140.49 201337 SUPPLIES 20008870 111260572 495 - 192370 - 651110.00000 0.00 24.95 0.00 24.95 201669 SUPPLIES 20008897 112030513 101 - 163630 - 651110 -00000 0.00 13.60 0.00 13.60 200030 SUPPLIES 20008893 112050530 408 - 253212 - 651110 -00000 0.00 159.09 0.00 159.09 200236 SUPPLIES 20008888 111300691 408 - 210130 - 651110 -00000 0.00 22.10- 0.00 22.10- 200728 CREDIT 20008890 111080020 144 - 144360- 651110 -00000 0.00 56.22 0.00 56.22 200594 SUPPLIES 20008870 111190690 495 - 192370 - 651110.00000 0.00 16.92- 0.00 16.92- 201669 CREDIT JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20008874 112120704 201398 CREDIT 20008899 111270556 202343 SUPPLIES 20009194 112040558 203117 SUPPLIES 20008886 112110690 200963 SUPPLIES 20008868 111160516 201874 SUPPLIES 20008890 111140046 200594 SUPPLIES 20008872 111130735 201601 SUPPLIES 20008883 112130671 201317 SUPPLIES 20008888 111300699 200728 CREDIT 20008883 112120637 201317 SUPPLIES 20008892 111300505 200276 SUPPLIES 20008896 112040541 200063 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 313 - 162111 - 651110 -00000 0.00 301 - 121125 - 651110.01017 0.00 001 - 432040 - 651110 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 651110.00000 0.00 113. 138913- 651110 -00000 0.00 144 - 144360- 651110 -00000 0.00 001. 010510- 651110 -00000 0.00 681 - 421510. 651110 -00000 0.00 408 - 210130 - 651110 -00000 0.00 681 - 421510 - 651110 -00000 0.00 113 - 138930 - 651110 -00000 0.00 101. 163609 - 651110 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 566742 VENDOR 12070 - MARCO TRUE VALUE, INC. 20009177 274204 470 - 173442 - 652990 -00000 0.00 201215 HARDWARE 0.00 20009177 274404 470 - 173442. 652990 -00000 0.00 201215 HARDWARE 0.00 20009177 274920 470- 173442 - 652990.00000 0.00 201215 HARDWARE 0.00 20009177 275107 470 - 173442 - 652990 -00000 0.00 201215 HARDWARE 0.00 16J1 ANT NET VCHR DISC 89.19- 0.00 6.44 0.00 6.79 0.00 47.98 0.00 39.29 0.00 33.00 0.00 111.62 0.00 124.60 0.00 14.64- 0.00 74.52 0.00 99.00 0.00 47.94 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 34.45 0.00 34.45 0.00 21.22 0.00 21.22 0.00 76.05 0.00 76.05 0.00 29.98 0.00 29.98 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 16J FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20009177 273864 470.173442.652990 -00000 0.00 38.57 0.00 201215 HARDWARE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566785 VENDOR 105410 - MARSHALL CAVENDISH CORPORATION 20009178 576566 355. 156190- 766100 -00000 0.00 23.80 0.00 152625 CELEBRATE STATES -IDAHO CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567167 VENDOR 900050 MARY ANN HAWK 301014 SURPLUS HAWK 10.749 001 - 321110 - 369200 -00000 0.00 21,762.54 0.00 SURPLUS HAWK 10.749 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567039 VENDOR 312600 MARYLAND CHILD SUPPORT ACCOUNT 20008928 PP #7 001 - 000000 - 218810 -00000 0.00 100.00 0.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567107 VENDOR 343410 MAXTEL 20009179 001391 490 - 144610 - 646610 -00000 0.00 33.95 0.00 151997 PHONE CHARGER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566905 VENDOR 211710 MC CROMETER 20009180 230480 RI 408- 253212. 655100 -00000 0.00 93.85 0.00 200238 GEAR ASSY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566745 VENDOR 12200 MCCONNELLS TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 20008905 163853 408- 233351 - 652910 -00000 0.00 22.97 0.00 200794 HARDWARE 20008901 164309 408 - 253212 - 652990.00000 0.00 22.97 0.00 200237 HARDWARE 20008908 164352 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 44.12 0.00 200634 HARDWARE JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20008902 164047 200634 HARDWARE 20008902 164065 200634 HARDWARE 20008902 164064 200634 HARDWARE 20008908 164212 200634 HARDWARE 20008903 163760 200716 HARDWARE 20008904 163836 200792 HARDWARE 20008904 163687 200792 HARDWARE 20008904 163775 200792 HARDWARE 20008901 164209 200237 HARDWARE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 566744 VENDOR 12140 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 408 - 233352 - 652910 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351 - 652990 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351 - 652990 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351. 652990 -00000 0.00 408 - 253212 - 652990 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 566744 VENDOR 12140 MCGEE AND ASSOCIATES 20009207 106485.6A 111 - 163646 - 631403.67051 1.80 106485 SVS 10 /01 1.80 20009189 DAVIS PHII 202379.27 111 - 163646 - 631403 -00000 4.50 202379 CONSULTING 4.50 20009207 US41N- 106485 -1 111 - 163646 - 631403 -67051 5.35 106485 SVS 5.35 20009187 US41 202375.19 111 - 163646 - 631403.00000 24.52 202375 CONSULTING 24.52 20009189 DAVIS PHII 202379.30 111 - 163646. 631403 -00000 CHECK TOTAL 202379 CONSULTING 247.09 20009186 GG /GREEN 200537.18 111 - 163646 - 631403.00000 200537 CONSULTING 20009207 US41N- 106485 -2 111 - 163646 - 631403 -67051 106485 SVS 9/01 PAGE 80 16JI 4 1 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 12.35 0.00 12.35 1.80 0.00 1.80 0.18 0.00 0.18 4.50 0.00 4.50 78.71 0.00 78.71 5.35 0.00 5.35 2.14 0.00 2.14 24.52 0.00 24.52 27.48 0.00 27.48 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 247.09 0.00 613.34 0.00 613.34 0.00 332.50 0.00 332.50 0.00 1,947.50 0.00 1,947.50 0.00 377.50 0.00 377.50 0.00 332.50 0.00 332.50 0.00 877.50 0.00 877.50 0.00 613.34 0.00 613.34 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J 1 PAGE 81 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20009185 IMMOKALEE 200445.17 111 - 163646 - 631403 -00000 0.00 540.00 0.00 540.00 200445 CONSULTING 20009207 106485.68 111 - 163646 - 631403.67051 0.00 1,947.50 0.00 1,947.50 106485 SVS 10 /01 20009188 DAVIS PHI 202376.31 111. 163646- 631403 -00000 0.00 230.00 0.00 230.00 202376 CONSULTING 20009184 LELY 200444.16 152 - 162541 - 631403 -00000 0.00 530.00 0.00 530.00 200444 CONSULTING 20009191 IMMOKALEE 202369.24 111 - 163646 - 631403 -00000 0.00 540.00 0.00 540.00 202369 CONSULTING 20009188 DAVIS PHI 202376.26 111 - 163646 - 631403 -00000 0.00 230.00 0.00 230.00 202376 CONSULTING 20009187 US41 202375.28 111 - 163646 - 631403 -00000 0.00 377.50 0.00 377.50 202375 CONSULTING 20009191 IMMOKALEE 202369.32 111. 163646 - 631403 -00000 0.00 540.00 0.00 540.00 202369 CONSULTING 20009190 PINE RIDGE 202383.23 111 - 163646 - 631403 -00000 0.00 777.50 0.00 777.50 202383 CONSULTING 20009190 PINE RIDGE 202383.29 111. 163646 - 631403 -00000 0.00 777.50 0.00 777.50 202383 CONSULTING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 11,584.18 CHECK NO 566899 VENDOR 204140 METCALF & EDDY INC. 20009002 118914/119758 411 - 273511 - 631400 -70054 0.00 52,117.44 0.00 52,117.44 917436 TO 11/30/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 52,117.44 CHECK NO 566912 VENDOR 218750 METROPOLITAN LIFE 20008920 PP #7 001 - 000000 - 217700 -00000 0.00 2,833.70 001 - 000000- 217710 -00000 0.00 369.60 001 - 000000 - 217720 -00000 0.00 525.27 001 - 000000. 217730 -00000 0.00 179.00 0.00 3,907.57 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,907.57 CHECK NO 566900 VENDOR 205860 - MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 82 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 J l SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20009181 404425 307 - 156110 - 652670.00000 0.00 638.40 0.00 638.40 201637 VIDEOS 20009181 404981 307. 156110 - 652670 -00000 0.00 39.98 0.00 39.98 201637 VIDEOS 20009181 405251 307 - 156110 - 652670 -00000 0.00 69.93 0.00 69.93 201637 VIDEOS 20009181 405250 307 - 156110 - 652670 -00000 0.00 71.97 0.00 71.97 201637 VIDEOS 20009181 404424 307 - 156110 - 652670 -00000 0.00 55.96 0.00 55.96 201637 VIDEOS 20009181 404982 307 - 156110 - 652670 -00000 0.00 51.96 0.00 51.96 201637 VIDEOS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 928.20 CHECK NO 567137 VENDOR 348810 MILES MEDIA GROUP 20009193 12/11/01 MAGAZINE AD 198- 157410 - 648160 -00000 0.00 2,295.00 0.00 2,295.00 203531 2002 NAPLES ON THE GULF CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,295.00 CHECK NO 566940 VENDOR 250350 MISDU 20008924 PP #7 001 - 000000. 218810 -00000 0.00 80.00 0.00 80.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 80.00 CHECK NO 566746 VENDOR 12900 MOBIL OIL CREDIT CORP 20009182 859 0271 078 7 1217101 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 730.83 0.00 730.83 202219 FUEL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 730.83 CHECK NO 566839 VENDOR 156390 MOCK ENGINEERING INC. 20009183 22511 408 - 253221 - 651910 -00000 0.00 416.00 0.00 416.00 PHONE INSTALLATION CHECK TOTAL 0.00 416.00 CHECK NO 566747 VENDOR 12930 MONTY SANITATION CO JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 1 075642 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 0.00 634.30 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20008650 14078 191 - 138785 - 884200 -33751 0.00 2,450.00 0.00 203594 WHEELER 35094680003 20009192 075643 101. 163630 - 653710 -00000 0.00 451.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566805 VENDOR 115710 - MR JAMES NOE II TRUST 20008502 JAN 2002 SHERIFF 001 - 061010 - 644100 -00000 0.00 JAN 2002 201888 4,492.99 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 PAGE 83 VCHR NET 2.450.00 2,450.00 4,492.99 4,492.99 CHECK NO 566748 VENDOR 13000 - MUNICIPAL SUPPLY & SIGN CO 20009192 075642 101 - 163630. 653710 -00000 0.00 634.30 0.00 634.30 200032 SIGN MATERIALS 20009192 075643 101. 163630 - 653710 -00000 0.00 451.00 0.00 451.00 200032 SIGN MATERIALS 20009192 075581 101 - 163630. 653710 -00000 0.00 2,511.00 0.00 2,511.00 200032 SIGN MATERIALS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,596.30 CHECK NO 566837 VENDOR 155630 NACO /SOUTHEAST 20008913 PP #7 001 - 000000. 217001 -00000 0.00 28,744.77 0.00 28,744.77 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 28.744.77 CHECK NO 566749 VENDOR 13030 NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY 20008510 JAN 2002 COLL15 470 - 173441. 644100 -00000 0.00 2,024.00 0.00 2,024.00 JAN 2002 201214 20008499 JAN 2002 COLL11 001 - 144510 - 644100.00000 0.00 572.40 0.00 572.40 JAN 2002 200560 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,596.40 CHECK NO 566750 VENDOR 13080 - NAPLES ARMATURE WORKS 20008640 62866 408 - 253221 - 652990.00000 0.00 17.82 0.00 17.82 202214 PARTS 20008639 62805 408 - 253211 - 655200 -00000 0.00 23.75 0.00 23.75 201804 PARTS JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 84 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 6 J FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 41.57 CHECK NO 566955 VENDOR 259460 NAPLES COURT REPORTING, INC. 20008636 T -2496 681 - 410310 - 633011.00000 0.00 31.50 0.00 31.50 R KOON 82 -134 20008636 T -2487 681 - 410310 - 633022 -00000 0.00 814.20 0.00 814.20 M GONZALEZ 99.2606 20008734 6001 -1 681 - 410310 - 633021 -00000 0.00 171.00 0.00 171.00 J PICKETT 00.1595 20008636 T -2476 681 - 410310 - 633022 -00000 0.00 110.00 0.00 110.00 E OLVERA 00 -1073 20008636 T -2495 681. 410310- 633022 -00000 0.00 1,715.80 0.00 1,715.80 J APARACIO 99 -2447 20008636 T -2462 681 - 410310 - 633021 -00000 0.00 248.40 0.00 248.40 T BURDETTE 00.9992 20008636 T -2489 681 - 410310. 633022 -00000 0.00 354.20 0.00 354.20 J MANCHA 00 -1702 20008636 7922 681 - 410310 - 633032 -00000 0.00 759.00 0.00 759.00 R KIPP 00 -1216 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,204.10 CHECK NO 566802 VENDOR 115170 NAPLES CUSTOM HITCH & TRAILER SALES 20008641 46777 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 73.71 0.00 73.71 200917 PARTS 20008641 46674 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 89.05 0.00 89.05 200917 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 162.76 CHECK NO 566751 VENDOR 13310 NAPLES DAILY NEWS 20009167 1951474/1192335 001 - 156110. 648160.00000 0.00 638.40 0.00 638.40 152635 AD CHECK TOTAL 0.00 638.40 CHECK NO 566752 VENDOR 13370 NAPLES FEED & SEED, INC. 20008642 17817 001 - 155410 - 652210.00000 0.00 430.82 0.00 430.82 202452 SUPPLIES JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J1 PAGE 85 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008642 17881 001 - 155410 - 652210 -00000 0.00 363.04 0.00 363.04 202452 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 793.86 CHECK NO 566753 VENDOR 13580 - NAPLES LUMBER AND SUPPLY 20008774 787701 191 - 138785 - 884200 -33751 0.00 833.62 0.00 833.62 203154 LOPEZ 30682520004 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 833.62 CHECK NO 566754 VENDOR 13700 - NAPLES RADIOLOGISTS 20009048 J POWERS 12/23. 1/30/01 001 - 155930. 631990 -00000 0.00 583.05 0.00 583.05 203360 J POWERSD 12/23- 1/30/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 583.05 CHECK NO 567150 VENDOR 900040 - NAPLES TOWNE CENTER 301010 05701248701 NAP TOWNE CTR 408- 000000 - 115001.00000 0.00 721.90 0.00 721.90 NAP TOWNE CTR 3861 TAM TR E PIZZA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 721.90 CHECK NO 566852 VENDOR 164860 NAPLES TRUCK ACCESSORIES 20008643 114318 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 275.00 0.00 275.00 200919 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 275.00 CHECK NO 567100 VENDOR 339580 NEW YORK SCU 20008929 PP #7 001 - 000000 - 218810.00000 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 100.00 CHECK NO 566995 VENDOR 286930 NEXTEL 20009036 0001889247 -1 11/15 -12/14 408 - 233351. 641700.00000 0.00 1,172.14 408 - 210120 - 641700 -00000 0.00 49.95 0.00 1,222.09 201108 0001889247 -1 11/15 -12/14 20008644 0002176489 -9 11/7 -12/6 118 - 144210- 634999 -33781 0.00 283.46 0.00 283.46 201369 0002176489 -9 11/7 -12/6 20009010 0001901718 -5 11/15 -12/15 408 - 233312 - 641700.00000 0.00 226.29 0.00 226.29 202303 0001901718 -5 11/15 -12/14 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20009027 0001849438 -5 11/15 -12/14 202066 0001849438 -5 11/15.12/14 20009028 0001816807 -0 11/15 -12/14 202070 0001816807 -0 11/15 -12/14 20009009 0002151450 -00 11/15.12/14 202302 0002151450 -00 11/15 -12/14 20009143 0002046532 -4 11/15 -12/14 202064 0002046532.4 11/15.12/14 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 495. 192330 - 641700 -00000 0.00 495 - 192310 - 641700 -00000 0.00 408 - 233313 - 641700 -00000 0.00 495. 192370- 641700 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 567145 VENDOR 349390 - NICKEL -A- AMERICAN BAIL BONDS 20009005 BOND ESTREATURE- F ROSE 001- 431510 - 351100 -00000 0.00 F ROSE BOND ESTREATURE 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC 54.88 0.00 151.11 0.00 154.00 0.00 81.51 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 15,750.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 PAGE 86 VCHR NET 54.88 151.11 154.00 81.51 2.173.34 15,750.00 15,750.00 CHECK NO 566782 VENDOR 103620 - NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT 20008503 JAN 2002 STATION 8 490 - 144610 - 644100 -00000 0.00 300.00 0.00 300.00 JAN 2002 200101 20008494 JAN 2002 MEDIC 16 490. 144610 - 644100 -00000 0.00 400.00 0.00 400.00 JAN 2002 MEDIC 16 200104 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 700.00 CHECK NO 566990 VENDOR 285590 - OFFICE MAX 20009166 841675 12121 408 - 233351 - 651950.00000 0.00 622.94 0.00 622.94 152455 PRINTER /COPIER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 622.94 CHECK NO 566826 VENDOR 139350 OFFICE PAVILION 20008318 22375 301- 120435- 763100 -80525 0.00 7,718.24 0.00 7,718.24 201839 FURNITURE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 7,718.24 CHECK NO 567093 VENDOR 338800 OHIO CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTRAL 20008927 PP #7 001 - 000000. 218810 -00000 0.00 117.69 0.00 117.69 PP #7 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 87 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 J .i. VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 117.69 CHECK NO 567106 VENDOR 343230 ONDEO DEGREMONT, INC. 20008638 6303 408 - 253211 - 655100 -00000 0.00 784.68 0.00 784.68 201813 REPAIR KIT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 784.68 CHECK NO 567098 VENDOR 339380 ONESOURCE 20009054 885282 113 - 138900 - 634999.00000 0.00 2,721.54 0.00 2,721.54 203591 11 /01 DEV SVS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,721.54 CHECK NO 567058 VENDOR 321600 ONONDAGA COUNTY SCU 20008923 PP #7 001. 000000- 218810.00000 0.00 14.00 0.00 14.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 14.00 CHECK NO 567168 VENDOR 900050 PAMELA HOUSTON WATERMAN 301032 REFUND PARKS WATERMAN 111- 156313 - 347275 -00000 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 WATERMAN REFUND PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 40.00 CHECK NO 566901 VENDOR 207360 PAT'S PUMP & BLOWER 20008317 301844 408 - 233351.764110 -00000 0.00 191,800.00 0.00 191,800.00 105544 SEWER CLEANER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 191,800.00 CHECK NO 567037 VENDOR 311610 PAUL G. GARY 20008645 576270 307 - 156110 - 652650 -00000 0.00 620.90 0.00 620.90 200810 NEWSPAPER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 620.90 CHECK NO 566755 VENDOR 14640 PC CONNECTION 20009165 28908532/152416 001 - 156180 - 651910 -00000 0.00 144.02 0.00 144.02 152416 HP SCANJET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 144.02 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 16J 1 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 566939 VENDOR 247350 - PEDERSEN PRINTING 20008735 1500 VENDOR 276020 001 - 000000. 142900 -00000 20008661 200053 PRINTING 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 20008735 1492 FUEL 001 - 000000 - 142900 -00000 20008661 200053 PRINTING 521 - 122450 - 652410.00000 20008735 1482 FUEL 001. 000000 - 142900 -00000 20008661 200053 PRINTING 521 - 122450. 652410 -00000 20008735 1493 FUEL 001 - 000000- 142900 -00000 20008661 200053 PRINTING 521 - 122450 - 652410.00000 20008735 1488 FUEL 001 - 000000- 142900 -00000 20008661 200053 PRINTING 521 - 122450 - 652410.00000 20008735 1498 FUEL 001. 000000 - 142900 -00000 20008661 200053 PRINTING 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 20008735 1499 FUEL 001 - 000000. 142900 -00000 20008661 200053 PRINTING 521 - 122450 - 652410.00000 CHECK NO 566973 VENDOR 276020 PETROLEUM TRADERS CORP. 20008661 294583 0.00 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 200956 FUEL 224.00 20008661 295282 0.00 521 - 122450 - 652410.00000 0.00 200956 FUEL 32.00 20008661 295109 0.00 521 - 122450. 652410 -00000 0.00 200956 FUEL 35.00 20008661 295283 0.00 521 - 122450 - 652410.00000 0.00 200956 FUEL 840.84 20008661 293491 0.00 521 - 122450 - 652410.00000 0.00 200956 FUEL 669.91 20008661 294584 0.00 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 200956 FUEL 4,396.35 20008661 293492 0.00 521 - 122450 - 652410.00000 0.00 200956 FUEL 3,003.84 20008661 295107 0.00 521 - 122450 - 652410.00000 200956 FUEL PAGE 88 I AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 0.00 96.00 0.00 96.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 224.00 0.00 224.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 35.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 515.00 0.00 840.84 0.00 840.84 0.00 751.25 0.00 751.25 0.00 669.91 0.00 669.91 0.00 312.63 0.00 312.63 0.00 4,396.35 0.00 4,396.35 0.00 72.44 0.00 72.44 0.00 3,003.84 0.00 3,003.84 0.00 2.718.75 0.00 2.718.75 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20008661 295106 200956 FUEL 20008661 292948 200956 FUEL 20008661 295108 200956 FUEL 20008661 292947 200956 FUEL COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 521 - 122450 - 652410 -00000 0.00 521. 122450- 652410 -00000 0.00 521 - 122450. 652410 -00000 0.00 521 - 122450. 652410 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 566911 VENDOR 217960 PHIL BURNHAM SUPPLY 1,878.12 20008737 397 0.00 408 - 233352 - 652990 -00000 0.00 0.00 202425 PARTS 20.00 0.00 20.00 CHECK NO 566957 VENDOR 260210 PIONEER- KAISER INC 20008738 83320 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 202829 PARTS CHECK NO 567005 VENDOR 292720 POMEROY COMPUTER RESOURCES 20009055 8121400948 001- 121154. 652910 -00000 0.00 203226 LASERJET CHECK NO 566949 VENDOR 255770 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION SOUTHEAST,LLC 20008743 PJ125863 490 - 144610. 652720 -00000 0.00 201407 OXYGEN 20009008 PJ143187 111 - 156332 - 646313.00000 0.00 201040 CARBON DIOXIDE 20008743 PJ129335 490 - 144610 - 652720 -00000 0.00 201407 OXYGEN 20009008 PJ143188 111- 156332 - 646313 -00000 0.00 201040 CARBON DIOXIDE 20008743 PJ125220 490. 144610 - 652720.00000 0.00 201407 OXYGEN 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC 4,438.84 0.00 2,200.87 0.00 1,878.12 0.00 5,146.11 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 120.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 582.58 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.424.00 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 PAGE 89 VCHR NET 4,438.84 2,200.87 1,878.12 5,146.11 26,429.95 120.00 120.00 582.58 582.58 1,424.00 1.424.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 10.29 0.00 10.29 257.86 0.00 257.86 18.83 0.00 18.83 20.00 0.00 20.00 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20008743 PJ138004 201407 OXYGEN 20009008 PJ119249 201040 CARBON DIOXIDE 20009037 PJ138627 202539 SUPPLIES 20009008 PJ138003 201040 CARBON DIOXIDE CHECK NO 566824 VENDOR 138230 - PRIDE OF FLORIDA, INC. 20008739 ZI080917 001 - 000000 - 142900 -00000 200052 PRINTING 20008740 VI066772 001 - 000000 - 142900 -00000 200055 PRINTING 20008739 ZI080694 001 - 000000. 142900 -00000 200052 PRINTING 20008739 ZI080826 001 - 000000. 142900 -00000 200052 PRINTING CHECK NO 566871 VENDOR 174760 - PROCRAFT BATTERIES 20008741 002308 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 200698 BATTERIES 20009250 152592 001 - 144510 - 652910.00000 152137 BATTERIES CHECK NO 567065 VENDOR 325880 - PROSOURCE ONE 20008749 07081500 109. 182901- 652310.00000 200226 FERTILIZER CHECK NO 566913 VENDOR 220780 - PUBLIC RESOURCES MGMT GROUP INC 20009056 1704 408 - 210151 - 634999 -00000 0.00 63.00 0.00 63.00 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J 1 PAGE 90 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 62.00 0.00 62.00 0.00 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 135.00 CHECK TOTAL FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 0.00 49.48 0.00 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 490 - 144610- 652720.00000 0.00 44.00 0.00 44.00 111 - 156332 - 646313 -00000 0.00 18.83 0.00 18.83 408 - 233352 - 652990 -00000 0.00 89.15 0.00 89.15 111 - 156332 - 646313.00000 0.00 10.29 0.00 10.29 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 529.25 CHECK NO 566824 VENDOR 138230 - PRIDE OF FLORIDA, INC. 20008739 ZI080917 001 - 000000 - 142900 -00000 200052 PRINTING 20008740 VI066772 001 - 000000 - 142900 -00000 200055 PRINTING 20008739 ZI080694 001 - 000000. 142900 -00000 200052 PRINTING 20008739 ZI080826 001 - 000000. 142900 -00000 200052 PRINTING CHECK NO 566871 VENDOR 174760 - PROCRAFT BATTERIES 20008741 002308 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 200698 BATTERIES 20009250 152592 001 - 144510 - 652910.00000 152137 BATTERIES CHECK NO 567065 VENDOR 325880 - PROSOURCE ONE 20008749 07081500 109. 182901- 652310.00000 200226 FERTILIZER CHECK NO 566913 VENDOR 220780 - PUBLIC RESOURCES MGMT GROUP INC 20009056 1704 408 - 210151 - 634999 -00000 0.00 63.00 0.00 63.00 0.00 160.00 0.00 160.00 0.00 62.00 0.00 62.00 0.00 135.00 0.00 135.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 420.00 0.00 49.48 0.00 49.48 0.00 230.30 0.00 230.30 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 279.78 0.00 871.45 0.00 871.45 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 871.45 0.00 0.00 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER J FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 -+- VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 411 - 273511. 763100.70070 0.00 2,811.08 413 - 263611. 631400 -73066 0.00 2,811.10 0.00 105013 11 /01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567068 VENDOR 326710 QUALITY MAINTENANCE 20009007 1054 408- 253221 - 634999.00000 0.00 900.00 0.00 152658 MAINTENANCE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566898 VENDOR 202830 QUICK KEY LOCKSMITH SERVICES 20008733 11768 111 - 156334- 639965 -00000 0.00 104.00 0.00 201091 SVS 20008732 11701 111 - 156332 - 639965 -00000 0.00 48.50 0.00 200978 SVS 20008732 11757 111 - 156332 - 639965.00000 0.00 47.85 0.00 200978 SVS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567069 VENDOR 327230 R.Y.R.R. INC.. 20008498 JAN 2002 313 - 163611 - 644100 -00000 0.00 2,652.67 0.00 JAN 2002 200093 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566855 VENDOR 165940 RADIODETECTION CORPORATION 20008843 B111/153462 101 - 163630 - 764180 -00000 0.00 4,213.16 0.00 202629 RECIEVER /TRANSMITTER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567035 VENDOR 310080 - RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE ASSN 20008542 A MCBEE 11/28/01 001 - 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 39.00 0.00 152569 A MCBEE 11/28/01 20008542 M CUMMINGS 11120101 001 - 155930. 631990.00000 0.00 63.28 0.00 152569 M CUMMINGS 11120101 20008542 A DURAN 12/5/01 001 - 155930- 631990 -00000 0.00 63.28 0.00 152569 A DURAN 12/5/01 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16JI PAGE 92 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 1 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 165.56 CHECK NO 567043 VENDOR 314170 - RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA 20008530 2457691 490 - 144618. 634999 -00000 0.00 244.34 0.00 244.34 200308 TEMP HELP 20008530 2450866 490 - 144618- 634999 -00000 0.00 257.20 0.00 257.20 200308 TEMP HELP 20008530 2454288 490 - 144618 - 634999.00000 0.00 247.55 0.00 247.55 200308 TEMP HELP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 749.09 CHECK NO 567087 VENDOR 334420 - RAY'S LAWN & GARDEN 20008839 10567 001 - 157110. 649990 -00000 0.00 637.50 001. 157110- 652310 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 687.50 201515 CLEAN UP CHECK TOTAL 0.00 687.50 CHECK NO 566878 VENDOR 184070 - REAL PROPERTY ANALYSTS INC. 20005232 11/30/01 RPA JOB 99 -204 313 - 163673 - 631600 -60111 0.00 725.00 0.00 725.00 5058 APPRAISAL SVCS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 725.00 CHECK NO 566972 VENDOR 275110 - REDDY ICE CORPORATION 20008862 00111842 408 - 233312. 652990.00000 0.00 36.00 0.00 36.00 202204 ICE 20008528 00110637 408 - 253212 - 652990 -00000 0.00 68.40 0.00 68.40 200245 ICE 20008856 0111726 408- 233351 - 652990 -00000 0.00 57.60 0.00 57.60 202249 ICE 20008528 00110392 408 - 253212 - 652990 -00000 0.00 75.60 0.00 75.60 200245 ICE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 237.60 CHECK NO 566904 VENDOR 210680 - REGINALD HOWARD 20008540 11 /10 /01 TALENT SHOW DJ 111 - 156349 - 634999 -00000 0.00 225.00 0.00 225.00 150196 11 /10 /01 TALENT SHOW DJ JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J PAGE 93 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 1 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 225.00 CHECK NO 566943 VENDOR 254040 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATION 20008531 10789060 -001 408- 253221.634999 -00000 0.00 755.25 0.00 755.25 201060 CRANE SVCS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 755.25 CHECK NO 567073 VENDOR 328990 REXFORD G. DARROW, II 20008910 D.BURGESS 99- 274CFA 681. 421190 - 631020 -00000 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 202296 D.BURGESS 99- 274CFA 20008910 J.JACKSON 01- 511CFA 681- 421190 - 631020.00000 0.00 900.00 0.00 900.00 202296 J.JACKSON 01- 511CFA 20008910 A.MENDOZA 01- 0388CFA 681 - 421190 - 631020 -00000 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 202296 A.MENDOZA 01.0388CFA 20008910 P.ROBINSON 00- 541CFA 681 - 421190. 631020 -00000 0.00 250.00 0.00 250.00 202296 P.ROBINSON 00- 541CFA 20008910 R.DEVARSITE 01- 469CFA 681- 421190 - 631020 -00000 0.00 725.00 0.00 725.00 202296 R.DEVARSITE 01- 469CFA 20008938 R PERRY 99- 1233CFA 681 - 421190 - 634401 -00000 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 R PERRY 99- 1233CFA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,275.00 CHECK NO 566756 VENDOR 15980 RICHARD B. & MARY ANN LANSDALE 20008497 JAN 2002 001 - 061010- 644100 -00000 0.00 2,916.67 0.00 2,916.67 JAN 2002 201886 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,916.67 CHECK NO 566757 VENDOR 16050 RICHARD'S PORTABLE WELDING 20008548 11/30/01 408 - 233312. 634999 -00000 0.00 1,700.00 0.00 1,700.00 202523 CUTTING& WELDING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,700.00 CHECK NO 566986 VENDOR 281860 . ROBBINS TELECOMMUNICATIONS 20008527 C4497 -1101 408 - 233352 - 641150.00000 0.00 42.45 0.00 42.45 202244 MESS -SVCS JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 16J1 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566814 VENDOR 131220 ROBERT B. TOBER, INC. 20008511 JAN 2002 EMS 490 - 144610. 631210 -00000 0.00 4.375.00 0.00 JAN 2002 200102 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566789 VENDOR 108430 ROBERT FLINN MOVING AND STORAGE 20008852 0111.00058 001 - 443010. 634999 -00000 0.00 162.10 0.00 200992 SVS 20008852 0110.00056 001 - 443010. 634999 -00000 0.00 197.10 0.00 200992 SVS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567070 VENDOR 327550 ROBERT R JACOBS II 20008844 R KIPP 00- 001216CF 681 - 421190. 634401 -00000 0.00 329.61 0.00 R KIPP 00- 001216CF CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566966 VENDOR 266940 ROCHESTER MIDLAND CREATIVE CHEM 20008851 010150185 111 - 156310 - 634999 -00000 0.00 145.75 111. 156313- 634999 -00000 0.00 214.50 0.00 203261 SANITIZING 20008850 010170311 001 - 122220 - 652990.00000 0.00 472.29 0.00 200075 SANITIZING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567128 VENDOR 348150 ROETZEL & ANDRESS TRUST ACCOUNT 20008909 PARCEL 163 R.BAISLEY 313 - 163673 - 761100.60071 0.00 1,778.75 0.00 203618 PARCEL 163 R.BAISLEY CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566889 VENDOR 196120 - ROGER CARVALLO 20008970 JAN 2002 SUITE 102 001 - 041010 - 644100 -00000 0.00 1,349.23 0.00 JAN 2002 2000448 20008970 JAN 2002 SUITE 104 001 - 041010 - 644100 -00000 0.00 1.456.00 0.00 JAN 2002 2000448 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 16J 1 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20008970 JAN 2002 2ND FLOOR 001 - 041010 - 644100 -00000 0.00 5,676.39 0.00 JAN 2002 2000448 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566977 VENDOR 277750 • RONNEY D. COX 20008861 TRAVEL 10/3- 12/20/01 129. 156110 - 640200.33015 0.00 218.66 0.00 COX TRAVEL 10/3- 12/20/01 20008861 TRAVEL 9/13 - 9/28/01 129 - 156110.640200 -33014 0.00 67.86 0.00 COX TRAVEL 9/13 - 9/28/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566988 VENDOR 283430 ROSEMOUNT, INC. 20008547 1790115 408 - 253211. 655100 -00000 0.00 2,722.92 0.00 201817 EQUIPMENT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567112 VENDOR 344370 RUSH MESSENGER SERVICE WEST, INC 20008863 17926 109 - 182601 - 641950 -00000 0.00 21.00 109 - 182900 - 641950 -00000 0.00 20.00 778 - 182700 - 641950 -00000 0.00 18.00 0.00 200523 COURIER SVS 12/1 -15/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566842 VENDOR 159590 SAM "S CLUB #6364 NAPLES 20008849 55366342988 000707 001 - 156110. 652210 -00000 0.00 60.59 0.00 152419 FOOD CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566872 VENDOR 174790 SATCO 20008546 232177 408 - 253221 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1,092.68 0.00 200428 ACID 20008546 232164 408 - 253221 - 652310.00000 0.00 1,069.96 0.00 200428 ACID 20008546 232206 408 - 253221 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1,068.68 0.00 200428 ACID 20008546 232146 408- 253221 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1,069.11 0.00 200428 ACID JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1 6 J I REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS` SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02. 2002 " VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567059 VENDOR 322350 - SCUBA NEW YORK CHECK TOTAL 20008535 12/2/01 144 - 144360 - 652910 -00000 0.00 791.80 152458 SURFACE COMM UNIT 0.00 791.80- CHECK NO 567016 VENDOR 298330 - SEARS COMMERCIAL ONE CHECK TOTAL 20008860 0400439 408 - 253212. 652910.00000 0.00 3.37 200249 CR /SCALE /SHOVEL 0.00 26.68 20008860 0407739 408 - 253212 - 652910 -00000 0.00 0.00 200249 CR /SCALE /SHOVEL 24.99 0.00 20008860 0422656 408 - 253212 - 652910 -00000 0.00 149.50 200249 CR /SCALE /SHOVEL 149.50 100.75 CHECK NO 567002 VENDOR 290970 - SHARON DOWNEY 0.00 20009234 PETTY CASH 116 - 121830 - 649992 -33297 0.00 PETTY CASH 20009234 PETTY CASH 116 - 121830- 654210 -33297 0.00 PETTY CASH 20009234 PETTY CASH 116 - 121830. 654360 -33297 0.00 PETTY CASH 20009234 PETTY CASH 116 - 121830 - 649992 -33297 0.00 PETTY CASH 20009234 PETTY CASH 116 - 121830. 651110 -33297 0.00 PETTY CASH CHECK NO 566989 VENDOR 284700 - SHARON L. JOHNSTON, D.O. 20008541 J KEARNS 2/1.2/14/01 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 152570 J KEARNS 2/1,2/14/01 20008541 L BOYD 11/15/01 001 - 155930 - 631210.00000 0.00 152570 L BOYD 11/15/01 20008541 R ORTIZ 2/5/01 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 152570 R ORTIZ 2/5/01 PAGE 96 VCHR NET 4.300.43 399.00 0.00 399.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 399.00 791.80 0.00 791.80 791.80- 0.00 791.80- 416.64 0.00 416.64 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 416.64 3.37 0.00 3.37 26.68 0.00 26.68 12.00 0.00 12.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 24.99 0.00 24.99 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 92.04 149.50 0.00 149.50 100.75 0.00 100.75 364.00 0.00 364.00 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 1 6 J 1 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20008541 L BOYD 7/13/01 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 195.00 0.00 152570 L BOYD 7/13/01 20008541 R ORTIZ 2/5/01 001 - 155930 - 631210 -00000 0.00 78.00 0.00 152570 R ORTIZ 2/5/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566969 VENDOR 271730 SHELL OIL COMPANY 20008533 079020467112 12/2/01 521. 122450.652410.00000 0.00 288.26 0.00 200699 FUEL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566758 VENDOR 16910 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 20008529 1384 -3 001.122240.652999 -00000 0.00 56.12 0.00 201267 PAINTING SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566958 VENDOR 260690 - SIGNCRAFT 20008538 18013 001.122240.649990 -00000 0.00 310.00 0.00 151542 WALL LETTERING 20008841 16799 001 - 122240 - 646110 -00000 0.00 860.00 0.00 201538 SIGN CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566784 VENDOR 105270 SIGNS OF NAPLES 20008549 5105 408 - 253212 - 634999.00000 0.00 225.00 0.00 200279 CRANE OPERATOR 20008549 5437 408 - 253212 - 634999 -00000 0.00 225.00 0.00 200279 CRANE OPERATOR 20008549 5159 408 - 253212 - 634999 -00000 0.00 300.00 0.00 200279 CRANE OPERATOR 20008549 5458 408 - 253212.634999 -00000 0.00 225.00 0.00 200279 CRANE OPERATOR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567169 VENDOR 900050 SIX L'S PACKING COMPANY JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA 16J REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS J 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 301013 REFUND PARKS SIX L'S 670. 000000. 220010 -00000 0.00 50.00 0.00 SIX L'S PACKING CO. REFUND PARKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567041 VENDOR 313450 - SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 20008536 2FC52 313. 162111- 652920 -00000 0.00 90.64 0.00 151856 WINZIP 20008840 31036 113 - 138915 - 652920 -00000 0.00 982.44 0.00 203116 SOFTWARE LICENSING 20008842 292CC 001 - 121148 - 652920.00000 0.00 1,236.00 0.00 201962 SOFTWARE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567122 VENDOR 346900 SOLAR 20008944 JAN 2002 CAM INCREASE 001- 121730. 644170 -00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 JAN 2002 CAM INCREASE 203074 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566759 VENDOR 17260 SOLINET 20008846 289468 129 - 156110 - 634210.33775 0.00 2.543.37 0.00 201705 USERS FEE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566695 VENDOR 137280 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT 20009024 BAL. PERMIT FEE/ IMM. RD. 313 - 163673 - 649010 -60018 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 AND CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567027 VENDOR 305680 SOUTHWEST FL PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHT 20008933 PP #7 001 - 000000. 218700 -00000 0.00 2,017.96 0.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566947 VENDOR 255040 SPRINT 20009012 793 7465 12/13. 1/12/02 111 - 156341 - 641900 -00000 0.00 67.69 0.00 793 7465 12/13- 1/12/02 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 99 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 6JI FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20009012 658 1264 12/13- 1/12/02 188 - 140480- 641400 -00000 0.00 56.84 0.00 56.84 658 1264 12/13- 1/12/02 20009012 352 1991 12/13- 1/12/02 111 - 156395 - 641900 -00000 0.00 39.88 111 - 156332 - 641900 -00000 0.00 60.00 0.00 99.88 352 1991 12/13- 1/12/02 20009249 092 4262 715 12/16 001 - 156110 - 641400.00000 0.00 3,068.00 0.00 3,068.00 092 4262 715 12/16 20009012 695 4130 12/4- 1/3/02 188 - 140480 - 641400.00000 0.00 57.30 0.00 57.30 695 4130 12/4- 1/3/02 20009012 793 4414 12/13- 1/12/02 111. 156381. 641900.00000 0.00 196.09 0.00 196.09 793 4414 12/13- 1/12/02 20009012 774 3602 12/19- 1/18/02 001 - 010110 - 641210 -00000 0.00 32.51 0.00 32.51 774 3602 12/19- 1/18/02 20009012 352 7000 12/13- 1/12/02 408 - 253221 - 641100 -00000 0.00 586.68 0.00 586.68 352 7000 12/13- 1/12/02 20009012 643 3099 12/16- 1/15/01 470 - 173441 - 641900 -00000 0.00 162.36 0.00 162.36 643 3099 12/16- 1/15/01 20009012 591 4956 12/19- 1/18/01 129- 156110 - 634999 -33014 0.00 27.92 0.00 27.92 591 4956 12/19 - 1/18/01 20009012 774 9222 12/19- 1/18/01 470- 173410. 641210 -00000 0.00 35.34 0.00 35.34 74 9222 12/19- 1/18/01 20009012 092 4177 10/16- 11/15/01 001 - 121143 - 641400 -00000 0.00 475.00 0.00 475.00 092 4177 10/16- 11/15/01 20009012 092 4177 12/16- 1/15/02 001 - 121143 - 641400.00000 0.00 475.00 0.00 475.00 092 4177 12/16- 1/15/02 20009012 262 4310 12/13- 1/12/02 001 - 156110. 641900 -00000 0.00 422.69 0.00 422.69 262 4310 12/13- 1/12/02 20009012 774 4010 12/19- 1/18/01 001 - 100110 - 641210.00000 0.00 28.18 0.00 28.18 774 4010 12/19- 1/18/01 20009012 774 5148 12/19- 1/18/01 001 - 156180 - 641210 -00000 0.00 87.62 0.00 87.62 774 5148 12/19- 1/18/01 20009012 261 2382 9/25- 10/24/01 001. 121143- 641400 -00000 0.00 725.13 0.00 725.13 261 2382 9/25- 10/24/01 20009012 455 4211 12/10- 1/9/02 490 - 144610- 641900 -00000 0.00 24.92 0.00 24.92 455 4211 12/10- 1/9/02 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20009012 352 1995 12/13- 1/12/02 352 1995 12/13. 1/12/02 20009012 092 2026 12/16. 1/15/02 092 2026 12/16. 1/15/02 20009011 643 1883 12/16- 1/15/01 643 1883 12/16- 1/15/01 200501 20009012 793 7520 12/13- 1/12/02 793 7520 12/13- 1/12/02 20009012 262 8526 12/13- 1/12/02 262 8526 12/13- 1/12/02 20009012 591 1611 12/19- 1/18/02 591 1611 12/19- 1/18/02 20009012 774 0955 12/19. 1/18/02 774 0955 12/19. 1/18/02 20009012 793 0883 12/13- 1/12/02 793 0883 12/13- 1/12/02 20009012 643 9757 12/16- 1/15/02 643 -9757 12/16- 1/15/02 20009012 101 2104 12/1 -31/01 101 2104 12. 1/31/01 20009012 793 5655 12/13. 1/12/02 793 5655 12/13- 1/12/02 20009012 352 6643 12/13- 1/12/02 352 6643 12/13- 1/12/02 20009012 591 4986 12/19. 1/18/02 591 4986 12/19 - 1/18/02 20009012 513 1235 12/4- 1/3/02 513 1235 12/4- 1/3/02 20009012 774 5876 12/19. 1/18/02 774 5876 12/19- 1/18/02 20009012 658 1169 12/13- 1/12/02 658 1169 12/13- 1/12/02 20009012 643 2265 12/16- 1/15/01 643 2265 12/16 - 1/15/01 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 194.80 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 111. 156332 - 641900.00000 0.00 001 - 121143 - 641400.00000 0.00 101 - 163610 - 641900.00000 0.00 111 - 156341. 641900 -00000 0.00 001. 156110- 641900 -00000 0.00 408. 233351- 641100 -00000 0.00 001 - 010110 - 641210.00000 0.00 521 - 122410. 641400 -00000 0.00 001 - 121143 - 641400 -00000 0.00 188- 140480 - 641400 -00000 0.00 521. 122410 - 641400.00000 0.00 188 - 140480. 641400 -00000 0.00 001 - 156363 - 641900.00000 0.00 188 - 140480 - 641400 -00000 0.00 001 - 144210- 641900.00000 0.00 188 - 140480- 641400 -00000 0.00 129 - 156110. 634999 -33014 0.00 16J 1 AMT NET VCHR DISC 62.28 0.00 194.80 0.00 28.93 0.00 47.92 0.00 84.85 0.00 754.32 0.00 18.80 0.00 25.57 0.00 146.94 0.00 184.10 0.00 195.14 0.00 24.96 0.00 169.08 0.00 25.08 0.00 57.17 0.00 24.96 0.00 27.92 0.00 PAGE 100 VCHR NET 62.28 194.80 28.93 47.92 84.85 754.32 18.80 25.57 146.94 184.10 195.14 24.96 169.08 25.08 57.17 24.96 27.92 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20009012 093 2466 12/16. 1/15/02 093 2466 12/16. 1/15/02 20009012 793 0618 12/13- 1/12/02 793 0618 12/13- 1/12/02 20009012 591 4851 12/19- 1/18/01 591 4851 12/19- 1/18/01 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO ANT DISC 001 - 121143 - 641400 -00000 0.00 001 - 443010 - 641900 -00000 0.00 129 - 156110 - 634999 -33014 0.00 CHECK NO 566948 VENDOR 255510 - SPRINT - FLORIDA, INC. 20008509 CUST 39100564 188 - 140480. 644600 -00000 0.00 JAN 2002 201348 CHECK NO 567022 VENDOR 301540 - STATE OF FLORIDA DISBURSMENT UNIT 20008922 PP #7 001 - 000000 - 218810 -00000 0.00 PP #7 CHECK NO 566880 VENDOR 185740 - STEVE PEFFERS 20008543 11/1.12/20 TRVL S PEFFERS 111 - 156341 - 640200 -00000 0.00 11/1 -12/20 TRVL S PEFFERS CHECK NO 566975 VENDOR 276380 - STEVE STYLES 20008845 12/3 -17 JAllERCISE 111. 156390- 634999.00000 0.00 201034 12/3.17/01 JAllERCISE CHECK NO 566982 VENDOR 281040 - SUBWAY OF NAPLES 20008848 10 /11 /01 001- 121810 - 652210.00000 0.00 200829 TRAINING REFRESHMENTS 20008848 10/23/01 001 - 121810 - 652210.00000 0.00 200829 TRAINING REFRESHMENTS 20008848 11/8/01 001 - 121810 - 652210 -00000 0.00 200829 TRAINING REFRESHMENTS PAGE 101 16J1 , AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 235.00 0.00 235.00 57.17 0.00 57.17 27.92 0.00 27.92 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 9,022.06 607.14 0.00 607.14 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 607.14 4,344.30 0.00 4,344.30 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,344.30 61.19 0.00 61.19 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 61.19 72.80 0.00 72.80 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 72.80 16.05 0.00 16.05 14.10 0.00 14.10 16.05 0.00 16.05 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20008848 10/16/01 200829 TRAINING REFRESHMENTS 20008848 12/13/01 200829 TRAINING REFRESHMENTS 20008848 11/15/01 200829 TRAINING REFRESHMENTS 20008848 9/20/01 200829 TRAINING REFRESHMENTS 20008848 12/6/01 200829 TRAINING REFRESHMENTS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001 - 121810 - 652210.00000 0.00 001 - 121810 - 652210.00000 0.00 001. 121810. 652210.00000 0.00 001. 121810 - 652210 -00000 0.00 001 - 121810. 652210.00000 0.00 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC 16.05 0.00 14.10 0.00 14.10 0.00 16.05 0.00 14.10 0.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 PAGE 102 VCHR NET 16.05 14.10 14.10 16.05 14.10 120.60 CHECK NO 566822 VENDOR 136600 - SUN BELT MEDICAL /EMERGI- SOURCE 20008537 093234 490 - 144610- 652710 -00000 0.00 46.00 0.00 46.00 152058 ATROPINE SULFATE 20008544 093380 490 - 144610. 652710.00000 0.00 3,412.36 0.00 3,412.36 203158 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 20008544 093104 490 - 144610- 652710 -00000 0.00 3.56 0.00 3.56 203158 MEDICAL SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,461.92 CHECK NO 566779 VENDOR 101420 SUNCOAST SCHOOLS 20008911 PP #7 001. 000000. 218300 -00000 0.00 127,646.49 0.00 127,646.49 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 127,646.49 CHECK NO 566760 VENDOR 17660 SUNSHINE ACE HARDWARE 20008854 453687 408 - 233312 - 652910 -00000 0.00 16.22 0.00 16.22 200707 HARDWARE 20008854 453405 408 - 233312 - 652910.00000 0.00 231.17 0.00 231.17 200707 HARDWARE 20008864 107078/4825 778 - 182701 - 652990 -00000 0.00 52.26 0.00 52.26 200086 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 299.65 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 103 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 16J FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 566761 VENDOR 17670 - SUNSHINE ACE HARDWARE 20008855 453792 408- 233351 - 652990 -00000 0.00 266.78 0.00 266.78 200750 HARDWARE 20008855 453731 408 - 233351. 652990 -00000 0.00 89.91 0.00 89.91 200750 HARDWARE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 356.69 CHECK NO 566895 VENDOR 200380 SUNSHINE ACE HARDWARE 20008853 384907 408. 253211- 652990 -00000 0.00 23.72 0.00 23.72 200398 HARDWARE 20008853 384723 408 - 253211- 652990 -00000 0.00 3.02 0.00 3.02 200398 HARDWARE 20008853 384832 408 - 253211. 652990 -00000 0.00 6.46 0.00 6.46 200398 HARDWARE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 33.20 CHECK NO 566954 VENDOR 257140 SUNSHINE STATE ONE OF FL.INC 20008545 0112030180 408 - 210130. 634999 -00000 0.00 1,718.36 0.00 1,718.36 200738 LOCATE ULTILITES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,718.36 CHECK NO 566838 VENDOR 156260 - SURETY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 20008539 011210 -01 001 - 122240 - 649010 -00000 0.00 596.50 0.00 596.50 151543 PERMIT APP. REIMB CHECK TOTAL 0.00 596.50 CHECK NO 567139 VENDOR 348910 - SURETY TITLE & KENNETH SELLINGH 20008553 D/P K.SLLNGH 36456480002 191 - 138785 - 884100.33751 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 2,500.00 203565 K. SELLINGH 36456480002 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,500.00 CHECK NO 566862 VENDOR 167880 - SUSAN ROSSI 20008552 10/3 -12/20 TRVL S ROSSI 669 - 100220. 640200 -00000 0.00 24.36 0.00 24.36 10/3 -12/20 TRVL S ROSSI CHECK TOTAL 0.00 24.36 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 309.40 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 309.40 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 22.00 22.00 0.00 22.00 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER 22.00 0.00 DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 566874 VENDOR 179250 - SW FLORIDA NEURODIAGNOSTICS INC. 20008534 S SHEPARD 11/12/01 001 - 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 152571 S SHEPARD 11/12/01 CHECK NO 567120 VENDOR 345700 - SWIFT OIL CHANGE INC 20008847 277019 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 202173 SVS 20008847 175122 521. 122410 - 646415.00000 0.00 202173 SVS 20008847 174367 521 - 122410 - 646415 -00000 0.00 202173 SVS 20008847 175684 521. 122410. 646415 -00000 0.00 202173 SVS 16J l PAGE 104 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 309.40 0.00 309.40 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 309.40 22.00 0.00 22.00 22.00 0.00 22.00 22.00 0.00 22.00 22.00 0.00 22.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 88.00 CHECK NO 567123 VENDOR 347150 - SYNCLINE .COM , INC. 20008993 PS69 301 - 210140- 634999 -01014 0.00 10,000.00 202811 SOFTWARE CHECK TOTAL CHECK NO 566968 VENDOR 270650 - T.T. TECHNOLOGIES 20008574 62049 408 - 253212 - 646510.00000 0.00 150634 ROLL PIN KIT AND LABOR CHECK NO 567170 VENDOR 900050 - TAMI DIMODICA 301024 T DIMODICA REFUND PARKS 111 - 156380 - 347400 -00000 0.00 T DIMODICA REFUND PARKS 92.95 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 92.95 92.95 8.00 0.00 8.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8.00 CHECK NO 566765 VENDOR 18020 - TAMIAMI FORD INC 20008666 32643 408 - 210155 - 764110 -00000 0.00 22,669.36 0.00 22.669.36 201447 EXPLORER 20008670 32772 522 - 122464. 764110.00000 0.00 22.669.36 0.00 22,669.36 200670 EXPLORER JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 1 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC 20008567 89718 521. 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 98.15 0.00 200704 SUPPLIES 20008567 89847 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 62.08 0.00 200704 SUPPLIES 20008585 89668 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 10.63 0.00 200704 SUPPLIES 20008585 89906 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 2,691.24 0.00 200704 SUPPLIES 20008586 89449 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 102.62 0.00 200704 SUPPLIES 20008586 87952 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 50.25 0.00 200704 SUPPLIES 20008666 32631 408 - 210155 - 764110 -00000 0.00 22,669.36 0.00 201447 EXPLORER 20008670 32775 522 - 122464 - 764110 -00000 0.00 22,669.36 0.00 200670 EXPLORER 20008567 89480 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 275.20 0.00 200704 SUPPLIES 20008567 89732 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 51.57 0.00 200704 SUPPLIES 20008586 89452 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 33.60 0.00 200704 SUPPLIES 20008586 89611 521 - 122410- 646425.00000 0.00 40.90 0.00 200704 SUPPLIES 20008585 89981 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 1,916.11 0.00 200704 SUPPLIES 20008567 89542 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 66.22 0.00 200704 SUPPLIES 20008676 32770 101 - 163630- 764110 -00000 0.00 22,669.36 0.00 200304 EXPLORER 20008677 32776 408 - 210155 - 764110 -00000 0.00 16,047.10 0.00 200254 TAURUS 20008675 32774 109 - 182602 - 764110 -00000 0.00 6,892.84 109 - 182901 - 764110.00000 0.00 7,101.70 8 PAGE 105 VCHR NET 98.15 62.08 10.63 2,691.24 102.62 50.25 22,669.36 22,669.36 275.20 51.57 33.60 40.90 1,916.11 66.22 22,669.36 16,047.10 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 106 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 778. 182701. 764110 -00000 0.00 6,892.84 0.00 20,887.38 200327 EXPLORER 20008567 89722 521. 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 136.32 0.00 136.32 200704 SUPPLIES 20008671 32779 522 - 122464. 764110 -00000 0.00 21,379.20 0.00 21,379.20 200664 F 150 SERIES 20008586 CM89449 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 102.62- 0.00 102.62- 200704 SUPPLIES 20008674 32822 111 - 163647 - 764110 -00000 0.00 26,554.40 0.00 26.554.40 200367 F450 20008567 89858 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 15.95 0.00 15.95 200704 SUPPLIES 20008668 32768 522 - 122465 - 764110.00000 0.00 29,905.80 0.00 29,905.80 200684 EXPEDITION 20008586 89452 -1 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 4.78 0.00 4.78 200704 SUPPLIES 20008667 32773 188 - 140480- 764110 -00000 0.00 22,669.36 0.00 22,669.36 201341 EXPLORER 20008585 89907 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 68.00 0.00 68.00 200704 SUPPLIES 20008567 89719 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 61.82 0.00 61.82 200704 SUPPLIES 20008672 32823 522 - 122464 - 764110 -00000 0.00 24,356.88 0.00 24,356.88 200650 S DTY -F -350 20008664 32789 408. 210130- 764110 -00000 0.00 19,248.56 0.00 19,248.56 201500 RANGER 20008665 32790 001- 100130 - 764110.00000 0.00 17,804.36 0.00 17,804.36 201497 ESCAPE 20008673 32821 522 - 122464 - 764110.00000 0.00 34,229.57 0.00 34,229.57 200648 F450 20008567 89746 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 19.18 0.00 19.18 200704 SUPPLIES 20008668 32769 522 - 122465- 764110 -00000 0.00 29,905.80 0.00 29,905.80 200684 EXPEDITION JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20008567 89747 200704 SUPPLIES 20008567 89673 200704 SUPPLIES 20008940 32792 200369 EXPLORER 20008672 32778 200650 S DTY -F -350 20008663 32791 201911 EXPLORER 20008669 32820 200670 ECONOLINE 20008666 32777 201447 TAURUS 20008567 89765 200704 SUPPLIES 20008585 90034 200704 SUPPLIES 20008586 89127 200704 SUPPLIES 20008585 89995 200704 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 0.00 PAGE 107 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0.00 16J CHECK TOTAL 0.00 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 0.00 1 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 521 - 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 40.90 0.00 40.90 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 36.88 0.00 36.88 111 - 163647. 764110 -00000 0.00 20,248.78 0.00 20,248.78 522 - 122464- 764110.00000 0.00 24,356.88 0.00 24,356.88 470 - 173463 - 764110 -00000 0.00 22,904.68 0.00 22,904.68 522. 122464 - 764110.00000 0.00 24.435.20 0.00 24,435.20 408. 210155- 764110 -00000 0.00 16,047.10 0.00 16,047.10 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 6.13 0.00 6.13 521. 122410- 646425 -00000 0.00 28.80 0.00 28.80 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 2,320.00 0.00 2,320.00 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 11.76 0.00 11.76 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 492,374.32 CHECK NO 566970 VENDOR 272270 - TAMPA BAY ENGINEERING. INC. 20009001 081970 414. 263611- 631400.73045 103888 TO 11/29/01 20009001 081970 412 - 273511 - 631400 -70045 103888 TO 11/29/01 CHECK NO 566766 VENDOR 18040 - TAYLOR RENTAL 20008684 1- 213445 -03 001 - 122240. 644600 -00000 201532 RENTAL 0.00 210.91 0.00 210.91 0.00 210.90 0.00 210.90 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 421.81 0.00 908.11 0.00 908.11 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J 1 PAGE 108 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK TOTAL 0.00 908.11 CHECK NO 566963 VENDOR 263800 - TAYLOR WOODROW COMMUNITIES 20008946 REF 306432 TAYLOR WOODROW 113 - 000000 - 115420 -00000 0.00 40.00 0.00 40.00 1616 MANCHESTER CT TAYLOR WOODROW CHECK TOTAL 0.00 40.00 CHECK NO 567104 VENDOR 343040 - TBE GROUP, INC. 20009021 043987 313. 163673- 631400 -60109 0.00 34,390.88 0.00 34,390.88 201997 6/15/01 TO 11/30/01 20009020 043986 313. 163673 - 631400 -00000 0.00 68,255.37 0.00 68,255.37 202004 6/1/01 THRU 11/30/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 102,646.25 CHECK NO 567117 VENDOR 345390 - TED'S AUTO TRIM 20008578 9444 521 - 122410 - 646415.00000 0.00 185.00 0.00 185.00 152330 REAIR BENCH SEAT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 185.00 CHECK NO 566767 VENDOR 18070 TEN - 8 FIRE EQUIPMENT CO. 20008682 IN512466 490 - 144610- 652110 -00000 0.00 960.00 0.00 960.00 200157 GLOVES 20008683 IN512465 350 - 140470. 652110.00000 0.00 600.00 0.00 600.00 200132 GLOVES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1.560.00 CHECK NO 567097 VENDOR 339270 THE BANK OF NEW YORK 20008524 93955 410 - 939030 - 873100 -00000 0.00 478.44 0.00 478.44 01/01/02. 12/31/02 1999A CHECK TOTAL 0.00 478.44 CHECK NO 567017 VENDOR 298860 - THE EQUIPMENT BOOKIE 20008822 5782 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 29.50 0.00 29.50 200706 NOZZLE 12/5 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 29.50 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 109 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 16J 1 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 i VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 566915 VENDOR 223930 THE HILLER GROUP, INC. 20008980 1008982 IN 12/4 495 - 192370 - 642416 -00000 0.00 8,108.55 0.00 8,108.55 200145 12/4 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 8,108.55 CHECK NO 566993 VENDOR 286390 THE PRINT SHOP 20008744 53267 001 - 000000 - 142900 -00000 0.00 436.05 0.00 436.05 200051 PRINTING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 436.05 CHECK NO 567130 VENDOR 348460 THOMAS J LEITHAUSER 20009242 T. LEITHAUSER 11/09 111 - 156395 - 640200 -00000 0.00 7.83 0.00 7.83 T. LEITHAUSER 11/09 TRAVEL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 7.83 CHECK NO 566828 VENDOR 142340 - TINDALE, OLIVER & ASSOCIATES INC. 20009023 #14 313 - 163673 - 763100 -60172 0.00 1,558.06 0.00 1,558.06 2750 11/1/01 TO 11/30/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,558.06 CHECK NO 567135 VENDOR 348580 - TONI SANTOS, INC. 20008570 S SHEPARD 11/27,12/07,10 001 - 155930- 631990 -00000 0.00 181.35 0.00 181.35 152572 S SHEPARD 11/27,12/07,10 20008570 S SHEPARD 11/20,21,26 001 - 155930 - 631990 -00000 0.00 206.70 0.00 206.70 152572 S SHEPARD 11/20,21,26 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 388.05 CHECK NO 566865 VENDOR 169660 - TRAFFIC PARTS, INC. 20008680 154115 101 - 163630 - 764180 -00000 0.00 0.00 101 - 163630 - 652910 -00000 0.00 675.00 0.00 675.00 202816 SUPPLIES 20008686 154111 313 - 163673. 763200 -60172 0.00 2.165.00 0.00 2,165.00 200038 SIGNAL COPONATES 20008580 154116 101 - 163630 - 652910 -00000 0.00 450.00 0.00 450.00 151917 SIGNAL CLOSURES JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 110 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008679 154113 101 - 163630 - 764180 -00000 0.00 968.00 0.00 968.00 202892 ADA PUSH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,258.00 CHECK NO 567001 VENDOR 290610 - TRANE 20008678 304619 001. 122240- 634999.00000 0.00 4,672.00 0.00 4,672.00 202233 PARTS AND LABOR CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,672.00 CHECK NO 567119 VENDOR 345680 TRANS COM USA 20008964 3213390015 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 82.46 0.00 82.46 202172 PARTS 20008964 3213410026 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 82.46 0.00 82.46 202172 PARTS 20008963 3213460011 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 9.42 0.00 9.42 202172 PARTS 20008963 3213450001 521. 122410. 646425 -00000 0.00 116.79 0.00 116.79 202172 PARTS 20008964 3213390005 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 26.72 0.00 26.72 202172 PARTS 20008964 3213440009 521 - 122410 - 646425.00000 0.00 140.00 0.00 140.00 202172 PARTS 20008964 3213440021 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 372.57 0.00 372.57 202172 PARTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 830.42 CHECK NO 566768 VENDOR 18490 TRI- COUNTY BLUEPRINT & SUPPLY 20008568 6.008371 412 - 273511 - 647110 -70071 0.00 3.60 0.00 3.60 152045 XEROX 20008572 6.008376 412. 273511- 647110.70071 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.96 152035 BLUEPRINTS 20008685 6.008339 111- 156310 - 651210 -00000 0.00 23.80 0.00 23.80 201386 XEROX 20008573 5.021349 408. 233313 - 652990 -00000 0.00 178.36 0.00 178.36 150043 DIGITAL PRINTS JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100.601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20008568 6.008420 152045 XEROX COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 413 - 263611 - 647110 -74035 0.00 CHECK NO 566846 VENDOR 162300 TROPICAL FENCE 20008955 2281/30583 408.253221- 652990 -00000 0.00 203134 KEY PAD ENTRY CHECK NO 567108 VENDOR 343600 TRUEGREEN LANDSCAPE 20008943 1851758259 001 - 126334 - 646314 -00000 0.00 203447 LAWN MAINT CHECK NO 566978 VENDOR 278670 TRUGREEN 20008962 732591 203384 FERTILIZER 20008962 732584 203384 FERTILIZER 20008962 725019 203384 FERTILIZER 20008569 743521 151569 FERTILIZER 20008962 732571 203384 FERTILIZER 20008962 730660 203384 FERTILIZER 20008962 728763 203384 FERTILIZER 20008569 732566 151569 FERTILIZER 20008962 725020 203384 FERTILIZER 001. 126334. 646314 -00000 0.00 001 - 126334 - 646314 -00000 0.00 001 - 126334 - 646314 -00000 0.00 001. 126334 - 646314 -00000 0.00 001 - 126334 - 646314 -00000 0.00 001. 126334- 646314 -00000 0.00 001 - 126334 - 646314 -00000 0.00 001. 126334- 646314 -00000 0.00 001. 126334- 646314 -00000 0.00 6J1 PAGE 111 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 0.96 0.00 0.96 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 207.68 1,691.80 0.00 1,691.80 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,691.80 6,250.00 0.00 6,250.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 6,250.00 80.00 0.00 80.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 270.00 0.00 270.00 83.33 0.00 83.33 160.00 0.00 160.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 95.00 0.00 95.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,038.33 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC CHECK NO 567115 VENDOR 345310 - TRUGREEN LANDCARE 20008953 1851830150 001 - 126334 - 646314 -00000 0.00 203012 INSTALL DRAIN & SOD 20008954 1851830156 001- 126334 - 646314.00000 0.00 203011 CONCRETE EDGER CHECK NO 566854 VENDOR 165720 - TRULY NOLEN 20008561 033. 110499 191 - 138785. 884200 -33751 0.00 152585 SMITH 35759000009 CHECK NO 566821 VENDOR 135240 - TUFF PUBLICATIONS, INC 20008581 12111 LEGAL AD 111 - 138911 - 649100 -00000 0.00 152364 LEGAL AD 20008961 ELECTRONIC RECYCLING 472. 173430. 648160 -33821 0.00 202665 ELECTRONIC RECYCLING 20008952 HAZ WASTE AD 11/13/01 470. 173462- 648160 -00000 0.00 202493 HAZ WASTE AD 11/13/01 CHECK NO 567171 VENDOR 900050 - TWIN OAKS LANSCAPING 301008 TWIN OAKS REFUND PARKS 111 - 156390 - 347911 -00000 0.00 TWIN OAKS REFUND PARKS 301009 TWIN OAKS REFUND PARKS 001 - 000000 - 208901 -00000 0.00 TWIN OAKS REFUND PARKS CHECK NO 567021 VENDOR 300430 - TYTON PAINTING 20008951 PAINT TANK 4201 11/27 414 - 263611 - 763100.74015 0.00 202608 PAINT TANK 4201 11/27/01 CHECK NO 566933 VENDOR 237480 - U.S. FILTER /DAVIS 20008957 7980674 408 - 253212 - 655100 -00000 0.00 200285 SUPPLIES 16J 1 AMT NET VCHR DISC PAGE 112 VCHR NET 2,060.00 0.00 2,060.00 1,850.00 0.00 1,850.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,910.00 356.25 0.00 356.25 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 356.25 126.00 0.00 126.00 632.00 0.00 632.00 1,044.00 0.00 1,044.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,802.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 106.00 4,340.00 0.00 4,340.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,340.00 56.05 0.00 56.05 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566932 VENDOR 237380 - U.S. FILTER /DAVIS PROCESS DIVISION 20008949 8914833 408 - 233312 - 634999.00000 0.00 1,645.00 0.00 200711 SERVICE 20008956 8914997 408- 233352. 634999 -00000 0.00 982.17 0.00 201412 SUPPLIES 20008948 8915013 408 - 233352 - 652310 -00000 0.00 2,475.00 0.00 200743 BIOXIDE 20008941 8915017 408 - 233312 - 652310 -00000 0.00 6,270.00 0.00 200709 BIOXIDE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567092 VENDOR 337200 UAP TIMBERLAND, LLC 20008960 106786 109 - 182602 - 652310 -00000 0.00 980.00 0.00 201650 COPPER SULFATE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566769 VENDOR 18900 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 20008959 363797491 001 - 000000 - 142900 -00000 0.00 447.83 0.00 200056 SHIPPING CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567036 VENDOR 310250 UNITED RENTALS, INC 20008958 19990648 408 - 253212 - 644600 -00000 0.00 40.20 0.00 201893 RENTAL BOOM LIFT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566781 VENDOR 102380 UNITED WAY 20008932 PP #7 001 - 000000- 217100.00000 0.00 228.00 0.00 PP #7 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567053 VENDOR 318860 US BIOSYSTEMS, INC. 20008950 91740 114 - 178975. 634999 -00000 0.00 45.00 0.00 200354 CHEMICALS JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20008950 89511 200354 CHEMICALS 20008950 89796 200354 CHEMICALS 20008950 89995 200354 CHEMICALS 20008950 89550 200354 CHEMICALS 20008950 90143 200354 CHEMICALS 20008950 88670 200354 CHEMICALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VCHR DISC SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 114 - 178975 - 634999 -00000 0.00 114 - 178975. 634999 -00000 0.00 114. 178975- 634999 -00000 0.00 114. 178975. 634999 -00000 0.00 114 - 178975. 634999 -00000 0.00 114 - 178975. 634999 -00000 0.00 CHECK NO 567101 VENDOR 339620 - US FILTER/ RJ ENVIROMENTAL 20008947 8915150 408. 233351- 652310 -00000 200795 BIOXIDE 20008947 8915097 408 - 233351 - 652310 -00000 200795 BIOXIDE 20008947 8915012 408 - 233351 - 652310 -00000 200795 BIOXIDE CHECK NO 567076 VENDOR 331850 - US LIQUIDS OF FLORIDA INC 20008942 281273 470 - 173462 - 634999 -00000 202800 HAZARDOUS WASTE 20008942 281243 470. 173462 - 634999 -00000 202800 HAZARDOUS WASTE 20008942 281242 470. 173462- 634999 -00000 202800 HAZARDOUS WASTE CHECK NO 567109 VENDOR 343650 - VALLEY CREST 20009000 #2 RETAINAGE 111 - 000000 - 205100 -00000 107673 TO 11/30/01 RETAINAGE PAGE 114 16J1 1 AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 255.00 0.00 255.00 225.00 0.00 225.00 328.00 0.00 328.00 239.00 0.00 239.00 225.00 0.00 225.00 165.00 0.00 165.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,482.00 0.00 3,671.25 0.00 3,671.25 0.00 4,785.00 0.00 4,785.00 0.00 4,166.25 0.00 4,166.25 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 12,622.50 0.00 4,227.00 0.00 4,227.00 0.00 20,295.80 0.00 20,295.80 0.00 20,431.00 0.00 20,431.00 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 44,953.80 0.00 7,667.78- 0.00 7.667.78- JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 16J1 PAGE 115 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20009000 #2 111 - 163646 - 634999.60096 0.00 76,677.76 0.00 76,677.76 107673 TO 11/30/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 69,009.98 CHECK NO 567061 VENDOR 323330 VERIAD 20009114 2076249 001 - 156110. 652610 -00000 0.00 451.50 0.00 451.50 202107 DOT FOR BOOKS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 451.50 CHECK NO 567046 VENDOR 314680 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SERVICES 20009133 61 -Y941- 4100704771 -08 001. 443010- 641210 -00000 0.00 3.07 0.00 3.07 200996 PAGER SVS 12/01 20009108 A2013996 BK 11 /01 408 - 210155 - 641150 -00000 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 203400 11 /01 PAGER SERVICES 20009134 A2117053BL 12101 001 - 144210 - 641150 -00000 0.00 59.29 0.00 59.29 201015 PAGER SVS 12/01 20009016 A2008785 BL 495. 192330- 641150 -00000 0.00 17.07 0.00 17.07 202271 12/01 PAGER SERVICES 20009108 A2013996 BL 12101 408 - 210155. 641150 -00000 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 203400 12/01 PAGER SERVICES 20009103 A2102038 BL 001 - 454010. 641150 -00000 0.00 156.10 0.00 156.10 202083 12/01 PAGER SERVICES 20009100 A2120817BL 12/01 001 - 121143. 641150 -00000 0.00 14.11 0.00 14.11 201564 PAGER SVS 12/01 20009132 A2118449BL 12101 001 - 178985 - 641150.00000 0.00 16.90 0.00 16.90 200412 PAGER SVS 12/01 20009095 A2006266 BL 470 - 173410 - 641150.00000 0.00 8.54 0.00 8.54 201231 PAGER SERVICES 20009129 A2101971BL 12101 101 - 163630 - 641150 -00000 0.00 59.76 0.00 59.76 200040 PAGER SVS 20009096 A2102085 BL 681. 421510- 641150 -00000 0.00 68.16 0.00 68.16 201323 12/01 PAGER SERVICES 20009084 A2106885BL 12/01 521 - 122410 - 641150.00000 0.00 28.81 0.00 28.81 200935 PAGER SVS 12/01 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20009104 A2120464 BL 202220 12/01 PAGER SERVICES 20009135 A2103318BL 12/01 201132 PAGER SVS 12/01 20009108 A2013996 BJ 10 /01 203400 10/01 PAGER SERVICES 20009105 A2119934 BL 202268 12/01 PAGER SERVICES 20009131 A2013336BL 12/01 200340 PAGER SVS 12101 20009094 A2125218 BL 201190 PAGER SERVICES 20009100 A2115235BL 12/01 201564 PAGER SVS 12/01 20009098 A2115235 BL 201350 12/01 PAGER SERVICES 20009102 A2014611 BL 201837 12/01 PAGER SERVICES 20009099 A2102051 BL 201370 12/01 PAGER SERVICES 20009107 A2014704BL 12/01 202272 PAGER SVS 12101 20009101 A2101970BL 12/01 201745 PAGER SVS 20009128 A2003906BL 12101 107411 PAGER SVS 12101 20009130 A2120608BL 12/01 200306 PAGER SVS 12101 20009097 A2106862 BL 201336012/01 PAGER SERVICES 20009093 A2003669BL10/01 -12/01 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 103.27 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC 001. 122240. 641150 -00000 0.00 101 - 163620 - 641150 -00000 0.00 408. 210155 - 641150.00000 0.00 495 - 192370 - 641150 -00000 0.00 114 - 178970. 641150 -00000 0.00 408 - 210151. 641150 -00000 0.00 001 - 121143. 641150.00000 0.00 001. 121141 - 641150 -00000 0.00 113 - 138910 - 641150.00000 0.00 001 - 155410 - 641150 -00000 0.00 495 - 192350. 641150 -00000 0.00 109 - 182601. 641150 -00000 0.00 109 - 182900 - 641150.00000 0.00 123. 155975. 641150 -33075 0.00 146 - 144380 - 641150.00000 0.00 681 - 431310 - 641150 -00000 0.00 408 - 233351 - 641150 -00000 0.00 408 - 233312. 641150 -00000 0.00 408. 233352- 641150 -00000 0.00 408- 233313 - 641150.00000 0.00 16J1 AMT NET VCHR DISC 103.27 0.00 23.02 0.00 20.20 0.00 36.43 0.00 11.90 0.00 21.10 0.00 8.54 0.00 8.54 0.00 2.97 0.00 80.54 0.00 8.54 0.00 2.97 2.98 0.00 19.94 0.00 20.69 0.00 21.97 0.00 156.64 36.99 34.00 17.00 PAGE 116 VCHR NET 103.27 23.02 20.20 36.43 11.90 21.10 8.54 8.54 2.97 80.54 8.54 5.95 19.94 20.69 21.97 JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16JI PAGE 117 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 408 - 233350. 641150 -00000 0.00 14.40 408 - 210130. 641150 -00000 0.00 156.64 0.00 415.67 201138 PAGERS SVS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,281.08 CHECK NO 566770 VENDOR 19150 VERMEER SOUTHEAST SALES & 20008576 IF23667 109 - 182901. 652990 -00000 0.00 22.08 0.00 22.08 152442 SCREW CHECK TOTAL 0.00 22.08 CHECK NO 566771 VENDOR 19260 VICS SHOE REPAIR 20009119 9060000143 109 - 182602. 652110 -00000 0.00 250.00 109 - 182901 - 652110 -00000 0.00 735.40 0.00 985.40 202777 SAFETY BOOTS 20009019 906000151 490 - 144610 - 652110 -00000 0.00 786.25 0.00 786.25 200116 BOOT REPAIR 20009118 9060000145 408 - 233312 - 652120 -00000 0.00 375.00 0.00 375.00 200713 REPAIR BOOTS 20009019 906000142 490 - 144610- 652110 -00000 0.00 1,258.00 0.00 1,258.00 200116 BOOT REPAIR 20009115 9060000153 101 - 163630. 652110 -00000 0.00 122.40 0.00 122.40 200041 BOOT REPAIR 20009116 9060000154 408 - 253212. 652120 -00000 0.00 156.75 0.00 156.75 200286 REPAIR BOOTS 20009117 9060000119 146 - 144380- 652110 -00000 0.00 160.65 0.00 160.65 200313 REPAIR BOOT 20009120 90600000152 109 - 182901. 652110 -00000 0.00 125.00 0.00 125.00 202777 SAFTEY BOOTS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3,969.45 CHECK NO 566967 VENDOR 269190 - VICTOR R. RODRIGUEZ 20009121 000 SERVICE 10/29/01 001 - 157110. 634999.00000 0.00 16.00 0.00 16.00 201672 0000 SERVICE 10/29/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 16.00 CHECK NO 566875 VENDOR 180740 - VINEYARDS UTILITY, INC. JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 118 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20009127 ACCT #347 111. 156332- 643400 -00000 0.00 282.70 0.00 282.70 ACCT #347 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 282.70 CHECK NO 567088 VENDOR 334620 - VOPAK USA INC 20009111 TA- 617286 408- 253221. 652310 -00000 0.00 825.00 0.00 825.00 203010 SUPPLIES 20009111 TA- 616841 408 - 253221. 652310 -00000 0.00 835.00 0.00 835.00 203010 SUPPLIES 20009110 TA- 616309 408 - 253211. 652310.00000 0.00 825.00 0.00 825.00 203353 SODIUM 20009110 TA- 617287 408 - 253211 - 652310.00000 0.00 825.00 0.00 825.00 203353 SODIUM CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.310.00 CHECK NO 566772 VENDOR 19290 VORTECH PHARMACEUTICALS. LTD 20009122 48861 001. 155410. 652710 -00000 0.00 972.01 0.00 972.01 201175 FATAL PLUS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 972.01 CHECK NO 567029 VENDOR 307620 VULCAN PERFORMANCE CHEMICALS 20009112 793805 408 - 233312 - 652310 -00000 0.00 1.897.50 0.00 1,897.50 203253 SODIUM CHLORIDE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 1,897.50 CHECK NO 566882 VENDOR 185990 - VWR SCIENTIFIC 20009113 9366853 114 - 178975. 652910.00000 0.00 347.64 0.00 347.64 200352 SUPPLIES 20009125 9402979 408 - 233350. 652990 -00000 0.00 47.58 0.00 47.58 200727 SUPPLIES 20009123 9366161 408 - 253211 - 652990 -00000 0.00 117.58 0.00 117.58 200403 SUPPLIES 20009126 9322410 408. 233352. 652310.00000 0.00 152.96 0.00 152.96 201417 SUPPLIES 20009125 9029446 408 - 233350 - 652310 -00000 0.00 8.28 0.00 8.28 200727 SUPPLIES JANUARY 03, 2002 REPORT 100 -601 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION 20009113 8459596 200352 SUPPLIES 20009113 8575085 200352 SUPPLIES 20009125 9369360 200727 SUPPLIES 20009113 8671037 200352 SUPPLIES 20008584 9011029 152595 CHEMICALS 20009124 9195727 200403 SUPPLIES 20009125 9369360 200727 SUPPLIES 20009123 9372864 200403 SUPPLIES COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 3.58 0.00 PAGE 119 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.58 0.00 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 16J CHECK TOTAL FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02. 2002 0.00 211.98 0.00 ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 114. 178975 - 652910.00000 0.00 1.258.39 0.00 1.258.39 114. 178975 - 652910.00000 0.00 129.95 0.00 129.95 408. 233350- 652990 -00000 0.00 411.49 0.00 411.49 114 - 178975- 652910 -00000 0.00 15.11 0.00 15.11 408 - 233350 - 652310.00000 0.00 110.00 0.00 110.00 408. 253211. 652990 -00000 0.00 86.94 0.00 86.94 408 - 233350. 652310 -00000 0.00 350.00 0.00 350.00 408- 253211 - 652990 -00000 0.00 15.20 0.00 15.20 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.051.12 CHECK NO 566938 VENDOR 246170 - W.E. JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO. 20009145 3584 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 203135 SUPPLIES CHECK NO 567090 VENDOR 335990 - WALGREEN COMPANY 20008577 215131 001 - 155930 - 652710 -00000 152573 11/15 -30 PRESCRIPTION CHECK NO 566773 VENDOR 19370 - WALLACE INTERNATIONAL 20009140 FC67760 521- 122410. 646425 -00000 200937 SUPPLIES 20009142 FC68310 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 200937 SUPPLIES 20009140 FC68204 521 - 122410. 646425 -00000 200937 SUPPLIES 0.00 3.58 0.00 3.58 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 3.58 0.00 317.77 0.00 317.77 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 317.77 0.00 211.98 0.00 211.98 0.00 31.59 0.00 31.59 0.00 24.93 0.00 24.93 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 16J 1 FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20009140 FC67802 521. 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 222.58- 0.00 222.58 200937 SUPPLIES 20009140 FC68008 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 11.20 0.00 11.20 200937 SUPPLIES 20009140 FC68049 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 9.78 0.00 9.78 200937 SUPPLIES 20009140 FC68164 521 - 122410. 646425.00000 0.00 18.78 0.00 18.78 200937 SUPPLIES 20009140 FC68154 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 25.54 0.00 25.54 200937 SUPPLIES 20009140 FC66575 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 50.34- 0.00 50.34 200937 SUPPLIES 20009140 FC68098 521 - 122410 - 646425 -00000 0.00 11.58 0.00 11.58 200937 SUPPLIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 72.46 CHECK NO 566795 VENDOR 109110 - WASTE MGMT OF COLLIER COUNTY 20009136 1499673/156671 12101 521. 122410- 643300 -00000 0.00 217.94 0.00 217.94 1499673/156671 12101 200712 20008587 1484692/156629 12101 408 - 233312 - 643300 -00000 0.00 149.94 0.00 149.94 1484692/156629 12101 20008587 1486636/156637 12/01 408 - 253212 - 643300 -00000 0.00 403.03 0.00 403.03 1486636/156637 12101 20009152 1506076/155279 12/01 490 - 144610. 643300 -00000 0.00 103.70 0.00 103.70 1506076/15279 12101 20008587 8657481/156787 12101 001 - 122240. 643300 -00000 0.00 217.94 0.00 217.94 8657481/156787 12/01 20009091 1495295/154643 12/01 495 - 192370 - 643300 -00000 0.00 126.00 0.00 126.00 200153 1495295/154643 12101 20008587 1505851/157052 12101 001 - 156363 - 643300 -00000 0.00 183.90 0.00 183.90 1505851/157052 12/01 20008587 2392759/154744 12/01 001. 156160- 643300.00000 0.00 89.50 0.00 89.50 2392759/154744 12101 20009137 2275574/156725 12101 101 - 163620 - 634999.00000 0.00 183.90 0.00 183.90 2275574/156725 12101 201133 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 121 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER , FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008587 1490811/155149 12101 113. 138900 - 643300.00000 0.00 403.03 0.00 403.03 1490811/155149 12101 20008587 1503271/157047 12101 001. 156363 - 643300.00000 0.00 403.03 0.00 403.03 1503271/157047 12/01 20008587 1487276/156641 12/01 001. 122240- 643300 -00000 0.00 311.11 0.00 311.11 1487276/156641 12/01 20008587 1492687/157032 12101 111 - 156332 - 643300 -00000 0.00 579.32 0.00 579.32 1492687/157032 12/01 20008587 1501996/155872 12101 109 - 182901. 643300 -00000 0.00 163.09 0.00 163.09 1501996/155872 12/01 20008587 1487705/157022 12/01 111 - 156332 - 643300 -00000 0.00 714.14 0.00 714.14 1487705/157022 12/01 20008587 1481553/154658 12101 001 - 156140 - 643300 -00000 0.00 10.52 0.00 10.52 1481553/154658 12101 20008587 8657533/156792 12/01 490 - 144610- 643300 -00000 0.00 10.52 0.00 10.52 8657533/156792 12101 20008587 2307557/157079 12101 111 - 156332. 643300 -00000 0.00 15.09 0.00 15.09 2307557/157079 12101 20009152 8656593/156745 12101 001 - 061010 - 643300 -00000 0.00 126.00 0.00 126.00 8656593/156745 12101 20009152 1599835/156672 12101 001 - 061010- 643300 -00000 0.00 89.50 0.00 89.50 1599835/156672 12101 20008587 8656743/156751 12/01 408 - 253212 - 643300 -00000 0.00 126.00 0.00 126.00 8656743/156751 12101 20008587 1478943/157000 12/01 130 - 157710. 643300.00000 0.00 238.10 0.00 238.10 1478943/157000 12/01 20008587 1487667/157020 12/01 001 - 156363 - 643300 -00000 0.00 327.48 0.00 327.48 1487667/157020 12/01 20008587 1586193/156702 12101 408. 233351. 643300 -00000 0.00 126.00 0.00 126.00 1586193/156702 12101 20009152 1496518/156667 12/01 001 - 061010 - 643300.00000 0.00 89.50 0.00 89.50 1496518/156667 12/01 20008587 2214338/156721 12101 408 - 253221 - 643300.00000 0.00 126.00 0.00 126.00 2214338/156721 12/01 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 122 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 16J FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 1 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008587 2173305/154585 12/01 490 - 144610 - 643300.00000 0.00 10.52 0.00 10.52 2173305/154585 12101 20009152 1484455/156626 12/01 001. 061010- 643300 -00000 0.00 403.03 0.00 403.03 1484455/156626 12/01 20008587 1494949/157036 12101 001 - 156363 - 643300 -00000 0.00 765.67 0.00 765.67 1494949/157036 12101 20008587 1507838/154706 12/01 001 - 156145 - 643300 -00000 0.00 10.52 0.00 10.52 1507838/154706 12101 20009139 1602415/156971 12101 495 - 192350 - 643300 -00000 0.00 89.50 0.00 89.50 1602415/156971 12/01 201772 20008587 8657645/156796 12/01 001. 122240. 643300.00000 0.00 126.00 0.00 126.00 8657645/156796 12101 20008587 2328597/157081 12101 001 - 156363 - 643300 -00000 0.00 403.03 0.00 403.03 2328597/157081 12101 20009152 1506076/155279 12101 001 - 156170 - 643300.00000 0.00 103.71 0.00 103.71 1506076/15279 12101 20008587 1501694/157046 12101 001 - 156363 - 643300 -00000 0.00 327.48 0.00 327.48 1501694/157046 12101 20009138 1499878/157255 12101 001. 157110- 643300.00000 0.00 89.50 0.00 89.50 1499878/157255 12101 20008587 8657431/155610 12/01 001 - 155410 - 643300 -00000 0.00 238.10 0.00 238.10 8657431/155610 12101 20008587 1487683/157021 12/01 111 - 156332. 643300 -00000 0.00 641.13 0.00 641.13 1487683/157021 12/01 20008587 1488426/157024 12/01 111 - 156332- 643300 -00000 0.00 126.00 0.00 126.00 1488426/157024 12/01 20008587 8656840/157107 12/01 111 - 156332. 643300 -00000 0.00 217.94 0.00 217.94 8656840/157107 12/01 20009152 1506076/155279 12101 001 - 061010 - 643300 -00000 0.00 103.70 0.00 103.70 1506076/15279 12/01 20008587 2160394/157064 12101 111 - 156332 - 643300.00000 0.00 126.00 0.00 126.00 2160394/157064 12101 20008587 1484684/156628 12101 408 - 253211. 643300.00000 0.00 217.94 0.00 217.94 1484684/156628 12101 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 123 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16J 1 SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20008587 1508117/157054 12101 111. 156332- 643300 -00000 0.00 311.11 0.00 311.11 1508177/157054 12101 20008587 2429714/60341 12101 001. 122240 - 643300.00000 0.00 1,669.53 0.00 1,669.53 2429714/060341 12101 20008587 1501996/155872 12101 109. 182602- 643300 -00000 0.00 54.85 0.00 54.85 1501996/155872 12101 20008587 1485915/156633 12101 408 - 233352. 643300 -00000 0.00 669.75 0.00 669.75 1485915/156633 12/01 20009152 1514605/156698 12/01 001 - 061010 - 643300 -00000 0.00 149.94 0.00 149.94 1514605/156698 12101 20008587 2392724/154743 12101 001 - 156170 - 643300 -00000 0.00 89.50 0.00 89.50 2392724/154743 12101 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 12,478.73 CHECK NO 566981 VENDOR 280890 - WATER RESOURCE SOLUTIONS INC 20008999 2358 -3 414 - 263611 - 631400 -74030 0.00 7,229.00 0.00 7,229.00 917297 10/4- 11/30/01 20009025 2280 413 - 263611 - 763100 -73948 0.00 15,247.20 0.00 15,247.20 201751 10 /1- 11/30/01 CHECK TOTAL 0.00 22,476.20 CHECK NO 566834 VENDOR 151900 WATER TREATMENT & CONTROL CO. 20009144 53283 408 - 253211 - 634999 -00000 0.00 860.85 0.00 860.85 203009 BELT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 860.85 CHECK NO 567019 VENDOR 299360 WATERVIEW PRESS INC 20008571 30722 355 - 156190 - 766100.00000 0.00 147.20 0.00 147.20 152372 ALMANAC FOR FLORIDA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 147.20 CHECK NO 567077 VENDOR 332390 - WENDY KLOPF 20008857 12/13/01 LUNCH 191 - 138785 - 640200 -33752 0.00 7.50 0.00 7.50 KLOPF 12/13/01 LUNCH CHECK TOTAL 0.00 7.50 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 124 REPORT 100.601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER "± FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 16J.LN VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET CHECK NO 566953 VENDOR 256920 - WEST GROUP 20009089 800724115 001 - 454010 - 654110.00000 0.00 1,593.00 0.00 1,593.00 202082 LEGAL SVS 20009089 800502616 001 - 454010. 654110 -00000 0.00 509.50 0.00 509.50 202082 LEGAL SVS 20008575 800724676/6002473657 001- 155230. 654110 -00000 0.00 247.50 0.00 247.50 152507 REPORTER SUBSCRIPTION CHECK TOTAL 0.00 2,350.00 CHECK NO 566774 VENDOR 19660 - WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CENTER 20009090 56- 474 -440 681 - 421510. 654110 -00000 0.00 76.00 0.00 76.00 201324 REFRENCE 20009090 800723254 681- 421510 - 654110 -00000 0.00 402.00 0.00 402.00 201324 REFRENCE 20009092 800220854/800039209 001 - 443010- 654110 -00000 0.00 443.00 0.00 443.00 2000995 REFRENCE 20009088 800433091 001 - 010510 - 634999.00000 0.00 2,622.84 0.00 2,622.84 201684 LEGAL SERVICES 20009090 55. 976.416 681 - 421510 - 654110.00000 0.00 74.00 0.00 74.00 201324 REFRENCE 20009092 800443898 001 - 443010 - 654110.00000 0.00 1,306.79 0.00 1.306.79 200995 REFRENCE 20009090 800725641 681. 421510- 654110 -00000 0.00 47.00 0.00 47.00 201324 REFRENCE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 4,971.63 CHECK NO 566776 VENDOR 19690 WIN -CAR 90009146 33866 146 - 144380 - 652990 -00000 0.00 3.89 0.00 3.89 200310 HARDWARE 90009146 34947 146- 144380- 652990 -00000 0.00 23.04 0.00 23.04 200310 HARDWARE 90009146 34985 146. 144380. 652990.00000 0.00 2.35 0.00 2.35 200310 HARDWARE 90009146 34555 146 - 144380- 652990 -00000 0.00 12.89 0.00 12.89 200310 HARDWARE JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER 16JI FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC ANT NET VCHR DISC 90009146 33511 146 - 144380. 652990 -00000 0.00 6.98 0.00 200310 HARDWARE 90009146 35936 146 - 144380- 652990 -00000 0.00 1.78 0.00 200310 HARDWARE 90009146 34814 146 - 144380- 652990 -00000 0.00 4.30 0.00 200310 HARDWARE 90009146 35732 146. 144380- 652990 -00000 0.00 1.47 0.00 200310 HARDWARE 90009146 35858 146- 144380 - 652990 -00000 0.00 1.38 0.00 200310 HARDWARE 90009146 35357 146. 144380- 652990.00000 0.00 2.99 0.00 200310 HARDWARE 90009146 34202 146. 144380- 652990.00000 0.00 6.79 0.00 200310 HARDWARE 90009146 34949 146- 144380 - 652990 -00000 0.00 2.38 0.00 200310 HARDWARE 90009146 35908 146. 144380. 652990 -00000 0.00 1.78 0.00 200310 HARDWARE 90009146 34283 146 - 144380. 652990 -00000 0.00 2.19 0.00 200310 HARDWARE 90009146 35923 146. 144380. 652990 -00000 0.00 25.20 0.00 200310 HARDWARE 90009146 35162 146 - 144380. 652990 -00000 0.00 1.79 0.00 200310 HARDWARE 90009146 34847 146 - 144380 - 652990 -00000 0.00 1.85 0.00 200310 HARDWARE CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 567038 VENDOR 312060 WORLD BOOK INC. 20009147 1135815 355 - 156190 - 766100.00000 0.00 799.00 0.00 203394 ENCYCLOPEDIA CHECK TOTAL 0.00 CHECK NO 566914 VENDOR 223690 - XEROX CORPORATION PAGE 125 VCHR NET 6.98 1.78 4.30 1.47 1.38 2.99 6.79 2.38 1.78 2.19 25.20 1.79 1.85 103.05 799.00 799.00 JANUARY 03, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAGE 126 REPORT 100 -601 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 16JI SPECIAL DETAILED CHECK REGISTER FOR CHECKS DATED JANUARY 02, 2002 It VOUCHER DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO AMT DISC AMT NET VCHR DISC VCHR NET 20009148 085645617 109 - 182601. 644600 -00000 0.00 85.67 109 - 182900. 644600 -00000 0.00 85.67 778 - 182700 - 644600 -00000 0.00 85.66 0.00 257.00 200112 11 /01 RENTAL COPIES CHECK TOTAL 0.00 257.00 CHECK NO 567138 VENDOR 348840 XESYSTEMS, INC 20008582 187652 111 - 138313. 651110 -00000 0.00 360.00 0.00 360.00 151547 DESPLAY PAPER CHECK TOTAL 0.00 360.00 CHECK NO 567033 VENDOR 309740 YAHL MULCHING & RECYCLING, INC 20009149 13032 109 - 182901 - 643300.00000 0.00 270.00 0.00 270.00 202001 DEBRIS REMAVAL CHECK TOTAL 0.00 270.00 CHECK NO 567140 VENDOR 348940 YOUNG PEST CONTROL OF NAPLES 20008583 11101 -02 SENTRICON 001 - 122240 - 639966.00000 0.00 237.00 0.00 237.00 151608 11101 -02 SENTRICON CHECK TOTAL 0.00 237.00 CHECK NO 566777 VENDOR 20050 - ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 20009151 89162035 408 - 233312- 652720 -00000 0.00 95.50 0.00 95.50 202209 SUPPLIES 20009150 89162287 408 - 233351. 652720 -00000 0.00 55.00 0.00 55.00 200807 SUPPLIES 20008579 89162323 198 - 157410 - 652990 -00000 0.00 27.10 0.00 27.10 152168 FIRST AID KIT CHECK TOTAL 0.00 177.60 431 CHECKS WRITTEN GRAND TOTAL 0.00 6,078,681.30 IMMOKALEE R F C IMMOKALEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT / S l E U 502 E. NEW MARKET ROAD, EMMOKALEE, FLORIDA 34142 E 16J1 December 20, 2001 On December 20, 2001 The Immokalee Fire Control District Board voted unanimously that our monthly board meetings would continue to be held the third Thursday of every month at 7:00 P.M. Vice Chairman Misc. Corres: Date: 14- item# 160- Copies To: GENERAL OFFICE (941) 657 -2111 FIRE PREVENTION (941) 657 -2700 FAX (941) 657 -9489 _.V 16J1 LELY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 2002 Proposed Board of Supervisors Meeting Schedule January 16 @ 1:30pm February 20 @ 1:30pm March 20 @ 1:30pm April 17 @ 1:30pm May 16 @ 1:30pm June 19 @ 1:30pm July 17 @ 1:30pm August 21 @ 1:30pm September 18 @ 1:30pm October 16 @ 1:30pm November 20 @ 1:30pm December 18 @ 1:30pm All meeting are held at the East Naples Branch Library located at 8787 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. Meetings dates listed above are tentative and subject to change. Misc. Corres: Date. C �2 Item# I (mil 1 Copies To: Lely,-��Keso4-. C O L I 6 C O U N T R Y I L U B Lely Community Development District 5645 Strand Boulevard, Suite #3 • Naples, Florida 34110 • tel 941 -592 -9115 • fax 941- 594 -1422 16J 1 LELY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of Lely Community Development District Held on January 17, 2001 A Regular Meeting of Lely Community Development District was held on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 at 1:30 p.m. at the East Naples Community Park Meeting Room. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER Michael J. Volpe, Esquire, District Attorney Gerry Ellis, Lely CDD Site Supervisor Mikael Hughes, District Chairman Ted Biggs, District Supervisor Charles Krout, District Supervisor Joseph Boff, District Supervisor Charles Smith, District Vice Chairman W. Neil Dorrill, Dorrill Management Group Noting that a quorum was present, the meeting was called to order by Neil Dorrill at 1:30 p.m. REVIEW OF MINUTES Mr. Dorrill reported that the minutes of the regular meeting of December, 2000 have not been received from the previous management company. TREASURER'S REPORT The treasurer's report has not been received by Dorrill Management from the previous management company. Also, the districts records, bank statements, or the official seal of the district have not been received. MANAGER'S REPORT Update on Irrigation Lake Lining Contract Jerry Ellis reported that the hydraulic tests have been taken on the lake. The pump station was turned off on Sunday in order to take the tests. The hydraulic tests will be performed next week again so that an accurate reading can be taken so that it can be determined how much of the lake is leaking or not leaking. The pump station will be turned off again next Sunday to perform the tests and will be turned back on on Tuesday at the latest. Once the test has been performed and accurate readings have been taken, the mining will begin. The lining of the lake will take approximately three weeks. An update on the progress of the construction and completion of the lake will be reported at the meeting in February, 2001. Minutes - Lely CDD 16J 1 January 17, 2001 Pg. 2 Recommendation to Award Bid #2001 -1 For certain lawn mowing equipment, the Mowers, Inc. of Naples, Florida, which is the only local vendor, is the lowest and most responsive bid. Mr. Ellis has reviewed these bids. A MOTION was made by Joseph Boff that the bid be approved subject to a determination on lease financing to the most responsive bidder Mowers, Inc. for two (2) X -Martin Laser deck mowers at $5,098.47 each. The MOTION was seconded by Ted Biggs and passed unanimously. First Union Bank First Union Bank acts as the Trustee on behalf of the bond holders and they disseminate the principal and interest on behalf of the district to the bond holders to do a variety of things. A. Notify them of a new district manager, and to also bring up to speed the bank in terms of who the authorized signatories are on your account. The chairman was asked to sign the necessary bank resolution and to update and make sure that the chairman is the authorized signatory on this account. B. The Collier County Tax Collector was contacted to make sure that he is aware that we have a new chairman and a new district manager who serves as treasurer, and the January tax distribution payment should be sent to the Naples office and not the East coast. A MOTION was made by Joseph Boff to authorize the chairman and himself to sign the appropriate standard form resolutions and documents to effectuate the transfer for the bank, the Collier County Tax Collector, and also the Florida State Board of Administration. The MOTION was seconded by Ted Biggs and all were in favor. MOTION passed unanimously. Maintenance Facilitv / Future Location Joe Ryan with Lely Development Corporation discussed the maintenance facility. Currently the community development district's maintenance operation is housed in some trailers located off of the north side of Grand Bay Drive. We will be getting development of lots within this year or next year. A request has been made that this facility be moved. Joe suggested that instead of trying to budget and build the facility and the building at this time, we go ahead and design and build the site with the site improvements, roadway, and parking, and to hold off on the actual building for another year or two. In addition to having an office for the maintenance and the operating staff, there is an equal need to have some type of pole barn or preengineered metal building that could store the equipment on a permanent basis. A MOTION was made by Joseph Boff that Wilson, Miller provide an estimate for the maintenance facility in order to provide an amount for the budget preparation of 2002 fiscal year, which will actually begin in October of 2001, and to check the easements to make sure we own the property and can use it as an access to the facility. The MOTION was seconded by Ted Biggs and passed unanimously. Minutes - Lely CDD January 17, 2001 pg. 3 Mustang Island Unit Plat 16J1 A plat was presented for approval for the Mustang Island Development, which is a single - family development of 149 single - family lots located within the Mustang golf course. The entry is between Indian Wells Golf Villas and Mustang Villas. Ron Walter of Walter Engineering discussed the Mustang Island Development with the members. The development has an associated right -of -way with it that comes in off of Lely Resort Boulevard and it's a loop roadway. On the plat there is indication of the drainage easements. The drainage from this project will come from the roadway in between the lots and into the existing surface water management lakes that surround the project. The CDD will be signing to the drainage easements. In the first Phase the road will be going in north of the Mustang Villas and will make a loop around and come back, surrounding the 15`h fairway on the Mustang golf course. The plat and the plan have been submitted to Wilson, Miller. Wilson, Miller has reviewed the plat and the plans and they have been approved. A MOTION was made by Ted Biggs to approve the plat and plans. The MOTION was seconded by Joseph Boff and passed unanimously. District Attorney Report The security contract that had been approved at an earlier meeting was sent to the manager. The contract has not been signed by the chairman. There are a number of concerns with the performance of the security company. A meeting will be held with the President of the security company. There is a possibility that they will submit a corrective action plan or it may be recommended that their contract be terminated next month because of lack of performance and we will utilize some other alternatives. There has been at least two instances where the security has only worked one shift and the second officer was not present. Discussion ensued regarding contracting with the sheriff to patrol the community as part of their shift. The East Naples Substation will be contacted regarding patrolling the community. Edison Community College contracts with the Custom Protection Division of the Wackenhut Corporation. Wackenhut Corporation will also be contacted. Proposals will be compared and presented to the Board. PUBLIC COMMENTS/MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE Landscape Artchitect Discussion ensued regarding obtaining proposals for a landscape architect. Medians Removed the noses of three medians on Triangle Boulevard and dropped a 2 -foot division down. The next step is to go to the county to obtain permits to bid this out. Minutes - Lely CDD January 17, 2001 pg. 4 16J1'1 The site line has improved 75 %. The work on Triangle Boulevard will be performed after season. Lely Resort Boulevard will be a big undertaking. This may have to be bid out to be performed correctly. This median needs to be ripped out and relandscaped with lower material, lower heads. The irrigation will be subcontracted out through a landscape company. The immediate safety concerns have been alleviated and we are now moving forward to get this right -of -way permit from the county and will be prepared to do this work. Funds may have to be moved out of the reserves to accomplish this work. Speeding Discussion was held regarding problems with speeding within the community. The issue of speed bumps was discussed; however, the county has to make this decision. NEXT MEETING DATE A discussion ensued in regards to relocating the next meeting to the East Naples Library Community Room. A MOTION was made by Joseph Boff to hold the meeting on February 21, 2001 at 1:30 p.m., at the East Naples Library Community Room. The MOTION was seconded by Ted Biggs and passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, W. Neil Dorrill Dorrill Management Group AAMIN Lely CDD 01170Lwpd LELY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 16J 1 Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of Lely Community Development District Held on February 21, 2001 A Regular Meeting of Lely Community Development District was held on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 at 1:30 p.m. at the East Naples Community Library. MEMBERS PRESENT ALSO PRESENT CALL TO ORDER Michael J. Volpe, Esquire, District Attorney Gerry Ellis, Lely CDD Site Supervisor Charles Smith, District Vice Chairman Michael Hughes, District Chairman Ted Biggs, District Supervisor Charles Krout, District Supervisor Joseph Boff, District Supervisor W. Neil Dorrill, Dorrill Management Group Noting that a quorum was established, the meeting was called to order by Neil Dorrill at 1:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA A MOTION was made by Charles Smith to approve the agenda, noting that it was properly advertised in accordance with the Sunshine laws. The MOTION was seconded by Joseph Boff and approved unanimously. REVIEW OF MINUTES A MOTION was made by Michael Hughes to approve the Minutes of December 7, 2000 special meeting, and the Minutes of January 17, 2001 regular meeting. The MOTION was seconded by Joseph Boff and passed unanimously. MANAGER'S REPORT A. Update of Lake Lining Contract and Progress Payment #1 Neil Dorrill reported that the lake lining has gone exceedingly well. The project is on schedule and on budget. Steve Means reported on the progress of the lining of the lake. The project should be completed in approximately four weeks. A question and answer session followed. The type of material that is being used for the lining of the lake was discussed. Clay is being used as the lining of the lake instead of PVC material. This project is costing the property owners and the taxpayers approximately $300,000. Minutes — Lely CDD 16JI February 21, 2001 Pg. 2 Funds are coming from the Operating Reserve. This project has been under design and scheduled to be done in 3 -5 years. It has just now been authorized in this fiscal year. B. Update and recommendation concerning Security Contract Suspension /Performance Problems The previous contract has been suspended. Mr. Dorrill met with the supervisors on January 18, 2001 and discussed concerns regarding the service and performance of security. A security vehicle was found near the cart crossing wrecked, with damage totaling $4,000.00. A police report has been filed. The Edison Community College has under contract the Wackenhut Corporation to provide all of the security features for the college campus within our community. Effective immediately for an emergency period of time, we are using the Edison Community College contract to provide ongoing security, with a vehicle provided by the security company, at the prevailing rates within the contract. For the time being, the top -of- the -line Wackenhut security service is being used. The custom protection division of Wackenhut requires that those officers are either retired or former law enforcement offices, which indicates their level of training, professionalism, expertise, or Military police having served in the military under a law enforcement perspective. Mr. Dorrill recommended that he be authorized to terminate the contract with the previous company for performance reasons, and conduct some type of security assessment for the community so we can evaluate and recommend what it is that is needed, what and where can our monies be best spent. A MOTION was made by Joseph Boff to dismiss the current security company and contract with Wackenhut until a competitive bid has been received from two other companies and one from the Sheriff's department. The MOTION was seconded by Charles Smith and passed unanimously. C. Recommendations to approve Inter -local agreement for non ad valorem special assessment services with the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector Fiscal Year 2001 The nature of this work is very proprietary, very specialized and historically reformed by Alice Carlson. Mr. Dorrill recommended that we enter into an agreement with Alice Carlson, within the budgeted amount, and to declare her services as a sole source of provider. Minutes Lel Y CDD 16J 1 February 21, 2001 Pg. 3 Also, it was found in reviewing the records that a required contract with the county property appraiser or the tax collector was never entered into. It is required under Florida statutes. A MOTION was made by Ted Biggs to approve the necessary standard form agreement with the district property appraiser and the tax collector. The MOTION was seconded by Michael Hughes and passed unanimously. D. Recommendation to approve letter of agreement with AIC Association for non ad valorem special assessment services fiscal year 2001/2002 A MOTION was made to approve and authorize the chairman to execute the letter of agreement with AJC Associates for non ad valorem special assessment services for fiscal year 2001 /2001. The MOTION was seconded and passed unanimously. E. Presentation and Preliminary Estimate of cost for District Maintenance Facility The maintenance facility building is 70 x 120 feet, with surrounding parking area, storage bins for fertilizers and other materials that will be used within the landscaping practices. There is a preliminary cost of $450,000 for the maintenance facility, which includes site infrastructure. There is approximately $50,000 in technical fees, which includes signs, permit fees, permit application fees and impact fees. This totals approximately $500,000. Since this is a preliminary estimate, a contingency fee was added at approximately $70,000, which totals $570,000. The land has already been purchased. This facility is designed to serve the entire district. A MOTION was made by Joseph Boff to begin the preliminary site plan to immediately use the temporary trailers instead of permanent structure. The MOTION was seconded by Ted Biggs and passed unanimously. ATTORNEY'S REPORT Michael J. Volpe, Esquire reported on election terms. Michael Hughes and Ted Biggs terms will be expiring, leaving two vacancies. A report will be forthcoming once conversation is held with supervisor of elections. A special election will be held at or about the time the terms will be expiring. so Minutes — Lely CDD 16J 1 February 21, 2001 Pg. 4 SUPERVISOR REQUESTS AND COMMENTS Ted Biggs and Charles Smith expressed their feelings on the presentation of the agenda, stating the he would like to go back to the way the minutes previously were presented. Further discussion ensued as to how the minutes would be kept by Mr. Dorrill with a revised binder at the next meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS/MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE Discussion was held concerning the future construction of Santa Barbara extension and which alignment was preferred. Mr. Dorrill stated, and several supervisors confirmed, that they did not support alignment "C" which would connect with Grand Lely. Several comments were also made that the Lely CDD is not the proper forum for this discussion and the district attorney was authorized to prepare a resolution to express the district opinion to the county commission. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, W. Neil Dorrill Dorrill Management Group MIN Lely CDD 022101 16J1 LELY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Naples, Florida Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors Of Lely Community Development District Held on March 21, 2001 A Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of Lely Community Development District was held on Tuesday, March 21, 2001 at 1:30 p.m. at the East Naples Community Library. MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael J. Volpe, Esquire, District Attorney Gerry Ellis, Lely CDD Site Supervisor Michael Hughes, District Chairman Ted Biggs, District Supervisor Charles Krout, District Supervisor Joseph Boff, District Supervisor (late arrival) ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, Dorrill Management Group CALL TO ORDER Noting that a quorum was established, the meeting was called to order by Neil Dorrill at 1:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Neil Dorrill advised the membership of the additional items (deck mowers and resignation), which have been added to the agenda. A MOTION was made by Michael Hughes to approve the agenda as amended. The MOTION was seconded and passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A MOTON was made by Ted Biggs to approve the minutes as written. The MOTION was seconded and passed unanimously. MANAGER'S REPORT A. Update of Lake Lining Contract Steve Means of Wilson, Miller reported that they are in the process of performing the pump test and the lake lining is near completion. Discussion ensued of the lake levels at the present time. The results of this project are as expected. B. Review /Approval of Interim Security Services Agreement A hard copy of the letter of agreement that is in use for the custom protection division of Wackenhut was presented to the membership. 16J1'! Minures — Lely CDD March 21, 2001 Pg, 2 This is based and is done through an existing contract in the State of Florida, which is in place at Edison Community College under their special service provisions. An addition was made to this contract. If, for any reason, this contract is terminated you can do so at your sole discretion with 30 days notice. At this time, we are half way through completing a no cost security assessment for the community that is being done by Wackenhut. This issue will be added to the next meeting's agenda. A MOTION was made by Michael Hughes to approve the Interim Security Services Agreement with Wackenhut. The MOTION was seconded and passed unanimously. C. Review of F.S. Chapter 190 Powers and Duties A two -age executive summary and an entire chapter of the above were enclosed with the agenda for the memberships review. Zoning, code enforcement, land use manners, subdivisions regulations, are some issues that management and the membership does not have the power to do. Discussion ensued of the powers that membership and management is allowed to do. D. Award Annual Chemical /Fertilizer Bid Invitations were sent out to bid to six firms. All six firms bid on the right to do business with our district. A three -page bid tabulation sheet was attached to the agenda. This bid was reviewed by membership. Every bidder won in at least one category. Under aquatic chemicals for products called Sonar and Reward, two identical bids were received. For purposes of administration, either qualified bidder can be used subject to them being able to meet the delivery time frames of Mr. Ellis, who actually employs and utilizes the chemicals in the field. There were no instances where we disallowed any of the bidders. Mr. Dorrill asked that the annual contract and bid for fertilizer /chemical and associated products to all six bidders within, and only for those categories shown on the tabulation sheet be accepted and he, as the District Secretary, to execute the contracts and have them returned to the bidders. A MOTION was made by Michael Hughes to approve all six bids. The MOTION was seconded and passed unanimously. E. Request to Declare Surplus to Deck Mowers Former deck mowers have been recently replaced. The new mowers (serial numbers 5004 & 5020) have been received. Minutes - Lely CDD March 21, 2001 Pg. 3 16J1 The original decision was that we would sell the former deck mowers for seal bid process and hope to do so at an advantage over what we would have been able to trade those in. A MOTION was made by Michael Hughes to declare the previous surplus to the district for purposes of their disposal. The MOTION was seconded and passed unanimously. F, Resignation of Mr. Charles Smith /District Vice Chairman A letter of resignation from Mr. Charles Smith was received in Mr. Dorrill',, office on March 13, 2001. Mr. Dorrill read the letter of resignation to the membership. A MOTION was made by Michael Hughes to accept the resignation of Mr. Charles Smith. The MOTION was seconded and passed unanimously. Resumes and applications will need to be solicited and interviews will have to be done, if necessary. Michael J. Volpe, Esquire, reported that under Chapter 190.006, Section 4, of the Governing Statutes it states, "Members of the Board shall be known as supervisors and upon entering into office shall take and subscribe to the oath of officers prescribed by section 876.05 . They shall hold office for the terms of which they were elected or appointed, and until their successors are chosen and qualified. If during the term of office a vacancy occurs, the remaining members of the board shall fill the vacancy by an appointment for the reminder of the unexpired term." Public notice will be given to the community and will be posted that a vacancy exists on the board. Mr. Dorrill suggested the deadline of April 20, 2001 in order to distribute them to the membership by April 23, 2001 so that they have three weeks to look over the resumes and letters of interest in order to make a decision at the next meeting in May. A MOTION was made by Charles Krout that Mr. Dorrill mail an invitation to each president of each neighborhood or condominium community and ask them to circulate it within their neighborhoods. For people who wish to pursue this vacancy they can call Mr. Dorrill at 592 -9115, or fax to 594 -1422. The MOTION was seconded and passed unanimously. 16J1 Minutes - Lely CDD March 21, 2001 Pg, 4 ATTORNEY'S REPORT A. Initial Review of Government Insurance Trust Lawsuit Mr. Volpe reported that there is a plan of liquidation for the government insurance trust fund, which is a trust fund that was created by the state for the payment of provision of workers' compensation. There is an adhoc committee of members that has met and they have made a recommendation to follow the other members that this plan of the organization be approved. There will be some benefits; however, the extent of the benefits is undetermined at this point. As it turns out your ballot was supposed to have been in by March 16, 2001. This item is really for informational purposes only. Mr. Volpe discussed election terms, which occurred at the last board meeting, about the terms of office of Mr. Hughes and Mr. Biggs. One is, when will these terms be expiring; two, the process for the calling of a special election to fill the vacancies that will be created. Terms of the members of this board will expire on the first Tuesday, after the first Monday in January. In this instance, the terms of office of Mr. Biggs and Mr. Hughes expire on January 14, 2002. Election will be held November 2, 2001. As this board has done in the past, the board has to consider asking the Supervisor of Elections to begin a process to call a special election to fill these two vacancies. The Supervisor then goes through a process goes to the Board of County Commissioners and a date is set. Mr. Volpe prepared a resolution of what the board has done in the past for informational purposes only. A MOTION was made by Ted Biggs to hold an election on November 2, 2001 fill the two vacancies. The MOTION was seconded and passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS /MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Dorrill addressed Paul Titus's question regarding the fiscal year. Discussion was held regarding the financial statements and the audit for the prior fiscal year, ending September 31, 2000. An item will be on next month's agenda regarding utilizing a local accounting firm as opposed to the accounting firm on the east coast. Minutes — Lely CDD March 21, 2001 Pg. 5 Transportation 16J1 r This item was a subject of a discussion at a County Commission Workshop on transportation. This topic was followed up on; however, the outcome on this issue is unknown at the present time. Lake Lining Ron Moore questioned the new lining in the lakes, and asked Mr. Dorrill to explain the benefit to the homeowners. Discussion ensued of the main benefit, which is giving the homeowners water to water their lawns in order to make sure the lawns are green and not brown, and so water can also be pumped to the medians. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, W. Neil Dorrill Dorrill Management Group May 07 01 12:27p Denault Transcription 941 -775 -6163 LELY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Naples, Florida Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of Lely Community Dev_elgpment District Held on April 18. 2001 p.l 16J1 A Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of Lely Community Development District was held on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 at 1:30 p.m. at the East Naples Community Library. DIRECTORS PRESENT: Michael J. Volpe, Esquire, District' Attorney Jerry Ellis, Lely CDD Site Supervisor Ted Biggs, District Supervisor Charles Krout, District Supervisor Joseph Boff, District Supervisor DIRECTORS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER Michael Hughes, District Chairman W. Neil Dorrill, Dorrill Management Group Steve Means, Wilson, Miller Noting that a quorum was established, the meeting was called to order by Neil Dorrill at 1:30 p.m. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Neil Dorrill advised the membership of the additional items (surplus mowers and beautification project), which have been added to the agenda. A notice of the meeting was posted in the Naples Daily News and was properly advertised. A MOTION was made by Mr. Boff to approve the agenda as amended_ The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Diggs and passed unanimously. APPROVAL PREVIOUS MINUTES A MOTION was made by Charles Krout to approve the Minutes of March 21, 2001 with one correction to page 2 under subheading C; it should read "A two- page ". The MOTION was seconded and passed unanimously. May 07 01 12:27p Denault Transcription Minutes — Lely CDD April 18, 2001 Pg. 2 MANAGER'S REPORT A. Update of Lake Lining Contract 941 -775 -6163 p,2 16J1 Mr. Dorrill mentioned that testing has been done and we are at substantial completion. Steve Means of Wilson Miller reported that the contractor finished placing the clay liner. The clay liner has to settle 72 hours, pet spec, before core samples are performed. The water levels are up much higher than over the past several years. Approximately $19,000.00 was withheld from pay request number 3 in order to assure that the job is done in accordance with the specifications pertaining to additional clay. Final releases will not be made until, or unless Steve certifies it, as the registered civil engineer for the project. In addition, there is a hydro geologic subconsultant to them who advised them on making sure that the lake meets the seepage requirements, and that it actually holds the water that was contracted for it to hold. At this time it is doing extremely well. The contractor has submitted the fourth and final pay request. If it is done properly it will be signed off within 30 days. B. Update and Discussion Regarding Maintenance Facility The maintenance facility will be a major capital improvement project for next year. There is a revised site plan that is shown and gives a good indication as to how the site will be configured at it relates to other district property that includes our irrigation lake and the master pump station. There is a time sensitive issue that needs to be worked on. In order to meet the requirements, a site development plan needs to be filed, or we need to have a preliminary site development plan meeting by June 1, 2001. Steve Means presented and discussed with the membership an updated map of the maintenance facility. This facility should be included in the next fiscal year's budget. Mr. Dorrill suggested to the membership to begin to do some budget workshop planning at the next meeting. $350,000,00 was authorized and transferred from reserves to do the lake lining project. There is not enough cash in the reserves to undertake the maintenance facility. Mai 07 01 12:27p Denault Transcription 941 -775 -6163 p.3 Minutes - LeI y CDD 16J 1 April 18, 2001 Pg. 3 There is enough money in reserves at this time to authorize the initial work order and to perform the clearing, grubbing and filling work. A Iv10T10N was made by Mr. Buff to authorize work authorization attached to the published agenda and to file for the permits for the site development plan approval from the county. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Biggs and passed unanimously. C. Award of Annual Contract I. Beautification Project The bids were very competitive. The lowest and most responsive bidder is H_ M. Buckley Sr Sons of Naples, Florida located on Airport Road. They will drop ship to the exact location at no additional cost. A MOTION was made by Mr. Boff to approve H. M. Buckley 6z Sons' bid. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Krout and passed unanimously. D. Review of Seat 5 District Su rvisor A better than anticipated response has been received for candidates from within the community. Voting will not take place until the meeting in May. Mr. Dorrill presented to the membership the public notice that was sent by him. The deadline is April 20, 2001. Supplemental information was received concerning Mr. Drum. Mr. Dorrill will pass out copies of letters of recommendation before meeting is adjourned. Mr. Dorrill will arrange for Mr. Krout and Mr. Biggs to meet with applicants one on one. They will need to be a qualified elector in Collier County who is registered to vote. Mr. Volpe discussed the elections terms, which was also discussed at the March 21, 2001 meeting, about the terms of office of Mr. Hughes and Mr. Biggs. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Biggs terms of office expire on January 14, 2002. E. Surplus Deck Mowers Holand Haskins of Bonita Springs, Florida, submitted the highest bid for each of the two deck mowers, $1,026.00, which is an extremely good price, especially compared to the other bids, which were in the $500.00 to $700.00 range. mad 07 01 12:27p Denault Transcription 941- 775 -6163 p,4 Minutes — Lel i' CDD 6J1 April I8, 2001 Pg. 4 Mr. Dorrill recommended to the membership that the bid be awarded in the amount of $2,052.00 to 1 bland Haskins. A MOTION was made by Mr. Boff to award the bid to I Ioland Haskins. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Krout and passed unanimously. ATTORNEY'S REPORT No report. SUPERVISOR REQUESTS A Discussion ensued regarding Jerry Ellis' contract. A MOTION was made by Mr_ Biggs to extend Mr. Ellis' contact to June 2001. Mr. Boff seconded the MOTION and the MOTION was passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMM ENTSJMISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE Question was raised in future meetings of the Board will there be agendas available to the general public so the public can follow through on the program. Mr. Dorrill not opposed to providing copies of the agenda index. If anyone is interested in receiving a full and complete agenda, a nominal fee will be charged. Question was raised as to how much the homeowners pay for the maintenance facility. Homeowners are responsible for 20% and Lely Development is responsible for 80% of the maintenance facility. The District is required to have an outside and external independent audit performed annually. Included in the base management fee is the bookkeeping. A separate budgeted fee is charged for the independent auditor. The audit was properly engaged for the previous fiscal year. The audit report for March 31, 2001 has not yet been received; however, Mr. Dorrill has been assured that the audit was undertaken in accordance with the legal requirement. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, W. Neil Dorrill Dorrill Management Group LELY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Naples, Florida 16JI Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of Lely Community Development District Held May 16 2001 A Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of Lely Community Development District was held on Wednesday, May 16, 2001 at 1:30 p.m., at the East Naples Community Library. SUPERVISORS PRESENT ALSO PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER Michael Hughes, District Chairman Joseph Boff, District Supervisor Ted Biggs, District Supervisor Charles Krout, District Supervisor W. Neil Dorrill, Dorrill Management Group Jerry Ellis, Lely CDD Site Supervisor Michael J. Volpe, Esquire, District Council Noting that a quorum was established, the meeting was called to order by Neil Dorrill at 1:30 p.m. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Neil Dorrill advised the membership that there are no additional add -on items or changes to today's agenda. A MOTION was made by Mr. Krout to approve the agenda as submitted. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Boff and passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Volpe and Mr. Ellis were listed as supervisors on the previous minutes of April 18, 2001 when in fact they are not. The change to the previous minutes has been made. A MOTION was made by Mr. Boff to accept the previous minutes of April 18, 2001 as amended. The MOTION was seconded and passed unanimously. MANAGER'S REPORT a. Update of Lake Lining Contract This district has access to county effluent water. The fact that the effluent and the spring of the effluent is not part of Phase II or Phase III water restrictions as is the case with the rest of the county, it is nice to be able to have a lined lake. The commodity is being delivered from the South County Waster Water Treatment Plant. Minutes — Lely CDD May 16, 2001 Pg. 2 16J1 We are trying to get a clarification, in the event that we have a separate permit for the consumptive use wells that we use to make up historically the lack of effluent. We are trying to get a modification that would allow us unrestricted future permitted effluent irrigation from the lake if we're not needing or making up the amount of water. This is depending on the availability. The lake lining project is done. We are attempting, at this time, to make the final payment. Mr. Dorrill is presently working with district counsel to get a legal opinion on the nature of the construction contract. The contractor has maintained a very clean and efficient site. It is not clear if one of the technical elements of the specification was adhered to concerning the re- application after the initial application had been allowed to settle. We are reviewing with the consulting engineer the field notes to see, if in fact, they complied with the second, as necessary application, and also determining whether our contract for that element of the work was a lump sum element before the final payment is made. The contractor has demobilized. The work and the water holding ability of the lake exceeds the specification in the opinion of the engineer, which is outstanding. We hope to have, and make a final payment, or resolve this dispute as part of the 4`h draw request. This will be reported at the next scheduled meeting. An interpretation will be received from Mr. Volpe concerning the nature of the contract before the fourth and final payment is made. b. Review of Mid -Year Revenue and Expense Budgets Mr. Dorrill reported on the mid -year Revenue and expense budgets. The close of business in April was the 6" month, or mid -year point, of our fiscal year. An executive summary-type review has not been received in the past. Next month a proposed tentative budget for the district for the next year will be submitted. It is always a good idea to see where the district is for the mid- year, especially on the expense, as some expenses are seasonal or may run in cycles. This report is primarily for informational use only and to point out if there are any higher than 50% items of note, such as community irrigation. An invoice was received back in January for irrigation sales from a prior period. There had been some problem with the county and the billing cycle, and we received what may be called an extraordinary bill for effluent that was purchased. Overall, year -to -date, the district is at $542,000.00 on the operating side. There is one major capital improvement that is not part of this, which is $300,000+ lake lining project, which is 47% of budgeted expenses. Revenues year -to -date are running at approximately 73 %. Minutes — Lely CDD May 16, 2001 Pg. 3 16J1 1 The majority of people do pay their property taxes in November, December, January, February, and March. After this period of time, they become delinquent. The majority of people typically pay their taxes on time. In prior years approximately 98% of all the real property that is taxed in the district do pay their taxes. So we have very little taxes that actually go to tax sale in this community, for the obvious reason that it is a master planned community and very few if any of the taxes remain delinquent -and unpaid. A question and answer session followed: Mr. Dorrill reported that on the water management side of the field operations budget is primarily spring. During the driest periods of the year, you have the least amount of aquatic weed growth. Until the levels come back up and we receive a lot of rain washing the phosphorus off the golf course and off the yards and into the lakes, we really don't have an aquatic weed growth. A new isolator is being looked at that will cost in the range of $5,000 to $10,000 to try to keep the voltage at 460 instead of 513 to 530 volts. The management fee line item was discussed. Mr. Dorrill reported that the management fee is charged as a lump sum. The management fee line item is over budgeted as opposed to the budget that was adopted. No line items were changed from the adopted budget in the required state chart of accounts. There will be no charges for computer time, accounting time, or office rent such as the case in Fort Lauderdale, etc. If a disbursement was not made for legal fees for the month of March, this is because we did not incur any. Field Management Services line item - There is a funded liability to make some payments to the pension. This was not being well administered. Mr. Dorrill met locally with a gentleman who is performing an evaluation. Previously shares were being bought in the Evergreen Mutual Fund for the pension system that has been set up. There is approximately $138,000 that has been accumulated in the pension fund for the employees. Rather than continue to make payments, a flat payment as a percentage of the gross payroll, or paycheck, for the employees. This has been withheld pending a review of the pension investments that we currently have. This is a discretionary pension system that is for the employees; the Florida Retirement System is not being participated in. Other pension plans will be looked into. Minutes -- Lely CDD May 16, 1001 Pg. 4 16J1 Dissemination agent — Mr. Dorrill reported that the dissemination agent is the person who makes the quarterly filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There routine Securities and Exchange Commission forms, which have to be filed with the federal government as they relate to our tax - exempt municipal bonds. This may be a annual or bi- annual type of filing. Mr. Dorrill reported that there will be two capital improvement programs next year. One will be the maintenance building and the other will be replacement of some of the fixed operating capital items, such as the utility vehicles that were used to move up and down the roads. These leases are coming due. Six of these vehicles need to be replaced, which will be major capital expenses. An operating budget and capital improvement budget will be submitted next year. A debt service budget is required to pay the debt on the bonds. Irrigation supply services — Concerns were expressed regarding the repairs for irrigation on common grounds, which seems to be astronomical. Review and Verification of Irrigation Capacity at Classics Plantation Mr. Dorrill received a request from the Lely Development Company, who is making plans to initiate construction for a new community called "Classics Plantation ", a residential community. They are asking the district to verify that we have capacity to deliver the necessary pressure from our pumping system. Mr. Dorrill submitted the request to Wilson, Miller and asked them to substantiate in writing that we can in fact meet the capacity requirements of this new community. Mr. Ellis reported that with the system running at capacity there would be no problem with the irrigation capacity for Classics Plantation with the pumping station running at full capacity. The supervisors have the authority to enter into this type of contract, that it is a contract to supply water outside of the jurisdictional limits of the district. This new area, Classics Plantation, of Lely Resort will continue to be part of the district. They will pay the same per unit assessments as the rest of us, or they will pay through a separate metered sale type agreement. Minutes - Lely CDD 16J1 May 16, 2001 Pg. 5 There are existing metered sale agreements and we have metered use in the community now so this would not be any different than what we are doing in other aspects. If they are not part of the accessible district role, then we will need to have off setting revenue to sell irrigation water. D. Interview and Selection of Seat 5 District Supervisor Discussion ensued of selecting a new District Supervisor to replace Mr. Smith who resigned two months ago. There are no additional candidates to consider at the time of this meeting. Provided to membership was all of the material that was received in writing for all of the candidates, of which there are four. Private interviews were conducted for those who chose to have private interviews with the perspective supervisors at the offices of Dorrill Management. There was some concern about nominating a candidate who happens to be a person who is an independent agent in an office where another member works. Mr. Volpe stated that there is not a prohibited conflict of interest. There is a provision in the law that does allow for an elected public official to abstain from voting if there is an appearance of an impropriety, where there is a direct prohibited competent. A MOTION was made by Michael Hughes to nominate Holly Balante as District Supervisor. No second. A MOTION was made by Ted Biggs to nominate Mr. Wayne McLellan as District Supervisor. The MOTION was seconded and passed unanimously. ATTORNEYS REPORT Mr. Volpe and Mr. Ellis have discussed the employment agreement and will be brought back to the Board at next month's meeting. SUPERVISOR REQUESTS Discussion ensued about the pumps are being proposed to install. Mr. Dorrill stated that if it is not in our interest to own them then the burden will be placed on the individual homeowner's association, but we will control the agreement. Mr. Dorrill will obtain a copy of a recorded shared maintenance agreement from the Strand. Street lighting and security is treated the same way and the cost is split between the commercial area, the master homeowners, and the country club. This will give Lely CDD an idea of where to begin. Minutes — Lely CDD May 16, 2001 Pg. 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS 16J1 Discussion ensued regarding a letter that was received by Ms. Biehl in reference to the entrance at Lely Island Circle. The request was to give some type of response as to who has the right of way to designate plantings in this area and appropriate funds given to do the plantings. Whose obligation is it to maintain the sign at the entrance? Is Lely CDD responsible for the upkeep on the sign? In front of the sign there is some type of grass that is covering the sign. A request was made to have the grass removed. A MOTION was made by Mr. Boff to find out who owns the entry signs in each one of the communities and perform the same plantings (equal dollar amount) per entry sign throughout. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Krout and passed unanimously. Ms. Biehl mentioned there is an unsightly growth at the triangle, left hand side, at Lely Island Circle. Mr. Ellis informed Ms. Biehl that this unsightly growth has been removed. Ms. Biehl also stated that the mounds were high on the medians. A request was made that more of the mounds be removed and be re- landscaped. Mr. Dorrill stated that it has not been authorized to go to bid to undertake the work to remove the dirt, replant, and re- irrigate. This will be very expensive. A permit from the county has been received to perform work in their right of way. Pending the outcome of the other capital project, Mr. Dorrill will let the membership know what remaining reserves are left to undertake this project once we know what the cost will be at next month's meeting. Hal Ousley asked if LCDD has clear title to the lake. Mr. Dorrill mentioned that there is a deed. It is clearly shown on the plat and the adjacent properties that it is our maintenance site, and is the master pump station. Those properties that are being maintained by the district are dedicated to the district. Terry Rhodes encouraged the Board to take a broad view of the cost associated with providing water from the lake. The most important thing would be to recover some percentage of the cost that we make for improving the lake in making the repairs. Everyone had agreed at some point in time and found out that it had the purpose of providing more than just the current CDD that there would be some type of cost recovery for other people to use the lake. Also take into consideration overhead; such as the time that everyone spends in terms of maintaining and controlling the direction of maintaining the lake, the time that Jerry spends and anybody else might spend on the lake. All of these are costs that should be figured into our recovery for the water. There is a lot more associated with running LCDD than the cost of the water. Minutes — Le1y CDD 6J1 May 16, 2001 Pg. 7 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Dorrill discussed the preliminary security assessment, which was provided to the membership for reading, which has some very specific recommendations about things that we should do and can do. We are awaiting the final recommendations from a public records request that we have mad to the sheriffs department to know what actual incidents of reported crime have occurred in our community and some of the surrounding communities so that we can then target going forward in being proactive. This will help in deciding on how to spend the monies on private security. Mr. Dorrill has received a recent incident report where the Classics Country Club has not been locked. Security has no authorization to enter building; however, they do report incidences where buildings were left unattended or unlocked. The total annual expenditure for security for this community is currently $60,000.00 a year. A MOTION was made by Mr. Boff to add a second shift to increase security. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Krout and passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, W. Neil Dorrill Dorrill Management Group Jul 07 01 12:36p Denault Transcription 941 -775 -6163 LELY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Naples, Florida Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Supervisors Of Lily Community Development Held un 20, 2001 A Regular Meeting of the Supervisors of Lely Community Development was held on Wednesday, June 20, 2001 at 1:30 p.m., at the East Naples Community Library. SUPERVISORS PRESENT: Michael Hughes, District CFiairman Joseph Boff, District Supervisor Charles Krout, District Supervisor Wayne McLellan , vism; CT ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, Dorrill Management Group Michael Volpe, District Council Jerry Ellis, Site Supervisor CALL TO ORDER Noting that a quorum was established, the meeting was called to order by Neil Dorrill at 1:30 p.m. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH Neil Dorrill administrated the oath of office for Mr. Wayne McLellan. INOVATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. ROLL CALL/APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Dorrill repotted that Mr. Biggs surgery was successful. His surgery was necessary to repair an aneurysm on his aorta. He had spent several days in intensive care and is now at home recuperating. He expects to be with us next month. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A MOTION was made by Michael Hughes to approve the minutes of May 16, 2001. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Kraut and passed unanimously. MANAGER'S REPORT a. Presentation of Tentative FY 2002 Budget Mr. Dorrill presented the tentative FY 2002 budget. It is anticipated that it will be one of the districts largest proposed capital improvement projects, which is the new maintenance building. If we were to adopt the budget as it is currently presented, including raising all of the cash in one year for the capital improvement project, which is $650,000.00, it will p.2 16J1 Jul 07 01 12:37p Denault Transcription 941- 775 -6163 p.3 16J1 subs rarztially, in percentage terms, raise individual assessments for next year to $700.00. An option would be to explore borrowing the money and spreading the cost of that out over a two or three year period. Mr. Dorrill felt it was important to submit a separate capital improvement budget in addition to the operating budget, and also the required debt service budgets that we have to retire the debt for both the series A and the series C bond issues. A summary, which shows what the total expenditures are for the coming year in a letter format was prepared by Mr. Dorrill. Then the new capital improvement fund was created. At the public hearing in August, which will be to adopt the final budget for next year, page numbers will be provided on each page." On the consolidated budget summary page Mr. Ellis and Mr. Dorrill intend to organize the budget next year by fund and then departments within each fund so that you can see operationally is intended. The budget summary gives the II- beginning balance on October 1", or cash on hand of October 1" of this year, and the projected revenues and the estimated expenditures through 12 months. This then gives cash carry forward that becomes the beginning fund balance on October the following year, then the revenues and the anticipated expenditures in order to produce a balanced budget. This is why with reserves that each one of these has a zero balance. This is a little different than the type of information, but this sort of shows the cash requirements and the beginning cash that we have and the revenues that we need to raise in order to produce the expenditures that we have. The general fund shows a percentage change increase or decrease. Mr. Ellis and Mr. Dorrill found that there were quite a few, and in some cases, some fairly significant ups and downs. Next year's budget is projected based on what the actual estimated expenditures are going to be. The budget was broken out and presented in such a way to show functionally the amounts that are there by department within the general fund. Overall, for the various departments that are in the general fund, total appropriations this year, were $1,192,000.00, almost 1.2 million. There are projected to be, next year, 1.3 million, $1,317,000.00. This is about a 10% increase. The single largest element on the operating side of next year's budget that is increasing is primarily attributed to, is a 245% increase in effluent. This is the irrigation water that is purchased from Collier County Government. Based on what the repayment scheduled is going to be, combined with the anticipated usage or purchase of effluent next year, substantial increase in both that and a substantial increase in electricity to drive our motors and the pumps that we have. The biggest overall increase in the budget this year, about a 68% increase, or some $60,000.00 is associated with irrigation. The budget is now a little more reflective of what out actual needs and expenses are going to be, Jul 07 01 12:37p Denault Transcription 941 -775 -6163 p.4 uestion and answer s. 16J1 Q session followed: Q For dwelling and assessment it will be $707.00. What was it last year? Do you know? A I don't — Q Is this a substantial increase? A Last year it was three hundred and some odd dollars, so a four hundred dollar increase. Three hundred and forty two. So it's almost doubled what last year's assessment, and that's — Q It's all for the maintenance shed? A Essentially that, and the 10% increase in our operating budget that it is solely reflective of what our irrigation needs are going to be for next year. Q Now, this is assuming that we pay for it all in one shot? A That's correct. It could be spread out over a period of time where the taxes don't have to increase as much. If you turn to the very last page in this, right before the white tab in your agenda, this is the cost detail that I am projecting based on conversations with our engineer, Steve Means, as to what we are projecting the facility expense to be. This is reflective of trying to raise all of the money in one year, and to repay the costs associated with the project that are projected to be $627,500.00 for the new maintenance facility. Half of it obviously in building, but some fairly significant work, site work, paving, fill is $107,000.00 total. All of which can be depreciated. Q Can we get away with doing this every two or three years? Will it work? Is it going to go backwards? Price is going to increase so much, that we're not doing ourselves any good by spreading it out. A So, right now if we did that, it's about half of this amount right now, $300.00. Two - seventy five about. It says three -fifty for the building. So, about a hundred thousand of that three -fifty goes into other buildings that we are building. Q So, if we did like three seventy five this year and did all of the improvements and moved these trailers over, I'm asking you the same thing to, do we do that in one year and then go to the next year and build the structure? A Yes. Certainly. Q How much are we going to spend to put temporary stuff up? A Where are we going to stay with it? How much time are we going to take to put in and out every day to try to secure it, etc., etc? Jul 07 01 12:37p Denault Transcription 941 -775 -6163 p.5 161 Q Is there any way we could have something that's functional? Each year there is going to be more and more units within Lely. I'm just wondering — A This is not raising taxes. This is a one -time assessment. It's a one -time shot. Q But still, they're going to pay for it. A Well, I'm just trying to spread it over two or three years. That's about $350.00. How many households are in there compared to how many units are owned by Lely Development Corporation? COLLOQUY: There are a little more than 3,000 total assessable units. Thirty -seven hundred. Thirty-seven hundred. I don't actually — Q Eighteen- hundred residents and maybe two thousand and then the other seventeen hundred are Lely's units? A Yes. I can't tell you how many are CEO'd at this time. Q What I'm curious about, I don't know a lot about it, but if we got something that was functional in there rather than the ideal situation, as well as spread out the financing of it, can we do where there's not an increase, or wltete it's minimal? I mean that's something you'll probably have to study. A My suggestion for purposes of today, would be to authorize us to explore maybe some two -year financing alternatives and to evaluate using a safe portion of your remaining reserves. You know, the first day I took over this year was the same day that you authorized an unbudgeted capital project of $347,000.00, which was the lake liner. All of that money came out of reserves_ At this point we have about $400,000.00 remaining in our reserve fund. So to answer your question honestly, we could use one or two hundred thousand of that to offset trying to raise it all in the coming year. I would be, and I think that we have a responsibility to the district and to the people of the district, to keep an adequate reserve in the event that we ever had a unbudgeted expenditure to replace one of the big pumps, or and God forbid, if we were ever to have a hurricane and we incurred $50,000.00 of overtime expenses and $100,000.00 worth of contractor costs to clean up and remove debris from the community, I sure think we would look awful foolish if we ever had an emergency of that nature and we didn't have cash on hand to respond to the emergency. But I think, for two reasons, we would be well - advised to proceed to try and do the whole project next year, subject to your final approval, if we could part of the reserve fund that we have, keep about a quarter of a Jul 07 01 12:37p Denault Transcription 941 -775 -6163 p,6 16J1 million dollars worth of reserves and perhaps evaluate borrowing the balance and spreading that over two years, if necessary. COLLOQUEY: And you get a short -term loan — A little bridge loan and try and keep your overall increase per unit to $100 or $150 next year. You're going to have to do something and you're going to have to incur half of that expense just to prepare the site. We've got to clear it, fill it, pave ir, because YOU know we have to be out of our current site in the first quartet,of next year because Lely has development plans. Q One quick question here while we're going there, just maybe jumping ahead, and I called you about this earlier in the week in regards to Lely going into the Classics and looking at water pump stations and stuff like that. I have discussed with Joe Ryan an impact fee or something per unit going in there, something to offset some of the pumps you put in there. Is that something that we can anticipate to lighten the blow on this? Have we given any thought to how we're going to do that? I know he's anxious to move ahead with that property, but they still have to work something out with this effluent water. A Well you have a two -part question. I had asked Steve in advance and he was not at last month's meeting, but we had a discussion about this part moving into the residential area of the Classics. Is our system designed and capable of pumping irrigation water providing the pressures to run an irrigation system? Second part of that questions, is do we have the volume or can we buy the volume of effluent from the county to distribute throughout the community? So we get an answer to that first and then I may need Mr. Volpe's held on whether or not or how we can impose impact fees for irrigation. Q I know part of the water coming into, that we're allowed to buy for reuse water, is allotted for our acreage. So buy not letting them in I know we would loose half our water coming anyway. So, it's not like we don't want thetas, I know we have to allow them in, we want to let them in. I'm trying to figure out how we make it work and what's usual to make it work. A Normally, we improve the planning to update master plans (inaudible) in five or ten years. I think that it needs to be — Q How long would it take and how much would it take to do that study? When you say looking at this plan, what does it involve? A Distribution system to make that that is adequate in size (inaudible). The development that's on record as not wanting Classics to he part of the district. If that would be the case, we don't have any obligation to supply water. Do we? Jul 07 01 12:38p Denault Transcription 941 -775 -6163 COLLOQUEY. p.7 16J1 ':�i The DRI calls it, the amount of water we're getting from the county right now to supply all that acreage in there. So we would probably have a reduced amount of water we would get from the county if we didn't have them part of that watering district, right? We didn't - You're saying we don't take all the water that we use. Right. We'll they're giving all this water based on this many acreage and this many units. If we cut the units in half chat we're going to get, they're going to cut back the amount of water that they give us. I don't think we can make informed decision without doing a study. Seems like your asking for studies. I agree with that, but I'm looking for an answer based on generics I think. Whether or not we really have to supply, do we have to concern the Classics if the development that they are not going to report to the District, why would we worry about them at all? I think we need to review the local agreement between the District and the county (inaudible). I think it did, didn't it? The zoning law that covers the requirements for the overall community, Mr. Volpe is correct and there is a separate contractual agreement between the county and the district. I don't know how old it is, how and when and how much. The cost to the district for the purchase from the county of the efferent is a million dollars. It is a very expensive project. Between the county and the district, we need an agreement, which describes what the obligations are of the district to accept and to store effluent. That's one part of it. As to the comments as to whether there is something in the DRI, we preceded the actual creation of the development district to make effluent available to areas outside of the district. That's something I don't know, but I suspect that the DRI was approved and finalized prior to the creation of Lely Community. So I think it's unlikely that there would be anything in the DRI that would obligate the district, which is not still in existence to provide water, effluent water, to anybody outside of the district. Q I will be sure that we are not obligated to supply water outside of the district. Do we hurt ourselves by not getting the amount of water coming in from the county? A The agreement tells the district how much water it is required to accept. You're going to take it and you're going to buy it at the prescribed price because they need to be able to show to the state the ability to get rid of it. Jul 07 01 12:39p Denault Transcription 941- 775 -6163 p,g 16J1 Q But where do we put it? A That is the other issue, and that is the problem or the issue is, you know during the rainy season do we have to store it, and where is it going to be stored. Other communities throughout the county store the effluent, some of them have tanks. So, I don't know, this is an engineering question. Q Well historically what has happened? So we actually have not had to store the water? A Well, the take wasn't lined. There was no problem getting rid of water Whether you take it or not, you are paying for it. So, if you are obligated to take it and have the ability to store it, it may be in the district's business best interest. COLLOQU EY: I understand that we were selling to Lely because we had excess capacity, and by selling to them it was a way of brining in an income stream that would keep our budget. Including a pre -unit impact. 1 can assure you that if the Classics residential component is not going to be in the district. We are not under any obligation to give them the — we would want to meter and sell to a third party what is going to increasingly be a very precious commodity. Whether we can also charge them an irrigation hook -up fee as is the case in some of the other communities, when you buy your lot you pay a capital contribution to the homeowners association, you may pay a mailbox fee up front, and you also pay about a thousand dollar pet home irrigation hook -up fee. In the case of other communities that we're involved in, that helps pay for the cost of the line and the capacity to provide that effluent. Obviously we need some answers. Q It all starts with, do we have the excess capacity to sell? If we don't shoot ourselves in the foot. A We made a full circle. We need to find out exactly what we have out there, what we're paying, and what we're getting. We need to find out what we could or could not charge for it, then you add to our hook up fee. Until we find out how much water we have and how much we are going to use over the next ten years, there is no use discussing whom we are going to sell it to or not sell it to. Right now we're going to make it easy, Lely needs to buy water, we may have it and we can sell it to them. Without having any amount of water on the information we are wasting our time. We need to do the study. Jul 07 01 12:39p Renault Transcription COLLOQUEY: 941- 775 -6163 p,9 16J1 "1 I agree. And I don't know that 'We need to be in a position to sell them water come October V, because they obviously won't have demand for it. I don't know what Mr. Ryan's construction plans are for this new phase, the Classics, but we need to explore that and somebody needs to extrapolate out what the increasing demand is going to be over time so that we can then tie some expenses and some revenues to that. As they begun their infrastructure improvements, it may be important fot them to know early on whether the source of the effluent will be from the District or whether they are going to have to find a different source for the effluent. -1 don't know where that might come from. I don't know who or other areas that have entered into similar agreements. They could explore that as well. As an option to that. If we don't supply Lely water they are going to get water from somewhere else. Whether they run another line or something, then they just spend money_ If we have excess water to sell thetas, we can obviously make money on this and lower everybody's cost. If we don't know what we have to sell them, we can't even sit at the table and do that. So we need to move ahead to a study. Once we have that study, we'll decide whether we need to talk to them or not. (End of question and answer session) Mr. Dorrill suggested a motion to work to finalize the operating, and keep at least a quarter of a million dollars in the contingency reserve fund for the reasons stated and look to lowering or spreading out next year's per assessment cost within the hundred to a hundred and fifty dollar range. This is the first part of the motion. The second part would be then to take action on Mr. Boff's suggestion that we need to update and to proceed to evaluate the irrigation aspects and revenues of a new agreement with Lely Development. Mr. Dorrill reported that otherwise the overall expense picture is in very good shape except for a very poor job of budgeting the irrigation needs previously. Mr. Boff made a MOTION to go ahead and do the water study. The MOTION was seconded and all were in favor. Jul 07 01 12:40p Denault Transcription 941 -775 -6163 p.10 16J1 Members asked that the above motion be reviewed. Mr. Dorrill understood it to be to update and provide for an irrigation master plan and projected build out need as part of that between the District and Lely Development Corporation on a time and material basis, not to exceed $10,000.00 and have a finished report within 60 days. b. Extension of Security Agreement with Wackenhut Corporation The current security contract with Wackenhut Corporation that was acquired through Edison Community College has just been renewed. Edison Community College has extended a new contract. The good news is that the per hour cost is actually decreasing under the new contract. We were previously paying upwards of $21.00 per hour. The new cost is $16.08 per hour. This is for the custom protection officer, which is their top line officer. There is an incremental increase for holiday, for overtime pay. If necessary it would be $22.00 per hour. The per hour cost is down almost $4.00 under the new agreement. It has been extended with the college for another three years, Mr. Dorrill recommend that it be authorized to continue to provide these services at the new lower rate for a period of one year and then we will stop and reevaluate at that time unless you choose to terminate it prior to that. An option A, an option B, and a third option were projected. One with the vehicle to be supplied by them. There is currently a vehicle, which is not being used. Mr. Dorrill recommended assigning that vehicle to them and to continue to hold and make the lease payments. For the moment, what is budgeted is option A. If you want to budget additional hours beyond that then there would the additional cost, which would be option B. For the time being and the quality of the individual and the quality of the company, it was suggested to use option A, but at the new lower per hour cost, which saves us approximately $4.00. Wackenhut will provide to us reports on incidents. They will deliver or fax by the following morning. There hasn't been many, only a few. If anything is written up based on what their post orders are, they are obligated to provide a copy. Off -duty sheriff deputies were also looked in. This is an extremely expensive option, because while they are off duty, as part of the sheriffs policy, they come with the squad car and under the sheriffs control and direction. His current cost to do that was $30.00 per hour for an off -duty deputy. Jul 07 01 12:40p C. Denault Transcription 941 -775 -6163 p.11 16J1 "i Wackenhut officers are not sworn but custom protection officers. They must be either a retired military police or state, county or municipal policeman who is certified or a certified correctional officer who has worked in a prison or some equivalent of that. At this level they have law enforcement training or certification of some type. Most of them are military. A MOTION was made by Joseph Boff to approve the Wackenhout Corporation security agreement at $16.08 per hour. The MOTION was seconded by Charles Krout and passed unanimously. Recommendation to Authorize Pay Adjustment and Employment Agreement with Field Manager, Mr. Dorrill reported that there is one revision to the Professional Services Agreement with Mr. Ellis. One change has been made to reflect Mr. Dorrill's address and Mr. Volpe's new address. This October Mr. Ellis will begin his 10" year of very dedicated service to the district. There is not a more qualified or a harder working field manager anywhere or any community in this county. In the 9+ years that Mr. Ellis has worked for the district he has never received a wage adjustment other than a minimal cost of living increase on those occasions when one was given. Mr. Dorrill strongly recommended a one- time 10% increase over his former rate of pay recognizing almost ten years of service to the community without ever leaving received a pay increase and a provision that we would at least, on an annual basis, for the next three years evaluate his pay and compare it to other comparable individuals. Mr. Dorrill recommends that the base pay for Mr. Ellis be $74,248.00. Joseph Boff made a MOTION to approve the base pay. Charles Krout seconded. The MOTION passed unanimously. d. Median/Responsibility Mr. Dorrill discussed Mr. Biehl's concerns about whose responsibility it is to maintain monument signs to individual neighborhoods and whether the district should be maintaining the landscaping associated with those, and in particular should the district budget and install annual flowers and plants throughout the course of the year. Mr. Dorrill asked Steve to bring some of the flats with him. In some cases, like in Lely Island Estates where the sign and the landscaping are located in a median within the street that is a public sweet, there is again a two -party agreement between the district and the county where the county has said, yeah, we'll allow you to do these type of things in the median, but you are going to be responsible to pay for them. Jul 07 01 12:41p Denault Transcription 941- 775 -6163 p.12 16J1 In the case of Lely Island Estates where the sign is in the median on the side street, this is an area that needs to be maintained by the district unless a decision is trade to in turn have the individual homeowners, and it is going to get very complicated. In other cases such as Domestic Greens, it is clear their entrance feature and their signage is outside of the right of way and on their property. Gerry Ellis and Mr. Dorrill requested some direction as to how the mcm6ers would like to see this proceed in those instances where the signs or the plantings are in the right of way. It appears to be our responsibility. At what level do you want them maintained and whether you want us out there changing out the flowers on a quarterly basis? A MOTION was made by Joseph Boff to where there is water to plant flowers and where there is no water use some type of green foliage that will look good but not take as much maintenance water wise. The MOTION was seconded and passed unanimously. ATTORNEYS REPORT Mr. Volpe reported to the Board that on the agenda for the Board of County Commissioners, the Board has placed on the agenda election and listed the criteria for the members. SUPERVISOR REQUEST Discussion ensued regarding the proposal that members of the homeowners and condo associations be invited to attend meetings. Mr. Dorrill stated that a notice is published in the newspaper. Meetings are held the third Wednesday of every month. Mr. Dorrill suggested that an agenda index could be mailed on the same day that the full agenda is delivered. Discussion ensued regarding payroll checks. There are 15 employees making half of them payroll checks. Fifty to sixty checks are signed a month. An amended MOTION was made by Joseph Boff to upgrade the monuments that are in the district's control to add water and electricity to them and maintain them with flowers. The MOTION was seconded and passed unanimously. Mr. McLellan mentioned that a few months ago the previous auditor for the books was discussed. Mr. Dorrill reported that no confirmation has been heard from the former management company that the audit was engaged or properly completed within the time frame, although one indication has been received. Mr. Volpe, just last week, had sent a demand letter of the former management company asking them to provide us either with the audit or to explain to us why it wasn't done so that we can then evaluate what our alternatives are for next year. Next year a local firm will be used. Mr. Volpe will follow up with the audit if no response is received. Jul 07 01 12s41p Denault Transcription 941 -775 -6163 p,13 16J1 PUBLIC COMMENTS/MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS Vera Orr requested some time ago a special directional sign for Mustang coming in from 41 if you want to make a left hand turn. Every other community or every other area has a streetlight on each side of the entrance. Mustang has one on the right hand side as you leave the community, none on the left hand side. Ms. Orr requested a streetlight be placed at the entrance so the sign can be seen from at night. Coverage amounts were discussed in regards to hurricane coverage. Mr. Dorrill reported that he would look these amounts up and report them at a future meeting. Discussion ensued as to how the maintenance property got left on non -CDD property. If it did get left on non -CDD property, was there an agreement between the developer and the CDD to leave it there for sortie period of time. Mr. Dorrill was not aware of an agreement. It was left there by default; there was a cleared arcs that was there. Mr. Ellis reported that in'92 there was no district maintenance sublet out. Lely Development had a cleared plot. For their construction they were putting in Grand Lely Drive at the time- They allowed us to move into one of their trailers that were vacant there. They then let us fence in the area and build a compound on their land. There was no agreement; however, they did charge us rent for the trailer was $300.00 per quarter. In about'94 or'95 we purchased that land for the maintenance facility. Mr. Dorrill reported that rent is not being paid at this time. Discussion ensued on the election process and where vacancies are posted. Vacancies ate posted in the newsletter and at the meetings. Homeowners Associations will be notified of future meetings with an agenda list attached to it. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, W. Neil Dorrill Dorrill Management Group LELY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 16J Naples, Florida 1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Supervisors of Lely Community Development Held July 18, 2001 A Regular Meeting of the Supervisors of Lely Community Development was held on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 at 1:30 p.m., at the East Naples Community Library. SUPERVISORS PRESENT SUPERVISORS ABSENT ALSO PRESENT CALL TO ORDER Michael Hughes, District Chairman Joseph Boff, District Supervisor Wayne McLellan, District Supervisor Ted Biggs, District Supervisor Charles Krout, District Supervisor Michael Volpe, District Council W. Neil Dorrill, Dorrill Management Group, Manager Jerry Ellis, Site Supervisor Noting that a quorum was established, the meeting was called to order by Neil Dorrill at 1:30 p.m. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in union. ROLL CALL /APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Dorrill welcomed back Mr. Biggs. With Mr. Krout and Mr. Volpe being absent a quorum was established. The meeting was promptly advertised and an affidavit has been received and filed for public notice of all meetings. A MOTION was made by Mr. Boff to approve the agenda as presented. The MOTION as seconded by Mr. McLellan and passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A MOTION was made by Mr. Hughes to approve the minutes of June 20, 2001 at written. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Biggs and passed unanimously. MANAGER'S REPORT a. Work Authorization for Irrigation System Master Plan Update Mr. Dorrill has requested a written work and task authorization for Wilson Miller to do the irrigation utility master plan update. An original authorization was presented to Mr. Hughes for signing. A MOTION was made by Mr. McLellan to approve the authorization. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Boff and passed unanimously. Minutes — Lely CDD July 18, 2001 Pg 2 16J1 Discussion concerning Lake 17 Mr. Dorrill presented a copy of the deed for Lake 17, which was executed in July 1996 for the pump station and adjacent facilities, which include the uptake or wet well to the master irrigation facility. The deed is not clear, from Mr. Dorrill's perspective, because there is no exhibit. Mr. Dorrill has requested an exhibit (a map), which will show the legal description that is on page 3 of the warranty deed. The legal description does not mean much without an exhibit. It is Very clear that LCDD owns the entire site of the pump station and the necessary uptake facilities as part of the Lake 17 irrigation system. It is not yet clear, in the absence of an exhibit, how much of the lake may also be included. If further adjustments or additional easements are necessary Mr. Dorrill will be in a better position to discuss at next month's meeting what additional efforts need to be undertaken to resolve some of the questions that have been brought up concerning the lake easement, or whether it was part of the plat. This instrument would be an additional easement, if necessary. An email was sent to Mr. Means asking him to prepare the exhibit so that Mr. Dorrill can answer the continued questions concerning the above. A discussion and answer session followed regarding the additional easements. C. Review of Financial Statement Each month a full copy of the financial statements is being provided. Ms. Balante also requested Mr. Dorrill that he provides a general ledger also. Questions followed regarding the audit. Mr. Dorrill explained that the previous budget, which was previously presented in many instances, did not have many reality aspects to it at all. The other thing that was found right after Mr. Dorrill started with LCDD is that LCDD had a sizeable back bill that was due to the county for the purchase of effluent water. There were a number of line items that had no basis at all; they were just plug numbers. The year -to -date actuals are based on those bills that Mr. Dorrill has actually received and paid. Regarding the budget that was submitted to the Board in June, Mr. Dorrill took these mid -year actuals into consideration in projecting all of the operating expenses for next year. Next year's budget is much more realistic than what was inherited this year, 2001. 1 Minutes — Lely CDD July 18, 2001 Pg. 3 d. Pension Plan 16J1'! Mr. Dorrill expressed some concerns as to the way the pension plan was being administered. A proposal was received to change the pension plan administrator from a professional firm in Venice, Florida. This firm does not charge a transaction -based fee. They charge a flat fee of I% of the total funds that are administered. Mr. Dorrill also expressed that he is totally dissatisfied with the pension plan management services that have been performed to -date. The proposal from the professional firm in Venice, Florida has been solicited. Mr. Dorrill requested that everyone review it and be prepared to make a decision, or solicit additional proposals at the August meeting. SUPERVISOR REQUESTS Audit Mr. Volpe has not yet received a response to the letter that was written a month ago. Mr. Dorrill has instructed Mr. Volpe to contact the audit firm directly and avoid the former manager. If necessary,-we will make a claim of action through the state comptroller's office to get an official response from the audit firm. Mr. Dorrill reported that the records that are the most important, in terms of the current year and the immediate past, were previously received, but with some difficulty. Additional records were dropped off at Mr. Dorrill's office with no prior notice; but on a preliminary basis appeared to have been items that were much, much older i.e., financial records going back into the early 1990s, which may even be beyond the time period that we are obligated to keep them. These may have been in dead storage and had slipped their mind. Mr. Dorrill asked his assistant to go through and catalog the additional records which were received. If there are records that LCDD is required to keep, Mr. Dorrill's office will send them to a dead storage facility here in Naples. An index will be prepared of the additional material that will be received. There is no reason to believe that the audit was not engaged because Mr. Volpe's office, as previously stated, was contacted by the auditor to determine if there were any claims of action or if the District was involved in any litigation as part of the their management letter. It is believed that the audit was certainly engaged; however, we have not been provided with a copy of it. It should have been submitted to the state in May, which is the requirement. If we find that it was not submitted, then we will bring a claim of action from the state against the audit firm or the former management firm if there are any repercussions. As additional information is received, Mr. Dorrill will inform everyone. Minutes -- Lel y CDD July 18, 2001 Pg. 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS Vera Orr, Mustang Villas: 16J1 On behalf of Mustang Villas, Ms. Bore, expressed her thanks, especially to Mr. Boff. MISCELLANEOUS CORESSPONDENCE Security We are coordinating with Mr. Ellis the proper identification 4 the Wackenhut Security vehicle that will have a phone number posted on the vehicles so that persons become a little more familiar with the radio telephone that the officer on duty will have with him at all times. If someone should have a non - emergency related request or need from the security officers, they will be clear as to what the phone number is. Maintenance Facility Mr. Dorrill has requested and received from Mr. Volpe the specialty warranty deed for the 2 �i acre site that is our maintenance facility. For those of you who maintain their own files, it would be good for you to have copies of these various deeds. Santa Barbara Extension In February Mr. Volpe had been directed to prepare an actual written resolution on behalf of this board as it pertains to the Santa Barbara Extension. Mr. Volpe has subsequently prepared and transmitted that resolution. A copy was given to each supervisor. A request has also been received from a law firm of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, in particular Rich Yovanovich, concerning an opportunity to review certain public records in that regard also. Supervisor Position Mr. Dorrill has received some requests from at least two individuals who are interested in running for the vacant supervisor's seat. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, a MOTION was made by Mr. McLellan and seconded by Mr. Boff to adjourn the meeting at 2:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, W. Neil Dorrill Dorrill Management Group LELY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Naples, Florida Minutes of a Reizular Meeting of the Supervisors 16J1 1.14 of Lely Community Development Held August 15, 2001 A Regular Meeting of the Supervisors of Lely Community Development was held on Wednesday, August 15, 2001 at 1:30 p.m., at the East Naples Community Library. SUPERVISORS PRESENT SUPERVISORS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER Michael Hughes, District Chairman Joseph Boff, District Supervisor Ted Biggs, District Supervisor Charles Krout, District Supervisor Michael Volpe, District Council Wayne McLellan, District Supervisor W. Neil Dorrill, Dorrill Management Group, Manager Jerry Ellis, Site Supervisor Noting that a quorum was established, the meeting was called to order by Neil Dorrill at 1:30 p.m. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in union. ROLL CALL /APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Dorrill reported one additional item, not an actual agenda item, but it is correspondence that was received in addition to the other miscellaneous correspondence items as it relates to confirmation of our new contract pricing for security. The new contract will save the district approximately $17,000.00 or almost $4.00 per man -hour. A MOTION was made by Mr. Hughes to approve the agenda as presented. The MOTION as seconded by Mr. Krout and passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A MOTION was made by Mr. Hughes to approve the minutes of July 18, 2001 as written. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Biggs and passed unanimously. MANAGER'S REPORT a. Approval of Final FY 2002 Budget The operating and debt service, and first capital improvement budget for the district was reviewed. At last month's meeting there was an extensive discussion and presentation at the July 18`h meeting. Presented to the supervisors was a summary of the various items as pertained to the budget. Minutes — Lel y CDD August 15, 2001 Pg. 2 16J1 Mr. Dorrill was asked to take a very critical look at projecting the beginning cash balance on October 1" to try and reduce the assessment, which has been done. Mr. Dorrill has projected an additional $100,000.00. The original cash on hand as a result of the end of this year was $64,000.00. Looking at the cash that is currently on hand and projecting what the monthly expenses are for payroll and engineering, managerial cost, other overhead, expenses are approximately $85,0000 to $95,000.00 per month, total, for all these items. This is the reason for the increase in the amount of cash of $100,000.00. This gives us a revised total of $164,000.00, which we will begin the year with. The budget is a fairly large budget, because of the one -time capital improvement project of $627,500.00, which is referenced under Fund 300, which is the new budget for next year (capital improvements). This is the current projected cost of the district maintenance facility, which is to be completed next year. The total revenue for both the operating and the capital budget next year is $1,944,897.00. There are two debt service budgets. The original funds A and B, which is fund 2 of 3, the principal and interest payment on the bond next year will be $1,856,153.00. The other debt service fund, which is the Bond Series C, which is fund 204, principal and interest payments next year are $1,339,831.00. By way of introduction this is the budget as it has been submitted today. Mr. Ellis discussed line item, which pertains to Mr. Dorrill. One of the problems with Jim Moyer was that the line item did not really reflect what the district was paying him. It was spread over a number of different lines, so there was really no true picture of what the manager was being paid. Looking at the budget for this year shows a 245% increase, but the reality is that Mr. Dorrill is putting everything on one line item. Mr. Dorrill explained, as it relates to what's called the State Chart of Accounts, he cannot juggle line item descriptions or titles. The line item, for example, for this year was $36,309.00. The total cost that was projected to have been paid to the management company for this year was spread or placed in about 10 different areas in the budget. The total aggregate cost to Moyer & Associates for this year was approximately $110,000.00. There were trustee fees, disbursement fees, office rent for a facility in Fort Lauderdale, accounting charges, computer charges, all types of preparation charges to print the monthly agenda and have it bound, etc. The best number would be to compare the $89,000.00 projected for next year against $110,000.00. So the total management fees for next year are almost $20,000.00 less. Minutes — Lely CDD August 15, 2001 Pg. 3 16J1 Further discussion ensued regarding various line items. Field Services are up by 9 %; however, landscape services are down by 13 %. Irrigation sight was grossly under budgeted, both for electrical consumption and the purchase of effluent water. The total budget for electricity this year for irrigation was budgeted at $17,000.00. This amount was spent in the first four months of the fiscal year on electricity. So the actual amount of consumption for electricity for irrigation to run the big pumps is approximately $30,000.00. Mr. Dorrill agrees that there are some fairly significant increases on the irrigation sight; however, they are offset in other areas, but more reflective of reality. Discussion ensued regarding the $120,000.00 increase, more than half of that is effluent water supply and increase iia security from $49,000.00 to $75,000.00. Mr. Dorrill explained that this was because of the hours added to security. The former contract was at a lower rate; however, there were a lot of problems with the former contract. The small Ranger, S10 pickup truck will be utilized by Wackenhut through the end of the lease, which is next year. A MOTION was made by Mr. Biggs to approve the final FY 2002 Budget. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Hughes and passed unanimously. b. Resolution 2001 — 4 Adopting the Final General, Capital and Debt Service Funds Budgets) of the LCDD for Fiscal Year 2002 C. Resolution 2001 — 5 Levying a Debt Service and Maintenance Assessment within the LCDD for Fiscal Year 2001. The specific resolutions that effectuate the tax collector, the actual dollar amounts by fund to include as a non ad valorem special assessment on the tax bill, which go out in November. Concern was expressed as how this affects the overall taxpayer. Will the tax bills go up slightly? Stay the same? Mr. Dorrill prepared a 3 -page summary for the budget. In the budget this year, it says, "The per dwelling unit operating and capital improvement assessments will be $469.00 per equivalent home in the community for the fiscal year." This is based on 3,701 units within this community. There is $1,071.00 to pay the debt service on the bonds that built the community, or $567.00 if you are a condominium unit. The operating capital side is the same for everyone. Minutes — Lely CDD 16J1 August 15, 2001 Pg. 4 A MOTION was made by Mr. Biggs to approve Resolution 2001 — 4 and Resolution 2001 — 5. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Krout and passed unanimously. d. Approval of Proposal for Pension Plan Administrative and Investment Management Services This is a proposal Mr. Dorrill had previously solicited whose fee is based on a lump sum and not a transaction fee. This.is something that would like to be adopted prior to the start of the fiscal year so that we are meeting the necessary IRS regulations about self- administered pension plans. Now that we have our audit completed, it would be nice to be able to turn over the audit to a professional investment firm whose fee is not based on transaction, but actually based on a flat rate for funds under administration. Mr. Dorrill would like this in place prior to October 1, 2001. This proposal is based on a flat, not to exceed, fee of 1% of the total funds that are to be invested. A MOTION was made by Mr. Krout to accept the proposal. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Biggs and passed unanimously. C. Attorney's Report Mr. Volpe discussed item Lake 17. A quit -claim deed for that portion of Lake 17 not currently owned by the District will be prepared and submitted to the Developer for transfer of this property. SUPERVISOR REQUESTS Audit Report Mr. Dorrill was asked if he was satisfied with the audit report. Mr. Dorrill stated that he is satisfied, and it has been forwarded onto the account. Some time between October 2001 and January 2002 Mr. Dorrill will bring proposals to utilize a local accounting firm, so there will be no delay. The statutory requirements were made to complete the audit. Proposals will be solicited regarding the audit during the first quarter. Supervisors will then be asked to rank the firms. Mr. Dorrill will then be directed to negotiate a fee contract to bring back for review. Mr. Krout expressed concern on cosmetic improvements. Minutes — Lely CDD August 15, 2001 Pg. 5 Reserves 16J1 Discussion was held regarding how much reserves we wanted to free up to reduce the impact of the taxpayers. Mr. Dorrill explained that there was no separate account for reserves and that there are separate accounts for reserves. There are separate reserve accounts in the current year's budget that total approximately $181,000.00. Of this $31,000.00 is a contingency reserve for our capital improvement (maintenance building). Five percent was added for unanticipated expenses when we go to bid the maintenance building. The other three funds have reserves budgeted at approximately $50,000 each for operating purposes. Bond service resolutions require in excess of 1 million that is a restrictive reserve that can only be used for debt service in the event that we had some sort of catastrophic depression or a severe recession where people would be unable to pay their property taxes. It would not be appropriate to reduce the reserves below where they are currently budgeted, because in the event of a hurricane or a tropical storm, which would result in extraordinary amounts of security or overtime to clean up the community, we would have to borrow money from the bank. Depending on whether it is a declared or presidential declaration of disaster, you can recover, from the government, a certain amount. But it will take a year or more to obtain your monies. MISCELLANEOUS CORESSPONDENCE N/A ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, W. Neil'Dorrill Dorrill Management Group LELY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Naples, Florida 16J 1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Supervisors of Lely Community Development Held on September 19, 2001 A Regular Meeting of the Supervisors of Lely Community Development was held on Wednesday, September 19, 2001 at 1:30 p.m., at the East Naples Community Library. SUPERVISORS PRESENT SUPERVISORS ABSENT Michael Hughes, District Chairman Joseph Boff, District Supervisor Ted Biggs, District Supervisor Michael Volpe, District Council Wayne McLellan, District Supervisor Charles Krout, District Supervisor ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, Dorrill Management Group, Manager Jerry Ellis, Site Supervisor Steve Means, WilsonMiller INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in union. CALL TO ORDER Noting that a quorum was established, the meeting was called to order by Neil Dorrill at 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL /APPROVAL OF AGENDA There are no additional add -on items to this agenda. A MOTION was made by Mr. Biggs and seconded by Mr. Boff to approve the agenda as presented. The MOTION was passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A MOTION was made by Mr. Boff and seconded by Mr. Biggs to approve the minutes of August 15, 2001. The MOTION was passed unanimously. MANAGER'S REPORT a. Release of RFP for FY 2001 Audit Services Mr. Dorrill was requested to prepare a request for proposals from Certified Public Accountants for auditing services for the 2001 audit. It is the intent to release this. A MOTION was made by Mr. McLellan and seconded by Mr. Hughes to give authorization to solicit proposals for auditing services beginning FY 2001. The MOTION was passed unanimously. Mr. Dorrill will bring back a recommendation at the October meeting. Minutes - Lely CDD August 15, 2001 Pg. 2 b, Review and Status of SDP for LCDD Maintenance Facility 16J1 Steve Means of WilsonMiller reported that this is a two - milestone process in order to get the maintenance facility under construction. One is to get the permits and the second is to bid and award the contract to a contractor to get started. The contract is out for bid at this time. The work should begin some time around January. As far as the permits are concerned, the county is satisfied. This is a two -phase process. We will do the cite work, cite infrastructure so Jerry can move his trailers over there. The second phase will be to build a permanent building. ATTORNEY'S REPORT Status of Lake 17 Warranty Deed Michael Volpe reported that we have received the legal description for the entire Lake 17. He has submitted it to Joe Ryan, the President of Lely Development Corporation. He has not yet received the signed deed from Mr. Ryan. Mr. Volpe spoke to him on Monday, September 17, 2001 and he indicated that he was awaiting the results of this report so that he would have all the information that he needs to be responsive to some of the questions that have been discussed, in particular, the question as to the past deed of Lake 17. So now that we have this report, Mr. Volpe suspects we will have something more responsive to report at the next meeting. We have the right to withdraw water for the District since 1996 when we received the deed to the permanent pump station as well as to a portion of Lake 17. So, the right to withdraw is an absolute right to withdraw and continue to provide to the District effluent for purposes of other irrigation. This right cannot be revoked. The year 1996 is the date of the deed to the permanent pump station and to the portion of Lake 17, which was described to us by WilsonMiller. Mr. Volpe received a call from the finance director at the Clerk of Courts office and they have in fact received a copy of the audit. There are some documents that Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Volpe need to discuss and will have to provide, having to do with the response to the management letter, and a number of other documents should also be readdressed. SUPERVISOR REQUESTS No requests from supervisors. Minutes — Lely CDD Augusr 15, 2001 Pg. 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS 16J1 % # Jill Fox directed questions and objections to Mr. Volpe regarding Lake 17 and the pump station. Mr. Volpe responded that what he had in his file was a deed to the pump station at Lake 17, which at the time was what he presumed to be the deed to the entire lake. There has never been any question in his mind that the District has the absolute right to withdraw the water from the lake. There is a deed to the parcel on which the maintenance facility will be constructed. This was a purchase and sale for which the District paid $360,000. Ownership of the lake was not an issue. The issue was that the District has a legal obligation to provide water for irrigation purposes to the people within the District. In order for the District to fulfill its obligation, it had to take some steps in order to provide the source of the water to provide the irrigation. Mr. Hughes mentioned that the water was leaking from the bottom of the lake and it was becoming dry during the dry season. Discussion ensued regarding the pumps in the Classics. The pumps were not part of the LCDD. The original plan called for the water that was there in Lake 17 to supply the water for all of Lely, including the Classics. Mr. Volpe stated that initially there was concern by the board of whether there was capacity within Lake 17 to provide irrigation water to property outside of the District. The first issue that needed to be answered was whether there was capacity. If there was capacity, then the question was, could the District enter into an agreement, or could the District provide water to property located outside the District? The answer is yes. The next discussion was that we need to negotiate that type of an agreement and how much is going to be paid? And will there be additional pump stations that will be required, assuming there was capacity? Mr. Dorrill explained that an evaluation will be done to see if there will be additional water to sell, and if there is a way to deliver the water. Then we must update the master plan and once we get some idea as to what the issues are, what if any additional capital expenses that we would have on top of those that have already occurred. We will then need to determine a rate, and sit down and see if we can negotiate an agreement with them. The Board will have to adopt the rate and the agreement at a public meeting in order for it to be in effect. There is an irrigation line throughout the District. The residential irrigation line, unlike the water and sewer line, has not been dedicated to the County. So the County owns the primary roads within LCDD and also owns the water and sewer lines. So the residents within the Community Development District pay water and sewer to the County. At any given point in time, the County has the right to take over the irrigation system from the District. Minutes — Lely CDD August 15, 2001 .. Pg. 4 6 f .� t! . As a part of the original negotiations back when the District was first created, in order to get to a certain point, the County required the District to turnover roads, water, and sewer, and reserve to a later date the right to require the District to turn over the irrigation system. At some point in time, depending upon where the County finally ends up, it may very well be that this is another part of the utility service that Collier County will be providing to the residents. It is a fact that the County does have the right to require the District to dedicate the irrigation system to the County. A question was asked if the $360,000 was just for the land and not for the construction of any of the buildings. The $360,000 is only for the land. The total with the maintenance facility is in excess of $500,000. Jill Fox asked what the parcel size of the maintenance facility is. Mr. Dorrill will make this information available at a later date. The parcel size is 2.02 acres. MISCELLANEOUS CORESSPONDENCE N/A ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, W. Neil Dorrill Dorrill Management Group LELY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Naples, Florida Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Supervisors 1611 of Lely Community Development Held on October 17 2001 A Regular Meeting of the Supervisors of Lely Community Development was held on Wednesday, October 17, 2001 at 1:30 p.m., at the East Naples Community Library. SUPERVISORS PRESENT: Michael Hughes, District Chairman Joseph Boff, District Supervisor Ted Biggs, District Supervisor Wayne McLellan, District Supervisor Charles Krout, District Supervisor ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, Dorrill Management Group, Manager Jerry Ellis, Site Supervisor Steve Means, WilsonMiller Michael Volpe, District Council INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Invocation led by W. Neil Dorrill of Dorrill Management Group. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in union. CALL TO ORDER Noting that a quorum was established, the meeting was called to order by Neil Dorrill at 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL /APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Dorrill reported that there are a couple of additions to the agenda. We did receive proposals for independent and outside auditors, Friday, October 12, 2001. An evaluation was performed on these and these were provided under separate cover. This is Item No. 4B. The District Engineer advised Mr. Dorrill that we have received and tabulated bids for site work for the district maintenance facility. The first add -on item today will be Item No. 4C. This will be a presentation of the seal bids for the district maintenance building and a presentation be made by Mr. Means of WilsonMiller. An additional item will be Item No. 4D. Mr. Dorrill advised everyone of the cash position at the end of the fiscal year, which was the end of last month. This is important because of the fact that the money was spent this year in the two capital projects that we had were not budgeted for lake lining project and also the maintenance facility project. So we are beginning the first month of the new fiscal year with lower than average cash reserves. The reason for Mr. Dorrill's requesting this one add -on is that we won't actually receive our first big distributions until the end of the month, sometime around Thanksgiving. We would have been two months into our fiscal year by this time. Page 1 We will probably need to either transfer or borrow for several weeks some additional funds until our initial distribution of taxes come in. So there will be a discussion of this under Item No. 4, and inter -fund transfer or cash flow loan. There will be one final 16J discussion item given the events of last week as the pertain to Mr. Y P Dorrill 's appearance in court and a discussion that Mr. Dorrill has had in advance with the chairman. A MOTION was made by Mr. Biggs to approve the agenda with these items as Mr. Dorrill discussed above. A request was made to move the topic of discussion regarding Mr. Dorrill to Item No. 6 (a). The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Boff and passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A MOTION was made by Mr. Boff to approve the minutes of the September 19, 2001 regular meeting, with a correction made under Item A, Releage of RFP for FY 2001 Audit Services. At the end of the first line it should state, "request for proposals," not "request for approvals." On page 3, Public Comments, last paragraph, it should read, "The residential irrigation line, unlike the water and sewer line, has not been dedicated to the County," and "So the County owns the primary roads within LCDD..." The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Hughes and passed unanimously. MANAGER'S REPORT a. Presentation of Irrigation Master Plan Mr. Dorrill provided a memorandum to everyone with important chronology and sequence of events for the entire community. Mr. Means explained that in 1988 the irrigation system for all of Lely Resort was first centralized and master planned. The idea was to design and build an irrigation system that would serve all of Lely Resort. The areas of green on the map, which was provided to everyone, are the areas that were to be served by the residential irrigation system. The golf courses were designed to be separately irrigated through their own pump station and their own distribution system and have their own supply. So what is presented at this meeting is primarily focusing on the residential irrigation system. The golf courses don't have any color to them, so they are not part of this study. Their source of water is through the wells and service lines. Lake 17 was first built in 1989 -1990, in this time frame. It's about 6 %z acres and was designed to reach and to provide all irrigation water for the residents within Lely Resort. 1991 is when the Lely CDD was first established. In the early 1990s the wellfield and service water pumps were installed for supply. In 1993 Lely CDD and Lely Development Corporation, under separate agreement, entered into a grievance with Collier County for delivery from the south plant. There was a schedule sent out that shows the allegations of effluent per year that would be allocated to Lely CDD. There is a separate agreement that Lely Development Corporation entered into for effluent supply to the golf courses under separate schedule. Page 2 16J1 In 1995 the master pump station announced their irrigation needs. The District was instructed and turned over to the District. In the last 1990s, the effluent lines were constructed from the south county's waster water treatment plan into Lake 17 and two of the lakes into the golf courses. The first report of effluent to be received by Lely CDD was 2000, a year and a half ago. Just recently there was an effluent line constructed to the third golf course within Lely. So all three golf courses are not receiving effluent. These are the key time frames of chronology. The report is divided into four major sections in terms of analysis of the irrigation system. The first is supply. We need to know where we are going to get our water from. The second is demand. How much water is actually being required to irrigate the residential area in Lely. The third is the distribution system, which gets the water out. The fourth is the pump station, so there is enough pumping capacity to supply the demands. Supply is probably the most interesting section here and probably the longest one. This is the one that we really need to do the most work on. The supply of irrigation water to Lely Resort comes from three sources, our wells, our service water pumps that draw lakes, and third is effluent from Collier County. On the map it shows that there are eight wells, which are marked as "Ws ". There are two service water pumps withdrawing from two lakes within the golf courses. So the distribution system takes the water and delivers it to either to Lake 17 or to the three golf course lakes. Jerry controls this distribution. For example, if the golf course needs water he will turn valves and will make the water go through the golf course or Lake 17. So he controls the distribution of this. The concern we have is that of the water use permit, which allocates about 2 million gallons a day of ground service water to these various uses, is in the name of Lely Development Corporation. It is not in the Lely CDD's name. So technically, even though Jerry turns the valves, Lely Development Corporation has control of that permit. The South Florida Water Management District controls the water use within the Lely District. In order to put a well in or to take water out of the lake you need to have a permit. Before Lely CDD was even formed, Lely Development Corporation applied for a water use permit for the uses of residential and golf courses. Page 3 Once Lely CDD was formulated and once the irrigation was turned over to Lely CDD, there was an agreement between 'Lely CDD and Lely Development Corporation that says, Jerry you go ahead and figure out the needs of water and pass it around. Fortunately, there has been enough water to go around for everyone, including the effluent. So we have ' gotten into adversarial position with the golf courses in terms of not 16J1 enough water supply. As you can see, there will be more and more competition for the 2 million gallons per day. In addition, we also have an opportunity to increase the allocation through permit modification so that we can get more water than the 2 million gallons per day. The modification of the permit is highly recommended. So the combination of surface found water and effluent makes up the water supply for the irrigation system of Lely Resort, those for the golf courses and for the residential system. The distribution, on the demand side, was originally calculated based on 1.5 inches of water supplied over the irrigated areas per week. We obtained these calculations from another report that was done about 4 — 5 years ago, and checked the actual irrigation records and back calculated the irrigated acreage and it turned out that the actual use about 1.5 inches. We did this again, the past 2 — 3 years of records and again did the back calculations and it shows the average use is about 1.5 inches per week. So that is what we used in order to project into the future how much total demand will be needed. We estimate that the future Lely CDD irrigation system need will require about 3.4 gallons per day. A question and answer session followed Mr. Means report. The table in the report provided shows that there is enough supply. Assuming that the golf courses use effluent, there is just enough supply to supply all of Lely Resort irrigation water and more than enough to supply just the Lely CDD irrigation. There is plenty of supply to cover Lely CDD; however, there is not enough supply to cover the entire community. There was a meeting held with the county last week. The first question Mr. Means asked was "How reliable is the effluent ?" The agreement says that we have to take a certain amount of effluent over the year. The reason is because our environmental protection requires a plan that if they have extra effluent they have to put it somewhere. They get agreements with golf courses that they serve. The golf course has to supply enough volume so that if the county needs to get rid of the effluent, they have a place to put it. So you are obligated to take the effluent, but they are not obligated to delivery it when you really need it. Page 4 There are golf courses in town that have, in their water use permit, a temporary junction where they can pump more than their normal allocation for a period of time, because they are on effluent. A . 16J l question came h 1 up as to t e overa 1 density in Lely decreasing in over the years due to growth management or various agreements. The density in Lely has gone down, yet the system that has been put in to service all of Lely when the density was a lot higher, doesn't appear that it would service that larger amount. The density was thought to be cut back from 10,000 to 6,000. There is not a direct correlation between the number of units and how much irrigated area you have. Actually you could have the reverse situation where a lot of density could mean a lot of multi- family. Whereas if the density goes down and the market goes from multi - family to single- family, the irrigation could actually go up. The demand actually has gone down. It was originally estimated for 4 million gallons, now it's about 3 'fi million gallons. Mr. Dorrill's understanding is that 2 of the wells that are developed are not operable because at this point they are not always needed. So there may not be electricity. Jerry stated that there are 8 wells total. Three wells are located in the southern half that are within the district's boundaries, within the golf course. There are 5 wells that are outside the district boundaries. It's not really the number of wells that we have, it's the allocation. Mr. Dorrill stated that the current permit for these wells is in the name of the development company because of the obvious interest that they have in the golf courses. This needs to be explored further without any adversarial aspects as it appears the district owns the wells. Steve was asked if he has the ability to calculate how many additional units that are added to this, at what point would we start having trouble. In other words, we can sell the next 200 units for 250 or 1,000, or whatever the number is. Once you hit that number then you have to look at what you have received and still have the ability to sell one. At what point do we not have the ability to sell. What is the most conservative approach? What is the worse case in scenario if they did not give us effluent, based on CDD building and how many more units could we service before we have a problem? Steve mentioned that he could obtain a calculation in reference to the above matter. Mr. Dorrill mentioned that it is also important to put in a time context that construction for the southeast corner of the Classics has commenced and the reason we are trying to vacant our current maintenance facility. Mr. Dorrill's understanding is that Tract I, or Phase I, of this single- family area is under construction now. Their point of connection will be right at the intersection where the one red line is, that is a part of the primary irrigation line, or the loop. So they are adjacent to our current primary line. Page 5 We don't really have any other issues as they relate to serving this new community. But, having access to the master irrigation system is of interest to them. It would help Mr. Dorrill and Steve to obtain some policy direction. 16J1 There are three options that need to be explored and there may be other elements of those because you may want some further mathematical analysis to know in phases how many units we could provide service to if we were doing this through some type of metered sale. Option No. 1 would be to determine or explore annexing that portion of the Classics community into the existing CDD. There are mechanisms for this in order to annex land, as would a city or a town or village government, if it behooved annexed land into -the CDD. This was only mentioned because Mr. Dorrill felt it was important from another perspective. The more units that you bring into the CDD, the more you are going to lower the fixed operating and capital cost that you have that are going to be otherwise be borne by the existing residents of the CDD. So there may be some tax and some budget incentives for us to explore this, but we need to have a willing landowner. This decision would have to be made jointly with the development company. This is certainly an option because then everyone would be paying the exact same unit cost for all services provided to the residents of this community. It would have to be taken down as part a phased plan at public hearings and properly advertised based on whatever the development plans are for the company that owns that land. This is clearly an option from a policy perspective and one that could be explored. Option No. 2 would be to establish better and written contractual agreements to serve and provide metered sale to this new community, The Classics. To include, as part of that, and make clear and to distinguish what the ongoing operating parameters of the system are going to be. Right now we control the system and we have since its inception. They control the permits. Mr. Dorrill is not so sure that it would be an easy thing to do for us to try and have the permit names conveyed to the District. This is one of the things that should further be explored. Option No. 3 would be to either convey the entire system to a third party. As Mr. Dorrill evaluated this option, he is not in a position to date to recommend this option to everyone as a policy, because this may not be good public policy. Currently the system is operated by an elective and public board of supervisors in an entity. If we just conveyed it over to the master homeowners' association, which is a separate entity, or if we explored conveying to the Board of County Commissioners, Mr. Dorrill doesn't believe that the people who live in this community would be better served by one of those. This is clearly your third option. Page 6 y fe 16J Several expressed that the 1 p el Option No. 3 is not a option. Option No. 1 depends on the developer. Option No. 2, we need to find out what the status of the permits is regardless. Are we going to have the permits run through the CDD? Do we have a right to have them to transferred to CDD, being half of the wells are not even on CDD's property? The main point seems to be our maintenance area that we are building right now. The second point is going to be the lakes and the money that we use from our reserves to the lining. It needs to be shared, equally distributed across from every single household, unit, lot... however we need to put it for these to be split fairly, somehow. The system we need to do this will be stickling point. Mr. Dorrill has taken a preliminary look at whftt our operating costs are. We have huge operating costs on the electricity side to run these gigantic electric pumps. We have significant ongoing preventative maintenance and operating maintenance costs for the well field, and we are bearing all of these at the current time. We have costs to install meters throughout the system, although we do not, and historically have not, read meters and then tried to convert those to bills. It has been much easier to have flat charges for irrigation regardless of the consumption. The third area is whatever administrative or processing costs it would take to have some type of metered sale if we are going to sell water to this new community. We would need to have engineering and accounting analysis performed to determine a need related to total annual anticipated costs and break this out on a unit basis by gallons sold. We have a general idea as to the current gallon consumption. Mr. Dorrill's recommendation would be for everyone to authorize him and Steve to determine what the appropriate hook up charge, or fee, would be to recover our original capital investment. We would then estimate the "per unit" or "per gallon" operating costs. Since we don't read meters now, Mr. Dorrill's previous position would be to try and factor what an individual unit cost would need to be the same as ones in the district marked up to cover our administrative costs to be able to the buildings. Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Volpe can determine from the developer's perspective if they would like to be incorporated into the district and then step one would only be in the interim period of time before we can accomplish folding them into the district. Everyone would have to authorize Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Volpe to explore this. A MOTION was made by Mr. Hughes for Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Volpe to develop a formula and reasonable basis to bill for service. Secondary, is whether or not if everyone is interested in exploring annexing these lands if we have a willing landowner who would like to do this. The MOTION was by seconded and passed unanimously. Page 7 b We need to keep in mind that the system, from the very beginning, in 1988 was designed and approved for the entire community, while only about half of the community is currently in the District. Selection of Independent Audit Firm (Deadline for Proposals Friday, October 12, 2001) Mr. Dorrill reported that there was very good interest and that we had three outstanding proposals from his perspective who would like to have Lely CDD's business. This is good because in the past we have had any number of bids where we have had only one bid or one expression of interest. The three firms all have directly related publicISector experience. One of the firms is in Boca Raton. One of the firms is in Fort Myers, and the other firm is located in Naples. Mr. Hughes and others expressed that they would like to use a local firm. It would best if the dollars would be used in our county rather than another county. The lowest bid is usually the local firm. Other benefits would be performance, additional consultation. From a staff perspective, it would be helpful if Mr. Dorrill could easily or quickly consult with the auditing firm throughout the course of the year. Mr. Dorrill has struggled this year trying to clean up the pension. If he had the ability to be able to meet with the firm and to consult with them on accounting issues, in addition or above the auditing, that is advantageous to you. Today what we are selecting and the contract we are contemplating would be the audit service. Others expressed that they would rather use an out of town firm, not local firm. Mr. Dorrill explained that the firms are independent under the statute because their reporting responsibility also includes the state comptroller and the clerk. So it is very clear under the laws of Florida that upon you or you collectively, as a government entity are paying their reporting responsibility as to a higher authority. All three companies have eighteen or nineteen years of experience. Mr. Dorrill was extremely pleased with the quality of the firms who would like our business. All three of these firms wanted to see financial statements for the most recent period, which at that time was August. So they had eleven months of the most recent fiscal year. They also wanted to see last year's audit. All three of them made a well - informed decision, because they asked Mr. Dorrill to provide supplemental information to them. A MOTION was made by Mr. Boff to hire the local Independent Audit firm of Wentzel Berry Wentzel & Phillips. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Krout and passed unanimously. Page 8 16J1 16J1 C. Bid Tabs for Maintenance Buildin Mr. Dorrill was asked at the previous meeting to verify the size of the maintenance parcel. The size of the parcel is 2.02 acres and is adjacent to the lake. Mr. Means advertised this for bid at the beginning of September and asked that bids be brought in October 3, 2001. The bid was for the site work, the wash down area for chemical and fertilizer storage. The bottom line is that the lower bid was $313,000. There have been several additions to the infrastructure, plus the cost of materials i.e., PVC pipe has just gone out of this world as well as asphalt. Mr. Krout questioned that if the building actually ends up costing us an additional $80,000 after engineering, wouldn't we have been better off to have taken the combined bid? Mr. Means responded, "It's a gamble." Mr. Means asked MGM if they wanted to do the building separately under separate contracts and they have not gotten back to him. If you take as two different line items it is agreed that Bradanna is the cheapest one. If you take the second line item that you will have to have done, the other group is $50,000 less. The $416, 000 bid includes the $59,000. It includes everything. The total bid includes everything. Bradanna's bid for the chemical building was $112,000. MGM's was $59,000. If the chemical building is not done Bradanna will credit $112,000 and MGM will credit $59,000. A MOTION was made by to try and get the $313,000 bid from Bradanna just for the building and try to contact MGM for $59,900 to do the chemical, if they'll do it. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Krout and passed unanimously. Mr. Dorrill reported that we budgeted $467,000 for this project, with a $31,000 contingency. We have in our budget $498,000 for this particular project in this particular fiscal year. Total with our other costs we added an additional $70,000 in engineering and architectural fees. Site work was at $107,500; building and structures at $350,00; landscaping at $10,000, and $31,000 in contingency. This is in the budget for this year. Mr. Dorrill reported that the county is about to adopt new hurricane and land load building codes in January. We have been told that buildings may cost an additional 20% to meet these new hurricane codes. We need to keep pushing to the extent that we can. Page 9 Mr. Means has been working with Mr. Dorrill to try and figure out a way to try and beat the code increase and to get a building permit filed by the end of the year, before December 31 ". Mr. Means has a work order authorization that would allow him to go ahead and start the process and to hire either an architect or a contractor; we prefer to hire a contractor. To get the permit in by the end of the year it will save WilsonMiller $5,500. 16J I Mr. Dorrill r eported that $70,000 was budgeted for fees for an engineer and an architect. Mr. Means is recommending a combined fee of $60,000 to do a design build as opposed to an architect and a civil engineer. A MOTION was made by Mr. Biggs to authorize the amended work authorization. The MOTION was seconded b� Mr. Boff and was passed unanimously. d. Inter -fund Transfer / First Union Mr. Dorrill reported that we budgeted to end the year with cash preserves of about $150,000. The actual cash in reserves at the close of the business at the end of the fiscal year were about $120,000. On average, throughout the course of the year, the monthly cash need if about $150,000. The point that needs to be understood in order to authorize a temporary transfer is that governmental entities do not receive their initial large distribution of taxes. The year begins on October 1" you don't actually get your property tax bill until sometime in early November when they are printed by the tax collector. Most people pay their taxes in November, December and January. Mr. Dorrill will be at the end of the second month of the fiscal year before any money is received for this fiscal year. We have several million dollars in other reserve funds. A discussion is needed with First Union to see if they will authorize a temporary transfer until the initial tax distribution is received, probably the week of Thanksgiving. Funds will be needed for two or three weeks in order to meet the first two payrolls in November. This will have to be done through an inter -fund transfer or some very short -term tax anticipation note. Less than $100,000 will be needed. A MOTION was made by Mr. McLellan to authorize the transfer of funds. Mr. Boff seconded the MOTION and was passed unanimously. ATTORNEY'S REPORT N/A Page 10 SUPERVISOR REQUESTS Hearing for Discussion 16J1 J. Mr. Hughes led a discussion regarding Mr. Dorrill's situation. An opinion was expressed that it is important to hear the board's views, personal opinions, questions, etc., and hear what the audience feels about this situation. It is also important that the audience hears Mr. Dorrill's thoughts as well. Mr. Hughes questions are: Where do we go from here? Do we digest it? Do we or don't we do anything at the next meeting? Do we do something at this meeting, if anything has to be done? Mr. Hughes suggested that questions start with the Board and then the audience to hear their opinions. Mr. Hughes read the same Naples Daily News article as everyone else did and walked away with some preliminary thoughts and opinions. The way Mr. Hughes digested the main article was that Mr. Dorrill pleaded guilty to a charge that looked like the whole charge was giving raises to staff that you might need to deal with down the road in the private sector. Mr. Hughes can understand where the special prosecutor is coming from and it can certainly be construed as a way of influencing. The only person that really knows what the motive was is Mr. Dorrill. Mr. Hughes has seen, in the private sector, raises given just before someone leaves. It boils down to, what was your motive in giving these raises? There is some curiosity about this. The current status of things is not really understood. If Mr. Dorrill pleaded guilty to this or worked out some type of arrangement? What exactly does this mean? Is there going to be an appeal process that drags out for years? Mr. Hughes expressed that when LCDD originally switched to Mr. Dorrill he was the one that voted against it, because of worries that there might be some ties to this. Mr. Hughes experience is that he does like having a local person or local firm here. Mr. Hughes believes that Mr. Dorrill has been much more active in the CDD than the former manager. From a strict work standpoint, Mr. Hughes expressed his appreciation for what Mr. Dorrill has done. The legal fees to defend Mr. Dorrill on this charge, with no guarantee that he will win or loose, is easily six figures. So Mr. Dorrill is in a position that he has to look out for his family's welfare. It's a tough decision. Mr. Krout agreed with Mr. Boff in that we should reserve any action until the next hearing. Mr. Volpe reported that the Board entered into a contract with Dorrill Management Group on December 20, 2000. It is a one -year contract, automatically renewal unless notices are taken or given. The termination clause in the agreement says the agreement can be terminated on either party with or without cause on 60 days notice. Mr. Dorrill expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to give everyone an explanation. The portions of Mr. Dorrill's statements that were in the paper, which he has not read, as far as he can tell are accurate. There were 19 Page 1 I different counts associated with the complaint and the indictments. The only charge that has been attributed to Mr. Dorrill, is the one as it relates to that brief period of time before he left the county government. The nature of the charge involves several actions that he took for which there is no reported or accused benefit but, nonetheless, did create the appearance of a conflict as the related to iv 16J1 y giving raises to employees who had been nominated to him, and were deserving employees. His attendance, apparently at a public meeting, where he signed in at the meeting and signed in as both the county manager, and soon to be president of the new development company. And a third appearance of a undisclosed item that occurred on a consent agenda for items that are considered to be routine in nature and subject to a policy that is in place that determines what can and cannot be on the consent agenda. He takes and accepts full responsibility for not only the pay adjustments, but also the other two items. He does not dispute that they occurred. He did indicate that he does accept full responsibility for these. While there is any number of other alleged wrongdoing on the part of the great number of people and an ongoing investigation that is continuing up and through and including today. There is no other indication of any wrongdoing on his part aside from those items that he mentioned. The nature of the agreement that he willingly chose to enter into was done solely for and in the best interest of his family, and in particular, his seven - year old and not wanting to continue along this road for some undetermined period of time. He will accept any decision that the CDD Board decides to make, because the decision that was made was only intended solely for the benefit of his family. One of the calls that Mr. Dorrill received was that everyone was under the impression that he is under house arrest. By evidence of the fact that he attended this meeting, he has no desire to run afoul of this special prosecutor. Mr. Dorrill is not under house arrest; nor will he be under house arrest. In lieu of any other penalty, he has agreed to a period of what was explained to him was probation for a period of three years, and a period of what is called "probation community control." As they have explained what community control is to Mr. Dorrill is that he is free to go about his business in the normal course of activities required of the business that he is in. He is in the community management business so he is free to work, free to do any and all normal activities associated with his work and also his faith, i.e. attending church. He is a member of the local church, and as he understands it and as it was explained to him, he is free to go about his normal business as it relates to those two areas. What he sis not free to do is to recreate or engage in any other type of social activity. By way of example Mr. Dorrill should not and cannot be at the movie theatre on a Saturday afternoon, because it does not meet any of the two preceding conditions. Mr. Dorrill was asked in December as to whether or not he was the subject of any investigation as it related to the original case and prosecutor. He answered very honestly at that time and told everyone that he was not. Page 12 In fact, he had in his possession a copy of the case closing report that does not even include his name. Mr. Dorrill does not want there to be any confusion on this part. When he was asked this question last year, based on the information that he had, from his impression the case had been closed, and in the case report his name was not mentioned. 16J'I At that time he had no way of knowing that a new prosecutor would be engaged and the case would be not only reopened but expanded to include all of these activities that it has. The other thing that Mr. Dorrill told everyone last December is that he felt very strongly about his desire and passion to return to public sector work as it relates to this engagement. He has his own small company that has one employee aside from himself and the support and accounting of his alliance partner. He told everyone that he would work very hard to do the absolute best job that he could. He meant this when he told it to everyone in December and he means it equally today. He had no idea at that time what a mess this district was in. As he has worked very hard with everyone's behalf over the course of the past year, he would not have known the extent of the time commitments and requirements for the lake lining project that had not been budgeted or the problems associated with your audit and the fact that it was incomplete, and the concerns that he had about the pension fund. He reiterated to everyone that he thought the budget was not only inappropriate from a managerial prospective, it's almost worthless. It had never been reviewed with your field manager. We have undertaken efforts to resolve your irrigation system needs and capacity and master plan. We have changed your primary security contractor at what Mr. Dorrill believes is a vast improvement and much better expense than what CDD otherwise would have had. Everyone has worked very hard this year and has been very diligent to meet the fiduciary responsibility that we have to award bids and make sure that we have one more than just a token bidder on bids. Mr. Dorrill feels that he has done the absolute job that he could have done, in fact, far in excess of the hours to be able to delivery a quality job. There will be a second hearing, and under the nature of his agreement, the judge will be asked to determine withholding adjudication. If she, or whoever the judge may be, determines and upholds that request then there will be no permanent conviction of record from a legal perspective. He has been told preliminary that this hearing may be held in January. Because of the nature of the fact that the investigation is ongoing and it is clear that other individuals may go to trial. Mr. Dorrill cannot go into specifics, details or rational concerning the issues because he has been asked not to on the part of the prosecutor. Page 13 PUBLIC COMMENTS A question and answer session followed. 16JI Mr. Dorrill then answered several specific questions from members of the public concerning the agreement and a subsequent hearing to consider withholding adjudication and conviction. Chairman Hughes summarized the discussion by saying while he had been contracted by the former district manager that Mr. Dorrill's commitment and service to the community has been superior to the former manager. He further stated that it seems that at the subsequent hearing there is the possibility these charges will result in no conviction. Supervisor Biggs asked if a motion in support of Mr. Dorrill was necessary. The chairman responded that no motion was necessary and the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. MISCELLANEOUS CORESSPONDENCE N/A ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, W. Neil Dorrill Dorrill Management Group Page 14 LELY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Naples, Florida 16J1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Supervisors of Lely Community Development Held on November 28 2001 A Regular Meeting of the Supervisors of Lely Community Development was held on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 at 1:30 p.m., at the East Naples Community Library. SUPERVISORS PRESENT: Michael Hughes, District Chairman Joseph Boff, District Supervisor Ted Biggs, District Supervisor Wayne McLellan, District Supervisor Charles Krout, District Supervisor ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, Dorrill Management Group, Manager Jerry Ellis, Site Supervisor Steve Means, WilsonMiller Michael Volpe, District Council INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Invocation led by W. Neil Dorrill of Dorrill Management Group. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in union. CALL TO ORDER Noting that a quorum was established, the meeting was called to order by Neil Dorrill at 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL /APPROVAL OF AGENDA All members present. Two verbal information items were added. 4E, an update concerning the District's accounting services. And 4F, to confirm December's meeting date. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The first item is the approval of minutes from the October 17`h meeting. Mr. Dorrill explained that there were two voids because of difficulty hearing the tape, but having since listened to the tape made the following additions. At the bottom of page 7, the motion which passed unanimously, and as best I can tell, the motion was, in fact, made by Mr. Hughes, and Mr. Boff made the second. On page 9 Mr. Boff made the motion and Mr. McLellan made the second for the item that pertained to the site work for the new District maintenance building. Mr. Volpe found a typo on the bottom of page 2 where "a grievance with" should be "an agreement." When asked if he reads the minutes before they're distributed, Mr. Dorrill responded that he reviews the draft of the original tapes prepared by the transcription service. Page 1 16JIFIN Top of page 3, last sentence of paragraph, didn't know what the District was instructed and turned over to the District." What does that mean? On page 5, third paragraph, "so there may not be electricity." That is correct. Where there is not electrical services connected to the walls. Will be clarified to read "May not be electricity connected to the pumps." Two paragraphs down last line says "adversarial aspects as it appears the District owns the wells." Back on page 2, second from the bottom page, last line "Development Corporation has control of the permit." It is correct as it reads. The Development Company does have control of the permits. It is and has and will be my contention that the wells are "owned" by the District. They need to be permitted, and this is an issue. We own them because they were built with bond proceeds. The permits that were originally pulled for the system when they were constructed are in the name of the Development Corporation, therefore, the minutes are correct, and this is one of the issues that needs to be resolved through a contractual agreement. Another typo on page 9, last paragraph, "building was at 107,500; building and structures at 350,000." And on page 10 in the next -to -last paragraph it starts off "The point" and the line that begins with "November, December, and January" "Mr. Dorrill will be at the end of the second month of the fiscal year before any money is received for this fiscal year." Our fiscal year begins on October V and by the end of November we would be at the end of the second month of our year. The minutes will be corrected to clarify. With preceding corrections, minutes moved for approval by Mr. McLellan and seconded by Mr. Boff. MANAGER'S REPORT a. Recommendation to accept proposal for irrigation impact fee and consumption at the Classics Mr. Dorrill pointed out that behind Tab 2 in the agenda packet there was a summation of a series of two meetings and subsequent discussions with the Development Company and engineer and a brief discussion with Mr. Volpe as a result of the presentation of the Irrigation Master Plan at your meeting last month. Framework for written contractual agreement for us to sell irrigation water to the Classics Community as instructed at last month's meeting. The executive summary proposes two -part fee agreement with Lely. The first part would be the connection or an impact fee for new hookups. Mr. Dorrill reached the proposed number by taking the original schedule of use of bond proceeds that came right out of the bond documents and divided by the number of units, contained in the original investment methodology for the District, which is 3,701, and then added 10% overhead and administrative fees. The impact fee number of $536.37 plus 10% would be $590 per unit for any unit connected to our system outside of the District boundary. Page 2 16J 1 In a similar vein, annual consumption charges were evaluated. This year for the first time Mr. Dorrill proposed an irrigation budget. There is a separate department in the budget that includes costs for irrigation. There were significant increases this year in electricity and purchased effluent from the County. Mr. Dorrill took the figures, divided by the number of units in the District, added 10% so that people outside the District would pay more than people inside the District. Annual per unit cost of $39.81 for irrigation water. The District historically has not been in the meter reading business. Meters are installed as a matter of practice, but they are not being read. Mr. Dorrill expressed shock and alarm as to some of the County's proposed increases for the sale of water and sewer and effluent that may go into effect on January I". The County Commission is having a workshop today. We have attended at a staff level some earlier workshops. Mr. Dorrill thinks the County Commission is ill - advised to be doubling or tripling rates after the start of everyone's year, because we budgeted under the assumptions we were given, and now two months into the year the rates could be potentially doubled or tripled for the sale of various commodities. I think we need to monitor that closely. Question was asked: Is the utility shortfall to sales tax or state fund? Mr. Dorrill answered "Neither." The County's utility system operates as an independent enterprise fund, and there are no sales or property taxes or state revenue sharing in support of those programs. Had they intended to increase rates, they should have told everybody about it last Easter when everyone was in the process of their initial budget preparations. Question was asked: If the County doubles or triples our cost, does that cost get passed along. Mr. Dorrill responded that his final thought is that all of this needs to be properly undertaken as part of a written and negotiated contractual agreement. Mr. Volpe and Mr. Dorrill have already had that discussion, and it would need to be part of an agreement that we have unanticipated increases. What about the impact fee itself? Mr. Dorrill is suggesting those be paid at the time of the issuance of the building permit, not at the closing of the tract because there is no impact at that time. A single- family would be one charge, a 12 -plex would be twelve. Question was asked: Is there any one board or consuming organizations such as us? In other words, there are lots of other people consuming water. Mr. Dorrill responded, no, but there are plenty of people who are concerned about the impacts, condominiums associations and golf courses in particular, because of budgeting. We're all in the same boat. Page 3 Steve Means responded that he asked staff about this issue, and theyll him that its their position that they would look at waiting until the new fiscal year started for raising those rates; however, the County Commission has the final word. In addition, your agreement with Collier County says that you would pay 13 cents per 1,000 gallons. There is a clause in there that says the county can negotiate a rate with you at any time. Mr. Dorrill included in the agenda packets the information that was just received concerning the rate increases. Mr. Dorrill asked at the end of this item for a motion to have the attorney prepare a strongly worded resolution expressing our collective displeasure with the unannounced rate increase. Mr. Boff made the motion. Mr. Hughes seconded it. Passed unanimously. Mr. Dorrill stated the other aspect of this agenda item today is to get from you your direction concerning the irrigation agreement and what the needs are. All of this needs to be reduced to a written contract so that it is absolutely sure what our intentions are. We also need a legal opinion concerning the final disposition of the issue concerning the deed for Lake 17 because I know some of you have strong feelings about that. Question was asked: Where did these actual numbers come from? Mr. Dorrill responded, on the consumption side, they came from a very detailed, several - hour -long meeting that Mr. Ellis and Mr. Dorrill had at the beginning of the summer where they actually took our bills, our actual cost for what it takes to own, operate, and maintain an irrigation system to project and submit a budget for the current year. The cost for the construction of the system actually came from the bond documents, which are clearly outlined in Exhibit A, that clearly shows the money that was spent from the bond proceeds, about $2 million. Obviously, we lined the lake after the bonds were originally sold and the system was constructed, and so he added the total cost for the lake lining because that's a cost of the irrigation system. Question was asked: There are two key questions in my mind. Are we dividing by the right number, 3,701. Number 2, did we leave anything out? Also, this calculation we're doing here, basically we're setting a precedent for the future, and is the methodology we're going to use for other developers and builders that might come along, or is each developer a different situation? Mr. Dorrill responded that the answer to the second question goes back to the discussion last month concerning the Master Plan. The system as designed will barely meet the consumption needs or falls just a level short in the far -out years, and it's all contingent on the amount of effluent that the County has to sell, the summation of what Mr. Means told us last month, and that will occur based on some absorptions. Page 4 Q uestion was asked on billing: Right now we re not billing anyone fo1 1 r reused water. Mr. Dorrill said we never have, but we have meters in place to do it. We could bill for reused water. We could also charge the Classics members for reused water on a metered basis, although he is not recommending that, or is there a way to do that. Mr. Dorrill is suggesting that we bill directly their Homeowners Association. The final answer is we do not currently pro rate or distribute our personnel costs. We don't have a half or a full -time employee who does irrigation maintenance, per se, so no salary or portion thereof has been applied, but the 10% overhead factor was added. Discussion ensued about bond issue, what it was used for. There were twc series of bonds that were issued by the Community Development District. There was the Series A and Series B, and at the time there was a decision made that these separate issues would lower the assessments on each of the individual properties. Mr. Ryan stated when people bought property, LDC paid off in full the assessment on your property that related to the Series B bonds, so you only had the Series A, and that's what's included in your annual tax bills. The point that Mr. Ryan is making that the B Bond, which was used to finance some of the improvements that are identified in these capital costs, were costs that were never shared and will never be shared by either homeowners or any of the other subsequent owners of property within the District. Discussion ensued Discussion about what meters exist now and debt service. Mr. Dorrill clarified we have not tried to factor in an item for debt service either. These are actual principal costs, and that's why I said this is sort of "found" money. So I have not tried to include in my formula some pro ration or interest on these hard costs, because obviously the people who live in the District are paying interest as part of their assessment on an ongoing basis. If we have some items that should come out of the B Bonds, for example, the effluent transmission main, Mr. Ryan contends that no one connected in the District now is paying any of those costs. If we can verify that, then that should probably take that out of the $2 million number, as well as the irrigation pump station. We need to decide on the other two issues. Interest and increasing on the operating side by a percentage or factor for our personnel costs as they related to irrigation. Page 5 We have a million dollars out of ocket now, 16JI p ,l pus carrying costs. So roughly you've got $170 a unit is the real impact fee per unit if you spread it out over 6,000 units. So somewhere in there we have to come up with a number that would be a fixed number, not including interest. Mr. Dorrill suggested that we recalculate the impact fees and take out the master pump station and the B bonds and take out the effluent transmission main in the B bonds, but add in some number for interest that is currently being billed. You need to tell me if you want me to at least put some number in for labor. We don't have a labor number in our irrigation budget. It's only the direct costs associated with either buying or pumping or repairing the system. Discussion ensued, and it was decided Mr. Dorrill will come up with a labor number. .q Someone asked if it is contemplated as a part of this agreement that staff would undertake to maintain and repair the irrigation system. Mr. Dorrill responded affirmatively and discussion ensued. Mr. Dorrill said I think part of the draft contract format could include a retroactive line item for unanticipated repair expenses that had been separately authorized by the Board. Let's say Mr. Ellis had an unbudgeted repair authorized by the Board. We would need a budget amendment to move that money into the irrigation budget, because we wouldn't actually collect that pro ration from the Classics until the following year. Any anticipated but separately authorized items you would catch them the following year as part of the budget planning for that year. Can he work the details and give the material to the board members for approval at the next meeting, and then I would release the money to you. The practical concern, question for the Board and the Manager, if we have a concept of the District agreeing to provide irrigation of water to the area outside the District comprises the Classics, if we enter into some kind of understanding in anticipation of a formal agreement which would give to the developer the assurances that we are going to work on it..... I'm worried about the level of detail, today being the 28`h of November and the holidays and the like to actually get the agreement and the importance, as indicated, Mr. Boff, that we want to make sure that we leave out any item. I'm just concerned that we satisfy Mr. Ryan and the homeowner or contract group. Mr. Boff made a motion that we prepare a contract for the December meeting that approves the sale of water, surplus water, to the Classics that would be a fair exchange so that we have an equal disbursement of all the capital costs and operations, including maintenance and labor. Mr. McLellan seconded the motion. Motion was unanimously approved. Page 6 b. Recommendation /Direction for Employee Dental Insurance 6J? Mr. Dorrill introduced 413, Employee Dental Insurance. We're currently tagged onto a purchaser by Coral Springs CDD. They have told us they're canceling, and in turn we're going to lose our dental insurance at the end of December. Mr. Dorrill requested authorization to go out and bring back to the next meeting a quote for dental insurance for employees in recognition of this one being cancelled. $45.00 per employee per month is CDD's portion. The employees pay out of pocket, and there are limitations on the procedures. It is a low to average type of dental policy. Mr. Dorrill is going to contact the Florida Municipal League of Cities who is our health insurance provider to see if we can't tag or get something as a rider to our current health insurance agreement to try and just bundle it up that way. Motion was made by Mr. Krout and second by Mr. Hughes. Motion was unanimously approved. C. Recommendation to Declare Maintenance Equipment Surplus Mr. Dorrill introduced 4C, equipment scheduled to be replaced this year, which is Tab 4 in your agendas. Mr. Dorrill requested that they declare the associated equipment surplus in accordance with Florida law. In anticipation of a favorable vote, Mr. Dorrill prepared a legal ad that will run in the Naples Daily News so that we try to get a good collection of bids, and the equipment will be available for inspection at the District offices during their normal offices. Added under miscellaneous was an old pumping package station that was constructed at the very beginning of this community that was the original interim pump station for irrigation, and the fact that we now have a permanent master pump station, we have no demonstrated need for that equipment. It probably should have been sold years ago, but we may find a farmer or some sort of subsurface utility contractor who wants to buy these pumps and use them for some purpose. And since they have no apparent use to the District, I think we ought to sell them, instead of deteriorating. A motion was made by Mr. Boff; seconded by Mr. Hughes. Motion carried unanimously. d. Vicon Homes. Inc.. request to relocate utility pole A motion was made by Mr. McLellan; seconded by Mr. Boff to deny request. Motion carried unanimously. Page 7 Change in Accounting services 16J1 Up until recently, Lisa Blakenship, an employee of Mr. Dorrill's alliance partner, has done all the accounting. However, Lisa, a 38- year -old single parent was diagnosed with a brain tumor and has undergone emergency surgery. It is not clear if or when she will return to work. In the interim and for the foreseeable future, we are using the public accounting firm of Blackeeter and Associates whose offices are in South Fort Myers. December Meeting Date Mr. Dorrill's final item was direction and or desires as to your December meeting which will occur on December 19`h or 20`h following the normal schedule. It was agreed to meet on the 19`h. M` r. Dorrill concluded. ATTORNEYS REPORT I'm Mr. Volpe indicated the manager and the Chairman did execute the necessary documents in connection with the line of credit through First Union to fill in the period of time until the revenues from the tax collector are disbursed to the District. This was authorized at the October meeting. There was nothing else to report. SUPERVISOR REQUESTS All present acknowledged the Supervisors that were elected. (Applause) (Inaudible) They will be sworn in at the January meeting, and that will be the first day they assume their responsibilities, the third Wednesday in January. Last year staff was given something for Christmas. What about this year? Mr. Dorrill explained that $100 per employee was given last year and the same amount was budgeted for this year. There was discussion regarding an additional incentive. Mr. Dorrill recommended an additional 50. Motion for $150 made by Mr. Boff and seconded by Mr. Biggs. The motion was approved unanimously. There was discussion regarding the deed to the lake and a suggestion made to clarify it when we communicate with the Classics about the irrigation. Mr. Dorrill explained that that was the plan. Question for Mr. Ellis. The monument horses are maintained by Lely Development Corporation, not us. At the last meeting Mr. Means covered that when the golf courses need extra water they call Mr. Ellis for surface water only. For wells they have to call the county. We pay the electricity on the surface water. We are not reimbursed. We do not submit bills. The amount of money is not known. It will be determined. The two golf courses that are in the District are paying in support of the District. They pay approximately $30,000 a year for theirs. The Classics golf course is outside of the Page 8 District, and so they are not paying. Our Lake 17 is connected to their main irrigation lake, so we do indirectly receive the benefit of surface water flow into our lake. It 6J1 doesn't work the other way. We can't pump water to them, but we're downstream from their lake. But the Classics Country Club is not paying any money in support of the District at the present time. The developer pays for water and sewer when the places are built. And then the county takes over the water and sewer. Who pays for the installation of the irrigation pipe? That comes under the contract. LCDD's responsibility is only up to the meter. Anything past that belongs to the homeowner. Discussion about removing an old well pump: Mr. Volpe was questioned about last month's discussion regarding Mr. Dorrill's contract being 12 months. The contract is terminable on 60 days' notice prior to the end of the year period. So it's an annual contract automatically renewable, unless it is terminated by giving 60 days' notice prior to the expiration of the term. Mr. Volpe does not have a written contract. He explained that he had originally submitted a proposal for services which was accepted by the then board of supervisors. But I don't have any agreement. My employment is terminable at will. made a motion to put Mr. Volpe on notice as of now that your contract is terminated with the incoming new board. Mr. Dorrill, as the manager, needs to stay on, but I think between and middle of January, it gives Mr. Dorrill an opportunity to solicit replacements, and the new board could look at it on the first meeting in January and select .... I want the two new members to come in with their own proposals, their own methods of operations. Mr. Volpe indicated he would, of course, like to submit a proposal to provide services to the board. In connection with those, I'm sure that Mr. Dorrill will, as he has done with the engineers, the same RFP process will be the same for the engineer and the District manager. Discussion ensued. Motion failed for lack of a second. Behind Mustang Lakes Circle there is an unsightly area. Whose responsibility is that? It will be landscaped in the next three weeks. All of the plan review for construction within the District has to be reviewed by the District's engineer for approval in terms of connections and the like. There is a fee that is charged for that review, and I don't know if that fee is being collected. There is a schedule of fees. The Board may want to review that schedule, since it was adopted at least five or six years ago. Maybe the new members of the Board should be provided with a copy of those rules and regulations, which includes the fees. Mr. Dorrill stated that the next meeting is the last meeting for Mr. Biggs and Mr. Hughes, and I'm nervous at the end of a term for decisions that saddle the new Board would prefer to defer anything of material substance to January if possible so the new Board can vote on it accordingly. Page 9 Mr. Dorrill reviewed three items for the December agenda; one would be the final proposed irrigation agreement, two would be the outcome from the County 16J l Commission's effluent workshop meeting today, and three would be replacement insurance policy for the dental rider. I'm not anticipating any other items for December. No further action or motion on this suggestion. Question concerning the irrigation water being ours exclusively? Are we investigating that? Mr. Volpe reported that is part of the discussion taking place with regard to the deed to Lake 17. When we solve this issue with the contract for water, all is to be resolved with it. It all has to be done together. Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Rvan have disciis.cPd tying it all together. Discussion ensued. The intent was to try to bring something back to the Board before the next meeting. Ownership issues will be addressed at that time. Discussion continued. Waited for report from engineer as to whether there was the capacity within Lake 17 to even enter into those discussions. The deed that the District took in 1996, as it turns out, was the deed that covered the Master Irrigation Pump Station and a portion of Lake 17. It did not include all of Lake 17. Concerns were made as to how can you have part of a lake? The answer to that question is that the legal description has been provided to us by the District's Engineer who also happens to be the engineer for Lely Development Corporation. From a legal perspective, Mr. Volpe was requested to simply prepare a deed, and the legal description to the lake was provided to him by the District's Engineer. The Board was provided with a copy of Mr. Volpe's letter transmittal to Mr. Maloney, who was the surveyor who actually provided us with the description. So the actual ownership of the lake up until after the relining of the lake had never been an issue. The assumption that all the members of the Board, including their legal counsel, were under that we had actually been provided with a deed to the entire lake. Those are the facts. Mr. Volpe expressed concern that he was not asked to review the description. There are separate agreements (Inaudible) Per Mr. Volpe, the District did construct the main effluent line from the South County Wastewater Treatment Plant to the District, and as a part of that agreement that the District has with the County the District was required to construct the effluent line and to turn it over to the County, and that has been done. Per Mr. Dorrill, there is an agreement, and that pipe ends adjacent to our pump station at the lake. It dumps the water into the lake, and then our intake pipe — There is not question in my mind that the pipe that puts the water in the lake and the pipe that pumps it out are under our sole control. It is all that area of the lake that is north and west of there that is in dispute. PUBLIC COMMENTS A question and answer session followed. Page 10 The bond was refinanced a few years ago the B bond came up for renewal. In June of 16J1 1999 the refinancing offset the increase in taxes. Is there a possibility that can be refinanced again at lower rates, so that we do not have another increase? Mr. Dorrill responded that those bonds were refinanced in 1999. Mr. Dorrill has already researched with an investment banker whether in today's economy we could further refinance the bonds, and the answer is no. There is a non - recall provision that was done when they were refinanced. The debt service is still out for another 17 years. The rate is about 6 /z. Mr. Dorrill can confirm that. Several residents have come to his office and asked to review all the bond packages. They're public records, and we've already done that. The same lady contacted the County to get copy of public meeting minutes. She asked how often LCDD supplies them to the County. Mr. Dorrill responded that we produce minutes monthly, and can make copies available. There are separate reporting requirements to the County. I have to send them a notice of when our meetings will be, and I have to send them copies of our audit. And I have to send them copies of the budget. I don't know if I'm obligated to send copies to the County of our minutes, but I can research that. I do make a bi- annual submittal to the county for a whole variety of items and have just recently done some of that. The proposed minutes are always available the Friday preceding the Wednesday meeting through Mr. Dorrill's office. All the records of the Districts are public documents, and so Mr. Dorrill is the custodian of the District's records, so if there any records that you wish to obtain, contact Mr. Dorrill's office. Mr. Dorrill's goal is to try and distribute via courier the agenda packages to the Supervisors before noon the Friday preceding the Wednesday meeting, so the agenda is fixed at that point. I will occasionally distribute or add items to the agenda, but for all purposes it is done Friday before noon. A man with two questions: Shouldn't the attorney of record making up a deed assume the full responsibility if the deed is in error? The second question is, Mr. Ryan, are you going to sign the deed? Mr. Volpe responded that there is no error on the deed he prepared. He simply prepared a deed at the request of the Board and /or the developer, and I was provided with a legal description for the property which was to be covered on the deed. I was not required to give a legal opinion or to examine the title to the property being covered by the deed. It was simply preparation only. Another man: Before we put the $380,000, why didn't we have a deed. The lake is actually located outside the District. At the time the Master Irrigation Pump Station was built, it was built on property that was not within the District. To put this matter to rest, we should have legal title or a drainage easement across the entire lake. Mr. Ellis along with your engineer came to the Board on at least half a dozen occasions saying we're going to run out of water. We're going to ruin those pumps because we're going with one dry. And he came almost on an emergency basis and recommended to the Board of Supervisors because that lake had never been lined. And so the Board decided at the time they needed to line the lake to protect the pumps and the obligation to their members. Page 1 I Discussion ensued with members of the audience. I know the Board delayed that decision for at least two years on the lake liner until it became a critical situation. There was no choice. Audience inferred it was illegal. Heated discussion. 16J 1 The Boar d had to make a decision. As far as who owned that lake, to be quite frank, I believed all along that we owned that lake. Another person from the audience. Can I assume that Lely Development probably realized at the time that we came up the $380,000 that they still owned a portion of the lake that they would have to give us a deed? Probably. And now they are holding up the deed. More discussion. It wasn't discovered until after the fact that deed that the District accepted from the developer and the affiliated entities was, in fact, the deed to the lake. Ms. Fox questioned the accuracy of accountant's addition. That's a big error. Mr. Dorrill explained that he's not sure of the origin of the document. He will verify accuracy and get back with Ms. Fox. She also questioned paying for dental insurance, which amounts to over $8,000 annually for the 15 employees. Discussion ensued. The Board's response: In this job market, $45 a month is a bargain to help retain good employees. The District does not pay for dependent or family coverage. A lady from the audience mentioned that as Classics Plantation will not be part of the LCDD, they will not have a bond issue. However, will they be assessed a non ad valorem annual tax like the rest of us are? The answer from Mr. Dorrill was, no, they won't; however, they will be assessed other non ad valorem fees, for example, garbage collections fees, but they will not have a Lely CDD assessment. He clarified however that they will have some fee in the Classics in the way of security or streetlighting or street sweeping or common area maintenance cost. Somebody has got to pay that. If they don't have a CDD, their Master Homeowner's Association is going to pay for those services. Another gentleman from the audience mentioned a car abandoned near the horses recently. The car is gone now. This is a safety factor related to the parking lot, which has become a meeting spot for teenage drivers. He wondered if a guardrail could be installed and /or additional police protection. The horses and that area belong to the Master Association. But those were students in the daytime. In the nighttime it's drunks. The golf course fixes the tire tracks. The LCDD is not involved in the process. Page 12 Elaine Smith asked Mr. Boff about the issue of conflict of interest about working for Lely and being on this Board and that he said he was going to step down. When is that going to happen? Mr. Boff indicated that he spoke with Mr. Volpe and Mr. Dorrill and being that he owns several properties in there that it isn't a conflict of interest. He still is up in the air about stepping down because several members have asked him not to. Another resident asked on the increase of non ad valorem taxes, what portion of the 16J1 budget was it dedicated to. Mr. Dorrill responded that it was essentially all dedicated to a one -time fixed capital cost to build the new maintenance building. We had some increased costs for electricity and security because we went to a second shift. Another question. Is a copy of the 2002 budget available? Mr. Dorrill explained they were distributed in a special workshop meeting in July or August, but copies are available from his office. Another question. In relation to the cost of building a new maintenance facility, am I correct in understanding this maintenance facility has to be rebuilt because where it presently sits that parcel of land was sold for development? Mr. Dorrill explained that we never owned it. For the last ten years the District was allowed free use of that site for which there was never any rent paid, and they were operating the facility out of some leased trailers. We are building a permanent site on land on a two -acre parcel that is owned by the District. We have to move because the present site is being actively developed as a single - family community. Another question. In 1993 we were supposed to purchase the two acres. How come it took all this time to move our facility to the new place? Because we've had a free ride up till now. A lady asked if it was true that each time someone goes up in the aerial bucket it costs about $500 to change the streetlights. Discussion ensued. A question was asked how often they sweep the streets. Answer: on an as- needed basis, extra sweeping for construction debris. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE N/A ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, W. Neil Dorrill Dorrill Management Group Page 13 MEMORANDUM Date: January 2, 2002 To: Maureen Kenyon, Deputy Clerk to the Boar From: W. Neil Dorrill, Lely CDD District Manager Re: Lely Community Development District Minut s de Records 16J1 Attached are the minutes from recent meetings of the Board of Supervisors of the Lely Community Development District. I have also attached a schedule of proposed meetings for the Board for the remainder of this year. Two new Supervisors will be sworn in at the January meeting and we may change our schedule of meetings. If you upon review of the above have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: Miscellaneous Correspondence ely, � Resort G G L L & C O U N T R Y C L U B Lely Community Development District 5645 Strand Boulevard, Suite #3 • Naples, Florida 34110 • tel 941 -592 -9115 • fax 941 -594 -1422 HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF MEETING of September 27, 2001 PRESENT: Carlos Aviles, HAAB Member Sofia Pagan, HAAB Member David Correa, HAAB Member Susan Calkins, HAAB Member Frank Loney, HAAB Member Robert Pina, HAAB Member Pete Cade, Jr., HAAB Member Ramiro Manalich, Chief Assistant County Attorney and HAAB Staff Liaison vl**' 16J1 ABSENT: Eugene Greener, HAAB Member (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: John Norman, citizen The September 27, 2001 meeting of the Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board (HAAB) began at approximately 7:07 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room. A quorum of 7 members was present. APPROVAL OF JULY AND AUGUST, 2001 MINUTES The Board reviewed the minutes of the July 26, 2001 meeting. Frank Loney made a motion to approve the minutes and it was seconded by Susan Calkins. The Board voted 7 -0 in favor of approving the motion. The Board also considered the minutes of August 23, 2001 and a motion was made by Robert Pina to approve said minutes. Frank Loney provided a second. A correction was included in the motion to reference that Mr. Norman is a, not the, director of Cinco de Mayo Festival in Immokalee. As amended, the Board voted 7 -0 to approve the motion. HAAB REVIEW OF MEMBER ABSENCES A discussion was held regarding attendance standards in the HAAB ordinance and excusal of absences. With respect to Mr. Greener, Liaison Ramiro Manalich reported that Mr. Greener had been in contact with the County Attorney Office prior to tonight's meeting and that Mr. Greener's office indicated they had not received timely notice of the September meeting. ; With ree�d tp Mr. Greener's absence in August, Ramiro Manalich reminded the members that Mr. Greener ha@ ff eWK y stated at the July meeting that he had been prescheduled to be away at the time of the August t a at those plans had been in existence prior to his appointment to the HAAB. S� rd JUd a Item# Le J I Codes To: 16J 1 motion to excuse both of Mr. Greener's absences. Robert Pina provided a second. The Board voted 7 -0 in favor of the motion. Frank Loney commented about his absence in May by stating that there had been illnesses in the family at that time. A motion to excuse the absence was made by Robert Pina and seconded by Carlos Aviles. The Board voted 7 -0 in favor of the motion. Sofia Pagan explained that in May and June of 2001 she had had problems in attendance because of illness and Red Cross commitments. Frank Loney made a motion to excuse both absences which was seconded by Pete Cade. The Board voted 7- 0 in favor of the motion. Robert Pina explained that in May he missed the HAAB meeting due to an operation. A motion was made to excuse the absence by Frank Loney and seconded by Susan Calkins. The Board voted 7 -0 in favor of the motion. FARMWORKER ISSUES David Correa informed the HAAB that he had made contacts with members of the County Commission about farmworker issues. He stated that it was his impression that Commissioner Colletta would support the HAAB's request for the County Commission and/or the Governor to make a plea for dialog about farmworker issues between the growers and the farmworkers. He said that he had explained to the Commissioners with whom he met that this is not a labor - management issue, but rather an economic - social issue in Immokalee affecting the Hispanic community. David also explained that he had met with Commissioner Henning and it was his impression that Commissioner Henning would not support said request of the HAAB because Commissioner Henning appears to believe that it is a labor - management matter. David stated that in his meeting with Commissioner Carter, the Commissioner appeared inclined to support the plea for dialog between the farmworkers and the growers. He also mentioned that Mr. Carter had suggested having a forum on the matter including Florida Gulf Coast University's capabilities for dispute resolution. David thought that was a good idea but he was not sure if FGCU would require payment to provide these services. He wondered if the County Commission would pay for such services? David said that he thought that Mr. Carter would prefer that the matter came to the County Commission after the November elections. Mr. Carter seemed to think that the matter would receive a more favorable reception at that time. Frank Loney commented that he has long been involved in the farmworker issue. He did not prefer to wait to present this item to the County Commission. He emphasized that the HAAB is not asking for specific negotiations, just for dialog. He stated that the HAAB proposal is not asking for dollars to compete with other ballot items in November. He thought the issue needed attention now because there are too many impacts in the community. Mr. Norman commented that the average farmworker in Immokalee makes only around $8000 per year. He said it was hard to get accurate data because many of the farmworkers do not have social security numbers. He says that many times taxes are taken out of their wages but nothing comes back to them from the federal government because they are constantly on the move to other migrant jobs. 'He also reminded everyone that the farmworker's occupation is subject to weather conditions. David Correa commented that the growers have refused to sit down at the table to discuss wages with the farmworkers. He mentioned that the Governor has previously sent a representative to Immokalee but there has been no significant progress. Sofia Pagan added that the growers deal with contractors. 2 16J1 She thought there were-two ways to look at the situation: the first was to get the farmers to improve living conditions; and the second was to improve the educational opportunities for the young people so that they can hold better paying jobs. She said it was necessary to break the chain of repeated generations doing the same low paying jobs. Frank Loney mentioned that it is difficult for illegal workers to cooperate with law enforcement. The growers continue to make profits; the workers do not even have social security numbers and still have taxes taken out of their wages. He mentioned that in Costa Rica the law requires that education be provided to citizens through the first two years of college. Mr. Norman observed that Immigration is never around when the growers need the workers in the field. He says that the pattern has been that after the crops are picked, Immigration shows up and rounds up illegals. He said this is kind of a standing joke in Immokalee. He mentioned that it costs the worker money to return to the United States. He commented that despite deplorable conditions in Immokalee, the workers return because the conditions in Immokalee are still better than those that they face in Mexico or other countries. He mentioned that there is a big push for reform and that President Bush has advanced a proposal to recognize the legal status of workers. Carlos Aviles added that even if the workers are granted legal status, the issue will not disappear. He said that children in Immokalee need mentors. He cited Manny Touron, who is a principal in Immokalee and is a very good role model. He said that there is a need for Immokalee children to aspire to goals beyond high school and farm work. Susan Calkins asked if businesses in Immokalee were giving children openings for educational opportunities. Pete Cade added that Redlands Christian Migrant Association and the high school are involved in job training and mentoring. He said that recently there was program that featured an author about migrant life but there was small attendance. Frank Loney commented that he has been a member of Alcoholics Anonymous for 20+ years and has been sober for that time. He mentioned that he use to be a soccer player and has coached the Optimists' Club youth soccer league. He said that he requires good grades for the children on their soccer team to be eligible to play. He thinks that it is necessary to have the Immokalee community educated and involved in requiring all high school children to be exposed to career alternatives. More importantly, the growers need to sit down and talk with the workers showing respect for human dignity. He is not asking that the County Commission get involved in any terms of employment, merely in the plea for dialog between the parties. Sofia Pagan agreed that the problems will continue to exist if the causes of the problems are not addressed. Mr. Norman stated that he had never been a field worker but he has observed for several years the people in Immokalee and they are hard workers. He said many of them are uneducated and young and come from Mexico. From the census, it was determined that many of the workers have no schooling and cannot even count the money they are paid. He mentioned that in Naples, many of the construction, hotel and other service workers are coming from Immokalee. The main problem is for the field workers. There is no doubt they are taken advantage of by employers but they continue to do the work because they are still better off than in Mexico. Mr. Pina recalled his Chicago high school experience where students were strongly encouraged to either pursue a university education or vocational /trade preparation. He thought that that type of emphasis was needed in this community where a large percentage of the students do not go to college. Mr. Norman agreed saying that many technicians are making more money than college graduates. There was a brief discussion about the timing of the presentation to be made at the Board of County Commissioners. Susan Calkins questioned whether there was a need to present powerful personal 3 16J1 testimony. Mr. Norman stated that on a positive note, there were lots of housing projects underway in h=okalee and that short term rents are available to workers so that they can avoid a double rent as they move between jobs. A motion was made by Susan Calkins to bring this matter to the Board of County Commissioners, if possible, at the October 23`d County Commission meeting. Specifically, a request of the Hispanic Board for the County Commission to request dialog between the growers and the workers and for the County Commission to request that the Governor also make the same plea for dialog. This is based on dialog being good for the Immokalee community and the County. The motion was seconded by Frank Loney. There was a 7 -0 vote in favor of the motion. Susan Calkins asked whether Immokalee Civic Association Representative, Terry Aviles, could participate in the presentation. IMMOKALEE BANK PRACTICES -}I� oc"K J Ao\criui David Correa mentioned a concern that he had regarding which is charging laborers to cash checks when the worker's employer does its banking at the same bank. David said this is a hardship on workers. He asked whether the HAAB should take a position on this. David said he felt this practice is wrong where the laborer is paid b� 0- Wrom the same bank where he is trying to cash the check. He thought that Commissioners might be willing to write a letter taking an interest in this matter. Frank Loney commented that he thought there were legal requirements that affected these types of practices. Mr. Norman stated that it is not just the Bank of America that has this practice. He said that banks argue that there is no guarantee the employer will have funds in the bank merely because the employer has an account with the bank. The bank maintains that it has to pay a percentage of money to insure that funds will be available for cashing the checks. He suggested that a HAAB representative should confer with Steve Price of Florida Community Bank in Immokalee. Robert Pina made a motion for Chairman Correa to investigate this matter with the banks and report back at the October, 2001 meeting. There was a second by Frank Loney. The Board voted 7 -0 in favor of the motion. The meeting of the HAAB was adjourned at approximately 8:54 p.m. Prepared by: Ramiro Manalich, Chief Assistant County Attorney and HAAB Staff Liaison �1 Approved by the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board on this day of 04'0� , 2001. David Correa, Chairman H/RM/HAAB /Minutes 4 F MEMORANDUM S 16J1 TO: Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Board of County Commissioners FROM: Ramiro Qa5laich, Chief Assistant County Attorney DATE: November 8, 2001 RE: Approved Minutes of the September 27, 2001Meeting of the Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board Please find attached the approved minutes of the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board meeting of September 27, 2001. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. RM /kn attachment cc: David C. Weigel, County Attorney a October 3, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, October 3, 2001 vl-� 1,631 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:58 a.m. IN REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas W. Sansbury Michael G. Coe William W. Hill Erica Lynne Alexandra "Allie" Santoro Alfred F. Gal, Jr. Larry Stone Chester Soling Ed Carlson ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney William D. Lorenz, Jr., Natural Resources Stan Chrzanowski, P.E., Senior Engineer 16JI October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Before we start I would like to say if we can just have one short moment of silence for all the folks in the planes and Pentagon and WTC that we lost. If we can have a moment of silence. Thanks. I was going to ask Colonel to lead the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, but only one problem. MR. COE: No flag. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's call roll. MRS. BURGESON: William Hill is on an excused absence. He will hopefully be in in the next half hour. Lynne. MS. LYNNE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Gal. MR. GAL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Sansbury. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here. MS. BURGESON: Coe. MR. COE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Santoro. MS. SANTORO: Here. MS. BURGESON: Soling. MR. SOLING: Here. MS. BURGESON: Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Here. MS. BURGESON: Stone. MR. STONE: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. The agenda for today, do we have any additions? Deletions? Revisions? MS. BURGESON: I would like to suggest we do the Land Development Code amendment first, since Bill Lorenz is on his way over and the rest of the agenda is basically Bill's. Page 2 October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: LDC first. Okay. 16JI '4 Mr. Chrzanowski is going to address us today. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I will stand back a little further so I can see everybody. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A month ago at the meeting I handed out the revised Section 3.5 of the Land Development Code dealing with excavations. I don't know how detailed you want to get into today's conversation about excavations. The excavation ordinance -- I started engineering in this town in '83, and it was in place then, the excavation ordinance, as pretty near as it existed until this last rewrite with a few minor changes. They track excavations in this town -- and it was never in the ordinance -- the -- you had to go to the -- it was never in Section 3.5 of the ordinance, which deals with excavations. You had to go to the definition's portion of the ordinance to find out that an excavation is when you dig earth over any area greater than 3 feet deep or if you dig greater than a foot deep over 10, 000 square foot. So a lot of retention areas where -- where they had the real shallow ones that were engineered yet -- were over a quarter of an acre for, say, a shopping center qualify as an excavation, and we got a little confusion about that. So we have incorporated that definition into the ordinance right now straight out of the -- into the Section 3.5 straight out of the back of the definition's portion. The one reason -- the big reason the ordinance was rewritten this time so extensively is that maybe 5 or 6 years ago the Board of County Commissioners received a request from Al McCall, who was a Vietnam veteran, handicap -- gentleman died a couple of years afterwards -- talked in front of the Board of Commissioners, why he couldn't build a fish pond in his backyard. And he lived on maybe 5 areas in the Estates and wanted to dig him a fish pond. Page 3 October 3, 2001 16J1' Wet the one thing we have about our excavations is that we try to make them at least 12 feet deep. And the reason for that is -- there was quite a scare in the late '80s about hydrilla, a weed that was taking over everywhere. They figured if the bottom of the lake was so deep that acquatic vegetation couldn't see light that the lake would stay relatively acquatic vegetation free except for the perimeter of the lake -- because they had few lakes in town where the acquatic vegetation was pretty near taking over the lake -- they wanted a certain depth of lake as a minimum. McCall could dig a 2 -acre pond 12 foot deep would have created a 2 -acre pile 12 feet high. Simple math. To do that on a 5 -acre parcel, you have got 3 acres left. He had to haul fill off site. Well, the way the excavation ordinance handled fill hauled off of site -- if you were a Better Roads digging the Willow Run quarry 30 million acre -- 30 million cubic yards over 30 years, you were a commercial excavation. If you were Al McCall digging a 2 -acre pond and hauling -- on 100, 000 acre -- 100, 000 cubic yards of fill off site, you were the same class of commercial excavation. So they weren't allowed in the Estates. The board listened to McCall's logic as to why he could not dig a fish pond in his own backyard, and somebody from the attorney's office made the opinion that this was no different than having -- selling a car off of your front yard with a for sale sign, that you had a pile of dirt and you were selling it -- it was so short. It was basically a one -hot deal. It was not an ongoing commercial excavation. So for a long time we issued these excavations in Golden Gate Estates for smaller one- to two -acre excavations. The largest one we ever issued was to Jolley Trucking. He was fortunate enough to have put in -- to have accumulated four parcels, which gave him, like, 20 acres. And we have -- we had a formula if you were 5 acres, you could do, like -- it's in there right now. I think by the time you were Page 4 October 3, 2001 16J1 20 acres, you were up to 50 percent. So he has a fairly large lake on these 20 acres of land. He's the only one in there that has that. All the rest of them are fairly small. They are done on 5 or 10 acres. Some are done on two and a half. You can dig a decent one -acre lake on two and half acres of land. Most of the excavations in the Estates were done in the northeast corner of the Estates. Up near Corkscrew Swamp it is a high piece of land called Big Corkscrew Island, which the northeast Estates -- if you look at the old U.S.G.S. Geological Survey maps, they call the whole Big Corkscrew Island. You can see that the land there is a lot higher than the other land, and it's -- there is a different type of vegetation. A lot was cleared for farms. And it was cleared because it's a very deep sand. It drains well, and it's also excellent for excavating. So all pretty -- since we don't allow blasting in the Estates, pretty near all the requests that we got for excavation have been in that northeast corner. A lot of you have been there through this history before. I have given this speech a few times. A few of you are new and have not heard it before. The board -- Commissioner Coletta when he came on was getting some questions and pressure from some of the Estates' residents about these excavations. There were a lot of questions. We -- over the years we have gotten questions, like, we had one person called up -- the guy that digging -- excavation on a lot next to her, and it was in the dry season, and the wet season came, and the water level started rising, and she swore to me that the lake was going to keep coming up and flooding Golden Gate Estates because it had been coming up for a month. We get a lot of concern from neighbors up there that we don't see as a problem from an engineering point of view. There were concerns about evaporation, transpiration. The lake might be draining the water table faster than the trees were. There were Page 5 A-1 October 3, 2001 16JI concerns that the lake could contaminate the ground water table. Well, there is a canal -- there is an extensive canal system going through Golden Gate Estates. Parts of it dry out and people drive swamp buggies in the bottom of it. And we have oil fields right next to us, and that has never contaminated the ground water table. If you change your oil in your backyard and spill it on the ground, you are going to contaminate the ground water table in a way that you can't see because if you do it in a lake, you have a skim of oil on the top. So there are some concerns, and I will admit some are legitimate. But I see scenarios where the exact same thing could happen, and we will never know about it. So Commissioner Coletta had us take another look at the excavation ordinance. And we rewrote the ordinance based on a couple of public hearings that we had. We had a meeting with the Golden Gate Civic Association, a nighttime meeting. They looked at the rewrite of the ordinance, and they expressed all their fears about a couple of areas that looked like one giant war zone with craters in it. We showed them that most of the areas that we have had the lakes shaped such that there is a buildable house on the lake itself. These house lots with the lakes on them, generally the price goes up. There was some concern that the lots would be so high priced that people could not afford them. And I guess when that happens, the price goes down. It's a remarkable economy, whatever. But the rewrite of the ordinance was for that purpose. It's a long time since it had been looked at. When you look at the ordinance, you will see a lot of housekeeping in there; capitalization of letters, punctuation. We got comments from the Collier County Planning Commission -- one member only -- Joyceanne Rautio who sent me, like, seven or eight items. Most of them were -- all of them were housekeeping items. The last one I agreed with. The other -- I think Page 6 eAd October 3, 2001 a 16J 1 when we meet with them tonight -- I responded to her -- but, you know, if she wants us to do it, we will. I'm not sure whether it's a good idea. It's that kind of items. They are all housekeeping. I handed you all copies -- except I think we mailed two out to members at the last meeting -- and asked you to read them and see if you had any additions, deletions, or any real serious questions about what we are doing. The one thing you might notice is that we have added a lot of classes of excavation. And that -- when we were in this, people kept sending us copies of the excavation ordinances -- Sarasota and Martin County and a couple of other places -- we noticed -- like I talked about Willow Run -- that they treated the large excavation pretty near the same as the small ones. It ended up to where when we charged a road impact fee for hauling of the fill off site on commercial, that the large excavation -- when you did it by a per- cubic -yard cost of this impact fee -- it was fractions of a penny per cubic yards. The small guys -- the guys digging in the Estates was picking up. The brunt of it, you know, 15 to 20 cents a cubic yard. The reason that is is the formula we're giving -- it's a computer formula done by a consultant quite a while ago -- we were given it by transportation -- when you plug in a long term, 30 years, the formula knocks down the cost because it's based on long -term excavation. To our way of thinking, you know, the road isn't looking up at the truck and feeling the weight, doesn't care that it's a long -term excavation or not. We kept saying it ought to be based on a per truck per cubic yard. And we have talked to transportation. And we are -- we have a formula for a new fee that we are going to try and incorporate into this for the next go- around that is going to be based on the amount of damage done by hauling so much fill across our roads per year. We Page 7 October 3, 2001 16J1 think that would be a lot more equitable. The other changes we are going to make more equitable; that's the reason you get the classes on excavation. That's why we have done what we have done. And if anybody has any questions or doesn't like something that we have done, we will be glad to entertain and forward whatever is it to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions for Stan? MR. CARLSON: I don't want to be a troublemaker or sound flippant, but by this definition the removal of any materials of depth greater than three feet below existing rate of a four foot posthole or -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. If you read in there, there is something about foundations and pipes farther in the excavation. You can dig for a pipe in the ground as long as you back fill it or put a foundation or something like that in the ground; that's not flippant. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anything else? MS. SANTORO: As I had comments as I went through it, you mentioned 12 foot. You know, the framework. Now this is increased to 20 feet. Why? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. MS. SANTORO: That was one of my questions. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, we have found that a lot of areas in the county that water table drops a lot deeper than 6 feet. We have been doing research. The 12 foot -- I went to a seminar up in Orlando a couple of weeks ago and learned a little about lakes. You know, our lakes are based -- our lake depth is based on the veg formula. The veg formula is from a study done in 1973 by a black fellow Eisman for the old water management advisory board. Lakes in the North -- anybody that knows water chemistry knows that water is densest at 4 degrees centigrade. So when a lake in the North freezes, it passes through a cycle where the top of the lake turns October 3, 2001 16J 1 denser just before it freezes and the lake overturns, and then it starts getting less dense which is why ice floats. It does not float because of its own oxygen or the oxygen that core 'es out of it. Up North you get this cycle where a lake overturn. In the South you don't get a similar lake overturn circle, and they decided that a lake should be -- it should have a geometry such that it does overturn. And they figure the mechanism is the wind, so the fetch is to find this distance across the surface of the lake, and the wind can pick up friction below the water against one shore of the lake, and the lake starts to spin and overturn. They found on a really deep lake that only the surface -- 10, 20 feet overturns. And the formula, which is, like, 5 feet plus .015 times the average fetch -- if you have got a lake that is a mile by a mile, it can be, like, 80 feet. You have to be a thousand by thousand to be 20 feet deep. But a 20 -foot deep lake still overturns because, I guess, there is still some -- if you have a lake that is just smaller, it has that depth -- it starts not to overturn. But up to 20 feet it overturns. And the water table does drop to where 20 -feet deep lake is really only 12 feet deep in a lot of the areas of the county. So you're probably thinking, well, there's not too many counties -- a lot of them I found out -- no limit on lake excavation by ordinance. A lot of them are limited to 12, and a lot are limited to 20. We think 20 is a proper number for our conditions down here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And further questions? MS. SANTORO: Go ahead. He did want to comment. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead. MS. SANTORO: Under this section you had an excerpt -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can you give me a number? MS. SANTORO: 3.5.5.1.2. And I was concerned about the exception. The exception to being a commercial excavation is up to Page 9 t ti� October 3, 2001 16ji 41 000 cubic yards. Now, I asked my husband -- he has more experience with it. He said depending on the size of the truck, we are talking, like, a large truck, there are still 100 to 200 trip loads to take it out? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. MS. SANTORO: When you say an exception, is it still going to come under guidelines in some other section, or are you -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. We don't thing that is a whole lot. MS. SANTORO: It seems like a lot to me. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A truck holds 16 cubic yards -- so 16 hundred cubic yards would be 100 trucks, 4, 000 thousand would be 2,500 trucks or something like that -- 250 trucks, something like that. We don't consider that a lot. The 4, 000 number there was -- one of the things that was taught awhile back was there was something in the ordinance that said if you. Were a legitimate agricultural use, you could haul any amount of fill off site as the result of digging whatever you needed to dig to do your agricultural use. And it was based on the fact that a farmer would have to dig a retention pond and dig all of these ditches on his property, and a lot of them had fill left over. And there was no amount of limit to the fill. Somebody came in from agricultural -- which is a permitted agricultural use -- and according to the ordinance we had to let them haul all of it off site because it was all excess fill. We closed that loophole, but we left the 4, 000 cubic yards in for the farms that might need to haul off fill without -- you know, they still have to tell us. We will charge them an impact fee, but they don't have to go through the -- the mechanism of going through a public hearing and getting board permission to do it. It's administrative. They still pay. MS. SANTORO: We did have one here that we felt pretty -- as Page 10 October 3, 2001 } 16JI an agricultural fishing pond farm when we thought it was really for excavation. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There have been a few. But Jim Weeks has ponds full of catfish out there, and he was the first one. And it was assumed that he was doing it for the fill, but he has actually got agriculture going. Jessie Hardy, he's trying to start an agriculture operation. I assume. I hope. It would be nice. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Just to give you an idea of scale 4, 000 yards, to build a golf course it takes 500, 000 yards. 400, 000 (sic) yards is really not a lot of material. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: One of the Golden Gate Estate homes that is built out there on a pile with a drain field, septic tank field to build up for that is 2 or 3 cubic yards. Some of the bigger ones are 4, 000 cubic yards. It's not a lot of fill. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. Anything more for Stan? A tie would be politically correct if it were orange and blue. Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Manhattan College of Jasper's, we don't have a -- our mascot was a brother -- one of -- they don't make a tie with him on it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Thanks. Okay. Do we have anyone here that is going to address -- we don't have any land - use petitions, so we don't have to swear anybody in, do we, Pat? MR. WHITE: No. No. It's not -- as far as judicial, no. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Where are we going, Barb? MS. BURGESON: Under old business, wetlands policy -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Wait a minute. Minutes from September 5. Mr. Coe, have you read those minutes line by line? MR. COE: I will check. I will -- COURT REPORTER: Wait a minute. Everyone is going to Page 11 October 3, 2001 have to speak up. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe makes a motion to approve the minutes. Do I hear a second? MS. SANTORO: I second. 16J1` CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second is by Ms. Santoro. Favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No opposed. Passes unanimously. Okay. Land Use Petitions, we have none. Old business, here we go. MS. BURGESON: Wetlands policy discussion was just placed on this agenda in case there was anyone from the public that wanted to make a statement regarding that or if anyone from the EAC wanted to add additional comments to our previous discussion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anybody from the public who would like to speak to that today? MR. CORNELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. Make sure you identify yourself for the recorder. MR. CORNELL: Yes. Brad Cornell representing Collier County Audubon Society. We have had a number of comments on the formulation of county -wide wetlands policy. One of the main points that I think I would like to bring to your attention is that there is a problem with wetland assessment when we look at wetland policies, and that has to do with subjectivity of assessment methods that are currently employed. The -- the wetlands rapid assessment procedure that the district uses is an improvement in that it looks at more facets of wetlands function; however, it is still a very quick assessment procedure, and there has been a lot of discussion and criticism for methods of assessment that are subjective where it's a best professional judgment in the field that determines the jurisdictional lines, wetland functions, the quality of the wetland, these sorts of things. Page 12 October 3, 2001 011 ..d So I would suggest that we in Collier County -- this isn't my suggestion -- this is just in reading some of the materials that have come in front of me -- that we look at a method that the Corps was -- and is establishing where there is a wetland type set up for a variety of types. You know, not just one sort of generic wetland that everything is sort of judged against. But we -- we can judge against the perfect wetland in all of these different varieties and that the assessment be more comprehensive. We take more time with it and that we sort of -- we try to eliminate some of the subjectivity. If I can point to the National Academy of Sciences report that is out that makes these recommendations, and it points towards something like -- it's called a -- I believe, it's a hydro - geomorphis modeling system for wetland assessments. The Corps is currently testing this. Is it very comprehensive. It provides for very definite objective values for wetland function, and I think it's something that we need to look at. We also need to advocate for such objectivity with the state legislature and in the formulation of the uniform assessments methodology, which is coming from the state and is being referenced in our wetland policy that you are going to be looking at. Those policies currently from the state's uniform wetland assessment still point to best professional judgment in the field, and that is something that is going to be a problem. Best professional judgment is always going to be suspect. So we would like to advocate the best objective method possible on hydo - geomorphic modeling would be an accepted policy. If you would like to see a copy of this, I'm sure that staff can get you a copy or summary recommendations. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay. MS. SANTORO: Can I address? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. Go right ahead. Page 13 October 3 2001 16J1 MS. SANTORO: I wanted to address that, and I'm sure it can be fine- tuned. But I think the overall we went through the Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3, and so the method we came up with is that if, say, Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 is looking at a combination of using hydrology, the plants, the overcover, undercover, and wildlife. That may not be a perfect point system, but I think the concept is still valid. And it could be fine - tuned. And worst -case scenario was the limit on the amendment was 5 percent that can be touched and maximum was 50 percent of jurisdictional wetland. In our eyes it was, at least, better than some of the things that we had seen previously. I'm not sure if I'm -- if it can be addressed, but I think what you are saying is fine- tuning the categories from what I have been hearing, which is possible. MR. CORNELL: Right. MS. SANTORO: I think the overall concept is correct, and it may have to be fine- tuned. MR. CORNELL: Right. The problem with the current -- I mean, looking at all the different functions is great and that going to the WRAP assessment is the right direction. The problem with it is it's still very subjective. And we are going to run into problems. You know, in theory it will work on paper, but in practice in the field it's too short a time and relies too much on potential inexperience of the person going out to do the assessment, and we loose a lot of actual valuable wetlands because of that misassessment. So, right, in theory we are moving in the right direction. Let's go -- since we have the opportunity to do comprehensive county -wide policy, let's go all the way and do it the right way for at least Collier County and advocate that the state do the same. The Corps is kind of hunting down that trail. I think we should too. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Page 14 October 3, 2001 16J 1 Director. Let me just provide a staff comment on that. The functional assessment, the state unified assessment of methodology that the State has been working with the Corps is going -- as I understand it, is going to come up for adoption in January. And it has some pre - emption language within that document in terms of pre - empting county governments from using some additional methodology. So from staff s perspective we are going to rely very heavily upon what the state eventually adopts. They are going through their workshop, their public hearing requirements, and at the moment we are certainly not -- the staff will not be proposing to provide an additional methodology or doing any work refining that methodology -- that certainly would not be our recommendation. I think it's just important for me to make that comment on the record. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. LYNNE: Excuse me. I'm confused. We are putting together a wetlands policy now; right? It's based on the three classifications and the things that we have discussed here before. Now does that pertain to what Mr. Cornell is suggesting? MR. LORENZ: We are using the functional assessment as being a methodology -- as an input to our definition of classifications. So we are using that methodology to help us assess what the classifications are. That's -- if you will, that's going to be off -the- shelf methodology from the standpoint when the state adopts it. That's what I'm saying, I'm not recommending we modify that methodology, but we will try and utilize it within our local policies. MS. LYNNE: I still don't understand, but that's okay. I guess the comment that I want to make -- if I understand you correctly, Mr. Cornell, what you are proposing or what that Corps procedures are proposing is that there be a typed specimen, so to speak, of each wetland kind. In other words, a cypress hole, a mangrove swamp, a wet prairie, and that specific criteria be developed for each of those Page 15 October 3, 2001 1 16J1 different types of wetlands. Is that what you are saying? MR. CORNELL: Right. It's sort of a comparative method. As I understand it, not being a wetlands scientist, but the principle being that you have these perfect models for each of the types, and you go out into the field and you look at what you see and compare it to the model that has various criteria that is associated with that and say, "Well, how does it rate? 100 percent as functional as what the model is, or is it 50 percent functional, or how -- what shape is this wetland that I'm looking at in the field? " And it tries to cut down on some of the subjective assessments that goes on currently. And was intended to be objectified in the uniform assessment or unified assessments methodology from the state, but as it stands, it is still relying on best professional judgment. MS. LYNNE: But what you are suggesting what would solve the problem that was brought up before about size because originally we were talking a wetlands needed to be so large to be valuable, and it was pointed out you could have a small perfect wetland. It seems like what he is suggesting solves that problem because you have got a type -- ideal type of wetland, and each wetland is compared to that and not just some arbitrary characteristic that covers all wetlands. I guess I think it's a good idea. I don't know if that's too late to get that into the plan or not. But I think that is a really good idea. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. LORENZ: As I said, theoretically and ideally, yes, that would be a good enhancement. The problem is is that we have -- at this particular point we have to adopt policies -- and I will give you the schedule -- that you are going to come to you with the policies in January. You won't know what the state adopts. When the state adopts a uniform assessment, as I understand the pre - emption language, we're not going to have too much opportunity to modify that, and certainly, we don't have the ability between now and at that Page 16 October 3, 200116J141 particular point to do the scientific analyses to propose what those benchmark conditions would be. Because really what we are talking about, we are talking about developing some benchmarks for each individual type of wetland to make your comparisons to. In an ideal world, absolutely. But at the moment we are going to be working with a tool that the state is giving us, and we will incorporate that tool into our policies as best as we can. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What Mr. Cornell is saying, though, the Corps is developing this particular procedure, and the Corps will be utilizing this procedure in their review. MR. CORNELL: They are testing it currently is my understanding, and I would suggest that the State -- that folks in local government advocate to the state that, you know, this would be a better way to protect their wetlands by including such an assessments method in the uniform methodology that is being devised now by the State. In other words, reference the Corps testing of this model and also the National Academy of Science's recommendation, we really ought to adhere to these recommendations. It's a recognition that the assessments methodology that has been used up to now has not been effective. We have seen wetland losses every year since President Bush Senior had declared there would be no more losses in wetlands. And we have seen them to unfortunate degrees. And so the National Academy of Science tried to figure out how can we, you know, improve that situation. Part of our problem is the way we assess them, the way we value or define our wetlands. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ms. Lynne. MS. LYNNE: Can I ask another question? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. MS. LYNNE: Is what you are saying that the state is eventually going to make a decision on how wetlands must be assessed, and we Page 17 October 3, 2001 16JI are going to have to comply with that regardless of what you guys have worked on so far; is that correct? MR. LORENZ: Utilizing the functional assessment is what we will have to be using. That is for purposes of developing mitigation ratios. That's what the development community will be using. So to that degree, yes, we will be using the state's methodology. Is it an input into our own policies. But, I guess, what I'm saying is that from a -- from -- that's the tool that the state has adopted to give to the local governments. For us to go out and try to redesign that tool or add those enhancements, like Brad is talking about, I'm telling you right now from staffs perspective and schedule and degree of competence that we would have to be able to apply to it, we will just not be able to do that. You will utilize the functional assessment as what the state adopts. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir. MR. SOLING: You are saying, Bill, if we adopt something more stringent and more rudiment -- better regulation that we have to downgrade to the state standing? We can't have something better than the state? MR. LORENZ: It depends on the specific topic that you are talking about. There are state statutes or rules that expressly state that local governments are preempted from doing anything different, and where that is explicitly stated then there is a pre - emption. Everyplace else we would have the local discretion to adopt something different or more stringent. That would be a policy decision from the county commission. CHAIRMAN STANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. BAUER: Mike Bauer, Audubon of Florida and Collier County citizen. I would respectfully request that this board take a look at that uniform statute, that Florida statute for a couple of reasons. One is the Estero Bay Management, a group of many Page 18 October 3, 2001 16J l professional biologists, have already examined It and is making comments on it, because they found it to be less helpful than the exsting rapid assessments procedure. They see a lot of problems with it, and, in fact, Professor Winterham of Florida Gulf Coast University b4 experimented with, giving it to his wetland class and having them to apply the standards. And he found the variation coming back from within his class was so great to make the thing useless. I would make a recommendation that you take a look at it. If it is a tool that is going to be used by the county, that you know what is in there and have some idea of how effective you think it is. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I -- MS. LYNNE: I'm sorry. I have a question. Which tool is it that isn't working? MR. BAUER: The one that the -- Agency of Bay Management and the professor at Florida Gulf Coast University think is going to be ineffective is the new statute that is being proposed, the Uniform Wetlands Assessment Act. I think that is the language. I'm not positive what it is. It's proposed to replace the rapid assessment procedures. And, in fact, it's more vague. MS. LYNNE: Is this something that is being proposed at the state level or county? MR. BAUER: At the state level. MS. LYNNE: At the state level. MR. BAUER: And they are taking input right now on the language at the state level. MS. LYNNE: So you are asking that this board review that information and possibly make recommendations? MS. LYNNE: I would respectfully request that you do that. Take a look at it so you know what kind of tool is being proposed to look at wetlands and used to identify wetlands. Page 19 October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bill, can we do that? Just get something back to us so we can all review what the state is proposing? 1-6J 1 MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We will do that and take a look at it and agenda it for next week. Okay. We have a fairly tight time frame here, so let's move forward. Barbara, what are we doing next? MS. BURGESON: The next is growth management updates. And Bill is going to the presentation. MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the growth management update, as I noted last time, is that we are at the moment working with the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee with very specific policy language that is going to be the amendment to the Growth Management Plan. So that's the effort that we are pretty much within. Let me give you a schedule because I think this is key to understand what our -- plans are. We will be having a Board of County Commission transmittal hearing. At the moment the date we are looking at is February 20th. The Collier County Planning Commission, we need to have their review by February 13th. And we have tentatively scheduled an EAC review by no later than January 23rd. I believe that's a fourth Wednesday. Now, Staff, we are recommending that you have at least one meeting outside of your regularly scheduled meeting to cover this material. It's going to be quite extensive. I will be giving you further updates as we move along as we see these dates are coming about. We are trying to keep it to this schedule as much as we can. It puts, basically, the EAC in the mode that in the month of January by the 23rd you are going to have to make recommendations to the county commission on the amendments that the -- will amend the Growth Management Plan dealing with rural fringe area. Page 20 October 3, 2001 16J1 These amendments will deal with county -wide policies, such as wetlands -- wetlands policies will be part of that -- and other wildlife policies, so we are working on the detailed language of that information. You have already gone through the wildlife policies initially and given me some input. I'm coming up with the second draft of the wildlife policies that you and the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee will see again. Kind of getting back to transition with the wetlands, quite frankly, the wetlands policies have been very, very difficult. I have been working with my staff, with some representatives from the development industry. We have been working with Audubon and some other enviromental organizations to try and come up with some language so at least we can develop some consensus for the framework and the concept. We are not there yet at all. Nancy Lenanne, who is our attorney, with Carlton Fields out of Tallahassee for growth management has set up a meeting with some DCA officials to get a little bit more clarification for the wetlands policies -- or how we can maybe craft some wetlands policies. At the moment what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to create a framework by which I can at least identify what I'm going to call a status quo type of alternative. But however we structure it, then I can at least have the analytical analyses to say, "This -- our -- our best estimate is that if we apply these policies, this will translate into what we have seen in Collier County in the past several years" -- at least that's a benchmark. And then from that framework -- certainly from a staff perspective, we certainly don't recommend anything less than that. But how much further you go up or would be more restrictive in what we have to tweak in the policies to do that, then I will try and identify that as well. So that's the framework that I'm trying to work on to at least be able to provide the analytical work for the language. Page 21 October 3, 2001 16JI But this is -- this is an issue, quite frankly, that is going to be coming to you later rather than sooner. So just -- the kind of discussion we had earlier, that is all good potter for the discussion. There is possibilities that we can develop policies that we can ultimately we can fine -tune it, you know. It's not pre - empted -- that it will be a year or two out. So, I mean, there is still some ideas that I think what we just discussed can be incorporated, but I guess what I'm also saying is that our time frame to get the transmittal hearing to the board in February, eventually their adoption is in May, for us to have these amendments to meet the final requirements of June of 2002 -- this is for just the rural fringe. This is not the rural land. They are on a schedule that has been pushed back a little bit farther. So that's kind of where we are in terms of the overall picture for the growth management update. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can we take a break for just one second? I would like to recognize Commissioner Mac'Kie. I believe I read something in the paper this morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You guys have very important work to do. Don't drop it. Do it. Especially policy decisions; those are the ones. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Good luck in your endeavors. Enjoy West Palm Beach. I lived there for 52 years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I won't enjoy the drive back and forth. MR. LORENZ: The next item on the agenda is proposed amendments. We have provided you -- I believe you have the buffers minimum clearing allowance and density blending packages. Those were mailed out to you. These are -- these are working drafts. In fact, the rural -- since the mailout, the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee has already met on all three of these items. The minimum clearing allowance, for instance, let me cover that because I can Page 22 6 October 3 2001 1 Z cover -- I can cover what the fringe committee has proposed a what we just resent out -- and it was last night. It was yesterday ev ing that Bob Mulhere was working on it. Patrick White has all the drafts, and he was just asking me which one is the most current draft. So it's a -- it is really a work in progress. To the degree we are trying to get the information to the EAC, again, to facility your ultimate review and recommendations in January is why we are trying to do this. So if you can bear with us in terms of drafts. But what I will try and do is try to cover the issues as best as I can from what the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee has requested and what staff will be making changes, so I can kind of incorporate that in my discussion on these items with you today. But for the clearing allowance, I think the biggest thing is that we are taking the word "minimum" off because that was somewhat confusing to everybody, and that clearing allowance package is also going up to -- I believe the final figure was about 25, 000 square feet that we would allow any property owner -- that's their -- that's their clearing allowance. Any property owner can clear up to 25, 000 square feet, if you will, with no questions asked. That recognizes the kind of information that you have in your packet of the house pad and some other uses. Now, the language that has also been developed along those lines, that does not include a fire buffer. So somebody can come back to us and say, "We want 25, 000 square feet for clearing, plus the fire buffer," and we are going to allow them to specify the fire buffer in terms of some -- there is some criteria that Bob Mulhere is looking at from the fire district because we don't want to be able to specify a minimum standard. Remember, too, when we start talking about a fire buffer, it's not -- the fire buffer will not be the complete clearing. That will be the ability to clear out the underbrush and the fuel load for the property. Page 23 16J1 October 3, 2001 There is going to be some language that is going to tie to that. The other thing is that from a -- we will give them a certain allowance for the driveway, but we are also going to allow some additional clearing for the driveway as well. That language, as I said, was just held last night. I don't have it to be able to hand out to you. Those were the issues the Fringe Advisory Committee brought up at their past review, and those were the -- generally the changes that staff is sending back to the advisory committee for their final review. In your next mail -out packet, I will mail out the most recent draft that we come up with. MR. COE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead. MR. COE: You keep talking about the minimum clearing application. It seems to me this is the maximum allowable to clear. MR. LORENZ: That's -- it's not. For instance, roughly the 22, 000 square feet -- this is where the staff is revising the language -- if that approximates -- if you have for a 5 -acre lot -- that for a 5 -acre lot that is 5 percent of clearing. MR. COE: Is this maximum or minimum? MR. LORENZ: Excuse me. It's 50 percent. The -- if you have -- if you are under -- if you are in a restricted preservation standard, such as a NRPA area where we are proposing a 90 percent preservation or 10 percent clearing area, we are going to allow you for very small acres to allow -- for a greater than 10 percent clearing. When you get to about that 5 -acre lot, that's where you kind of -- the numbers become equal, and then for larger properties a 10 percent -- 10 percent allowance on a 40 -acre property tract allows you to clear 4 acres. So it's not a maximum. It's an idea of minimum. It was confusing with people. So we are just going to call it -- you are guaranteed clearing up to -- of 25, 000 acres. Then to the degree that preservation of -- 25, 000 square feet -- then to the degree Page 24 October 3, 2001 16J 1 that a preservation standards allows you to clear even more, then you will be allowed to clear up to the preservation standards. MR. COE: Why not just use a percentage? That covers it clear and simple. MR. LORENZ: Well, because when you come down to a percent of a very small lot, you are talking about a small -- a very small clearing standard for a homeowner. It's somewhat -- think of it being a sliding scale giving a greater amount of percentage for smaller lots for more reasonable use of property. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: All right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is there any thought -- any thought on it regarding -- we are saying a house pad is 5, 000 square feet; that means a house is, say, 3,500 square feet liveable area, that pretty much limits someone who wants to build a big house out there. Or does that slide also? MR. LORENZ: Well, like I said, when we developed this one particular table, we are talking about a 5,000- square -foot house. I mean, we are not saying that you can only build a 5,000- square -foot house -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Okay. MR. LORENZ: I think the new number is now 25, 000 square feet guaranteed. You can clear -- take away all the trees in 25, 000 square feet. It's your choice what you want to put on your lot to do that. But what we use these numbers for, like, the excavation ordinance, just to give you an idea, okay, if you had a 5,000- square- foot house and if you have this much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Ms. Lynne. MS. LYNNE: In theory if you have got 25, 000 square feet, you could put -- make that all in house and have no fire buffer? MR. LARENZ: Well, for the fire buffer -- for the new Page 25 October 3, 2001 16J1 language, we are going to allow you to still have some degree of clearing for a fire buffer over and above the 25, 000 square feet. We certainly don't want to get into a position where we are forcing homeowners to put themselves in some jeopardy with regard to fire protection. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. Mr. Soling. MR. SOLING: I brought this up at the subcommittee meeting. If I was a developer and bought very, very, very, very large parcels and found that the county's restriction were horrendous, I could subdivide the parcels into individual lots and then homeowners would be exempt from the restriction that I would have because I'm an individual homeowner. MR. LORENZ: The -- at the moment -- everything moving forward, if you have a very large property and you are going to subdivide it, that's going to come under -- that's going to start to come under our requirements for your subdivision. MR. SOLING: What supposed -- MR. LORENZ: So you are going to have to preserve -- you are going to set aside some preserve area within that subdivision -- within your subdividing the preservation of vegetation that we are specifying. MR. SOLING: So I'm looking at a lot of land here in North Belle Meade or Golden Gate -- MR. LORENZ: Right. MR. SOLING: -- all of these people don't have to comply with our standards for a very big piece. MR. LORENZ: Well, that's -- that's true in terms of the subdivision. But when they come in for -- when they come in to get a permit to clear their lot, they are going to be subject to these new amendments, these new requirements. MS. SANTORO: Isn't this around a half a acre? Page 26 October 3, 2001 MR. CARLSON: Yes. 16J 1 MS. SANTORO: Right around -- MR. CARLSON: Most of them are going to be 5 acres. MR. WHITE: Even in the Estates there are plenty of 2 3/4 parcels of that size that are kind of half, half, half splits. So, I think what Bill is trying to communicate here is that the sense of minimum applies only in terms of thinking about it from the end of the telescope that gets you to the idea you can clear up to this amount no matter how small, and in that sense we are talking minimum, not that you're not entitled to clear more. Either in under a fire buffer or under some preservation standard that would get you up to the full 10 percent on a very large parcel that getting greater than 10 acres. MR. LORENZ: There again is where you break even -- I will call it breakeven point. It's hard without seeing a graph. When you get to a 5 -acre lot, that's a 10 percent -- that's 10 percent. Well, we are not proposing anything more restrictive than 10 percent in terms of over preservation standards. So when you start -- even when you start -- when you start getting higher than a 5 -acre lot, even with the most restricted preservation standards, you are going to be able to clear greater than 25, 000 feet. MR. CHAIRMAN: About 10 percent. Right. Yes, ma'am. MS. LYNNE: What I was trying to find out is, if somebody is given this 25, 000 square feet, can they build something and not have a fire buffer? I don't want people to be able to use up their fire buffer and then end up being a fire hazard; that's what I'm asking. MR. LORENZ: Do you have Bob's -- MR. WHITE: I don't have it. Maybe we will just try coming at it from a different angle. As far as the 25, 000 square feet goes, that is exclusive of fire buffers for single- family residences. MS. LYNNE: Except -- MR. WHITE: I know that has changed. Page 27 October 3, 2001 MR. LORENZ: Right. 16J1 MS. LYNNE: Okay. All right. MR. WHITE: Got it? MS. LYNNE: All right. Got it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Everybody -- anybody have any more questions regarding the minimum clearing standards? Okay. Bill, what is the next one? MR. LORENZ: The next one would be -- let me go to density blending. Bob Mulhere is right here to be able to handle density blending. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bob. MR. MULHERE: I was waiting to be called in. MR. LORENZ: Just -- Bob was not a speaker. The EAC just has the older draft for density blending. I know that you just sent out revisions from the fringe committee. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. LORENZ: At least that's what they have in their hands. MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere with RWA and consultant for the county on the rural fringe assessment. The committee is reviewing this, and I guess you probably know already, and all the other draft amendments that we are preparing including at this point buffering standards, the enfringment in subdistricts for the rural fringe, golf course provisions. With respect to the density blending, it is intended to only apply to the two subdistricts that directly abut the urban area. There are four subdistricts proposed, and only two actually abut the urban area. The revision between the drafts that you have and the final draft of the committee endorsed are relatively minor. Let me see if I can off the top of my head remember those. I think one was to restrict just to the two subdistricts that abut the urban area, but originally it was proposed, I think, to apply to all four subdistricts, but there is no Page 28 October 3, 2001 16J1 reason to when the other two don't abut the urban area. The second was that the density blending -- there is a little more clarification in the language where it ties the provision of density blending to retaining or preserving the highest quality of natural vegetation and habitat on site. So, remember, the concept here is that if you have a project that exceeds 80 acres in size and has -- includes land that is both in the urban area or the urban fringe and rural areA, you can locate your approved density no higher than you would otherwise be permitted. But you can take your urban density and relocate that to the rural portion of your project, or you can take your rural fringe portion -- or you can take your rural fringe portion and relocate that to the urban area of the project. But the premise -- what you have to demonstrate in doing so, you are retaining the highest quality of vegetation on the site and habitat. One example that has been shown to illustrate this is -- I think it's the Naples Grande project down in Area D, which is the one along Tamiami Trail -- there was a project there that is exempt from the assessments because it was submitted prior to the final order deadline, but still demonstrates in which the best natural area in that project was located in the urban area. And the rural portion is cleared farm fields. Under the provision as they were today or are today, the applicant would not be able to relocate his density from the urban portion to the cleared farm fields and then would be able to clear most of the urban portions to put its density in there. And so it makes sense to be able to shift that in exchange for preserving that higher quality native vegetation; that's the concept behind it. And the revisions were relatively minor that the committee made in accepting it. There was one other thing that escapes my mind. MR. WHITE: Do you want to look at it? MR. MULHERE: There was one other. Maybe if I take a quick Page 29 October 3, 2001,,, 6J 1 peek at it. There was one other minor revision. There is a requirement that that if they are going to avail themselves of the density blending they have to come in the form of a PUD. And the rationale behind that we would at least be able to have several public hearings in which we could examine the staff, and then elected officials advisory board could examine how they are going about saving that best natural area. And -- oh, I remember what the other point is. The other point is there will be higher -- as proposed -- we don't know exactly what yet, but there will be higher preservation standards in the rural fringe subdistricts than we currently have -- preservation and open standards than we currently have in the urban area. The idea this is a continuum from urban, which has lesser preservation -- native vegetation preservation standards and open space standards to the rural fringe, which will have higher than -- hopefully to the eastern rural ends which will have higher preservation standards. So if you prevail yourself of this option of density blending, you must meet the higher -- whatever the higher preservation standards are for the entire project. So even on your urban lands, if you are going to blend your density, you have got to meet the preservation standards that we adopt for the rural fringe, which will be -- although we don't know what they are right now -- I can safely say they will be higher than we have in the urban area. And I think that is a summary of that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any questions of Mr. Mulhere? Just reading in the paper about urban and blending, the lawsuit that went down, the judgment was made in Martin County where they said the county violated the blending of two particular products and had an apartment against the other and said tear the thing down. Page 30 October 3, 2001 16J 1 MS. LYNNE: That's not blending. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: They used blending in the description of it. MR. MULHERE: I'm not familiar witlithat. My guess is -- I'm not familiar with it -- but just on face, my guess would be there was some violation of their comp plan. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Violation of comp plan. MR. MULHERE: By amending our comp plan, we wouldn't have that problem. We would be able to do this. Really, all along it's something that makes sense. If we are getting to the objective of protecting habitat and vegetation in that area, that is really the principle behind it. That makes sense. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any questions on the blending concept? Okay. Mr. Lorenz. MR. LORENZ: The other items is on buffers. Again, that was mailed out last night, as well. So the committee did have some discussions. And let me work you through the discussion of the committee at least and tell you how staff handled it. I will kind of work off both of my notes here. If you -- on page 2, it would be page 2 of 11. Policy 6.8.2 at the very bottom, you will see where Policy -- yes -- 6.8.2 talks about a -- okay. Wait a minute. It's page 2 of 10 now off of your draft, excuse me 6.8.2 where it talks about a 1,000 -foot distance. There was some -- some confusion as to whether we have a 1,000 -foot buffer or as policies -- as objective -- excuse me -- as policies 6.8.1 says this is a review distance in terms of where we would subject a development to review and then provide these criteria. I simply made -- made the language change to just clarify that this is not a 1,000 -foot buffer. It's simply a review distance; so that's the language that -- that the committee or the discussion that the committee had said there. So that would have changed. Page 31 October 3, 2001 16J1 The next substantive change of discussion that the committee had, if you go to page 3 of 10 and you come down to 1(B) where it starts off to say "Where woodstork," et cetera, et cetera, there is some concern that these standards may be too restricted or may be -- may be able to be modified through a review of other jurisdictional agencies. This would be the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Fresh Water -- the Florida Fresh Water -- the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. I keep stumbling over their whole new name. Because the development still has to work with these agencies and develop some type of Wildlife management plan. So what we -- what staff is proposing back to the committee would basically be under -- under B where we have a parenthesis 1, 2, 3, we will add a parenthesis 4. And this would say, "These requirements shall be modified on a case -by -case basis if such. Modifications are based upon the review and recommendation from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation." We put a little bit of -- I like to call it upset language that if those agencies determine that -- that these distances as strictly applied within this policy do not work as well as something else for a particular site project, then we get those recommendations from those agencies, and then we can relax these distances. It's what I call upset language. It provides some flexibility. One of the difficulties -- this is a little bit of a side note here or editorial comment on my part -- our dilemma from the state is that we have to draft policies that are specific and measurable. And there can't be a lot of weasel words in them. They have to be fairly definitive, and many times if you specify a 10 percent requirement, we are going to have to follow that 10 percent requirement if we don't have any other -- if you call it upset or exception language. We know in the real world that many times that if you apply it just the way it's drafted without consideration for very site specific Page 32 October 3, 2001 16.1 j requirements or something else that is going on, that that application of that number is not going to give you a better project than if you do it differently. Certainly as a staff member, I don't want to be in a position we want to vigorously adhere to some number that we have established -- essentially the way we have been developing these policies. To the degree that we can build some flexiblity into it and allow for some exceptions to the number with proper valid criteria to make those exceptions, then I'm trying to craft the language to allow that; so that's the spirit and the intent of this language within this section. MS. LYNNE: So does that mean if for some reason these regulatory agencies in developing a plan thought more than 1, 000 feet or 300 feet or 1,500 feet were necessary in order to protect them, that that would follow through as well? MR. LORENZ: I think it cuts both ways. MS. LYNNE: Just makes sure that the language makes that clear. MR. LORENZ: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What is 1,500 feet as relates to storage and so forth. Are you dealing with that? MR. CARLSON: I don't. U.S. Fish and Wildlife doesn't. There are some results of some studies in North Florida by the Florida Wildlife Commission. MR. LORENZ: The buffer for woodstorks? MS. SANTORO: 322. MR. LORENZ: If you go through the data and analysis of the table -- MS SANTORO: It was 322 was what the actual figure. 322 was, I believe, was the actual figure? MR. LORENZ: No. For woodstorks they came up 1,500 feet was based upon Bald Eagle requirements. Page 33 October 3, 2001 16JV% CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bald Eagle? MR. LORENZ: They did not have in the report that I read, which was the -- it's a 1994 buffers -- it's for East Central Florida buffers, the data they summarize, they could not find any specific number for woodstorks. I have just -- just -- I have researched the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Multispecies Recovery Plan; they do not have a specific number. MS. LYNNE: So the point would be that if later a specific number did come up and it was greater than this, you would have a basis for enforcing a larger buffer area. Or if you had a particular use that was so intrusive that the ordinary buffer set up is not adequate, that you would be able to enforce a larger buffer range to protect the species. MR. LORENZ: That can certainly be accommodated in the language revision that I read to you because it says, "Shall modify on a case -by -case basis." The constraint, though, upon the recommendation by one of those two agencies. The other alternative if somebody does come up with an appropriate number or set up a number for woodstorks that we can latch on to, we can create a policy amendment later on or management plan and incorporate that new information with the new standard later on and put it in the plan. I would still, however, recommend that we continue to have this upset language in it. MS. LYNNE: Yeah. I just think if we can upset it one way, we need to make sure it goes both ways. MR. LORENZ: Right. We are not saying on the lower end; we are saying modify. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: We are saying on both ends. Also realize that the committee has not yet seen this, so I'm getting ahead of the committee with this language. Page 34 October 3, 2001 .�6J1 .r CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: I wanted to reiterate -- you have not had a chance -- I gave a copy of the minutes -- a couple of things the committee would hopefully go back to work on in this area unless it's alread y been done or referred to. But one of the thing1was the wording taking out the word "wetland" where it said "Proposed development shall demonstrate the ground water table drawdowns will not adversely function to allow upland functions as well as wetlands functions." And Mr. Cornell was asked to bring in some research to our next committee meeting or help to advise staff. We are trying to take a look at what is an allowable water drawdown or, you know, looking at distance or devices. If we come up with a measurable figure of allowable or not allowable water drawdown, we can go back to either it has to be -- nobody can be within this distance or else there might be some mechanical devices can be done to protect the water from being drawn down past a certain amount. I thought that would be of something of interest to you -all. The other thing is the conservation designation was allowing current agricultural uses and that I think is going to be revisited to see if some of the agriculture uses such as schools and towers and mining and excavations might be rethought so that the conservation might have some different criteria and does not have a permissible land use. So I just wanted to mention those three areas. MR. LORENZ: Let me cover those in a little more detail. I will walk through. Those come up at the end of this document, and I can ask some additional for you. If you turn to -- let's see -- your page 6. MR. SOLING: One. MR. LORENZ: Your page -- I have some other stuff. Let me get some other information -- your page 4. Actually, it's the end of page 3 and the beginning of page 4. There was some concern about when we talked about wildlife corridors from the committee that was Page 35 October 3, 2001 16J1 wildlife for unlisted species or listed species. We have redrafted language in here that will contrain the language for listed species. When we speak of listed species, of course, those would be the federal, state lists of threatened, endangered, or species of special concern in the case of the state lists. So that was -- we have constrained that a little bit with wording that way. We also added under the D provision where it says, "The county shall consider the recommendations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission in delineation of the corridors." Again, the idea of utilizing the recommendations from these agencies is in the review process. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: We add another parenthesis, parenthesis No. 4 to add to the use of where it says, "Use of appropriate roadways, crosses and signage, " again, we added, "Any other techniques recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Agency." Again, we are trying to build into these ideas that there may be some other techniques that would be appropriate, that if we don't have this language somebody can say, "No. You are inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan." But I think it works both ways too. And then we added, I think, No. F, where right now that ends at E and F. It says, "The county shall consider the recommendations by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida -- when considering the placement of open space to natural reservations." The whole idea of the concept behind this buffering policy is not to say, "Thou shall have a 100 -foot buffer" or "Thou shall have a 200 -foot buffer." We are saying that you need to put your less intensive uses up against the natural reservation. It's hard to be able to determine how much area that is going to be. That depends upon the border, if you will, with the natural Page 36 October 3, 2001 16J 1 reservation. Where the appropriate open 1gace is depends upon what is in that natural reservation or what is g g to be the more intensive land use. So there is a lot of -- a lot of site specific conditions that are difficult to draft in the policies. Again, the point here is, again, to utilize those agencies to help with the location because those agencies may say, "You know what? Forget about buffering this reservation up here in the northeast corner. You know, we would rather see you put all of your open space down here in the -- in the southern portion of your project." And that recommendation then can be utilized by the county to -- to accept the development and still be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I will have to apologize. I will have to leave. I'm going to turn the chair over to Mr. Coe. (Chairman Sansbury exits.) MR. COE: Any other comments? MR. LORENZ: Let's see. I have to go through my notes. To pick up on what Allie had mentioned earlier in terms of the conservation uses, if you go to -- the reference here of the page reference in your draft is, I guess, it's page 6. Bob has gone, but Bob has also been working on a set of policies that will modify these conservation uses. And I'm not sure whether those were mailed out as well. We have been doing an awful lot of drafting in the past week. I can tell you in his discussion with mine -- for instance, under the conservation designation section, currently we allow earth mining. We are proposing that be struck out. I also know that community facilities, we are not recommending those to be allowed appropriate uses of conservation land. So just to speak to -- to the point that you made earlier, you will see the proposed changes of this conservation designation in your Page 37 w October 3, 2001 16J next mailout, and we are limiting the uses in the conservation lands to a much greater degree than what we have here. A little bit as a related note -- and you probably all have not been involved with the details of this part of -- part of what we got in the hot water, as well, with regard to the Growth Management Plan back in '97 was school siteing. And we will have language in the plan regard -- we have already proposed -- we will limit school siteing to receiving areas. So we have already talked with a representative from the school board, and he's aware of generally the receiving areas that we are looking at and feels very comfortable with that language. CHAIRMAN COE: Didn't the school board buy some land in a questionable area like in the rural fringe? MR. LORENZ: Yes, just a couple of months ago. It was up in the southeast corner of B -2, B -3 in the rural fringe. At the moment we are looking at that. Quite frankly, staff has hedged a little bit. We are just calling that as a neutral area -- that was before we knew about the school board stuff. We might have to figure out where we are going to have receiving and sending area. If we have a third designation. That is another analysis that is ongoing, as well. We don't have final word from our consultant that is looking at the transfer and development rights program because that is what sending and receiving is related to transferring the development rights. MR. CARLSON: I'm wondering about the definition of school. If, say, an entity like the CREW Trust or Audubon wanted to have some small educational facility or conservation land or near conservation land, what is a school? MS. LYNNE: Related to that, the same kind of thing. Suppose you had a conservation group or even a church or socially minded group that wanted to build -- preserve the entire area but have an educational facility there. Page 38 October 3, 2001 MR. LORENZ: Yes. 16J 1 MS. LYNNE: Preserve the whole area in perpetuity that you are going to have a center and nature trails and something like that. MR. LORENZ: Ed, I'm not sure. I see a way of addressing that. We do have -- we do maintain Item B where it says, "Dormitory, duplexes, and other staff houses" that may be provided in some sort of conservation uses. We might be able to put dormitory, duplexes, and other staff housing, educational facilities, you know that are -- somewhat adjunct to -- to that and that's -- that's -- make a note of that myself to talk to Bob about that. MR. COE: Any other comments? MS. LYNNE: Are we still -- have you finished? MR. LORENZ: No. I wanted to cover -- well, actually, the -- Allie had mentioned the conservation uses. You will see some revisions to those. The Rural Fringe Advisory Committee did not get to discussing Items 2, 3, and 4, which is the wildlife protection criteria, stormwater management systems, and then Item No. 4, which is the language that tries to deal with the impact of drawdowns or more broadly speaking changing the hydro period at the boundary of the natural reservation. So the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee has not addressed those yet. Those -- that will be the point where the committee needs to continue its review of this -- this effort. And there is a note in the committee's draft that, like, for Item No. 4, I note that the end of the last meeting a member of the public comment was identification of wetlands and wetland functions regarding the potential impact, so I kind of picked up comment, Brad, just to make sure that we have continuity with the review of the rural fringe advisory committee. Beyond that that's all the information that I wanted to bring the EAC up to speed with in terms of these policies. And I do agree with the comment that Allie made and maybe Brad will speak to. I think Page 39 October 3, 2001 16J1 there is room for improvement in the language of Item No. 4 in a couple of different ways. And I have been struggling with how to come up with a quantifiable way of doing it. I have talked to Ed, with Brad. And I have to get in contact with Mike Doover. There are some techniques that Water Management District does specify some specific quantative criteria that can be used, if we were to utilize what they have in their basis of review that I'm sure would pass muster with DCA for something measurable and specific. I know Ed is leaving there and wants to weight in terms of that criteria, but that is an alternative for us to look at. With that, that's everything that I had that I want to cover. MR. CARLSON: Just for the record, for the benefit of my subcommittee members, when I recollected that a study that was done a long time ago that -- that I was trying to remember the results, and it seemed to me my recollection was that -- that the impact of canals, basically, the drainage impact, the rule of thumb extended about a mile from the canal, that study was done by a woman known as Flora Wang in conjunction with Center of Wetlands, the University of Florida, and the Corps of Engineers. She was looking at the impact of the canals in Southern Golden Gate Estates and surrounding property. I believe the Fackahatchee Strand preserve and found the drainage influence, the ground water influence of those canals extended 12, 000 feet from the canal. So it was twice as far as I remembered it. It was over two miles. MR. COE: Any other comments? MS. LYNNE: I have got a question. Seems to me that when you are talking about the ground water system that it often says that an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the activity will not change the hydro period. And I don't think reasonable assured is good enough. I think that ends up being one of the subjective professional judgments that depends on which professional you have Page 40 October 3, 2001 i. n 16JI ;I. I got talk up talking to you. MR. LORENZ: Yes. Let me -- let me cover something. As I said, the Water Management District does have some specific criteria and the references of Section 6.12 out of their basis of review for when they issue an environmental resource permit, and that specifies very specific numerical standards to ensure that your water control elevation that you set is properly separated far enough from the wetland -- the wetland edge so it would be, quote, no adverse impact to the wetland. This gets really complicated. The language would be -- would allow for a separation distance producing a grading of less than or equal to 0.005. That would be the language that I would drop into this policy, and it will be very specific and measurable. And there is some additional information in the basis of review -- and if you want to refer to it, that's why I gave you the site. We can get -- pass muster with 9J35 for specific criteria. There is some -- perhaps, some concern that that does not adequately protect the -- the -- let's say, the wetlands in terms of what that separation distance would do and what the drawdown at the wetland edge would be, because it does not specify a specific drawdown. The -- some more background. The Mark Brown -- we had ground water buffer in developing the standards for East Central Florida utilized a performance -- what I will call a performance standard of one inch, so that he developed some buffer distances that would work in certain habitats in east central Florida that would translate into the order of 100 to 550 feet separation distance. That -- that assumed that those numbers would protect the wetland from anything greater than an inch drawdown -- an inch drawn down is .08 feet. That was the standard that he utilized for proposing the methodology that he proposed for East Central Florida. I have done some -- I have done some analysis myself on utilizing his methodology in applying the .08 feet standard to Collier Page 41 4q •• October 3, 2001 16J1 County, and you can certainly utilize -- we can certainly consider utilizing that standard as well. Now -- this is part of the other thing that Allie mentioned that we talk of wetland functions. At the boundary of the natural reservation, we are not simply talking about wetlands because the boundry that we have defined in that reservation may be an upland system. What we are really talking about is not so much the wetland function but maintaining the appropriate hydro period as measured at the moment of ground water withdrawal at the boundary. And I would certainly be proposing language that takes out the wetland function that makes it more generic, such that we are talking about a ground water level that does not impact the natural reservation boundary whether it's a wetlands or upland. Because we know we can drain certain upland type or transitional type communities to the point where we have adverse impacts as well. So I think the language can be broadened, and I would be proposing some of that as basis of discussion. And the next question is -- is what methodology do we utilize whether we look at the Water Management District's number of a gradient of .005 and some other attendant language, or do we pick from Mark Brown's recommendation of a drawndown of no greater than an inch. Or do we have some local knowledge data analyses that suggest another number or another approach. That's why I need to be talking with Mike Doover. He's going to be the guy to -- to inquire on that. MS. SANTORO: That's the area that the subcommittee is going to be looking at at the next meeting. So if you like, perhaps we can come back with the review of it -- the information at that time. MR. CARLSON: I would -- since we do have quite a bit of data on ground water and the impacts of drainage for Collier County, I would be real cautious about using Mark Brown's studies for Central Page 42 October 3, 2001 16J 1 Florida. The geology and everything would be very different. MR. LORENZ: I used his methodology -- from a ground water methodology is an appropriate methodology to use and then utilized Collier County conditions, average conditions, coming up with some numbers that I have calculated, which I really haven't shared with anybody but -- but I'm using for myself to get some general feel for what we are talking about. But, yes, when I input the slopes in Collier County for its ground water table, we are talking about much greater distances than would be available to Mark Brown's. I would not be using those hundred at all. But -- but what he did with the modeling methodology that, if appropriate, to Collier County, which generally is, he specified an end result of no more than one inch. Now, one can argue that, you know, it should be less than that or it can tolerate something greater than that; that's what I don't know. MR. COE: Any other comments before we get to the subcommittee report? MR. CORNELL: Do you want public comment now? MR. COE: Go ahead. I'm just trying to get through the day. MR. CORNELL: Only if you want it right now. MR. COE: Go ahead. COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. You need to restate your name. MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell for Collier County Audubon Society. On buffering, there was one particular buffering issue that would -- because of its sort of keystone nature and only umbrella situation that you need to pay particular attention to, I think all of us in Collier County do, and that's a panther habitat. If a project -- I would suggest if a project is in a panther habitat then all of your available and required preservation land and open -space mitigation -- everything in a project is potentially buffer, I believe -- buffering Page 43 October 3, 2001 16JI ,v quality. Put all of that against your natural reservation conservation act just automatically. So you don't have any of this sort of to and fro. If it's panther habitat, primary or secondary, then you automatically -- the project has to put all of its buffering lands against the conservation lands. I think that will be a reasonable way to approach that a second sort of large issue that you are going to have to deal with -- and I think Erica Lynne brought this up on ag policy. You are going to have to deal with, you know, if you want to talk about what allowable uses there are on conservation lands, like NRPAs, you are going to have to deal with the issue of concluding agricultural uses in those policies. And as currently stated in county policy, county growth management plan, ag is exempt from many of the standards and policies that govern protection of natural resources. So for this whole scenario to work, you are going to have -- I will suggest to you -- that you need to consider ways to include agriculture, you know, in the language. And, third, in that same vein, I think there are lots of problems with the allowable uses of conservation designation lands. We do need to take a look at that and adjust some -- make some major adjustments. And that's all that I have. MR. COE: The subcommittee report. MS. LYNNE: I just have some questions for Mr. Cornell. When you are talking about the panther habitant, I mean, that sounds good, suppose you were balancing habitant -- panther habitat up against this area when over here we have a pristine wetlands. I would have a hard time saying we have to move all of that area down there and dredge and fill the wetlands. MR. CORNELL: I grant you that. I think that a lot of the pristine wetlands are probably have been taken care of and the large system boundaries and where they are isolated pristine wetlands and maybe that -- that is something to consider, although I think it's going Page 44 October 3, 2001 16J1 to be a big juggle with panther habitat. It's one of the most endangered species. The more buffering you can provide for panther corridor, wildlife corridor, the better off we are going to be. But that should figure into the equation, I agree. MS. LYNNE: The other thing I wanted to add, when you are talking about agriculture policies, when you said you wanted to find ways to include agriculture in here, did you mean make these restrictions apply to agriculture? MR. CORNELL: I would say in this entire rural assessment and attempt to satisfy the governor and cabinets final order, what we are doing is trying to adopt policies in Growth Management Plan amendments that will protect natural resources. If you do not include agriculture in those policies and procedures or GOPs, then that's going to undermine your efforts. So, yes. MS. LYNNE: So you want something in the language that says "These policies -- agriculture has no exemption from these policies, " is that what you are saying? MR. CORNELL: Either that or specifically name -- name the standards that you are going to apply, perhaps, intensity standards. Ag can be permitted in these areas but only in such and such intensity. In other words, apply some agriculture as well, yes. MR. COE: Any other comments? MS. SANTORO: I have given you a proposal. I just want you to amend one of the statements. The second "whereas" the letters SWCD standing for Collier County Soil and Water Conservation District. Basically, what I'm hoping the council will do is endorse the concept of promoting a corridor for the panthers between the C -2, the study area, and the panther habitat lands that the State has designated and is preserving. I have given you some of the support out of the Growth Page 45 October 3, 2001 '16J1 1 . Management Plan or the growth -- yeah, Growth Management Plan. (Mr. Hill present.) MS. SANTORO: Some of the group are even rural conceptual strategy report. It is very timely. What I'm hoping is that you will endorse these so you will allow the subcommittee and EAC to communicate this to the Golden Gate Study Group and the Eastern Lands Committee is timely also, because this area is very sparsely inhabited. It is a time for incorporating this concept and working with it. What you are doing is allowing us the flexibility to go forward and try and come up with a corridor which may occur through many different devices. It may be conservation easements, or it may be the government taking land; it may be some other land. There are other various techniques. MR. COE: Who is going to pay for it? MS. SANTORO: If it's conservation it can be a credit to the current owners. There are also a couple of government plans that have monies for conservation easement. It depends what techniques it takes. MR. COE: Any comments? MS. SANTORO: Or maybe a combinations thereof. MR. SOLING: I just add, Allie's note, there was two major areas and that there was a little strip of land that isolated these two areas. Her -- our desire is to connect these two areas, so if the panther was in one they can easily move to the other area. Right now, I guess, they are doing it if they are living there, but this area can be developed without consideration for panthers. MR. COE: Anybody want to make a motion? MR. SOLING: Well, I will move Allie's request to allow the committee to move further on this matter. MS. LYNNE: I second it. MR. COE: We have a second over here. All for? Page 46 October 3, 2001 16J1 (Unanimous response.) MR. COE: All opposed? (No response.) MR. COE: Passes unanimously. MS. SANTORO: That's it. MR. COE: Anybody have any other comments? are adjourned. (Proceedings adjourned at 10:40 a.m.) Very well, we There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned of the Chair at 10:40 a.m.) ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN THOMAS W. SANSBURY TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY EMILY C. UNDERWOOD, RPR Page 47 V December 5, 2001 16JI TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL NAPLES, FLORIDA DECEMBER 5, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas W. Sansbury Michael G. Coe Ed Carlson William W. Hill Alexandra Santoro Larry Stone Alfred F. Gal Chester Soling NOT PRESENT: Erica Lynne ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist c :1 1b131 Page 1 +.._ :5 {�: December 5, 2001 16JI CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. The December 5th meeting of the Environmental Advisory Council called to order. Let's call the roll if we could. MS. BURGESON: Lynne. Erica has an excused absence. Hill. MR. HILL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Here. MS. BURGESON: Sansbury. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here. MS. BURGESON: Coe. MR. COE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Santoro. MS. SANTORO: Here. MS. BURGESON: Gal. MR. GAL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Soling. MR. SOLING: Here. MS. BURGESON: And Stone. MR. STONE: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We do have a quorum. Approval of the agenda. Are there any additions, deletions, revisions, comments on the agenda? MS. BURGESON: Not by staff. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me? MS. BURGESON: Not by staff. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Not by staff. MR. HILL: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved by Mr. Hill to approve. Do I hear a second? MS. SANTORO: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second by Santoro. Favor? Page 2 December 5, 2001 (No response.) 16Ji , CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing no opposed, passed unanimously. One thing I did ask Barbara during the week and I want to run it past you -all just as a thought is, I kind of lose track of what happens to the items that we have reviewed here, the various land -use petitions, and I've asked, if -- if it's okay with the rest of the board, to have an agenda item to kind of update us, if we could, on where it is before the Planning Commission and where it is for BOCC and -- if you -all think that's a good idea. Okay? MR. CARLSON: Great idea. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Great idea. Thank you. MS. BURGESON: I talked to Susan Murray about that, and she said that there are summaries on the -- on the county web site. So what we can do is just make copies of those and send those to you with each future EAC packet. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. I appreciate it. All right. Minutes for the November 7th meeting. Do I hear a motion to approve? MR. SOLING: So moved. MR. COE: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So by Chester. Second by Mr. -- I'll get it in a minute. I'm just a little slow this morning, okay - -- Mr. Coe. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing no opposed, passed unanimously. Land -use petitions. Mr. White, I am directly involved with this particular petition, thus I am going to recuse myself from the discussion and the vote and turn the gavel over to Mr. Coe. MR. WHITE: Certainly, upon filling a Form 8 -B, the rules Page 3 December 5, 2001 16J 1 allow you to participate in the discussion. If you choose to step down from the chair, I believe that may be appropriate, but like I said, you are entitled to participate in the discussion under the rules, and you're just only prohibited from voting. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. All right. MR. COE: All right. Go ahead. Pat, you want to swear them in? (The oath was administered.) MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Council Members. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a special treatment development permit and for a conditional use for a sporting and recreational camp. The location, as you can see on the monitors, is in the eastern part of the county. This is Oil Well Road, and this is State Road 29, and it's located in the southwest corner. The closest landmark is the general store that's in the northeast corner of the intersection of those two roads. The subject property is 38 acres, the subject of the ST and the conditional use. The property that's controlled by the applicant is over 4,500 of the surrounding acres. The property is outside the urban designated area; however, it's not one of the uses that is prohibited by the final order of the governor and cabinet, so this conditional use and ST can go forward to the EAC, Planning Commission, and Board of County Commissioners. The underlying zoning for the property is rural agricultural. There is a mobile home overlay which generally means for every -- excuse me -- for every -- excuse me, for every 5 -acre parcel, instead of a conventional home, you can put a mobile home on it. And over a portion of the property, the majority of the property, there is also ACSC -ST Overlay which is Area of Critical State Concern, Special Treatment Overlay; therefore, this ST permit is before you. Well, the colors aren't showing up as well as I thought on here, Page 4 ,T December 5, 2001 16J l but this is the 38 acres and the access road -- the access road shown is coming in this way (indicating) to the parcel which is over in here (indicating). On a line drawing, it looks a little better. You can see the yellow as the ACSC line. South of the yellow line is the area of critical state concern. The blue line is the boundary of the subject petitions, and the red are the structures, the 14 cabins, the hunting lodge, and the accessory structures, hunting building, parking areas, things like that. We -- after consulting with the applicant, we do have a change to Condition No. 3, which is on page 6. I'll give you a second to find that. Condition 3 on page 6 of the staff report, and where it says (as read): "This conditional use and ST permit shall," we would like to replace that with, "All future development order submittals shall." Because conditional use in the ST permit are consistent with the laws today, what we're looking for is the future development orders, site development plan, building permits, et cetera, shall be consistent with the code at the time that those are issued. And with that, here's Barbara Burgeson for the environmental portion. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. The environmental issues on this 38 acres are actually very minimal. The majority of the property has been cleared and used for pasture. There's a small edge along the eastern portion of the property that's wooded, and they will be required to retain 25 percent of the existing native vegetation of that. The cabins are located up against that edge -- that edge of wooded vegetation, so we anticipate that the majority of that vegetation will be retained on site. The consultant was required to do an EIS and wildlife survey as well as a wildlife management plan for the 38 acres, and that is included in your EIS and your packet with you. Staff recommends approval of the petition with the stipulations as changed, the one that Page 5 December 5, 2001 16JI was changed by Fred and also wants to bring to your attention that the petition or the package, the Stipulation No. 5, when the SDP petition is submitted to staff, that it will be sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for their comments, and they will be allowed the standard, which right now is 30 days for review and comment back to staff before we incorporate those into the final SDP approval. MR. CARLSON: I have a question for Barbara. MR. COE: I'm sorry. I'm over here asleep. MR. CARLSON: Okay. The area of critical state concern, what are the rules and regulations for development? My recollection is that no more than 10 percent of the area -- of the overall area can be impacted in an area of critical state concern; is that correct? MS. BURGESON: That's right. MR. CARLSON: But how does that relate to agriculture? MS. BURGESON: Agriculture -- principle agricultural uses are exempt from the area of critical state concern, 10 percent restriction. That was lifted out of the Land Development Code, my guess is about four or five years ago. MR. COE: Any other questions, comments? MR. VARNADOE: Thank you, Mr. Coe. For the record, George Varnadoe from the law firm of Young, Van Asfenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson for the applicant, Barron Collier Investments, Ltd., the property owners. Also here today to answer questions that you might have are Blake Able and Tom Jones, the Barron Collier organization; Dominic Amico and Steven Sposato of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage who were the engineers and planners on the project; and Todd Turrell and Tim Hall of Turrell & Associates who are the environmental consultants. As Fred told you, the land owners are proposing to construct facilities for a private hunting and fishing club on land it owns in the Page 6 .9 16J1 ` 161 December 5, 2001 w rural area of Collier County. In order to construct the lodge and the cabins, it's necessary we get a conditignal -use permit and ST permit. The conditional -use permit is for sporting and recreational camp which is conditional use 20 in our ag- zoning district. The property's located in the agricultural- designated area of Collier County. It's approximately 1 mile south of County Road 858 and approximately 3/4 of a mile west of State Road 29. The conditional -use site is outlined in yellow here (indicated) on this aerial, is 38 acres as Fred mentioned. The property is bordered on the south by the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. I can't hardly get used to that name. I'm so used to calling it the panther refuge. And that boundary is about along this old fence line you see right there (indicating). Most of the land is in the Big Cypress area of critical state concern, as Fred mentioned, and that line is that black dotted line you see going east - west across the property. A little portion of it is outside, but most of it is inside. And as Mr. Carlson noted, the area of critical state concern rules and regulations -- mostly state rules and regs and the ones that Collier County has adopted which are identical allow only a 10 percent site alteration and then only half of that 10 percent to be impervious surface. On the site we're going to have a main lodge building of up to 14,000 square feet. I don't think we'll get there. It's going to be -- and this is a blowup, if you would, of that 38-acre site over here, aerial. The main lodge building is going to be in this area (indicating). It will not have overnight accommodations. It'll have a great room, a dining area, probably a small library and a recreational area. The cabins, of which there'll be up to 14, will be scattered along the periphery of this mixed hardwoods hammock of which we're backing up to, and the idea is to kind of place the cabins close to that without intruding into it, insuring some privacy, given that silvan Page 7 Mf , December 5 2001 setting that you have in a traditional hunt club. 16J 1 The other structure on site will be what we call the hunting building which will also serve as a welcome lodge at approximately this location (indicating). We'll have parking area here coming in off the access road. And then for the future access into the site will be on foot or by golf carts trying to, again, keep that traditional low - intensity use. The site was -- as you can see, there's a -- Barron Collier, with the exception of this corner here, controls or owns all the land over in this area. We had a great variety of locations to choose from in or out of the area of critical state concern. We didn't use that as criteria simply because we knew that we could meet the rules and regulations regarding that. We chose this carefully for several reasons. Number one, it really gives you some great aesthetics looking across this pasture at the various hammocks, if we could back up to this wooded hammock. It also allowed us to use existing improved and some not -so- improved farm roads, as anybody that's been out in that area for access without disturbing any wetlands which is good. The site is completely uplands. We're not impacting any wetlands, and we're trying to minimize our impacts to naturally vegetated areas. We design it to minimize the impervious surfaces. The entry road is going to be either shell or rocks on impervious surface in keeping with traditional low -key hunting lodge approach. And the fact that we are using the golf carts, again, trying to lessen the impacts on the natural system. The single- access road is off State Road 29 in this location here, (indicating) and it's surrounded by old barrow pits which we will be utilizing for our fishing activities. While we're talking about access, the access you're shown here comes up on an improved road and then up on a lime rock road that was thrown out when they dug the pits December 5, 2001 A then on farm roads into the site. 16JI an We also want to explore with staff an alternative routing which may be this area in here, (indicating) although it's not wetlands and is disturbed in the fact that when they dug the pit, they threw the lime rock up to have access for the machinery, is low, and even this time of year when I was out there two weeks ago, it's still kind of muddy. This route is much higher and drier on either side of this pit, and even though you can't see it on here, there's an unimproved farm road here we want to explore, and staff, maybe an alternate access that would be less impactive than utilizing this route here. The major activity on the site is going to be quail hunting, as you can imagine in this -- in this area. As Fred has mentioned, the project is consistent with our Growth Management Plan and future land -use elements, the rules and regulations to the area critical -- area of critical state concern and the interim amendments to the future land -use element under which the rural assessment study is currently being conducted. We contacted our neighbors to the south, both the panther refuge -- if you'll let me use that name -- and Big Cypress National Refuge which is down the other side of 29, down that way. And discussion with the panther refuge folks really ended up surrounding areas of mutual interest, and those include controlled burning, controlling exotics and thinning of midstory vegetation. We have agreed with them not to allow any big game hunting within a quarter mile of their border, to not put any additional fencing on the south border which would allow the free movement of panthers and other creatures, and the fencing on the east and north if we're going to put in -- and I don't mean around the creative site but around the entire area, in this area here, (indicating) to coordinate with them on the type of fencing so as not to impact any panther movement. The EIS and the Wildlife Management Plan require the December 5, 2001 1611 application, and if you have questions on that, I will be glad to answer. If there are any questions I can answer, I will be glad to address them. MR. COE: Any questions or comments? Thank you very much. MR. HILL: Mr. Varnadoe, would you quickly, with your laser, outline the 4,500 acres. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. And I want to clear up a little misnomer. The Barron Collier owns all the land over here but -- Tom, make sure I'm using the right place. If I look at this vertical line here or that one there. Sorry. My map on the scale -- it's basically this property and then we come over about like that (indicating). MR. SOLING: May I ask a question just out of curiosity? Your 3 8 acres, why the jogs, particularly that southerly jog into the property? MR. VARNADOE: We wanted to -- that is a little wetland area there, and we just wanted to show that we were staying out of the wetland areas, Mr. Soling. That's the only reason for that -- that area there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions or comments? Thank you very much. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. MR. COE: Any public comments? Okay. Up for discussion. MR. CARLSON: Well, then I guess I would like a little more information on the -- the fence, and I must say that I did have a conversation with the manager of the panther refuge who is concerned about the fence and what kind of fence that's proposed to be. Is it something a panther can get through or around? MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Carlson, I mentioned that because I wanted to be very up front with the fact we are trying to coordinate Page 10 December 5, 200116JI ' with our neighbors. It, obviously, is outside the area we're discussing today, the 3 8 acres, but what we are doing is continuing negotiations -- discussions with them on that subject. The idea is to have a fence that the panther can go over, yet would discourage poachers and other people from coming onto the private property. It's going to be around the road, mainly 29 and 858. But -- but, yes, we are -- that has been the one issue that we haven't been able -- we haven't finalized addressing with the panther folks, and we're continuing to close those conversations. MR. CARLSON: So you don't think just a barbed -wire fence with post -it signs would deter a poacher? MR. VARNADOE: It may well be, sir. You know, we've been talking with Dave Mayor on -- on some land - management practices out here, and -- you know, he said even up to an 8 -foot chain -link fence, the panther is not going to deter him, but we haven't -- don't get me wrong. That's not been decided. That's why we want to make sure that we are -- we are working with our neighbors on -- on that issue. MR. COE: Any other questions or comments? Deliberation? Do I have a motion? Discussion? MR. CARLSON: Do you want discussion? MR. COE: That would be nice too. MR. CARLSON: Well, from the viewpoint of someone who's been watching this county systematically bulldoze and destroyed for decades for residential development and golf courses and agricultural development, this is kind of refreshing, and -- and I would not only hope this project is approved, I hope it succeeds and it's financially successful and this kind of activity increases in the rural parts of the county. MR. COE: Any other discussion? MR. CARLSON: I'll move to approve if you're ready. Page 11 December 5, 2001 16J1 . , MR. COE: We have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? MR. HILL: Second. MR. COE: We have a second from Mr. Hill. All for. (Unanimous response except Chairman Sansbury who abstained.) MR. COE: All opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let the record reflect, I did not vote. Okay. Got it back? MR. COE: You got it back. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, gentlemen. Okay. Here we go. Next item, LDC amendments. MS. BURGESON: Actually, the next item, I believe, is the last item on the agenda, the Land Development Code amendments. This is continued from last month's meeting. Matt Grabinski is here to make his presentation. This is a Land Development Code amendment proposal from the Ritz - Carlton, not a staff - generated proposal. MR. GRABINSKI: Good morning. Matt Grabinski here on behalf of the Ritz- Carlton. As I'm sure most of you recall, the issue of beach events and the use of vehicles on the beach made its way up and down the county ranks for the past two years, a series of amendments. Those amendments culminated at the meetings last June with the Board of County Commissioners approving numerous revisions to the Land Development Code pertaining to the use of vehicles on the beach and the conducting of beach events by hotels during sea turtle nesting season. One of the very heated issues for the past year has been the fine and penalty structure of that portion of the code. Staff had originally proposed a fine and penalty structure that would have given Collier Page 12 December 5, 2001 16J1 County the ability to temporarily or permanently suspend or revoke a beach -front owner's right to host beach events on its beach if numerous and significant code violations occurred. Needless to say, the hotels strongly opposed that point of the amendment, and in the end on June 20th the county commissioners agreed with us on that issue and agreed to adopt a fine structure that had a significantly increased monetary fines for code violations but expressly provided that the beach - events permit could not be suspended or revoked. At that meeting on June 20th -- and I have a complete copy of the minutes that contain the discussion -- the issue arose as to the whole revocability of the permit, and there was discussion by several of the commissioners over the fact that while they were supporting us on that issue, it seemed illogical to them that Collier County issue a permit that couldn't be revoked, and I suggested that perhaps they would -- would like to rewrite the code or clean it up and turn it into more of a notice procedure. And they agreed with me and went along with all of our amendments, including adding language to the code that would provide that the beach - events permit could not be suspended or revoked but also requested staff to redraft the code and turn it into a notice process. And, again, if you -- if you would like, I could read those portions of the minutes to you or I could just try to get through this as quickly as possible. County staff requested that the commissioners place the burden of drafting that amendment back on the hotels. They felt that they had spent enough time on the issue, and I think we all have spent enough time on this issue, and so we agreed to do that. And so rather than this coming through the process as a staff - sponsored amendment, it is coming through this process as an amendment privately sponsored by the Ritz - Carlton; however, the amendment was drafted at the express direction of the county commissioners, and Page 13 December 5, 2001 4 1 AA 1 that is the language that is before you today. And unless you have any further questions, since this is a privately sponsored amendment, I would just like to sit back down and let you listen to other public comment, and then I would appreciate an opportunity to respond to any issues that may be raised by other members of the public. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. I'm a little confused, Barbara. Explain where we're going here. I'm not exactly sure what we're looking at right now. MS. BURGESON: Okay. This -- this amendment, as Matt mentioned, the -- last year we went through the round of amendments all the way up to the point where the final Board of County Commissioners met on this. There was a penalty section and the ability to revoke under circumstances of extreme violations. At the last Board of County Commissioners meeting, in discussion they added language to the Land Development Code that says the permit cannot be revoked. So for no reason could staff or the Board of County Commissioners revoke the permit. Discussion was also brought up that if it could not be revoked, then maybe it shouldn't even be a permit; maybe it should just be a notice. And so -- so there was some interest on the board's position to consider that, and Matt brought that back as a proposed amendment. However, staff has had a good deal of time to review that, not only with our concerns and the difference between the notice and a permit, but the other language that was proposed. We brought it to the attention of the county attorney's office for an interpretation, which was sent to each of you, e- mailed and hard - copied, and it is staff s opinion through meetings -- several meetings over the past couple of months, that even though the board had directed this be considered, we don't feel it's in the best interest of the public to support this -- this amendment. The -- there are several reasons, but the most obvious reason is -- for staff, is that Page 14 December 5, 2001 6 J 1 M when you're noticing something as opposed to doing a permit, you cannot put specific conditions on it. You can't tailor that permit. It's just a notice. It takes away some ability for us to protect the sea turtle endangered species on the beaches. And also I wanted to let you know what the summary of this petition up to this point has been. It went to the development services advisory subcommittee, and they unanimously supported staff s position. It went to development services advisory full committee. They had eight members attending, which is what they need for a quorum. Two had to abstain because of conflicts of interest, so they lost the quorum for the vote; however, they voted 4 to 2 in favor of supporting staff s position. It went to the Planning Commission twice, and in the final motion it was a unanimous vote to support staff s position and not to recommend approval of the amendment. MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the DSAC vote -- the majority vote was to support the applicant's position, not staff s; is that correct, Barbara? MS. BURGESON: No, that's not correct. MR. WHITE: Okay. My recollection is incorrect then. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir. MR. SOLING: Can I offer an observation? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. SOLING: July 31 st I moved and made my permanent home here in Florida. Because the days are long on occasion, at least probably once a week, I would drive down to the end of Vanderbilt Beach Road and at night, before the sunset, walk the beach either 2 miles north of Vanderbilt Beach Road or 2 miles south of Vanderbilt Beach Road, and I can tell you this: Throughout the summer, starting August 1 st, I never was out on that beach where I didn't see repetitive tire tracks up and down the beach, and that goes in front of the Ritz too. Two miles north and 2 miles south it looked like they were Page 15 December 5, 2001 16J I having drag races or just continual running up and down the beach with vehicles. And I reported it to the appropriate authorities, but I don't know what happened. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Soling, I remember because I did ask this question at the time you mentioned this before, and that is, there are other authorized -- a lot of other authorized traffic on the beach, i.e., our own department, law enforcement, things of that sort. So just necessarily -- because there were tire tracks, I don't believe that's -- necessarily means that these guys are running up and down the beach. I don't know, but I know that being out there -- MR. SOLING: I'm not accusing anybody. I'm just saying I saw tire tracks. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Okay. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I could help frame where we are, your question to staff was where we were going with this. I think it's appropriate to put on the record that what's proposed by the applicant is a series of amendments to LDC Section 2.6.34, and although there is a provision in there that talks about the use of vehicles on the beach, I do not believe that is proposed for any amendment. So as to the appropriateness or not of vehicles on the beach in terms of the scope of the discussion, I'm not sure that it's entirely relevant. And I respect Council Member Soling's perspective, but I just want to help frame the discussion for the purposes of your recommendation with regards to the proposed amendments. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Why don't we -- you want to respond to Ms. Burgeson's comments and then we'll ask for some comments from the public? How does that sound? Is that okay with the board? Counsel, excuse me. MR. GRABINSKI: I have no -- as far as Barbara's comments are concerned, I guess the only point I'd like to make as far as her -- Page 16 December 5, 2001 16JJ her opinion that keeping this as a permit instead of a notice would allow county staff to place additional conditions as events occur, I -- when you look at the way the current permit structure works, I don't see how the situation would be any different. Right now the permit is an annual permit. It's issued the first week of January, and whatever conditions are on it, which are basically conditions that are mirrored from the Land Development Code, that's what's -- that's what's on the permit. And the hotels may not know what type of cocktail party or beach event they're going to have six or seven or eight months later, and they don't notify county of that until the first of that -- of the month that the beach event occurs. And once they give that notice to county, I guess county, as it stands, could contact the hotel and say, "Well, it looks like you're having amplified music. We want you to also take this precaution," or, "It looks like you may be doing this. We want you to take this precaution." But I don't see how keeping the permit as it stands would increase Collier County staff s ability to place additional conditions or restrictions on beach events. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Comments from the public. Excuse me, Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Comments from the public. MS. BURGESON: The first speaker we have scheduled -- or second speaker is Nicole Ryan. MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The Conservancy does not support the proposed LDC amendment language changes. We support the DSAC subcommittee, full committee, Collier County Planning Commission, and Collier County staff in their opposition, and we hope that you will also recommend denial of this language to the county commission. Our concern lies in the fact that, in general, a permit allows Page 17 December 5, 2001 revocation. A notice does not. Now, it's my understandin county commission decided to take the -- the revocation ability out of the LDC amendment cycle to see how it worked. That's why it was on an annual basis. They wanted to see if the hotels and condos that swore that they would do it right would do it right, and the results are in. This is a list from Collier County Code Enforcement -- and I have copies for everybody and for the court reporter -- of all of the beach violations. You have pages and pages of beach violations from the turtle season. Some of the violations were before the new LDC amendments went into effect, some were after, but these were all beach violations. And the Conservancy would argue, you need to be stepping towards increased authority to take action on the county level instead of stepping back, and we see this change to a notice as one step back. If you think about it, in the language it talks about a permit, and there's only one sentence, maybe two, that says permits can't be revoked. If you switch all of the permit language to a notice, what if next season's violations are even more than this season? It's going to take a lot more to switch the notice back to a permit. We think that's going in the wrong direction. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Mr. Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell speaking for Collier County Audubon Society, and I want to, on behalf of the chapter, wholeheartedly support staff s position of not adopting these changes in the LDC. And also I echo what Nicole Ryan has said from the Conservancy. And just to add a point of observation, if -- you know, we had this whole discussion last summer about vehicles on the beach and those -- that whole train of amendment -- amendments to the LDC, and I feel that things did not go the way they should. We should be erring on the side of protecting endangered species, not on the side of assisting with parties which are going to happen anyway. I think that there's still room to have -- have entertainment and parties December 5, 2001 16J1 and services for hotels and our tourists and protect endangered species appropriately. I feel like this kind of retreat from language is not helpful and is very ill- advised. And another -- one more point is that if the hotels feel so confident that they're not going to have violations, what's the big deal about revocation? I think that this seems to be a strange position on their part. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. Discussion, Mr. Hill. ent, I think you gave it to us, that's MR. HILL: Barb, this docum the final wording of the proposed -- MS. BURGESON: Yes. That has not changed. MR. HILL: The first thing that strikes me is the impetus is on the -- the notice is provided by the hotel or the private ownership. Okay. There's nothing in here that I see that allows the county to approve those events. MS. BURGESON: Right. Well, it would be -- le MR. HILL: Simply a notice by the Ritz- Carlton, for example, that they're going to have these events. MS. BURGESON: Right. It's -- it's still very similar to the way that we have the process right now with the permits; however, there's -- there is no, as -- as Patrick White had opined in his letter of about a week or two ago, there's no way to confirm that we received that and that we reviewed that and concur that those are consistent with the Land Development Code requirements. MR. HILL: Yeah. There's nothing in here that allows the county to respond to that notice. MS. BURGESON: Right. MR. HILL: That alone would recommend, in my mind, to disapprove that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Other discussion? Yes, sir, Mr. Page 19 December 5, 2001 16JI Soling. MR. SOLING: I'd like our counsel to advise me. On the way the law -- or the way the rule is written, that I understood, even the county and emergency vehicles weren't allowed to operate on the beach except in extreme emergencies; is that correct? MR. WHITE: No. I believe that -- I had this section pointed out before. I thought we'd moved on from the discussion, but there is a provision in 2.6.34 that talks about the prohibition of vehicles on the beach, with limited exceptions. And if you'll give me just a moment, I will find that for you. It is .5.4 which reads (as read): "Use of vehicles on the beach is prohibited except as might be permitted under sections 3.14.3, 3.14.5 or 3.14.6," which set forth the various exceptions that, in part, pertain to emergency vehicles. There are natural resources folks, there are our own individuals who are on there, as well as the police on a daily basis, and they're all authorized by permit. I believe Mr. Grabinski may have a response to some of the comments that were made. MR. GRABINSKI: Thank you. As -- I just wanted to respond to the comments by Ms. Ryan, because as she stated, the results are in, and I agree. The results are in. And I actually want to thank her for bringing these lists of -- as she refers to them -- beach violations to our attention, because I'll admit and agree that during the month of May and early June there were a lot of instances where chairs and items were found or discovered on the Ritz - Carlton's beach. Does that mean that they were given by -- giving code citations and violations in every instance? No. And the other list that she passed out as -- if you'll note -- it does not just pertain to the Ritz, but it basically pertains to all of the beaches in northern Collier County. Now, again, a heated issue and an issue that I debated this panel heavily on last June was whether or not stiff monetary fines would be Page 20 December 5, 2001 16J 1 enough of a deterrent for the hotels or whether or not there -- the county needed the ability to revoke the permit. The stiff increase in monetary fines were adopted on June 20th. And if you will look at your sheet, you will note that for the remainder of the four -month turtle season after June 20th there were two days where Collier County Natural Resources noted any materials on the beach in the morning at the hotel. No code violations were ever cited against the Ritz - Carlton subsequent to June 20th. No vehicle -on- the -beach violations ever occurred last sea turtle nesting season. Ed Staros, the general manager of the Ritz - Carlton, stood up on the public record last June and made a commitment to Collier County to instruct his staff and to educate them so that they would not have violations, and I think the record that the Conservancy has brought before you demonstrates that. Again, I would just urge you to remain focused in your discussion. There's a lot of discussion here right now regarding the use of vehicles. This amendment has nothing to do with vehicles. It was a clean -up amendment that the commissioners requested be drafted. Right now the code says that we have a beach - events permit that can't be revoked. They asked me to redraft the language to name that permit that can't be revoked, to turn it into a notice procedure. It's right in the public record in the June 20th minutes, and I invite all of you to go back and read those minutes. It's crystal clear. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. Further comment. Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: I -- I just want to say to the board, we spent hours on the whole area, and I think that going back in perspective, nothing was allowed way back when to protect the turkey -- the turtles -- the sea turtles. Then the amendments came forward, and there was a -- a relaxing, if you say, to the rules. And I think this board spent hours and hours trying to come up with penalties and Page 21 December 5, 2001 16J1 revocations to protect the turtles but allowing some use, and it went to the board of commissioners and changed substantially. I would like to move to not accept this notice situation and to support the staff. Again, it's just taking away some of the protection of the county to revoke permits or to have control over the permit situation. I'm very concerned. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We have a motion. MR. COE: I'd like to second that motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second that motion. Okay. Seconded. Do we have any further discussion? MR. HILL: I'd like to make a comment. Our deliberations and this policy is not directed at the Ritz - Carlton. You seem to say, yes, after -- why Ritz- Carlton was not in violation at all. This is directed towards any agency, hotel, private condominium or -- having beach events. This is not a Ritz- Carlton. My other question for Barb, were permits granted for all of these agencies and locations that are cited on here? MS. BURGESON: There were annual beach - events permits issued and monthly notices given, but I do want to make a couple of statements and corrections to what Matt has just said. One, code enforcement department took a position to be laxed during the beginning of sea turtle nesting season in terms of citing violations. So there were a number of -- of events that weren't formally cited, and that was a policy from that department's administrator or department director to take that -- that more laid -back stance on that to see how the sea turtle nesting season was going to -- to -- to go forward. And the most serious event or violation during sea turtle nesting season happened at the Ritz- Carlton within one week of the Board of County Commissioners giving final approval. And the reason it's not on that list is because it was cited as a violation of the CCSL variance, and that's what was publicized last year by the Page 22 December 5, 20011 b J 1 Na es Daily News with pictures in the newspaper of two nests at the Ritz with chairs stacked immediately adjacent and touching the riveting on one of those nests. There was no roping around. They had an event scheduled for that night. Alex Solecki and I went out that afternoon. They had - they had not put up any roping for that event. So if we had not gone out there, brought it to their attention that they had serious violations, that they fixed by the time of the event that evening, it would also have been written up as a code enforcement violation. So that's dust to put that on the record. MR. COE: I've got a question, Barb. What authority does the administrator of code enforcement have to disregard or not ticket things like that and to be more lax when all those codes have gone before boards to include the county commissioners that has been approved? Isn't his job to enforce it? amendments were in MS. BURGESON: At the time, the LDC am the p rocess of being approved, sent to the state, and come back and been finally adopted, so there's this window in there of about a month and maybe a little bit longer where it's not got that final state approval. So it's kind of a gray area. So that's -- that was the time that -- that the director in that department took that position. MR. COE: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We have a motion and a second. Let's -- let's restate the motion so everybody is very clear what the motion says. MS. SANTORO: To not accept this proposed notice and to support staff or turning down this proposal. leave the CHAIRMAN SANSBURY. Essentially, that is to lea language as previously passed by this council as is. MS. BURGESON: As previously passed by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Board of County Commissioners. Page 23 d Okay. Favor? December 5, 2001 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, passed unanimously. MR. SOLING: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. 16J1 MR. SOLING: Just pursue my matter one more time. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, sir. MR. SOLING: If it's the county, if it's the police, if it's the hotel owners, either way or any way, there's no point in protecting the sea turtles if so much traffic is on the beach. I don't care who is driving vehicles. It was almost like the whole beach was covered with tire tracks. MR. BURGESON: Mr. Soling, one thing you might want to take a look at, the City of Bonita Springs recently approved an ordinance just this year, and it has very strict regulations prohibiting even beach raking during sea turtle nesting season, except for storm events and emergency purposes and limiting the use of vehicles on the beach much -- much more severely than our code does. And if this had been in place when these amendments were proposed, we would have supported this. It probably would have helped not making changes to the code. So it may be something. And also the Community Development Environmental Services Administrator John Dunnuck wanted me to remind this board that if there are issues that staff supports that the board is concerned about or does not support, that this board has the ability to direct staff to make Land Development Code amendments. So if there's anything in the future that you wish for us to make amendments to the Land Development Code, that is not only your Page 24 December 5, 2001 ability, but it's written in your -- your ordinance in the Land Development Code as one of your obligations. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. 16J 1 MR. HILL: Very quick question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. HILL: On this list that was presented, I see something like 15 to 20 different locations, Pelican Bay North, those instances noted were not necessarily in violation of a permit grant. They may have been in violation of the code, but they didn't have a permit per se for a beach event. MS. BURGESON: For the most part, I mean, without having Alex here for that, I can't answer that, except from I -- except that I -- from discussions that I've had with Alex, the majority of those did receive permits; however, they were just in violation of their permits. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: I have one more question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. COE: Were any of these people fined? MS. BURGESON: I couldn't tell you that. We could find out and report back. MR. COE: Yeah. I'd like to find out, yeah. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's interesting. There's a car on the beach. How did a car get on the beach? Think about that for a minute, how it got there. Okay. MS. SANTORO: Could I -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: I mean, we mentioned -- should we put on the agenda to review all the amendments that were passed on the vehicles and permits having to do with sea turtles at some point? I don't even know if we have a current copy of what was approved by the commissioners. Page 25 December 5, 2001 MS. BURGESON: I can -- I can provide that to you between now and the. next meeting. And I did hand out a copy of the Bonita Spripi * City of Bonita Springs ordinance at the beginning of this meeting. So I'll make sure I mail out the copy of the final language that was approved by the board last June 22nd. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good. 16J1 MR. COE: I've got one comment. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. COE: Why don't we -- I don't know if the other members of the board are interested in this. Why don't we ask the staff to pencil whip something that's more strict, something along the lines of what Bonita Springs has done and solve this vehicles -on- the -beach thing right up front. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Has this amendment not already gone through the BOCC? MS. BURGESON: We -- the first one went through last -- last June, and this one is probably scheduled to go before them in February. So it would have to be something that would be done in -- in the next amendment cycle which, I believe, staff has to have initial language in by -- I think it's the end of next month. MR. COE: Could it be done? MS. BURGESON: It could be done, especially using the ordinance that's already been approved by the City of Bonita Springs. MR. COE: What do you think, Chief? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Only thing I'm saying is, I don't want to get too restrictive because we know, for one, that every morning a staff person goes out there and checks for turtles. We know we have emergency services. We know we have things of that sort. I don't want to -- I mean, Patrick read the code or whatever he was reading over there -- that we've got to have that ability. Now, I don't believe that there's anybody out there on the beach right now Page 26 December 5 2001 Dece 16J 1 with a ATV that's running up and down the beach other than those folks, except in front of the Ritz or a hotel like that. I don't know if we're not trying to be over restrictive here, but we got to let our folks get out there to do enforcement. Have we had any instances, aware of any instance of somebody out on the beach with an ATV that wasn't related to just working at the Ritz, somebody illegally out on the beach? MS. BURGESON: During sea turtle nesting season, which I think is the big issue here, we do have the natural resources department. They typically do one -- one trip up the beach each morning, emergency patrol may be on the beach each day, but typically not each day at each section of the beach in Collier County, and then the only other vehicles that are on the beach are the hotels for their events throughout the summer. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: State people like DEP and people like that don't ever go -- have vehicles on the beach? MS. BURGESON: Not routinely, not -- not on a daily basis, just on an as- needed basis, if there's an emergency or after a storm event. Then they typically go out to monitor what the results of that storm is. The ordinance that was adopted by the City of Bonita Springs does allow emergency. It does allow natural resources, does allow environmental work during sea turtle nesting season. So it's not a -- it's not more prohibitive than we were prior to this last amendment cycle. It is probably very similar to where we were, but it ties it down. MR. COE: Also, they don't have the amount of hotels and condos that we have. Their beach area is much less than what we have. MS. BURGESON: That's right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's your pleasure? MR. CARLSON: I'm not ready to make a recommendation till I Page 27 t. o i December 5, 2001 16 J 1 read this. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's take a look at it next time. Okay. What are we doing next? MS. BURGESON: That's the last item on the agenda. The wetland policy review discussion is not being -- we did not have anything else new to tell you at this point on how that's proceeding. And then if there's any subcommittee discussions -- I'm not sure about that, if somebody has a brief presentation or Bill. MS. SANTORO: I've been trying to have somebody come and speak to us about panthers, and Jim Beaver is in the environmental service section, and he would be glad to come. Now, I wanted to be sure I knew when the next meeting was to try to schedule. He had some dates in December, but Barbara and I thought we would try and do it at a regular meeting. Is our next meeting, the day, January 2nd? I wanted to be sure. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm just wondering if there's not someone out with the -- who runs the panther preserve, the Feds or the state? MR. CARLSON: Feds. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is there not someone we could contact out there that actually is a hands -on guy to come talk to us about it? MS. SANTORO: I've asked Darryl Land, Mark Lott, David Shindle and finally sent me to Jim Beaver. MS. BURGESON: Jim Beaver is really the expert in the area. I mean, you can certainly get someone that works with the panther preserve, but he has the experience and the knowledge for this area in Southwest Florida for probably 20 years at least and maybe more so than the people that work at the panther preserve, which is much younger than that. Page 28 December 5, 2001 16JI CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think our workshop we had on wetlands was very informative, and I would look forward to doing that on panthers also. MS. SANTORO: I just want to confirm our meeting since it's the day after New Year's Day. MS. BURGESON: That is the date, January 2nd. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. We'd just like to -- we haven't finalized our schedule. We're coming to the point where we will be having a transmittal hearing to the Board of County Commissioners on all the Growth Management Plan amendments. That is targeted for the end of February. We will be coming to the Environmental Advisory Council here in January to schedule a -- what I would recommend is a special meeting to handle all of the Growth Management Plan amendments that you will be responsible to review prior to the planning commission's meeting. We have been -- of course, we have been working with the subcommittee, your growth management subcommittee, and they have been receiving all of the drafts that we've been developing for them for the rural fringe advisory committee. At some particular point we will need to calendar some more time with the subcommittee to bring the subcommittee up to speed on all the details, but I would remind the council, that if you want to do it at the -- at the -- during the -- your meeting on the 2nd, that we probably have our schedules finalized enough to be able to try to get you to schedule a separate meeting. Of course, your other option is, you could simply have the -- have your meeting, I guess, on the first meeting in February, but I guess I'm telling you that if s going to be a very long meeting with a lot of material, a lot of issues. So I would suggest that you think about having some additional meetings Page 29 December 5, 2001 16J1 somewhere in between or at the recommendations of your subcommittee. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir. Mr. Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Is it appropriate to make a public comment right now? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It certainly is, sir. MR. CORNELL: Okay. Thank you. Brad Cornell with Collier County Audubon Society. I just want to bring to your attention that the rural lands committee, you know, in this rural assessment process, has gone through their first scenario in looking at ways to protect resources and agriculture, et cetera, in the rural, our eastern parts of the county. I wanted to bring to your attention that they're looking for input, and I would say that this would be through Bob Mulhere and staff on what the -- how to frame the second scenario. They're going to come up with at least three scenarios, if not more, through this committee. The first one is an incentive -based transfer of development rights type of program. It's entirely incentive -based with no outside money being brought in from any other sources. Scenario No. 2 is up in the air, and I would say that you -all may have some opinions about that, and that if you do, either individually or collectively, you might want to forward those to Bob Mulhere who is the liaison with that board. And some of the things that you might consider would be to introduce sending and receiving areas, if you know those concepts in this transfer of development rights type of discussion, to base those kinds of areas on the data that they've actually collected in that study, rather than to have it be sort of determined on a per - project basis. So just something to think about, but I would encourage you to maybe offer some ideas. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. Page 30 December 5, 2001 6J1 Any other comments from counsel? MR. COE: We might want to consider scheduling, and we could do it probably in January when we meet again, but we might want to schedule a workshop where we can have Ali or, you know, somebody from this group. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Rural end. MR. COE: And just get them to bring us up to speed here, because I feel like I'm going to get hit with a freight train very rapidly, and I'd like to kind of absorb it slowly. I'm no Ph.D. In environment, so it takes me awhile to study this stuff. And maybe if we can get a presentation from them and get our hands on it so we know what it is -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bill, who would you suggest? Would you suggest asking Bob to come to us and give a presentation? MR. COE: We could have Ed do it. Ed, are you up to speed on all this? No. MR. LORENZ: Well, certainly -- Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. Of course, the rural fringe work is coming to you very fast, and that's what the subcommittee has worked -- has been working with. But what Brad was speaking about was the rural lands committee and that is -- that time frame is November of 2002, if I think -- if I remember the schedule right, that we're going to have amendments effective. So if you want to have -- if you want to have a -- a -- somewhat of a workshop with staff, certainly Bob Mulhere is our -- you remember, Bob worked for staff. He is now a consultant. He has been hired by the county as kind of our growth management consultant. So he's an extension of staff -- that Bob Mulhere or myself could give you a presentation on where we are in both efforts. If, on the other hand, you would like to have your advisory committee to -- to -- I mean, your -- excuse me, your subcommittee Page 31 December 5, 2001 16JI to work you through, because that was another -- another request, we can arrange that as well. But on staff I would certainly have -- Bob Mulhere would be able to work you through some overview. MS. SANTORO: The rural lands, I think we -- none of us know exactly what's going on. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: A lot further off than the rural fringe. MS. SANTORO: Yes. Yes. Eastern lands. And the rural fringe the subcommittee has been working with, so we can do it either way. MR. CARLSON: I believe the rural fringe got an extension, didn't they? MR. LORENZ: It's an extension in the sense that -- well, put it this way: We will -- our schedule for the rural -- did you say rural fringe, Ed? I'm sorry. Where the rural fringe is we will have adopted amendments by June of 2002, June 22nd, 2002. Remember, we have to go through a transmittal hearing process, a state review and then an adoption process. So we will adopt amendments by June 2002. There is a slight extension in the sense that the amendments won't necessarily be effective at that particular point because then the state has to go through some public- notice requirements. So to that degree, we have an extension, but we're still in a very tight time frame for the rural fringe. The rural lands has been extended, but they are now getting into some -- what I would consider some very meaty and weighty issues, which I think Brad's comment is probably appropriate, that you may want to start to begin taking a little bit of a look at what they're doing there as well. My concern always is just prioritizing workload and where we are on the schedule, and I can tell you that the rural fringe material is a -- is a lot. It's very complex. It's very interrelated. There are a lot of key concepts, and we will be bringing you Page 32 December 5, 2001 6J1. amendment language that could very easily be 40 or 50 pages of -- of actual policy language, not to -- and then the supporting material could very well be 100, 150 pages of maps, tables, charts, graphs, et cetera, et cetera. Your subcommittee has been working pretty good in coming up with some speed. We kind of have a little bit of a time lag here with the November holidays but certainly -- you know, as staff, we can provide you a workshop, and I can get Bob Mulhere together with you, and -- and that's your pleasure. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Sounds good. MR. COE: How long would it take to do that? Hour maybe? MR. LORENZ: Yeah. I would think to cover all the material, I was going to say, without any questions, to kind of walk you through all the key points and where we're headed, probably be a good -- good 40 to 60 minutes on a presentation to walk you through everything. MR. COE: I'm for it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. Any other discussion? We're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:03 a.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL THOMAS W. SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN Page 33 December 5, 2001 16J I TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD Page 34 November 7, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, November 7, 2001 16J1' LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: NOT PRESENT: Thomas Sansbury Ed Carlson Michael G. Coe William W. Hill Alexandra Santoro Alfred F. Gal Chester Soling Larry Stone Erica Lynmn3sc. e Corres: ALSO PRESENT: Date: �- Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney] item# l Cr>J j Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental SpeciSI To: Stephen Lenberger, Environmental Specialist Page 1 t November 7, 2001 04 16 J 1 -:4 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Steve, you're going to be in charge over at that desk today? MR. LENBERGER: For a while, yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Why don't we call the meeting to order, and why don't we call the roll to make sure everybody is here. MR. LENBERGER: Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Here. MR. LENBERGER: Coe. MR. COE: Here. MR. LENBERGER: Stone. MR. STONE: Here. MR. LENBERGER: Lynne. (No response.) MR. LENBERGER: Gal. MR. GAL: Here. MR. LENBERGER: Soling. MR. SOLING: Here. MR. LENBERGER: Santoro. MS. SANTORO: Here. MR. LENBERGER: Sansbury. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here. MR. LENBERGER: Hill. MR. HILL: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Show that we do have a quorum with eight members present; is that correct? All right. On the agenda do we have any deletions, additions? MR. GAL: I move that we discuss the LDC amendments prior to the old business. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me? MR. GAL: Discuss the LDC amendments prior to the old Page 2 November 7, 2001 16J1 ` • business. Might as well get all of the contentious issues out of the way first. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. I don't have a problem with that. MR. LENBERGER: Barbara was going to -- and Susan Murray were going to handle the LDC amendments. Both of them couldn't make it this morning. They'll probably be here about ten o'clock. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. We'll just see how it goes, if they get here and so forth. All right? Thanks. Anything else? How about the minutes from October? Any comments on it? Any revisions? MR. CARLSON: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved -- MR. COE: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Hearing no opposed, approved unanimously. Okay. We have two land -use petitions. Patrick, the best thing to do is swear everybody at this point that is going to be testifying on these petitions? MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I would do that for each case as they would come forward. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Each -- each -- excuse me now? MR. WHITE: I'd do that for each case as it comes forward. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Each case, okay. The Silver Lake PUD is the one we're going to take first. So anyone who is going to testify on the Sever -- Silver Lakes PUD, please stand to be sworn. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Are there any members of the council that wish disclosure regarding having discussed this matter with anyone? Page 3 • i n November 7, 20 16JI (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, let's proceed: MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Council Members. My name is Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This PUD amendment was heard by this board on August the 1 st of this year. And in a minute I will tell you why we are back. The applicant is requesting to change the PUD master plan and some language in the PUD document in order to develop the park according to what -- what's already on the ground and what they are planning to do. The PUD master plan was approved to preserve -- preserve small areas and also a road coming almost through 951 and dead - ending there. But what they have done is basically they built a golf course over here (indicating), and a portion of the golf course is in here (indicating) also. I should add that the Deltona line is right in here (indicating), and anything south of it is within the Deltona settlement. Anything north is not. And right now the major sticking issue is that the northern portion of the property here (indicating) was shown as recreation area with storage area shown on the northeastern corner. What they are doing, they are changing most of that recreation area into conservation, and only a small portion of it will remain as recreation. And they're also adding some lots in here (indicating) These are the lots that they were deleted from this portion (indicating) of the property. And what we -- that's what we told you last time. What we failed to tell you is the PUD document has the same numbers and for the acreages of the different tracts. And these numbers needs to be adjusted to agree with the new master plan. And that's why we are back here one more time, to tell you that the PUD document -- also these numbers need to be adjusted. Page 4 November 7, 2001 16J1 And last time you heard this you unanimously recommended approval of this petition. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CARLSON: Approval of this plan that we're looking at right now? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yeah. Approval -- yeah, you recommended approval of this plan as you are looking at it right now. Actually, I believe when you looked at it, this recreation tract was slightly larger, and conservation was slightly smaller. They moved the line further to the west and made the conservation slightly larger. I think that was because of the Army Corps requirements and -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. Any questions? Yes, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: Would you describe what's in the recreation area? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The recreation area -- basically, recreation area allows utility, water management, right -of -way easement, golf courses, and structures associated with the recreation facilities, hurricane evacuation facilities, lakes, and pedestrian and bicycle paths, small dock and pier and shuffle board courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, and similar facilities. MS. SANTORO: Okay. What is going to be in that upper top left -hand corner, the block there, not the conservation land, but the recreation area that's abutting it? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: In the recreation area -- MS. SANTORO: Yeah. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- any of these users, include in -- accessory users. These are the permitted uses in their recreation areas. Accessory uses include storage, which basically says accessory -- customary accessory uses or structures incidental to Page 5 November 7, 2001 6J1 recreational -- recreational areas and/or facilities including structures constructed for purpose of maintenance, storage, including RV storage, recreation or shelter with appropriate screening and landscaping. MR. HILL: On Exhibit A existing, the portion of the site in the south central portion, what was approved, and what is shown on the existing layout is preserve. On the proposed it's a common and recreational area. Is that -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's correct. MR. HILL: -- part of the change? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That is part of the change. These are preserve areas that the golf course was built over it. You have to understand; this is within the Deltona settlement area. And state and federal agencies, they don't claim any jurisdictions over it. And one of -- the reason they are increasing this is basically they removed some of the wet -- I don't know the quality of those wetlands, but they were removed, and as you can see, the old area had the 3 acres of conservation. The new master plan has -- has 26 acres of conservation. So they are increasing the conserve -- overall conservation from 3 to 26 acres. MR. HILL: As I recall that tract CR in the south central portion when we reviewed it was a high - quality wetland. But you say a golf course is in there now? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: You mean when you reviewed this in August? MR. HILL: Yeah. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, sir. The golf courses was built a -- long time ago. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah, a couple years ago. MR. HILL: No. But that -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm not an environmentalist. Steve is Page 6 16JI 2001 Novembe r 7, here {to answer those questions. I don't know the quality of the wetlands. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Steve. MR. LENBERGER: Which wetland area were you referring to? The northern -- MR. HILL: South center. MR. LENBERGER: This piece right there? MR. HILL: Yeah. MR. LENBERGER: If I remember correctly -- and it's been a while since I looked at it -- it's kind of a mixture of a wax myrtle, cabbage palm, that type of thing. It was -- it was impacted quite a bit. Just to back up here a minute, what Chahram said, the northern portion, which the residents there call the north 40 acres -- it's actually a little bit over 37 acres -- is above it, the Deltona settlement boundary. The southern portion is identified as an area to be developed within the Deltona settlement. So according to the interpretation we have from planning services director, areas identified for a development within the Deltona settlement area are -- are not required to have any on -site preservation for those areas which are impacted in that area. Basically, the site, the northern 37 -plus acres, is a mixture of vegetation. To the east is quite a bit of pine canopy. A large amount of verbenaceous vegetation, mostly monocots, good diversity, fairly healthy, and a lot of pine seedlings in the open areas. I'd say the western two - thirds of the project is more of a mixture of wax myrtle, laurel oak, pepper, melaleuca, and a lot of verbenaceous species also, mostly native. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: If I could ask a question again, the plan that we saw how long ago? Six months ago? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. August. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: August. Oh, okay. Was it not this Page 7 ;;:•1 November 7, 2001 6J I exact same plan with the exception of the -- I'm a little confused. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe it's the exact same plan. Throughout this review we received several different plans, and every time they gave us a new plan, this conservation area was enlarged. And I'm not positive if you saw was this one, the conservation area -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But it was a similar plan to this one. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Very similar plan to this one. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. MR. SOLING: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. SOLING: Is that a aerial photograph on the wall there? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, it is. MR. SOLING: So what I'm trying to understand, we're talking about something that's already under construction and a lot of this exists. And we're talking about after the fact rather than before the fact. fact. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Most; some of it partially after the CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is -- is not -- and I guess the bottom line, the north 40 or whatever you call that piece, is it basically -- it all remains as it's shown with the exception of that portion on the west end of it which is shown as -- as -- and the little portion right there? Okay. Where that road comes around? Okay. All right. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Anything else, Steve, that you want to address on it? MR. LENBERGER: I have nothing else to add unless you have any questions. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions? (No response.) November 7 2001 16J 1 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Would the petitioner like to address? MR. CUYLER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Council Members. For the record, Ken Cuyler with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson. I'm only going to have a couple of comments. And we do have Mr. Butler, our environmental consultant, with us today. My understanding is that you have heard this exact petition within the last three months and that there was unanimous approval for it. The reason it's back is not because of an environmental issue or a planning issue. It's because, I believe, of an adver -- advertisement issue, if I'm not mistaken. So the plan you're looking at right now is the same one you unanimously approved. As you can see from the attendance, the petition has become a little more popular since the last time you saw it. The residents and the developer are currently in some disagreement as to a planning issue, not an environmental issue. That planning issue is a storage area that is going to either be located or at least there is a designation for a future storage area if the developer decides to do that. The residents are interested in having that on the eastern side, and the developer primarily based on agency recommendations to him, other agencies other than Collier County, is interested in placing it or designating it on the western side. I would suggest to you that's a planning issue, not an environmental issue, although you may hear some discussion of that today. With that, I can go into more detail. But having your -- your having heard this already once and just heard the presentation again from staff, we do have some color site plan type documents if it will help you understand anything as opposed to the aerial, if -- if you'd like to see those. November 7, 2001 16J l What we may have to do is wait and see what comments are made by anyone registered to speak, and then if you'll allow us to reserve some time and address those issues. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: It wasn't that long ago, but I'm having a little bit of trouble recalling all this. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's called age. MR. CARLSON: Yes. Is that the Water Management District and the regulatory agencies had already signed off on the plan that came before us in August. MR. CUYLER: Let -- let me tell you what I know about it, and then I'm going to get the -- the expert to talk to you a little bit. This whole petition is because of some things that shouldn't have occurred but did occur, and -- and I don't think the residents are opposing any of those things that occurred. And that is there were some areas that were originally laid out as -- under a land designation of preserve. And there were some golf courses built within those areas. And there's a certain amount of open -space recreation that was formally -- or is currently designated on the plan. The purpose, the real general purpose of this entire amendment process, is to come in and approve or legitimize those areas where the golf course was built to designate some additional lots on a certain area of the site plan and then, in return for that, designate a large part of this as actual conservation as opposed to recreation space. And the conservation area obviously will either be deeded, or it will be retained with an easement and maintenance responsibilities. But you're correct; the agencies have reviewed it. Permits have not been issued, I believe. But there have been substantial discussions, and the agencies have indicated where they want to see the planning aspect, that is, that designation for recreation within which the storage area can be placed. We had a -- a lengthy hearing last Thursday in front Page 10 16J1 November 7, 2001 of the planning commission, and all of those issues were discussed. In my opinion, those are purely planning issues. But you're correct. The agencies have seen this, but they haven't actually issued permits yet. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Staff or Mr. White, are we -- Mr. Cuyler correct in saying that we're back here because of a problem with -- with adver -- with advertisement? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It was advertised as a PDI, which means only map change. However, we had to adjust those four numbers, the acreages in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Gotcha. Thank you. MR. CUYLER: So there's no difference at all, as far as I know, in terms of what you considered last time and what you're considering today. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Council have any other questions for Mr. Cuyler? Would they like to hear from Mr. Cuyler's environmental consultant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Hearing none -- MR. CUYLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- members of the public who would like to address the issue. Are there members of the public who would like to address the matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Pires. MR. WHITE: If I may interrupt, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. MR. WHITE: I have two documents here. One of them is from Mr. Pires. The other is from a gentleman by the name of Gary Lee. They were on my desk here. I believe that they more properly may Page 11 November 7, 2001 belong to staff, so I'm going to turn them over to them. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Tony, why don't you come over to this side -- MR. PIKES: I apologize. 16J1 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's okay. MR. PIKES: Mr. Chairman, I'm with you. I usually like -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. That's all right. We're going to confuse you with someone from staff. MR. PIRES: Oh, I don't think you will. A long time ago, maybe 20 years ago. For the record, my name is Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo and representing a transition committee comprised of the residents of Silver Lakes RV Park. The association or the community is still controlled by the developer. We have issue with only one aspect of this application. And we're glad we're here today, have the opportunity to be here today. We weren't here in August. We didn't know about it in August, although we had met with the developer and county staff to talk about some of the issues that the community had involving this project. We found out about the EAC meeting in August by one of the residents watching it on television the day of the hearing. So we're glad to be able to be here because we have hired a biologist, Gary Beardsley, who will be providing additional data that I think will be helpful in this council's determination of possibly, hopefully, making a different recommendation than made the first time. This council, like all the other councils and committees that I'm familiar with in Collier County, including the ones I serve on, like to deal with printed relevant facts, so we'll try to stick to those today. And I think some of the facts -- and I think Mr. Carlson referenced one aspect that might be causing confusion -- is the premise, I Page 12 November 7, 2001 6J1 believe, of the first review was that there were permits in hand and that permitting agencies had required certain activities to take place and the western side would not allow the activity to occur on the eastern portion of the property. Part of the confusion may come from a couple of documents, one, the PUD application, which was, I think, after your meeting. The planner for the developer stated that the purpose for this amendment is merely to depict the current development pattern as it has been permitted through its seven platted phases as Mr. Cuyler and staff indicated the golf course and some other improvements and to reflect the intended last phase of development as it had been permitted with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District. And I think staff picked up on that in their staff report, and the most recent staff report even contains the statement at page 2 that, quote, these changes will allow the applicant to comply with requirements of the state and federal permitting. As of this date, no permits have been issued. Army Corps has posted as of November 2nd notice of intent to issue a permit. So that 30 -day window of opportunity for participation by other agencies, consultation with Fish and Wildlife and EPA, has began as of November 2nd, and we plan on fully participating in that process. And part of the public notice for that permit application, once again, published on their web site as of November 2nd, 2001, from Army Corps states, "Based on information provided by the applicant's consultant, the Corps of Engineers has determined that the project may affect but would not likely adversely affect the wood stork; the Corps is coordinating this determination with Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act, via this public notice." You'll hear, I think, testimony from some of the residents who Page 13 November 7, 2001 1 r;�! � 6J1 have seen wood storks in this area because of the nature of the property on the western side where this development is proposed. As far as South Florida, they -- we have a fax I received last week indicating they may be soon issuing their notice of intent to issue a permit, but they have not yet issued their permit. We have, I think, additional pertinent facts that we believe should show that this development should occur and remain on the eastern side as originally envisioned. The original site plan for this, as outlined in the PUD master plan -- on the master plan itself had -- this area indicated here as storage. That's approximately a 3 -acre area. MR. CARLSON: I hate to interrupt, but I've heard the word storage used now a dozen -- I just to want make sure what the -- what does storage mean? MR. PIKES: We anticipate storage will be an accessory use to the park for the residents and property owners for the park to store their motor homes or trailers or other aspects of -- that are necessary because of the nature of that type of community, that type of living. But it would be for the residents of the park. MR. CARLSON: Okay. MR. PIRES: My understanding is that's how the county staff would require it. That's how the PUD requires it, to be accessory to the principal uses. MR. CARLSON: Okay. MR. PIRES: The original master plan also had -- within this area had this as a lake. It had, like, an outline of a lake and also some nature trails. And the property owners -- and also on the original master plan there was a -- I think you were advised last time, these lots were shown as occurring down here, and there were no lots up in this area. This was indicated as preserve. This was indicated as preserve. Page 14 November 7, 2001 1 1 What's happened on the ground -- and the community is in r of every aspect of this application except for one. These lots don't exist. This golf course was made a little bit more further to the south. They're very happy with that aspect. Part of the golf course goes to this preserve area that's existing. They don't have any difficulty with that aspect of the application, and there's -- this has been utilized also other than preserve. Up in here the developer is proposing 28 lots to be developed. Part would be in the jurisdictional wetlands as claimed by Corps and South Florida north of the Deltona settlement line. The community has no difficulty and fully supports that. Basically what the developer is asking for is that these lots that were not built down here (indicating) be located up in here (indicating). The community fully supports that, and there's some variations and adjustments to the lot sizes in this area. The community fully supports that. What the community doesn't support is having the storage facility located on the western side where there are existing property owners and residents residing. They request and they desire to have it located on the east side where it is indicated as storage area on the original master plan. The agencies -- the petitioner will tell you or articulate that the agencies have pushed the project to the west because of the quality of the wetlands. I believe you'll hear from Gary Beardsley that he believes what would be appropriate is to keep the storage area on the east, reduce it from the proposed 8 -area site and keep it at 3 acres and have it in this area. As part of that, one of the parts of the master plan that we think is important to the PUD document itself as opposed to typical I'll call it moosh language in PUDs as to what master plans are, as I mentioned before, this is designated as a lake. It may be difficult to Page 15 16J November 7, 2001 see, but it says lake right there. Section 2.3 -A and B of the PUD state that, quote, 2.3 -13, areas illustrated as lakes by Exhibit A, which is this document, shall be constructed lakes or upon approval parts thereof may be constructed as shallow intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. Such areas, lakes, and intermittent wet and dry areas shall be in the same general configuration and contain the same general acreage as shown by Exhibit A and Exhibit B. The storage area would be approximately here over to here which would take up a significant portion of this area indicated as being lake on the PUD master plan. Additionally, the developer -- one of the issues we always have a concern with involving facts is also credibility issues. The developer in permitting with the Corps in south Florida, particularly the last week of the planning commission, that he does -- isn't sure of the full size that he wants, but he's going for the maximum size possible in permitting this with Army Corps in south Florida, because let's get the most we can out of those agencies. On the western side in this area the developer is proposing -- I can pass this around. This is the proposed storage area. Is that okay, Mr. Chairman? That's what is being proposed. That information has never been submitted to the county, to the best of my knowledge. That was submitted to South Florida after South Florida asked for it. And, interestingly enough, even though that was submitted to South Florida saying this is what we need to have, two days before that submittal an attorney for the developer told a property owner's lawyer, "My client advises us that they have no present plans to build the storage facility. Since there are no plans to build, there is no decision as to where the facility will be located. Again, however, there are no plans to request a building permit." I'd like to make this letter a copy of the record -- the new record. Page 16 November 7, 2001 6J1 One other aspect also is because of the nature of the property that's in the eastern area that we believe should be the location for the storage area as originally envisioned as depicted when the property owners purchased are activities that have occurred in there in the last few years that do not appear on this aerial photograph. I'd like to show you some photographs taken October 30th of this area. I'm not very good at using this visualizer. I don't know how to enlarge it. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I do. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Chahram. Mr. Belanger who took these photographs is present here today and I believe will verify that the photographs depict what they purport to represent. This fence it is my understanding that Mr. Belanger will testify is on the Deltona settlement line. MR. CARLSON: Could you show us on a bigger map where this site is? MR. PIRES: Yes (indicating). MR. CARLSON: Okay. MR. PIRES: I think Mr. Belanger can provide better testimony or Mr. Strauss, but my understanding is that there is a dirt road that's coming from this portion of the development, goes north into this area, is depicted in the photographs. As -- as can be seen from the photographs, in the area north of the fence line, there is substantial construction debris, which my understanding is -- I've been advised was construction material from pads that were torn up by the developer after they were initially installed. I have a number of additional other photographs that are -- depict what is occurring in this area. This, again, is in the general area of the storage area as originally depicted. This is looking north from -- that photograph is looking north into this area. Page 17 November 7, 2001 16J1 This is another photograph looking northeast into this area. And this is another photograph looking north into the area, which we believe is in the area that is north of the Deltona settlement line. I have a number of other photographs. At the planning commission the petitioner was asked whether or not they were aware of the fact that this was located north of that line. They said they hadn't surveyed it yet. But I believe that from the testimony of the residents, I think you'll hear that this is the area where the proposed storage has always been indicated, that this area has already been impacted, and they wish to have the storage facility located in that area. As I mentioned before, we support having the storage area in the east with reduced wetland impacts to 3 acres, in the area that's always been proposed. And we have no difficulty with the lots being in that area but not having the storage area to the west. And I'm available, and also Mr. Beardsley will be next, followed by Mr. Belanger, possibly Mr. Strauss for any additional evidence. And we're thankful to have the opportunity to be here today to provide this information to the EAC. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe, you have a question. MR. COE: In the southwest portion where that golf course is extended into an area that was previously going to be developed, why did that occur when we had approved that area to be developed for units? MR. PIRES: I think staff can possibly best answer that. There were plats and subdivision approvals that were winding their way through the process in the '90s. And I think Chahram addressed that issue at the planning commission as to how that occurred. I wasn't present at the creation, and I think staff -- may be best addressed by staff. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Page 18 November 7, 2001 16J 1 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I -- I researched this, why it happened. It appears that at the time they built the golf course, we did not review site development plan for golf courses. They just applied for construction plan. Therefore, planning staff wasn't involved with the construction of golf courses at the time, and that's how nobody checked the master plans since planning wasn't involved. And since 1996, I believe, we amended the code that the planning staff must review golf courses as the site development plan. That's the best explanation I can give you. It happened many years ago and predates most of us in development services. It's just the way it was -- MR. COE: Well, my question is, is who made the decision to move the golf course into a area that was approved for development? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Well, the developer. MR. COE: The developer did that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. MR. COE: Okay. So my next question obviously would follow, why should we permit the developer to move into a northern area that wasn't previously approved to be developed because he decided he wanted to put a golf course there that was never permitted by anybody in the first place? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. We don't -- you don't have to recommend approval. However, the land is there, and the PUD was approved for a certain number of units, and he's applying for an amendment to the master plan to enable him to build those lots over there, and it's up to you to make a decision. MR. COE: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let me -- if I could clarify a question. I'm maybe looking at Mr. -- Mr. White and Mr. Lenberger. The environmental impact, you might say, is what we're looking at, between the doc -- the document we have in front of us as existing Page 19 November 7, 2001 16 J 1 and the document we have that's proposed. Okay. From the standpoint of wetlands -- do we have an -- is it different? I mean, has -- has the -- and what we're talking about -- here, again, I want to get back to what Mr. Cuyler said. Is this an environmental issue, or is this a planning issue? And I think we need to clarify that. MR. WHITE: I'm not sure entirely who it is you're asking. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm asking everyone in the room. MR. WHITE: In the rush to have their perspective brought to your attention, I believe that what the LDC tells us is that ultimately it's your decision about whether you believe it is or not. There may be some factual matters out there that pertain, but you're here on -- it's on your agenda for the purpose of obtaining a recommendation. MR. CUYLER: If your question is this exactly the same document you looked at last time, my understanding is yes, and Chahram needs to correct me if that's not correct. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe -- I believe it is. That's the exact same document you looked at last time. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So from your environmental consultant was that gentleman who was going to get up? MR. CUYLER: He was going to say the same thing, but I will let him say the same -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Please identify yourself for the record. MR. BUTLER: Ian Butler, Butler Environmental. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Again the question. Okay. The plan that came through here last time from wetland areas and things of that sort, is there any difference in the plan that's coming through today? MR. BUTLER: There is no difference. My office prepared the environmental impact statement that you reviewed in August, and it has not been changed since then. So it is the same. Page 20 November 7, 2001 16J 1 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: How about the alteration we're seeing at the far eastern portion where the area that is shown -- I can't tell from the existing -- from the plan that we have in front of us that's proposed, it's showing conservation, but that area is obviously used as a dump. MR. BUTLER: Yes. That -- that's correct. And there was a meeting that Mr. Pires was in attendance to with the Water Management District within the past week and a half, and that issue was brought up. Unfortunately, it was something that I was not aware of at the time of the creation of these exhibits. However, discussions with the Water Management District has been presented to restore and revegetate that area as part of a condition of the issuance of the South Florida Water Management District permit. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: So part of this proposal is to go in that area that has been disturbed -- MR. BUTLER: To remove everything. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Part of -- part of the -- part of this request is that that area will be restored to its original condition and all the junk moved. MR. CUYLER: That will be part of the -- we understand that that will be part of the state permitting process. One thing I might point out -- and obviously I'll leave time for Mr. Pires to counter anything I say, but the -- at the planning commission the discussion was really more oriented towards this is where we, the residents, thought the storage_ area would be. Some materials have been put in there, although -- and there was a discussion of whether this was really the type of storage that we were talking about. And it's not. We're talking about trailer storage and mobile homes and recreational vehicles and those types of things, not concrete and -- and downed trees. But, again, that is the planning aspect of it. The environmental aspect of it has already been reviewed by the state agency. They Page 21 November 7, 2001 1 6J 1 have not changed their mind about what they want to permit and what they've recommended. And at some point we do have that in writing in terms *of their recommendation to us. The only other thing I'd mention before I sit down is that one of the planning commissioners asked, has it been mandated and -- that you go to that -- to the western end. And the environmental consultant said, "No, it hasn't been mandated. They can't make us do it, but they don't have to approve our permits if we don't do what they want to us do." And those of you that deal with the agencies on a regular basis know that if they are recommending something to you, then you'd best pay attention to that. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, if I may briefly clarify -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. PIKES: -- what may be misleading at the meeting with South Florida. The meeting with South Florida, it was a brief, maybe no more than a couple- minute discussion over an hour period of time with regards to the current activities that are depicted in these photographs. South Florida did not see these photographs as of yet. They will. They have not seen them as of yet. Any discussions that Mr. Butler indicates had occurred as to revegetating the area, that was after the meeting. If any of those occurred, I was not party to any of those. I think -- and we'll find out during the administrative process with South Florida and Corps. I believe that based upon the analysis -- and Mr. Beardsley also can testify to it. Based upon the review of the submittal and requests back and forth, sufficiency requests back and forth between South Florida and the applicant's representative was that the biological integrity of this northeastern -- eastern area was part of their determination that -- go west, young man, go to the west and develop. I think the fact that the biological integrity of that eastern area Page 22 November 7, 2001 6J1 has been compromised severely, as indicated by this photograph, maybe that will be of some use in their determination. I don't know, but we'll see during that process. Second, I think there is new data and new facts that ark being brought to you today with regards to, number one, the condition of that property is not as pristine as indicated; number two, we have the report and testimony of Mr. Beardsley. One additional fact just for clarification. I think the staff report indicates that the -- in the submittal to the South Florida they propose mitigation credits for 4.89 acres. I believe that the biologist for the developer, as of October 5th, said the mitigation will be 3.66 credits as opposed to 4.89. So I think that's a fact that needs to be clarified for the record. Once again, the only aspect that the community has difficulty with is the moving, basically, the proposed storage area as originally depicted to an area depicted as a lake on the master plan and out of an area that we believe -- into an area that we think has, you know, a function that should remain as it exists today. And I'll make these part of the record and pass them out with the chairman's indulgence. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do we have anyone else from the public that would like to address the petition? Yes, sir. Please come up and identify yourself. MR. BEARDSLEY: Good morning, Chairman and -- and Committee. My name is Gary Beardsley, a resident of Collier County, 4661 13th Avenue Southwest. I'm a biologist. I have a company, Tropical Environmental Consultants. I was asked by the homeowners' association to evaluate the information that the environmental consultant and applicant had made so far and also to visit the site to get some kind of evaluation, did I agree with what they said or did I disagree or were there some issues that might be brought up. Page 23 November 7, 2001 16J I On September 10th I visited the site and set up a series of seven transects north to south. I tried to focus only on the western edge and the eastern edge, since that was the big concern, a storage area proposed for the west and the area that had been previously identified for storage on the east. It was a unique situation in that the entire site which has been deemed to be wetlands, jurisdictional wetlands to the Army Corps and the Water Management District, was inundated with water. Why this was interesting for me as a biologist is it allowed me to use the water as a leveler to try to get some idea of what the topographic changes from one side, west side to east side, of the land was. Strange enough, there were not much changes. The water depth in the east and in the west was about 6 to 8 inches above the surface of the water -- of the ground, the natural grade. The other thing that a biologist looks for is some kind of indicators of the seasonal high water during the wet season. These biological indicators that can be used are active - growing cypress knees, lichen lines, algal mats, lacental -- little circular devices that are used to help a plant to breed on the base of a tree or the base of wax myrtle. In looking at the biological indicators in these areas of the transect, it showed that the water level would go up 4 to 6 inches more than the 6 inches to 8 inches that was on the surface of the ground. Why that's interesting and why that's important is back in 1990 a previous consultant that worked for the applicant did some shallow wells and found that the water table did not reach the surface and that the average elevation across this 37-acre parcel was about 3 feet, 3 -feet elevation. Water did not break the surface. And in the applicant's submittals to the Water Management District, the Water Management District asked what are the biological indicators of the seasonal high water in this area. And the consultant said, partially Page 24 November 7, 2001 6J1 properly, that the storage area had been cleared in old ag operations. Therefore, there were no cypress trees and such that could be used to give an idea of the historic, what it was in the past, in the '60s and 'SOs. The Water Management District also asked for current seasonal high -water tables, and the consultants did not answer that question. The big concern that I have is the consultant is proposing to improve conveyance along a ditch that runs along the south side of this 37 -acre parcel. They want to improve the ability of that to carry off water from the site. If they improve the conveyance ability on this site and they drop the water table from the 10 to 12 inches that's normally in there in the height of the rainy season towards the end of September and October, that's going to change the functionality of this wetlands. That's one concern. The other issue of water quality and wetland quality is which end of this property, the west end or the east end, is biologically more impacted? The Water Management District's information that they received, of course, was from the applicant. And the applicant said in the area of the 8 acres that this was all old ag, and it was disturbed in the past and, therefore, it would be a proper place after the Water Management District said we think it should be on the west for this to be -- this storage area to be placed. I do approximately a thousand inspections a year on properties in Collier County. And a lot of old field areas in Golden Gate Estates, up especially near Orange Tree, it's very obvious. You walk into it; you have perimeter ditches. You have swales, bridge and swale within the farm -field area. So when I went in the western edge and did the transects, I expected to find ditches, ridges, and swales throughout the whole area of this proposed 8 acres. I did not. I found it in the eastern one - third. I did not find it in the western two - thirds. And I looked at the USGS topographic, and I looked at some Page 25 16J1 November 7, 2001 old aerials. And, indeed, the majority, two - thirds of the 8 -acre proposed storage area, was not under ag. It was only the eastern one - third of it. So we realized that the Water Management District thought that this had all been altered in the past. Some of it is pristine. I think Steve characterized this as dominated by pine in the east and kind of open marsh in the west. He failed to -- to state that the eastern part is heavily invaded with melaleuca seedlings that have been culled, not back. And they're probably 7, 8 feet tall, very dense stand of melaleuca in that area. The -- the melaleuca is also through the center portion of the 37 acres. It also is in the eastern portion of this 8 acres that's proposed for it. But it's not in the westernmost one - third or two - thirds of it. There is a stand of melaleuca up near the highway, but that's in one real thick clump. So basically when you look, it -- it's not an obvious at one end, the western end is more impacted than the eastern end, especially with the storage area that I would estimate is a half to three - quarter acres that's already in wetlands, and there's debris stored in there, equipment stored in there. And the original storage area was 2.6 acres, and if a half to three - quarter acres is already disturbed... In addition, there's a ditch that runs along the easternmost area that's a conveyance ditch (indicating). This conveyance ditch accepts water, carries it down here and then discharges out this way. The improved conveyance that the applicant is proposing is right along this area, and it would tie into that discharge ditch coming out that way. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: May I ask a question? Would that -- again, would that function of that ditch differ whether the storage area was on the east end or the west end? Would it not have the same effect on the site no matter which area the storage area was on? MR. BEARDSLEY: No, it wouldn't because the conveyance Page 26 November 7, 2001 611 that they're proposing to improve would run the whole entire length which is almost one mile coming across there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: There would be no ditch? MR. BEARDSLEY: There would be a ditch in the very eastern edge, an improved conveyance that would discharge directly into the ditch that's along the east side. It's a much shorter conveyance. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. That's what I'm -- if the storage area is in the east, the ditch would only run along the storage area versus the ditch running along the entire area to reach this -- okay. MR. BEARDSLEY: Correct, correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. BEARDSLEY: The other -- the other issues that are, I think, very important is -- and I think Steve Limberg -- Lenberger said that. And I am a consultant. I do listed species surveys you find by the seat of your pants. You know, it depends on how much of a proposal you turned in, how many times you can go out on a piece of property. And I -- I always try to do -- and if I can is to ask the residents who live around that area, you know, hey, have you seen alligators or have you seen bears or panthers or anything like this? And usually these people live here in the area that you're looking at, and they have a lot of anecdotal information. I mean, if they say they saw a panther, I say, well, you know, it could have been a bobcat type of thing. But at least you ask these people. I think you're going to have testimony that wood storks visit this area frequently, especially in the western end which is more marsh and open that allows the wood storks in there. The other area that I have concern in is the applicant proposes to take out -- take out the swales and take out the ditches and the berms and fill them in. One of the reasons that we lost 90 percent of the wading bird population in south Florida is because of loss of sheet Page 27 November 7, 2001 16J1 flow, loss of water table going up, bioproduction rapidly increasing, and then towards the late dry season, that dropping back down and concentrating fish. So all these old ag and old swales and -- and berms and ditches are ideal areas to concentrate prey for wading birds. So to just level this site for some reason to take exotics out I think is the wrong way to go. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right, sir. You know, when I hear that kind of reasoning and I know that the Corps of Engineers is filling all kinds of canals out on these sides to put it back as it was, I have a difficult time with that reasoning. MR. BEARDSLEY: Well, the only reason they're doing that is to straighten out, like, the Kissimmee River and area like that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I mean out in Golden Gate. MR. BEARDSLEY: Well, one thing, I did a lot of work out in Golden Gate Estates and roads out there everybody said were bad things, but we did a lot of banding of hawks, and the hawks feed on those edges. So there's a trade -off. I agree, there's a trade -off. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's do this. Let's see if any members of the council have any questions for Mr. Beardsley. Yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: I guess you sort of hit on this a couple of times, but if you would restate, I mean, from -- from the standpoint of the ecological values of the wetlands and habitats along that strip and -- I mean, if -- if you could just give us some indication of some areas have more ecological value for a variety of reasons, good habitat, lower exotics, healthy water levels. This is new information for us. I mean, is there -- is there an environmental reason to move this storage area to the east end? I mean, you sort of hit around it but can you restate that real -- MR. BEARDSLEY: If I was king and had the magic wand, I would reduce the size from 8 acres down to something like 3 acres, Page 28 November 7, 2001 16J l obviously reducing impact. The second thing is, because the water table is pretty much the same all the way across this, it's not one area is a slough and has a longer hydroperiod than other areas. But the exotics that are in the eastern part -- and there's -- even though it's a pine canopy and a hydric pine flatwood and, you know, wet prairie on the ground, that area has been disturbed. And if you put a 2.6 -acres , 3 -acres storage area in that end and save the open marsh end, especially the two - thirds of the 8 acres that has never been farmed, that would be my preference, moving it to the east, reducing the size of the storage area. MR. CARLSON: Moving it to the extreme east end of that tract -- MR. BEARDSLEY: Yes. MR. CARLSON: -- or just moving it east within this proposed area here? MR. BEARDSLEY: No. Moving it directly east to the entire tract up against the side that's -- MR. CARLSON: (Indicating.) MR. BEARDSLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Other questions for Mr. Beardsley? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, do we have anyone else from the _public that would like to speak? Yes, sir. If we're -- if we're going to use -- excuse me, sir. If we're not going to be using the graphics and so forth, could you -- MR. LEN13ERGER: If I may, I'd just like to clarify a few points. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go right ahead. MR. LENBERGER: Hopefully the visualizer will come up. Page 29 November 7, 2001 16J 1 Hang on a second. On the visualizer I have an old aerial. This aerial is for the project immediately north of the -- of the subject property. It's currently in now for a PUD for a business park. And the aerial -- and the area outlined in black is the subject property for the business park. The area to the south, this area right here (indicating), is the northern portion of Silver Lakes. And the area -- and the aerial was taken in '75, I believe, and you can see that the property was farmed historically, the entire property, except -- yeah, all the property. You can actually see the ditches running through both properties. The reason there's more pine towards the western portion of the property is because this -- there's -- there's other pine areas nearby, and I imagine the natural recruitment, that's why that portion of the property has more pines. But it was cleared historically, so I just want to clarify that. About the exotic removal, the developer had an obligation to remove exotics from the property. And most of the exotics which have been removed -- and not all of them have -- have been on the eastern portion of the property. That's why the pines are doing better because a lot of the melaleuca was taken out. The exotic mel has not occurred yet on the eastern -- on the western portion of the property. That's why it's more impacted. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir, please identify yourself for the record. MR. CARLSON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask Mr. Lenberger if I could see the map he has there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Absolutely. Yes, sir. MR. BELANGER: Good morning. My name is Joe Belanger. I am on the board of directors for the POA at Silver Lakes. I'm also a co -chair of the ad hoc transition committee. I stand before you today to try and point out a few things of concern for the owners of Silver Page 30 November 7, 2001 Lakes. 6J1 As it was stated earlier, we have no objections to most of the changes that is proposed here, but I would like to point out that since the presentation that you people received in August, there has been a change, a drastic change in this. At that point in time there was no propose -- no proposal for the eight acres. They kept telling us that they had no plans to develop that eight acres. And up until the 11th hour, they came up and finally gave us a plan of a commercial storage area in the 8 acres. Now, they -- now they're coming back, and they're telling us that they're going to clear out that eastern portion of the land, and they're going to fill it back in. They're going to bring it back to its natural stand. It's kind of hard for me to understand how they're going to bring that eastern portion that was designated originally for a storage area to its natural stand when it's been impacted by diesel fuel. You have a big trailer in there that contains diesel fuel that's been leaking on that land for at least four years now. You've got concrete in there. You've got junk that's been piled up in there. You've got steel that's been in there that is -- I'm sure has affected that land to a point of -- of not bringing it back to its original state. All we ask is that this commission please review the concerns of the owners of the park. We feel that the 8 acres in the front and putting in a commercial storage area in the front, which we don't need in the park -- we don't need a commercial storage. We don't need 201 sites. All we need is about 3 acres to store some of our RVs and boats, and that would be adequately put in the eastern portion where it would have a lot easier access for the residents of the park to go into that storage area. The proposed 8 acres in the front is a concern of safety also whereby the entrance to the 8 acres is in the front of the gate where it would be kind of difficult, if not impossible, to turn a 40 -foot motor Page 31 November 7, 2001 home or a 40 -foot boat into that area from our p ark 16J1 As far as wildlife, our residents will testify -- and I can -- I can testify sightings of wood stork behind the homes that are presently developed on the western portion of the -- of the 37-acre tract. I've seen wood stork in there on August -- around -- right around this time of the year they start coming in. We see quite a few of them in there. We've seen black bear in there. Our -- our people have observed and I have observed deer feeding on the edge and behind our clubhouse in the evening. We have hawks, and we have ospreys, a set of ospreys that nest in there at the present time. So we would rather see the majority of that 37 acres left alone and put a 3 -acre storage area where we were told originally to the eastern portion of that 37 acres. And we were also told when we bought into this park that we were buying into the park with a 9 -hole executive golf course, and on a 37-acre tract we were told we were going to see a lake there, nature walks, and nature trails. And our people would like to see that there, not a commercial storage area. That's the truth. It's a monetary issue for them at this point in time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. (Applause.) MR. STRAUSS: I've not been sworn because I walked in a little late. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Could we swear this gentleman? (The oath was administered.) MR. STRAUSS: My name is -- my name is Jerome Strauss. I go by Jerry. And I'm a -- also a member of the board of directors of the property owners' association. Joe and I, the gentleman just spoke, are the only two owner representatives of the board. I'm also a member of the transition committee. I happen to be one of those that lives on the land that abuts the Page 32 November 7, 2001 6J1 40 acres, and we actually moved down here to Naples -- and we bought the land in 1993 when this development first started. And -- and with all due respect -- and I wanted to say to the committee, Mr. Chairman and committee, that it's very much appreciated that we have this opportunity to address you. And with all due respect to the chairman who -- who raised the question, I think, at ft -- of the previous -- not this speaker but the one before that about moving the storage area from the west, I think you said, to the east, which is what we're talking about, is really not the issue here. It's a matter of if -- if I could with your indulgence simply suggest to you it's keeping the storage area where it was depicted in the original PUD. That is the issue, whether or not -- whether or not there are environmental impacts to not keeping it where it was originally depicted and which would be the best from an environmental standpoint. Now, obviously I'm interested. My wife and I, Sue -- Sue isn't here because she works every day like I do, too, except for these kinds of hearings -- we are concerned about the environmental issues. We bought on that periphery with the representation that it would be a preserve, there would be a lake, there would be walking paths. This is exactly what we wanted. We're from the midwest. We're from farm country down in southern Indiana, and we like the woods. And we're also sensible about it. And in those woods there are wood storks. It's not fiction; it's a fact. And they come out of those woods quite frequently. I happen to have a koi pond. It's 60 feet in length. And they visit my koi pond, to my regret. But I put a big net up across it. There's a big bridge on the koi pond. They sit on the bridge and look at the fish for a while. The great blue heron comes and sits there too. But when they fly back, they fly back into that -- into that area of 40 acres right on the other side of me. And that's where they come from. And just within the last day, you know, I saw them flying over and going back Page 33 November 7, 2001 16J 1 into that area. So it's an area that, without doubt, is one that the waterfowl used considerably. I, too, have seen the deer. We would like to preserve that sort of thing and put the storage area exactly where it was originally represented on the PUD. And I -- I don't know if you have that map. I'm assuming, Mr. Chairman, that you do have -- have that map and it shows -- and it's written in there -- storage area on the -- on the east portion of the property. And that's exactly -- and, by the way, this is not a gravel road that goes into this present maintenance, if you will, area that's there in the east. It is a paved road. They paved a road that goes right into that area on the northeast. They, for some reason, paved the road there but then decided to ask for permission to move not 3 acres but to acquire 8 acres for the developer at the -- and fronting on 951. Now, I'm not sure exactly all the reasons why they want 9 acres -- or, excuse me, 8 acres fronting on 951. But it's my guess it's a economic question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is there anyone else from the public that would like to address this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. What's the pleasure of the council? MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. CUYLER: I'm sorry. We asked if we could reserve -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'm sorry about that, Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: -- our environmentalist -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go right ahead. MR. CUYLER: -- who has a difference of opinion from Mr. Page 34 November 7, 2001 16J 1 Beardsley on a number of items. MR. BUTLER: Again, Ian Butler with Butler Environmental representing the petitioner. There's just a few items I'd like to comment on with respect to Mr. Pires and Mr. Beardley's presentation to you, the big -- the big issue that Mr. Beardsley touched on with respect to season high - water tables and what actually is the current versus historical and how that relates to the proposed storage area. The proposed surface water management system for the storage area discharges into the existing water management system of the existing Silver Lakes RV Park. The storage area is bermed from the proposed preserve area, is not discharging any water into that area. So after the construction of the storage facility, sheet flow will not be any different than it is today with the exception of it's 8 acres, smaller. So, therefore, there will not be any draw -down or draining of the proposed preserve area as a result of this storage area since it -- they're just -- they're two different entities. With respect to the western half of the proposed 8 -acre storage facility being a pristine wetlands, in my experience of ten years, it's hard to have a pristine wetland that's ad j acent to an existing 4 -lane road that was previously clear back in '75 . I've been involved personally with this project for five years, done substantial amount of work, spent hundreds of hours out here determining wildlife utilization, its water levels, that type of thing. So on our best information that we had compiled over that five years and now in the better part of a year in permitting with the Water Management District reflects the information that we provided to you and to the Water Management District and the Corps of Engineers. The original application that was submitted that -- the Corps and the Water Management District originally proposed the storage area along the eastern side of this 37- plus -or -minus -acre parcel. That was Page 35 4 November 7, 2001 16JI ' where it was originally wanting -- determined to be. Through various requests for additional information, letters from the Water Management District and meetings, they requested, based on the quality of the wetlands, what is there now, to move it to the western portion. And I have a copy of a letter, a request for additional information letter, from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, dated July 11 th, specifically stating -- and if I can quote -- please revise the proposed site design to minimize wetland impacts and consolidate impacts to the western portions of the site with preserve areas on the eastern portion. And that was back in July. As a result of this letter, our next submittal reflected the storage facility being moved to the western side. MR. HILL: Would you read that again, please, the letter you just had? MR. BUTLER: Please revise the proposed site design to minimize wetland impacts and consolidate impacts to the western portion of this site with preserve areas on the eastern portion. MR. CARLSON: And was that recommendation based on a field observation by the district staff? Were they on site making -- making that determination? MR. BUTLER: Yes. The district staff was on site to do the original jurisdictional wetland determination. MR. COE: Is that as a result of a request by you -all to them to move it from the east to the west side? MR. BUTLER: No. No. MR. COE: They just observed it and said, anyway. MR. BUTLER: We bought it -- like, again, our original application reflected wanting to have it in the eastern portion, and their -- forgive me. I don't exactly remember the conversation that we had with them. But just in -- in common sense, it made -- it seemed to make more sense to have a preserve area that was not Page 36 November 7, 2001 adj acent to an existing four -lane road, wildlife utilization and 16J 1 resources, and so forth. MR. COE: So what -- what you're saying, then, is that they saw all the junk and destruction that had been created in that particular area in the eastern area. They were aware that you had paved a road into that eastern area and were dropping construction material, that you had fueling vehicle in there, etc.? Southwest Florida Water Management people saw this and, in spite of that, said, No. Let's move it to the west"? MR. BUTLER: No. Their -- their knowledge of what the activities you just described were after this letter. MR. COE: That answers my question. Thank you very much. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Question? MR. SOLING: My -- my interpretation and what's happening here today is that you're just reacting to the Water Management District and it's not an economic factor or something that the owners really desire. You're just complying with some other agency's ruling; is that correct? MR. BUTLER: That's correct. MR. SOLING: Now, can that other agency's ruling be appealed? MR. BUTLER: There's certainly a comment period. Again, the permit has not been issued, so they certainly take comments or objections from the public. MR. SOLING: Well, from what I hear from the public, everybody is against the moving, and I would assume it makes more sense to leave it in the east since the road is there. MR. BUTLER: There -- again, to -- to bring up the meeting that Mr. Pires had scheduled with the Water Management District to discuss the residents' concerns -- and, again, just to paraphrase and Page 37 November 7, 2001 4 16J1 not quote, but the staff -- Water Management District's staff reviewer who was present at the meeting and is the reviewer for this application stated that their review was based on environmental criteria, unfortunately, not on planning issues. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay? All right, sir. Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: Just in -- in summary, real quickly, one gentleman was talking about the moving of the lots and why should we allow them to do that. I just wanted to -- although that's not a major issue, I did want to clarify that. If those lots are not placed in the new area, the developer has a right to place them in the old area. And the developer's position, based on statements from the county previous to the planning commission and at the planning commission, is that there may be a code enforcement action which is instituted, in which case the developer would have to comply. He would have to go back, redo those areas, put his lots back. He wouldn't put them in the new area. But, as you've heard from the rep -- the representative of the residents, they're not in favor of that either. They're happy with the thing as it is, as it's planned, except for this storage area controversy. So that's not an issue that I believe exists with the residents anyway. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay, sir. MR. CUYLER: With respect to what I said at the at the very beginning, I -- I would suggest to you strongly that this is a planning issue, not an environmental issue. We heard at the planning commission that there was this area that was disturbed, and there's some materials on it. If you approve the petition, as you did three months ago, and make the same approval and the agency changes its mind and doesn't permit the area that's possible future storage on the west side of the property, then they're not going to issue a permit for that. I mean, if they make the determination that the more appropriate area to save is on the west side, then they're going to Page 38 November 7, 2001 1 1 deny the permit, and they'll force us to come back, and -- and we 1 0 what we need to. As a matter of fact, you heard Mr. Pires say that they're going to fully involve themselves in -- in the application petition process. So I would suggest to you that much of what you've heard today was the same thing that we heard on Thursday, except now it's been couched in environmental terms instead of planning terms. There's a controversy between the -- the developer and the residents, and I would suggest to you that nothing has changed since the last time you approved this petition. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Close with Mr. Pires? Some -- get a little summation here; then we'll -- MR. PIRES: Just a brief rebut, if I may, Mr. Chairman, members of the council. Thank you. For clarification, I know Mr. Butler indicated that there was a meeting with South Florida again. Just -- that meeting was on October 25th. These photographs that were handed out today were taken October 30th, five days after the meeting with South Florida, and I think you actually indicated South Florida had no idea what was in that area at the time they sent the letter in July based upon what -- Mr. Coe's question. Secondly, the developer in August -- excuse me, in March of last year, this past March of 2001, at the at the annual meeting told the residents he wanted to put storage area on the west. I believe Mr. Butler said he's been working with the agencies for a year and wanting it on the east and not until July did the agencies say put it on the west. Yet in March of this year the developer at the annual meeting told the members of the community that he was planning on having the storage area in the west. We submit there is new data based upon Mr. Beardsley's report, based upon the condition of the property on the east, that it's different Page 39 r November 7, 2001 6J1 than was couched to you at your meeting back in August as to what is the biological integrity and condition of the property in the area originally designated for storage. It's not as indicated in August. The facts -- as many of these photographs show, it's been different for a period of time. And we ask that you make a recommendation to the planning commission that the petition be approved as submitted, except that the storage area be maintained in the eastern area as originally envisioned on the master plan, that the master plan not change in that respect. Thank you very kindly. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Okay. I'll take the lead discussion, if you'd like me to, and I'll tell you -- one more thing for you. MR. CARLSON: One more thing from Mr. Butler. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Butler. MR. CARLSON: How -- how do you explain the difference in the water levels and the conditions of the wetlands that we have heard about here today as opposed to the description of those wetlands that were originally presented to us, which I did not go back and re -read, but my recollection was that they're just basically nonviable, and they don't have surface water? MR. BUTLER: Our -- our -- and, again, I'm not a engineer, so this is my experience of being on a site for five years. I believe the original information was back from 1990 in which wells were installed, and readings were based upon that. Yes, there's been significant development in that area to the north resulting in more impervious surface resulting in a -- what I call a tub effect. Properties around it build up. Obviously water finds the lowest level. With re -- with regard to whether that information is accurate or not, the existing water management system at Silver Lakes, I believe, is -- is functioning. There is no flooding that has occurred since it's Page 40 November 7, 200 11 bJ 1 been approved. The calculations that the engineer -- and the project engineer is here to maybe shed a little bit more light on that than I can. With all the calculations, including the storage area, indicate that there -- there will not result in any -- any flooding conditions. MR. CARLSON: But -- but the water level data that was presented to us on those wetlands, over how long a period of time was that data accumulated? Was it just back in 1990, like, for just that year? MR. BUTLER: No. Prior -- there was additional information that my firm conducted prior to the submittal of the application which required going out, putting nails in trees indicating lichen lines, water marks, that type of thing. And over a three -- I believe it's a three - week period which we observed specific trees based on rainfall events, where to put that. I'm sure that there's several times during the year there were significant rainfall events that you can go out there, and there will be water levels higher than what I have indicated on specific time periods. But based on, again, five years of being out there, that's how those elevations were indicated. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay? All right. Just -- do you want to just -- do you want to question anybody, or do you want to discuss -- start discussing it? MR. COE: Discuss. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. I'll start, if I could, this time. Again, we have to make sure -- we are not the planning commission or the environmental advisory commission. We passed this 7 -0 two months ago, and what has changed? If it -- nothing has changed, then I don't think we have a choice but to stay with what we did before. But I have a problem with something, and I have a problem with the fact that something has changed. And what has changed, Page 41 November 7, 2001 somebody has gone in there and taken an area which is shown as a preserve on our drawing and made a dump out of it. I'm sorry. Once they started in there -- if there's a road paved, I look at concrete rubble. I look at fuel storage tanks. I look at all kinds of stuff there in that essentially construction is started. And I have a problem saying, "Okay. Wait a minute. We're going to put that back, and we're going to move it back here." I think environmentally from what we were shown before, it's changed. And I think that alteration of the site has caused a change which causes me a problem in supporting this approval. MR. COE: I concur. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Further discussion? MS. SANTORO: Could I just add to that? I feel that people were hogwinked. I think we were hogwinked. I live in that area. I had one of your black bear in a tree in my neighborhood. I looked at the existing plan before that was a lake and some nature trails and recreation use and some storage area. And then the other thing which wasn't mentioned that was -- was changed is the fact that it could be a commercial storage area. Now, I know your neighborhood. Most of the areas that are like that, you have a small storage area for your boat, recreation vehicles, trailers. There's no way -- and I've looked at your area. I've been in your area. I, you know, live in that area, drive by. There's no way that that neighborhood can take a commercial storage area with vehicles. I see lots where the people bought the lots hoping to have -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Wait a minute now. Whoa. Those are not environmental issues. MS. SANTORO: I think that's very much an environmental issue. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Planning issues and -- Page 42 November 7, 2001 1 J MS. SANTORO: It is not planning; it is environmental, as well as the wetlands there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No, ma'am. MS. SANTORO: It is. Anyways, I do oppose the current proposal. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Further? MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Bill, did you have something? MR. HILL: I was going to formally put something on the table. Go ahead and make -- MR. COE: Go ahead, oh eloquent one. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead, Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: They can get their -- conflicting environmental -- first of all, I think it is an environmental issue. Based on the conflicting environmental issues that have been brought before us today, I see no justification for changing the original PUD document with respect to the location of the storage area, and I move that this council recommend disapproval -- MR. COE: Second the motion. MR. HILL: -- of that motion. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second by Mr. Coe. Do I hear any discussion? MR. CARLSON: I just make sure. I -- I heard from Mr. Pires that he recommended approval with one exception, that the storage area be moved to the east and be in the original plan? That was -- Mr. White, is that -- is that more appropriate than recommending denial or -- MR. WHITE: I'm not going to judge that for you, but it may be clearer. It may be clearer that if what the applicant's requesting is something to be approved and you're going the to approve it with a condition, I believe that would be clearer in terms of what this Page 43 November 7, 2001 16J l council's intent is than to merely disapprove, if you will, the proposed proj ect. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: I'm not sure, Mr. White, I understand that. The -- the approved PUD document has the storage document in the east corner of that 40 -acre plot. The request now is to alter that by moving it to the west. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And add the lots -- and relocate the lots. Excuse me. MR. WHITE: There -- there are other additional changes to the PUD master plan than merely where this storage area will be located. If all other aspects of the petition are acceptable to this council, in my opinion, I believe it's clearer in terms of a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to indicate that you approve the petition subject to a condition such as you may fashion, which I believe has to do with where the appropriate location of the storage area should be. MR. CARLSON: And the size. MR. WHITE: And the size, whatever relevant factors you may consider appropriate. I think that's clearer in terms of what the intent of the council is for the Board of County Commissioners to discern than a mere recommendation of denial. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: I will re -- with the approval of the seconder, I'll remove that motion from the table. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is that all right with you, Mr. Coe? MR. COE: That's okay with me. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: Let me fashion -- I move that this council approve the proposed alteration to the PUD document for Silver Lakes with the exception of two conditions relative to the storage area: A. that Page 44 November 7, 2001 o the west. ed and B that it be moved t 16J 1 the size be increased , CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And do you want -- MR. HILL: Mr. White, is that -- MR. WHITE: I would believe that you may get a more precise number as to the size, if you have one. And I believe I heard you say to the west or to the east? MR. HILL: To the west. MR. COE: East. MR. HILL: Disapprove the movement to the west. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. How about this? MR. WHITE: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We said approve it with the exception that the storage area be relocated from the western end of the prop -- of the north 40 acres to the eastern end of the 40 acres and that the size of the storage area reduced from 9 acres to 3 acres. MR. WHITE: In my opinion, that's very clear. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: May I suggest something? The application of the master plan, they are not talking about a storage area, talking about conservation area and recreation area. We may say that the recreation area be moved to the eastern portion and the size of it be reduced -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- to 3 acres or whatever the number 1S. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The term "storage" be replaced with recreation and the rest of it remain the same. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The conservation tract would not allow storage for anything - else. So if you store -- conservation at the west end of the property and recreation at the east end, then we achieve our goal without using the word "storage." Page 45 November 7, 2001 w 16J1 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Fine. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That word wasn't used in the document. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is that okay with you, Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: Yeah. MR. WHITE: Perhaps as one more minor change just to reflect what we're talking about, I believe it's Tract CR; is that correct? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. Conser -- yeah conservation/recreation area. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe? MR. COE: I'll do a second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We need a second. MR. COE: I got a second on there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. MR. COE: I'm there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I appreciate that. All in favor of the motion as made -- MS. SANTORO: Could the motion be re -read, please. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can we do it again? MS. SANTORO: I want the motion read. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We recommend the approval of the petition with the exception that the recreation area and the conservation area be revised so that be the recreation area is relocated to the eastern portion of the property and that its size be reduced to 3 acres. MR. HILL: Storage area be reduced -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay? MR. COE: You have a second on the table. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All in favor? � � November 7, 2001 Opp osed, same sign? bJ1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, it passes unanimously. (Applause.) MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. HILL: I -- we've gone through several editions of this. Could I ask that that motion be read back by the court reporter as to what -- what gets -- no? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do you want to take -- how are you doing? Do you need five minutes? Okay. Five minutes. (A short break was held.) (The following proceedings commenced, Barbara Burgeson now being present:) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Are we ready to begin with the hearing of the Rookery Bay Towers? Anyone here that is going to be testifying on this matter, would they please rise and be sworn in. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Disclosure by the council. Has anybody talked to anybody on -- about this? The petitioner? MR. CARLSON: I have spoken with numerous people over many years over this project. My employer owned substantial acreage in Rookery Bay Estuarine Research Reserve. We have a management agreement with them. And I am on the management board, advisory board, for Rookery Bay. And -- so I'm going to re -- recuse myself from this vote. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Very good. I did have a telephone conversation. I received a telephone call from one of the principals in the community project and discussed the Page 47 prod ect _with that gentleman. November 7, 2001 16J 1 MR. SOLING: And I must say, I just had a brief conversation with a member -- a representative from The Conservancy, but he was speaking about The Conservancy parcel. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, for the record. I'm Ray Bellows with the current planning staff. I'll be presenting the planning component and consistency with the Growth Management Plan, and Steve Lenberger is here to do the environmental review for -- for you today. The subject 78 -acre site is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard approximately 2 miles south of U.S. 41. As you can see on the master plan, the subject site is -- consists of primarily conservation area. The petition here is to rezone the subject site from agriculture and conservation to PUD. It's a -- petitioner's requesting a multifamily development consisting of 315 dwelling units. The subject site is located in the urban residential mixed -use district which has a base density of 4 units per acre. It's also within a traffic- congested zone which subtracts one dwelling unit per acre, so base density is reduced to 3. However, they're applying for an affordable housing density bonus to get one additional dwelling unit per acre; that brings it back up to 4 units per acre. The subject site is consistent with that 4 units per acre. Staff is recommending that the -- at least from the planning component, that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and we're recommending approval of that portion of it. Steve Lenberger is here to go over the details of the environmental review. If you have any planning questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. What is the -- what's the November 7, 2001 height limitation in this particular -- MR. BELLOWS: The height limitation? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: In -- in the PUD -- PUD document? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. They're proposing, I think in the staff report, 10 stories, 100 feet. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. And that does fall within the PUD requirements? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Yeah. There -- there is no height restrictions in the comprehensive plan, but there are compatibility concerns, and the -- they state in the staff report the Marco Shores development allows for 20 stories not too far from there. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Questions? Steve. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, planning services. The subject property is approximately 78, 79 acres. It's located next to Rookery Bay Estuarine Research Reserve. Vegetation on the site, mostly wetland, quite a bit of freshwater marsh. You can see on the aerial the marsh shows up. There are also extended areas of mangroves. There's buttonwood, some hydric pine flatwoods, and Brazilian pepper, also open -water areas, and they show up as the dark areas on the aerial. There is an existing road, Shell Island Road, which crosses the property and is inside the property. And there's also an existing railroad grade, which would -- is located in this area (indicating). And these two roadways are basically the only uplands on site and are a little under 2 acres in size. The petitioner has 65.6 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 11.4 acres of submerged lands. The project basically consists of a multistory structure, and you can see on the PUD master plan the area around that will be preserve Page 49 N 16J1 November 7, 2001 areas. The area of impact of the development will -- is approximately 5.1 acres. It's going to depend on -- on the final site plan review and those kind of requirements, but approximately 5.1 acres. As mitigation for impacts to the wetlands, the petitioner will be removing all exotic vegetation and also be removing the old railroad grade, restoring it to its natural condition. Protected species, none were identified on site, and they also did a pretty extensive look for rookeries, bird rookeries, on site. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. The environmental consultant for the project is also here today. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Why don't we hear from the petitioner. MR. DUANE: Good morning. For the record, Robert Duane from Hole, Montes & Associates representing the petitioner. I also have with me today Jerry Neal from Hole, Montes & Associates who is the engineer who has been coordinating the ERP permitting effort that we've been into over the past several years. I have Craig Smith from Kevin Erwin & Associates who has also been working on the ERP permit on the ecological studies. I have Ken Cuyler, my client's attorney, from Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, who will give you a little historical perspective of -- also on the project today. I'll be very brief in my comments. We agree with the findings and conclusions of the staff report, more specifically that we can be found consistent with the comprehensive plan and the goals and objectives of the coastal zone and conservation element. And I would specifically point you to policies or Objective 6.2 of the staff report, Policy 6.2.10, Policy 6.2.13, Obj ective 6.3, and Obj ective 6.4 and Policy 6.46. Page 50 November 7, 2001 16di And I might note with regard to Policy 6.213, that parcels containing viable naturally functioning fresh water wetlands shall cluster development to maintain the largest contiguous wetland area practicable and shall be designed to disturb the least amount of native vegetation. And I would submit to you that our preserve area which comprises approximately 95 percent of the property is in effort to comply with not only these policies but some of the permitting considerations we've been dealing with in the process. As Mr. Bellows pointed out, this is two high -rise buildings. We have chosen to go horizontally as opposed to vertically. Craig Smith will talk about some of the prior plans that we have submitted to the county in -- in prior years which were not as friendly to the environment as this particular plan, and we will enter those efforts on behalf of our client into the record also today. I would also like to include in the record a -- some correspondence from the Department of Environmental Protection, and this correspondence concludes that we are not sovereign lands and, also, that the subject property is not located in a Florida outstanding water. However, we are meeting the requirements as if we were in a Florida outstanding water just to try to minimize our impacts to the greatest extent possible. And Craig Smith will elaborate on that point also. I'd be happy now to answer any questions that you may have, and I'm going to turn it over now to Mr. Cuyler if you have no questions. And we'll proceed with our presentation. Thank you very much. MR. CUYLER: Good morning. Ken Cuyler, Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson. I just wanted to tell you for a few minutes about my involvement with this project. Although the developer is the owner of the property and has owned the property for a large number of years, Page 51 November 7, 2001 16J 1 over -- over ten years, I believe, I've been involved with the project for two or three years. And when I say the project, when I first became involved, it was not for the purposes of development of the property. We had meetings with state officials in an effort to convince them to buy this piece of property, and I was involved and became involved with the piece of property as a result of some of those discussions. We had fairly high -level discussions. We had meetings with the Rookery Bay officials. They supported that. We had meetings with Conservancy officials, specifically Mr. Simonik. They supported that. They met with us, with state officials. And the owner did everything he could, in my opinion, to make a reasonable offer to the state to purchase this piece of property, and those negotiations never came to fruition. And the developer always indicated to me that if the state or some other environmental organization didn't to want purchase the property, that he didn't to want hold it forever, and he was inclined to develop it. The development plan that you see in front of you is a result of several generations of development plans. It's a development plan that minimizes the area of disturbance and goes up instead of out in order to preserve, I believe, 95 percent of the environmental area. But my sole purpose in getting up here was that I wanted to be able to stand primarily in front of you but also in front of the planning commission and the Board of County Commissioners and say this is not a situation where a developer has just come into a piece of property and is trying to develop it. We gave the state every opportunity to buy this property, and there was no inclinication upon the part of the state. Although they did look at it closely, and they did send -- send people down to look at it, the ultimate answer was that the state was not interested in purchasing this. As you know, every owner has certain property rights, and he has a property right to sell his piece of property, or he has a right to Page 52 November 7, 2001 16JI have a reasonable use of his property. We've gotten down to the point where the property owner is simply looking for a reasonable use of his property in light of the fact that the state was not interested in buying it. Thank you, and at this point we'll talk about the environmental CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Go ahead. MR. CARLSON: I just have a comment. I'd like to clarify your -- your comments. I -- Mr. White, I am allowed to discuss this project? MR. WHITE: Yes. Regardless of the fact that you're going to have a voting conflict that you have declared -- and I'll put on the record that a memorandum has been prepared, Form 8 -B -- you're still entitled under the rules to participate in the discussion on all matters that are of concern to this council. MR. CARLSON: Your comments about the state not wanting to buy this property or not interested in buying this property, I think, need clarification, because it was -- it was my recollection this property was appraised multiple times by the state for purchase and that the state is bound by appraisals to buy land through the CARL project and other programs. So isn't it just a matter of the appraisals didn't match the landowner's expectations which prevented the sale? MR. CUYLER: Our position was that there are various ways to appraise property. If they want to appraise it as agricultural property and the developer had a -- certain development rights that he has the ability to pursue and, in my opinion, obtain, we felt that there was not cooperation upon the part of the state that was suggested by The Conservancy and was suggested by Rookery Bay and that they had a lot of flexibility with regard to how they did their appraisals and what basis they did their appraisals. And if -- if there was not a meeting of the minds, you're right; it probably can go down to that issue. Page 53 November 7, 2001 16J 1 But I would certainly say that this was not -- couldn't be classified as a half - hearted attempt upon the part of the developer to -- to make not a good -faith offer to the state. I think that there was a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of attorney's fees spent trying to get to some area of accommodation. And, you know, I'm -- I'm not going to point fingers. It just -- it didn't come together, but I would suggest to you that it's not the property owner's fault that it didn't come together. MR. CARLSON: Well, I -- for the record, then, I'd like to state that as someone who has been on the Rookery Bay Management Advisory Board for many years, I can tell you there was an intense interest in this property in coming to an agreement with the landowner that did not work out, but there was intense interest. MR. CUYLER: I agree. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Yes, sir. MR. SMITH: Good morning. For the record, my name is Craig Smith, Kevin Erwin Consulting Ecologists. We've been the environmental consultant on this project for the last several years. As was previously indicated, the majority of the subject property is jurisdictional wetlands consisting primarily of a brackish marsh, freshwater marsh in these areas, some mangrove, some buttonwood. The upland habitats consist of the tur -- the two roads, Shell Island Road, and the old Marco Island grade. We've done a fair amount of mapping on the property over the course of a number of years, identified a number of flux codes. There's approximately 9.5 acres of exotics on the site which consists primarily of melaleuca, either in this area or Brazilian peppers along the two fill areas, as well as a number of areas of the -- the buttonwood community. I believe the first site plan that the -- the county saw was back in, I think, 1991 under the name Montego Bay. For that development it was, I believe, four stories residential over parking located in the Page 54 r November 7, 2001 6JI j4j6 central part of the project. All 16.5 acres of that site development would be located within jurisdictional wetlands. The location here was chosen to match an existing median cut that was on the property. They also had lakes as part of the water management system, landscape areas, a number of other features. Based on comments they had received on that and also some preapplication meetings with the Water Management District, a revised site plan was prepared, and this is a -- the culmination of several plans that occurred in the late '90s. What we looked at was not only the physical footprint of the development but also where that development should be located. There is a potential to put it either up in the northern end where there is a median cut, down here, or still in the center. Based on the evaluation, it made more sense to take advantage of the uplands we had, as well as -- as well as the more disturbed wetlands down by this existing road cut or median cut in use, Shell Island, as -- as the access point. And that was shown on this site development plan here. It's dated 1999. The other major change was, instead of going horizontally with the development was to go vertically, so this contained high -rise buildings. We've also dramatically reduced landscaping areas, converted the wet detention areas for the development to dry detention, which basically gives you better treatment over a smaller area so as to minimize impacts. The plan that you have currently before you shown here is a further refinement of the concept we had in 1999 whereby we have tightened down the footprint of the construction to the maximum degree possible. Again, we're using dry detention for our water - quality treatment. And as Bob Duane had mentioned earlier, this project is not within -- this development is neither within nor Page 55 November 7, 2001 b J 171,41 immediately adjacent to the OFW. But we are meeting the Water Management District's criteria for a direct discharge directly into an OFW. So the water management system here will meet state water - quality standards as if the OFW started right here at the discharge point. But there is a considerable amount of wetlands that water will go through once it leaves development before it gets to the OFW, but we have built that extra level of protection into the project because we are sensitive to potential environmental impacts. The overall mitigation plan consists of preserving approximately 95 percent of the wetlands and other surface waters that are on site. We'll be removing approximately 8.5 acres of exotics. There are other exotics on the site. Those will be taken care of as well, but the 8.5 are -- are the biggest areas. This road grade will be removed and restored back down to match adjacent grade and revegetated with wetland -- wetland plants. This is a continuation of the same process that has happened off site for other projects as this road continued north and west. By one additional benefit of removing this grade is that it will help reestablish more natural water patterns across the site. If you go out on the site today, you'll notice there is a significant difference in the vegetative character here (indicating) to here (indicating). It's -- there are more shrubs. There are more freshwater species over here. This looks more like what you would expect a high marsh, brackish marsh, to look like. So I do feel once this is removed, there will be benefits to those wetlands over there, even those areas that don't currently have exotics on them. That -- that completes my presentation on this, if there are any questions -- one last thing I would like to state, we have none listed species surveyed on the site, have not found any evidence of any nesting or denning of listed species. We did spend a fair amount of time in the mangroves and especially along these open -water fringes Page 56 November 7, 2001 16J 1 looking to see if there was any nesting going on and were not able to find any evidence that there was. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any questions for the petitioner? Yes, sir. MR. CARLSON: Can you show us the extent of the outstanding Florida waters that are adjacent to this property? MR. BUTLER: I'm not sure exactly where the boundary is, but that boundary is determined by mean high water, and it was determined as is shown on that -- that letter that you received. That mean high water does not approach the site. We were out there actually this past year, this past spring when it was really dry. And both these open -water areas and this open -water area here were bone dry. They were actually cracking it was so dry. The mud had started to shrink, which indicates there is no tidal influence anywhere near either of these two open -water areas. And, obviously, this one extends a ways out here. So I'm not sure how far west you have to go before you get to the actual boundary of the OFW. MR. CARLSON: Okay. And I'm going to ask you a couple theoreticals here. Seeing as the only upland on this site is a man- made real old railroad grade, if that old railroad grade wasn't here, do you think we would have a serious proposal for development on this site? MR. SMITH: I think we'd still be for it, yes. MR. COE: Let me -- so what you're saying, if that railroad grade wasn't there and there was just normal wetlands there, that you would still come in with this same petition? MR. SMITH: If there was no road anywhere, then it might not be in the exact same location that it's in, but as was stated before, the applicant does have a right to reasonable use of the property, and this is one of the -- the uses that's available to him. MR. CARLSON: Now, do you see this as possibly setting a Page 57 November 7, 2001 16J 1 precedent that in an otherwise healthy wetland, even coastal wetlands, that wherever they're confined, a spoil pile dredged up out of a channel or an old ancient mosquito control ditch where somebody piled up some fill, that that would justify enlarging that man -made upland area for larger developments virtually anywhere you could find these features? MR. SMITH: I don't think it's sets any precedents. We still go through the same process for the state and the federal regulatory agencies of wetland impact avoidance, wetland impact minimization, and then wetland mitigation. And that won't change regardless of whether this project is approved or disappears. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Question -- and just from nary a standpoint, is there any residential development on the north side of Collier Boulevard, say, between Eagle Creek and the road that goes out to Isle of Capri? Isn't that completely open? Can anybody answer that, that entire area? MR. GAL: Some commercial development. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Along the road. But, I mean, there's nothing -- nothing back in there at all. And that's all Rookery Bay back in that area? MR. CARLSON: (Nodded head.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CARLSON: Yeah. I -- I believe that the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve is -- adjoins the entire western boundary of -- the entire western boundary of the property. I'm not sure about the northern and southern boundary. There may be some additional property there. I see somebody from Rookery Bay is here. MR. SMITH: At least the property immediately north of our -- of the Rookery Bay Towers property, I believe, is private ownership. There is a -- a piece there that is private ownership before you get Page 58 November 7, 2001 j 16JI back up to a piece, I think, that is back in the preserve. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Could you identify on that one just what we're looking at other than what -- what is, just so I could get some idea where along the road we are? Is that Silver Lake back up that way that we just talked -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. This is Silver Lakes -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. -- MR. BELLOWS: --right here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. MR. BELLOWS: This is Champion Lakes RV Resort. This is Pelican Lake PUD, Championship Drive. This is part of Fiddler's Creek, formerly Marco Shores. Over here is mobile -home zoning, some RSF -3, RSF -3, part of Fiddler's Creek and Fiddler's Creek Parkway. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Where is Briggs -- Briggs center? Is that -- that's on Shell Road, isn't it? MR. GAL: To the west. MR. BELLOWS: Isn't it all the way down? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Right up in there? Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions of the petitioner? Questions for staff? MR. GAL: I've got a question. Do -- how does Florida law define reasonable use? Do you know? If the property can be used for a park, is that reasonable use? Under Florida law. MR. CUYLER: No. MR. GAL: Okay. So you still retain the -- MR. WHITE: Unfortunately, I have to disagree with Mr. Cuyler. There are cases certainly where -- for example, Graham versus Estuary Properties where the courts have held that a park may have been a reasonable use on that property. I think it depends upon Page 59 November 7, 2001 16J1 the specific facts of each particular project, and the standard is one that's nothing more than a balancing test or series of balancing tests. MR. CUYLER: Let me add to that. I thought you were referring to this piece of property. I mean, if you want a general diss -- dissertation, you'll need to look to Mr. White on this piece of property. If the expectation is for the developer to build a park and then that's reasonable use, my answer is clearly and absolutely no. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. GAL: I have one more question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. Go ahead. MR. GAL: The land that is going to be -- remain as conservation, how is that going to be set aside? Through easements or -- MR. SMITH: My understanding is it will be at least through a conservation easement. There have also been discussions with the state to deeding that property to the state once the exotics are removed and mitigation -- mitigation is taken care of CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Anything else? Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: None. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Are there many -- any members of the public that would like to address this petition? Yes, sir. MR. BARTAREDY: My name's Tad Bartaredy. I work with the Department of Environmental Protection at Rookery Bay Reserve. I've gone through the staff report which has outlined that that does meet the requirements of the Growth Management Plan consistency. And the one recommendation was that it be approved given that the sur -- that the South Florida Water Management District also reached -- issued a permit to meet their requirements. Now, I have been in much discussion with the Water Page 60 November 7, 2001 6JI Management District and provided comments on the application, and it is quite notable that there are quite a number of outstanding technical issues regarding that permit. And some of these have been ongoing for some time. I could enumerate these very briefly. But probably some of that's outlined in the correspondence provided. But these things range from basic things like validation of the elevation in the areas which basically underpins the whole plans to things like designs of the surface water management district's -- the surface water management systems. There are some questions regarding tail -water conditions, water - quality calculations. And with regards to the question made about the mitigation plan, the Water Management District will -- will also require some written confirmation that if you will accept the proposed conservation -- conservation easement, and that hasn't happened. I do know that -- that the Water Management District is still waiting, all this information, they have been for some time. In addition to that, related to the -- the conservation easement, they're also requesting things like documents or at least draft documents indicating who will be responsible for management and maintenance of those conservation easements and the water management systems and providing those types of assurances. So there is a number of issues still related to that permitting, which the whole recommendation from the Collier staff is based on. So I think that's worthy of consideration. Now, as far as Rookery Bay is concerned, we do believe that there is some concern certainly regarding water quality. The -- we are pleased that certainly the higher safeguards are -- are being built into that plan, but we still are not convinced that reasonable assurance has been provided to protect those outstanding Florida waters. And because this whole project is linked through creeks and wetlands to Interesting Creek which is the main tributary of Rookery Bay, it's of Page 61 November 7, 2001 16J 1 particular significance to us. With regards to some of the comments made about hydrologic restoration, things like that, there -- there's certainly additional need for much more information regarding drainage on and off the site. Surface water sheet flow does flow in this sort of northeast/southeast orientation, and given that the proposed footprint or the point -- the footprint for the proposed plan still sits in that immediate area, things like removing that road bed and even some culverts on Shell Island Road would still probably be negligible in that regard. There still would be hydrological impacts. Some comments are made regarding listed species. I think it's notable that in that document there was a one -day stint on the listed species survey, and it was actually done in wintertime. Certainly wetland habits -- habitats should certainly be surveyed when they're wet in a -- in the summer /wintertime if -- if they're going to be taken seriously. And I think it's also notable that the work that I have done personally only a half mile from this site basically doing very, very intensive sampling over five days, five consecutive days per month, in the last five months, has identified ten new species for the area. And this area has been surveyed for the last 15 years. So it does go to show that with more extensive work, there are things that you are not going to see. And one of those things was a listed species that -- the gopher frog (sic). The other listed species that I have seen in that area recently include things like wood storks, which is related to the Silver Lakes project. This area is adjacent. This area is certainly used by them, perhaps not for nesting but there's certainly feeding areas. Rosette spoonbills I've seen in there several months back. I've also seen bald eagles in there as recently as last weekend. Also a couple months ago I actually have plaster casts of Florida Page 62 November 7, 2001 6J1 bears. There is some evidence that bears, bobcats, deer, and other larger wildlife are actually using some of these old road beds as corridors between adjacent wetland and upland areas. So certainly there are listed species that do use the area. We also believe that the proposed development will have some im -- negative impacts on the primary goals of the estuarine reserve system. Rookery Bay is certainly one of the last remaining pristine mangrove estuaries in North America. And an additional development such as Rookery Bay Towers will certainly have some type of impact. The types of cumulative impacts from similar residential developments around the area result in fragmentation of the environment and result in a loss of buffering. There was -- sources of -- of water pollution, and we've heard that there are attempts being made to address those concerns, but there are still a number of technical issues to be addressed there. In my mind, the jury is still out on that. The plans that have been put on the table and the information that has been provided is not convincing at this time. And also, as -- just as a final point -- and I don't know how much weight this will carry, but certainly having towers like that will distract away from the aesthetic value of -- of the reserve. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Is there any questions? MR. SOLING: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. SOLING :__ Your testimony, as I heard it, is not so much objecting to what's being done but in having the county be more accountable to what is there and main -- and keeping a tight lid or tight restrictions on the development of the property for the environmental concerns. Am -- am I correct or not? MR. BARTAREDY: Well, my testimony is -- is that certainly it's -- it's consistent with the planning requirements that the Page 63 tw November 7, 2001 16J1 development side of -- of the equation. In terms of the -- the recommendation, I -- I can't dispute that. Those -- those are the rules, and it's consistent with those. My point is, is that -- my point I'm trying to make is that the recommendation here by the staff is that, you know, assuming that they do get a permit from the Water Management District, and there are quite a number of technical issues there that need to be addressed, and some of these have needed to be addressed for some time. MR. SOLING: That's what I'm saying. It's a staff problem, a county problem, to ensure that they live up to the rules and regs. MR. BARTAREDY: Correct. MR. SOLING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. MS. SANTORO: I know that staff mentioned that there are proposals, and up to 20 stories is allowed. But right now Shell Road -- Shell Island Road is kind of open fields, open area, open water and not much commercial around there. You asked about that. Is there going to be quite a bit of screening because this is going to stick out at this particular time being ten stories tall? MR. BARTAREDY: Excuse me? MS. SANTORO: I'm sorry. I guess I'm asking the developers. The buildings themselves, are you going to have quite a bit of screening -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's -- let's do this, then, if we -- if we're finished with the gentleman from Rookery Bay, we're going to get the developer back up? Okay? MS. SANTORO: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Here we go. MR. CUYLER: If your question is, are they going to be visible, Page 64 November 7, 2001 1 1 J y es , they're going to be visible. They're ten -story buildings. We wi 1 comply with all county codes with regard to landscaping, buffering and such. But if the question is, are they visible, yes, they're visible. MR. GAL: I have another question for Mr. Cuyler. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. Yes. MR. GAL: How far apart -- what does the developer develop this property, and what was the state valuing the property at? MR. CUYLER: We -- well, to summarize as best I can, we -- and, frankly, in accordance with The Conservancy -- and, I believe, Rookery Bay probably would -- would have taken the same position, although I will not speak for them; somebody else can -- is that, just as I told you before, the developer has a reasonable use of this property. A reasonable use of his property under these circumstances is going to be residential use. Rookery Bay's position was, we would really like the state to buy this. We don't care whether it's ten stories or two stories. We really would prefer the project not be there. We would prefer that it be in state ownership. So we wanted to make sure that we had ex -- and our position was, we can do that. So when we said to the state, you know, that we obviously are going to obtain certain development rights, I can't tell you what they are until we go through that process, but we're going to obtain some development rights, every property owner has a right to do that. And the state, whether it was their appraisal mechanisms that they can only appraise it based on the zoning category of today or what -- what it was, we tried to convince them that's a very narrow attitude. You know, we don't want to spend a lot of money going through an entire permitting process, entire land development process, and then turn to you, after we've spent all that money, and say, "Okay. Yeah, now we recognize you can do that." so that the quick answer is, we valued our property at what -- on a unit basis on -- on what we thought was a reasonable estimate. And Page 65 November 7, 2001 16J1 the state wanted to appraise it on ag, I believe. MR. GAL: So if there was a condemnation proceeding, would that same issue arise, do you think? I've never really dealt with a condemnation -- MR. CUYLER: Same exact issue. MR. GAL: How do you appraise the properties? MR. CUYLER: There would be a determination of the worth of the property, and the government, in terms of private property rights as -- you know, they'd have to pay just compensation to the owner. So our position would be yes, that it would be a similar valuation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. Any other questions? Additional from the public? MR. SMITH: If I could, could I respond to some of the comments that -- MR. CUYLER: Do you want to hear from -- some comments, or would you like to go ahead and hear the public? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I'd like to hear from the public, and then I'd like to have you guys rebut. Okay? MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan. I'm here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The Conservancy has a lot of concerns about this project. The Conservancy began in Rookery Bay back in 1964. A group of citizens stood up against a road that would go through Rookery Bay. It was dubbed as the road to nowhere. So our roots are really in Rookery Bay, and so is our Briggs Nature Center. We're concerned on the one hand of Rookery Bay Towers due to our position as an adjacent land user. Our Briggs Nature Center is a ways from the proposed towers. However, when you deal with very minimal elevation, we are concerned that people walking our nature boardwalk will go out and see towers. We are concerned about the economic impact of that. Will people want to pay to go out on a Page 66 November 7, 2001 6J1 boardwalk to view wildlife and see two ten -story buildings? So we're concerned in that regard. Beyond the potential negative economic impacts to our nature center, The Conservancy has additional environmental concerns about the development. Most importantly, this land is adjacent to the Rookery Bay research preserve. Rookery Bay has been trying to acquire this land. And I know it's been mentioned The Conservancy has been involved in some of these negotiations. I haven't personally been involved in that, but I do know that The Conservancy really was dedicated to trying to get this land purchased. So it was very important to us and to the state and to all the parties involved to try to reach an agreement. The bottom line is that towers like this adjacent to Rookery Bay are not appropriate environmentally or aesthetically. Environmentally this is just another example of the loss of wildlife habitat and wetlands. Their concerns about the access road, Shell Island Road, increased traffic, will that cause additional road kills. Indigo snakes and gopher tortoises could be negatively impacted by this. Light pollution is another issue. Have there been evaluations for the potential impacts of security lights or residential lighting to the wildlife? The undeveloped portion of the property is another concern. There's the 74 -- 74.6 acres of conservation land. Will that be given just in a conservation easement to the state, or will it be actually deeded over to the state? We believe that that land should be deeded to the state for their management. Another potential problem, nutrient loading from any turf grass that would be used on the site. Another question, will fill be used, how much, and what will the impacts be? In the staff report there was a survey that was mentioned that Page 67 November 7, 2001 16JI was done on one day back in 1997, and it was determined that no listed species used the property. However, these surveys are just one snapshot in time, and really they don't provide a lot of insight for species such as birds that are highly mobile. So The Conservancy believes that there are still a lot of questions to be answered. We agree with the state. There are still a lot of things that need to be worked out before this should be moved forward. We think it's premature to move it forward. And ultimately we would like to still get this property acquired by the state so it can become part of the Rookery Bay foundry. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Questions for council? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none from the petitioner, would you like to have a few minutes here to rebut what we've heard? MR. SMITH: Thank you. Regarding the status of the Water Management District permitting effort, I have been on the phone as recently as a week and a half ago with the environmental reviewer for the district. And she is happy with the project. There are no environmental issues that are left unresolved as far as impacts, the size of the impacts, the locations of the impacts, the type of mitigation that we're proposing, the maintenance plan, the monitoring plan. Those issues are all pretty well resolved. The only issue I believe that is outstanding -- and it comes, I believe, in a number of questions, and the engineer can address this, as to the surface water management system. In order to get our permit, we're going to have to demonstrate that we meet the higher level of water - quality treatment required for a direct discharge to an OFW. So we're going to have to do that for the permit. And once that higher standard is reviewed and approved by the district, then that constitutes reasonable assurance that there will be no impact to water quality. That would be a direct discharge. And we have, at November 7, 2001 6J1 best, an indirect discharge to the OFW. So once that permit is issued, that resolves that issue. As far as the listed species is concerned, yes, our survey was a one -day event. We've been on site numerous other times. Our focus was looking for fatal flaws which would be nesting or denning of listed species. I don't doubt that wood storks periodically, when the water levels are right, forage on the site. I wouldn't be surprised at a black bear every once in a while goes across a site, just like many other properties in Collier County. As far as the potential to leave the old road grade as a corridor, that's inconsistent with what's happened to the northwest, if that roadway is gone. It's my understanding that was with the full support of Rookery Bay. We will be providing some additional culverting under Shell Island Road. Also the access road that comes off of Shell Island Road to the development will have culverting there. No doubt, it will not restore a pristine pre -- how do I say this politely, white man existence into the south Florida, but it will certainly be better than it is now. Without the project, that road grade will stay, Shell Island will stay without any culverts. There will be no improvements. So we're not bringing it back to pristine conditions, but we certainly are improving it. There will be no increase over the vast majority of Shell Island Road as far as road traffic is concerned. All the people who use this project will be on Shell Island Road and then off within a hundred feet or 200 feet, whatever that exact distance is. They won't be driving the length of Shell Island Road. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir, Mr. Coe. MR. COE: I count 78.7 acres; is that correct? MR. SMITH: For the total project? MR. COE: Yes. Page 69 November 7, 2001 MR. SMITH: Yes. 16Jl.* MR. COE: When I add up wetlands and submerged lands and I subtract that 77 acres, I come out with 1.7 acres that are really developable, and that probably -- 1.7 acres is probably right along that roadway or railroad tract way or whatever it may be. Am I correct there or -- MR. SMITH: Yes and no. MR. COE: I'm just incredulous. MR. SMITH: You're coming up with the upland acres. MR. COE: Well, upland is a road. MR. SMITH: If it's not jurisdictional wetland, yes. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. It's the upland acreage, and all the uplands are man -made. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. CARLSON: Just one minor comment. I -- I would -- I would disagree with you on your proposed impact on traffic on Shell Island Road. There's a little wildlife drive up on Sanibel island, goes through Ding Darling Preserve, and, you know, there's half a million people a year drive through there, and they've done studies. And a lot of that driving is by very close local residents. It's not all tourism. So I can't believe that if this project goes forward and you have, what, several hundred people living in these towers that they won't -- won't be taking drives on Shell Island Road and increasing the traffic hundreds of percent above what it is now. And I know the gopher tortoises are hit on that road. I've seen that myself. So I would just disagree on that point. There's going to be nothing to prevent these people recreationally from coming out of their tower and driving back and forth on Shell Island Road, and I think a lot of people will do that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Here we go. Page 70 November 7, 2001 16J 1 MR. NEAL: Jerry Neal, and I'll be speaking for the surface water management issues. The agreement we have right now with the state has been going for maybe a month or two now. We did set gauges in the area, and those gauges are reading that the tail water is within 2/10 of what we assumed it to be. And so, therefore, that issue is no longer an issue. Also, a staff member of the Rookery Bay did e readings to confirm our readings. So that has been resolved. The other item that was in consideration was how do we treat the water for Shell Island Road itself. We had said that we could not raise it up as South Florida requested to 3 feet to drain the water into the site because the fill that would be required, the tow of the slope will impact wetlands. So we're trying to accomplish the improvement without doing any wetland impact. We had proposed to put in a new concept that is called a storm septor which would take the water, take out pollutants, then redischarge the water. After going through about a month of discussion with South Florida, there was an agreement yesterday that we are not going to put the storm septor in, that we're going to shift the road to one side a little bit, and we're going to provide a swell on the south side of the road to do the water management for the Shell Island Road. So now that has been resolved. The other item was about water quality. The rule for where we are now is one. inch of storage for pretreatment. And then after that we can discharge directly off site. We looked at and considered the fact that we are within the Rookery Bay area. So we looked at the water management for 1 1/2-inch water treatment which is what you would do if you are in outstanding Florida waters. On top of that, we have increased the perimeter berm, and we are storing the 25 -year storm. So the water quality has gone from the 1 -inch requirement to an inch and a half, plus on top of that, the 25- Page 71 November 7, 2001 16J1 year storm. So we have more than doubled, tripled the water quality that is required for this particular site. And we did that because of the sensitivity of the area we are in. I don't know if there's any other questions, engineering -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Other questions? None. All right. Let's just sum it up, gentlemen, because we need to get rolling here. Any other questions to the council by any of the developer's representatives? Go ahead -- no? Mr. Cuyler, do you want to sum it up? MR. CUYLER: Just in very brief summary, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to do that. All of the evidence that you've heard today, both from the county staff and -- and from the consultants -- but, I mean, rely on your own county staff -- they've indicated to you there's no environmental reason to do anything other than to approve this petition. I indicated a little bit of background and history just to give you a feel for -- for where we've been on this project. But I understand it's not easy for you to make some of these decisions. And this -- this may be a difficult one for you to make. I understand when the Rookery Bay stands up and The Conservancy stands up and says we don't particularly like this, that those are two major environmental groups in our community. But the standard for -- for your review and the standard for your approval is the evidence that's presented to you. It's not whether you like this or don't like it. It's whether we've met the county regulations. We understand we still have some permitting that we have to go through, and we're going to have to abide by all of that. I think in terms of fairness we've done what was fair in trying to get this into the state's hands. That didn't work out. We are where we are. The developer has a right to develop the property, and I suggest to you that approval of this petition is appropriate. Thank you. Page 72 November 7, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, sir. 16J l Pleasure of the council? MR. GAL: I'd like to say something. I think the -- the plan as -- as we've been shown is -- is fine. I don't have a problem with the plan. But I go through this property. I pass it every day. It's a beautiful piece of property. And I don't think the development should be there. It's an environmentally sensitive area. People are living there. There are going to be cumulative impacts. And I think someone needs to step up to the plate, whether it's the county or -- or the state or The Conservancy, or someone needs to get together and buy the property from the developer and -- MR. COE: That's not a problem. They'll buy it. The problem is the developer's got a price that is obviously or evidently above the appraised value. MR. GAL: Well, they need to meet his price, come close to it, or a court needs to decide. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, do I hear a motion? MR. GAL: I move to deny the petition. MR. COE: I second it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It's been moved -- moved and seconded to deny the petition. Any fin-ther discussion? MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. CUYLER: -- I don't want to involve myself. Would it be possible to put the reasons on the record as to why it's being denied? MR. COE: No. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's normally not the -- if anyone -- if any of the members of the council would like to express their reasons for not being done -- I'll express mine and -- I believe there Page 73 November 7, 2001 6J1 are some serious environmental questions. I think many of those were brought up by the representative of The Conservancy. We have an area that is essentially not developed at this point. It's very much adjacent to OFWs. It's adjacent to a lot of other things that -- we have unknowns regarding our surface water management system, the lighting situation, the lighting situation, pollution that was brought up, definitely an environmental problem. MR. COE: Height. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It bothers me a little bit when I see things that -- an environmental review was gone out -- done out there in the middle of a drought. You're not going to find any animals out there in the middle of a drought. I -- I have a problem with that, putting a document in front of me and saying there's nothing there, but -- and then showing me pictures of a pond that's parched. There's not going to be anything there when there's a drought. I don't think that's a fair way to do that, and that's one of the reasons I will not support it. Anybody else? MR. COE: Yeah. I'd like to make a comment. I've sat on this committee I don't know how many years now, three, four, five, something like that. And of all the projects I've seen come before us, this is absolutely unquestionably the most damaging to environment I've ever seen and is an absolute great example as to why the governor has come down on us to change our development plans. Now, I'm not an owner of that size land. I'm just a poor person, so to speak. But I can just imagine if I did own that land, I wouldn't even think of doing a project like this for the people of this county. I wouldn't think of doing a project like this. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anyone else? Oh, I'm sorry. MR. COE: Anyone with half a brain would realize what this would do to this county. Yes, you can do it. Yes, legally you may be able to get away with it by doing various different things to meet the Page 74 November 7, 2001 16J 1 requirements of the law. But sometimes it just comes down to what you got to do that's right. And I think you forgot this one, so I'm voting against it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, Mr. Coe. Anyone else? MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, may I respond to that? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No, sir. We're finished with the response. Anyone else? MR. GAL: I think you should allow him to respond. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I -- I believe we've called questions, and we've ended discussion. MR. COE: End of discussion. MR. CUYLER: Your Honor -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I do not -- anybody else have any -- we've got a motion on the floor. MR. COE: We've got a second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And we've got a second. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, the motion is to deny the project. All in favor? (Those in favor responded.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed, same sign? MR. WHITE: The record reflects that Mr. Carlson abstained. MR. SOLING: And I'm -- I'm abstaining from voting too. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We have two abstentions. MR. WHITE: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, without something put on the record by Councilmember Soling, I believe that he has a duty to vote. MR. SOLING: Then I vote no. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Then the vote is 7 to 0 with Page 75 November 7, 2001 16J Mr. Carlson abstaining. 1 MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, now that your item is over, may I respond? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The item is over, sir. MR. GAL: I think he should be allowed t o -- to -- MR. COE: I don't agree at all. We've discussed this -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. -- Mr. White, we closed the discussions. MR. CUYLER: I don't think it's fair to take shots from -- from the dais and then not allow people to say -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, sir -- well, sir -- MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I believe that you're the sergeant at arms at these proceeding and if you believe -- MR. CUYLER: That's fine, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Discussion is over. Next. Mickie, don't go get your blood pressure checked right now, okay? MR. COE: Oh, it's low right now. What do we got next? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: LDC. All right. Or what -- no. LDC. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Let's go. All right. Who is running this one? Barbara? MR. COE: I can't believe -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: attention, kids. Yes, ma'am. All right. Here we go. Pay MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. I believe the next item that you wanted to -- to hear was the LDC amendments. We have a couple of things that have changed with the package that was originally mailed out to you last week, so I'm going to go through this maybe a little bit slowly, Page 76 November 7, 2001 16J i but it should only take ten minutes to get through the whole process. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. BURGESON: First, the two items that have to do with water management or engineering issues, we're going to hear those first. The first item is 3.2.8.3.25. That has to do with the change in the Land Development Code to include provisions for separate potable and reuse waterlines. We contacted the utilities department to see if somebody could be present to answer any questions regarding that, but we have not heard back from them. MR. CARLSON: Some of us are lost. MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry. MR. CARLSON: I'm one of them. I may be the only one. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And I'm following. MR. CARLSON: Where -- where -- tell me where we're starting again. MS. BURGESON: The Land Development Code amendments which were mailed out to you last week, you should have received probably about a week ago. MR. CARLSON: I received this (indicating). MS. BURGESON: Right. That's the first -- is that the only one that you received? MR. GAL: It starts with the Ritz- Carlton? MS. BURGESON: Right. The Ritz - Carlton may be the first one on -- in that package. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I gotcha. MS. BURGESON: But we're going to take a look at the two water management issues first. MR. CARLSON: I'm with you. MS. BURGESON: If you could flip to the one that shows Susan Murray as the author, she's -- she's actually not the author, and unfortunately we weren't able to determine yesterday -- we Page 77 November 7, 2001 16J1 understand -- Ron Nino was expected to make the presentation today. However, he's -- he's unable to be here. The person who authored this, we're not -- we're not certain who the person who authored it. So we contacted the utilities department to ask if somebody could be here to answer questions, and we haven't heard back from them. One thing you can do is either consider it, approve it or table it until next month. Our agenda and schedule for this LDC amendment cycle is not so tight that we can't bring these back to you next month. MR. CARLSON: Okay. So why don't you just explain these to us -- MR. COE: I understand. MR. CARLSON: All right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't have any problem with it. I don't have any problem with it. MR. COE: Do we have to pass judgment on this thing? MS. BURGESON: You can or you can't. If you would like to make a motion on these individually, that's probably the simplest way to do it. MR. COE: I would like to make a motion that we approve it as written. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's 3.2.8.3.25; right? MS. BURGESON: Right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Seconded. MS. SANTORO: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. MR. COE: All right. Page 78 November 7, 2001 16J 1 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do you -all have any comment? MR. COE: None. MS. BURGESON: Second item is 3.2.8.3.26, and Stan's going make a presentation on that. 4 MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to approve it as written. MS. SANTORO: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we just read it a little first because I don't quite understand. "Under certain conditions of proximity to adjacent property, buildings shall be required to install roof gutters, gable roofs, to direct storm water away from directly adversely carrying water on adjacent property." Okay. Moved, seconded, in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN. SANSBURY: Passed unanimously. MS. BURGESON: The next item is a public petition, and it was submitted by Matt Grabinski representing the Ritz- Carlton. However, Matt is not here today. There's only a couple things I'd like to comment on. Staff met to discuss this yesterday. We have some concerns regarding removing the language of -- of calling this a permit and calling it a notice. We haven't had time to find out what the legal ramifications are of that change. However, talking with other agencies, a permit has conditions and can be enforced, can be stipulated and can be revoked. Understanding that the Land Development Code doesn't allow revocation of this permit at this time, we still wanted to keep the language in calling it a permit. When we've had notices with Collier County in the past, that has simply been that the property owner has sent a notification to the county. We have not added stipulations or conditions to notices. It's just a notification process. So staff, without having the benefit of having the petitioner make the presentation, because we have not heard Matt's presentation on this yet, we do not feel that the changes Page 79 November 7, 2001 16J 1 should be supported by staff. And the remainder of the changes are nonsubstantive. They do not improve the language as it's written and the ability of staff to enforce them. So at this point -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I feel -- and hopefully my colleagues feel the same way -- if someone is going to make a request for something like this, they need to be here. MS. BURGESON: To make the presentation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't think we -- MR. COE: Well, I -- I'd like to even go farther than that. If you, as staff members, haven't had the opportunity to read what he wants to do or someone else from the public desires to do and you have not staffed it on your level to a point where you're going to come up with your own recommendations, then it shouldn't even come before us. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's what I was trying to say. MR. COE: I just -- I like to talk so -- MR. SOLING: Can I -- can I add something? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. MR. SOLING: This is about beach access and using the beach. This past summer or even into the fall during the turtle season and when the light was -- the sun -- the sun was still up until 7, 7:30, once a week I walked on the beach starting at Vanderbilt Beach, and I must tell this board and the public that I never once walked that beach where there wasn't tire tracks, when there wasn't -- when -- when vehicles were prohibited, yet there were tire tracks up and down the beach. And I take great exception to all the property owners along the beach running vehicles during the turtle season when they weren't supposed to. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: But, Chester, probably those tire tracks were made by the lady right out there or one of her folks. Okay. _- • November 7, 20016J 1 MR. GAL: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. MS. SANTORO: I have one more comment becauselk J - mentioned a couple of issues you would be against. One more thing I picked up, changing the definition from the limited hotel resort property to allowing any commercial beachfront property, I would be absolutely against that as well. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, let's -- let's -- if they want to present it, come and present it, let's consider it. MR. GAL: I just want to make sure we don't spend, like, ten hours going through this ordinance that the commission -- this is, with all his changes, the commission decided that there would be no revocation of this permit. MS. BURGESON: Yes. MR. GAL: The Board of County Commissioners determined that despite the -- MS. BURGESON: What happened, at the Land Development Code amendment cycle last time in June, the very -- the last meeting in June, they added language to say that it could not be revoked. The reason they did that is they -- they talked about seeing how it went the first year without revoking the permits, felt that everyone could do a good job and be in compliance. And if there were any issues, staff could come back, and that language could be removed from the Land Development Code at a later time. MR. COE: So why does Matt want to go through this again? MS. BURGESON: Without having heard his presentation, I would only be guessing, and I don't think that's appropriate for me to be doing that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's ask him to come. MS. BURGESON: We can continue this item to your December meeting. MR. COE: Thanks. Coe. November 7, 2001 16J l CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Shall we go on to the next one? MR:` HILL: Move to table. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Can there be -- table? Strike? MR. HILL: Table. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Table by Mr. Hill, second by Mr. MR. COE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All -- all in favor aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Passed unanimously. MS. BURGESON: The next several items or actually the remaining items in front of you are authored by the pollution control and prevention department. There are several things to be changed from what was originally mailed to you, so I'll read that into the record. Land Development Code Section -- and you don't need to pay attention to this because these two items are being pulled. 3.16.2.6 is being pulled from this Land Development Code cycle. And 3.16.4.6.1.1.1 through 3.16.4.6.1.1.4 are being pulled. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. BURGESON: Now, several items were handed out this morning to you as replacements of what was mailed to you last week. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Got them. MS. BURGESON: Okay. The first one is 3.16.4.1.1.1.1. And today that was replaced -- the corrected copy was handed out to you this morning, and it probably will be better if I just read this into the record. What we are proposing to do on all of these amendments to the pollution control and prevention sections are to come into compliance with the final order in Zones W -1, W -2, W -3, and W -4, future solid waste disposal facilities and prohibited -- are prohibited. I'm sorry -- Page 82 November 7, 200 6 J l in Zone GWP, future solid waste disposal facilities are prohibited in the absence of a well field conditional use permit. MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Motion by -- Mr. Coe. MS. SANTORO: Can you just mention what GWP is? MS. BURGESON: Groundwater protection. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We have a second. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: It passed unanimously. MS. BURGESON: The second item, 3.16.4.1.4.1.1 was mailed to you correctly and stands that way. We'd like to recommend approval of that language. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Same thing. MR. COE: I'd like to make approval -- motion to approve. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Motion by Mr. Coe. MR. CARLSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Second, Carlson. In favor? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing no opposed, it passed unanimously. MS. BURGESON: The next item is 3.16.4.1.6.1.2. The language that was mailed to you was replaced this morning, and I'll read that language into the record. In Zones W -1, W -2, W -3, future solid waste storage collection and recycling facilities that will handle hazardous products and hazardous wastes shall be prohibited. MR. SOLING: I move that acceptance. MR. HILL: Is GWP not included for some reason? Page 83 November 7, 2001 16J1 MR. SMITH: Ray Smith, pollution control. GWP is not included because it is not part of the governor's final order, and we remain consistent with the governor's final order and the direction through that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to approve as written. MR. HILL: We can be more restrictive than the order can. MR. SMITH: Well, the focus of these amendments obviously are -- are specific to the governor's final order. I'm going to leave the more restrictive up to -- up to planning staff. Can they be more restrictive at this point if the focus is the governor's final order? MS. BURGESON: That -- that would be something that I think we would probably rely on either Susan Murray to make that interpretation -- MR. SMITH: Or counsel? MR. WHITE: So long as it's supported by facts and reasonable argument. I don't see why it couldn't be more stringent than the order. MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. WHITE: But, then again, I want to reserve final comment on it until after I've reviewed it. But as a matter of general principles of law, typically regulations on the county -- by the county can be more stringent than -- than state, absent some preemption by the state -- MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. WHITE: -- precluding us from doing so. MR. SMITH: So I guess the answer to that is yes. MR. HILL: We just approved a -- a LDC change which included GWP in the case of future solid waste disposal facilities in the absence of a well field conditional use permit. Now we're saying future solid waste storage collection recycling with hazardous November 7, 2001 16J 1 materials. I see no reason why GWP shouldn't be in there. MR. SMITH: Okay. One of the things you need to understand about GWP is you're talking about all of Collier County. The way the zones are broken out in the ordinance are simply they focus in on municipal well field protection areas or municipal well fields. You have -- since Collier County GWP is a recharge area throughout the county, it is identified as groundwater protection area, GWP. As you take a look at W -1, W -2, W -3, W -4, these are concentric zones that move out from the well head. A W -1 would be a -- one - year travel -time zone. W -2 would be a two -year, W -3 a five -year and W -4 a twenty -year. So keep that in mind. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Anything further, Mr. Hill? MR. HILL: Huh -uh. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do I hear -- MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to approve as written. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Moved by Mr. Coe, seconded by Mr. Carlson. In favor? (Unanimous response.) MR. SOLING: We're approving as -- as submitted. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: As submitted, yes, sir. MR. SMITH: Thank you. MS. BURGESON: The next item is 3.16.4.3.3.1.1. There are no changes to what was submitted to you in your package. I'm requesting that be -- or requesting that you either approve that language that staff is proposing or -- MR. HILL: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Soling. In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? Hearing none, passed unanimously. Page 85 November 7,200 16J 1 MS. BURGESON: The next item, 3.16.4.5.1.1. l through 3.16.4.5.1.1.5. This was replaced today, and a corrected copy was handed out this morning. That's considerably longer. It's a two -page. If you have any questions about changes to that, I think it would be easier for Ray to discuss that rather than for me to read two pages into the records. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions? MR. COE: No questions. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: No questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none -- MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to approve as written. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Moved by Mr. Coe, seconded by Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: No, I didn't second it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You didn't second it? MR. HILL: I haven't caught up with the changes in the document. MR. CARLSON: Seeing as we just got this, could you just quickly explain -- MR. SMITH: Sure. MR. CARLSON: -- what these changes mean? MR. SMITH: Ray Smith, pollution control for the record again. The main changes dealt with the term "nonconforming" that was in the original document and crossed out. That is not part of the governor's final order, so we removed that strike - through. Since that was -- that strike - through was removed, the strike - through's under three sixteen four five one one two, three sixteen four five one one three, three sixteen four five one one four. And there was a slight change in number regarding three sixteen four five one one. Strike - through on the five, underscore on the two, had no need to be Mm 16J1 { November 7, 2001 changed. Those initial changes were specific to the nonconforming Again, since that was pulled, those strike- throughs were state. deleted. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Hill, are you all right? MR. HILL: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do you want to second it now? MR. HILL: Yup. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Moved by Mr. Coe, seconded by Mr. Hill. In favor`! (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing no opposed, passed unanimously. MS. BURGESON: The last on the amendment cycle is 3.16.4.11.1.1.1 through 6 -- 3.16.4.11.1.1.4. And that, again, as was mailed to you last week with no changes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: W -1 -- W -1 and W -2 are one mile, two miles, again? MR. SMITH: W -1 -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Excuse me, one year. One year. One year, I'm sorry. Right. MR. SMITH: One year, two year. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. I'm sorry. Mr. Coe? MR. COE: I'd like to make a motion to approve as written. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Coe. Mr. Carlson, second? MR. CARLSON: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Does that sound good? Okay. In favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Opposed? (No response.) Page 87 November 7, 2001 16J 1 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: None. It passed unanimously. Okay. MS. BURGESON: The next item on the agenda, preceding the new business, old business, we had listed as a wetland policy discussion. However, Bill Lorenz -- oh, is here. He just walked in. MS. BURGESON: The wetland -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Here we go. MS. BURGESON: The wetland policy discussion that was listed as old business was concluded as new business I was just told so that that's not something that we need to discuss at this hearing. It may be something that will be brought back in a couple of months. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Now, you say the wetland policy is not going to be discussed? MS. BURGESON: Right. MR. SOLING: May I make -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. SOLING: I handed out a -- a couple of pages ex -- of -- copied out of the State of Florida rules and regs, reference to the Department of Environmental Protection. And that calls for a lot of references, a lot of bills and things. And so does our papers that were supplied to us. So I would like to ask the staff before we consider this again to supply us with the Florida laws so that we can determine exactly what we're talking about. And I'm talking specifically to the ones I marked in yellow and to the laws in -- starting with numbers 403 under the environmental control rules, 1995. MR. WHITE: If I could be so presumptuous as to say any Florida Statutes cites can be located at Sun Biz. I'm not sure if that's the correct name for the website, but they are available in the interest, perhaps, of not having had staff copy page after page of statutes just in order to provide the reference. If that's a suitable alternative, I'd encourage us to do that. November 7, 2001 6J1 MR. SOLING: What's the website? MR. WHITE: MyFlorida -- MyFlorida will get you there, and then look for something that lists the statutes. And they're all in there, and they're very easy to locate and -- MR. SOLING: MyFlorida.com? MR. WHITE: I think it's dot com, actually. But if you just put in MyFlorida in as a search -- MR. COE: You'll find it. MR. WHITE: You'll find it. It's very user friendly. And I apologize for interrupting, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Lorenz. MR. LORENZ: Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, there is a speaker here for one of the wetlands -- on wetlands policies, I think, Ilene Barnett. I would like to give the EAC a presentation. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Is that all right with everyone? We're not going to hear Mr. Durham today? He's just watching us? Ilene? MS. BARNETT: Thank you for hearing me, and good afternoon. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I want to tell you the thing I remember the most is the pressure from the ball of your foot is four times more than the pressure from the ATV; is that right? Okay. When you were jogging on the beach; did I get that right? MS. BARNETT: It's not the same as a ATV. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. Go ahead. MS. BARNETT: We're not talking about that this afternoon, though. But I appreciate you hearing this. I assume that we would be talking more about this wetland policy today. For the record, Ilene Barnett. I'm an environmental consultant with Vanasse Daylor. I had spoken quite a bit with the national O!M November 7, 2001 16J 1 resources staff and development services. I'd really like to commend them on the record, Mac Hatcher, Bill Lorenz, and Steve Lenberger, for sitting down in a kind of roundtable discussion to talk about the proposed wetland policy. I've had quite a bit of experience with Water Management District and Corps wetland permitting. And I understand that a lot of this wetland policy that's proposed is trying to fill in some of the gaps, what these agencies may not be doing. So I just wanted to spend a couple of minutes sharing some information with you, if I may. The -- one of the main concerns is that you had heard a figure that the district permitted 30 percent of wetland impacts in the year 2000 in Collier County. So what I did was I just looked into that and put a table together for your information and something for you to think about as the draft policy writing goes on. If you go down to this column right here, total wetlands, these are the wetland acres in the project boundaries in Collier County projects in the year 2000. There are 1223 wetland acres in -- in these projects, so that accounts for a hundred percent. That's basically what we're starting from. The first row talks about wetland impacts, and you can see that there were -- 30 percent of the total wetlands were impacted or allowed to be impacted by Water Management District permitting. One thing that I had been working with and may not be fully to your attention right now is that of this 30 percent of wetland impact, there's a substantial amount of that -- the district considers this impact but is constitutionally under Collier County preservation requirements. When I was looking at these permits, I found that anywhere up to 30 percent of the wetland impact on a project was considered preservation area by Collier County, but the district wouldn't consider it as preservation because they were looking at surrounding land use and water tables and the storm water Page 90 November 7, 2001 bJ management system. And they basically said it's a write -off; you need to mitigate for it. 4 So in that 30 percent impact acreage there's somewhere -- I don't have the exact figure. I would have to investigate every single one of these 33 permits that were issued to get an exact percentage of how much was preserved. But it seems somewhere around 15 to 20 percent of that may be Collier County preservation. So it's just some information for you to consider as you look at that figure. Undisturbed and preservation acreage amounted to 70 percent. Most of it was preservation, 68 percent. Of that 68 percent, 5 percent is creation or restoration which is basically making new wetlands or turning areas that are no longer wetlands into wetlands again, restoration. Creation is starting from scratch and making new wetlands. And enhancement is 47 percent. A pretty good percentage of that preservation area required some kind of wetland improvement. In addition to the 70 percent of the wetlands on site that were preserved with various amounts of enhancement, creation, and restoration, mitigation banks added to about 72. And, as you can see, the vast majority was the Panther Island mitigation bank in that year and then additional upland compensation. So basically, this is a brief presentation, and that's just something for you to keep in your package of information as you go through the process of drafting and -- and making edits to the wetland policy. And I'll be happy to answer any questions if you have any. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions? MR. HILL: I guess it's obvious, but I'm -- I'm not sure I understand the difference between "Within permit boundaries and on site." That 94 acres that sits out there. MS. BARNETT: The -- the off site, that was, I believe, one or two particular projects of the 33. The district determined that that Page 91 November 7, 2001 16JI ` �a particular project had impacts to an adjacent area. That was actually outside of the property owner's boundaries. So for the purpose of the column that says on site and within permit boundaries or so, I think those two terms are equivalent. I had taken all of these data from a report the district put out and rearranged it and added some information that they didn't include in it. MR. HILL: Thank you. That's good. MS. BARNETT: Thank you. MR. COE: It looks like a net loss of 25 percent; right? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Bill, Barbara, where do we go? MR. LORENZ: Yes. This is on the point of your agenda is the Growth Management update. Just -- just to provide you with where the -- the various committees are, the advisory committees are, the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee is continuing to review a series of packages that have the proposed policy languages and amendments to the Growth Management Plan together with data analysis. The Growth Management Plan subcommittee is on the mailing list to receive all of the mailouts to that Rural Fringe Advisory Committee. And -- and your subcommittee, the Growth Management Subcommittee, is going through that material, and as we have -- have meetings. So that's -- we're pretty much in that mode now of reviewing actual language. Again, in terms of the schedule, we would be looking at coming to the EAC sometime in January. The Board of County Commissioners will hold their transmittal hearings the end of February. So that's the time -- time line that you are under. And, for the most part, your -- your subcommittee will be presenting information to the full EAC to try to keep you up to speed as much as possible until you get to your point where you're going to have to Page 92 November 7, 2001 6J1 conduct your own public hearing on the proposed amendments. With -- with that, I believe Ally has a report that you were going to go or issue a report or information to the EAC, full EAC, or were you not going to do that? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Miss Santoro. MS. SANTORO: No. I thought the only points of note for them, unless we want to come back, but I thought that we wanted to see if we could set up a meeting with the subcommittee or the entire EAC. I thought it was with a Mike Doover (phonetic) MR. LORENZ: Yes. I'm prepared for that. I didn't know if you wanted to cover any other material. MS. SANTORO: No. I've given all the members a copy, which I repeat is draft because I am not natural resource director. Bill is, but -- so I've given you a draft copy. And I'm apologizing because I did not have too much of a chance to go over it again. The other point that I'm going to try -- and Ed's going to give me the telephone number, Daryl -- the names here, Daryl Land or Mark Lott (phonetic) who are experts with the -- on the panther. And the committee felt that before we come up with -- you know, to meet with other groups or to come up with other recommendations, we would like to be very, very specific on the actual travel -- travelings and spottings of the panthers. So there may be recommendations for land acquisition or reuse or tunnels or maybe more tunnels under I- 75. So before we came up with any specifics, we're going to try to have that individual come to the subcommittee and give a talk. MR. LORENZ: The -- the other -- the other point that I wanted to make just in -- that's in the rural fringe committee, and that's where that's working out. And the other committee, the rural lands committee, has been meeting. They've kind of accelerated their schedule pretty much monthly, maybe even a little bit more frequently than monthly now. They are going through a set of what Page 93 Novembe r 7 2001 16 1 , they call scenarios of looking at strategies for protection of the natural resources in addition to the ability of the landowners through a voluntary program to utilize their land and trade off, if you will. These are my terms, not theirs, but environmental credits for land -- acre -- acreage credits of -- of the use of the lands. So that's looking to be a fairly innovative approach and -- and is very interesting to -- to see as that -- that develops out. Their schedule is going to be behind the rural fringe committee, and we haven't had -- we haven't even talked about scheduling anything of that information for the EAC yet. But just to keep you abreast of -- of where that -- that -- that committee is. As Allie had mentioned, Mike Doover (phonetic), I talked to Mike Doover to get a series of dates from him. He had a number of dates that he was open, and then I corresponded those dates with when this room would be available. And, of course, that -- that dropped down. So the question for the -- for the EAC is, he's not available for your next regular meeting. So if you wanted to have him within the next -- well, certainly through -- through December, you'd have to schedule a special meeting for the full EAC. I have the dates of when this room is available. That would be the November 21 st, December 13th this room is available from 8 to 1. He's looking at maybe a two - hour type of presentation with questions. November of -- excuse me, December 14th this room is open all day, and then December 21 st it would be open all day. So if we wanted to have it in this room -- and he does have a Powerpoint presentation -- he could hook it in. The other advantage of this room is that we could then have the ability for it to be publicized on Channel 54. He's -- he's available for one, two, three, four, five, six, about a half a dozen other dates that would not be -- not fit this room schedule either. So if you -- if you want to try to get it in this room, those of you the dates I just Page 94 November 7, 2001 16J l mentioned, if you have enough that you want to go to another room some other dates, then we can arrange that as well. MS. SANTORO: Maybe we should give him -- the reason that we talked about having him come, he's -- correct me, because sometimes I get the offices -- the national Audubon hydrology expert, and when we were looking at some of the recommendations, there are already some regulations as far as draw -down, what amount of draw - down is allowed to wetlands with no respect to uplands. We question -- we question -- we wanted to come up with a really good ruling for Collier County and where he felt that he would -- could give expert testimony and give us some direction. MR. CARLSON: Yes. Mike Doover worked for Audubon for many, many, many years doing pioneering and wetlands research. He now is with the South Florida Water Management District in their Fort Myers service center. And I've seen his presentation. It's excellent, and whenever we do this, I would urge everyone to come. You will understand infinitely more about how wetlands are affected by draw -downs and how important manipulating surface and groundwater is, even very small changes can have in wetlands. It's -- it's an excellent presentation that I think everyone on this board should try to -- try to experience. MR. COE: Is he only available through November the 21 st? MR. LORENZ: Well, he's available the 20th, 21st, and 30th, but this room is only available on the 21 st. MR. COE: Do we have to have it in this room? MR. LORENZ: Like I said, the advantage of having it in this room is that we could be publicized on Channel 54. If you don't want to have it in the room and have it publicized, then we can arrange another room someplace. MR. HILL: I suggest we tentatively schedule it the 21 st. I think it would be advantageous to have -- Page 95 November 7, 2001 16J 1 MR. COE: If it's scheduled early enough in the day, I can make it. MR. LORENZ: Okay. MR. COE: Like we schedule it like 8:30 in the morning, something like that, yeah, I don't have any problem with that. I don't know how the other members feel about that. The earlier the better. Anything after 5 a.m. is fine for me. MR. HILL: Nine to eleven would be too late, Mickie? MR. COE: Well, I mean, the earlier the better. MR. CARLSON: Aren't you retired? MR. COE: I'm retired. I did it, for now. You never know, I may do something else. I'm thinking maybe developing Rookery Bay or something, turning it into a parking lot. MR. HILL: I suggest 9 to 11 on the 21 st, if that's agreeable time -wise. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Sounds good. MR. LORENZ: Okay. Well, I'll get back -- I'll get back with Mike and get back with -- reserve the room right away and let me -- let me sugg -- let me -- can anybody make the December 13th because that's when -- that would be the next available date in case something has happened since then? MR. COE: Yeah. I can make it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's a Thursday? MR. LORENZ: That's a fall -back. Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: That's it? MR. LORENZ: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anything else, Barbara? MS. BURGESON: Nothing else. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anybody else from the public Page 96 November 7, 2001 would like to address council? 611 (No response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's go home. We're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:33 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE THOMAS W. SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 97 October 3, 2001 16J1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, October 3, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Value Adjustment Board met on this date at 9:10 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE - CHAIRMAN: ALTERNATE: TOM HENNING JIM COLETTA DONNA FIALA ANNE GOODNIGHT LINDA ABBOTT PAM MAC' KIE ALSO PRESENT: Abe Skinner, Property Appraiser Sally Garrett, Property Appraiser's Office Bruce D. Stephens, Property Appraiser's Office John R. Hamblen, Property Appraiser's Office Heidi Ashton, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Co res: Date: � ©� Page 1 vtis 10: VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA OCTOBER 3, 2001 16JJ 1. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN (Said Chairman must be a member of the Collier County Commission) 2. MOTION to adopt RESOLUTION 2001 -01 (VAB) relating to filing fees for the Value Adjustment board Petitions. Chairman authorized to sign. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE FOLLLOWING PROPERTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD PETITIONS: 9 :00 A.M. AGRICULTURAL PETITIONS A -1 JoGene Holaway, 3087 Boca Ciega Dr., Naples HOMESTEAD PETITIONS HP -4 Ernest W. Linneman, 980 Galleon Drive, Naples HP -6 P. Janet Ramkissoon, 180 Seaview Ct., Marco HP -8 Daniel McShea, 3175 Regatta Rd., Naples HP -12 William E. Collins, #1 Sabre Cay, Naples HP -13 Charles V. Chaffee, 10381 Gulfshore Dr., Naples HP -5 August P. Richter, 1617 Gulfstar Dr., Naples HP -9 Marilyn Tully, 1680 Mullet Ct., Naples TAX PETITIONS TP -3 August Richter, 1617 Gulfstar Dr., Naples TP -75 Marilyn Tully, 1680 Mullet Ct., Naples TP -1 McKenzie Trust, 2155 Imperial Circle, Naples TP -4 Mark R. Brandau, Marco Beach Unit 12, B1 393, Lot 18 TP -5 Elinor D. Benedict, 185 N. Lake Dr., Naples TP -6 HRW Entities, Marco Beach Unit 1, Block 26, Lot 18 Page 1 TP -7 H. John & Kay L. Krapf, Marco Beach U1, B1.25, Lot 26 TP -8 J. O. Krapf & Sons, Marco Beach U2, B1.57, Lot 5 10:00 A.M. 16J I TP- 45 Jeffrey L. Mandler, Pelican Bay Unit 1, Parcel A TP -46 Jeffrey L. Mandler, Plantation Unit #2, Tract B TP -121 Jeffrey Mandler, Seaboard Replat T 9 Blk. 16 TP -122 Jeffrey Mandler, Naples T3, Blks. 7 & 8 TP -47 Kerry Schwenke - April Circle, LTD TP -48 Kerry Schwenke - Heron Park Partners, LTD TP -49 Kerry Schwenke - Ospreys Landing, LTD TP -73 Carl M. Fernstrom, Plantation Tract C 11 :00 A.M. TP -84 Carl F. & Inez Lehmann TR, Marco Bch U10, B1.329, L12 TP -90 Todd & Kerry Tateo, 749 Plantation Ct., Marco Island TP -91 Beverly Hutchison, 526 Yucca, Naples TP -92 Thomas Hoolihan, portion of mangrove covered island And three other parcels TP -93 June F. Klem, Marco Beach Unit 1, Block 27, Lot 2 TP -94 June F. Klem, Marco Beach Unit 1, Block 27, Lot 1 LUNCH RECESS 12 :00 - 1:00 P.M. 1 :00 P.M. TP -105 Sandra F. Vasey, Hideaway Beach Blk 1, Lots 12 & 13 TP -106 Alberta M. Barker, 1888 6th Street South TP -107 Diane Rymer, Lely Barefoot Bch., Unit 1, Block F, Lot 11 and West M of Lot 10 and Lot 1 Block G TP -109 James & Patricia Clay, 201 Stillwater Ct., Marco Bch. 2:00 P.M. TP -117 Julie A. Zahniser /Agent for South FL Growers Assoc. TP -118 Julie A. Zahniser /Agent for Vanair LLC TP -119 Vincent Grandelli, Marco Bch. U.4 Replat, Blk 778, Lot 7 Page 2 r 3:00 P.M. 16J1 TP -130 Timothy & Dorothy Foster, Marco Bch. Unit 13, Block 317 TP -132 Sheri A. Micelle, Quail Creek Unit 1, Block C, Lot 13 TP -133 Vito Stallone, Naples Park, Unit 3, Blk. 29 TP -134 James La Grippe, 1450 Gulfstar Dr., South, Naples 4 :00 P.M. TP -137 Marpalm of Florida Inc., High Point, Tract "A" TP -138 Holiday Assoc., of Naples, Lake Park RECESSED UNTIL OCTOBER 8, 2001 AT 9:00 A.M. Page 3 October 3, 2001 (The following proceedings commenced, Commissioner 16JI Mac'Kie not present:) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we go ahead and open the meeting of the Value Adjustment Board and start off with the Pledge of Allegiance. Would you all rise. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I understand we need a motion for a chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to motion that Tom Henning be our chairman. MS. GOODNIGHT: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed like sign? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tom -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- take the seat of honor. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think it would be appropriate to select a vice chairman in case the chairman is not available. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to nominate Anne Goodnight for that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. GOODNIGHT: I'm only going to be here today. MS. ABBOTT: You don't have to be a commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to nominate Donna Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second that. Page 2 October 3, 2001 All in favor? 16 J 1 ' Ldis (Unanimous response.) 4i MS. ASHTON: If you would like to play musical chairs for a second, because you'll need to sit in the middle, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Does everybody have a copy of the -- the resolution? We need a motion to adopt the resolution 2001 Value Adjustment Board relating to filing fees for the value adjustment petitions. MS. GOODNIGHT: I'll make a motion that we approve Resolution 2001 -01. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5 -0. Public hearing for the following property, Value Adjustment Board petitions, we have Agricultural Petition A -1. And, Heidi, do you have something to offer? MS. ASHTON: Yes, I do have a comment. This is a petition for an agricultural exemption, and the standard here for the board is a finding of extenuating circumstances. In your discretion you have the ability to grant the exemption based on extenuating circumstances. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We have our property appraiser here, Abe Skinner. Abe? MR. SKINNER: Occasionally I'm here to represent my office, but occasionally on various ones of these filings you'll have different people up here from my staff to defend that. And I will have some comments also. The first one is the agriculture. I don't know whether anyone's here to represent the agriculture. Huh? Page 3 October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN HENNING: JoGene Holaway, present? No res onse. 16JI I ( response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Nobody representing this property, so we're -- we make a motion -- MS. GOODNIGHT: I'll make a motion that we deny Petition A -1. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a motion and a second to deny the petition. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5 -0. We go to homestead exemptions. We have Petition No. PH -4 (sic), Ernest W. Lilliman (phonetic), Lill -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Linneman? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Linneman? MR. LINNEMAN: That's me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Step up to the podium, please. MS. ASHTON: As the petitioner's coming to the podium, I'd like to tell the board that the standard here, as well, is a finding of extenuating circumstances, so you have the ability to grant the exemption in your discretion upon a finding of extenuating circumstances. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. LINNEMAN: Good morning. My name is Ernest Linneman, and my home is located at 980 Galleon Drive. And I was not living in the home until this year. The reason for that is that the home was under renovation. I understand that I can't apply for homestead exemption unless I'm actually living in the -- in the home. Page 4 October 3, 2001 16JI It was my intention to apply early this year, and then early this year my mother became very, very ill. She's 92 years old and lives in New York state, Long Island. And I'm the only person that can take care of her. So I went up to see her and -- and deal with her. She was hospitalized during the months of late February, and March. And I was up there seeing her. And, frankly, the filing deadline just went right by me and I totally forgot to do it until I got my bill or the notice of the bill, at which point I realized that I had forgotten, and that's the extenuating circumstance. I just forgot to file in the timely way. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Heidi, can you give us the procedures on the homestead -- hearing homestead cases, a finding of fact? What is the -- there's a filing deadline. MR. LINNEMAN: I believe it's March. MS. ASHTON: Uh -huh. The filing deadline is in March, 1 st. COMMISSIONER FIALA: March 1st, did you say? MS. ASHTON: It's March 1 st. MR. SKINNER: Did I understand the gentleman to say the house was being renovated? MR. LINNEMAN: Yes. MR. SKINNER: January the 1 st? And you were living where? MR. LINNEMAN: I was living at Snook Drive which I did not apply for a homestead exemption there because I knew it would not be my permanent home. MR. SKINNER: But you were living there January the 1 st -- MR. LINNEMAN: Right. MR. SKINNER: -- and that was your -- that's your home? MR. LINNEMAN: I own that home -- MR. SKINNER: Yes. MR. LINNEMAN: -- but I moved into 980 Galleon this year. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the home was not livable Page 5 October 3, 2001 during the period up till March? 16J1 MR. LINNEMAN: The home -- the home was actually livable in March. March 31 st -- MS. ASHTON: But January -- I believe the date is January 1 st. MR. SKINNER: January the 1 st is the appraisal date. MS. ASHTON: So if it's not his homestead on January 1 st, then he would not qualify to file the homestead application, correct? MR. SKINNER: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And January 1st the home was under renovation; is that correct? MR. LINNEMAN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be awful hard on my part to grant you this. MR. LINNEMAN: Well, I -- just from the facts that have been exposed to me now, which I didn't know. Had I known that I was supposed to, in fact, be living in the house on January 1 st, then I probably would have not bothered the board with this petition because it appears that on the face of the facts that I'm -- I'm not qualified for the homestead exemption. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So would you like to withdraw? MR. LINNEMAN: I guess I may as well if that -- if those are the facts. MR. SKINNER: But -- but the gentleman was living at Snook Drive January the 1 st? That was -- you owned the property -- MR. LINNEMAN: Yes. MR. SKINNER: And that was your legal residence January the 1 st. MR. SKINNER: I -- I personally would be willing to grant a late file for this year for that property if you so wish. MR. LINNEMAN: I would appreciate that. MR. SKINNER: The other I just could not grant. October 3, 2001 16JI MR. LINNEMAN: That certainly would be a help because the tax burden is -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it requires no more further action on this board or do we -- MR. SKINNER: Well, you have to deny this one. The other you heard me say what I would do. MS. GOODNIGHT: I'll make a motion to deny Homestead Petit -- Petition HP -4. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a motion and a second to deny the application. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) MR. LINNEMAN: I just have a question. Do I need to take any action in order to establish the 2195 address as -- as -- as the homestead, or will you -- MR. SKINNER: Well, you were living there January 1 st? MR. LINNEMAN: Yes, I was. MR. SKINNER: So we'll do a late file on that January the 1 st -- MR. LINNEMAN: Okay. MR. SKINNER: -- residence. And then since you have moved into the other home you should reapply. MR. LINNEMAN: I have -- I have done that already -- MR. SKINNER: Okay. MR. LINNEMAN: -- for next year. Thank you very much. I appreciate the consideration. MS. GARRETT: You need to apply for homestead on Snook. MR. LINNEMAN: Oh, I do. I need to go downstairs? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just for the record, the motion carried 5 -0. MS. ABBOTT: Mr. Skinner, I wanted to say thank you. MR. SKINNER: Ma'am? Page 7 October 3, 2001 M 16J1 S. ABBOTT. I wanted to say thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's not a bad guy to work with. MR. SKINNER: That's not the way I heard it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's go to our next case, HP -69 P. Janet Ramskinson (sic) come to the podium, please. MS. RAMKISSOON: Mr. Chairman, fellow commissioners, and staff. I beg you for the opportunity to present my case before you today. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could -- could you pull the mike down toward you, ma'am? Thank you. MS. RAMKISSOON: Yeah. I'm sorry if I appear to be very emotional. I've been in the U.S. For 31 years. I have been living in New York for a very long time, and I know about 60 people who were killed in the World Trade Center, people I've worked with for over 20 years. So -- if I could have a moment to myself to get a -- I rented a -- an apartment in Marco Island in July of 1999. I purchased that apartment in November of 1999. I -- in -- in early ninety nine (sic) I went to the Winterberry office to find out what I needed to do to make sure I was a legal resident of Florida. I did everything I was told. I filed for the homestead exemption. I filed a voter's registration, which I -- I have proof of that. I voted in the State of Florida last year. I -- I have records, bank records, to prove that I have records mailed to this address. My accountant is from Florida, and I never received anything in the mail or -- and I didn't know that I was supposed to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Excuse me, ma'am. Can whoever has the cell phone, can they step outside. And can I remind everybody that anybody that has cell phones or beepers, please turn them off while we're having this hearing -- hearing. Somebody answered it. Go ahead. MS. RAMKISSOON: I never received anything. I -- I didn't October 3, 2001 :L know that I was supposed osed to receive something. I didn't know� 9a -- that a follow -up was required. As I said, I voted in Florida last year. I have proof of -- of mail. I -- I also have a return receipt from filing my last tax return in New York state. I have a returned receipt with my Florida address filing tax returns to the IRS. I have postmarks with greeting cards from relatives that sent me mail at 180 Seaview Court. I have my voter's registration card. I have a Florida ID. I am not a driver. I have a FedEx receipt from my accountant, and I have a New York tax -- a letter that says from New York state return marked final. I have proof of that. I have a business in New York. I have proof that something from -- a letter from Florida Department of State to prove that my business is not registered in Florida. Unfortunately, I'm in the investment business. I'm a consultant in the technology field. Anybody who reads the newspapers know that technology stocks have cratered in the last year. That's how I make my living. My business is down more than 60 percent this year. I did not get an office in Florida because I don't know what's going to happen. And, last of all, I paid the Florida wealth tax, filed the Florida return, and I have proof of that. I think that I have an abundance of evidence that shows that, A, I have acted, I have lived as a Florida resident, and I -- I only found out about -- that I was not domiciled here when I got my tax -- my tax assessment this year, and then I called the office to find out, you know, what -- where is my domicile exemption." Well, you're not domiciled here." Then I came to the office to try to find out, "Well, what happened ?" They said, "Well, we don't have an application for you." I said when -- they said, "Where did you file ?" "I filed at the Winterberry office." "Well, why didn't you follow up on this ?" "I didn't know I was supposed to." My accountant didn't say October 3, 2001 16JI anything to me. You know, as an honest citizen, you know, I think that I did everything that I was supposed to, and I really think that it's unfair to be denied and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask you -- you say that you purchased your apartment in November of 1999. MS. RAMKISSOON: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: When you -- did you get a tax bill after that? I mean -- MS. RAMKISSOON: Yes, I did. But as I said that, you know, I was in the midst of the collapse of what's going on in my business, I just paid the bill. I didn't realize -- I didn't look at it carefully. There was a tax, and I just -- I -- as a matter of fact, I paid it early. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that was last year. MS. RAMKISSOON: That was last year. And when I got the one for this year then, you know, I guess with my business down I had a little more time on my hands, and I started looking at it carefully. And then I said, "Well," you know," where does this homestead exemption," you know, "come in ?" And then I looked at it, and that's when I decided to call the office. And that's when I realized that it was never granted. And then to my surprise, I found out that they didn't even have record of an application and -- and -- and I would say that, you know, as a reasonable person, as of proof of residence, you know, I registered to vote. I have -- I have all of these records here, and I voted in the State of Florida last year. You know, I also -- you know, as I said, I paid the wealth tax. I have, you know, return receipts from the IRS and from New York state. I have proof that, you know, it was -- returns were marked final. I feel like I have done everything and lived my life as if I were a Florida resident. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may -- if I may, I'm quite sympathetic to what you're saying. I would like to hear from Mr. Skinner, some comments on this. Page 10 October 3, 2001 MR. SKINNER. Miss Garrett will tell you about that. 6 J 1 MS. GARRETT: Okay. Mrs. Ramkissoon says that she filed in Marco last year, but we have no record of her filing anyplace. She came in in September, and we allowed her to file for 2001 with a petition only because she insisted. According to 196.015, there are certain requirements that are -- that are necessary for -- for proving residency. Mrs. Ramkiss -- kissoon has a Trinidad passport showing her to be a citizen of that country. She's -- she's on a visitor's visa, which according to the United States immi -- immigration guide is for a brief period of time. It's for a limited stay. She has voted. But according to the elections office, they do not require proof of residency in order to get a voter's card. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hmm. MS. GARRETT: She has no driver's license. She has no car, no declaration of domicile. There is nothing to prove her residency. MS. RAMKISSOON: I would like to present as evidence a United States passport which was issued in New York in 1995. And it says here, place of birth, Trinidad and Tobago, but I have been a permanent resident of the United States since 1995, and I have every -- and I had to present this passport to register to vote. And I have my voter's registration. I have been in this country for 31 years. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions from the members of the board? MS. GARRETT: I have never seen that before. MS. RAMKISSOON: Would you like to see this document? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, I have a question. Are you alien resident, U.S. -- MS. RAMKISSOON: No. I am a citizen of the United States. I have been -- I was a permanent resident of the United States for more than ten years, and I have been a citizen of the United States since 1995, and that is the date of my passport. Page 11 October 3, 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you said you filed homestead exemption for when? MS. RAMKISSOON: This was last year. And, sir, also as evidence to the court, I have a copy of my return where I paid the Florida intangible tax. I would like to show this and have it included for the record. MR. SKINNER: Ma'am, do you have a receipt applying for homestead? Do you have your receipt? MS. RAMKISSOON: I was not given a receipt, sir. MR. SKINNER: When you applied at Winterberry. MS. RAMKISSOON: Yes. I did not -- I was not given a receipt. I -- MR. SKINNER: It's customary that you get one. MS. RAMSEY: I understand -- I was told by the office when I filed that it's customary, but I did not receive one. I will -- I would say that, you know, when -- when I filed a day -- the date that I filed, I also registered to vote, and as record here's my voter's registration card. And to register to vote, I had to -- I -- I took as evidence that day my title insurance for my property, my U.S. Passport. And I had bank records. I had everything to prove my residency. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ma'am, can I ask a couple questions, if I may. MS. RAMKISSOON: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When you went down and you applied for the exemption, did you also register to vote in the same location? MS. RAMKISSOON: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And did you go back to that location at a future date to see anyone or just that one time? MS. RAMKISSOON: That one time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When you went there do you Page 12 October 3, 2001 remember the person you spoke to in the -- in the -- for the 16J1 exemption? Do you remember who it was that handed you the form or who you gave the form to? Was it a man? A woman? Was it an older woman? A young woman? MS. RAMKISSOON: Sir, I -- I -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you remember where the desk was that you went to when you went in there? You went in -- MS. RAMKISSOON: When I walked in -- when I walked in. I went to the desk to the left. And that's where I -- I got the forms and stuff to fill out. And then there was another -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Skinner, would you listen to this, please, and tell me if this sounds right as far as the location of the offices and everything. Go ahead, please. MS. RAMKISSOON: When I walked into the office, my recollection -- I have a very poor sense of direction, I have to say. And when I walked into the office, on the left -hand side there was a long desk, and there was a person behind that. And that's where I got all of the information, and I got the -- you know, I -- I was given the forms. There was also -- at the back of the office there was a shelf with a lot of other documents about citizens and about, you know, different things about Marco Island and -- and that sort of thing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then after you got the form and you filled it out at the location -- MS. RAMKISSOON: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- where did you take the form? Did you go to the right? The left? Did you walk up to a window or counter? MS. RAMKISSOON: Sir, I -- I really don't remember. And I -- I have an explanation for that. The job that I do requires me to remember a whole lot of things. And one of the things that I have made a conscious effort to do is, I try very hard to remember the Page 13 October 3, 2001 16J1 -14 things that I feel I have to remember. And if I try to remember everything, I will be absolutely chaotic. The job -- the jobs that I have as a consultant requires me to be on my feet all the time. When the client calls with a question -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MS. RAMKISSOON: I need to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- I understand. So you don't remember when you walked in there, which way you went -- MS. RAMKISSOON: I remember when I walked in where I got the forms, and I filled everything out. And I don't remember exactly where I had to go to turn -- turn it in, whatever. As a matter of fact, if you ask me when I was here a couple weeks ago when I filled out the form again, exactly where that office is relative to where we are right now, I won't be able to tell you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think we have -- MS. GARRETT: Can I see your voter's registration card, please? Did you say you registered for homestead at the same time that you registered to vote? MS. RAMKISSOON: I registered -- no, this was -- this was done in March of 1999. MS. GARRETT: I thought you said -- MS. RAMKISSOON: This was granted -- the date that that was issued was May. MS. GARRETT: I thought you said you registered to vote at the same time that you registered for homestead. MS. RAMKISSOON: Yes. That was in March. COMMISSIONER FIALA: She did say that. MS. GARRETT: Okay. Because this -- this was in May. MS. RAMKISSOON: That was the date of issuance. COMMISSIONER FIALA: There is no registration for voting in that Winterberry office, is there? Page 14 October 3, 2001 3 16J I� MS. RAMKISSOON: Yes. There -- well, that's where I did it. I'm sorry. I don't -- MS. GARRETT: I'm not sure. But there is no -- no representative from our office at the Winterberry office other than January and February. MR. SKINNER: We don't have anyone there in March or May. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. ABBOTT: Could it be that she thought that she had applied for that and was mistaken? MR. SKINNER: I don't know. I don't know. But we don't have anything on record of the application, and the lady does not have a receipt. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that we have -- MS. RAMKISSOON: Mr. Commissioner, may I -- may I just -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: One more point, and we need to move on. MS. RAMKISSOON: Yes. The -- the county or state -- I'm -- I'm sorry, your name -- you indicated that there was no record of filing a tax return. MS. GARRETT: No. MS. RAMKISSOON: I have a copy -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: The question -- MS. RAMKISSOON: The wealth tax, which is the intangible tax, and that I understand is a requirement only of residents. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, what the comment was, they have no record of you filing for homestead exemption, period. It has nothing to do with the other papers that you filled out for other services. I think that we have all the information that we need to make a decision here. I would ask for the -- what the pleasure of the board is. Page 15 October 3, 2001 16J1 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just don't feel too comfortable with this one. There's too many holes in it. There's supporting documents that just don't mesh, what we're actually looking at. I recommend denial. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor to recommend denial on homestead exemption. MS. GOODNIGHT: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5 -0. I'm sorry, ma'am. I -- I hope that in the future -- MS. RAMKISSOON: I have a -- I have a question. Where does that -- where does -- where does this leave me now? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Have you filed for homestead exemption for the -- the next year? MS. RAMKISSOON: Well, I -- I -- I have a very simple question. If I -- if I -- if I'm not homestead in Florida and I don't have that exemption, then why -- you know, it seems unfair to me that I would pay a wealth tax in Florida as a resident and not be a resident, not have homestead. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, you are a resident, and this board is bound by state statutes. And there's certain criteria that we must go by and -- to grant you that homestead exemption. And the evidence that you presented just doesn't give us that latitude to do that. MS. RAMKISSOON: You know, if -- if I may say so to the commissioner, I mentioned a lot of evidence, but nobody has looked at what I have. I just mentioned it, and nobody has looked at what I had. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that we've -- Page 16 October 3, 2001 16J1 *11 MS. ASHTON: I think that the standard here is for the board to make a finding of extenuating circumstances that justify the late filing. The requirement is that it be filed by March 1 st which wasn't done based on the records of the property appraiser. So your option at this point would be to see the property appraiser's office and file for next year. Fill out the homestead application so you make the deadline for next year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I'm sorry. If we can continue on -- MS. RAMKISSOON: This is -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to HP -12. MS. RAMKISSOON: Is this a situation that can be appealed in the court of law in Florida? CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's the appeal process? MS. RAMKISSOON: What are my rights on an appeal? MS. ASHTON: You'll need to go see a lawyer. There is a time deadline that you will need to file any appeal, so you'll need to consult with your lawyer. MS. RAMKISSOON: I would like to leave one last statement for the record. I would -- I would like to state for the record that the county, the state claimed that I was -- as part of their denial that I was on a visitor's Visa, and I have proven to this commission that I have been a -- a permanent resident of the United States and a U.S. Citizen and that I feel right now that I'm being discriminated against. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. The next case is HP -8, Daniel McShea. Mr. McShea? MR. MC SHEA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. MC SHEA: My name is Daniel McShea. I reside with my wife and two children at 3175 Regatta Road in The Moorings here in Naples. Page 17 October 3, 20011 6J "1 I was a previous resident since 1995, actually two houses down and built this property back in 1999, moved in, had lots of problems, etc., which isn't really the issue here today, but I was somewhat under the understanding that upon living in a home previous and having homesteading, that there was no real urgency to apply for and receive homesteading for my new property. I actually deferred that whole process over to my wife, Doreen. And starting late last summer, early fall, there was a major illness that my mother -in -law undertook, and Doreen was commuting back and forth to upstate New York until my mother -in -law passed away in December. Right around that time my wife encountered an illness and very much distracted, had been under doctor's care and -- and currently is -- today is two, actually three different physicians that's attended to her. So in light of all these distractions, we didn't follow through, and we did not meet the deadline to have our homesteading take place on our new property. Consequently, upon the purchase of the home, I did expect and was not at all alarmed to see the increase in my property taxes, even though I was only two houses down, it increased almost a hundred percent, which was somewhat expected, fortunate enough to have a new property. But what's -- concerns me at this point though is that further increase is about 20 percent because it wasn't homesteaded, and this is going to stay on the property, that we plan on staying there a long time. We've been residents here since 1995, actually did have a piece of property back here in 1987, left in 1991, liked it so much we moved here full time. I'm in the investment business and have been doing this over 25 years, and you can sense, too, that the economy we're involved in is going into a recession, the famous R word that you don't want to hear the administration and many politicians use, but the economic figures that I see are very severe, and I think we'll start to see it as the season Page 18 October 3, 2001 �..6 l� moves on in various ways in the county. Be that as it may, again, wasn't surprised to see this increase take place upon the property. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, when did you file for homestead exemptions on this new property? MR. MC SHEA: I never did, actually. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MC SHEA: We were in the home in '99. We had a lot of problems with the builder. We got into the year 2000, and then as the year progressed again -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Have you filed for the following year ? MR. MC SHEA: No. I called up -- I contacted the county. And they said, "Well, you -- it's too late to do anything now. You should appeal to" -- you know, to you -- to you -all" and, you know, certainly get down and, you know, make your application. But we can't do anything now about the year 2000." As I had mentioned, my wife handling the situation, she had encountered an illness in her family, and then her own situation which she continues to be under a doctor's care. It was so distracting that we had so much going on, especially with my business, too, you know, this stock market has been in difficult shape since 9/11 but it's been -- previous to that it's been on a down trend, and we had some various serious setbacks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I didn't raise my hand, but I did have a question. I guess I -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. I didn't see that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. That -- that's quite all right. Not -- not as a determining factor but as a reference point to work with, if this is granted, what's the difference it makes in taxes? I have no idea. Page 19 October 3, 2001 1 011 MR. MC SHEA: Approximately right now I think it's about $1200 on a base of about 5200. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would that be correct, Mr. Skinner? MR. SKINNER: I have no idea. We aren't here to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know that -- I was just trying to get a reference point in my mind, and that wouldn't be the determining factor. MR. SKINNER: I'm not giving you a short -- I just don't know. MR. MC SHEA: What had happened, Jim, previously living two houses down, my taxes were approximately -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Like you said, you knew they were going to be going up. MR. MC SHEA: Well, they did. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You were protected by the 3 percent cap. MR. MC SHEA: Right. Well, I'm not now because of not having filed. What had happened is my property taxes went from approximately 2500 to about 5200 when I moved two houses down. On a proportionate basis, I certainly had a newer home. I didn't necessarily have a larger home. Actually, I have one less bedroom but, you know -- MR. SKINNER: That homestead equates to about $400, the homestead exemption. MR. MC SHEA: Yeah. I -- I would have, you know, no problem with the increase if I had been homesteaded, but it's 400 versus approximately 1200 and understanding I would be at a higher base. I didn't get the homestead I was -- MR. SKINNER: Don't misunderstand me that homestead equates the homestead exemption to 25 -- about $25,000 but about $400 in actual taxes, the homestead itself that the person would save. Page 20 October 3, 2001 16'41 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And this is just irrelevant or what we need to be doing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. I just wanted a -- just a point of reference. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just a point of reference. Do you have any other questions? MS. ABBOTT: I have a question and a statement. I know a couple of people who are on the list, and for the record wanted to make sure that I register that I do know the McSheas. Our children go to school together, and they're an acquaintance. There's no monetary re -- remuneration that I would expect in either -- any of the cases of any of the people that I know. But for the record I wanted to make sure that that was stated. But I had a question. And you had already filed for your homestead exemption on your first home. MR. MC SHEA: Yes. And had received one, yes. MS. ABBOTT: And on your second home, my understanding is it's not the $400 that concerns you as much as if you had homesteaded it, it would not have gone up more than the 3 percent. So it is -- am I correct in stating that? MR. MC SHEA: That's correct. MS. ABBOTT: So it's not just the 400? Am I wrong? MR. SKINNER: That would establish -- if we had given homestead for 2001 -- MR. MC SHEA: Correct. MR. SKINNER: -- is that what you're talking about? MR. MC SHEA: Correct. MR. SKINNER: -- that would establish his base value for 2002. MS. ABBOTT: Two. MR. SKINNER: He would only save the homestead $400 exemption. Page 21 October 3, 2001 16J1 MS. ABBOTT: So we're not here to consider the 1200. We're here to consider the 400? MR. SKINNER: We aren't here to consider anything like that, just whether he is obligated to have homestead -- well, in that case it would have been two places. MR. MC SHEA: Right. MR. SKINNER: You can't have homestead in two places. MR. MC SHEA: Well, I had homesteading on the older home, and then when I -- MR. SKINNER: Correct. We granted that, then the -- you'd have it in two places. You can't have homestead in two places. This was -- where were you living January the 1 st? MR. MC SHEA: In the present property. MR. SKINNER: In the present property? MR. MC SHEA: Yeah. The old property was sold and -- to a neighbor and, you know, that was -- I didn't have two places of property. MR. SKINNER: So that -- there -- there's the problem. If the old property was sold with that homestead on it, that person is -- is going to benefit from that. Then if this gentleman was granted the homestead on the new property, which he never -- he never did file on; right? MR. MC SHEA: No, I did not. That's that whole issue that we were remiss. MR. SKINNER: That's the problem. MR. MC SHEA: Like I said, with all this going on in our family, with my mother -in -law's passing, with my wife's medical condition, it got by us. I don't have any -- MS. GARRETT: Excuse me. You moved into this new property in 1999? MR. MC SHEA: Correct. Page 22 October 3, 2001 1 6 J l MS. GARRETT: So you had tax bills and notices from '99 and 2000, and 2001? MR. MC SHEA: Yes. My taxes increased. Yeah. I think I had a partial payment in '99. 1 had a full tax bill for 2000. CHAIRMAN HENNING: One more question -- MR. MC SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- then I think we need to move on. Mr. McShea, did you change your driver's license, your address on your driver's license? MR. MC SHEA: No, I did not. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You changed the address to your mail? MR. MC SHEA: Yes. Out -- mail and just, you know, everything else, business addresses, etc., yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The point is, the -- these are the things that we need to do when we move. Recently Mary, my wife, had to -- not only has to change her name, but she also changed her driver's license or registration, so on and so forth, with the new address. And that's my only comment. Any other questions? MS. GARRETT: More importantly, the McSheas have never filed for homestead. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, in '99, since '99. MR. MC SHEA: And I just -- and -- and, you know, I haven't -- I didn't realize there was -- I think I called Abe's office. There's really -- never realizing any particular notice. There may be a public notice somewhere that you have to. I just was under the assumption that you carry over from your old property. MS. GARRETT: The homestead receipt card that you get every January says on it if you have moved you must refile for homestead exemption. MR. MC SHEA: I don't recall that we -- that I get that. I mean, Page 23 October 3, 2001 161j I may have it, put it in my file, but I don't recall that's something that's sent to the taxpayers. MR. SKINNER: Another problem -- it's not a problem, but at this time if that homestead was granted, then he had homestead on the other property, and that would have to be denied, and the person who bought that is under the assumption that he -- that he inherited the homestead and the taxes was going to be so and so. So you have more than one property involved here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I seen that you picked up on that. It sounds like you got your homework cut out for you on that piece of property. MR. SKINNER: Well, no, no, not the way it is right now, no. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion? MS. ASHTON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to note before the vote is taken that Ms. Abbott and I had discussed her relationship with the McSheas, and I advised her that there's no voting conflict. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. MS. ABBOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pleasure of the board? Entertain a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I really can't see a tremendous difference between this and the first case, and I make a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a motion to deny. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to -- a first and a second to deny Petition No. HP -8. All in favor of the motion signify by saying Page 24 October 3, 2001 aye. 16JI (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5 -0. MR. SKINNER: Let -- let me say something right here. You know, this makes me look like the bad guy. But let me say I go that second mile, I try and I inform staff to go the second mile on the -- particularly on these homesteads. If there's any legal way that we can grant that -- and we do have a certain amount of authority as far as a late file is concerned up to a point, and we go that second mile with any of these. I don't want to be the bad guy, if it's a person's homestead, I want them to have that. And truly I mean that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Skinner -- MR. SKINNER: There are just certain guidelines that we have to go by that I have to be accountable for. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hope that nothing we're doing up here portrays you as an evil person. MR. SKINNER: No, no. I'm -- I'm just saying that, you know, it seems like we're a bad guy here for denying homesteads, and we're not. MR. MC SHEA: Well, I just thought that, again, my circumstances were such that we had so many distractions and since I was a taxpayer here previous and I'm going to be a taxpayer here for many, many years that this is -- obviously this was a factor, but apparently it's not. MR. SKINNER: Just a piece of advice. You may want to apply for the home you're in now for next year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next case is HP -12, William E. Collins. Mr. Collins? Good morning, sir. MR. BAER: Good morning. Board members and Mr. Skinner, my name is Dan Baer, B- a -e -r, and I'm a CPA that's currently been engaged by Mr. Collins to assist him in this matter. Page 25 October 3, 2001 16J1 Mr. Collins has been a resident of Collier County since 1982. He acquired the subject property in 1992. Mr. Collins was working with another CPA at the time, and in 1993 Mr. Collins was advised by the CPA to -- not to worry about the homestead exemption, that it was not a major issue because at that time it was a 250 to $400 item on an annual basis. Mr. Collins relied on this advice he was given by this CPA at that time. In the last three years Mr. Collins' taxes have gone up 42.5 percent, 11 percent, and in the last year a whopping 85.06 percent, which is a substantial -- in this case, an approximately $15,000 increase just in the last year. Mr. Collins appears before you concerned that he's being taxed out of his home, frankly. He's had to make some employment changes. Everybody suffered with the recent economic events, both in terms of the stock market and other issues. Mr. Collins has sought the advice of Mr. Skinner's office and immediately filed a homestead exemption in March of this year, March of 2001, but it would not be effective until 2002, if I'm correct. Basically we're here to advise you that Mr. Collins has tried to do the right thing, he did seek out a professional. MR. SKINNER: Let me interrupt. I did grant Mr. Collins a late file for 2001. MR. BAER: Correct. MR. SKINNER: And that will go into effect for 2001. MR. BAER: You're correct. Thank you. So Mr. Collins did take action once he realized that there was a problem here. But basically we come before you to -- to tell you that Mr. Collins tried to do the right thing. He relied on the advice of a professional. Unfortunately, that advice has got him into some difficult times here, so we're asking for a homestead exemption for the 2001 tax year. Page 26 October 3, 2001 MS. GARRETT: He has one for 2001. MR. BAER: For the 2001 tax assessment. 16J1 MR. SKINNER: You do have that. MS. GARRETT: He has one for 2001. MR. BAER: Excuse me, for 2000. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions from the board members? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there -- I just want to see if I heard you correctly. He's already got his exemption for this year, the tax bill that he just received. What you're trying to do is get one for last year? MR. COLLINS: Yes. MR. BAER: That's correct. MR. COLLINS: Trying to put it in arrears so -- excuse me, William Collins. In '93 my accountant at that time told me -- this is before the 3 percent cap. And I was never aware of the 3 percent cap that you could put on a home to lower your taxes and until it was too late. And then when it increased at such a tremendous rate, I became quite alarmed because of the finances of stocks and everything else like that, I can no longer afford to pay a -- $29,049 in taxes on my property where last year it was $15,900 -- 15,697. 1 feel that an 85 percent increase is quite a substantial amount. I did -- my neighbors two doors down, their -- their assessment -- they are not homesteaded, and their increase is 61 percent where mine is 85 percent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think what we're hearing right now is the homestead -- asking for -- you're trying to approve extenuating circumstances for the homestead exemption. MR. COLLINS: Right. Bad tax advice. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Heidi? MS. ASHTON: I'm not sure if I'm following this correctly, but Page 27 October 3, 10 J 1 you indicated you did a late filing for 2001 which are the taxes that are currently pending and what we're here about today; correct? MS. GARRETT: Yes. MR. SKINNER: You are trying -- you're trying to get the homestead exemption in place for 2000, for the year 2000. MR. BAER: Excuse me, one second. His notice for 2001 does in -- indicate an assessed value, substantial increase, and $29,000 of taxes for 2001. MR. SKINNER: 2001 sets -- I'm granting the homestead for 2001 on a late file. And that's -- establishes the base. Let's -- let's just all understand this is about the cap, not so much the homestead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh -huh. MR. SKINNER: The cap, we all know, was -- went into effect in '94. That establishes everyone's base from that year on. Mr. Collins was advised, no big deal, I suppose. I'm not putting words in your mouth. MR. COLLINS: Correct. MR. SKINNER: And it is a big deal from '94. But Mr. Collins never did apply until this late file this year which I granted. I told Mr. Collins again, and I'm -- I'm using this cliche, I went the second mile with him, contacted the Department of Revenue in Tallahassee and explained the whole situation to them. And they said if -- if the gentleman or anyone has not filed an application for homestead, they -- I can't grant it. I have certain leeway as far as late files, if they filed. But Mr. Collins never did even file. And they advised me that I could not give it to him because he didn't file. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You -- you understand that? MR. BAER: Yes. And that's why we were advised to come to the board to discuss extenuating circumstances. MR. COLLINS: And, Mr. Skinner, I do remember smiling at me and saying you did hope I win this morning because of my bad October 3, 2001 tax advice. l 6 . Jl MR. SKINNER. But even after I advised Mr. Collins to come to the board, I said, "But before you do that, let me go -- let me go make a call to Tallahassee, Department of Revenue," which I did. And I advised Mr. Collins what they said, that without an application, you cannot have it. And there was no application for the year 2000. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions from the board? MR. BAER: Mr. Skinner, does that mean for 2001 or for 2000? Is there anything that can be done about 2000 at all? MR. SKINNER: No, sir. That's why I talked to Tallahassee. MR. BAER: At this point can you talk about the assessed value, or is that a different venue? MR. SKINNER: We can always talk about the assessed value, but that's what -- that's not before this board. MR. BAER: Okay. MR. COLLINS: And which board would that be? MR. SKINNER: Well, that would be in my office after -- after we get through with this hearing. You can talk to some of my appraisers, and we'd be glad to go over the assessment. MR. BAER: Thank you. MR. SKINNER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion or pleasure of the board? MS. ABBOTT: There's nothing to vote on. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. We need to vote on -- he's asking for an exemption for 2001 for this year's taxes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. That was for 2000. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 2000. I'm sorry. Thank you. MR. COLLINS: May I ask a question? Do you have the ability to do that, I mean, the power? MS. ASHTON: No. I don't think they have the ability to go back and adjust your taxes for 2000. If I'm understanding correctly, Page 29 October 3, 2001 what you're seeking is a ca p, the 3-percent cap for homesteal.6J 1 MR. COLLINS: Yes. Because I did not realize that there was a 3- percent cap, and that's why I didn't homestead. MS. ASHTON: Because the issue before the board is concerning the late filing for the homestead exemption which we're told was granted. I -- I suppose you can go ahead and vote on the 3- percent cap, but it's really not the issue before us today. We can't affect the 2000 taxes. And the question before you is the homestead exemption and whether it applies, not whether the 3- percent cap applies. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then if we can't vote on this, we have to deny it. MR. SKINNER: What is the request -- what is the request? MS. GARRETT: It just says appeal -- MS. ASHTON: I don't have a copy of the petition. I'm not given a copy. May I see the petition and see what the relief is -- MR. SKINNER: You're appealing the late file for homestead. For what year? It doesn't say. So you're -- you're -- maybe this shouldn't have even come before the board because the 2001 late file was granted. 2000 is out of the picture, as far as I'm concerned. And I believe by state law, as far as this board is concerned. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have to take no action on this then -- MR. SKINNER: Well -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that I -- MR. SKINNER: Or grant the petition, you have to take an action on it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I recommend denial. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I'll have to second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We need some clarification. Page 30 October 3, 2001 16J1 MS. ASHTON: This is a little bit unique in that what they're seeking is the homestead exemption. MR. SKINNER: I'm sorry? MS. ASHTON: What they're seeking is the homestead exemption which you're saying you granted through the late filing. MS. ABBOTT: For 2001. MS. ASHTON: For 2001. And that's what they're here about. COMMISSIONER FIALA: They've already been granted that. MS. ASHTON: I mean, all these petitions are for 2001; correct? Right. There's only jurisdiction for 2000; that was last year. So the relief you're requesting was granted. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was granted by -- MS. ASHTON: You. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Abe Skinner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But then the terminology they were using, they were going the year before that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we're only hearing 2001. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. In that case you already granted it -- MR. SKINNER: This should be denied. MS. ASHTON: Yeah. I would say no vote is necessary -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. MS. ASHTON: If you deny it, then you're denying the exemption which was granted through the late filing. So my recommendation is not to take action on this petition. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. In the motion the first and second was withdrawn for the record. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MS. ASHTON: Okay. MR. BAER: Mr. Skinner, when would it be appropriate to go down and to meet with you regarding the value? Page 31 October 3, 2001 16J1 MR. SKINNER: Probably next Tuesday or Wednesday. We have these hearings through next Monday. MR. BAER: Okay. MR. SKINNER: But that would free us up Tuesday or Wednesday, but don't wait later than that, because after -- after that we are going to certify the tax roll, and that would -- that would be real difficult to change something. MR. BAER: Should we call your office -- call your office then? MR. SKINNER: Yes. MR. BAER: Thank you. MR. COLLINS: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next case is HP -13, Charles V. Chaffee. MS. ABBOTT: Mr. Chair, may I ask a question, please, of Mr. Skinner to clarify something. I apologize just because I'm new. I need to make sure that I'm understanding all of this correctly. And in -- in order to be consistent with everybody, I'm hearing that you're granting some people a late filing. Sometimes they filed a homestead in the past. Sometimes they haven't. Whether it's for forgetting -- thinking that they've done it or bad tax advice. I guess what I'm struggling with is that I'm not seeing consistency in granting the late filing for this year -- I'm not questioning you. I'm questioning my understanding of it. And this is not what we're deciding here, but what's been decided prior. And that is some people, for instance, in this case, he has established his cap lower because he's getting homestead -- it has nothing to do with the cap, only the homestead? MR. SKINNER: What we're dealing with is whether this person should have homestead or not. In the previous case I granted a late file. MS. ABBOTT: Right. MR. SKINNER: I could not grant one for the previous year. Page 32 October 3, 2001 MS. ABBOTT: Right. That's correct. 16J1 MR. SKINNER: The case before that the gentleman had homestead and wanted to put it on another home that he owned which we couldn't do because someone had already -- he had bought that -- sold that home, and someone was already benefiting from his homestead previously. MS. ABBOTT: Two years ago. MR. SKINNER: You can't have two homesteads in -- in -- anywhere in the State of Florida. So in that case if that had been granted, something would have had to have been done with that other homestead that he had on -- on the old home that he had already sold because those people were benefiting from the homestead. So you can't have two. MS. ABBOTT: Right. I wasn't questioning that. MS. GARRETT: He had never applied. MS. ABBOTT: Right. But neither had this gentleman. MS. GARRETT: Yes, he had. He applied in March. This -- this gentleman applied in late March. MS. ABBOTT: For the late filing. MR. SKINNER: For the late filing. MS. GARRETT: And he got it. MS. ABBOTT: Okay. MS. GARRETT: The other gentleman had never applied. MR. SKINNER: That's what I say, we want to go the second mile. And if it's in my juris -- my power to do it, I will grant that homestead for unusual circumstances. Well, what is unusual circumstances? One gentleman pointed out sickness in the family. I just wasn't familiar with it, I forgot it. You know, it's in the mind of who you're dealing with. And to grant a late homestead, I do that as much as I can. MS. ABBOTT: Oh, I'm sure you do. Page 33 October 3, 2001 16J1 MR. SKINNER: But after a certain point I can't. If someone hasn't filed at all, then it's out of the picture, I can't do it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Chaffee? MR. GOODMAN: My name is Ken Goodman. I'm here on behalf of Charles and Karen Chaffee. And I will test the second mile here at this point. We have an unusual situation here. Chuck and Karen Chaffee have been residents here. He also maintains a business in Indiana. He asked his mother, on his behalf, to go down and file his homestead exemption for him. And, if I may, I'll just share my information here and you can share it with the board. And actually our office sent to her the actual deed for the homestead, and his office is so accommodating they actually helped type up the form for her for -- in the year 2000 and typed the wrong property. Mr. Chaffee found this out, and last February on a timely basis changed the homestead, went and said, "The homestead's supposed to have been on this property, not that one." And the office said, "Don't worry, it won't be a big problem." And so he filed for a new homestead for the correct property. But it does become a big problem because the 3- percent cap. The assessed value of the property increased significantly in 2001. Had the proper property been identified in 2000, that cap would have applied to that property. Mr. Chaffee's fault was in relying on his mother in the late seventies to accommodate this when she went to the office, and they were very accommodating, and they helped. And I'm sure what happened is they asked her where she lives, but they've got the wrong address down, the wrong property description. And that's why we're here today. It is not whether or not a late filing per se -- there was no need for late filing. All of the homesteads were timely filed. Except in 2000 it was filed on the wrong property through the assistance of the tax assessor's office. MS. ASHTON: It seems to me like this might be the same October 3, 2001 16J1 problem. Do you have any ability to go back and make adjustments to previous years' tax bills? MR. SKINNER: Not -- a telephone call to the Department of Revenue in Tallahassee. I explained all of this to them, and they advised that this could not be changed. Those tax rolls have been certified and sent to them. The person had homestead on -- on the property that was listed on the application. And I asked them if there's any way we could just go ahead and change the homestead from that one home to the other, and they advised me not to do it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we legally do it? MR. SKINNER: Evidently not. They told me it would be up to me. MR. GOODMAN: If I may ask, how can a taxpayer, if they cannot rely on their government to assist them, where do they lay -- lay their faith? If one walks into the office and asks for assistance and -- and your office assisted them not giving them legal advice but in completing the form and completes it inappropriately, incorrectly, where does the taxpayer turn for relief if not from this board? MS. ASHTON: Do you have homestead for 2001? MR. GOODMAN: Yes, if I may, please. MS. ASHTON: Because the appropriate relief really is through evaluation petition where they contest the assessed value of the property, and they could make their argument there. MR. GOODMAN: I'm more than happy if -- if Mr. Skinner's willing to assess the value at an in -- 3- percent increase -- this will set a base that will apply indefinitely, and that's why it's so important. If I may just approach the commission, please. MS. GARRETT: They have that. MR. GOODMAN: They have -- both these forms were completed by the tax assessor's office. MR. SKINNER: While -- while he's passing this out, let me say Page 35 October 3, 2001 16J1 that we've got to get away from the idea of assessing to the cap because someone missed their homestead. This is about whether you have a legal right to have a homestead on this particular property or not for this particular year, not the cap. I know that's the big thing now, and everyone wants to go back as far as they can and -- and have homestead so they can benefit from that cap. And many people are benefiting greatly from this so- called save our home cap. This year the taxable value taken -- taken away from the taxable value because of save our homes equates to $2.8 billion of taxable value off of the -- off of the tax roll. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Duly noted. MR. SKINNER: I'm not saying that's right or wrong. I'm just making a point here. Everybody's trying to get the cap. I don't blame them. I would be also. But this has to do with the homestead. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Excuse me. This is exactly why we're here, is to hear whether you're entitled to the homestead exemption for 2001 and nothing else at this point. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- I'm lost on this one. I'll be honest with you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I do have another question, Tom. Are you saying that your mother went in -- just to make sure that I understand what you just said, okay, your mother went in to file for this, but the tax collector's office made a mistake -- MR. SKINNER: Property appraiser's office. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The wrong address, is that what you're saying? There's nobody -- that you never lived at this other address that they typed in? MR. GOODMAN: That's correct. Page 36 October 3, 2001 y 16J1 MS. ASHTON: But that's for the 2000 tax bill that was paid last year; correct? MS. GARRETT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And all we're -- MS. ASHTON: And for 2001 this application is for the tax bill that will be going out in November, and he already has homestead on that. MS. GARRETT: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So we're going back to the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: And -- it's just like the case previous to this is -- we really don't need to take any action because he already has homestead exemption on the property that -- in question; am I correct? MR. GOODMAN: And the reason we are here is because we were told by the tax assessor's office that we should make the argument here. And I'm not -- I have every reason to believe that he's speaking the truth when he says after he made some calls to Tallahassee, and Tallahassee's told him out of luck, which is what I'm hearing. But, again, you know, we're not sure -- had the -- when the mother had went in to complete it, I even had faxed her the appropriate deed to take. Our office faxed her the appropriate deed. Had it been correctly, the -- the exemption would have applied. The exemption's there today. The difference is whether a 3- percent cap would have been applied to the valuation of the property for 2001. That is the issue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we -- MS. ASHTON: And the problem is the tax bill for 2000 has already been paid, and any appeals as to that has already gone. And while this board, I'm sure, is sympathetic to the petitioner's position, it -- the issue before you is the exemption for homestead for which he Page 37 October 3, 2001 16J1 already has. Therefore, I mean, you can deny it if you want. You don't have the ability to look at the 3 percent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MS. ASHTON: Under the homestead provision. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And a question for Heidi. Really we don't have to take any action on this because he has homestead. MS. ASHTON: That's my advice. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And what he's asking -- MS. ASHTON: You could dismiss the petition or -- you know, if you want. But either no action or dismissing the petition, I think, is appropriate. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may. Heidi, I know this is probably not the direction we should be looking at. But I am concerned. What kind of recourse does he have? I know this board can't help him with this particular issue, with the scope of it. But what kind of recourse does this gentleman have to be able to try to -- MS. ASHTON: Well, unfortunately, I think his statute of limitations has already expired because if he came down under a valuation issue the question would be whether or not the -- the valuation is in excess of the just value, and those are the petitions you'll be going forward with later and the -- there's a presumption of correctness for the property appraiser so, you know, you would have limited ability to put a 3- percent cap even under a valuation issue. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I understand where you're coming from there. I know what the limits of our ability here is on this board. We've got an open question here, and there's no answer for it. MS. ASHTON: You know, unfortunately, I'm not a tax professional, and he might want to seek the advice of a tax professional. MR. GOODMAN: It seems -- I am a tax attorney. It seems that Page 38 1 V October 3, 20011 6 J 1 the reason I come to this board is that so if it's denied because we've taken all the right steps that the only recourse left is to go through circuit court. MR. SKINNER: Right. MR. GOODMAN: And it seems that that is a -- if all the parties recognize that it was a mistake and it wasn't just the taxpayer's mistake here, it wasn't just the taxpayer's mistake, the taxpayer's mother, which his agents, he's the principal, he's responsible for his mother signing the form with the wrong address, but also the tax collector -- tax assessor's office helping complete that form picked up the wrong address. We're not here to point fingers. We're just trying to see how can we resolve this issue. MR. SKINNER: How are you saying that we picked up the wrong address? MR. GOODMAN: Well, let me ask you, when I fax you a deed and the form that she signs has a different address on it and different property, if I may gather those forms that I handed -- MR. HENNING: And this is not what we're here for today, and maybe it is that -- that you need to go through the court system to resolve this. But what I'm trying to get at is, this isn't something that we're going to deal with. It's just about exemptions for 2000 and -- or homestead exemptions for 2001; correct? MS. ASHTON: That's correct. If it's the board's desire, you could have an opinion as to whether or not the incorrect address was on the tax bill for 2000 and just recognize that. But as far as your jurisdiction today as the homestead exemption, they already have it. So it's up to you. I suppose you could take action, and he could appeal it, but, again, I don't think it's, you know, what's the issue before this board today. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. Thank you. Page 39 October 3, 2001 �.. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Goodman? 16J1 MR. GOODMAN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did any -- you say that the tax collector's office typed in the wrong address. Did any of this family live at the wrong address? MR. GOODMAN: Mother. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, so there was somebody. MR. SKINNER: So the homestead was on the mother's property? MR. GOODMAN: No. That form that was completed at your office put his homestead on his mother's property which was incorrect. MR. SKINNER: And did she have homestead, the mother? MR. GOODMAN: No. Because she is not a Florida resident. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there was homestead exemption recognized for the mother. MR. GOODMAN: Yes. The issue -- and, really, it boils down simply that had -- had property assessed values not changed in a year, it would have been, oh, it was a screwup, he lost $400 on this property but, hey, his mom saved it, who cares. The problem is that the assessed values are going up, and it is an issue in our community. I mean, the reason this law was passed was to help save homes in our community. You know, Lee County took the initiative to do this. You know, it's very important that we look at this. We simply have an unfortunate set of circumstances here. And I'm simply pleading; is there any way that we can have some forbearance here. MS. ASHTON: Well, the problem is this board's arms are somewhat tied as to the issue you're requesting. And we're opening the floodgates if we now take jurisdiction over an issue that's not before this board for everybody to come in and start contesting the 3 percents that go back two, three years prior. ,o October 3, 200116 J Z ` �11 MR. GOODMAN: Well, is it -- is it right to open the floodgates for the people that felt they were given incorrect assistance through the -- through the county's employees? MR. SKINNER: May I make a suggestion? One more trip to Tallahassee with the information you have here, you say that mother -in -law was -- MR. GOODMAN: Mom. MR. SKINNER: The mom was taken -- took the homestead, but she also took the deed with her? This is the first time we've seen this. MR. GOODMAN: I believe she took the deed because we sent it to her, faxed it to her even before she was to go down. MR. SKINNER: And -- of course, you have to act on this. MR. GOODMAN: The -- the other thing -- MR. SKINNER: It might be denied, but one more trip to Tallahassee for me with additional information. Now, you've had two -- you had two chances in 2000 to correct this. There's been a homestead on that property, and the -- and the mother was not a resident. There's been a homestead on that property. So that property has been benefiting from it and should not have been benefiting from it. And I'll -- I'll certainly be willing to -- to call Tallahassee again and explain each situation to them again. And if they say we can -- we can do that, I'd certainly be agreeable to grant it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me ask a question, then. When can you complete that, and can we do that today, or do you want to continue this case on until Monday? MR. SKINNER: We could -- we could probably have an answer by Monday on this. MR. GOODMAN: And, if I may, I think what I heard was that if this is set aside because the homestead is too bad, so sorry, we're out of luck, we can't address any value issues here, my question is Page 41 October 3, 2001 16J1 again would that be equitable, given the situations. If the way to address it is through the valuation, the assessed value, I guess I'm not real comfortable with now hearing, well, it's too late, you're foreclosed from doing that. You may have filed an appeal with this board but because we're now trying to appeal something different you're just out of luck, which I think, is what I heard. As long as we can address -- maybe we can work it out through the assessed value issues also. MR. SKINNER: Not the assessed value before this board, no, because you didn't -- you didn't protest that against this board. Our doors are always open for someone to come in and talk about their assessed value. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would be all right -- excuse me. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to get in front of you, Mr. Skinner. I just wondered if it would be all right for us to continue this on Monday then. MR. GOODMAN: It is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we move on? MR. SKINNER: In the meantime, I'll call Tallahassee and explain a little further. And if they say so, I have no objection to it. If they say I can't do it, I can't do it. MR. GOODMAN: I'd like to thank Mr. Skinner for going the second mile for me. Thank you very much. I'd like to thank this board. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just a point of order for -- for us and our staff and Mr. Skinner and his staff, either throw something at me or Mr. Chair just to recognize you so we can have a little bit of consistency here and we can get through it a little bit faster. Next case is HP -5, August P. Richards (sic). MR. RICHTER: It's August P. Richter, R- i- c- h- t -e -r. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. 9 =19N October 3, 2001 16J1 MR. RICHTER: And -- that's okay. We -- we had an unusual situation for the last year in that our son was diagnosed with cancer. And it was May 20th, so, you know, when we did apply, they asked us why we didn't apply earlier. We're applying for 2001. And, you know, we just didn't do it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. When did you move into the home, sir? MR. RICHTER: '99, the -- the end of'99. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You moved in there the end of'99. MR. RICHTER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to hear from Mr. Skinner's office. MS. GARRETT: Okay. Mr. And Mrs. Richter are receiving a -- a residency -based exemption in Illinois for 2001. And, according to 196.031, you can't have a residency -based exemption in two states. MR. RICHTER: We applied for it in 2001 here. MS. GARRETT: Right. But you're receiving it for 2001 in Illinois. MR. RICHTER: In Illinois? We're not. MS. GARRETT: According to Illinois you are. MR. RICHTER: Pardon me? MS. GARRETT: According to Illinois you are. MR. RICHTER: Dana, I don't know. No. MS. GARRETT: A limited homestead exemption, yes. MR. RICHTER: On our property? MS. GARRETT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: MR. RICHTER: Pardon me? Do you dispute the records, sir? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you dispute the records? Page 43 October 3, 2001 16J1 MR. RICHTER: I guess so because -- for -- for 2001? MS. GARRETT: Yes, sir. In the right -hand corner. It says 2000 -- tax year 2001. MR. SKINNER: You can't have a benefit from a homestead in two different places. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I ask how long you had that in your possession, the Illinois -- MS. GARRETT: Ever since -- MS. ABBOTT: '89. MS. GARRETT: August 29th, 2001. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That you received it? MS. GARRETT: That's when I received it, yes. But we called -- MR. RICHTER: But, I don't see what this is. MS. GARRETT: When they apply, they fill out a -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Uh -huh. MS. GARRETT: -- affidavit saying they're not receiving an exemption anyplace else, and if they own property in another state, we contact that state to make sure. MR. RICHTER: We own property in Illinois, but we don't receive the homestead. We never applied for it. MS. GARRETT: Well -- MR. RICHTER: I mean, what does it say -- what does it say here? MS. GARRETT: That you're receiving a limited homestead exemption for the tax year 2001. MR. RICHTER: Well, I don't know. We changed our legal residence to Florida this year. We intended to do it last year, but last fall our son was diagnosed. And between then and -- and May 20th all we've done, every two weeks we had to go there. He was in a nursing home after we took him to all the specialists and everything. Page 44 October 3, 2001 16 �'��� J1 1 And we just kind of put our life on hold for that. So, you know, my wife always told me that we weren't getting the homestead exemption in Illinois. MS. GARRETT: Also, Mr. And Mrs. Richter didn't transfer their driver's license or voter's registration until August 10th of 2001. So Illinois, I'm sure, has reason to believe that they were residents there as of January 1 st. MR. RICHTER: Well, I've had a driver's license in Illinois since I was 16 years old. But we were residents of Wisconsin while we had a dairy farm, and I still had an Illinois driver's license. The -- well, we legally -- well, we legally changed our residence. It's just -- it's just a matter of where we vote and where we claim our taxes and everything on. That's what my understanding was, because we weren't residents of Wisconsin from, like, '77 to '88. Then we moved to Illinois, and then now we came in, and as soon as our, you know, son was put to rest, then we took care of all the details there, we came in, we changed our driver's license. We finally had time to do that. We changed our legal residence for tax filing for income tax. We changed it to Florida as of this year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, my sympathies goes out to you for the trouble your family has endured. However, I want to clarify a couple points. One, you can't have this exemption in two different states at the same time; is that correct? MS. GARRETT: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Number two, do you dispute the records from Illinois as being incorrect? MR. RICHTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a possibility we might want to consider a continuance while you try to -- MR. RICHTER: Yes. I think so. Page 45 October 3, 2001 6J1 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Clarify this to just make sure there isn't a clerical error upon the part of Illinois. I don't know how you can do that. MR. RICHTER: I don't know. Dana, who did you talk to with -- I mean, we never filed. You know, we know what filing is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. I don't want to leave any stones unturned. I want to make sure that whatever is being done we're giving due consideration to everything. How do you feel? How does the rest of this board feel? MS. ABBOTT: I think you're right. If he thinks there's a dispute with that documentation, that that needs to be settled before we could even discuss it; right? MR. RICHTER: Because right now we are legal residents of Florida. We got our driver's license, and we told our accountants to switch for the tax year 2001 all our income taxes are going to be paid to Florida. I mean, they're not going to go to Illinois. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Skinner -- MR. SKINNER: You have a copy of this document from the state of Illinois. What more would you want us to -- to give you? A certified copy? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think maybe that would be a very good idea to do just to make sure. Well, how do you feel? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it's the burden of the petitioner, the burden of proof is laid upon him. It's not the burden of proof on the tax assessor. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But, of course, we'll assist wherever necessary, I'm sure. But I don't know -- MR. RICHTER: Check that out because we never filed for it and if somehow they -- just because we're paying real estate taxes there -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If -- sir, if you're getting it, October 3, 2001 16 b J .E whether you filed or not, I think that would end your -- your -- your -- your case with us. MR. RICHTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I hope that if you find out you do have it you withdraw rather than come before us and try to carry it any further. Because this in itself would be reason for denial. MR. RICHTER: Right. MS. ASHTON: The standard for this board is whether or not there are extenuating circumstances would justify a late filing for homestead, separate and apart from the issue as to whether he's getting two homesteads, has he met that burr -- not has he met, but is this board convinced that there are extenuating circumstances to justify a late filing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I don't think we can rule on that unless we can put this behind us first because according to statutes, we can't grant an exemption if there's already one granted in another state. MS. ASHTON: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think what Heidi is trying to tell us is the exemption was filed in 2001 for the property, receiving that benefit in 2002, or was there a application in 2001 for homestead exemption? MR. SKINNER: 2001 was a late file -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. SKINNER: -- to begin with. And then we found out that there was another exemption in another state. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Were you reversing the late filing? MS. GARRETT: No. MS. ASHTON: You did not grant the late filing because you found there was homestead somewhere else? MS. GARRETT: Correct. And if it had been earlier, I would Page 47 October 3, 2001 have J ust sent a denial but -- 16JI MR. RICHTER: We could have checked it out. So if we could get this continued so we could find out why we're getting it somewhere else. MS. ASHTON: So the property appraiser found that there was extenuating circumstances to justify a late filing? I'm just trying -- you would have granted the late filing if there hadn't been two -- MS. GARRETT: No. MS. ASHTON: -- homesteads. MS. GARRETT: No. MS. ASHTON: You would have denied it. MS. GARRETT: When the gentleman came in to file, that's when we took his pending application and suggested that he file a petition. MS. ASHTON: I -- I guess the point that I -- MS. GARRETT: After -- after that, once he filed, that's when we called up and found out that he was receiving an exemption in another state. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Well, if you decide that you want to continue this matter, you'll find out whether or not he's got homestead somewhere else. If he doesn't, then you're still back at the same point where you have to determine that there are extenuating circumstances to justify the late filing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. But we can't even consider it as long as this document from Illinois is hanging over this gentleman's head. MR. SKINNER: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you did move into the house in 1999; correct? MR. RICHTER: Physically, yes. I mean, we moved most of our stuff in. Then a lot of the stuff we moved in in '96, actually. October 3, 2001 16J1 We've been moving in for the last several years, but we had made a conscious point to start moving in in '99, and we wanted to change our residency in 2000 actually. Then when this thing happened, it just, you know -- MR. SKINNER: And when did you change your residency? MR. RICHTER: When did we change it? We actually physically changed it when we got our driver's license. We went into this -- to find out when we have to do it. MR. SKINNER: Okay. MR. RICHTER: What we have to do. So they told us we have to get our driver's license, and we knew that we had to notify our accountants to file our state income taxes for Florida and not for -- not in Illinois. MR. SKINNER: And you got your driver's license in August of ninety -- of -- of 2001. MR. RICHTER: One, right. MR. SKINNER: That's when you're establishing residency. MR. RICHTER: Well, that's not -- you know, that's -- I mean, that's one of the criteria for you. But in the past, like I say, we were residents of Wisconsin, and I had an Illinois driver's license. That never designates where you live. What designates where you live is where -- where you pay your taxes, your income taxes. MS. ASHTON: At this point we have a proof issue which is we have the petitioner who is orally saying that he does not have homestead in another state, and we have written documentation from the property appraiser that there is homestead in other states. So if you're going to decide to continue it and not rule on the extenuating circumstances at this point, then I would suggest that you advise the petitioner of what kind of evidence you're going to need in order to make that decision. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pleasure of the board. Page 49 October 3, 2001 16JI if MS. ASHTON: Such as a written documentation that there's no homestead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Heidi, I think that we better understand something right now. It's not a question of when he comes back again we're going to give him approval if he finds the records in default. The question is -- is that we've got no other ability other than to reject it based on that one record. That's it. That ends it. And so I just want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I recommend we go for continuance. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second? MS. ABBOTT: I second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second to continue it to Monday. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ASHTON: And are you continuing it to the first items on the agenda on Monday, okay, so he knows 9 a.m.? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. These homestead continuations, we can deal with these real quick and get on with the rest of business. Okay? Next case is HP -9, Marilyn Tully. MS. TULLY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning, ma'am. MS. TULLY: I'm Marilyn. This may be a moot point because after listening to all of that, I'm not sure where I stand. I may have been granted a late filing. Can you tell by this -- MS. GARRETT: You received -- Page 50 October 3, 2001 16J1 MS. TULLY: Then this part I will withdraw. I really came here to do the evaluation adjustment which I do have an appointment apparently. And I had -- when I went to do the evaluation adjustment filing, I saw there was another category on there which said about the -- the homestead, and I wasn't sure what it meant. So I just applied, since it was the last day. So I guess I'm withdrawing. Is that -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, ma'am. MS. TULLY: -- proper, do you think? MS. ASHTON: So you're withdrawing eight -- MS. TULLY: Just the homestead -- MS. ASHTON: Exemption? MS. TULLY: Yeah. Because apparently I've been granted a late file. And at that time I didn't know that. MS. ASHTON: Okay. You're also listed as TP -75 as a tax petition for valuation issues. MS. TULLY: That's with -- yes, I guess that's shortly. I'm on that list. MS. ASHTON: Okay. MS. TULLY: I'm not withdrawing that. MS. ASHTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's continue on. The next one is tax petition for evaluation, and that's TP -3, Mr. Richards (sic) MS. ASHTON: Before we get into the petitions, I just wanted to go over with the board the -- the standards that we're looking at today. I have provided a handwritten drawing in front of you that the property appraiser is entitled to a presumption of correctness. And in reviewing these applications there's a burden on the property owner to establish that the valuation is in excess of just value. And while you're reviewing these petitions, if the tax collector has reviewed the statutes, the criteria in the statutes that he's required to look at, which is in Section 193.011 Florida Statutes, and if the assessment is based Page 51 October 3, 2001 on -- on general appraisal practices -- 16J1 MR. SKINNER: Heidi -- Heidi, I've heard tax collectors enough. We are the property appraiser. MS. ASHTON: I'm sorry. Property appraiser. I've got a mental block. I'm sorry about that. But anyway, if he's generally applied the appraisal practices to similar property in a equal manner, then he's complied with the legal requirements of what he's supposed to do. And in that case the burden on the property owner is clear and convincing evidence which is a pretty strong standard. If you determine that the property appraiser hasn't looked at the criteria that they're supposed to look to or that the appraisal principles were not applied to similar property in the same manner, then the standard becomes preponderance of evidence which is a lesser standard than the burden on the property owner. Do you have any questions on what your role is as far as reviewing these petitions in light of the presumption of correctness and the burden on the property owners? You do? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any questions? MS. ABBOTT: No, I'm sorry. You did. This was very self - explanatory. Thank you for doing this. MS. ASHTON: Okay. It's a little bit complicated, and I just wanted to try to assist the board in going forward. And if you have any questions, as we go forward, either ask me now or -- or later. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Heidi has done this for a number of years, from my understanding, like 12 years, assisting the evaluation. MS. ASHTON: Eight years. Although I'd like my retirement program to say 12. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. And, Heidi, can you give us some of the examples that the -- this board might be able to rule in favor of? MS. ASHTON: The case law's across the board, so I really can't Page 52 October 3, 2001 16J1 give you any general principles. I think as we go forward and you have questions, that would be the better time to address it. I'm generally -- there's a whole line of case law that says that, you know, there's a presumption of correctness on the property owner -- or on the property appraiser's -- let me rephrase that. There's a presumption that the property appraiser's assessment is correct and it's -- and particularly where he's followed the criteria that he's supposed to follow, it's a pretty difficult burden to overcome. But it has been overcome in the past. Did I answer the question? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MS. ASHTON: Sufficiently. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You answered it the first sentence. Heidi, the next case is the gentleman that has a continuation. Should we hear that at the same time as his continuation on Monday? MS. ASHTON: The 9 a.m.? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MS. ASHTON: The other homestead petition? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MS. ASHTON: I would recommend that you hear those first thing so that you can give him a time, so it would be 9 a.m. CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's also asking for a tax -- MS. ASHTON: Oh, he's also here? Oh, okay. Well, is he here? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Sir, did you want -- MR. SKINNER: He's here now. We might as well. MS. ASHTON: That's on the 3 percent issue? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MR. SKINNER: On the value issue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: On the evaluation. MR. SKINNER: Value. MS. ASHTON: I -- I think that it's appropriate that you hear it now, and that might resolve his issue, if you so desire. Page 53 October 3, 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It was just a question. Sir, do you want to present your case on the evaluation? MR. RICHTER: This is my wife, Dana, and we reside at 1617 Gulfstar Drive. MS. RICHTER: You have the files with the pictures and everything that I sent you? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me see. You go ahead and continue, ma'am. MS. RICHTER: Okay. Our house is in an area without other houses that -- that are pretty much custom. But ours is more of a -- more like a tract home. It's -- it's based on -- it's the Hamilton, which is the same as the houses on Lighthouse Lane. We have a canal view. They have a lake view, but we basically see the same things. Most of our neighbors have a bay view, and they're taxed higher, and we're being taxed pretty -- you know, pretty similar -- similarly to them. But the values of Lighthouse Lane go from -- the improved values on the houses go from 296 to 466, and ours is similar -- a similar - looking house. It's made by the same builder. It's still a Hamilton. And we're being taxed a lot higher, even though it's a -- really the same -- same type of house. And -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your evaluation is higher, or your taxes are higher. MS. RICHTER: Our valuation -- the tax value on the improved value is this -- I checked on the Internet, and I got what all the valuations were for all the other houses. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you seek an assistance from an appraiser or -- MS. RICHTER: No. We did get -- I did get a printout that the county had said that Bayshore lowered the value of the houses in Windstar. It's a blighted area, and it did affect the values of everything in Windstar in 2000. And there -- there is one lot in our Page 54 October 3, 2001 0" 6J1 subdivision which is -- their land value is -- is valued at three fifty- two four fifty. They have a bay view. But we're being valuated at 494, and we don't have the bay -- bay view. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? MS. ABBOTT: It seems really difficult without seeing a plot plan to determine what you're saying as far as views and values and homes. I don't know if the rest of you feel that way. MS. ABBOTT: Oh. Thank you very much. Here it is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir? MR. STEPHENS: My name's Bruce Stephens. I'm employed with the property appraiser's office as the director of appraisal for all improved properties. The packet that you were just handed is -- is basically justification, you know, our valuation. I would like you to note that on the -- the petition, the initial value that the petitioner petitioned was for a million five sixty -six o ninety -nine. We did revisit that property, and a reduction was made. And the -- the current value on that property is 1,152,676. When I called the -- the Richters and told them that, they said, "Well, that's nice, but we still think it's too high." so we're here today. If you'd like, I'll go through this packet with you, show you the properties that we used in valuing this. And I would also like to show you some information about what she had just given you. Okay. Of course the -- the second page you have there is -- is an indication of the cost and market values of the property, both indicate the -- the real value to be in the neighborhood of 1.4 million. I can tell you that most of the time our assessed values are under market value. This is by law, okay. By law we have to recognize certain things in the sale of a property. And those are spelled out in the statutes, okay. Now, does that mean that we are below market value on every property, below sale price, I'm sorry, not market value? No. There are times when our assessed value is higher than sale price, and Page 55 October 3, 2001 16J1 part of that reason is there are people that -- that get deals down here, you know. There are people that buy property under market value that turn around and sell it for 30 and 40 percent profit. But in this particular case, again, we have a value of 1.1 million, and we feel that we can prove 1.4 million. The property is very unique, okay. It is a development within Windstar that is a gated community within Windstar, okay. It is very unique. There's only, I believe, 11 properties in this. This is down by the Yacht Club. All but three of the parcels are on the island, the Yacht Club there. Mr. Richter's property is not on the island. There had not been a lot of sales activity on that island. There was a sale of the home directly across from them on the island, but I chose not to use that as a comp because I think simply because it's on the island, it is -- it is different. So I went up into Royal Harbor which is to me its closest area. They both have the same type of water access into the river and so forth. So you'll see that, you know, on the map handout where the comps are located that I used to value this property. Also, if you will look, I have photographs of -- of each of the comps except for one comp, and they've already torn the house down since they -- since they bought. Okay. What I would also like to show you is a close -up aerial of this property, and there is a -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bruce, before you continue on, can I ask a question of the members of the board? I don't feel like I am a tax assessor. I mean, an appraiser or anything like that. And what point -- what -- what good is it doing going through all this information? Maybe something that you could clarify for me and the rest of them -- the rest of us, is you stated that you -- that you must appraise it below market value; am I correct? MR. STEPHENS: We generally are a little below market value because the statutes do spell out that in -- in a sale of a property, we Page 56 October 3, 2001 1 " JI have to take certain things into consideration, that being cost of sa e, for instance, you know, possibly the -- the atypical financing, the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess the question to the petitioner is, would you sell your house for what the tax assessor has it assessed at? MR. STEPHENS: Well, and the point that I was making is that from the actual market value of the property is greater than our assessment. So we do not have it overappraised, which is the issue before you at this point in time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. RICHTER: They had one sale this year of a house that it sold for one -- 1. 1, Honey, was it? MR. STEPHENS: That was a 2000 -- was that a 2001? MR. RICHTER: That was 2001. That is bay front. We are canal. There is a big difference between bay front and canal. And that house -- it's not a tract home, although it was built by St. James. But -- and that was plus the slip. Right, Dana? And that was on the market for about a year. But the only other sale in the last several years, the house that he referred to that he didn't use as a basis, that was on the market for three years, and nobody would buy it because they had to go through Bayshore, and they heard about the stabbings, and the murderers and this and that and whatever. And that housing was -- we were told by the real estate person that the reason -- only one person came and looked at the house was because of the area that it was in and that house was sold -- when was it -- and that -- that was sold in 2000, and that went for 1.2? MR. STEPHENS: 1.9 million. MR. RICHTER: 1.9. And that was because that house has a marble garage. It's all marble. It's got columns and everything inside. It's a totally -- that house was several million dollars to build, and he listed it at 2.4, and he got 1.9. Page 57 October 3, 2001 1 b J 1 COMMISSIONER FIALA: What did you pay for your house? MR. RICHTER: What did we pay? We paid about 500,000 for the house. Then we paid -- actually, it was 325, although it shows 350 for the lot. And that's because they didn't want to reduce the price. So what they did was they allowed us for pilings or -- or fill. They said, "All right. We'll give you a credit of $25,000 on the fill." So we paid 325 or 350 for the lot, however you want to look at it. But it's the cheapest lot there. But that included a $90,000 boat slip. MS. RICHTER: Which we're taxed separately. MR. STEPHENS: That was in 1995. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you. I know what they're doing on Bayshore, and it's -- property values are really climbing because -- MR. RICHTER: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- they're cleaning it up so much. MS. RICHTER: We're talking about the 2000 valuation at that time they had it. MR. RICHTER: 2000 they hadn't done all of that yet. MR. STEPHENS: If you look at all of the Bayshore area, you will find out that in 2000 values did climb pretty heftily. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that because I have property there too. MR. STEPHENS: I would like to point out to you the property -- the subject property is down here (indicating) And this is not a very good map, simply because I had to cover such a great distance here. The property -- if you look two lots to the left, that's the property he was talking about selling for 1.1 million in the year of 2001, okay, which we'll be looking at for next year's tax roll. That piece of property has 16 foot on the water. The rest of it's mangrove. Now, the bay view that he has is because he -- the person that owns that property or that sold it, just sold it, had the mangroves Page 58 October 3 2001 6J1 illegally cut down. So the mangroves are going to grow back, and then that property will have no view of anything of mangroves. MR. RICHTER: They have a permit to legally cut the mangroves down to 6 feet, and that is well below -- because the house is raised. They all have to be at the 11 foot above sea level. And they'll have a bay view if they just keep the mangroves trimmed to 6 foot. I think they have a permit for that. MR. SKINNER: I think someone got carried away with cutting it down, it's lower than 6 feet. MR. STEPHENS: And if you'll look at the two aerial photographs, you can see the property that he's talking about. You can see where they actually trimmed it back. By the way, these are January 2000 photographs. Okay. And the sales -- or the properties that -- that they mentioned earlier in comparison are up here (indicating) in Windstar, have no water access. These properties here (indicating) are very unique. This is the only place in Collier County that properties have boating access, gulf access, beach access. MR. RICHTER: The thing is, though -- MR. STEPHENS: By virtue of membership in this community. It is the only one in Collier County. MR. RICHTER: In order to have -- when you buy the house, it includes a slip, which you pay separate for and you're taxed on that slip. We're taxed on our slip. We pay taxes on it. We're not objecting to those taxes. The slips are separate from the houses. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah. They are separate. MR. RICHTER: So when you buy the house, you pay extra for the slip. MR. STEPHENS: And the valuation of 1.1 million does not include the boat slip in any way, shape, or form. It is a separate issue. Page 59 October 3, 2001 16J1 But this property (indicating) and the one immediately adjacent to it are the only properties of the 11 or 12 in this subdivision that can have their own boat slip. MR. RICHTER: There's several other properties that already have boat slips behind their house. One is the one that he's valuing at 1.1. They have a permit in. They're going to put a boat slip in within a month or so the one he says only has a 6 -foot frontage. They're getting around that by making a 4 foot -- 6 -foot pier out. Then they're going to have a T- shaped dock that is going to be longer than the 6 feet. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me, I think we're getting a little far away from where we need to be. What we're talking about is what the valuation of your property is, the true valuation, against what the tax collector's -- assessor's -- MS. ASHTON: Yeah. The issue at this point is that there's an assumption -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sorry, Mr. Skinner. MS. ASHTON: -- of correctness as to the assessment by the property appraiser. You've received evidence now from the property appraiser and from the property owner. And the burden is on the property owner to establish that the valuation is in excess of just value. If the question is whether you've heard any testimony or any evidence to indicate that the property appraiser hasn't looked at the criteria or has applied principles unevenly to similar properties. And if they haven't, then your burden is a clear and convincing evidence, which is a heavy burden, or you have received testimony that they haven't looked at the criteria and the statutes and that they have applied the rules unequally, then the rule is preponderance of the evidence. So I don't know if you're ready to make a motion at this point or if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Linda has -- Miss Abbott has a Page 60 October 3, 2001 question so -- 16J1 " MS. ABBOTT: Out of curiosity -- thank you very much. I was wondering, how much did the assessment go up in the last two years, not that it's relevant, but I'm curious. MR. RICHTER: Last year it was 800 and something thousand dollars. MS. ABBOTT: I'm talking about the value. I'm sorry, the value of the home. MS. RICHTER: The value as far as -- MS. ABBOTT: As far as taxes are concerned. MS. RICHTER: Oh. It went from eight -- 850 to -- well, it's now down to a million one. or -- MR. RICHTER: It went from 850 to one -- to what? To 1.8 MS. RICHTER: Well -- MR. RICHTER: It went up over a hundred percent. Then we contested it, and they were -- MS. ABBOTT: And now it's at 1.1. MS. RICHTER: Right. 1.1 so -- MR. RICHTER: But they had sent us the assessment for 1.850 or 1.9, somewhere up there. MS. ABBOTT: So it's come down considerably. MR. RICHTER: It's come down considerably, but it's still, like, 300,000 or -- or more higher than last year. MS. ABBOTT: Higher than last year or two years ago? MR. RICHTER: Higher than -- MS. RICHTER: Higher than the last - -. MR. RICHTER: The last tax roll. Higher than last year's. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that we've heard enough evidence here, and I'm just going to state that Collier County property is -- is -- is something that has gone up all over. The assessment is Page 61 October 3, 200 �. 6 J 1 r something that -- there's a positive and a negative to it. So what's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you already dropped the taxes like half a million dollars; right? MR. SKINNER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or the tax -- taxable value. You've already dropped it a half a million. MR. STEPHENS: Yes. Around 400,000. MR. RICHTER: They had raised it about a million, though. They had raised it a million dollars. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It sounds like you own a pretty unique property. MR. STEPHENS: If you look at the petition, he filed the petition on 1.5 million. We lowered that to 1.2. It was never at 1.8 or 1.9. MR. RICHTER: It was. It was. I beg to differ. It was 1.8 something, and then they lowered it to 1.5, and then they -- they refused to hear anymore. And then we said we were going to file a petition. Then they came back, and they lowered it again to 1.1. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think the tax assessor -- the property tax -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Property appraiser -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Property appraiser's office has been more than fair and understanding, and I recommend denial. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make it a motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a motion on the floor for denial. Is there a second? MS. GOODNIGHT: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. October 3, 2001 (Unanimous response.) 1611 ., CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries - 5 0. I just want to give you my feelings of -- of sorrow about your son, and I wish you well. MR. RICHTER: Thanks. MS. ABBOTT: I think we all do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me. I have to go get Pam Mac'Kie to sit in for me. I have to give a speech. (Commissioner Fiala left the room.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next case is TP -75, Marilyn Tully. MS. ASHTON: We're still on the nine o'clock petitions. We do need to try to move these along a little bit. There is a time limit that the people are required to wait, so we do need to try to move these -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we want to give a time line of how many minutes that we want to give each petition? Like a five - minute. MS. ASHTON: I think you can establish reasonable rules as to how long each party can speak. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am. MS. TULLY: Good morning. I'm Marilyn again or still. I guess I am questioning the tax valuation and asking for an adjustment. I have -- I guess you have information in front of you on the comps that I brought. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's your basis for adjustment? MS. TULLY: Basis -- okay. I felt that it had escalated a little too much in one year on the value of the house. And what I used, as a judgment for that, was a real estate appraisal which I had gotten recently, and it is way below your property appraiser's judgment on the value of the house. Page 63 October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have that appraisal? MR. STEPHENS: Yes. Do ou have a co 16J1 Y py -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MR. STEPHENS: -- of that appraisal? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Do we have a copy of it? MR. STEPHENS: I have a copy also. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We both have a copy. MR. STEPHENS: Okay. I've already looked it over. MS. TULLY: I have, if you would like, another copy. MR. STEPHENS: I have another copy or two if either of the board members desire. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what I was asking if the board members had a copy of the petitioner's appraisal. MR. STEPHENS: That I don't know, I have no idea what she filed with the board in terms of support. MS. TULLY: Well, I've -- let's see. I have a copy of the appraisal of the real estate, and that is what I turned in to the board, and I have another copy here where the real estate appraiser for banking purposes, for mortgage purposes, gave me the comparables, for the bank's use in making a judgment. MS. ABBOTT: How long ago was your appraisal done? MS. TULLY: I believe the appraisal was in March. MS. ABBOTT: Of this year? MS. TULLY: Of this year. MS. ABBOTT: And how much was it for? MS. TULLY: Okay. The -- there -- the appraisal on my property from them was, I believe, 475 or 425. Let me look here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 475. MS. TULLY: Okay. Thank you. And the value of the property for tax purposes, last year was 419, the assessed value. But this year it's 612 and change. October 3, 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bruce, can we accept this as evidence? MR. STEPHENS: If -- if I thought it was accurate information, we wouldn't have come this far, but I dispute that appraisal very much, and I would like to point out those things about that appraisal. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. STEPHENS: Okay? Number 1, the appraisal is as of March of 2001. Our assessment date is as of January 1. Okay. Now, that's not a real big difference in there. But he did use some information that -- that I question as an appraiser. The very first sheet that I gave you is -- is a map of Royal Harbor. And if you look at the subject and then look where his comps were. Now, it appears to me that he was going for a specific value. And I say that because if you look at my map and look at the comps that were available at the time he did it, they're all right in that same waterway, and he didn't use them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I see. MR. STEPHENS: In fact, almost right across the canal was a lot sale that occurred in 1999 for 405 for just a vacant lot. The house directly across the street -- across the canal sold for 650. So I don't know where the appraiser was coming from, but it -- it is -- it is not -- and, on top of that, the comp that he used sold in February for two thou -- for 460,000. MS. TULLY: That's February of this year. And that's after the taxes were assessed at 612. MR. STEPHENS: He used a February sale on Comp 1. All right. Comp No. 2 was a April 2000 sale at 469. But he didn't use the February 2001 sale of 665,000. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Trying to come to a conclusion of whatever they want to achieve. (Commissioner Mac'Kie entered the room.) Page 65 October 3, 2001 16J1 MR. STEPHENS: It was very evident when I looked at the appraisal, particularly of the one sale that he did not pick up the resale of it for $200,000 more in the same month of another comp that he used. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh -huh. Any questions for the board? MS. TULLY: Okay. I would like to comment on that if I could, please. This is my -- the first time I've heard that he may have been biased in one way or another, which is very much in my disfavor on both ends because he was appraising the bank -- for the bank, but I'm sure they didn't send him -- they gave me choices, I picked a name, and I don't think they specifically gave me him only as their appraiser. I don't think they're allowed to do that. Maybe if they are you can let me know. So the bank is now only willing to support me in financing for this lower amount, 475. On the other hand, I have to pay taxes based on somebody else's appraisal, which of course, is the county appraiser's office, and I'm paying taxes on a higher amount than I can ever even go to the bank and get loans to pay the taxes -- to pay the taxes with. MR. STEPHENS: Can -- can I make one statement there? I have seen -- I have been in this business for almost 30 years, and I've seen it for 30 years. Banks, when they get an appraisal done, 99 times out of a hundred the appraisal comes in real close to what's being bought. I don't care what the amount is, you know. Because what that appraiser's doing, he is trying to cover what the bank is going to invest in, and that's all they're doing. They're not really appraising the property to determine market value. They're appraising it to determine whatever responsibility that bank is going to have here. And all he's done is told the bank that if she borrows 400,000, it's worth at least that, and it is worth at least that because the lot would sell for that. It would sell actually for more than that •• October 3, 2001 because it's a bigger lot. bJl MS. TULLY: All right. And then may I -- MR. STEPHENS: I'm sorry. And it did sell for 400,000. MS. TULLY: My comment on that is if you would notice this notice of proposed property taxes -- well, it's not on that. It's actually not on this piece of paper. But the way they evaluate it -- and I have a piece of paper here which was given to me by the county appraiser's office, which states that the lot is worth a certain amount of money, and the house is worth 89,000. It's not exactly a -- the house that he's comparing it with, it sold for 699, had a real house on it. I have what the locals call a tear -down. So it's -- my -- my lot is definitely my -- my value, and the house itself is -- is very nice and small and simple, whatever. So I feel that based on the fact that, from both ends, I am - - I either -- I will go to one end or the other. But when I'm coming from both ends where I can't get the value from the bank because the appraisals and the sales that are comparables, which I have on -- which we've pointed out on the appraisal are not where we make our decisions from. Then on the other end, I have to pay the taxes based on a higher -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a question here. MS. ABBOTT: Just a comment. I tend to agree that the bank is simply covering their investment. And based on the evidence that we have and that the bank used older comparables and that the ones that we had were newer -- MS. TULLY: The comparables were within six months. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah. They just weren't -- MS. TULLY: Or even within two months. MR. STEPHENS: In other words, there were comparable properties that had sold that you could throw a stone to and they weren't used. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When that's -- that's -- Page 67 October 3, 2001 1611 MR. STEPHENS: Unfortunately, those houses sold for more than the ones he chose to use. So, you know, I mean, I will be more than happy to discuss this with the appraiser. I'd -- I'd love for him -- MR. SKINNER: That's not the question before us. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was just going to ditto what Miss Abbott said about, you know, it's -- I'm in the real estate closing business. You know, or formerly was before my new job. But they - - they do go out with a mission of trying to see if the bank loan is justifiable, and that's an entirely different mission from the one that our property appraiser has statutorily. And so while it's useful information, it's sure not enough to overcome the burden that's necessary to be able to -- to change the property appraiser's assessment. I recognize it's frustrating but, you know, this board has such a real strict limit on the law of when we're -- what evidence -- what's enough to allow us to overcome their presumption of correctness, and that bank appraisal's not going to do it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make a motion to deny the request. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a -- a motion and a second to deny the request. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5 to 0. MS. TULLY: Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next case is TP -1, McKenzie trust. Recognizing -- excuse me, sir -- recognizing that School Board Member Abbott needs to leave on a previous engagement and will return. October 3, 2001 MS. ABBOTT: Okay. Thank you. l bJ1 (Ms. Abbott left the room.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I'm sorry, sir. Go ahead. MR. MC KENZIE: I'm sorry too. I've got to leave soon to pick up my granddaughter. I think you have the information that I submitted to the Collier appraisal's office. Do you have it with you? Anyway, I obtained a list of properties that were sold within the last year and this year in 2000 and 2001. And this is in Imperial Golf Estates. It's on Imperial Circle, which is a street that my house is on. It's basically in the old addition of Imperial, and it's at the back of the addition, and there's a circle, and all of the houses are just on this Imperial Circle. So it's not on the bay front or anything, and it can't be compared to Port Royal or Grey Oaks or Pelican Bay. It's in an older established area of -- of Naples. Anyway, this -- this sheet shows that there were ten homes sold, and the average square foot of these homes sold were 2508 square feet, and the average sales price of these homes were $309,000 or an average square foot sales price of $123 a square foot. And then the next sheet that I presented was information I obtained from public records via the internet which was on the same ten homes, and it shows the last column over there is the assessed value, which basically is the value that seems to be what the taxes are derived from before any exemptions. So you add all those up and divide them by ten, and those homes were basically assessed at a average of $246,000 or at $98 a square foot. Well, then, if you apply that to my home, which is 3550 square foot, although the tax book says 3589, you come to a assessed value of $351,000. Well, that's what I think is fair. But then I get this proposed property tax bill, and it shows the assessed value at $416,000 for this year. So, basically, that's my argument, is I just want to be fair with what the homes in my neighborhood are -- are assessed at. It's a 0-.!= October 3, 2001 " 6J1 similar -type neighborhood, and I don't understand how they come to these numbers. I called them and talked to three different people on the phone, and it was basically like talking to a stone wall. They just didn't want to talk about it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question of the property appraiser's office? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this gentleman's property similarly appraised? Did his appraisal match that of his neighbors, or does he have a particularly outstanding property? MR. STEPHENS: It is all done similarly. The one question here that hadn't been brought out is the subject property is a little bit larger house than -- than most in there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and his appraised value, vis -a -vis that of his neighbors is in the same ballpark, higher, lower? MR. STEPHENS: Well, it would definitely be higher based on the fact that it's a bigger house. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But per foot is it similar? MR. STEPHENS: They're all very similar. MR. MC KENZIE: That's my argument. Per foot it is not similar. If they would use the per -foot averages that I come up with, then I would agree. I'm willing to go with the 3580 square foot that they say times the average square foot of 98 which comes up with a much lower value than what they assessed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the rebuttal to that from the property appraiser's office would be ... MR. STEPHENS: We have it assessed like all the other properties in there based on the same information. But he's got a bigger house. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. But what he's saying is -- the point he's making that I'm interested in is he says that there is a Page 70 October 3, 2001 16J1 general value per square foot in his neighborhood that then you would use as a multiplier times the size for the number of square feet in his house, and that you didn't do that, you used a different multiplier for his house. MR. STEPHENS: All he's done is taken a straight average and applied it based on sales that -- that he picked out, okay. If you're going to use those sales, then you need to match the information with that sale and the information with the subject so that you can adjust for the fact that the sale may have been much smaller, it may have been on a much smaller lot, it may have been two- or three - year -older house. And when you make those adjustments, then you come up with a different value other than just flat out taking a straight average. It would be great if all we had to do was take an average. The trouble is, there are no two houses in this subdivision that are the same on the same property with the same location in the same condition, you know. They're all going to vary a little bit here and there. But the same methodology is applied throughout. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have anything else, sir? MR. MC KENZIE: Yes, I do. If he wants to take one specific home there's one at 2066 Imperial Circle that was sold, and it has a average square footage of 3311 square feet, which is about 60 square foot smaller than my house. That property is assessed at $267,000. It has a three -car garage; I have a three -car garage. It has a pool; I have a pool. That's why I took the average. I just want to be fair with what my neighbors did. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if you use that -- I mean, if you used the square -foot average for that house and applied it to your house, would that be a relevant analysis? MR. MC KENZIE: Well, it would make mine even lower if you use that one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So how -- Page 71 October 3, 2001 16J1 MR. SKINNER: To do -- to do an average, it's kind of unfair because you have different -sized properties. You have different - sized homes, different ages and so forth, and -- and even maybe different class homes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, just this particular one it sounds like it's a little smaller -- I mean, it just sounds really analogous. Could you just help us understand how it differs, why it isn't the appropriate comparable? MR. STEPHENS: Well, you know, I don't have any information about this particular home. MR. MC KENZIE: It's listed on that first sheet as a sale. It's a five bedroom. It's three -- 3 311 square foot. It's on a lake; my house is on a lake. I just -- three -car garage. I don't understand it. I just thought an average would be better. I just want -- when I called them, they said we just try to be fair in our department. Well, that's all I want is fairness, and an average, I think, is being fair in this neighborhood. Look, Imperial is a -- is an old, established neighborhood. And I can't see the values going up like it appreciates all over Naples. Now, I understand certain places in Naples the values go sky high if you're on the water. But you take an older neighborhood, and it just -- I don't know. MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Well, I guess at this -- the best thing I could do is just walk you through our sales because I show the sales. And if you'll look at the map, you'll see where the subject is and where all the sales are. If you go through the -- go through the grid of matching the properties up and making adjustments to the sales to the subject property, you'll see that the value of 427 that we have on it, the actual market value should be around 491, four or five hundred thousand, okay. And if you look at the grid, we have him appraised at $95.63 a square foot. And if you go through all of these sales, sale -- Comp No. 1 comes in at 108; Comp No. 2, 124; Comp No. 3, 110; Page 72 October 3, 2001 16J1 49 107. So he is assessed lower than any of those comparable properties come in. And his land value in 1998, he paid 110,000 for the lot. That comes out to 8.54 a front foot. We have the land valued at six sixty -two a front foot. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's kind of hard to argue with that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. MR. STEPHENS: Now, this is -- this is a newer home, and he has some newer homes in there. But the majority of these homes are two, three years older or more. We feel that -- we do not have the property over assessed in relationship to his neighbors, you know, by any stretch of the imagination based on what he has. Now, I will tell you that I will do some investigating on this one sale that he pointed out. I will check into that myself and get back to him on why there's a difference there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MC KENZIE: I'd -- I'd like to comment, I don't know where he's coming up with his numbers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, he just showed us where he's coming up with them. MR. MC KENZIE: He didn't tell me which house. I don't know. MR. STEPHENS: They're pointed out on the map. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does he have a copy of this map? MR. MC KENZIE: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to deny. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. Page 73 October 3, 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion for and a second to deny the petition. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4 -0. MR. STEPHENS: Could I make one other comment? This property is homesteaded. It was capped last year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow. MR. STEPHENS: Okay. The assessed value only went up 3 percent. Market value went up a little more than 3 percent. But his assessed value only went up 3 percent. Now, what happens in some cases is, he homesteaded in, I believe, '99. Now, if a property homesteaded in '95 or '94 -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, sure. MR. STEPHENS: -- there would be a total difference. MR. MC KENZIE: That's true. But not only assessed value; taxable value. MR. STEPHENS: On the assessed value. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. In Florida assessed value and taxable value is the same thing. MR. MC KENZIE: No. It is not. It is not. MR. STEPHENS: There's three values that we deal with. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, because of the cap. I'm sorry. MR. STEPHENS: You have market value. You have assessed value on residential property, and then you have taxable value. The taxable value is the assessed value minus the 25,000 and /or $500 for widow exemption. Okay? So it is very important that when -- when anybody examines their value with their neighbor's or whatever, that they're looking at market value. You can't look at assessed value or taxable value because they can differ greatly just -- just from time. MR. MC KENZIE: Good luck to the rest of you. Page 74 October 3, 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next case is TP -4, Mark Brandau. Sir, before you start, let's take a five- minute break for the court reporter to change the paper. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I call the meeting of the Value Adjustment Board back in session, and next case is Mr. Brandau. MR. BRANDAU: Good morning. My name's Mark Brandau. I -- up until three weeks ago I resided in Michigan, so it's been a little difficult for me to -- with the preponderance of evidence to get much from 1500 miles away and see how things go here today. Regardless of what happens, I want to thank you in advance for moving on my list of many things to do, having moved here now and a permanent resident of Collier County, is to put the homestead application in the very first thing. So, if anything, I did learn that. But, beyond that, for the tax year of 2001, you're evaluating the tax of the lot before it was improved. And in 2000, that lot was -- let me back up just a little bit. That lot was bought in '93. We have '93, $96,000. Even at a compound increase, compounded at 10 percent, that brings it up to about 205,000. Last year, 2000 year, it was valued at 128,595. Now, for 2001 it's been increased to $294,000, 129 percent in one year. And, again, that doesn't even come close to compounding at 10 percent, which everybody would love to see in real estate. So with that in mind, my detail of actual specific evidence as I mentioned is a little bit difficult coming from Michigan other than the fact that I read the local papers via the internet for the last five years, seeing what's going on. And every realtor in the world was trying to get me to sell my property, but I didn't sell. I was going to be moving down here permanently. And I was shocked when I saw that number, but I can't give you any specific -- Page 75 October 3, 2001 -, 16JI CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions for any of the board members? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can -- I can understand your surprise. You know, it's just one of the realities of living in the area that we're in now, the increased valuations, what it's all tied to. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's not all bad is, your property is -- I mean, if I went to try to sell it, you could probably -- I know you can -- MR. BRANDAU: It would be even greater if I moved here a couple of years ago and filed for homestead. I know you don't want to hear that anymore today. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a good message that you're giving to the public out there. MR. BRANDAU: The old adage is a day late and a dollar short here for me on this one. But I guess I'm a practical man. I see what's happened here today. I've heard the assessors mentioned earlier that they had looked at some and made some changes before they came here. Again, I'm in the middle of mail being routed in between two states. Have you made any change since I've requested anything? MR. SKINNER: No, sir. MR. BRANDAU: I'll withdraw my case unless there's anything you think you can do for me. MR. HAMBLEN: No, sir. If you'll look at the sales we have, it's pretty well- founded. It's just what we had to do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Having heard the petitioner that he's withdrawn it, and I would like to move on because we're still working on the nine o'clock cases. I'm sure there's -- MR. BRANDAU: I figured I'd save you a little time and trouble today. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Meanwhile, welcome to the neighborhood. Page 76 October 3, 2001 16J1 MR. BRANDAU: Thank you very much. MR. SKINNER: Build that house. MR. BRANDAU: It is built. You're going to get me again next year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next case is Eleanor D. Benedict. MR. STEPHENS: This petitioner will not be present. She did submit a letter with her petition that she requested to be written into the record. So, you know, I guess -- MS. ASHTON: To be read into or just be made part of the record? CHAIRMAN HENNING: She hasn't withdrawn her request. MR. STEPHENS: She did not withdraw. All she did was send a letter stating she didn't think the property values were correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any evidence? MS. ASHTON: I -- I think it might be faster. Would you just read what the letter says rather than distributing it to all the board member -- all the board members? MR. STEPHENS: Okay. MS. ASHTON: Then -- okay. Thanks. MR. STEPHENS: I didn't know whether it would be appropriate for me to read it or for the board to read it. MS. ASHTON: I can read it if -- if you prefer. This is a letter dated August 29th, 2001, from Samuel S. and Eleanor D. Benedict on behalf of the Benedict trust. It's to the Value Adjustment Board. "This statement is attached to our petition in lieu of a personal appearance because of our inability to be in Naples. We reside in Michigan this time of year. We are going out of the country during September, and we will not reside in Naples until November. We are annual seasonal residents. It is -- it is an undue burden for the county authorities to expect us to suspend our plans on short notice, travel Page 77 October 3 2001 16J1 3600 miles round trip, or hire a representative to make this statement for us. We believe it is consistent with due process to have our statement heard. Therefore, we request your clerk or employees to read this statement to the board. "We contest and seek a review and adjustment of the market and assessed value of our property as stated in the notice of proposed property taxes received by us on August 23rd, 2001. This property is a modest, but well - maintained property in a traditional Olde Naples neighborhood. The house was built as one of the three by the Kellogg family of Battle Creek in 1947. It was purchased by Eleanor Devon Benedict's parents, Tom and Mary Hills Devine (phonetic), in 1960 and used annually by them and family members for many years. "We purchased the property from them in 1982 when they found it necessary to move into Moorings Park retirement community. We made some improvements on the house in 1996, and we have lived there five months a year since. Our children and relatives also use the home. The North Lake Drive area has always been a quiet family neighborhood that fulfills our values of good citizenship and responsibility. "Leaving in the intrinsic -- intrinsic value of the home to our way of life, we have put the property in trust for our children and their families so that they may enjoy it for many years to come. Above all, we do not consider our property a tool of speculation used for house hopping to generate income or to create mega houses which pass from hand to hand. "With these facts and reasons in mind, we feel it is unfair for homeowners like us to be penalized by highly speculative and inflated purchases which are indeed significantly out of line with the rest of the nation. See attached Wall Street article -- Wall Street Journal article. We view the escalation of assessed valuation of property for taxes as, in effect, a discouragement of bona fide October 3, 2001 16J1 seasonal citizens from owning, maintaining, and carrying out good stewardship of property in our older neighborhoods of this kind. "Specifically we wish to point out that the proposed increase in valuation of our property from $403,365 to $674,586 is a 67 percent increase which we believe is excessive and disproportionate. Furthermore, if valuations are going up anything like 67 percent throughout the county, and our telephone conversation with one of your employees indicated that this percentage is not a -- untypical, there would hardly be a need to increase millage." (Commissioner Mac'Kie entered the room.) MS. ASHTON: "so great would be the increase and income by virtue of growth and overall assessed valuations. We can only conclude that the county is letting the valuations in certain areas carry the burden of its proposed increased expenditures and that there is inequity in your assessment policy, either on purpose or inadvertently. Please consider our petition in light of due process, fairness, equity, and the future of long, established neighborhoods of Naples and Collier County." Signed by the Benedicts. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- I didn't see anything in that particular letter that would persuade me to ask for any other motion than one for denial. I make a motion. MS. GOODNIGHT: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second and -- for denial of the petition. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 4 -0. The next case is HRW Entities. MS. KRAPF: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the Value Adjustment Board. We are seeking review of the improved -- I'm Page 79 October 3, 2001 16J1' sorry, Kay Krapf. We are seeking review of the improved value of the three parcels that we are petitioning today. We are in agreement with the land value of all three properties we filed petitions but are contesting the improved value. We do not feel the improved value carries the kind of value that you are placing on the structures due to the fact that the structures are in excess of 20 years in age. We also feel that in order to consider the amount of money for our lots, we would have to have the structures removed from the lots through demolition, and this would be an additional expense to us. We agree that the improved value can be listed on the appraisal -- cannot be listed on the appraisal as negatives numbers and, therefore, we feel that you are double dipping. We feel the value of the land should be reduced by the negative effect due to the age of the structures. We are former owners of lots on Marco Island that we have purchased and sold in the past, and we feel that we have done an analysis, and we figure -- feel the situation for the -- for the review on the assessed value is to be considered. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We -- MR. SKINNER: Is this Petition 6 are we talking about? Six only? MS. KRAPF: All -- all three, 6, 7, and 8. MR. SKINNER: Okay. Six, seven, and eight. MS. KRAPF: Yes. MR. SKINNER: And we're -- we're going to hear them all at one time? That's fine with us. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the information that she -- MR. SKINNER: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- that she's giving here is on all -- all three. MS. KRAPF: Yes. MS. ASHTON: We'll just need to do a separate motion for October 3, 2001 each. 16' J CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And let's talk about -- I have questions on this one, and then we can get into the others. And we have a comp right next door to it. Is those -- is that improved property, and did it take in consideration of the age of the -- MR. STEPHENS: Yes, sir. If you will look at the photographs, they are relatively similar. We have an anomaly that's -- that's going on in Collier County. It's going on in Marco. It's -- it's been in the city for a while, and that is you have people that are buying houses and lots for lot value and scrapping the building. You also have people that are buying houses and lot and keeping the house, getting a homestead on it, then maybe remodeling or tearing it down. So you've got a market out there that's almost like this (indicating), and that's why I said earlier today that you do have situations where our assessed value is -- it's conceivable that it could be greater than sale price because you have people that are getting deals down there. In in Marco as -- as everywhere else. You also have realtors that are taking advantage of some of these, buying houses, turning around, selling them for 20, 30 percent higher to maybe unknowledgeable buyers. Now, this is happening a good bit. But, as you can see, you know, I've just taken properties that are in this area and -- and based on the sales that are -- that are in this area with similar houses, you know, we feel that our assessment is well within the range of that. And that's not to say that every one of these houses I'm showing you won't be torn down. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh -huh. MR. STEPHENS: But, nevertheless, we have the subject value -- valued at -- at 268,000. And, you know, these sales, four twenty, three hundred thousand -- the two sixty -five, if you'll look, is a much smaller house. There's only 1181 adjusted square foot. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, you have a Page 81 October 3, 2001 q 16J1 z� question? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was just drawing comparisons back and forth between the subject house and Comparable House No. 3. Is that a good comparison to make between -- the other ones seem to be of a different roof structure, of a -- they seem to be of -- the one here in -- Comparison No. 1 doesn't seem to relate at all to the subject house. Comparison No. 2 -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- might be the subject house, if you moved it forward into the future about 15, 20 years. The -- Comparison No. 3 seemed to be very close to it. That -- would that be agreeable? I mean, would you see that -- MR. STEPHENS: Sure, sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're saying that house sold for 265. MR. STEPHENS: Riiaht. But look at the square footage difference. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. MR. STEPHENS: The subject is 1585 adjusted square feet. That sale was 1181 square feet. So it's a much smaller house. So if you -- if you make that sale like the subject, which is what you do in - - in appraisal, then that adjusted sale price goes from 260 -- or the sale price goes from 265 to an adjusted sale price of 291, because you've adjusted the sale to make it like the subject. You know, and I agree with you. That's why we don't have $400,000 on the -- on the subject property, even though the property right next door to it sold for 400,000. It is different. But is it -- is it comparable? Could it be compared? Yeah. We -- we used it. You know, we looked at it, along with every other sale that took place down there. But, you know, for -- for these proceedings, you know, we're going to try to stay in the general area of the subject, and this is exactly what we did Page 82 October 3, 2001 16J1 with -- with all three of these properties. And they are in a little different locations here and there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless there's other questions, I'm satisfied and ready to make a motion to deny TP -6. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a motion on the floor for denial of TP -6. Do I have a second? MS. GOODNIGHT: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion to deny TP -6 signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 4 -1. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 4 -0 you mean? CHAIRMAN HENNING: 4 -0. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- we're going to take these case by case, so we're going next to TP -7. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you have something different, ma'am, to offer on No. 7 and 8? MS. KRAPF: No. Just that we're not contending the land value. We're just contending the improved value. MR. STEPHENS: That -- that is something that we have no control over. You know, it would be nice -- you know, you hear tear - down specials mentioned all the time. But by statute, we have to recognize what's on the property. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. STEPHENS: One of -- one of the criteria that we must consider is highest and best use to the property. The second part of that paragraph in the law says present use also, which means that we can't just automatically write off a house simply because we think it's going to be a tear -down special. If it's being lived in -- and, again, a lot of these houses are being lived in. And the ones that aren't being October 3, 2001 16J1 lived in by a resident, they're being rented. They may only be rented for seasonal use or something like that, but they have a utility. And we could not get past the Department of Revenue if we just automatically wrote these houses off because, well, it might be torn down one day. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If someone tore down a house and it was -- the lot remained vacant for over a year, then it would be reassessed for what the value of the land alone would be; correct? MR. STEPHENS: The very -- the very next year it would be taken off of the tax roll. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just come down to the value of the land. MR. STEPHENS: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Until that happens, there's nothing under the law that allows that to happen. MR. STEPHENS: Again, we're only talking about houses that we have valued at, like, 50, $60,000 for the structure. I believe this particular one is sixty -- 65,000 for all the improvements. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make a motion to deny. MS. GOODNIGHT: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second to deny Petition TP -7. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: No opposed. We have a -- 4 -0. And next case is TP -8. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless there's something different on this one, I'm going to make the same motion. MS. KRAPF: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to deny TP -8. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion on the floor to deny. Can I have a second? ff--M.-M October 3, 2001 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. 16J1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries for denial of TP -8. And it is noon. MS. KRAPF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The pleasure of the board to take a half an hour lunch break. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just to let you know, we're two hours behind. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't we just order -- get some sandwiches from Subway and keep going? It would work for me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And eat here? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I brought a lunch with me. I only need 15 minutes. I would like to take a break now. I make to take a warning that I'm going to have to leave at five o'clock today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You do? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have -- I have an engagement over in Waterways and Orange Tree, been planned for months now that's going to take place then. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So -- MR. SKINNER: Mr. Chairman, I notice we do have some people in here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MR. SKINNER: You might temper -- whatever. It's up to you, though, as far as -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe we could hear from the people -- may I ask -- October 3, 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN HENNING• P1 ease. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- people to raise your hand if you're here for a petition, if you're here from the public. (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You -all are one? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Twenty minutes. We can be back in 20 minutes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, what I hear Commissioner Mac'Kie saying is, let's order lunch -- continue on, order lunch and take a break. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When the lunch gets here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: When the lunch gets here. And if you can arrange it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll get somebody to do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I brought my lunch. Someone already ordered me -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. There's a hamburger and french fries that's already been ordered, and that's yours. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you trying to bribe me? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm not. It's just I brought my lunch. MR. SKINNER: No. I paid for that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Fine. We got rid of a lunch, now. Let's get on with business. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's continue on with TP -45 with Jeffrey Mandler. And it looks like we have, one, two, three, four representing -- MS. BECK: I'm here for Jeffrey Mandler. I'm Wendy Beck 1M October 3, 2001 from Berman, Wolfe, same firm. 16J1 .. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. BECK: And I do have four petitions, but they're not -- two of them are consecutive. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Heidi. Heidi. I can't hear anything. I can't hear her. MS. ASHTON: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can only hear -- MS. ASHTON: I'm sorry. Am I being picked up on here? I'm sorry. MS. BECK: That's okay. I'm sorry. I have four today. Two are consecutive and then two are numbers 121 and 122. I'm here just for the day. I was wondering if I could do them all together. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are they all in the TPs? MS BECK: Yes. This TP -45, TP -46, TP -121, and TP -122. The first TP -45 -- and I have packages of information that I'd like to submit. These have already been submitted to the property appraiser. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You'll need to identify yourself for the record. CHAIRMAN HENNING: She did. Did you pick up her name? Ma'am, would you state your name? MS. BECK: Sure. Wendy Beck from Berman, Wolfe Rennert, Vogel & Mandler for the petitioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: This must be a commercial piece of property, ma'am? MS. BECK: These are all commercial properties. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. BECK: They're different types -- but this is a commercial office building. We call it the HMA First Union Building. It's located at 5811 Pelican Bay Boulevard. It has a gross leasable area October 3, 2001 16J1 of 165,573 square feet. The 2001 assessment is $21,399,000 -- $21,399,110, and that comes to $129.24 per square foot. We have submitted income and expense statements for the property for rent roll and our income analysis. I don't believe today that we have heard any cases coming before the board on an income analysis, so this might be the first one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think that's something that we can hear on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, the question is, it's your job to rebut their -- not to offer supplemental information. It's, rather, your job to rebut their appraisal. MS. BECK: And I am rebutting their appraisal. And under the statute one of the methodologies of appraising is the income produced by the property. So we're rebutting their appraisal by the income produced by the property. And correct me if I'm wrong. So there are three -- just to back up a little bit, a general appraisal, there are three methods of valuation. So far today we've only been dealing with comparable sales. There are two other methodologies. There's the market approach, and there's the income approach. And on commercial properties we use -- the property appraiser -- the statutes command that they take all three into consideration. And then they pick which, you know, which to use based upon their standards. But we're coming here today telling you based upon the income approach the assessment on the property is not supported. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where can we find this so we can follow you? MS. BECK: Okay. Well, I haven't started yet, but -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know. MS. BECK: -- what I have given you is an income expense statement for the property which is in the front of the package. October 3, 2001 16J1 There's a title page that says "Income and Expense Statements." What we do -- and you'll see that we're pretty consistent with the four packages. We submit all the backup information, and then in the end we do a summary page which summarizes the income and the expenses. So in the first package, a lot of the information you have in the front is the -- the actual income analysis. And it says, "Income Statement, Department Detail and Variance December 31 st, 2000." And we use the income from year end 2000 because the property appraiser values the property as of January 1 st, 2001. So the income produced by year end 2000 is used for those purposes. So we've submitted you the income. We've submitted you the rent roll. And if you could turn just for a moment to the income analysis fact sheet in the package, it says at the top of the page income analysis fact sheet -- are you following me? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Looking for it. MS. BECK: It's about four pages from the end or five pages from the end. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. BECK: What we've done is we've taken the gross income for the year ending December 31 st, 2000, which was three -- first, let me back up for one second. There are two buildings on this property. There are two office buildings on one folio. They're operated with -- by the same company, so we've had to do a combined analysis here for the income produced by each of the buildings. So when you look at the income statement backups, if -- if you choose to, you will see there are two income statements, one for each building. In the analysis we've combined the income of the two buildings to come up with a value for the folio. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're using 2000 figures? MS. BECK: Yes. We have to use 2000 figures because 2001 October 3, 2001 16 J 1 "14 1 hasn't ended yet. And as the property is appraised as of'01, '01, 'O1, it only makes sense to use 2000 figures. And actually it would be better in most cases for us to use 2001 figures because of the decline in the economy, the income is substantially decreased on most of these properties. So it's worse for us to use 2000 year -end income, but we have to -- that's what we're mandated to use. The property appraiser doesn't like to take into consideration the 2001 income because of the fact that the property is appraised as of January 1 st, 2001, so it really doesn't matter what happens after that time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Gotcha. MS. BECK: So we have a gross income for year ending December 31 st, 2000, of 3,287,386 and that's taken directly from the income statements submitted. And then we have the adjusted operating expenses of $1,168,212, and what we do is we subtract the expenses from the income to come up with a net operating income which comes to $2,119,174. The next thing we do in the equation is apply a capitalization rate to the net operating income. In this particular case we applied about a 9.5 percent cap rate plus the millage. And we -- a cap rate is -- its a little bit complicated, but we try to decide what a willing purchaser would pay for the property, what they would value the property at, and the low -- you know, the higher the cap rate the lower -- the higher the cap rate the higher the value -- the lower the value of the property. I'm sorry. So in this case it's -- it's a higher - end property, so we've used a lower cap rate. We've used about 9 1/2 percent plus the millage. And when we do our analysis the value of the property comes to $18,589,245. That's compared to an assessment of 21,399,110. I would like to point out, also, two additional pieces of information. The 2000 assessment on this property was 18,561,141. •M October 3, 2001 16J1 41 So we're looking at almost a 3 million dollar increase in the property value. The other thing I would like to point out is our client purchased this property in August of '99 which is toward the end of the year. You know, we've been hearing a lot about sales and market value and comparable analysis, so for this particular property it was purchased in 1999, towards the end of the year, for eight -- $20,500,000, and like the property appraiser's office had said previously, you have to take into consideration some of the cost of sales. So when you've reduced the -- the statute allows you to take a reduction up to 15 percent for cost of sale. So if you reduce the sales price by 15 percent, you would come to a value of $18,450,000. So we're just seeking an assessment equal to that of last year. Since the other part of our package includes a rent roll which shows that rents have been flat since they purchased the property in 1999, there are few new leases on the property. The values per square foot of the new leases are the same as the values of the older leases. What we're saying is that the market really has not increased. Therefore, the assessment should not increase. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question for the staff. If there's a -- there are, as you were saying, multiple ways of determining the assessed value of assessing, appraising a piece of property. Is it your charge to take the lowest of the three or -- because obviously income approach on this property is probably going to produce the lowest possible result. Is that your charge to -- MR. SKINNER: We are required to consider all three approaches: The market, income, and replacement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, Abe -- MR. SKINNER: And that's what we've done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What you've given us is one - third of the information that we have to have. Page 91 October 3, 2001 16 J 1 '`14 MS. BECK: Well, it's -- it's one approach that they look at. And we're saying that on a income -- on a commercial property, we feel that the best way to value the property is on the income approach. And it is not necessarily always the lowest value. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. But my point is, even if it is the best approach, the statute requires that you consider all three. MS. BECK: And -- and we have considered all three, and we feel that this is the best, just as when they submit information to you, they usually only submit comparable sales, not income. They're thinking that that's the best. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they're considering all three, and you're considering one. MS. BECK: No. We've considered all three; we've just submitted one. MR. SKINNER: Do you have your values on those -- MS. ASHTON: Commissioner (sic), perhaps I can answer that question for you. MS. BECK: I don't -- MS. ASHTON: They're required -- the -- the property appraiser is required to look at all three approaches and all the criteria, but they're not -- they don't have to give it equal weight. It's somewhat within their discretion according to the case law. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I understand you think you're making the best case you can for your client, and you're making a good case. It's just you're only giving us -- we have other -- the property appraiser has a broader scope than just that. So unless you have something else, I'm going to make a motion to deny. MS. BECK: That's all I have. I would ask though that you do take into consideration the 1999 sales price which is what the property appraiser would use for a benchmark in the market value. And I don't know if they have anything to submit or -- Page 92 October 3, 2001 16JI MS. ASHTON: Commissioner, could you add a little bit more to the motion as to, you know, how you arrived at the motion for denial? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, the basis for my motion for denial is that while the income approach produces one valuation, the statute requires the property appraiser to look at more than just that one approach. And based on the use of all three approaches for valuation, it appears that the property appraiser's assessment can withstand its challenge. MS. BECK: Can I just ask one question before -- before it goes to vote. MS. ASHTON: Thank you. MS. BECK: What analysis did the property appraiser use that you're contesting is a better analysis? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All three. A combination -- they look at all three, and then they assess based on information gathered from all three methodologies. MS. BECK: And I don't know that that's -- that's a correct statement. I believe they look at all three. But they don't take a blending of the result of all three. They use one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no, I don't mean to say they take a blending. They make a judgment determined by all of the information gathered from all three of the methodologies. MS. BECK: So my question is which methodology did you use to come up with this assessment? MR. SKINNER: We must consider all three. We have done that, and we have correlated those numbers. And I don't believe the petitioner has a -- the other two numbers that we're looking for. MS. BECK: I don't. But I was wondering if you had the other. MR. SKINNER: I think that's one of the criteria that we're under and that they're under also. So this is, in my estimation, it's an Page 93 October 3, 2001 16J1 invalid presentation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Clarification, Commissioner Mac'Kie. Was that on the Petition TP -45, your motion, or was it on TP -45 and 46? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My intention was only on the First Union Financial Center, the one that she presented. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. So that's TP -45. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a motion on the floor for denial. Is there a second? MS. GOODNIGHT: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second, a motion and a second for denial. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 4 -0. The next one is TP -46. MS. BECK: I have packages of information on that for you too. This is a different type of property. This is a low - income housing tax credit property, also commercial property. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Low - income housing is considered commercial? MS. BECK: Yes. It's income - producing property. Anything that is income producing is considered commercial. This project is called the Villas of Capri. It's located at 7740 Tara Circle, and I've submitted to you a property summary, a rent roll, an income and expense statement, and then a piece of legislation that I feel it's necessary for the board to be aware of in valuing this type of property. The Florida legislature -- and I actually -- we've enclosed a copy of the statute, but I made a cleaner copy for you as well. And on this type of property -- Page 94 October 3, 2001 16J1 MS. ASHTON: Excuse me. Do you have an extra copy of that? MS. BECK: Sure. MS. ASHTON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have this? MR. STEPHENS: We have it. MS. BECK: The statute that I'm referring to is 420.5099, and it's entitled "Allocation of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit." And in subparagraph 5 it states, "For purposes of implementing this program in Florida and in assessing the property for ad valorem taxation under 193011, neither the tax credits nor financing generated by tax credits shall be considered as income to the property. And the rental income from rent - restricted units in a low income tax credit development shall be recognized by the property appraiser." So in this case we have a mandate that the property appraiser recognized the actual income produced to the property, and we submit that that is the actual net income to the property. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question? MS. BECK: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that -- is it your contention that that statute overrides the other one so that they shall consider that information to the exclusion of the other valuation? MS. BECK: Well, I guess they can consider whatever they want to consider. But on the income approach they're mandated to use the actual income to the property. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let's -- let's talk about that, if you don't mind. MR. SKINNER: Read that one more time, "that we shall" -- go ahead and read it, "that we shall." . MS. BECK: That you shall -- that shall be considered as income to the property. MR. SKINNER: Shall. Shall be considered. Page 95 October 3, 2001 16,11 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. The question that -- MR. SKINNER: Recognized. Recognized. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I don't question whether or not you are recognizing income. One at a time. But the question that I have is whether or not you read -- when you did your income analysis you used the data that she's suggesting you should use, or did you use other figures, or did you use some other income data? MR. STEPHENS: We have considered it like we would all other approaches. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no. I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you, when you -- when you considered -- when you did your income approach, did you use the -- did you exclude the tax credits and the financing generated by the tax credits from the income so that when you considered rental income, you only looked at the -- those actual rental figures described in the statute? MR. STEPHENS: Oh, absolutely. The -- the actual income generated has nothing to do with the tax credits per se. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So the good news is we're okay on that point. MS. BECK: Correct. I'm looking at actually their income approach which is on the last page of the property appraiser's submission. And we actually agree on the income and the expenses and the actual income. The only difference we have is in the capitalization rate where I use a 12 cap and they use a 10 cap. And the reason why we have to use a 12 cap on these types of properties is because they're extremely expensive to run, they do not sell, and it's really been a mandate from the state that these properties should be allowed to operate, that they are of benefit to the community in which they sit and that in order for these properties to continue, the property owners have to have a break in their taxation. And that's what -- they Page 96 October 3, 20011 J ' ,.� don't receive subsidies like a HUD project. All they receive is the tax credits, which again we can't take into consideration as the income, and they run these properties, basically, for the good of the community. And I'm not trying to say it's not income producing for them because, of course, you're not -- they're not that nice but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can see the numbers. MS. BECK: Exactly. You see the numbers, but it takes a lot to run these properties. And the developers really are doing a good thing for the community. And as such we need to use the actual income like the statutes tell us, and I would contend that we use a 12 cap rate. It's very difficult to come up with a cap rate on this type of project because they don't sell. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. MS. BECK: And that's really the only difference in the income analysis. Now, what they came down with for their assessment purposes I don't know which approach you used, but on an income approach where -- we're exactly identical on the numbers on the actual income. And, again, I'm looking at the second box on the page, not the typical income because you're not allowed to use that on this type of property. But on the actual income our numbers are identical, and they probably took it from my package. And the only difference is the cap rate. So if you use my cap instead of their cap or even if we met in the middle on the cap rate, it would support a reduction in the assessment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what made you choose your 10 instead of their 12 as a cap rate? Or did you do that? Yeah, your records showed you used a 10. MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Number 1, we'd never consider their cap rate because their cap rate is not based on information arrived at from Collier County, which our cap rate is. I agree that we have not had one of these specific types of properties sell in this county, which Page 97 16J1 October 3, 2001 . - f you could get a cap rate from, but we have had apartment complexes that have sold which indicate a much lower cap rate than what the petitioner is talking about. Now, we did have a -- one of these tax credit complexes sell. Now, it is -- it is different than -- it was different than what is being done nowadays. But the old River Reach project was a tax credit from about 12, 15 years ago, something like that. And it just recently sold, which I believe the -- the sale is indicated in my packet here for $34.6 million or $62,000 per unit. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you applied that rate to this property, what would -- MR. STEPHENS: It would go up substantially. MS. BECK: I can't contest that sale, because I don't know anything about it, but that is outrageously high per unit. MR. STEPHENS: Let me finish. Let me finish, please. Okay? The problem that we have with tax reps coming over here is that they don't do any homework in Collier County. MS. BECK: And I take offense to that statement on the record. MR. STEPHENS: Have you visited this property? MS. BECK: No. I have not, but Jeffrey Mandler has. He's the attorney in charge of the case. MR. STEPHENS: The situation is they don't do research in this county. And we all know; we read the papers every day. This county is different than any other place in the state with every type of property that is here. I've got articles right here that was just printed in -- in our newspaper about three or four weeks ago where our local realtors, our local property managers are discussing how different Collier is from the rest of the -- the state and the rest of the country. So people that come in here with numbers arrived someplace else, that doesn't tell me anything. I want figures used here. The sales information that we have here are from complexes that sold in Collier October 3, 2001 16J1 County, no place else. You know, the land is from Collier County, no place else. The cap rate is from sales that occur in Collier County, no place else. And I personally cannot use something arrived at someplace else in the state or the country because we are different. My numbers very, very much are in the ballpark. We -- we have an assessment lower than any approach to value that you can come up with. So it's inconceivable to me that we would be over value. Now, right now, and we'll have a petitioner coming up later, we have three of these properties in court right now challenging this issue. And they've sued us for three years. We stand where we are. We have a good value on this property. The developers of these types of properties, they make their money up front. They don't make it over the long haul. If these properties do nothing but break even for the next ten years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's what the statute says we can't consider. MR. STEPHENS: Right. And we -- we haven't done that. If I were -- if I were valuing those tax credits instead of using a ten -- 10.2 cap rate, I would probably be using about a 7, 7 1/2 because their risk is gone. They don't have the risk that a normal investor does. They've already made their money on it, plus they got low interest. MS. BECK: Which you're not allowed to take into consideration. And that's a wonderful dissertation for, you know, trying to keep out -of- county attorneys from coming into Collier County. However, I didn't hear the answer to the question is, how you arrived at this cap rate, and basically that's the only difference in our numbers. MR. STEPHENS: From local sales. MS. BECK: From 10 to 12 -- local -- there are no tax credit comparable local sales. And the one that he's referring to, he said it October 3, 2001 16J 1 was an old deal, I would be highly surprised if it was at all comparable. And no tax credit properties around the entire State of Florida sell for $62,000 a unit. You're hard pressed to find a nontax credit property selling for $62,000 a unit. And that's all I have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there -- okay. Pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I recommend denial. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a motion, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor for a recommendation of denial. MS. ASHTON: Can I have a little bit more information for the record as to how you arrived at that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The fact that the -- the basis was built on figures from outside of the county. I think that the county has done a great job of justifying their position. MS. ASHTON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there is a motion on the floor for denying TP -46. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: A second. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries for denial of TP -46 4 to 0. The next case is the Seaboard replat. MS. BECK: My next case is TP -121. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MS. BECK: Okay. You were referring to the legal description? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MS. BECK: I have -- I didn't know I was going to have a helper Page 100 October 3, 2001 today. 16J1 MR. SKINNER: I didn't know that either. MS. BECK: It is very nice. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks. Appreciate that. MS. BECK: This property is referred to as the AmSouth building. It's located at 405 Eighth Street South. This is a small commercial, slash, retail center that houses -- that has the capacity of housing three tenants. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we interrupt you just to get a point of reference? Is this kind of in the middle of a little park off of Broad and -- MR. STEPHENS: No. This is directly across from -- from the park -- city parking garage right behind the Park Avenue, Fifth -- Fifth Avenue building. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. MR. STEPHENS: Merrill Lynch. It's on the -- on the corner of -- I believe it's Fourth and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got it now. Thank you. MS. BECK: It is -- 405 Eighth Street South is the address, so it sounds right that it's 4th and 8th. It's a 6,346 square foot building capable of holding three tenants. However -- and the reason why we're here today is because for the entire year of 2000 -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Excuse me, ma'am. How did you determine that it only holds three tenants? MS. BECK: Well, it's subdivided into three spaces for three tenants. It could be resubdivided if -- that's always a possibility. But as it existed on January 1 st, 2001, it was capable of housing three tenants, and that's our benchmark that we're using, the date. In any event, it's sixty -three -- 6,346 square feet. It's not a large building at all. And why we're here today, again, is because for the entire year 2000 over 50 percent of the building was vacant. 3,622 Page 101 October 3, 2001 16J1 square feet remained vacant, despite what has been represented to me by the owner as diligent attempts to try to lease the vacant space. And as such, the income to the property was severely affected. And we've enclosed an actual income analysis and a rent roll which both evidenced a large vacancy. If you look at the rent roll, you can see that the vacant space was 3,622 square feet. There's an entity in there called Falls River Group, LLC, which has 1,754 square feet and then Baldwin Interiors, Inc., at 970 square feet. So for the entire year of 2000 there were just those two tenants occupying, like I said, less than half of the building. The income and expense statement is actual income and expenses received by the property. Again, we've done our same analysis that you've seen on the last two packages. It was assessed by the property appraiser's office at $889,338. When you run the actual income -- and we used an 11.4 cap rate, which is -- which is 10 plus the mill -- or 9 1/2 plus the millage, which is not only -- we don't only come up with our cap rate from looking at one county. We practice around the State of Florida, and we read all of the manuals and books that explain to investors and developers how to determine cap rates. We used a 9 1/2 cap rate on this building because it's a decent commercial space. And we come up with the actual income value of $420,807 which is significantly low because of the vacancy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We didn't get a package from you guys on this one yet. MR. STEPHENS: No. I did make a reduction on this property down to 729,257. And that was based on the fact that it has sat for a while with a big vacancy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How long has that been vacant, that space? MR. STEPHENS: A little over a year, I think. I believe it's a little over a year. I -- I gave credence to the fact that they was -- there Page 102 October 3, 2001 16J1 was a slight vacancy problem there at present. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'm -- I don't have -- I understand she's got to overcome the presumption that you're correct, but without having information from you, how do I know what the basis is for your reduction to 729? I don't -- I don't -- we don't have a packet of information from you. MR. STEPHENS: I did not make up a packet on this because I did reduce it from -- from 889 to -- to 729. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you okay with the reduction? MS. BECK: Well, I thank you for the reduction, but, I mean, I'd like the actual income to be taken into account also which -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's the question. When you made the reduction from 889 to 729, what -- the question I would have is, what was the income number that you used for valuing -- I mean, because under her income analysis which seems logical you get to a valuation of 420. Was it the cap rate that was different? What was it? MR. STEPHENS: Well, the cap rate is different. But also, you know, when I look at the actual income property, I also look at a typical income property. It has -- it has an occupancy problem right now, but that's not something that is -- is everlasting. So I -- I don't go and -- and have never gone straight with a -- a owner's actual income. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we don't have -- MR. STEPHENS: The typical income says that that building should rent for $16 a square foot. And -- and that value is in excess of $750,000. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and then the other valuations I guess you used -- MR. STEPHENS: Well, I -- you know, I understand what you're saying. But she's provided no evidence whatsoever other than Page 103 October 3, 2001 16J1 the actual income of the property. And all of our values, you know, even though I didn't put together a package, all of our values take everything into consideration, sales and marketing. And we're talking about a piece of property that's one block off of Fifth Avenue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what were the comparables for sales, for example? I mean, how do we know -- I just don't have any -- MR. STEPHENS: You know, I must apologize. I didn't put together a package because I felt that the reduction was very much in line with where the value, you know, should be given its current situation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, Heidi, what do we -- what's our responsibility? How can we evaluate this case if we don't have a packet? I mean, I'm sorry to make such a big -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we go on previous year's assessed value? MS. ASHTON: No. I understand your difficulty because the presumption is that the property appraiser is correct. But you -- you don't have a packet to look at so I understand it so you can't see how he applied his criteria. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I don't know how to look at what she has here to compare. MS. ASHTON: I guess the best -- I guess -- you know, I have to kind of defer it to logic. So I would say if there's not any evidence for you to establish that they looked at the criteria they were supposed to or that it was based on, you know, principles that were generally applied to like property, I would say go with the -- the lesser standard and still -- you know, that they have to establish that it's in excess of just value, but the -- the lower standard is preponderance of the evidence as opposed to clear and convincing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But she's made a good case. Page 104 October 3, 2001 16J1 MS. ASHTON: If you feel the evidence she's submitted is, you know, sufficient enough you could further reduce the assessment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have any idea to what it should be reduced, though, and that's the problem -- the problem, the situation, actually is that the -- her case for actual income is a good case. It was good enough that it got your attention. MR. STEPHENS: Uh -huh. MR. SKINNER: The petitioner has petitioned for a value of 713,890. MS. BECK: We'll take 713,890 then. MR. SKINNER: That's what you petitioned for. MS. BECK: Then that's what we would accept. MS. SKINNER: And -- ma'am? Okay. And we had reduced that to 729,257. So there's a difference of what? CHAIRMAN HENNING: 15,000. MS. BECK: About $16,000. MR. SKINNER: About $16,000. So they petitioned for 713,890. MS. BECK: That -- MR. SKINNER: You can -- you -- the board has to rule on that figure there and not some figure that she comes up with later. MS. ASHTON: Well, she's already indicated she would accept the 713,890. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about splitting it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What we have shows this 420 as the income approach. MS. BECK: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Exactly. MS. BECK: Because 420 is an unrealistically low number for the -- for the value of the property. But we were showing you if you did do it on the actual income, that's what it would come to, and that's Page 105 October 3, 2001 16J1 why our petition was a more reasonable number at -- what we thought to be a more reasonable number at 713,890. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the question then becomes what's the basis for the difference of 16,000? Why do you say her 16 is wrong; right? MR. STEPHENS: Her 16 -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Her 16,000, the spread, how do you -- I don't have anything here on which to rely to make that conclusion. MR. STEPHENS: I understand. And, again, I apologize again for not putting together a package. Our cost and market income in that area is much greater than that, okay. But I did go -- you know, even -- even at 400 and -- their income came in at 400 and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Twenty. MR. STEPHENS: With her cap rate. 489,000 with the cap rate that I'm using from here in this county. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that's the difference probably. MR. STEPHENS: That figure with the original $889,000 -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The difference is -- is that -- we're back to this cap rate. MS. BECK: Cap rate. It's usually the difference. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because you used a different cap rate. Therefore, the income valuation you had was higher than hers. So when you factor it -- so, okay, so I'm going to make a motion to approve the reevaluation at 729. So I guess that's a motion to deny the approval of the petition, and -- and here's why. MR. SKINNER: You're -- you're denying the petition? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm agreeing with your 729,257. So that would be a motion to deny the application? MS. ASHTON: You're saying that you've already reduced it to Page 106 October 3, 2001 16J1 729. So, yeah, it would be a motion to -- to deny the petition and approve the 729. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because the difference, I finally understand, between your reduced valuation and the applied -for reduced valuation is essentially the cap rate which is the issue that we discussed in the previous petition. And we think that the cap rate that you used is appropriate for Collier County. So -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor -- MR. STEPHENS: Again, I apologize for not working this one up. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a motion and a second for denial of TP -121. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. 122. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4 -0. Next case is TP- MS. BECK: Correct. And this is the last of mine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You lost a helper. I think we see this one often, don't we? so-- MS. BECK: Yeah. We use the same form in all our packages COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I mean this particular property. MS. BECK: I think this is the first year we're coming in on it. MR. STEPHENS: In fact, they filed on it again this year too. MS. BECK: Yeah. We both had filed on it. We both apparently were retained, and there was some problem in big corporate, so we were here anyways, so we went forth with it. This is -- property is called The Plaza. It's located at 11 -- actually they call it The Plaza on Third Street, 1170 Third Street South. And we've submitted property summary, site plan, rent roll, Page 107 October 3, 2001 16J1 and income analysis. The gross leasable area of this building is 53,732 square feet. The 2001 assessment, 7,449,838, which is $138.64 a square foot. We've enclosed a rent roll that shows -- and -- and our issue here is with vacancy, again. As of January 1 st, 2001, it was a hundred percent leased up. However, subsequent to that time -- and I have an August 2001 rent roll that shows a 20 percent vacancy. And I spoke yesterday to the property owner who is explaining -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seasons. MS. BECK: It's not only seasons, but since the incidences of a couple of weeks ago they've had two or three owners who were entering leases with them from out of the country. Two of them are from South America. One of them was from Australia, decided it wasn't the right time to open a business in the United States, so their market has been affected. I'll go through the analysis on the January 1 st, 2001, rent roll first, then if you would like to see the difference in the two date income, we can go through that as well. MR. SKINNER: Excuse me. This income would be for the preceding calendar year? MS. BECK: 2001. MR. SKINNER: It will be during 2001 ? MS. BECK: The income I submitted was year end 2000 in the package that Mr. Stephens has. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So is this relevant to our decision we need to make if you're using two different years? MS. BECK: Well, we take into consideration in our analysis, whether they do or not, it's up to them. MR. SKINNER: We can't do that. We can't go beyond January the 1 st. MS. BECK: 2001. So the package I submitted is January 1 st, 2001, so we can go through the package. I've included the rent roll Page 108 October 3, 2001 16J1 and a site plan, but if -- you seem to be familiar with the property. It consists of several buildings. And if you look again in my income analysis, we took the gross income exactly from the rent roll. We did the rent roll times 12, which was 1,136,784. And then we took off $322,392 for operating expenses to come up with our net operating income of 814,392. We capped it again at 9 1/2 plus the millage, which we feel to be a reasonable cap rate. And our total value comes up to 7,134,789 compared to an assessment 7,449,838. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's based on it's being leased in full. MS. BECK: A hundred percent occupancy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you do the other two methodologies in addition? MS. BECK: Again, we take them into consideration. We don't write them up. We discuss it in the office, and we go in on the one that suits us best. MR. SKINNER: You don't actually have a number. MS. BECK: I do not have it with me, I can get it to you at a later time if you'd like it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the request that you're making for the 7,134,789? MS. BECK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I assume that the property appraiser has used -- do you agree with their rent numbers? MS. BECK: Their rent number's fine. The expenses are a little low and, again, the cap rate's -- they're using a 10 -cap rate. But you're not adding the millage to the cap rate; is that right? Or are you using a 9 -cap rate and adding the millage? MR. SKINNER: Total. MS. BECK: Ten is loaded. So what are you actually using as a cap? Page 109 October 3, 2001 1 6J 1 ."q I J MR. STEPHENS: We're using 10.2 -- MS. BECK: Right. What's the millage on this property? MR. STEPHENS: -- total overall rate. 1.3 some -- almost 1.4, I believe. MS. BECK: I stand corrected. I'm using 10 plus the millage, and he's using about 9 1/2 plus the millage or 9 plus the millage. You're using 9 plus the millage; I'm using 10 plus the millage. MR. STEPHENS: That is an inherent problem with anybody that comes into this county. You know, if you talk to any realtor that deals in commercial property in this county -- and, again, it's all over the paper, you know, I got articles here talking about low interest rate on other investment opportunities making commercial property more attractive, talking about Naples. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, yeah. And it -- for me -- MR. STEPHENS: And, again, if you look, my value is well within range. The petitioner has not examined in any way, shape, or form the cost of buying land in this county. They -- they have not examined comparable sales -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, not on the information that they've presented to us today. She's represented, though, on the record that she has done that, just not -- hasn't -- didn't bring that with her today. But, nevertheless, for the same reasons as we stated previously, particularly with regard to the cap rate and also with regard to the comparable sales issue and what we know to be the unusual market in Collier County, I'm going to make a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN HENNING: A motion on the floor for denial. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: A motion and a second. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) Page 110 October 3, 2001 16J l MS. BECK: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 4 -0. Pleasure of the board to continue on to the 11:00 -- 11 a.m.? MS. ASHTON: Actually, we still have a few more on the 10 a.m. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Four more. Do you want to continue on? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm happy. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The next case is TP -47, Kerry Schwenke. MR. SCHWENKE: Schwenke. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. And you have one, two, three? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They all appear to be low - income rental properties. MR. SCHWENKE: Yes. My name is Kerry Schwenke, and I'm the ogre that was mentioned as suing the county for three separate years. MR. SKINNER: It's an ongoing thing. MR. SCHWENKE: These properties, these gentlemen are very sick and tired of seeing me. MR. SKINNER: And we'll probably get another suit out of this. MR. SCHWENKE: You never know. This is -- I don't know if you have -- I don't know if you have a package. There -- there is three -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You need to be on the mike. MR. SCHWENKE: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, Tom. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. Page 111 October 3, 2001 6J1 MR. SCHWENKE: There are three projects that were built up through the state housing tax credit program. And they're all identical, and for all purposes we can handle them together. I believe it would be 47, 48, and 49. MR. SKINNER: All -- all of them at the same time? MR. SCHWENKE: Yeah, I think so. On that thing, I don't know if you have received the packets we've sent out. But if I might, I can give you copies of the statute and all of the income information on the projects. I also have a copy of the statute. MS. ASHTON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have copies of these for the board members or this is one for us to share? MR. SCHWENKE: I assume that you would be -- have a copy of the package. I guess you don't. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have the county's package. MR. SKINNER: We got one, didn't we? MR. SCHWENKE: Yeah, sure. With -- with my things, though. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All three. MR. STEPHENS: The -- what he sent is still in -- is in your office. No, in my office. Yeah, that was the package that came in two days ago. MR. SCHWENKE: Well, let me say this, to start off, if I might, in conversations I've had with Bruce here at the property appraiser's office, Bruce Stephens, I think we're dealing with the issues of the capitalization rate again. If I remember correctly, because of the statute, which the other attorney discussed, you're required to look at the income from the property which we suggest would be the net income. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just as we did, they confirmed for us in the last affordable housing project, could I just Page 112 October 3, 2001 16J1 ask them to do on these three did you -- did you use actual income numbers as the statute requires? MR. STEPHENS: Yes. We looked at their actual figures given to us two days ago. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we don't have to, you know, worry about that because, you know, so we can just sort of set that issue aside, not have to argue about it. MR. SCHWENKE: I think so. If -- your numbers reflect our numbers, according to that? MR. STEPHENS: Yeah. I took them straight off the form. MR. SCHWENKE: Okay. All right with me. And the one thing I want to get into which -- which maybe is the operation of these facilities for several reasons. First of all, any rent charged by these facilities to tenants has to be approved on an annual basis by -- by the county commission. So, in other words, you don't get your rent from the market, go out there and determine that $700 you can rent a two bedroom. You have to go to the county commission. Second of all, these facilities have very grim expenses with respect to -- with respect to security -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But so we've -- we're using your numbers. You don't have to -- MR. SCHWENKE: No. We're talking about the capitalization rate, if I might. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SCHWENKE: That reason that -- these things cannot by law be sold for 20 years. So there are no sales. There is no market out there. And so the question is, we're all dealing with kind of a what -if scenario. What if they could sell -- if they change the law and they let us know what they sell for? I'm telling you, first of all, there are very severe security problems with these -- those kinds that have two or three officers walking around at all times. Page 113 October 3, 2001 16J Number two, their repair and replacement expenses for these facilities are extraordinarily high for several reasons. First of all, because of the tenancy that we get in there sometimes, there is a lot of damage to the units when they leave. Matter of fact, the typical unit out there sometimes has as much as 1500 down to $750 in damage to the unit. Personally I've been in there a couple of times. I've seen where the people use irons in place for ironing clothes on a board on the floor and leave the iron on the carpet and burn incredible number of holes in the carpet. Refrigerators get trashed. A lot of times refrigerators and washing -- dishwashers get stolen from the units when they take it out. The reason that a typical cap rate for an apartment complex will not work in any way, shape, or form on these things is because these are whole different animals. They're renting out to, you know, Mrs. Price who's graduated from college and she's 25 years old. She's got a job with an engineering firm, stuff like that. They're just a whole different animal than these other things. Like I said, they cannot sell and -- these things. So we have -- and -- and historically have for years with the property appraiser's office, an argument over expenses and an argument over capitalization rates. We used in our income approach, which you have in front of you, a capitalization rate of 10 percent and then a point and a half also for the millage rate on top of there. It's our position on this thing that you cannot under any circumstances take a capitalization rate from a typical apartment complex and apply it to these. And that's basically our position with these, you know, assessments on there is that they're taking market information and applying it to the wrong animal. They're using apples that relate to oranges and stuff like this. I can also tell you this: That a number of times there have been Page 114 October 3, 2001 16J1 -- the rap sheet on these units is sometimes pretty severe with the tenants and the people that come in too, like that, and also there are a number of tenants who in these facilities, probably 5, 10 percent, usually throw their garbage out the front door and leave -- just leave a broken garbage bag on the front sidewalk. They're kind of a nightmare. They make money. They make money off of selling their tax credits which cannot be considered in terms of that. But the operational -- operations of these facilities afterwards are an absolute nightmare. And, so, therefore, as a typical buyer, if there was a buyer for these units, is not going to come along and pay the same capitalization rate for these apartment complexes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So did you use a market cap rate when you -- MR. SCHWENKE: Well -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- when you do affordable housing? I was asking him. MR. SCHWENKE: They're -- oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. I have my glasses off. MR. STEPHENS: Yes. And the reason for that is that's all we have to go by is the cap rate that's arrived at from -- from properties that sell here in this county. And the apartment -- the typical apartment complex that has sold in this county has sold for a cap rate of about 7, 7 1/2 percent, plus taxes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the other thing -- MR. STEPHENS: So we are already higher than what typically would be in an apartment complex in this county. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The other thing about, sir, you know, the descriptions that the petitioner is making about these -- these particular apartment complexes, I mean, it makes it sound like we're talking about something in the ghetto. And, you know, these Page 115 October 3, 2001 16J 11 1 are nice apartment complexes. These are good people who live here. These are not people who throw their trash out in the front of the yard. I mean, you probably have bad tenants everywhere, but I think this is probably, again, a place where a Collier County distinction can really seriously be made because affordable housing, quotes, in Collier County, because of our median income, is, you know, 650 bucks for a one - bedroom apartment. This is not a trashy place where people put their garbage in their front yard. And if that's what your best argument is, I need to hear something else. I'm ready to make a motion to deny. MR. SCHWENKE: Let me just say this -- I know you're not going to change your mind on this -- they put a lot of money into this facility repairing and replacing and stuff like this. You're right; every tenant in there is not a trashy tenant, but they have a much higher percentage of problem tenants than any other complex does. And I can tell you from having seen these things personally with my eyes, what I'm telling you, the typical person that's going to come in the thing is going to say, "I'm not paying an 8 1/2 or an 8 percent cap rate for these things because of the management difficulty." So I understand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Because of the management difficulties? MR. SCHWENKE: Because of the difficulties with the tenants and higher expenses for security and reserves for replacements, stuff like that. And also, most importantly, the unknown factor as to what the county commission is going to give them as their rents every year. That's really an interesting issue when you guys go in front of a political board and say, "I want 650 for a one - bedroom apartment." The political board says, "Hell, no. You're -- you're charging 575." that question mark -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If only we could do that, sir. Page 116 October 3, 2001 16JI Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could tell him, "No, you're going to charge 350, because we think that's what an affordable rent would be." I'd love to get to do that as a county commissioner. We don't have that option. And I'm -- I'm really surprised, to be frank with you, about -- you seem to be out of touch with the reality of these particular properties, and I mean, no -- I don't -- I take that back. I don't mean you in particular. The facts you're describing don't seem to be relevant to these properties at all. MR. SCHWENKE: They are. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or to the situation that we have in this county because we don't just get -- by political whim to set the rent on these properties. MR. SCHWENKE: If you see what I've seen on these things, you would understand. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have -- well, never mind. Motion to deny based on the rea -- for the reasons I've previously stated. MS. GOODNIGHT: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second on the floor for denial. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) MR. SKINNER: That was all three, all three petitions? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to make them separately because our attorney would like us to. I would have to go into the public records. Motion to deny TP -48 for the same reasons. MS. GOODNIGHT: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion and second to deny TP -48. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) Page 117 October 3, 2001 M , 16J1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to deny TP -49 for the same reasons. MS. GOODNIGHT: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion and second to deny TP -49. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 4 -0. MR. SCHWENKE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next is TP -73, Carl M. Fernstrom. Mr. Fernstrom. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't see him in the room. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is Mr. Fernstrom here? (No response.) MS. GOODNIGHT: Move to deny. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion and a second to deny TP -73. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4 -0. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're only five away from catching up. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want -- do you want to keep on going? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Only six away. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead. I'm fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The next one is TP -48 (sic) Page 118 October 3, 2001 16J1 Carl F. and Izen (sic) Lehmann. Mr. And Mrs. Lehmann -- here we go. I'm sorry, sir. Go ahead. MR. LEHMANN: I'm Carl Lehmann and my daughter Bonnie. My -- my problem when I got my tax assessment, which jumped out at me was a 300 percent increase. So naturally I got a little bit aroused. And I've -- I've owned the property since, I think, 1978. And I want to pay my fair share, but when I see this, I start, has it really gone up that much? I -- I asked my daughter who lives here on the island for some help on what property was selling. I had two different realtors that had sold real close to 2001. Most of them looked like were in 2000 up till April 2001, which I presume would be higher, because the way things were going. I just took -- very simple, the four vacant lots in my area, divided it by four and came up with 354,875. Now, last year my property appraisal was 178,770 -- 179,770, and this year it jumped to 491,724, which, like I say, is about three -- 300 percent. What I -- I just tried to call, just -- my intention is that there was a gross mistake somewhere. I don't -- and when I talked to appraisal (sic), they were comparing it with a lot and -- on -- a lot on Forest Court, and that didn't ring a bell. We come down every winter, and I'm pretty familiar with all the streets and courts running around on the island, and so I had to get a map and look up Forest Court. And it is in the estate area. And I think that's where the problem comes because our lot is not in the estate area, it is not the size, and it does not have the size homes around it. So it's my wish that you could just consider that -- that that -- that possibly is the error. I -- I felt so strong about it that we made this special trip down here today to hear it. The wife wouldn't fly because of the air, so I had to drive, and we're going to drive back. Again, like I say, I don't want to be skimpy. The price -- the average Page 119 October 3, 2001 . 16J1 in those sales and then, in the meantime, I got a letter from a realtor, unsolicited, just wants -- wants my business, wants to list your lot, and none of those price -- none of them, he's showing me what was sold, I included that with my submission. It just -- it just seems way out of line on -- I don't know how to get on the internet and get all that stuff. That's why I asked my daughter, Bonnie, who's got more information -- I got more information than I was looking for, but it all kind of bear down my thinking that -- that it did jump a little too much. The -- the lot is not in the estate area. I don't want to be -- I don't think it's fair to include it. If you look at a -- a house that will fit on it, the lot's not big enough for the type of house that's in the estate area. We -- when we bought the lot, it was about 50 percent cheaper than a lot in the estate area. So I don't know whether that rule still holds or not. I guess that's almost all I have to say about it. MS. LEHMANN: I have -- go ahead. MR. LEHMANN: I had submitted Bonnie's power of attorney in case we didn't come down, so I hope you would recognize her. Or any questions that I can't answer as to where these -- all these different properties are, she's much more familiar with the island and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question. The assessed value is -- from the property appraiser is how much? MR. LEHMANN: 491,724. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you stated that the realtor, sales around there are -- are not comparable to 491 ? MR. LEHMANN: Right. I state that they -- four nearby lot -- lots total a million four nineteen five hundred, and divide that by four, I come up with 354,875. My other comparisons are all the neighbors on my street who have houses. None of their land value is even that high and -- and, you know, and I thought that was a good comparison also. And I Page 120 October 3, 2001 6J1 took for you -- lots that sold. I -- I -- you know, I think as far as -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would that -- that in particular the mirrored lot and the others, I'd love to hear from the property appraiser's office about how these numbers -- why they're not right. MR. HAMBLEN: Okay. Are you ready for me? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, sir. MR. HAMBLEN: Okay. One thing, we did look at the information which was presented to us. And he mentioned -- and they have it written down about all their neighbors that are not comparable with them. I did make out a map here with the values. This in pink here are lots which they did not list which are -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that this (indicating)? MR. HAMBLEN: No. That's ours. If you look at our -- the one that they gave you -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. That's -- MS. LEHMANN: Those are your new appraisals. We're not arguing for those other people. We're only presenting our case. MR. HAMBLEN: No. I understand when you were showing what your neighbors were appraised at, you did leave these out here. MR. LEHMANN: No. I think I took everybody on Stone Court. MS. LEHMANN: They -- they drew a new line. The estates is like this (indicating). And what they've decided to do is grab a little more over here and go like this (indicating). So they have reappraised my father's lot and the other two on the tip, but that's for the other two people to debate whether -- so that to me is why they're not on my map, because I'm not debating the other two tips -- I'm not agreeing that the line should come out of the estates. MR. HAMBLEN: Okay. What we had here, there was a mistake made. The mistake was made that we had been previously appraising this lot as a finger lot on the inside and not as a lot which Page 121 October 3, 2001 is on the tip. 16JI p MR. LEHMANN: It's not a tip. MS. LEHMANN: It's not a tip. MR. HAMBLEN: Well, what we have done, we have appraised it with the tip lots, which is 6200 a front foot. And, of course, it does go in somewhat. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. HAMBLEN: We have given a minus 25 percent, which actually brings it to forty -six fifty a front foot. If you look at the aerials which we gave you here, you'll see that their lot does face out, and it's not one of these lots that are back in the finger. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not a pure canal lot. MR. HAMBLEN: That's the difference. It's not a pure, and that's why we have 25 percent off on it. MS. LEHMANN: Why did you use 6200 as opposed to what the lot -- the mirror lot on the court is at 3700? Can -- MR. HAMBLEN: If you look at our sales here, we used lots which were in the tips here, the market indicated $6200 a front foot. MS. LEHMANN: Can you support that? The market supports that in Unit 10? MR. LEHMANN: Any sales? MS. LEHMANN: Any sales? MR. HAMBLEN: They're calling -- they're calling South Heathwood part of the estates. Actually, if you'll look here, it's not really part of the estates. It's just like their property over here. MS. LEHMANN: Excuse -- MR. HAMBLEN: The estates actually starts over to the east here a little ways. But this -- these are the sales we used. If you'll look here, most of them are coming out anywhere between the tip lots, like, 1, 2, and 3 -- or 1 and 2, 72005 6182 a front foot -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Respectfully I don't even know Page 122 October 3, 2001 what ' oure looking gat. 16JI MR. HAMBLEN: I'm looking at this map right here (indicating), if you'll open that up -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just ask a couple questions instead of you taking us through this whole thing? MR. HAMBLEN: You sure can. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I just have a question or two. And there's -- there's Lot No. 32 -- no, No. 9, that's on their same little -- on their same little peninsula there. You see Lot No. 9? MR. LEHMANN: I think of the tip lots as the two lots on the end of each tip. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that, but let me just ask him. MR. SKINNER: Which map are you looking at? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It doesn't matter. It's Lot No. 9. It's Lot No. 9 no matter where you look. And it's what they're calling a mirror lot, and I understand the concept of what they mean. Okay. Do you see the lot I'm talking about? MR. HAMBLEN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They say you used 37 there and what number on theirs? You're -- you're -- they said that you used 37 as the number on Lot No. 9; is that correct? MR. HAMBLEN: Yes, we did. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And on their lot instead of 37 you used what number? MR. HAMBLEN: I used, actually, 47.50. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And I can see why theirs is a little more. It's not exactly a mirror lot because the lot that you're calling the mirror is more of a canal frontage lot. You've got a better view than they have. MR. LEHMANN: I believe that's southern exposure, though, Page 123 October 3, 2001 6J1 and ours is north exposure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So my question for the appraiser's office is, why would there be such a wide variation of valuation difference between 9 and -- and the subject lot? MS. LEHMANN: Twelve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Twelve. MR. HAMBLEN: Actually, we're saying the market indicates that. Once we get in that inner portion there, the market indicates that difference, and that's what we have gone with. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. By inner portion you mean it's less of a tip and more of a canal lot, No. 9. MR. HAMBLEN: That's correct. That's why we did the aerial here, because what it does, it gives a clear picture of the difference. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It does show. But, I guess, my question -- I understand what these two tip lots are, and I -- my question is -- is where did you get the 25 percent factor that you reduced this lot? You know, you said it's -- it's 25 percent less than a tip lot. MS. LEHMANN: In the estate -- he's using the estate -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. We'll come back to the estate questions, but right for now let's talk about -- MR. HAMBLEN: That's basically an appraisal judgment based on looking at these areas in the past. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And as opposed to that on Lot No. 9, you would say it had a -- a 50 percent reduction? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Twenty -five. MR. HAMBLEN: Lot No. 9. We just use a different front foot price. We had twenty -seven fifty on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's 27. The two real tip lots there on the end are what? MR. HAMBLEN: Those are 6200. Page 124 October 3, 2001 16J1 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sixty -two, and this ones forty- seven. MR. HAMBLEN: That's correct. And so the -- MS. LEHMANN: And what are the estates across the canal? MR. SKINNER: Wait a minute. Let's follow this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, one at a time if you don't mind. So -- so based on your -- I see you took the 62 for those tip lots and reduced it by 25 to get the 47 essentially for this lot, and you didn't -- 62 is not even a relevant analysis for Lot No. 9? MR. HAMBLEN: No. Because these other lots face out on the -- on the open bay there. MR. LEHMANN: Lot 9 faces out over the open waters, which I would think would be more desirable than ours. MR. HAMBLEN: Actually, that's why I did the aerial. It does not. In fact, we thought in the past that theirs was like Lot 9 and that's why it was like that. But when we started getting better maps and newer maps and aerials, it's starting to point some of these things out to us. That's why we corrected it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I can see how you property owners would think that Lot 9 is a mirror, but it really isn't exactly. I mean, it's -- it's not as good a lot as yours based on its open water views. MR. LEHMANN: I wish I would have bought it instead of mine when I bought because of the southern exposure, which I wasn't aware. We're from up north, and we bought it thinking we'd build some day, which I still may if I can't travel back and forth. I didn't buy just to sell -- I've never tried -- I've never put it on the market because I still think we might use it. But the 300 percent doesn't upset anybody? I've heard figures here this morning, they were trying to justify a 67 percent as being unreasonable. And ours to come up at 300, you know, does this -- do you hear any other cases Page 125 like this? October 3, 2001 16JI MR. SKINNER: From the aerial, though, you know, a picture is worth a thousand words. I think you can see -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You sure can see it better from the aerial. MR. SKINNER: No. 9 has a different front -foot price. The subject has a even higher than No. 9. But we compensated for it not being a total tip lot -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. MR. SKINNER: -- by the 25 percent. MS. LEHMANN: Could you -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is a really -- this is a really telling piece of paper right here. I mean, I'd even give this to the petitioners if you guys want to look at it because you just can't say that Lot 9 is as good a view as yours. MR. LEHMANN: I thought we were going by what actual value is of property that's sold as of January 1 st. As -- is all the realtors way out of touch? Should they be selling these for 300 percent twice or at least, you know, is the realtors' prices not good? How come ours is -- is 490 and the realtors haven't sold any for that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: The gentleman makes a good point of a increase of what he's saying is 300 percent. Is that true? MR. HAMBLEN: That's a very healthy increase, no doubt about it. But the difference was, in the past he had been appraised as a end lot, a finger lot. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I gotcha. MR. HAMBLEN: That's where the difference was. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The bottom line is you've been underassessed for many, many years. MR. HAMBLEN: We didn't not go back and try to back tax for any of that but we tried to correct the wrong that was there. Page 126 October 3, 2001 6J1 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's based on this aerial -- this GIS (sic) mapping process that gives us much better information. I can understand you being shocked, but I -- I'm -- I'm satisfied on the waterfront issue. Now I'd love to hear on the estates versus nonestates question. MR. LEHMANN: When I called they kept comparing it with this Forest Hill -- Forest Court, and that's -- I didn't know where it was. And when I saw it, that's their mistake. I knew I was told on the phone that it was compared to something that sold for 800 or something on Forest Court. And I thought, well, I've got to see where Forest Court is. And then when I see it's over there, I don't understand the comparison of using that to get their footage or whatever they got. MR. HAMBLEN: Okay. Sales 1 and 2 or actually 1 and 3 are, I think, the closest and most like the subject there, especially Sale No. 1. It has a little better exposure, but we have it appraised at 6200, not 4500 or 4650. And then Sale No. 8 -- it's a finger up in there -- but it sold for 4081. You know, I tried to just show everything here. Some are a little better; some are a little worse. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let me just catch up with you. Sale No. 1 which does look to be just a really similarly situated lot -- MS. LEHMANN: Could you -- I have pictures of that, and appraisals with the neighboring lots, if I could present those when if we're considering that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: If we could just let Commissioner finish. MS. LEHMANN: Okay. Okay. Sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sale No. 1 sold on -- in December of 2000 for $900,000, and it looks to be almost an identically situated piece of property, maybe not quite as good as yours. Now, Sale No. 1 is -- are you contending it's not relevant Page 127 because it's zoned estates or something? October 3, 2001 16JI MR. LEHMANN: Estate area could not be compared. Surrounding houses, size of the lot, and the type of house you could build on it, size of house, square footage. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm sorry that I don't know what the significance is of some -- there's a neighborhood in the estates? MS. LEHMANN: The difference is like Port Royal versus Royal Harbor. You live in the estates. You go down South Heathwood, Caxambas Drive, so the homes are -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if you were in the estates, they would have assessed you at 900,000 instead of 491 because there's a -- a lot like yours in the estates is not -- just sold for 900,000. MS. LEHMANN: Lot 1 looks directly out over the water. The lot to the right of it I have pictures of, and it has even a more open - water view than we have, and it's -- property is appraised at 425,000. MR. LEHMANN: Again, I feel like fairness, also, I don't think all the people that have been here this morning have impressed me as okay. I mean, I think we have to recognize it's possible the appraisers can make mistakes also. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course. MR. LEHMANN: It seems like you've agreed with everything that they've done, that they could not -- and, you know, it has something to do with the image of Collier County and Marco Island. Pretty soon, you know, there -- it's -- it gets a little too greedy. We -- we pay for every -- try to -- we pay a tremendous amount of taxes on Marco Island. We -- we use expenses -- we're here three months a year. We pay a full hundred percent taxes, as do so many other people. And I think this gets a little out of hand now to get, you know, way jacked out of shape on what you can act -- act -- not -- we're going by what they're appraising the lot. And I think you've got Page 128 October 3, 2001 6J1 to go by what the sales were as of January 2001. That's the way I read the little coupon that that's what the value was. And I didn't see anything that sold for $900,000 in my area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. 8. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. That's a concern right there, No. 8. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh -huh. MS. LEHMANN: I'd like to bring up -- No. 8 sold for 325. MR. HAMBLEN: No. 8 is indicative of what they were valued at last year. MS. LEHMANN: Number 7 -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, but 8 sold on August, not -- not -- this isn't some assessed valuation. This is what the market actually produced for No. 8 which is the only -- MR. HAMBLEN: Well, that's correct. And that's where you're seeing the difference between your inner lots and your tip lots. I showed it to her for that reason. Also, No. 7, it sold for 270,000. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see that -- MR. HAMBLEN: -- which was $3,000 -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that's way up the canal. MR. HAMBLEN: That's $3,000 a front foot. This year we haven't used it because it's in this next year. It just resold for $4,000 a front foot. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which did? Eight or seven. MR. HAMBLEN: Number 7. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It just sold? MR. HAMBLEN: This here, I didn't put it down for 2001 -- and I'm not going to get into that. But there aren't a whole lot of sales in this area like tip lots, and this is true. MS. LEHMANN: I -- MR. HAMBLEN: The big problem that they have, and I -- and Page 129 October 3 2001 16JI I understand this, is because we've actually appraised it as a outer lot instead of an inside finger lot, and it wouldn't have been quite as big an increase. But in so doing we would have been wrong again this year. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with you. But how many of these lots were like this? Was this the only one like this in the whole area? MR. HAMBLEN: We go through all of these and we correct them if we see that they're incorrect. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Was there a number of mistakes like that, just for cost comparison. MR. HAMBLEN: I wouldn't say a number. We have them, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As your technology goes farther and farther forward, you're more likely to catch even more of these. MR. HAMBLEN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more time, I want to ask again on comparison with 8. This was the price of 8 last year or the year before; correct? MR. HAMBLEN: Well, it sold in 2000, in the year 2000. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we're basing the valuation on 2000 or 2001 ? MR. HAMBLEN: 2000 sales for 2001. Our appraisal date's January 1 st of 2001, so we would use 2000 sales to arrive at that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the difference between the 325 and the 491, that has to do with the reduction in the appraised value or assessed value? I'm not too sure I got -- one more time. You said it once already. MR. HAMBLEN: Okay. It has to do with difference in location which the market is indicating is there. Page 13 0 October 3, 2001 16J 1 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what's the difference between 8 and the subject property? I just don't see it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't see a lot of difference there either. I mean, some but -- MR. HAMBLEN: Eight is on the inside canal there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. HAMBLEN: If you'll look at your aerial -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see what you're saying now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So inside the canal is worth $170,000 on your -- on your assessment. MR. HAMBLEN: Well, we're just looking at the market and interpreting what the market is. If the market indicated it was higher, we'd be higher. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I'm just surprised -- MR. HAMBLEN: There definitely is that difference on the market, though, as you can see, by the 6200 that's out here. MR. SKINNER: And Sale 8, does not -- it's -- it's up in a canal. MS. LEHMANN: No. It has a wide open -water view. I took a picture of that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. But it still is -- MS. LEHMAN: I mean, not wide open, but canal view. But like ours, it's not wide open. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- but I could see a hundred thousand dollars' difference better than I could see $170,000. MR. HAMBLEN: The difference they're paying is being this open waterway out there, and that's where the difference in the market is showing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's our power here? If we wanted to reassess something, can we do it from this point, or we have to direct it back to you? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Heidi? Page 131 October 3, 2001 COMMISSIONER ON R COLETTA. I think there's some 16JI disagreement over the value of this. MR. SKINNER: You're dealing with this one, one property here not to reassess anything. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no. I guess I'm saying, I am being persuaded somewhat here that we have overassessed this property by -- we've correct -- we've overcorrected. I'm just thinking that maybe we've overcorrected looking at Lot 8, I don't see that it's $170,000 more for that change in view. I think he makes his point about estates versus nonestates is worth some reduction. I don't just - - starting to be persuaded by that. And so my question is, do we set the value? Do we remand it for them to set the value? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may add to that, Pam, if you take a look between the size of the houses over here where the subject is and on the other side, I guess it's called the estates, you'll see that the size of the dwellings that go there are sufficiently larger. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. The lots. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So obviously those lots, because of that, they're probably worth more. MS. ASHTON: You can grant the petition and -- and recommend a value. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we recommend a value? MS. ASHTON: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're the person that deals in this every day of your life. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- MS. ASHTON: We've adjusted the values in the past years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to move that we -- MR. SKINNER: What is the petition for? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The justification? MR. SKINNER: No, the petition. We don't have a copy of the Page 132 petition? October 3, 2001 16JI COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have you -- have you requested a particular number? MR. LEHMANN: I did. I -- I request -- MS. ASHTON: There should be one in the petition. MR. LEHMANN: To me that's higher than all my neighbors are paying. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what was the number? MR. LEHMANN: 354,875. That was based on actual sales that I felt very comparable. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know -- MS. LEHMANN: Somewhere in the middle. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, because I was -- okay. I'm going to make a motion to grant the petition and with a recommendation for a reassessment at 375. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a motion on the floor for accepting the petition and reassessment of 375. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Should I state reasons there? late? MS. ASHTON: I think that's okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. MS. LEHMANN: Can I put one thing on the record, or is it too CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. MS. LEHMANN: Just for the record, that when I went to the property counter, appraiser's office, to find out what they were using for comps, they told me that they couldn't disclose that information because the file wasn't complete, and that was prior to the day before I had to turn them in on the 26th. They said I was able to come up and look at the maps that had the sales on them. When I went up to Page 133 October 3, 2001 1611 look at the maps with the sales, I wasn't free to look at them. And before I went into the office, they warned me twice that if I were to bring this in front of the board, that I run the risk of paying back taxes for the last three years, that they would reassess. I went into the room. We discussed it, and she threatened me three more times that if I were to bring this in front of the board, that I could be assessed with back taxes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm really confident that if you'll have a discussion with Mr. Skinner, he will want to know -- MS. LEHMANN: It was very -- and that's when I called my dad, I said I don't want to do this, I want you to come down and -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can assure you that that's not the way that Collier County or Abe Skinner does business. MR. SKINNER: No. We'll talk later. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He will want to talk to you about that, and I really encourage you to talk to him. MR. LEHMANN: We try to do the right thing. And I think people can always make a mistake or do something intentionally. And it has far - reaching effects on your future relationship with other owners and what not. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's why this board exists today. MS. LEHMANN: We greatly appreciate your time. MR. SKINNER: Let me clear something up here, first of all, we couldn't go back like this unless it was a material mistake. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SKINNER: And reassess for three years. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is a judgment call by us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, what he's saying is, if anybody made that threat, it was a false threat because it's not even possible. It's not even legal to do it unless there was some -- Page 134 October 3, 2001 1611 MS. LEHMANN: And all they would say, "I'll see you at the board. I'll see you at the board." CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the motion. MR. COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I got a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5 -- 4 -0. Okay. The next petitioner is Beverly Hutchison, TP -91. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we break after this one? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to continue -- why don't we continue on to our lunch break? MR. STEPHENS: You missed one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Mr. Tateo, Tatia (phonetic) I'm sorry. I got ahead of myself. Todd and Kerry. MR. STEPHENS: He was here. He left -- he left a statement that he wants -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Submit it to the court reporter. MR. STEPHENS: And there are a -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just a minute, Bruce. MR. STEPHENS: -- few comments that I would like to make after this is read to the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have to actually read that into the record, Heidi? Do we have to do that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would think so. MS. ASHTON: I think it's better to read it into the record. Otherwise we have to wait for you each individually read it. Shall I read it? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead, please. MS. ASHTON: This is a letter, August 25th, 2001, to Dick Mickly (phonetic) "I have reviewed the tax records for homes and Page 135 October 3, 2001 6J1 lots in my neighborhood. The six vacant a hundred by 110 lots along my block with similar waterway views all have the same estimated land value of 237,600 for 2001 tax year, parentheses, Lots 6, 8, 185 20, 235 25, in Block 364, Marco Beach Unit 11. However, homes with a hundred by 110 lots and similar views have estimated land value components of 256,608. Why is there a difference in these land value estimates when all lots are a hundred by 110 feet with views across the same 100 -foot wide waterways? "Regarding the estimated value of improvements, your depreciation method doesn't accurately reflect the market values of 15 -plus year old homes on waterfront sites in this market. These homes are subject to significant depreciation due to design obsolescence attributable to market preferences for current styles, designs, and interior volume features. "Older homes are subject to greater depreciation due to their outdated design elements: plain front entry, basic floor plans with low flat ceilings, small bedrooms, bathrooms and kitchens. The market's preference is for ornate facades, big entry statements, spacious rooms, high ceilings, spectacular kitchens and bathrooms. Older homes don't have these current designed features and are discounted by the market to the point where the improvements do not add any significant value above that of their waterfront sites. "Although some of these elements are aesthetic, they do result in measurable real depreciation obsolescence in the context of market value. This market depreciation can be measured and demonstrated using paired sales of vacant lots and homes in this area. Using three of the sales you mentioned in our last phone conversation, Lots 7, 8, 12, in Block 363, market -- Marco Beach Unit 11, note that Lots 8 and 12 were vacant, and each sold for only 65,000 less than Lot 7, which has, A. 2300 square foot living area home with pool. All were arms- length sales in the same time period. Page 136 October 3, 2001 6J1 "These three sales all have good views of converging waterways along Nautilus Court, the next street over from us. All have views that are superior in comparison to my property and others with typical hundred foot wide waterway views. Vacant lots with views across typical hundred foot wide waterways in this area have sold for 50,000 to 75,000 less during the same time period. A few arms - length sales of similar -age homes with typical hundred foot wide waterway views are as follows: 784 Plantation Court, parentheses, Lot 19, Block 6 -- 364, Unit 11 sold for -- at 340,000; 457 Parkhouse Court, which is Lot 7, Block 382, Unit 12 sold for at 340 -- 3495900. These are both 2100 square feet living area homes with pools and screened decks. Also 516 Tigertail Court sold for 324,000. Clearly these sales indicate that the market's valuation of the improvements is minimal and contributes little to the overall market value of these properties. Less than 65,000 above vacant land values base on comparable lot sales. "You have estimated the value of improvements for my home to be $146,241. This does not accurately reflect the market's valuation of improvements as evidenced by comparable sales noted above. The value of the improvements is less than 65,000 is indicated by the above -noted sales. Although I understand there may be some reasonable differences between estimates, your proposed overall estimate of 402,849 is excessive and unsupported by this market data. I understand that your methods for mass valuation are different than those of appraisals of individual properties. However, as you can see, based on these compared comparable sales of homes and lots in this local area, the estimated value of the improvements for my home should be substantially less than proposed." CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions from the board? MS. ASHTON: Signed Todd Tateo. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Based on the information Page 137 October 3, 2001 16JI we discussed previously about the uniqueness of Collier County property values and the statutory limitations of the property appraiser, I'll move for denial. MS. GOODNIGHT: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second for denial. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 4 -0. The next case is Beverly Hutchison. MR. TOUT: My name is Tim Tout, T- o -u -t, and I'm a neighbor of the petitioner. And with me today to make our presentation is Larry LaCroix. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm confused. This was a Mr. Tout on behalf of Hutchison? MR. TOUT: Yes. MR. LA CROIX: Technically an appraiser is not supposed to be an advocate for the property, so I can't represent the owner to do that until now. Good afternoon. This is much easier to be a spectator than I'm sure it must be to be on the panel up there. It's going to be a long day. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're running behind, so if we could speed it up, I would appreciate it. MR. LA CROIX: Okay. I'm not a tax appeal attorney. I'm not an attorney. I'm just an appraiser. Based on what has taken place so far, it appears that the appraiser's office is not forwarding copies. This is a copy of an appraisal that was done for -- here's some additional, the Hutchisons. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, you're going to speak -- if you want it on the record, you're going to have to speak on the microphone. Page 138 October 3, 2001 6J1 MR. LA CROIX: Okay. This particular property received an inquiry early in the month of September to look over the trim notice and evaluate it for possibly making a presentation here in front of the appeal board or the Value Adjustment Board. In examining this -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. LaCroix -- MR. LA CROIX: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- just so I have a baseline, since we don't have information, what's the assessed value, and what is your petition for us? MR. LA CROIX: Okay. Actually, the petition -- Tim may have to answer that question. I don't recall what was the amount on the petition. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you tell us? MR. LA CROIX: Here it is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What did the property value assess at? MR. STEPHENS: The assessment is nine twenty -six six seventy -nine. The petition indicates that the value should be five seventy -five to six twenty -five. MR. LA CROIX: Now, that was done on a preliminary basis because what happens with this is starting when the trim notices go out I get a barrage of calls with people with inquiries. And, quite honestly, more often than not, I find myself telling people that, hey, guess what? Your market value is still well above what the appraiser is showing. Even if it is 67 or 300 percent more than last year, it's still below market value, and we don't really have a basis to proceed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But for this property what -- instead of 575 what you now would assess it at is -- MR. LA CROIX: Actually, based on the appraisal, and -- and for -- based on year 2000 data as of January 1 st, 2001, my appraisal was 560,000. Now, we talked a lot, or we hear a lot of discussion Page 139 October 3, 2001 16JI about the comparable sales in terms of price per square foot and things of that nature. I like to do things with pictures. The second bundle that I gave you was paper clipped together on purpose, because if you separate that apart you can look at the subject property against the comparable data that I'm going to talk about. These four comparables that start out with the heading of subject first is Comp No. 1 are excerpted from the appraisal. The grid shown down below are identical to what was shown to the property appraiser in the grid. All we've done here is put a picture next to the grid and a little commentary. Comparable No. 1 is the property immediately next door to the subject. Now, if you take the subject property page and lift that up, you'll see a diagram of the site along with the view from the subject property. The lot in the kind of brown color there is the subject site, and you notice it's up at the corner of the lake. It's not an ideal lake lot. You can see from the picture if you angle a little towards the south, it still has a beautiful view. The lot immediately down the page, Lot 54, is the comparable we're going to talk about, 500 Yucca Road, sold for 540,000 February of year 2000. That particular house or excuse me, that particular lot, actually, is better oriented on the lake. It's a little farther out into the open. It's also a little closer to that strip of green you see at the bottom which is the golf course. So, again, if we angle even farther toward the south, we begin to pick up a little bit of a golf course view. I purposely take my photographs the way you would normally see it from the property. It's kind of like when you hear about the condominium with the beautiful Gulf view but you've got to walk out to the edge of the balcony and look down to see an angle of the Gulf. This is pretty much what you would see from a typical home on that site, from a pool area or a living room or family room or whatever. You can walk out to the edge and look down and actually see the golf Page 140 October 3, 2001 1611 course at the end of the lake, but that wouldn't be a part of your normal enjoyment of the view. Back to Comp No. 1. Comp No. 1 is actually a little bit younger than the subject property, but it was torn down after sale. We come back to this issue, and I agree with the property appraiser's office totally. It is very difficult sometimes to pick which one will be refurbished, which one will be torn down. Sometimes we kind of look at the improvements. It may be a minimal contribution. They are -- you know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To one person they may see the potential to refurbish. The next person may tear it down. So principally we're looking at what that sold for at that time was an improved property. That house was listed at 575,000 in late 1999, sold and closed in February of 2000, which was in our -- our target 12 -month period. That was 540,000. When I arrive at many properties to do an appraisal, the first thing people ask me, "Well, how do you base the value? How do you make your comparisons ?" And my favorite analogy to give the customer is if the house right next door was similar in size and age on a similar lot to yours and sold last month you wouldn't need me because we'd have our yardstick, we'd know what the value was. This was an arms- length sale and meets all those criteria. However, one sale is seldom enough to base a strong opinion on so we'll move on from there. Comp No. 2. Comp No. 2 is located a little bit south of the subject. It's on the other side of the Beach Club golf course down in the area that a lot of people call Olde Naples. It's kind of the stepchild of Olde Naples. It has most of the benefits and enjoyment but technically it's in a named plat which is Ridge Lake in this case. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. Do we have a map anywhere that shows where that one is? Page 141 October 3, 2001 1611 MR. LA CROIX: In the appraisal there's a comparable map that about the second or third page up from the back will show the location of all the comparables together. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, are we going to go through all of these for examples? MR. LA CROIX: I can accelerate that a little bit. After we pass the second one it becomes a little repetitious. The first one is the critical one. It's right next door. It's an excellent indicator of value. Moving on -- I'll try to accelerate this. The second one is a refurbished house sold for 790,000, closed in October of 2000. Now, again, keep in mind, this is a superior location south of the Beach Club, but we're only at 790,000. We're almost -- what is it? -- 137,000 less than what the subject property is assessed at, and it's a refurbished house versus a house that's on the verge of being torn down, by most people's standards. Now, you notice something conspicuous on that particular analysis, there is a location adjustment of 200,000. One way that an appraiser can arrive at a location adjustment is to do what we call paired sales. We take two things that are nearly identical except for one attribute and say, based on the fact that everything else is similar, the difference in value must be due to that attribute. Well, in the case of this appraisal, Comp No. 4 was also torn down immediately after sale. Comp No. 4 is in the same neighborhood as Comps No. 2 and 3. Comp No. 4 sold for 750,000, closed in the same month as the house next door to the subject closed at 540,000. So if you skip to the back page of that little bundle, you have a breakdown sheet that shows how we go about a paired sale. Basically we've taken -- excuse me while I fumble through my pages here. We've taken the subject -- excuse me, the one next door to the subject, 500 Yucca Road selling for 540,000. Improvements were razed immediately afterwards, we assume that 540 was land value. Page 142 October 3, 2001 16JI ' 450 Palm Circle West which was our Comp No. 4 sold for 750,000 in the same month. The house was also razed immediately so we have a net to land of 750,000. With a calculator it's easy to see we've got a difference of 210,000. We're 28 percent. That's got to be due to location. That's the only difference between those two properties. In the appraisal I actually used 200. We rounded somewhat so that we're at 27 percent. As additional backup I went looking for another property from both neighborhoods that was not a lake just to see if this was a fluke due to the lake or I can prove this from other data. In the Coquina Sands, which is the subject neighborhood, I found a house that sold -- I didn't put the sale date down. I believe it was May 2000 on that one, 1460 Nautilus Road, for 380,000 with a house on it. That house is currently assessed by our property appraiser at 52,000 for the improvements. So if we just strip that 52,000 out we're saying roughly 328 left of land; 682 Bougainvillea Road, which is close down to Comps 2, 3, and 4, in that identical neighborhood was raised immediately after sale, sold for four hundred and thirty -two five. Again I believe that was a June 2000 sale. These were all in the 2000 bracket. So we're saying a net to land of four thirty -two five. Again, with simple subtraction, 104,500 different or 24 percent. So we're coming real close to proving that there is a locational difference that we can see from multiple sales in the market. Having said that now I'll skip on through a little more quickly on these. Comp No. 3 is the same thing again, except it's a bigger house. It's also been refurbished, sold for 845,000 in -- excuse me. September of 2000. If we account for the difference in the fact that the lot is about 20 percent bigger and some differences in the size and the condition of that property, we're adjusting that one down to 550,000. I'm kind of moving a little fast here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. But your point's already Page 143 October 3, 2001 16J1 really well -made. How did we come to be 900,000 then on this lot? Because I'm real -- his arguments seem to be very persuasive so -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we have one right next door for half. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And all over the place that appear to be -- so is there a different methodology, different comps? What's the reason? MR. STEPHENS: Well, different comp. I -- if you'll -- the package that I just gave you, if you will turn to the very back, I've got a -- I've got a very crude map. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But basically most of your comps appear to be down here around -- I mean, I guess -- MR. STEPHENS: He didn't use the comp on the same lake. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry? MR. STEPHENS: He didn't use the same comp as the comp that's on the same lake. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He used the next door neighbor's property, oh, but not across the lake. MR. STEPHENS: Right. Which sold for -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A million three. MR. STEPHENS: -- almost a million three. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why is that, Larry? MR. LA CROIX: I'll let him finish; then I'll address that. MR. STEPHENS: The other thing is, if you look in his packet, okay, you see a photograph of the house that is right beside the subject. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. His comp -- MR. STEPHENS: That photograph was taken some time ago. That house has been gone since -- since February. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. He told us that. MR. STEPHENS: Since March. He didn't do the appraisal until Page 144 October 3, 2001 l� 9/25 of this year. 16J1 MR. LA CROIX: Appraisers are squirrels; we save everything. MR. STEPHENS: He pulled his data out and said, "Oh, here." Now, the other issue is, why go south and start trying to make comparisons when, No. 1, we don't believe that what he is saying about it being worth more below the course and north of the course, that just doesn't merit. All right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bruce, can I interrupt you for a minute? MR. STEPHENS: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Which case where the house was torn down? Is that the comparable right next door are you saying? MR. STEPHENS: It was torn down, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And he's showing on his assessment with a house on it. MR. STEPHENS: He also used it as a comp. He used it as a land sale and as a comparable market sale. Now, that's not necessarily wrong. That can be done if it's treated right and if it's handled right. The first thing you have to assume is, was the sale of that house a true market transaction? Did it really represent the market or -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have any reason to think it wasn't arm's length? MR. STEPHENS: If you look past things, April of 2002 (sic), that same lot sold for $1.1 million. That's $700,000 more than it did in 2000. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It had a house on it by then, a new house. MR. STEPHENS: No. They're in the process of building the house now. MR. LA CROIX: We're well outside of our target range by Page 145 October 3, 2001 16JI doing that also. MR. STEPHENS: My point is -- and we do not use 2001 sales. But we do look at them. We have to. We don't have a choice. We look at them so we can start seeing trend. But if you look at -- at the $1.1 million sale of a lot up there, okay, and then come south where all of his subject -- all of his comps are and look and see there was a -- a 2001 sale of another house, just like all these others, for 950 and another one on the other side of the other lake there for 962 -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see it. MR. STEPHENS: There's no way that anybody can tell me that the properties on the south side of the beach are worth more than the properties on the north side because we've got a lot up there selling for $200,000 more than two houses on the south side. Now, that's 2001 data, I -- I agree. But there was no reason to come south to get a comparable when you had one on the other side of the lake that sold for 1.29 million. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But at the same time, I mean, if what we're going to do is look at this, the two on the north, we've got one for five forty and one for a million three. MR. LA CROIX: Can I hand out something additional on that sale? I want to let him progress with his comments. MR. STEPHENS: The other thing is we've got other property owners up there whose values are in the range of 1.2, 1.3 million dollars that were valued in likeness. They didn't complain because they know what the value is up there. Where I have a severe problem with this appraisal is this appraisal was done for the owner of that property. And there is nothing in this appraisal that tells that owner that the lot next door sold for $1.1 million. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait a minute. MR. STEPHENS: And that sale occurred before the appraisal Page 146 October 3, 2001 1 6J1 �" ��; was done. MR. LA CROIX: But that's outside the time frame that we're -- MR. STEPHENS: But you have a fiduciary responsibility to your client to let him know that the next -door neighbor sold for 1.1 million. MR. LA CROIX: The purpose was to present to the Valuation Adjustment Board -- there's nothing in that information that would have altered the -- the customer's position on it. I mean, it's -- by withholding it, there's nothing -- they know of it, it's not a secret. By not presenting it specifically in the appraisal is only in keeping in line with the purpose and intended user of the appraisal. I did want to bring one thing forward on that subject. This is our million three sale, and I apologize because I'm short on color copies on this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can share. MR. LA CROIX: Firstly, that house is vastly superior. It's a totally remodeled house. If you look at that lot and how that lot's placed, they have frontage on the golf course, they have a gorgeous southwest view across the corner of the lake onto the golf course, plus the lot is much larger than the subject site. You compare the front view of our subject house versus a million two ninety sale, no appraiser would normally use that because it's not apples and oranges. It's apples and watermelons. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Other than location, as to location. MR. LA CROIX: It is important. If you back through that sale and if you look at what those improvements were probably worth, how much they contributed to that lot, we start coming down from that million 290 with an estimate of what the improvements are worth, compare the size and the view of the lot, you start getting down, there's no way you can justify -- that lot is only assessed at 75,000 more than the subject. That's the disparity. The lot Page 147 October 3, 2001 immediately south of the subject, Lot 54 , I believe it was , that 1 w J i were talking about, with the $540,000 sale is assessed 50,000 less than the subject. I can't figure that out. The subject lot is at the corner of the lake. When you sit on the back -- I didn't take that picture. I probably should have. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait a minute. I hate to interrupt you, but which property is 50,000 less? Say it again. MR. LA CROIX: The -- the sale that we're discussing, that Lot 54 that -- the 500 Yucca. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With -- the next -door neighbor comp. MR. LA CROIX: The next -door neighbor that sold for 540,000, the subject is assessed at -- for land only, I believe it's 825. It's 824 and some change, I believe. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The 54 -- MR. LA CROIX: And his is roughly seven seven five. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why would that be? MR. CROIX: So it's 50,000 less, yet it's a better lot. (Ms. Abbott entered the room.) MR. STEPHENS: There's a difference in -- in the depth. It's a minimal amount of difference. But one, the subject property on the north side, that property is actually longer and deeper. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's not as good a lot, I wouldn't say. MR. LA CROIX: When you look across the back there I tend to take pictures that are more average, just like I didn't take the golf course view to favor the view, I didn't take the back of the million and a half dollar house that's on the north side of that lake. You look down the back of a screened enclosure on that lake bank because they're built out to what appears to be the rear setback. It's not a wide -open view like Lot 54 and certainly not like our million two ninety sale. October 3, 2001 16JI COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm feeling like I'm persuaded that there's some number other than this number on this one as well. You think -- I obviously know you think that's wrong, but I mean the -- the million three makes me think that it's somewhere higher than 540, but the -- MR. STEPHENS: Well 540 was for a vacant lot now. You're talking about a house that is to this date currently being listed for lease. MR. LA CROIX: However, when you compare the picture of the subject house in Comp No. 1 next door, the one they tore down looks better than our subject house. It has cement tile roof and a little higher pitch, a little better design but, again, we come back to that same thing that the improvements really aren't a major factor. Whoever buys this at any point in the future is looking at land. MR. STEPHENS: I couldn't agree anymore. And that's why the lot next door to it sold for 1.1 million this past year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it's still a vacant lot. MR. STEPHENS: That's $800,000 -- almost $800,000 difference. My contention is the 540 never was an indication of market value in that area. It never was. MR. LA CROIX: I do have the listing on that particular property. I have the listing history. It went on the market at 575. MR. STEPHENS: Didn't a builder buy it? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we can beat this up as -- all day. I see there a difference in -- between the representative and -- and the tax assessor, and I understand both sides of it. I think that we need to make a decision here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just had a question about what indicates that was not a arm's- length deal or not a market indicator of value? Page 149 October 3, 2001 16JI MR. STEPHENS: Just the -- the amount of the sale itself. MR. LA CROIX: That is included, I believe, in the back of the comparable bundle I gave you, the last page, I think, is the listing of that property. MR. STEPHENS: You remember me -- me telling you earlier in the -- this morning that we have situations out there where we have people that are buying property and then turning around at a later date and making money on it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Surely. MR. STEPHENS: The guy -- I believe, if I'm not mistaken, the guy that paid the 540 for it, that was a construction company. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that would indicate to you that -- MR. STEPHENS: And they -- well, the house, they bought it in February, tore it down in March. MR. LA CROIX: But it was exposed for several months in late '99 before it did go under contract and closed. It's the second page from the backup bundle, it's not the last page. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On your appraisal? MR. LA CROIX: In the little short bundle with the comparable, the one that starts with the subject versus Comp 1, the second page from the back, because that's one thing that we look at also, if a sale appears out of place, we go back and look at the listing history. Did it go on the market for a much greater price and then reduced greatly? Is it advertised as a distressed seller? The only thing that's mentioned in here is owner will not take offense if you tear it down. There's not really any mention to a motivated seller. It was on the market for, I think, about six months total from listing to closing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so what you're saying, Bruce, is that when -- when -- who is it? -- John R. Wood listed this they just severely undervalued it? Page 150 October 3, 2001 1 6JI � MR. STEPHENS: Well, a lot happens with -- you know, a G property sale is based on how much it's shown. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, I mean this was listed at 575. So even assuming it was really 600, I mean, that's what I'm starting to wonder is -- is, you think John R. Wood and Mr. LaCroix were totally off base on this? Is that right? MR. STEPHENS: Well, but, you know, I'm -- I'm saying is, we -- right across the lake we've got a $1.2 million sale. Now, that house has been fixed up. It's been remodeled; there's no question about that. Is it superior? I don't know about that. All they did was take an older house, put a new roof on it. And -- MR. LA CROIX: It's got some major changes, raised roof line. MR. STEPHENS: And, you know, I can almost -- I wouldn't swear to it, but the person that bought it, chances are that's going to be torn down. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That -- that pink one with the green roof? MR. STEPHENS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd be surprised. MR. STEPHENS: Because nobody would buy that. So again you have a lot value that's being transferred here, you know. I'm just -- you know, I -- I don't have a problem at all with Mr. LaCroix's work, you know, he comes in our office all the time. But in my opinion, as an appraiser he is way off on this. It's unconsciousable (sic) to me to ignore that sale over there and not even show it in the grid and use it in a sale south of there and make a $200,000 adjustment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, why wouldn't you use Mr. LaCroix's a million three across the lake? MR. LA CROIX: Generally because it's vastly superior, again, back to the apples and watermelons. I mean, if you look at -- if you Page 151 October 3, 2001 16JI want to take a middle ground on this, throw everything out the window as far as the superior location, we've got three sales just south of there on similar -sized lots in the 750 to 800 range that, the 750 being the low end, was torn down. All the higher one's have remodeled and larger houses on it. So you've got to ask yourself, how do we get from 750, even at a very slanted view, saying that property -- I mean, there are properties within a couple blocks of this same group south of the Beach Club we're talking about that are a million dollar land sales just for plain old lot. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Apples and watermelons. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What is -- what is apples and watermelons? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Tell us. MR. LA CROIX: Well, generally, the question -- I apologize for getting off the path. The point I was making on that is that the other comparables are much more similar in terms of the homes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not my question. MR. LA CROIX: I mean, you could practically hit a golf ball - from one to the other. The million two ninety is a totally refurbished house. I mean I disagree entirely with the idea it's a likely tear -down. The roof line has been raised. The ceilings have been raised. I knocked on the door because I wanted to go around and take a picture through the -- the back of what the view looked like there, and I couldn't get the owner so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me ask you a question: If you -- could you give me vacant land of the million three, what would you -- I mean, what did you say that the vacant land is worth there? MR. LA CROIX: Well, I think the property appraiser's estimate Page 152 October 3, 2001 6J1 on the improvements are around $200,000 on that, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On that -- I apologize. Do you agree? MR. STEPHENS: On which one? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the million three, the house that is a million two nine hundred, do you say that the house there is worth two hundred? MR. STEPHENS: I -- I'm not positive about that, I don't have that individual number. MR. LA CROIX: But -- for the record -- I'm not agreeing with that value. I'm just passing that information along. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. But I'm trying to figure out -- MR. STEPHENS: They have -- probably fairly close. If you will look on our grid where I grided that one, I think we made basically $161,000 adjustment primarily for that house. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you would say the vacant land on that property is worth a million one or somewhere in that neighborhood? MR. LA CROIX: Actually, it's nine hundred something is what they've got that assessed at right now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You've got it assessed at nine -- MR. LA CROIX: It's barely above what -- I think 75,000 more than what the subject is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. I would think that was worth a lot. It's more than -- 75 grand more than the subject property just by the size of the lot, by the location on the golf course, by the view. MR. STEPHENS: Well, historically for -- for what it's worth, the golf course lots have never had the value that the lake lots do historically. Page 153 October 3, 2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But this one has both lake 1J J 1 golf course. MR. LA CROIX: And southwest exposure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'm back to trying to find the numbers here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The number is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's -- the property assessor's -- appraiser has it at nine twenty -six seventy -- six seventy -nine. The petitioner has it at five sixty. And I'm going to make a motion to approve the -- to grant the petition and to recommend that it reassessment of eight fifty. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion on the -- everybody heard the motion. Is there a second? MS. ABBOTT: I didn't hear most of the data, so I don't feel like I can participate. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give you a second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second to grant the petition and adjust that, 825, or did you say 850? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To 850. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (All responded excluding Chairman Henning and Ms. Abbott.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? I will oppose that. MS. ABBOTT: I just didn't hear most of it. I don't think I could vote one way or another because I -- I don't -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And she abstains if she was only here for the last five minutes of this. MS. ASHTON: Yes, I think that's appropriate. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So the -- the motion carries. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Three to one with one abstention. Page 154 October 3, 2001 16JI CHAIRMAN HENNING: Three to -- right. MR. LA CROIX: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm going to leave you, and I know Commissioner Fiala will be back at any moment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I'm ready for a half an hour break for lunch. I'm sure our court reporter is, too, has been at it. So -- MR. STEPHENS: If -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead, Bruce. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah. There are two more that were scheduled in -- during that time frame. MS. ASHTON: For eleven. MR. STEPHENS: I don't know whether they're here or not. MR. SKINNER: The man's ready for a break. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We're taking a lunch break. We're going to recess for a half an hour. (A lunch break was held from 2 p.m. To 2:40 p.m.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I call the meeting to order of the VAB . The next case is Thomas Hoolihan. MR. HAMBLEN: Mr. Hoolihan sent a letter that he wanted read. You have a copy of that. I don't know if Maria was going to give you a copy or not. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Unless it's in this big packet here. Why don't we just go ahead and have someone -- MS. ASHTON: I'm the official reader. Thank you. This is a letter to the Value Adjustment Board from Thomas P. Hoolihan regarding Petition TP -92. "On the date of the scheduled hearing for the above - referenced petition, I will be out of the country on a long - planned trip. It is my understanding that the property appraiser has reduced the value on all Page 155 October 3, 2001 16J 1 of the subject parcels to $100 per acre which I am in full agreement. There is a difference of opinion, however, regarding the total number of acres involved. The only survey that I know of was done in 1970 by Johnson Engineering in Fort Myers which I have in my possession. The number of acres was not included with the legal description, so I hired a local surveyor to compute the acreage using that survey. I am enclosing a copy of his memo to me and a drawing with the acreage calculations. I have tried to buy a current aerial photo to see if the island's configuration has changed, but the order never arrived but I think it highly unlikely the islands would have grown as much as the discrepancies between the two calculations. It would seem to me that it would be a simple matter to have a qualified person do the calculation using current aerials. Thank you for your consideration." MR. HAMBLEN: Okay. We've given that to our mapping people, and so it's -- they're looking into it, and they'll take care of anything that's in error or anything of that type. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we're -- we're in limbo or -- MR. SKINNER: No, no. MR. HAMBLEN: No. It's technically a no -show except he just asked for that to be read into the -- into the minutes. MS. GOODNIGHT: Move to deny petition. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion to deny. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5 -0. Page 156 October 3, 2001 And the next one is TP -93, June F. Klem. Anybody here representing Miss Klein? (No response.) MS. GOODNIGHT: Move to deny TP -93. 16J1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to deny TP -93. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. We have TP -94, same applicant. MS. GOODNIGHT: Move to deny. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: A motion and a second to deny TP -94. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5 -0. Okay. Getting into the one o'clock hour. TP -- TP -105 Sandra F. Vasey. MR. THORNTON: Good afternoon. I'm Chris Thornton. I'm representing Sandra Vasey, the trustee. This property is owned by a trust. The property is -- I'm joined today by Lillian Montes, an appraiser who has an appraisal and will be presenting that when I finish with my comments. This property is two adjacent lots on Marco Island on Hideaway Beach, Lots 12 and 13. The two lots -- they're waterfront lots, and they have one home. It sits right in the middle of the property line. Page 157 October 3, 2001 6J1 w ,, So our basic position is that the positioning of the house and the shape of the lots hasn't really been taken into consideration in the valuation. These are done by front foot. This being two lots, has twice the front footage as the other -- as the comps. The only really -- the relevant question today is what's the property worth, what would it sell for on the market? The valuation, the proposed valuation by the property appraiser's office is 4,662,671. So around 4.7 million that's got the land at 3.3 million, thereabouts, and the house at 1.36 million. When I originally filed the petition, we were shooting for 3. 1, and that was before we had our appraisal done. The appraisal came in around 4.1. So it's our position that it's somewhere between 3. 1, probably around 4. 1, but not the 4.7 that it's assessed at. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You say your appraisal came in at 4.1? MR. THORNTON: Yes. The appraisal came in at 4.1. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you want it lower than the appraised -- MR. THORNTON: 4.1 sounds good to us. And Lillian will cover the details of the appraisal. We're not really trying to overturn the apple cart. Front foot is the method you use for waterfront properties. We just think this particular property with the configuration of the lots, it has some unique aspects to it. This is a high -end luxury vacation home is what it is. And with the configuration of the lots and some other factors that we'll discuss, we don't think that it would sell for 4.6 on the market, 4.7. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you saying that it's only livable for half a year? You're saying it's a vacation home? MR. THORNTON: It's not homesteaded. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Page 158 October 3, 2001 16J-1 MR. THORNTON: It's not homesteaded, so that means that nobody has homesteaded this property. They live up north. So -- it's two lots. The comps -- there are comps on this street, vacant lots. It sold for 2.1 million. This lot, though, is -- it's L- shaped. The house sits right in the middle, so you couldn't really sell either lot. You have to look at it as one lot. The positioning of the house, you either have to value the lots at full value and say that it's two vacant lots, or you value the house at full value and discount the lots because they couldn't sell one or the other lot alone with the house sitting in the middle. Also I want to point out that these comps on the street, the 2.1 comps, those happened in the year 2000, really they don't reflect -- they reflect, in my opinion, the irrational exuberance of the dot com economic boom. That -- the economy has seen a downturn since then, and so those comps really don't help you to evaluate what's really going on today or as of January 1 st, 2001. And, two -- and those two sales alone really can't establish the market value. Those are high. There are some lower. We think the value is somewhere in the middle on the raw land. As I've said, the lots are L- shaped. The total property is L- shaped. That sort of prohibits full utilization of the lots. Your house would have to be L- shaped to fill up the whole building envelope, whereas the comps at 2. 1, they're rectangular lots, you build a whole lot, you don't have to design around an L- shaped configuration. This -- this shape, if you were to try to fill the whole envelope, it would also -- it restricts your view. Your house is -- the bulk of your property would be back towards the street rather than towards the beach and the -- the gulf -front view is what creates the value for the waterfront lots. The Vaseys went through a lengthy battle with one of their neighbors several years ago. The footers actually on the neighboring Page 159 October 3, 2001 6J1 house got poured way out in the -- in the breaking waves way out there. They thought that when the Vaseys built their home, they were told this is where the setback line is. You can't go beyond that. And since the neighbor was building way out beyond that, they -- they had a battle over that. The house did get pushed back some, not as far back as our house. So the positioning of that house immediately adjacent blocks the view of the water from the Vasey home. They actually put in -- put in a lot of landscape buffering and screening and trees to create privacy but -- so the home is there. A lot of the buffering is there. It basically cuts off the view from that side. As I said, it's two lots. Lot 12 -- and -- and because they're owned together, Lot 13 also, Lot 12 is accessed from Seabreeze, which is the Hideaway neighborhood. Lot 13 is not a Seabreeze lot. Lot 13 is -- it's accessed from Royal Marco Way, which is a heavily traveled road, not like Seabreeze. So if you were to just look at Lot 131 it shouldn't be valued as high as 12 or the other comps on Seabreeze. It's not really in the neighborhood. By virtue of being owned by somebody who also owns on Seabreeze, it gains that access. But if it were valued alone, it shouldn't be as high as those comps. As I said, the house is valued at 1,368,469. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? MR. THORNTON: It's 1 million -- the proposed valuation, 1,368,469. This -- this is not -- this was not built as a castle or a mansion. It's a large house. It's about 6,000 square feet. But it was built 11 years ago basically as a beach -- I don't want to say a shack. It's not a shack. It was built as a beach home. It's not -- it's not a -- it's not a mansion. It's got regular -- the kitchen is nice. But other than that, it's just a regular home. It's elevated. It has an elevator, because it had to be elevated because of the flood zone. So an 11- year -old beach house that's not a mansion, that's not built with expensive construction techniques, but basically at 11 years old, Page 160 October 3, 2001 16J1 when you -- if you can find a buyer who can buy on Hideaway Beach, they're going to -- they're going to tear it down, I mean, not today. But the house doesn't have a lot of useful life left. Somebody can spend -- you've got the proposed valuation, say if we just go with that, it's 3.3, got somebody who can spend $3.3 million on vacant land, they're going to tear this house down. It's 11 years old. Like I said, it's not -- it's not a castle. So they will -- in that market, they'll build what they want. So you have to really take the demolition costs out. The house -- the Vaseys like the house. They'll keep the house. But if anybody who were to buy this wouldn't keep it. Maybe going forward a few years. It doesn't have much useful life left. And we're going by -- we used a front footage. Like I said, this is two lots. Because Lot 13 is long, the back portion isn't that useful unless you're going to build a long L- shaped house. So the area -- the house that you can build is not as big as you'd expect based on the overall square footage of the lots. And, like I said, when we went in - - when they went in to build, there was basically a new -- and it's not on your plat maps. There's a line that the county said you can't go past this line. It -- it juts -- I think -- I think the line -- it's on the survey that I submitted, an original signed and sealed survey. So where the construction line for all the lots -- I think it's to the south coming up, Lots 1 through 11, that line, as soon as it hits Lot 12, it juts inward which forced the Vaseys, the whole -- there's a large portion of the front of this lot right on the beach that they weren't allowed to build on because of this line. It's not reflected on the plat map, and I don't think it's taken into consideration on the appraisal, but it's reflected on the survey, and it's -- based on where the house is built, that's as close as they could get. So that loss of land should be taken into consideration. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Thornton -- Page 161 October 3, 2001 16J l MR. THORNTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- if it wasn't on the plat, then how did the surveyor determine this line? MR. THORNTON: The survey -- I submitted an original copy. It references Collier County setback line per Collier County ordinances or something to that effect. It -- there is no reference to a specific statute, and I didn't get a surveyor to come today, but a survey shows where the setback line is. And that line on the survey is not the same as the one shown on the plat. So I'll just -- I'll just have to rely on the survey. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And the plat was submitted to Collier County Commission when it was approved by the board, the Hideaway Beach. But -- that's why I asked why -- how did the surveyor come to that determination. MR. THORNTON: I'm not sure how the plat got adopted. I think the plat was adopted prior to the survey, so the survey -- the survey shows a setback line that is more restricted than the plat shows. That's the point. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did the man already own the property when -- when that survey was conducted, or did he have the choice to buy or not to buy? MR. THORNTON: He owned the property when the survey was conducted. The survey was done as a part of this battle with the neighbor over how close the neighbor could get to the beach and too far up would block our view which it still does because it didn't get back as far as we are, but it didn't get to go in the breaking waves where the footers were originally poured. And one last point is that this is the high end -- there is a high -end market. Buyers -- buyers look at perceived efficiencies very sensitively. They're spending a lot of money. This property along with all the other beachfront properties, this is subject to October 3 2001 16J 1 erosion. And, in fact, did have some significant erosion in the years past which was renourished, but there's no guarantee that if the erosion happens again, natural forces take the sand away again, that that sand will be renourished by the state or by anybody else. So that -- that threat is there, and we think that it tends to keep buyers away. So we -- we think 4.1 is fair. I'll let Miss Montes go through the appraisal with you. If you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to answer them. MS. MONIES: I have a handout, kind of summarizes what I'm going to be talking about. That way it's easier to follow, and the land sales that are in Hideaway. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't you give it to me and I'll hand them out. MS. MONTES: Thank you. The Vaseys' residence on Seabreeze Drive is a complex valuation assignment because there are several factors that influence value. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. Your name, ma'am. MS. MONTES: I'm sorry. I'm Lily Montes. I'm a state certified general appraiser. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. MONTES: And I was asked by Mr. Vasey and Mr. Thornton to do the appraisal. There are some key valuation influences that we want to emphasize about the site plan. The assessment at full market value of lots, which if you look on the land sale -- sales, there are several lot sales along Hideaway Beach. There is a premium to be in Block 1 where Mr. Sea -- Mr. Vasey is on Seabreeze Drive. There's two lot sales that occurred, Lot 6 and Lot 11, both for 2.1 million, and the other lot was roughly a little bit more. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And those are comparable? MS. MONTES: Well, they -- we'll get into that, okay? The Page 163 October 3, 2001 16J1 _v most comparable of the -- all the sales along the beach because of location. The assessment at the full value of the lot for sales of Lots 6 and 11 and full value of depreciated improvements are what they did to arrive at the total market value. The problem is that some of these parts do not equal the whole. Here's why: If you're basing subject land value at full market value, you are assuming that the subject has similar utility as a land sales. The subject does not have similar utility. Highest and best use of the subject site is two individual building sites. The improvements are not consistent with highest and best use. We have one single - family home encumbering two lots. If full value is placed on the lots, then you must consider the improvements to have no value or include the cost to demolish. If any value is placed on the improvements, then land value is less than market value. Otherwise you have a consistent use problem. The single - family home on the double lot causes the site to have a loss of utility. The subject does not have similar utility as the sales for additional reasons. The view on the north side -- and that's on the photo page -- is obstructed. The improvements, as Mr. Thornton mentioned, on Lot 14 extend about 20 feet -- 20 feet beyond the subject. And that's depicted in that handout. Lot 13, as was also mentioned, has frontage on Royal Marco Way, instead of Seabreeze Drive, which is an inferior location. The subject site is irregular in shape requiring an irregular design of improvements, which is not as comparable. And a few comments on the improvements. The subject home is not compat -- comparable to current standards in the luxury home market. Examples include lower ceiling heights, average interior finishes, and upgrades and the average pool area and exterior area. Typical economic life of beach homes is 20 to 25 years, which is very evident in the Naples area. The subject is 11 years old with average market appeal and does not meet standards for homes on the Page 164 October 3, 2001 1 beachfront market its remaining conomic life is very limited. 6 tJ I g rY In conclusion, what we have done is to analyze the subject's unique characteristics and how this property fits into the marketplace. We feel, base on the property's site size, loss of utility from the four factors I just discussed, and design aspects of the improvement, the most probable sale price or estimate fair market value of the subject is 4.1 million. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have -- I have a question. What's -- what's the utilities that are not provided from one lot to another? I didn't catch that. MS. MONTES: The difference in the utility of the lot is highest and best use. You have a loss of utility because you have the improvements situated right smack in the middle of double lot. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do both of them have water and sewer? MS. MONTES: Oh. I'm not talking about the utilities like electric, water and sewer; I'm talking about the utility of a lot. You base your valuation -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't understand that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't understand that either, so you're not alone. MR. THORNTON: Usefulness. MS. MONTES: The usefulness of the property. I mean, if I'm buying Lot 6, I am free to do my single - family home. If these two lots were at highest and best use, I would have two homes on them. Then I would have full highest and best use of my lot because there's two lots. There's two full -value lots. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It looks like they have more than two lots here. That one is huge, isn't it? Page 165 October 3, 2001 16JI MS. MONTES: That's -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Which -- which one has a lesser value utility? Lot 12 or 13? MS. MONTES: Lot 13 on the north side that fronts Royal Marco Way. And on that plat, you can also see it's the erosion - control line that was moved back. When they went through this litigation in 1995 they found that the line had not been properly recorded and apparently is still not because I have called everywhere to try to find a county record and -- including the Marco Island building department, and they don't show that line on anything. MS. ABBOTT: But when the house -- you're saying the house on Lot No. 14 was built prior to the new setback line? MS. MONTES: I'm not really sure when that line was established. Mr. Thornton can probably address that better. MR. THORNTON: The house was built after the setback line was established. MS. ABBOTT: So they had to comply -- I'm sorry. MR. THORNTON: It was -- the litigation was settled, and they didn't come back as far as the Vasey house was. The litigation you get sometimes results that aren't necessarily the best result. But it was put somewhere between. It didn't get -- it didn't get where it wanted to be. It didn't get to go to the line on the plat, but it also wasn't forced to come back to the line of Mr. Vasey when he built his home. One thing I'd like to mention which I'm sure the property appraiser's office will point out, there is currently a 25 percent discount applied to the raw land valuation. This was done several years ago. That 25 percent doesn't get you to the 4.1 that the property has been appraised at. So we're proposing that that discount -- I'm not sure where 25 percent comes from. I don't know. It's not really a magic number. But we -- but we think that a larger discount factor, Page 166 October 3, 2001 based on these factors we've discussed, is appropriate. 1611 MS. ABBOTT: Miss Montes, what do you normally do when you appraise a house when it's on two lots, do you discount the lot? MS. MONTES: I've had pleasure of doing that a few times, and it's difficult. And what you have to do is really take a step back and look at the overall marketplace and compare that home with other similar homes in the marketplace and kind of put yourself in the buyer's shoes and say what would I pay for this house based on the competition out there. And really that's what we did, try to take a look at -- put all this aside and step back and say, you know, houses that we're looking at at 4.8 million, 4.6, you know, what the differences are, does this house kind of fit into that marketplace, and my answer was no. At a lesser value -- I mean, you have to try to adjust yourself to say where do you think this house fits in the marketplace. And Rick Armalavage and myself worked on this, and both of us had a very similar value conclusion, and we feel at 4.1 it meets market standards of what the expectations are for the site and the improvements. MS. ABBOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bruce? MR. STEPHENS: Okay. To start off with, this appraisal was done as of December 31 st, 2000, which is in keeping with appraising as of January 1 of 2001. Of the comparable sales and the vacant lot sales used in this appraisal, 11 -- there were 11 sales used, improved and vacant. Six of them occurred in the year 2001. So they really should not have been used in arriving at a value in December. MS. MONTES: Are you talking about my sales? MR. STEPHENS: Yes. MS. MONTES: That two sales -- MR. STEPHENS: Excuse me. You've had your turn. If you would look at -- at my packet. There is a significant difference in the Page 167 October 3, 2001 16J 1 value between Block 1 and Block 2. If you look at the second part of my packet, I have an aerial photograph that will give you an idea of why there's a difference, and that difference is all in beach. The lower tier historically washes out, year in, year out. And in -- in Block I. you've got a much nicer beach area. Now, in terms of utility of -- of subject property, it is not two lots. It is one lot. It is platted as two lots, but it is taxed as one lot because the house sits and covers both lots. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh -huh. Uh -huh. MR. STEPHENS: If you will look at the second aerial photograph, you'll see the -- the gray- roofed structure and how it sits on that property. It's in the second packet. MS. ABBOTT: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. STEPHENS: Okay? MS. ABBOTT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, it fills both lots. MR. STEPHENS: So it sits pretty well with the property. And all I did was -- was go down through and show you the comps that they used and the comps that we used. And if -- as you look at these, there is nothing else in Hideaway that compares with this subject size wise, not spread out like this. There are one or two other houses that are three story, but those are -- those are newer houses. And in my packet I have photographs of the comps that we used. Now, in the appraisal that was done for the subject property -- bear with me just a second. Okay. On my second packet, if you will look and see where subjects -- where Comps 3 and 4 were, I would have never used those comps to begin with, period, ever. They don't have beachfront. And if you look on the aerial, you'll see the last two -- the last -- next-to- the -last two photographs, one has some mangroves behind the property and does not have on the beach, and it's on the south October 3, 2001 16J1 end. And the other one is a lot further on down that street which you can't even get to from Hideaway Beach by -- by car. There's a walkway down to it, but you have to drive there from -- from the south end of the island, south end of -- MR. SKINNER: Hideaway. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Tigertail? MR. STEPHENS: Tigertail, back in that way. So I would never have used those. I -- I disagree with the -- the adjustment that the sub -- the appraiser made, just made an arbitrary 37 1/2 percent adjustment that -- that this lot is not utilized properly. Now, if somebody were to buy it, as she would say, and the highest and best use would be build two houses, then they do have two viable lots. And if you use her information which she says that the front -foot value of -- of that area of -- of Block 1, one of her sales came in at 23,000 a front foot, the other at 24,000 a front foot. If you take 24,000 a front foot times 187 feet, you got $4.4 million just for the lots. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh -huh. MR. STEPHENS: Two lots that could be sold off separately. Now, another point is, this is beachfront property, beachfront -- front property sales based on its frontage. And people pay a premium for it. If they buy a hundred foot and choose to build on 50 foot, they pay for a hundred foot. They don't buy and say, well, I'm only going to build a small house on it so I'm not going to pay extra for it. It just doesn't happen in the real world. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bruce, let me interrupt you. MR. STEPHENS: And that frontage is worth something. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. MONTES: May I address some of his concerns or his point? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question. Is -- what did you Page 169 value the house at -- October 3, 2001 16J1 MS. MONTES: I have -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- the house alone? MS. MONTES: Depreciated value of the improvements I have it at a million one thirty. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What -- so what I got out of the discussion is, each lot in the area is worth 2.1 million dollars an acre, and the house value is over a million dollars. That's way over the assessed value that the property appraiser has assessed on the -- on your client's property. So I would entertain a motion of denial if -- if there's no other questions. MS. MONTES: May I just address his comments? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, there's a motion on the floor. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, there's not a motion. I'm -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we entertain one? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm saying I would entertain one if there's no other discussion from the board or questions from the board members. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll make a motion to deny. MS. GOODNIGHT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second. Discussion? MS. ABBOTT: Yes. I was just going to say, is it pertinent to hear what Mrs. Montes has -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: If it is pertinent to you, yes, it is. Would you like to hear it? MS. ABBOTT: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. MONTES: First of all, we're not arguing that there is -- first a comment -- I want to -- first, there is a premium for lots, for Block 1 on Hideaway Beach. We're not arguing with that. I put Page 170 October 3, 2001 16J1 A 2000 and 2001 sales, I put all the sales on the board of the appraisal so you could see the activity on the beach. We weighed the land value on the two -- well, actually, one was a'99 sale, the 2.1 million, and the other one was a 2000 sale. We used those, as I'm sure they did, to value the property -- I believe it was like -- they have 187 front feet. The valuation was 24,000 a front foot with a 25 percent discount for bulk, okay. That was my understanding. Also, he says he wouldn't use Comps 3 and 4. I agree. We don't get to pick and choose which houses are sold. I used all the sales that were in Hideaway Beach that were available. Comps 3 and 4 were adjusted for the differences in land value, so those were addressed properly in the report. And the comment he made about buying a hundred feet of beachfrontage and building on 50, I disagree with that point. You're already building a functionally obsolete home if you do that. So that aside, I still feel that in the marketplace that this house at four -- at anything over four one would not sell if we're talking market value. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do. Your comment is what prompted me to make the motion, and that was because I figured they needed that big of a lot, two lots, actually, to build that mammoth house that they have on there, and they filled up both -- MS. MONTES: Their building envelope is actually a little bit bigger -- bigger than what they have on there -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MS. MONTES: -- because it utilizes the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: It fills right to the corners of each of the lots. MS. MONTES: Right. The building -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's good. And -- and what I'm saying is, when you value what the -- what the value of each lot is Page 171 October 3, 2001 16J1 and the home at whatever value you've placed on it, and I would guess that's minimum value at a little over a million, still they add up to far more than we've appraised the property for, and I think that's giving them a good break. MS. MONIES: Well, I still believe that when you do the land the way you've done it, you're not considering -- you're -- you're going against the appraisal principles of consistent use. I still think they're using it as two lots. You're not saying it's -- you're saying it's one lot but you're not valuing it that way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you build that house on one lot? MS. MONTES: The way it stands right now? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. MS. MONTES: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can on the square foot, the square. MS. MONTES: I believe I had something with the building pad size. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The square foot of the house, could you put that -- MS. MONTES: I have that answer for you. I just got to -- I had something that was the building pad sizes of the houses along that street. MR. SKINNER: If you would look at the aerial, while she's searching for that, look at our aerial of that house and you would really be put to a task to put that house on one lot. MS. MONTES: Because of configuration. MR. SKINNER: And another thing, by the owner's petition here, she said the house costs $1.2 million, 12 years ago, 12 years ago, 1.2 million. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who -- Page 172 October 3, 2001 MS. MONTES: They've done improvements. 16J1 MR. SKINNER: The house. MS. MONTES: Building pad for Lot 6 is 7500 square feet. Building pad for Lot 11 is a little over 5,000 square feet. MS. ASHTON: There is a motion on the floor. Is that still pending? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion as stands. MS. ASHTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5 -0. The next is TP -106, Alberta M. Barker. MR. STEPHENS: This petitioner will not be here. I sent -- this is a piece of property that's in trust. The trust officer at Union Planter's Bank in Illinois is handling this. They received information from a realtor down here telling them what their value is. And -- so they protested based on what that realtor told them. I sent them information back that -- I'm sorry, but they were given information of sales totally out of the area and I just -- I gave them the opportunity to see other situations, and -- and I can provide all of that for you, but there's nobody here to -- to dispute the -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What is that -- what is that letter they sent to you? What does that say? MR. STEPHENS: It's just a letter stating that they would not be here. This is to advise that we have submitted a written appraisal with our petition, and I believe that's the information that -- that you have with the petition. It's not an appraisal. It's -- it's a realtor's opinion on -- on some sales that took place. Page 173 October 3, 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: It sounds like somebody wants to have a fire sale here and get a good deal on estate property, my opinion. MR. STEPHENS: Well, there's a significant difference in the -- in the sales of the four properties around the subject and the ones that are four canals away that they were given sales information for. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? I'll entertain a motion if no questions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to deny. MS. ABBOTT: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Abbott -- the school board -- how should I address you? School board member or -- MS. ABBOTT: Your Honor would be fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your Honor -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Your majesty. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your Honor Abbott made a second motion. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5 -0. The next one is TP -107, Dian Rymer. MR. STEPHENS : Okay. That was one Mr. Cuyler was here earlier, and he basically came to -- to say that he didn't have anything. But he had to leave before this came up, so he just basically told us to tell you he didn't have anything, but he wasn't withdrawing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. GOODNIGHT: Move to deny. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second to deny the petition. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? Page 174 (No response.) October 3, 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5 -0. The next one is TP -109, James and Patricia Clay. MR. SKINNER: We have a withdrawal on that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. STEPHENS: He was up here earlier and he withdrew. MS. GOODNIGHT: Move to deny. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, they withdrew, so I don't think you need to make a motion. MS. ASHTON: No, you don't. MS. GOODNIGHT: Sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next one is TP -117 is Julie A. Zahniser? MS. ZAHNISER: Zahniser. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Zahniser? Thank you. And we're talking about the South Florida Grower's Associations? MS. ZAHNISER: Okay. If it's all right with the board, I'd like to do the other petition first because it's a lot simpler and get it out of the way. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're going to hear TP -118. MS. ZAHNISER: Okay. Have you received the evidence I submitted? I have extra copies, if necessary. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to need extra copies, because I'd have to dig -- dig through this. Go ahead, please. MS. ZAHNISER: My name is Julie Zahniser. I'm a property tax attorney. I'm also formerly a state registered assistant real estate appraiser. This is a very straightforward case. The subject property is a brand new shopping center called Naples Walk. And I think the property appraiser did a very good job on this case. I'm relying on his income analysis that he faxed to me. I think it's correct. I've Page 175 October 3, 2001 16JI looked at it, and I think he's right on target. The only mistake that I believe he's made is that he fails to take into account the fact that on the assessment day, which is January 1, 2001, this brand new shopping center was a hundred percent vacant, and it -- it's now being leased out. But it's a brand new shopping center. He valued it as though it was receiving income on January 1 st, and it was not. The proper way to account for that is that you discount back to present value the income that you are assuming. And in this particular instance it took approximately a year to lease the subject property up. In fact, I was just out at the property last week, and there's still vacancies, you can notice from the picture. It's about 85 percent right now as of October. On January 1 st it was zero percent occupancy. So given that, the only mistake that I believe that he made is that he failed to discount his value back to present value, and it's a very simple calculation. You can use a financial calculator, but you would just discount it one year back to present value. In doing that, we get a -- a value of 2,380,483 instead of his assessed value of 2,766,316. And like I said, we -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you repeat that again. MS. ZAHNISER: The assessed value is 2,766,316. If you discount that to present value on January 1st, it comes to 2,380,483. He -- he's also relying on market sales, but those sales have the same problem in that those are of occupied centers on the assessment date, and ours was not. So I think for 2002 he'll be fine and there will be no problem with that, but it's just that as of January 1, he's failed to account for the fact that it was not occupied and not receiving income. And just to explain the -- the reason that appraisers discount it back to present value is that if you're looking at two identical properties next door to one another, one that's receiving an income Page 176 October 3, 2001 161l stream on January 1 st and the other that's not going to receive income until January I st the following year, the -- an investor looking at both of those is going to pay less for the one that's empty, because he's going to still have to pay his mortgage and he or she will still have to pay for that whole year, there's a risk -- there's a cost of carrying that property, but you're not receiving your income stream until the year later. So we discount it to present value. And that -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? MS. ZAHNISER: -- that really accounts for the difference. MS. ABBOTT: Yes. When we appraise for the county for the value of income - producing property, is that our policy to take that into consideration or are we looking at the real estate only? MR. STEPHENS: Absolutely. We take everything into consideration. MS. ABBOTT: Okay. MR. STEPHENS: The -- the subject property was valued as a shell of a building. Okay, number one, it is not Naples Walk Shopping Center. It is Phase 2 of Naples Walk Shopping Center. Okay. There's 70 something thousand square feet that was built two years ago. This is a 25,000 square foot addition built just east of the Publix, okay? They chose -- the developer chose to do this in two phases, all right. Phase 2 has a substantial amount of land with it. And what they have built on this substantial -- substantial amount of land they haven't utilized the rest of the property yet. So part of the valuation here is it includes property that's still yet to be developed. MS. ABBOTT: I see. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hmm. MR. STEPHENS: So you can't just look at it from the income approach because you've got excess land here in terms of the building being utilized with what's there. I'm sorry I only have one of these, but maybe -- Page 177 October 3, 2001 MR. SKINNER: Let John -- let John hold it up. 16L. MR. STEPHENS: Maybe I can do it better up here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well -- MR. STEPHENS: You see the Publix. 6J1 MS. ABBOTT: Yes. MR. STEPHENS: And then you see the darker dotted area. MS. ABBOTT: Uh -huh. MR. STEPHENS: Okay. That's part of Phase 2. All right? You see all this open area over here? They haven't utilized that yet. They only -- they only built this portion here, which is what we valued -- we valued as a shell. It was not tenant ready January 1. The permit called for building a shell. We valued it at 800,000. The permit called for a million to build that building. And, generally speaking, here in this county permit values are generally under what it generally costs to build. Okay. Now, what makes it even more difficult than what you see before you here, it's very difficult to value a portion of a shopping center, whether it's two properties or not, because chances are the developer and -- and the owner, if they sell, they're not going to sell this off. And the reason they wouldn't sell this off is because part of the access to get behind the public and the rest of the shopping center is on this property. Part of the retention area is behind this property, which we also have devalued down. So I understand what she's trying to say in terms of my income, but this is a case where my income for me particularly this year was nothing more than, I've got to consider it because the law says to. And I -- you know, I put some numbers down. It will justify it when it comes around, but I would not value this based on income under its current situation, because there is excess land. And if you value it that way, you'll have to add back in that excess land. Now, if you'll see the packet that I gave you, just, just a for Page 178 October 3, 2001 16J l instance, and if you'll open up the map, you'll see a much more clear area of the subject property in relationship to where everything else is there. All right? The subject land value is at $3.44 a square foot. Now, the reason it is so low is because we have taken into consideration that behind the shopping center, which this particular parcel go -- it -- there's a retention area there. And we've minused out for that retention area because it's not buildable. Okay? But all of the other sales in that area: 8, 105 % 7.505 95 10 dollars a square foot. These are for properties that are equal, even -- even to the degree, Albertson's, which is building up on Immokalee Road, they pay $10 a square foot for 304,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would say your client got a good deal, ma'am. MR. STEPHENS: And if you add everything back together, the shopping center comes out less than a hundred dollars a square foot, and we have sales that you will see in my packet here for 140, $150 a square foot of shopping centers that have sold here. MS. ZAHNISER: May I ask you a question? How much are you valuing the excess land? What's the total on that? MR. STEPHENS: If you valued the excess land based on current utilization, it would be $15 a square foot, because that would equate to what they're selling the out parcels, and they're selling those for as much as $18 a square foot. MS. ZAHNISER: Okay. My question is, you have -- on your approach you have your income value at 2,670,000, and then you've got your assessed value at 2,766,000? MR. STEPHENS: No, no. You're looking at my income stream. MS. ZAHNISER: Right. MR. STEPHENS: I told you I -- that -- that was nothing more, what she's seen -- and I don't know. I couldn't get it cross -- it was a Page 179 October 3, 2001 1 token value at that point in time because I would not have valued it on the income basis. I would not have valued it as a stand -alone piece of property in -- in that context because it -- it is not a stand- alone piece of property. It is part of a whole. They just chose to have two pieces of property on it because -- and I'm quite sure that their financing probably forced them to do that and create a Phase 2 . MS. ZAHNISER: I don't -- I don't have any objecting -- objection to the extent that he's got a hundred thousand dollars in excess land adding that on to my discounted value. But the problem that he -- he is not taking into account, and he's admitted that essentially, is that he's done an income analysis, but he has not discounted it back to present value. He has not taken into the account the fact that it was a hundred percent vacant on the assessment date. He's valuing it as though it's a hundred percent occupied and receiving income. And I agree, if he wants to add in for those -- for that excess land, we can add that onto the discounted value so, you know, I'll revise my estimate to two million four ninety. But he has still failed to comply with the statute. 193.011 makes abundantly clear -- I think it's -- I handed to you. It's in the first paragraph. He has to consider the present cash value. That means he's got to discount it to present value, and he hasn't done that. And he can go on and on about how he relied basically solely on the cost approach. But an investor looking at this property is going to look at what the -- what the potential income stream is. That's what shopping center investors look at. They don't look at what it cost to build the shell. And they want to know on the -- on January 1, am I going to pay the same amount for -- for that income stream that's a year away as one that I'm receiving today? And I'm not, and that's really the only -- I think he did a good job. That's our only difference, but that is critical. It's not a huge amount of tax aff-Em October 3, 2001 16JI money. I think it's only a couple hundred thousand dollars in assessed value. But, you know, my -- my client is being taxed as though they're a hundred percent occupied, and they weren't. And that's the bottom line. MR. SKINNER: The bottom -- the bottom line is that there's two other approaches that we must consider. We've -- we've approached it from all three approaches: The income, which there -- there was no income. We looked at that. We looked at the other two approaches also, and we put more weight on the replacement cost and the market than we did the income. The market indicates that we are -- we are way under, three dollars and something per square foot on the land as it is. And it's selling all around it for nine and ten dollars a square foot. And we're also looking at the replacement that -- and don't forget also that the permit was taken out for a shell, a shell, not a finished building. And that's the way we're appraising that. If we would -- if we looked at it from a finished building, the replacement cost would have been a greater -- a greater figure. So we have approached it from all three approaches, and I -- I never did get your replacement cost. MS. ZAHNISER: I -- I don't -- I don't argue with vour replacement costs. MR. SKINNER: I know. But you don't have one? MS. ZAHNISER: No. I -- I agree with yours. MR. SKINNER: You -- you didn't do one. MS. ZAHNISER: I looked at yours and considered it and I agree with it. What I'm saying -- MR. SKINNER: Did you look at our market also, and did you agree with our market? MS. ZAHNISER: I did look at your market. And your market, again, as the same problem is he's comparing it to centers that are a hundred -- you know, that are occupied, that are getting an income Page 181 October 3, 2001 16J 1 stream. What I'm trying to say is that although he has -- he says he's considered the income approach, he's done it improperly, and he says he's considered the market approach, but he's done it improperly because he's failed to account for a critical difference. And that critical difference is that we are not receiving any income on January 1 st, and it's got to be discounted back. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we got it. We got that point. But the question is, there -- there was an evaluation -- a consideration towards assessment with the -- the rental income or the lack of? MR. STEPHENS: There -- there was consideration, and that's what I'm saying. But, again, the ultimate issue is this property is not a stand -alone property, by any stretch of the imagination. There is no investor that would go into -- go up to Naples Walk and look at the Publix and everything to the right of Publix and say, "Yes, I like this shopping center, I want to buy that 20,000 square foot over here on the left. And, by the way, when I buy that, I'm going to close down access to the shopping center unless you pay me for that access." So that's what could happen with that other piece of property. And, you know, it's a matter of semantics here, you know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I know what you're saying, you're saying that that's an incorrect part of the whole, that you can't separate it. It's got to be there because in itself -- MR. STEPHENS: No investor is going to buy this property by itself. MS. ZAHNISER: Just -- if I may speak to that -- MR. STEPHENS: Let me finish. The -- the other issue is that, you know -- I mean, if we just take the land value, forget the building, we've got $800,000 on the building. If you just take the land value, we can prove a greater value than what's totally on this piece of property right now. You've got sales that show that. We've already taken into consideration the fact Page 182 October 3, 2001 16J l this building was a shell; it was unfinished. We've already taken into consideration that a portion of this square footage is drainage area behind the shopping center and that it is very much an integral part of the shopping center. So, you know, I think our value -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're starting to repeat ourselves. We're starting to get repetitious here. I'm hearing the same thing over and over again. I'd like to make a motion for denial based upon the fact that our property appraiser has made an excellent case. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion on the floor for denial. Do I hear a second? MS. ABBOTT: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion signify by aye -- by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries for denial. And you're still on deck. MS. ZAHNISER: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. Thank you. MS. ZAHNISER: All right. This property is the Wilson office building. And it's -- it's assessed at 7,838,667. The -- this property our client purchased from one of its tenants, Wilson, Miller, for -- in July of '98 for 9.4 million. And I believe that based on that, the property appraiser has false confidence in his assessment because, you know, obviously the sales price supports the assessment. What the property appraiser wasn't aware of is that this sale was not a typical arms- length transaction. There were two things -- there were two property rights that were transferred at the sale. It was a sale lease -back deal, whereas Miller kept the second floor and leased Page 183 October 3, 2001 16JI it in exchange -- and -- and sold it at the same time. And when you have a situation like that, you're transferring not only the real estate, but an intangible asset, which is the right to occupy that space for a period of time. Wilson, Miller is using that second floor as a single- tenant space, and you can see from the photos -- I only have one set, but you can hand them around. It's set up as a single tenant, 30,000 square feet, with open spaces, accounting spaces, file rooms, that type of thing. It is not converted to multitenant use. And the -- the -- Wilson, Miller is a developer, I believe. They are seeking to obtain cash out of their building while staying there. So they were willing to pay above - market rent in exchange for a higher purchase price. So the intangible asset was included in that purchase price and added to it. I think the sale, you have to be suspicious of it for that reason. It's not a straight market -value sale. And I've given you the textbook definition of a good sale where you have a typically motivated buyer and seller, which was not the case here. Again, I've reviewed the property appraiser's income approach which is in the industry the best indication of value for a income - producing property like an office building. And, again, he's made -- I agree with his assumptions. He's valuing it, the market rent at $18 a square foot. Most of our tenants are paying less than that. But, nevertheless, for the sake of crystallizing the issues, we agree with his analysis. The only difference that we have is that he's valuing us as though we're a multitenant office building when half of our building is single tenant. And I checked with two brokers and two leasing agents, one -- one of which is the leasing agent for our building with Grubb & Ellis. And I asked them how long would it take to lease up Page 184 October 3, 2001 161j this space were Miller to move out. And the answer was, not -- it's not how long. We couldn't lease this up as single tenant. We maybe would put it on the market for 30 days, 60 days and see what happens, but pretty much this is going to have to be converted to multitenant. I have provided you with the relevant case law which is the Miami Herald case, and in that case the courts instruct that where there is no market for the property as it is, then you will look at all the factors influencing value, and one of which would be the cost to convert it to a use that it would be, that it would be useful. And the property appraiser, frankly, has done that. He's valued it as though it's a multitenant office building and his -- his analysis is fine. But he must deduct out from that the cost to cure, the cost to renovate that second floor to make it multitenant. And I have provided a breakout of what those conversion costs would be. I've -- I actually have quite a bit of experience with this because I'm in litigation in Miami on the Ryder headquarters which is the same situation, and we've hired two engineering firms and two appraisal firms to figure out exactly every single thing and what it will cost. This is a -- this is actually very conservative at $20.90 a square foot because we're assuming that a lot of things that may have to be done in this building are not going to be done. On the Ryder case it's -- it's closer to $29 a square foot. This is very conservative. And this is actually in line with what I've -- what the leasing agents here in Collier County have told me about what it would cost to convert that space. You can see on the photographs, the photographs on top show what the second floor looks like, and then the photograph after the elevator shows what the first floor looks like. It's going to require slab to slab fire walls. It's going to require compliance with ADA requirements. You know, the ceiling tiles, the walls go up to the Page 185 October 3, 2001 16JI ceiling, but when you've got separate -- separate tenant spaces, it's got to go all the way up. So this assumes that a lot of these things won't have to be done, but the conversion cost is about $800,000. And so on the taxpayers' estimate of just value taking that into account and given the instructions of the Miami Herald case, we come up with 7,176,461. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just -- I have a question because maybe I'm confused here. I thought what you were saying was -- and please correct me. I thought what you said was that the building was sold to this buyer at a very good price, and it -- the second floor is being leased back at a higher rate than normally would be leased back so the people can stay right there -- MS. ZAHNISER: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and use that building. So why would he be concerned, then, with converting it to anything if he bought it with the understanding that he was going to get a lot more money back from the people to stay in that second floor? MS. ZAHNISER: That's a good question. First of all, he didn't buy it for a good price. He bought it for a high price in exchange for that intangible asset of receiving above - market income on that space. He's willing to pay more. For example, if somebody is willing to pay you $10,000 a square foot, you'll be willing to pay $10 million for that building because you're getting so much money. It's more of a financing arrangement than it's true real estate arrangement. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then if he did -- MS. ZAHNISER: But your question is that -- that above - market rent that he's receiving -- and that was a lease for eight years -- you're absolutely right about that. But we are supposed to be valuing for tax purposes only the value of the brick and mortar, not the value of those intangible assets, and the right to receive rent for the next eight years October 3, 2001 16JI -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's fine. MS. ZAHNISER: We have to exclude that. We have to value this as though it's going to be sold tomorrow without Wilson, Miller in there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. That's -- that's exactly the point I'm getting at. I think we're coming from different doors, though. And my point is, as long as Wilson, Miller has reserved this place for eight years, why are you concerned with converting it to office space and so forth when it's already the way they want it to be? MS. ZAHNISER: I'm only -- I think that you're zeroing exactly correctly. An investor looking at this and saying, well, they've got it for -- until 2005, I think, is going to say, look, we're not going to need to convert it until 2005. And so they're going to take that into account. But for tax purposes, we're not supposed to be taking into account that intangible asset, the fact that the lease is going to last until 2005. We're looking at the brick and mortar. And the brick and mortar is worth no more because the lease goes to 2005 than if the lease were up this year. It still is going to have to be converted some day. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, one more question then. I must be dense. So, in other words, you're asking for a discount on the taxes because of how much it's going to convert it over to office building, but you don't plan on converting it over to office building because it's already reserved and being paid for at a higher rate than normal for the way it is right now. MS. ZAHNISER: That's right because that's -- that's an intangible asset. And under the Florida constitution, the intangible assets are -- can only be taxed by the state, and that's going before the legislature right now. But the real estate is suppose to be -- and the Page 187 October 3, 2001 16JI reason, the rationale for that, is one piece of real estate that's identical that's next door puts the same burden on -- on the roads and on the schools and everything as -- as the next one regardless of whether it has a ten -year lease or one -year lease. So we don't take the length of that lease into account. We have to value this as though that lease were not there. And whether anybody would be willing to rent that -- you know, there's nobody willing to rent that space because it's -- there's no market for single tenant space. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because they can't rent it because it's already -- yeah. Okay. MS. ZAHNISER: If it were to go on the market right now, there would be no market for that. So we have to take into account the cost of converting it to a marketable space, and that's what the Miami Herald case instructs. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How many square feet is this, the upstairs? MS. ZAHNISER: The upstairs is about 30,000 square feet. I think I have it exactly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that's -- that's good enough. MS. ZAHNISER: 38,000. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, Coletta, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I can't wait to hear from the property appraiser. It's about as clear as mud at this moment, at this moment in time. MR. SKINNER: While John's passing those out, I would like to say that we don't know at this time whether there would be a market for someone if Wilson, Miller moved out. We don't know that, but you said there is no market. But that's a pretty good assumption. MS. ZAHNISER: Could I see the evidence that's being submitted? I haven't seen a copy of it. October 3, 2001 16JI . MR. STEPHENS: Give her an extra copy. Get one from Heidi. There -- we're also making the assumption that there would not be a single- tenant user to replace Wilson, Miller. MR. SKINNER: That's what I just said. MR. STEPHENS: You know, we have not valued the intangible portion of this property. It sold for over 9 million three years ago. We have it valued at 7.8 million. You know, there are office sales in this county. As you'll see in -- in -- in my packet, that -- that are for 140, 130, 160, $150 a square foot. We got this property appraised at $122 a square foot. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I say something? It's not uncommon to use a -- a common area for reception in different businesses in different offices, and I know that building. I know how it's laid out. That can be used for that use to try to cut down your overhead to have just one receptionist and the different things go through there. And I'll let you continue, Your Honor. MS. ABBOTT: And that's a very good point. The way I'm looking at it is, you've established a new market in a way by paying a higher price and by having a higher income stream. And that almost establishes a new market, because for the next five years, that's going to be status quo. It's not like a temporary situation. And so, also, during that period of time it wouldn't hurt the tenant because the tenant is being compensated for an adjustment that's kind of automatic by having that upstairs rental. I see where you're coming from on yours looking at just a building and the impact it would have on -- on the roads and that sort of thing, so that's one way of looking at it. But I think that it's almost -- it's establishing a new market, whereas in five years -- it -- it would be -- for the next five years it would be giving that owner an undue break that others wouldn't get. Am I right? Because the others are assessed for less, but they're not getting the income stream which is October 3, 2001 6J1 why that one was assessed -- or not assessed but sold for more. So it's created its own market, and I see -- I would use your argument, too, if I were you. But I think, coming from our standpoint, the two equal out. One's offset by the other. It may change, and the marketplace may change, but at this point it would be as if we were giving you a break and not the neighbors. MS. ZAHNISER: Except that the other neighbors are not in the situation where -- where there is this intangible asset. And, please bear in mind, that under state law there's a sales tax paid on rental payments already, and there's also intangible taxes. And that's for the state to do. The Florida Supreme Court, I think the cases have ruled versus Script Howard (phonetic) -- spoke very clearly to this that constitutionally the property appraiser, because we're only looking at the burden on the -- on the resources of the county can only tax the brick and mortar. I don't know why that is, but that's -- that's the way it is. And it may seem unfair, but bear in mind that -- that it's almost a double taxation because we're already paying at the state level on that lease, on that intangible asset. So, yes, it is income coming in, but it's -- it's going out in -- in the form of other taxes to the State of Florida. MS. ABBOTT: A different kind of tax. You're right. That's a good point too. I'm sorry. MR. STEPHENS: That -- that would be the case if we had it valued at 9.4 million, but we do not. MS. ABBOTT: Uh -huh. MR. STEPHENS: And three years ago when it sold I will agree a hundred percent with you; 9.4 million was a premium. We didn't have it valued at 7.8 million three years ago, but we do now. MS. ABBOTT: Uh -huh. MR. STEPHENS: Based on data that's coming through. You know, that was a sale that -- that started setting precedence at that Page 190 October 3, 2001 l6 1 point in time. Now, five years from now we could be talking about a totally different issue because we might be talking about a building that has 30,000 square feet of empty space. We might be talking about a owner that's going to have to spend half a million or a million dollars doing some renovations. We'll address that issue when the time comes. But it's -- it's kind of like -- you know, and I have appraisers try to get me to use a vacancy approach to income when the building is a hundred percent occupied. If you're looking at what the investor is going to do, you've got to make the consideration that he's prudent. He may be buying an income stream that's there, but he's going to buy a potential income stream too. And we just don't believe that -- that at 7.8 million -- and if you look at my other approaches, we're under their actual income. The actual income on the property generates $8.8 million. And we're at 7.8. We've even given credence to the fact that they're paying a premium. It's not market rent. So we -- we believe our value is -- is very fair and does not, by any stretch of the imagination, exceed true market value on the property. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions? MS. ZAHNISER: His income value -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion to deny. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second to deny. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: It went 5 -0 so -- anyway ... MS. ZAHNISER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next case is TP -119, Page 191 Vincent Gardelia (phonetic). October 3, 2001 16J I MS. ABBOTT: Garguilo. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me? MS. ABBOTT: Grandelli. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody representing Vincent Grandelli? (No response.) MS. GOODNIGHT: Make a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion and a second to deny Petition No. TP -119. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5 -0. Move on to TP -130, Timothy and Dorothy Foster. Anybody here representing Timothy and -- or -- and /or Dorothy Foster? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a motion to deny. MS. GOODNIGHT: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I have a motion and second on the floor to deny TP -130. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: None opposed. TP -132, Sheri -- we're at -- I've got to look at my time, too, make sure -- Sheri A. Micel (phonetic), Micel? MS. MICELLE: Micelle. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Micelle? You ready? MS. MICELLE: I'm ready. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Page 192 October 3, 2001 6J1 MS. MICELLE: Good afternoon. I'm here to speak the assessed value of my house -- Sheri Micelle. Based on the following evidence -- you received the evidence faxed to you? MR. STEPHENS: I've got some stuff faxed to me. MS. MICELLE: Okay. MR. STEPHENS: It didn't all come at one time. MS. MICELLE: Oh, yeah. Okay. The sale price of our home was $805,000 less a $48,000 credit for our closing costs which was noted by example 1. 1 hope you -- which is our closing papers. Bringing the agreed upon price between the buyer and the seller to $757,000 which occurred in the year 2000 in which the assessed value by the county was 1.2 -- no. One point -- $1,212,000, which is quite a difference from the assessed value of that year as to what was paid. So -- that was -- that's my first evidence. Questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: That was in 2000? MS. MICELLE: That was in 2000. Obviously I'm not a lawyer. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What month? MS. MICELLE: We bought the house in May, I believe. CHAIRMAN HENNING: May of 2000? MS. MICELLE: May of 2000, right. And it had been assessed for that year at one point -- $1,212,000. Do you need to see this, which is our closing papers? Would that help? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does anybody need to see the closing papers? We're taking notes up here. MS. MICELLE: Okay. Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Here it is. MS. MICELLE: Okay. The property was initially -- was initially offered at $1,095,000. And the property sat on the market for well over a year, which is noted by my example 2, which is the, I Page 193 October 3, 2001 1611 guess, MLS listing. So this shows that the offering price of a million ninety -five thousand was excessively high and that it took the seller reducing it to $805,000 to draw interest in the property. Therefore, the county's assessed value in 1999 was at one point -- $15103,071 was not even close to the marketable value of the property. So the fact that no other offers were made or any contract was written proves that they had to lower it, you know, substantially in order to sell it. That's my second -- I'm just giving you the facts as I know them. Okay. My third evidence is that the assessed value of the property has risen dramatically over the last three years. In 1999 the tax rolls system shows us that it was assessed at $1,103,071. In the year 2000 it was assessed at one million two hundred and twelve dollars eight hundred -- two hundred and twelve dollars eight hundred twenty -eight -- one million two hundred twelve thousand dollars eight hundred and twenty -eight dollars. Which is an increase of 10 percent from '99 to 2000. And in 2001 it was assessed at $1,273,333 which is an increase of 5 percent. So it seems like a rather steep increase, especially between '99 and 2000. And I know -- or I believe Florida law states that a homestead house shouldn't increase by any more than 3 percent per year or the current rate of inflation, which I know for the last two years has been 2 1/2 percent. The reason why we did not file for homestead filing in 2000 was simply because we purchased the house in 2000 and we were told by the county that since we had already filed for a homestead exemption on our presently owned home on another property in Florida, we couldn't do so. We couldn't file again until 2001 because you can only have one homestead exemption in the state, which seems like we're kind of penalized for buying two homes or owning two homes in the state. Page 194 October 3, 2001 16J 1 And our fourth example is -- this is an appraisal that was done on the house in April of 2000. It shows the value of the house is at 1,100,000, which is well below the county's assessed value that year at 1,212,828. I still believe this is high compared to the market value, as the appraisal states, you know, the value of the home was determined by a market approach, not an income approach, which listening to the woman ahead of me, now I know what that means, our home couldn't be valued at income approach if we're not receiving any income. No one is living in there and paying us for it. Therefore, the market value is purely hypothetical and a buyer for that price would have had to be sought so ... And, fifth, finally, I wish -- I wish you -all had copies. I didn't -- I didn't have the foresight to know to make copies for you. If I had sat in one of these before, I probably would have been better prepared but -- I don't believe the county's taken into account the current economic situation. Property in North Naples isn't moving as fast as it should based on the appreciation values given out by the appraiser's office. I -- I have a summary of the homes that have sold in my neighborhood. A lot of them have been for sale for five years, and they've had to change their list price, you know, down 20 percent, 15 percent, 10 percent. And many of the houses that have sold in our -- that have sold not only in my community but on my street, there's, one, two, three, four, six in the past, I think it's -- since -- two years has sold at anywhere between 17 and 25 percent less than the county -- what the county assessed the properties at. So this shows that property owners in Quail Creek were having trouble selling their homes for the assessed value or higher. So based on this evidence, the sales contract, the listing period, the increase in assessed value, appraisal in the market -- and the true market value, I believe the assessed property value of our house Page 195 October 3, 2001 1 16J should be about $950,000, which is 26 percent higher than what we actually paid for it. And if I could just real quick -- in this Sunday's paper is where I got -- it talks about real estate in Collier County, and the total number of annual deed transactions through the end of August is down from 16,602 in August of 2000. It's down to 15,001. And the median price is also getting less. In August of 2000, the median price for a house to be sold in Collier County was 140,000. Now it's down to 131,900. So any questions? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? MS. ABBOTT: But when you purchased your home, Miss Micelle -- MS. MICELLE: Yes. MS. ABBOTT: -- your appraisal for your purchase of your home was 1.1 million? MS. MICELLE: Yes. MS. ABBOTT: For purpose of financing? MS. MICELLE: For purpose of financing, it was assessed at, yes, 1.4 -- one -- 1,104,325. MS. ABBOTT: And you paid, essentially, 757, I think you said. But it was appraised at that time for 1.1 essentially. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 1.4, I think she just said. MS. ABBOTT: 1.104. MS. MICELLE: Okay. Wait. Let me look. I have to get my facts straight because I don't want to give you misinformation. It was -- no. I'm sorry. It was appraised at 1.1 million. And here's the -- this is the -- if you need to see it, this is the appraisal that was done and purposes of financing, we financed the house. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that was in 2000, and your estimates or your appraisal estimates are 2000 also; right? MR. STEPHENS: As of January 1, 2001. aff-tomo October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN HENNING: 2001. 16J1 MR. STEPHENS: We do -- we do have sales in that area during the year of 2000. We -- we could not have considered her sale because she bought it from a bank foreclosure. Unfortunately, that's happening a good bit in Quail Creek, okay. There are quite a number of properties up there that have gone in through foreclosure based on, you know, people -- people's businesses may be going under or whatever. So the banks have been getting quite a number of these homes up there, and there have been some that sold in the seven, eight hundred thousand range. But if you will -- will look at my packet, you'll see that, you know, the house, you know, right next door to her in March sold for 1.3 million. MS. MICELLE: No, it did not. Sir, it did not. It sold for 9001000. It was -- it was offered at 1.2 million furnished, but it didn't sell at 1.2, and that -- MR. STEPHENS: That's what the deed was recorded at. The Sale No. 2 -- I mean, Comp -- Comp No. 2 sold for 1.3 million. MS. MICELLE: Was that on -- MR. STEPHENS: Comp No. 3 sold for 930,000, a smaller house. Comp No. 4 sold for 1.2 million, a little bit larger house, but an older home. And if you'll look at the -- the photographs of -- of the subject in the comps, they're all fairly comparable. But, you know, I don't doubt that -- that there is a possibility that -- that next year things could be different with the marketplace, because we don't know what the -- what the next couple of months are going to show in -- in terms of sales. This area up until three weeks ago, I can assure you that every sale we see is still higher than the values we have on properties this year. MS. MICELLE: I have -- MR. STEPHENS: Throughout the county. Now -- now, the numbers may be down in terms of quantities, but the end result -- and Page 197 October 3, 2001 16J 1 -- and I would not argue that -- that asking prices are being reduced by 15, 20, 25 percent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your highness -- MR. STEPHENS: But they're still selling more than our assessment. MS. MICELLE: Well, I have -- I know you're -- you're jotting off houses that have sold for over a million. I can tell you that in Quail Creek a lot of it depends on the street that you're on. There is one specific street, Rosewood, which the houses pretty much all on Rosewood sell for over -- well over a million. We're on White Violet, and there are five -- five homes on White Violet that have sold since as late as from February of '98 up until January of 2000 for between 17 and 25 percent less than the assessed value, not what you -all assessed them at. That's just on my street so -- I can't talk for Rosewood, but I can talk for White Violet. And I have addresses if you want to check. MR. STEPHENS: Again, I don't know specifically of those sales. But, again, there's quite a bit of bank take -backs and sale on properties up there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The honorable Linda Abbott has a question, if you don't mind. MS. ABBOTT: I have two questions. One is, because we have a lot of those bank sales, one question would be, is that establishing a new market, but that's not relevant to January 1 of 2001 -- or it would be. It would be. MR. STEPHENS: It would be if we could consider those sales. Now, I can tell that you -- that in Quail Creek what I have seen the last two years is that those sales have affected the marketability -- MS. ABBOTT: Right. MR. STEPHENS: -- of Quail Creek -- MS. ABBOTT: Uh -huh. •. October 3, 2001 16J 1 MR. STEPHENS: -- because there have been so many of those. And I say so many. We're talking about five, maybe ten, in -- in -- in the subdivision that a -- has a problem like that. MS. ABBOTT: Out of how many sales, though? MR. STEPHENS: But the big thing that's going on in Quail Creek right now is, pure and simply, you know, it's not the only boy in town -- MS. MICELLE: It's old. MR. STEPHENS: -- like it was ten years ago. It has a lot of competition. So prices have come down. That's why you'll see that she quoted you figures where we'd gone up 5 percent and 10 percent as opposed to the rest of the county, 20, 30, 40 percent is not uncommon -- MS. ABBOTT: Right. MR. STEPHENS: -- because it has not moved in the same -- same time. But I believe the sales are there in comparison with with her property that -- that justify that. MS. ABBOTT: My other question -- well, first of all, five or ten sales out of how many sales, though, have taken place? MR. STEPHENS: Probably 20, 30 a year, 20, 25 a year. MS. ABBOTT: So somewhere between 30 and 50 percent? MR. STEPHENS: Something like that. MS. ABBOTT: I mean, because that seems significant to me, 30 to 50 percent. The other question -- and I don't know. Most of the time the assessments are under the market value. I don't know if there's an established percentage. I'm seeing that this assessment is real close to all of those comparables, and I was just wondering how do you determine where to come in under that market value. MR. STEPHENS: If you go to the second sheet where I have categorized the cost approach and the market approach, and if you Page 199 October 3, 2001 16J 1 take the sale of the other homes and adjust them to the subject, you'll see that the market value indicates that this home would be worth around 1.4 million. MS. ABBOTT: Okay. MR. STEPHENS: That's where I thought I must be pretty good because she just said her appraisal came in at 1.4 million. MS. MICELLE: No. It didn't come out at 1.4. 1.1. I'm sorry. MR. STEPHENS: But, again, she's talking about a bank appraisal -- MS. ABBOTT: Right. MR. STEPHENS: -- for financing and then -- you know, I can't hang my hat on those. MS. MICELLE: I -- I just -- I know that our house sat empty for -- it was empty for a number of years. And it was on the market actively for over a year, and you know, they had to keep lowering it and lowering it and lowering it until we came in and bought it at 805,000 with a $48,000 credit at closing. Obviously the market value wasn't even close to what people were interested in buying the house at. MR. STEPHENS: What -- what generally happens on bank properties like that once they go on the market, realtors don't push those because they don't make any money on those. So sometimes they'll sit a little longer than -- than other properties. MS. MICELLE: But they had the right to refuse it. MR. STEPHENS: If you're making 7 -- let's say 6, 6 percent on a $700,000 sale, or you can make 6 percent on a 1 1/2 million or $1.3 million sale, which one are you going to push? And, unfortunately, that's just the way the game works sometimes. You know, and I'm not saying all realtors are like that, but it happens that way. And -- and I have noticed over, you know, 30- something years, bank sales sit. Page 200 October 3, 2001 MR. SKINNER: John, can you remember if there's -- g oin 'fix! 1 this year, have you looked at any sales into this year? MR. HAMBLEN: In that area I haven't seen any, but I think they've pretty much stabilized. MR. SKINNER: You don't know whether they're going down or what. What -- what I was getting at is if this is a trend, even though it's a bank sale, a foreclosure, but it may be spillover into the -- into the real market, if that's a trend, then we're going to look at that next year also and make adjustments that way. But at the present time it -- it looks like we've got some pretty good sales in that area that -- MS. MICELLE: There's houses that have been for sale in Quail Creek since May of '94. And one of those up 15 percent, it's still unsold since February of '96. All the other is May of '94, May of '94, October of '99. The prices have been reduced 20 percent, 15 percent, 10 percent, 20 percent, and they're still unsold. So they're reducing the prices between 10 and 20 percent, and they're still not selling so -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you were one of the benefactors of that at one time, too, right? MS. MICELLE: It shouldn't matter if it was owned by a bank or that it was owned by an individual. People -- the bank have the recite -- the right to refuse offers, just like anyone else. And actually when we made our offer on our house, there were several offers and negotiations, which shows that our -- you know, our price of 805,000 was value -- was a valuable marketable price for our property. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pleasure of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Further discussion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm having a hard time finding a reason not to deny. I'm going to make a motion for denial. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion on the floor for denial. Is Page 201 there a second? October 3, 2001 16J1 MS. ABBOTT: Second it. With the thought that you know -- sorry, that you know that there is a trend that will be established further this year and that, fortunately your -- your values haven't gone up as much as in other areas. So that trend will start to establish a new market that will help you. MS. MICELLE: You're saying possibly next year my tax value will be -- however, now, I'm so unfamiliar with the law. Now I'm homesteaded they can't raise me up more than 3 percent a year, is that true? So it can't go up 10 percent like it has in the past. It only can go up 3 percent, although it also can go down. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It could go down. MR. SKINNER: You got your homestead this year for 2000? MS. MICELLE: Yeah, they would not let us homestead last year because we already owned property in Pelican Landing. MR. SKINNER: That will take effect next year. MR. STEPHENS: What I would like is if you would send -- make me a copy of the appraisal and send it to me for -- for my records to review next year because I believe that appraisal was actually after January 1. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bruce -- Bruce, you have a -- a -- a card, and then we're going to go ahead and continue. The motion is called. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries for denial of Petition No. TP -132. MR. SKINNER: That was -- that was 132. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 132? MR. SKINNER: That was 132. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. That's what I said. Page 202 October 3, 2001 TP -133, Vito Stallone. Anybody here representing 16J1 Mr. Stallone? (No response.) MS. GOODNIGHT: Move for denial. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion on the floor for a denial. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a motion and a second for denial of TP -134 -- 133. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries. Commissioner Coletta -- I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was there with you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. 5 -0. Moving on to TP -134, James La Grippe. MR. CAHNERS: Yes. My name is Robert Cahners. That's C- a- h- n- e -r -s. And I'm a friend and a neighbor of Mr. La Grippe's. And I'd like to introduce Larry La Croix who will present the case. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. LA CROIX: Good afternoon. A couple new members on the panel this afternoon. It's nice to see the time is moving along. We're getting closer to the target time. I do want to clean up something real quick that I've been sitting here most of the day listening to the references to bank appraisers and market value and so forth. I think it's very important to clear up a misconception about the definition of market value. All appraisers appraising property are appraising to the exact same definition of market value. The thing that varies from case to case is the parameters of that valuation in the case of a property tax appeal where -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is this relating to this case? Page 203 October 3, 2001 16JI MR. LA CROIX: Yes. I want to clear this up because we're going to go right back into the same, thing again as far as date of sale and that type of information. But I just wanted to say that, you know, the reference was made earlier that appraisers that are employed directly by the owner to come and appear before this board are somehow in a different situation. It's not. It does -- it makes a difference whether this appraisal is going to a bank or an estate due to a death or for property tax purposes. The methodology and the procedure is exactly the same. I do want to pass out, because I know, again, these things don't make their way down the line. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll pass them out for you. MR. LA CROIX: That's the full appraisal. Again, I have some additional photographs and exhibits we will be talking about. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. LA CROIX: Okay. This property was vacant as of January -- or it was not C. O.'d as of January 1 st of 2000. So for the purposes of taxation, it's treated as a vacant lot. It does now have a completed residence on it. As of the 2001 estimated tax roll we've got a market value of 939,600. That's land only. This property was purchased back in April of '98 for 507,000. That purchase included a $90,000 dock. So we're actually at 480,000 for the land in 1998. The appraisal that I performed on this property, one of the disadvantages when you've got a very small little enclave of sites is that when they're gone, they're gone. There's not a lot of comparable data to draw from. This particular property is down in Windstar down at the very southernmost end on a piece of waterfront property that has direct access to Naples Bay. There's only nine home sites in the section, seven of them on the canal, and a peninsula lot and one additional one that has water view but not direct waterfrontage, so it's Page 204 October 3, 2001 16J 1 a very small pool to pull data from. Most of these were sold back in the mid '96 to '97 range. And actually Mr. La Grippe's purchase was the last one in that section. So what does an appraiser do when you come to a situation where you need to value something and you don't have the house or the lot next door or a competing subdivision across the way with identical sites? We try to look at what the options are outside the subdivision, and we also look at other types of activities inside the subdivision. In this particular case I would like to direct your attention to the photo pages I gave you. The top exhibit is the view straight across the canal from the subject property. Now, keep in mind that this is an improved property and I was standing at the back of his pool deck, so we're up at the higher elevation. The next picture we'll discuss back in the package and was closer to original ground elevation. If you look at the second picture, the view down towards the bay, that's standing all the way at the back of the pool enclosure and turned straight towards Naples Bay. But you get an idea that this is real good water access. This is the only person along this stretch of lots that has a dock, and it's just a flat boat dock. It's not designed for a large boat. Most everybody in this section has a private dock in the yacht basin which is a block or so away from here inside the subdivision. But it's an important factor, because the ability to dock or not to dock is not a make -or -break decision for most of these people because they own dockage that's convenient nearby. They don't have to look at the boat out the back, which you can see, from the view across the canal, a big boat would definitely spoil that view. So what do we do for alternative comps? One thing that I discovered in my investigation was there was a property that was an improved property with a very nice home on it listed for sale starting Page 205 October 3, 2001 16J 1 in May of year 2000. It was originally offered at a million four, sat a week or two, went to a million four fifty, sat a couple more weeks and then dropped to a million two ninety. It sat all the way through year 2000 at a million two ninety with no contract activity. Early into year 2001 it did go under contract. It was recorded at a million one sixty. Now, the significance of that is when appraisers look at listings, we're more familiar with the opposite side. You know, someone throws a listing out at some ridiculous amount, it will never sell for that. Like the lady was speaking of Quail Creek, they keep coming down, down, down, down. However, when you're looking at what information a listing does provide, it can provide an upper limit, particularly when a property is sitting for an entire year at a certain price. You know it wasn't a deal at that price. They're going to negotiate down from that. And then it eventually won't sell for full price. Now, moving on to the next exhibit, the 1540 Gulfstar photo page, that's a picture of the house. Immediately below that is a diagram of the sites and the subdivision. You'll see the arrow pointing to the subject lot which is the second lot in. Actually right where the arrow tip is across there there's a private street that runs the length of there. And that's where these lots access to go in and out of their property. The 1540 Gulfstar, the photograph up above, is noted by arrow Comp No. 1 on that map. Now, that particular site is actually a little bit larger than the subject site. I'm told they were trying to get permits for a dock, but at the present time there is no dock there, so I couldn't confirm if they actually do have dockage or not. But if you flip that page and look at the next two photos, the top photo is from 1540 Gulfstar pointing towards the bay which looks remarkably similar of the bay view from the subject property. Page 206 October 3, 2001 16J1 The big difference is, going back to the site map, if you look at the orientation of 1540, the lot angles towards the bay. This is your main view, not straight across the canal. You look down this canal towards the bay. Also, the house elevation is up several feet from where I was standing to take the picture, so the view down the canal will look very similar to the one from the subject property. Now, establishing that we're generally similar in terms of the location and the view from the lot, we go back to that a million two ninety asking price. Now, in that a million two ninety asking price was included a $90,000 dock. So now we fall down to a million two. If we presume there's going to be some negotiation that they're not going to sell for full price which we know from the facts in year 2000 they sold for 90,000 less than that; now we're down to a million one hundred and ten. From that million one hundred and ten, we take the property appraiser's $670,000 improvement value on that site, and all of a sudden we're down around five hundred, five fifty range in a blank. I find it very hard to justify a nine hundred and thirty -nine thousand dollar value on the subject site versus a extracted site value in this case in the five fifty range. The only notable difference is they don't have that direct dock frontage. But as you can see from the site map, their lot actually touches the water when you look across the top of the mangroves, so it's not like they're set a good distance back from that. That was the primary emphasis on my valuation. Now, I did jump over to Royal Harbor and pull a couple sales from the same time period there, struggling to find something that was similar in size to the subject because the subject lot is a pretty good -sized lot. There were two sales presented there, one at 875 and one at 635. The one at 875 had a single - family home on it. It had been remodeled recently and probably, as we've talked about during the Page 207 October 3, 2001 day, down. at some point becomes a candidate for a tear down. But at t a point in time they've sunk a lot of money into that particular house with the intent to use it. Are there any questions I can answer? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not at this point. None from me. MS. ABBOTT: I'm just looking -- so what you're saying here -- okay. Wait just a second. That's the same one. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you were extracting, like, the dock and so forth from the value of the house. MR. LA CROIX: From the improved property. In other words, it's kind of the reverse. If you were adding up, saying, gees, what would it cost me to build a house in the subdivision, we spent a certain amount for a lot. We add a dock and we build a house. This is what my total cost is going to be, and we're just simply taking that asking price and walking backwards through there saying, we're going to take away the dock, we're going to account for some negotiation, and then we're going to deduct what the home is worth. And what's left is land value. And that sale did, in fact, close at a million one sixty in early 2001. It's reported as a listing here because of our guidelines as far as what time period we can include. MS. ABBOTT: Could we hear from Mr. Skinner's office, please? MR. HAMBLEN: Okay. If you'll look at your map that we've presented you with, we did not utilize that sale because it happened in 2001. Also, we did not think that it's a comparable -type property. We did utilize Sale No. 1, which you'll see on the map there. Also, if you'll look at our aerials, it shows the subject, and it shows Comparable No. 1. That is an improved property. It sold for a million nine hundred fifty -nine thousand in October of this last year. The residual on that -- that's if we would take the improvements and Page 208 October 3, 2001 16JI back them out -- the amount which is allocated to the land, if we figure that, it comes out to a ninety -nine thirty -one front foot, plus or minus. We used 8700 a front foot in -- for these five lots, if you'll look on our map there. This is a very exclusive area. There's not a whole lot that happens in there, as Mr. LaCroix said. As backup for looking at other areas, there's really nothing like this, but Royal Harbor does present sales. They're on the same bay. If you'll look up at the map up there, Comparable No. 2, that's a vacant land sale. It's back in the fingers there, sold for eighty -three seventy -three a front foot. Then we have a sale which was out on the bay. That's Comparable No. 8. It came out to 11,408 a front foot. Those are vacant land sales. If you'll notice that the Sale No. I falls right in between those two, which is pretty much what is looking like a pattern here. We also took the improved sales, if you look there, in Royal Harbor. They're coming anywhere from eighty -two forty a front foot clear up to nine and ten thousand dollars a front foot on a residual basis. We feel that given the fact that the inner lots in Royal Harbor are going for about 8200, and the outer lots are in the nine and ten thousand bracket. And then having this sale down here, Sale No. 1, on a residual basis, to come out to ninety -nine thirty -one, that our 8700 a front foot was a fair and equitable value to apply. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, I have a question. On your Comparable No. 1, I don't see on your -- the information that you gave where it is located, and I see it is -- MR. LA CROIX: Actually, in the back of the appraisal there is a location map that has all of them shown. But, also, that handout with the photos I gave you has a little small map that's actually a much better exhibit. In fact -- Page 209 October 3 2001 16J l CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I don't see Comparable No. 1 on the map location. MR. LA CROIX: Okay. Do you have this one here with the 1540 Gulfstar? That is Comp No. 1 on this map. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. I'm looking -- MR. LA CROIX: Oh, on this map? CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- where it is on here (indicating) MR. LA CROIX: That's because it's shown on the one that's got the site strong large scale because it's so close the arrows would have been on top of each other on the other map. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Which lot -- I see the subject lot is No. 6. MR. LA CROIX: Right. And it's -- Lot 9 is comparable -- No. 1, if you look diagonal across towards the bottom of the corner of the page, you'll see Comp No. 1. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you see it? MS. ABBOTT: Uh -huh. Right here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks. MR. HAMBLEN: If you'll look on our aerial, we have it on there. That's the one this morning that we pointed out where they cut the mangroves down. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MS. ABBOTT: Oh, so they could see. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I will entertain a motion for denial based on if we just even look at the vacant -- vacancy in Royal Harbor, Comparable No. 8 exceeds the value of an improved lot. MR. LA CROIX: Now, can I make an observation before you move on this? Out of that list Comparable No. 8, 9, 11, 4, 5, and 6 are all open -water properties. There's a significant -- there's a huge difference between Naples Bay direct frontage versus this little tiny canal that you can look down and see Naples Bay. I mean, these are Page 210 16JIdirect bay sites. October 3, 2001 CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you look at No. 8, what I see on a -- on the appraiser (sic), it's right on the back. MR. LA CROIX: Yes. That's what I'm saying. Our subject is not. Our subject is simply a canal front site with a mangrove preserve view across. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess that just proves the point. MR. HAMBLEN: Well, what I'm trying -- that's why I pointed it out, if you look at the inner sales in Royal Harbor and then look at the outer sales, we're right in between those. This is an excellent location. MR. LA CROIX: Well, location it is, but view it doesn't -- and that's why I took the additional photographs, so you can kind of get a feel for how far you are from the bay. And that is stretching the view just a little bit because you don't see that. That's the back corner of the pool deck. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So what did you value the house at? MR. LA CROIX: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN HENNING: What did you value the house at? MR. LA CROIX: Which house? CHAIRMAN HENNING: This house. MR. LA CROIX: Vacant land only for this year. That's the other point too. If we take the Comp No. 1 on the property appraiser's map, actually, I was looking here, I thought I had an aerial picture that was really an angled, like a helicopter view which was a little better, that's a peninsula lot. It's like a private island. That house was appraised well over 2 million prior to sale, and it sat and it sat. They couldn't sell it. It's a beautiful luxury house. It has -- that entire little peninsula belongs to them except for an access way to the docks at the end. Virtually every room in that house looks out over open water. That sale is -- that piece of land is also much, much Page 211 October 3, 2001 16J I larger than the subject. It's that entire point. You've got hundreds of feet of seawall. It doesn't even come close to a comparison to the subj ect. Also, that was why I paid a little more attention to the one that I presented as a listing. If we take just simply the asking price, a million two ninety minus the property appraiser's estimate of improvement value of 670,000, we're down to six hundred and some change without making any other deductions. We're 300,000 below what the subject is assessed at, yet we know that included a dock, sold for 90,000 less than the asking price. So that puts us 180,000 even more apart. MR. SKINNER: That's your Comp 1 you're talking about? MR. LA CROIX: Yes. MR. SKINNER: Comp 1, if you look at Comp 1, they have what? Sixteen feet of waterfront. MR. LA CROIX: Well, that's why I took the view picture, because that's a protected mangrove area. What you see across there is the view that you have permanently and their view is actually fairly similar. Plus that site is canted at an angle towards the waterway, and so you do look down towards the bay without straining or hanging out with the camera just to get a bayview picture. MR. SKINNER: No, sir. That view won't be permanent. Those -- those mangroves were cut -- you're talking about Comp I? MR. LA CROIX: Yes. MR. SKINNER: Those mangroves were cut down illegally, and they're going to grow back. MR. LA CROIX: Okay. But you're -- MR. SKINNER: The view is going to go away. MR. LA CROIX: There's also mangroves along the front of the subject site as well, which I would presume they're subject to the same restrictions. Page 212 October 3, 2001 16J1 MR. SKINNER: Well, we're talking about your comp now with 16 feet of waterfront compared to this one, 100 feet and no view on the water -- when those mangroves grow back, he's not going to have any view. MR. HAMBLEN: And the thing of it is, on our Comp 1, it's true it came out at 9900 a front foot. We're not appraise -- appraising them at 9900 a front foot. We're appraising them at 8700. MS. ABBOTT: The one you're talk -- the aerial photograph that says Comp 1, is -- the '99, is that what you're saying? MR. SKINNER: No. No, that's our 1. MS. ABBOTT: I know. I thought that's what you meant. MR. LA CROIX: If I could direct you back to the second page of the photos on 1540 Gulfstar, the top photo that says typical view from 1540 Gulfstar. If, in fact, those mangroves were cut close to the house, they certainly didn't cut all the way down to the bay. What you see on into the background there can't be any -- can't be trimmed in this incident. It may have affected some right at the edge of their waterfront, plus the living -area slab of this house is about 3 or 4 feet higher than where I was standing to take this photo so your angle view changes dramatically from that as well. The mangroves are definitely down at the bank, but they're all several feet lower from where I was taking this photograph. And also if you're in this photograph, off to the right you'll see Mr. La Grippe's dock there, but you also see the mangroves run back down the other side. So I presume they're subject to the same problem of growing mangroves and the same restrictions in terms of trimming them. MR. HAMBLEN: Okay. I'd like to point out, our sales in Royal Harbor, once again, I think that they are the best to use. Where you have the bay, it -- from 9500 up to 11,000 a front foot. We have the inner portion from 8500 up to 10,000 a front foot being paid. We have Sale No. 3 up here. It was an improved property. That came Page 213 October 3, 2001 16J I out to $9,000 a front foot, and that does not have the view or anything else that -- the double waterfront or, you know, it's not really even compared with this property. And when you look at what they're paying there and you look at what they're paying in South Pointe and what they're getting in South Pointe versus what they're paying in Royal Harbor, I think there's a big difference. MR. LA CROIX: Of course, the resales of the houses are proof they're not getting that. Once you add up the costs and the 15 -- excuse me. The 1540 Gulfstar is a real strong evidence that you're not getting that on resales. You can use whatever you want to comp out. You can use wide bay and use sites over in Royal Harbor. But the proof is in the resale activity. And the bottom line is, that house took a year to sell at a million one sixty. And I don't see -- you know, we keep going back to other sites outside the subdivision, but we haven't washed away this particular site. We're 500,000 away on that sale, and we're almost half the value versus the subject assessment. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, we're starting to repeat ourselves again. You made a very good case, but I still go with the property appraiser. I believe in what he's saying to be more factual, and I would recommend for denial. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion on the floor for denial. Is there a second? MS. ABBOTT: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second to deny Petition No. TP -134. Any discussion? MS. ABBOTT: Yes. I just wanted to make a comment too that maybe -- if I could afford that house, I may not want that house with everybody walking around there. And that may be have -- could have given it some weight so that nobody would want to purchase something where you would be a spectacle. MR. LA CROIX: Actually it's just a path on one side and they Page 214 October 3, 2001 16J I don't have any windows on the first floor on that side. So you look over the top. You can't even see the path from there. It's an awesome property. It's no wonder it sold for 2 million. MS. ABBOTT: It is an awesome property if you like a lot of neighbors, and I hear what you're saying. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can't sun bathe nude out there if you've got neighbors walking by. MS. ABBOTT: Get the view of their boats too. But I'm also interested in the Comp 1 by the county. That sold -- but that sold after January 1, 2001; is that right? MR. HAMBLEN: No. Our Comp 1 sold in October of last year, October 2. MS. ABBOTT: Oh, okay. MR. HAMBLEN: Yeah. For a million nine hundred fifty -nine thousand. MS. ABBOTT: You know, what I see is we're looking at it differently. You're looking at it and subtracting things. That's one way. The other way is by front foot and I see that we're looking at it two different ways is the way I feel, and I have so much compassion for how you're driving that but -- MR. LA CROIX: Without that million two ninety listing, I would probably be in the same camp with the property appraiser. I don't disagree with his elements of comparison. But one thing that appraisers find themselves up against is, you know, you get in some points where there's just -- that the preponderance of the evidence -- where you look at this and say, well, okay. If our subject's worth nine hundred and some thousand. What's this one worth? Maybe seven fifty? Now we add our 670,000 to that and we add our dock and a little room for negotiation, and they should have been up at a million five. And they tried that test, and they failed. And so that -- to me, that's where I come back and I say this is my double -check Page 215 • October 3, 2001 16JI i against how I'm looking at things. This s to prove from the marketplace that you can't get to that number. MR. HAMBLEN: Yeah, one thing you have to remember this is a gated community within a gated community. MS. ABBOTT: That's true. MR. HAMBLEN: They have the yacht basin. They have golf club privileges. They also have their own special beach on Keewaydin Island. There's nothing like it in the whole county. MR. LA CROIX: Quail Creek is a gated subdivision too, and that hasn't helped their sales. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I hear John Norman lives there too. MR. HAMBLEN: Does he? CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's motion and second on the floor for denial. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) MR. LA CROIX: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5 -0. We're going to move on to TP -137, Marpalm of Florida Incorporated. MR. STEPHENS: They indicated they were going to withdraw, but apparently there's been nothing -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll entertain a motion. MS. GOODNIGHT: Move for denial. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second for denial of TP -13 7. All in favor of this motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5 -0. TP -13 8, Holiday Associates. Page 216 October 3, 2001 MR. STEPHENS: Same people. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. I'll entertain a motion on -- on that one also. 16J1 MS. GOODNIGHT: Move to deny. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second for denial of TP -13 8. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5 -0. And we -- if there's no further business -- MR. SKINNER: Mr. Chairman, I -- I see someone in the back there. Do you have a petition? VOICE: No. MR. SKINNER: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I don't want to skip anybody. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just interested -- a citizen that's interested in governmental process. No further business, I shall call -- Heidi, do you have anything? MS. ASHTON: I don't have anything further other than we'll be recessing and not adjourning. We'll just recess until Monday when you're ready to do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. And I -- and I see that on my cheat sheet. MS. ASHTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I call a recess until October 2nd, 2001, at 9 a.m. MS. ASHTON: It's the 8th, actually, I believe. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The 8th. MS. ASHTON: The 8th, October 8th. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What'd I say? Page 217 October 3, 2001 16J 1 MS. ASHTON: The 2nd. That was yesterday. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's great, yesterday. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:45 p.m. VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR MOM v October 8, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE 1 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 16J 1 Naples, Florida, October 8, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Value Adjustment Board met on this date at 9:09 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: ALSO PRESENT: TOM HENNING JIM COLETTA DONNA FIALA NELSON FAERBER, ESQ. DONALD J. YORK Abe Skinner, Property Appraiser Sally Garrett, Property Appraiser's Office Bruce D. Stephens, Property Appraiser's Office John R. Hamblen, Property Appraiser's Office Douglas L. Gorham, Property Appraiser's Office Ellen Chadwell, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Page 1 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD 16J1 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA OCTOBER 8, 2001 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE FOLLLOWING PROPERTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD PETITIONS: c.nn a u Continued from 10/3/01 HP -13 Charles V. Chaffee, 10381 Gulfshore Dr., Naples Continued from 10/3/01 HP -5 August P. Richter, 1617 Gulfstar Dr., Naples TP -82 Northgate Place Apts., Ltd /Easley, McCaleb PP -1 thru PP -40 AT &T Wireless Services, Inc. /Communication Site TP -16 American National Realty /George Washington Carver Apts. TP -17 American National Realty /River Reach Apts. Tract #3 TP -18 American National Realty /River Reach Apts. Tract #9 10:00 A.M. TP -50 Aaron Bilton c/o Flanagan Bilton - Apartment Complex TP -51 Aaron Bilton c/o Flanagan Bilton - Apartment Complex TP -52 Aaron Bilton c/o Flanagan Bilton - Apartment Complex TP -53 Aaron Bilton c/o Flanagan Bilton - Apartment Complex TP -54 Aaron Bilton c/o Flanagan Bilton - Apartment Complex TP -55 Aaron Bilton c/o Flanagan Bilton - Apartment Complex TP -56 Aaron Bilton c/o Flanagan Bilton - Apartment Complex TP -57 Aaron Bilton c/o Flanagan Bilton - Apartment Complex TP -68 Aaron Bilton c/o Flanagan Bilton - Retail Building 11:00 A.M. TP -157 CARRUTHERS & Associates Hilton Hotel TP -158 IF IF If Baymont Inn TP -159 IF of if Hilton Hotel TP -160 If If If Hilton Hotel LUNCH 12:00 to 1 :00 P.M. I.nn n u PP -46 Property Tax Control - Beall's #12 Page 1 16J1 PP -47 if - Beall's #62 PP -48 if - Beall's #121 PP -49 if - Beall's Outlet PP -50 if " " - Beall's Pit;et #227 PP -51 It - Burdine's #45 PP -52 it - Circuit City #3205 PP -54 If - Home Depot #280 PP -57 If 11 - Lowe's Home Ctr. #613 PP -58 of " - My Gift Cottage #276 PP -59 - Office Depot #188 PP -60 - Sears & Roebuck PP -61 " " " - Handy Food Stores #50 PP -62 - Handy Food Stores #65 PP -63 - Handy Food Stores #75 PP -64 If it if - Handy Food Stores #77 PP -65 If it - Handy Food Stores #91 PP -66 if if - Handy Food Stores #92 PP -68 " if IT - K -Mart 4955 Golden Gate Parkway PP -69 it " - K -Mart 12713 N. Tamiami Trail PP -70 IT if 11 - Sam's East PP -71 11 " " - Target #899 PP -72 11 - Wal -Mart #1119 PP -73 TV - Wal -Mart #1957 2:00 P.M. TP -19 Deloitte & Touche /Lely CC Tanglewood 2 TP -20 Deloitte & Touche /21 50 26 Comm Intersec. TP -22 Deloitte & Touche /11 49 25 SE 1/. of SW 1/4 TP -23 Deloitte & Touche /12 50 25 comm. 4. THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS WERE NOT APPROPRIATELY AND /OR TIMELY FILED: A. David D. Schafer B. Susan Lee C. Charles Canani E. James & Nancy Revercomb F. Bryan J. & Catherine O'Connor G. Linda Myers H. Jacobson's #420 I. Steven Powers- Chylinski J. J. W. Chatam & Associates, Inc. K. Sears, Roebuck & Co. L. Family Dollar Stores /PriceWaterhouseCoopers M. Anthony Balcerzak N. Muriel Stevens O. Jeffrey Friedman 5. MOTION TO APPROVE CERTIFICATE FOR TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY Page 2 6. MOTION TO APPROVE CERTIFICATE FOR REAL PROPERTY 7. ADJOURN - SINE DIE Page 3 16J1 October 8, 2001 16J 1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I call the -- the meeting to order of the -- or hearing to order of the Value Adjustment Board. Would you all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was easy. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Mr. York did a great job. Very clear. Property appraiser, Abe, do we have anything? MR. SKINNER: No, sir. We're ready to defend our appraisals. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. CHADWELL: Good morning. I'm Ellen Chadwell with the county attorney's office. I'll be representing the board this morning. I would just like -- you guys had some good experience last week, but I would like to remind you where possible to make certain findings at the time you're making a motion on a determination and -- so that those can be included in the record in the final order. Again, just a reminder is that the property appraiser's assessment is entitled to a presumption of correctness. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we care to introduce ourselves? MR. FAERBER: My name is Nelson Faerber, and I'm one of the two school board members that will sit here on these hearings today. Good morning. MR. YORK: Good morning, I'm Don York, also a member of the school board sitting here today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you've done this before? MR. YORK: No. MR. FAERBER: Thirteen years. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Faerber has done it quite a few times. And I want to thank you for taking your time out, gentlemen, for being here. My name is Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3, county Page 2 October 8, 2001 commission. 16J1 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Donna Fiala, District 1. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Jim Coletta, District 5. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Continuing on from 10/3 is Charles V. Chaffee, and that was a homestead? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. MR. GOODMAN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. MR. GOODMAN: My name is Ken Goodman. I'm here on behalf of Charles and Karen Chaffee, and I have Mr. Chaffee with me here today. Just to remind this board, what -- what happened is Mr. and Mrs. Chaffee sent Mr. Chaffee's mother in with a copy of the deed to their home to homestead in February of 2000. She went in to the assessor's office, completed the home -- gave -- completed the homestead exemption forms at their -- their help. And, again, I want to thank Mr. Skinner's office, as he has used the term "They always go the second mile." They helped her complete the form. But, unfortunately, the form was completed with the wrong property address, the wrong property. Mr. and Mrs. Chaffee own five properties on that street, and they used the wrong property. In January the county sends out a little postcard. It says this is what we show as your homestead property. If it's not right, you need to come see us. Now, I'm paraphrasing, but that's what it says. Mr. Chaffee got that card in January and went in to see Mr. Skinner's assistant and explained what had happened. Sally helped him complete a new application on the correct property in February of this year. And Mr. Chaffee thought that that pretty well had it handled because he had heard -- I'm not sure what she said. But what he had heard is that it hasn't really caused you any harm by doing this. Page 3 October 8 2001 16J 1 Unfortunately we now see that this property has increased in assessed value by $400,000 over this last year, this year. The 3- percent cap is not being applied because the homestead is deemed to only be effective as of this February and not the prior February when mother -- his mother went in and actually completed the form on his behalf with the wrong address. That's what's happened. What was asked for is, because this is an administrative mistake, that it be rectified. And we left it last time Mr. Coletta had asked that Mr. Skinner contact Tallahassee at that point to see what could be done, if anything. But it's been simply in our view an administrative error, because when a taxpayer walks in to a county government office with the deed in hand and says we need some help and they do it and it's wrong, is that burden for that mistake only going to fall on the property owner or are we going to work to solve it? Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. We have to hear from the property appraiser. MR. SKINNER: While Sally's passing that out, I'd like to remind the board that they do get that card and they should have come in as soon as they got the card, which they did. They did apply for 2001. We -- we granted it on 2001. Sally's passing out some information that would maybe clarify some of the position that we're in right now. There were -- there were two properties involved. You also received a tax bill later in that year, November of that year, that indicated where the homestead exemption was, which property it was on. And even that should have been another flag to the -- and we we realized what this is all about. And I don't blame Mr. Chaffee is the cap. It's not so much the $400 saved on homestead. It's the cap. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh -huh. 13 =111 I October 8, 2001 16J1 MR. SKINNER: We also -- and I'll let Ms. Garrett get into what she also has discovered after the fact about another homestead. MS. GARRETT: Okay. First of all, on the original 2000 homestead that Mr. Chaffee's mother applied for, they received a trim notice in August. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know what a trim notice -- MS. GARRETT: A proposed tax bill in August on that property which also should have triggered something as well as the tax bill. When -- when someone applies for a homestead exemption, there are questions that we ask them, one of which is, did you file exemptions last year anyplace? Mrs. Chaffee answered no. What was your ad -- last year's address. She put the same. We make up the application from information that is -- that is verbally given to us and from looking at driver's licenses, etc. Then we hand the application to the applicant to look over and sign. The application that she signed was for 10150 Gulfshore Drive North. We had no reason to believe that that was incorrect. A year later in February when Mr. Chaffee came into the office because he had gotten the homestead receipt card, I said there's really nothing I can do about the -- the 2000 exemption because it was taken in good faith. It was never questioned for the entire year. I will put an application in for 2001 on the property that you say you live at. At that time Mr. Chaffee said, yes, he had exemptions last year, and he also owns property in another state. There's an affidavit that we give the applicants to sign that say we're not receiving any exemption in that state. We get the -- the address and the -- the county. We contacted Indiana, and it turns out that Mr. And Mrs. Chaffee were receiving an exemption in Indiana. In 2001 when I -- when he applied on the correct property, I contacted Indiana and Page 5 October 8, 2001 16JI requested that they remove his exemption up there because he is currently applying for a homestead exemption in Collier County, and this is going to be his primary residence. They did that. Therefore, for 2000, Mr. -- Mr. Chaffee was receiving an exemption in Indiana. The -- the 2000 exemption that he was getting down here was really not -- shouldn't have been allowed if we had known that he was getting an exemption up there. So that really makes the 2000 exemption moot if he wants to figure that as part of his cap. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So what I see is that we have an exemption for 2000 in Indiana applying for exemption in the State of Florida in 2001. The assessment has already been done for 2001; correct? MR. SKINNER: Correct. The 2001 homestead would be on the -- the other property now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. SKINNER: And like I pointed out earlier, it's all about the cap, so that will establish the -- the base for the cap for 2002 on the -- on the -- on the second property. The other homestead will be -- will be taken off of the -- the one they applied for in 2000, which never should have been granted if we had known they had a homestead in Indiana. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Skinner, was there a violation of the law in us granting an exemption for 2000 when there was already one in -- one in Indiana? MR. SKINNER: If we had known that, we never would have granted the one on 2000. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the statute of limitations on that is quite short? MR. SKINNER: Well, not the statute of limitations, but it's just if we had known. We didn't know that when Mr. Chaffee came in to Page 6 October 8 2001 6J1 apply for the new homestead for 2001, we knew at that time. And then they said that they took it away. They -- the one in Indiana. So now it -- he's eligible for the one that he has for 2001. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But he did receive an exemption in 2000 here and in Indiana. MR. SKINNER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I know it's not the job of this board to -- MR. SKINNER: No. But that's -- that's another problem that we'll have to address at a later time. MR. GOODMAN: If I may, if the tax assessor's office would follow the same procedure every time, the 2000 would have been removed also. What we heard at the tax assessor's office when completing the application will notify the northern state to have it removed. That is not correct with what you did this year? MS. GARRETT: That is correct. MR. GOODMAN: So had the proper property address been used in February of 2000 none of this would be -- we would not be here today. We would not be here today because the property -- had the proper property address been used in 2000, they would have contacted them also in 2000, had it removed in 2000, just as they did in 2001. That's a standard procedure, what I understand the tax assessor's office does nowadays. MR. FAERBER: You mean the burden is on the tax assessor's office to remove a homestead in another state? MR. SKINNER: No. MR. GOODMAN: At least let me ask the question. If I have a homestead in Oklahoma or not, is the presumption that Florida always denies its residents a homestead if they've taken one in another state regardless? MR. FAERBER: I assume so. Page 7 October 8, 2001 16JI MR. GOODMAN: I think what I read the statute to say is that husband and wife may not claim two homesteads in this state. MR. SKINNER: It doesn't say that. MS. GARRETT: No. Florida constitution, Section 6, Sub B, says not more than one exemption shall be allowed any individual or family unit or with respect to any residential unit. No exemption shall exceed the value of the real estate assembled to the owner or in case ownership through stock or membership in a corporation, the value of the proportion which the interest in the corporation bears to the assessed value of the property. MR. GOODMAN: But is an exemption not defined somewhere in the statute? MR. SKINNER: It does not limit it to the State of Florida. It says two homesteads or two benefits. MR. GOODMAN: So now are State of Florida laws applied to every other state in the union? MR. SKINNER: No, sir. It applies to this state. And in this state the law is that you cannot have any benefit of two homesteads anywhere. Not one family unit could have more than one homestead. MR. GOODMAN: And if there is a second one, is there -- does the -- does the state -- does the office automatically deny it or does the office make a -- try to reach a taxpayer to make a determination which one is proper? MR. SKINNER: Let me say this. We could go back and forth. We try, like -- and I hate to use this cliche again, to go the second mile. I want to grant homestead to people who are eligible. I want to do that. That's the reason I called Tallahassee on this to see if there was something that -- that I could do. And I'm -- I'm going to bore you with a little story. There was a ex -Navy Seal that was honorably discharged a number of -- in '94, I think it was, on a total disability. At that time it October 8, 2001 16J 1 wasn't known that it was a total disability. That Navy Seal came in last year and found out that he was totally, 100 percent disabled, and we gave it to him for this year. He said that the -- the papers finally came through from the government that he was -- he was eligible for this retroactively to '94. I went that second mile with that man. I went to Tallahassee with a telephone call, explained the situation. I said, this man -- if anybody should have that exemption. Well, you can't do it. It was retroactive. He didn't apply for it, yack, yack, yack. I talked to representative from the Florida legislature, and I told them that this man should have the exemption. I'm trying to make a point here that we go that way because I want people to have these exemptions. They told me, according to the law, he couldn't have it. And I said, "I don't give a damn what the law says. This man should have it." And guess what? He didn't get it. And if anyone should have it, that person should have an exemption. He didn't get it. There are laws that we must go by. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. SKINNER: And that I can't bend or break. I will not. I want Mr. Chaffee to have a homestead. But according to the law, he cannot have it. MR. GOODMAN: Well, he has the homestead. The issue is when there is an administrative error, can we retroactively fix it for last year. MR. FAERBER: And I might -- and I might argue that for -- on behalf of your -- your client. But I don't think I can do that in light of the fact that there was an existent homestead up in Allen County, Indiana. In fact, I think the broader issue here is, you know, we've got an affidavit that's not correct, to say it politely, from this year, so I -- I -- I, for one, can't -- can't favor it, in light of that existent homestead in Indiana. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion? Page 9 October 8, 2001 16JI MR. FAERBER: Was that enough of a statement of particulars for you for a motion? I -- this is my first time this year. MS. CHADWELL: Yes. Yeah. That would be fine. MR. FAERBER: That would be my basis, is that there was an existent homestead in the State of Indiana, and for that reason I would move to deny the petition. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion on the floor for denial. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion and second for denial. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anyone opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. MR. GOODMAN: We'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present this this morning. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next case is August Reikert (phonetic). COMMISSIONER FIALA: Richter. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Richter. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's okay. MR. RICHTER: I'm August Richter, and this is my wife, Dana. And where we left off, we weren't aware that there was a homestead on our Illinois property because the law in Illinois, the year after you move in they automatically apply a homestead to your property, and we had no idea we had been receiving it for whatever, ten years or. But we since then contacted them. And as of January 1 st, 2001, our limited homestead exemption will be deleted from 220 Peace Lane, Lake Forest, Illinois. And we have a certified -- is that what it is? MS. RICHTER: Yes. Page 10 MR. FAERBER: Were you -- were you not in Nape -- in Collier County for the period March 1 st to August 28th? MR. RICHTER: Well, for about a year our son was fighting cancer, so we had to be back -- back and forth, back and forth because we had to -- most of the time we were there because he was in a hospital in Illinois. And then another hospital and then the nursing home, you know. MR. FAERBER: Did you ever have homestead on this 1617 Gulf Star Drive before? MS. RICHTER: No. MR. RICHTER: No. MR. FAERBER: How long have you owned that property? MR. RICHTER: Since '96 or '95, I think. MS. RICHTER: '95. MR. FAERBER: So from '95 you were receiving the annual assessments, not -- and -- and you didn't oppose them because you had a homestead back in -- MR. RICHTER: Well, we didn't know we had a homestead in Illinois, but we -- we since listed our house for sale, and -- and they didn't take it off because we hadn't notified them that -- that the house was sold or -- or, you know, that it was for sale. We didn't know we had that. Page 11 October 8, 2001 16J1 MR. RICHTER: Certified assessment that says that our exemption is the last year that we will receive it was tax year 2000. Would somebody like to take a look at this? MR. FAERBER: This is a -- is this an application for 2001? MS. GARRETT: It's an appli -- yes. MR. FAERBER: It was just filed late? MS. GARRETT: It was filed August 29th. MR. FAERBER: And what was the reason it was filed late? MR. RICHTER: We had a -- a sickness in the family. MR. FAERBER: Were you -- were you not in Nape -- in Collier County for the period March 1 st to August 28th? MR. RICHTER: Well, for about a year our son was fighting cancer, so we had to be back -- back and forth, back and forth because we had to -- most of the time we were there because he was in a hospital in Illinois. And then another hospital and then the nursing home, you know. MR. FAERBER: Did you ever have homestead on this 1617 Gulf Star Drive before? MS. RICHTER: No. MR. RICHTER: No. MR. FAERBER: How long have you owned that property? MR. RICHTER: Since '96 or '95, I think. MS. RICHTER: '95. MR. FAERBER: So from '95 you were receiving the annual assessments, not -- and -- and you didn't oppose them because you had a homestead back in -- MR. RICHTER: Well, we didn't know we had a homestead in Illinois, but we -- we since listed our house for sale, and -- and they didn't take it off because we hadn't notified them that -- that the house was sold or -- or, you know, that it was for sale. We didn't know we had that. Page 11 October 8, 2001 16J1 MR. FAERBER: I'm confused. The house here in Collier was up sale? MS. RICHTER: No, Lake Forest. MR. RICHTER: The house in Lake Forest, Illinois, was for sale. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a question. Can you file for homestead through mail? MS. GARRETT: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have to come in person? MS. GARRETT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you did come back and forth. MR. RICHTER: Yes. But the thing is, our mind was not on this. Our son was terminally ill, and we just -- you know. We just didn't think about anything that you should think about except for that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And when -- when did you consider Naples your homestead? MR. RICHTER: In November of 2000 is when we basically moved in and started taking care of things. And then -- then our son was diagnosed shortly after that with cancer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know what it's like. I -- my daughter -in -law was also diagnosed with cancer, and we've been battling the same thing, so I understand. Yeah. But it -- I -- something like this extremely important. MS. GARRETT: Mr. And Mrs. Richter have -- have considered this -- considered themselves permanent residents since November of 2000, according to their application. They did not get their driver's license or their voter's registration until August 10th and their vehicle registration, it looks like, at the same time. MS. RICHTER: We just got a new car. MS. GARRETT: But be that as it may, on January 1 st, of 2001 Page 12 October 8, 2001 16J1 and as late as October 4th, of 2001 the Richters have an exemption in Lake Forest, Illinois. The assessor's office sent us a letter saying that as a result of the conversation with Mr. Richter, they planned to remove the exemption in November. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of this year? MS. GARRETT: Of this year. MR. SKINNER: Of this year. MS. GARRETT: For 2001. But as of January 2001 as of today they have an exemption in Illinois. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the benchmark. MR. RICHTER: That paper states that we don't have it as of 2001, January 1 st, 2001. MS. GARRETT: You have it today. It has not been removed yet, sir. MR. RICHTER: It says it does not have it as of 2001. MS. GARRETT: That's the letter I got from -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: What paper are we looking at? MR. RICHTER: This is a certified copy. And it said last year receiving the limited homestead exemption is tax year 2000. MR. FAERBER: Well, it looks like when they removed it in November it's retroactive for the year. Removed in November for the 2001 tax year so -- MS. GARRETT: If it's removed. MR. RICHTER: This -- these two letters here state that it's removed. MR. FAERBER: It does -- MR. RICHTER: We would have taken care of this a lot sooner had we not had the problem. I mean, it just -- you know, we normally don't neglect our business. But for this, you know, we had to. MS. GARRETT: I -- I -- I have to go by -- by the laws that I Page 13 have to work under. October 8, 2001 16J1 MR. FAERBER: Yeah. Well, that's what we're here for. MS. GARRETT: Right. But what I'm saying is that to date they have a homestead. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's just not in the State of Florida. You're getting -- MR. RICHTER: We're not going to get the benefit for the homestead in -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Illinois? MR. RICHTER: Illinois. We're not. MS. GARRETT: If it's removed. MR. FAERBER: They must have a purging procedure up there that they do in November or they're retroactively taxing. MR. SKINNER: I don't know what -- why they would wait until November to remove it for the year 2001 unless their year is not the calendar year. We're on the calendar year in the State of Florida. Some others may be on a fiscal year. I don't know that. But why would they wait till November of 2001 to remove it if he doesn't have it for the -- for the tax year of no -- of 2001. MR. RICHTER: May I approach? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very simply put, Mr. Skinner, you tell me if I'm wrong. January 1 st this was in effect. And if it's been retroactively removed that doesn't mean that it wasn't in effect at the time. It still was in effect. MR. SKINNER: According -- yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The state statutes are exact on that or does it say maybe or -- MS. GARRETT: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whatever -- MR. SKINNER: January the 1 st it was there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was there. Page 14 October 8, 2001 16J1 MR. SKINNER: And until Mr. Richter or we contacted them even after what? August. MS. GARRETT: Right. MR. SKINNER: It was still in effect. He had -- MS. CHADWELL: Excuse me. You need to step back if you have evidence you want to present to the board, if you have only -- if you don't have enough copies if they would circulate to each of the members they can review that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For the benefit of the two school board members that weren't here last week, this came before us. At that point in time there was a dispute. There was -- there were serious doubts about the record being correct from Illinois. And so we asked them if they would like a continuance so they could verify the record, and that's the reason why this thing is being continued to this date. MR. FAERBER: Well, may I -- excuse me for asking a personal question. You said your son was terminal. Did he pass away? MR. RICHTER: May 20th. MR. FAERBER: All right. I read this letter, Commissioner Coletta, of October 4th, the last letter in the packet, to mean that somehow they're going to purge it in November, but they're going to make sure that he doesn't have an exemption in both Illinois and Florida for this tax year. This is -- you know, that last clause of the sentence. You know, we have historically at times, not at all times, but in the past granted these petitions in -- for health reasons or immediate family health reasons. So, I mean, I'm satisfied that the October 4th letter clarifies it. He's not going to get two exemptions. And just to move this along, I'll -- I'll make a motion. We'll see if it gets a second or not, but I would move that we approve the petition. Page 15 October 8, 2001 16JI CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion on the floor to approve the petition. MR. YORK: I'll second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Discussion? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Skinner, are we going to be in violation of Florida Statutes if we went along with this? MR. SKINNER: This has to do with, I think, with interpretation here. As far as I'm interpreting, the gentleman still has a homestead in Illinois. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. SKINNER: As of January of 2001. This -- this came -- even October the 4th the document that we have here, they said that the gentleman still had it, and it would be removed in November of 2001. Now, I don't know what -- Mr. Richter did not receive an exemption in both -- Illinois for 2001. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me ask that question one more way. Are we allowed to interpret Florida Statutes to this level? MR. SKINNER: Well, you have -- sure, you have that option, I suppose. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think what we're interpreting is the evidence that is in front of us. MR. YORK: Well, the way -- Mr. Skinner, the way I read this, the last letter, it says that this was written on October the 4th from the assessor's office in Island Park, Illinois. And the letter says that -- that his exemption will be removed in November for the 2001 tax year. And aren't we applying for homestead for 2001 tax year? MS. GARRETT: Yes. MR. YORK: On the Florida property? MR. SKINNER: Yes. MS. GARRETT: If -- if Mr. Richter had applied in a timely Page 16 October 8, 20 manner, he still would have had homestead in Illinois. 16JI MR. SKINNER: And Mr. Richter didn't get his Florida driver's license until August the 10th of 2001. MR. FAERBER: What -- and I -- I think he's explained that. He didn't do anything much until August of 2001. But, even if he had applied timely, I mean, I -- I think we're -- I think we're involved in semantics here. Even if he had applied timely, he still ultimately by the end of the year wouldn't have had an exemption in both states is what they're saying. MS. GARRETT: I don't know. All I know is when I contact an out -of -state assessor's office, I need to know does he have an exemption or not. MR. FAERBER: Something -- something squirrelly goes on in Illinois, I got a feeling. They don't purge apparently until November. He's not going to have it. MS. GARRETT: Is this up to me to contact them in November to make sure it's been removed or what? MR. YORK: Well, I think the letter from the -- from the assessor is saying that they are telling you it will be removed. MR. FAERBER: Well, I think it's incumbent upon you to make sure it is removed, otherwise you've committed a crime. MR. YORK: I recognize the fact that there was delay in filing homestead and -- and getting his driver's license, getting his car, but if I had a child was -- was diagnosed with terminal illness, I think getting that stuff done would be the last thing I'd be thinking about, and I think we need to have a little compassion for those things. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Miss Chadwell, do you have anything else? MS. CHADWELL: I would just remind the board that you do, obviously, have to find that they're eligible for the homestead exemption and that there are extenuating circumstances that would Page 17 October 8, 2001 allow the board to waive the -- the filing deadline. 16J1 January I st is the operative date for establishing your entitlement to a homestead. And I would also remind the board that you're -- once you make your decision today that that is final as to the exemption, there is no certainty what will happen in the future. And it's important for each of the members of this board to weigh, carefully weigh the evidence that's been presented to you today. But if you make those two findings, then certainly you can approve the petition that you've heard for the homestead exemption. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh -huh. And there was -- that was based on your motion -- MR. SKINNER: May -- may I ask a question of Mr. Richter? Where did you vote in the last election? MR. RICHTER: In the last election, we -- we had filed for an extension to vote in Illinois. MR. SKINNER: Uh -huh. MR. RICHTER: But we never got -- for some reason we never got the papers. And because of our son's illness, we just didn't follow up on it. MR. SKINNER: I understand that. I can appreciate that. MR. RICHTER: We didn't vote the last -- MR. SKINNER: But you filed to vote in Illinois, not in Florida. MR. RICHTER: Well, because at that time that was in November of 2000, that we were still -- MR. SKINNER: Right. MR. RICHTER: That's when we made our decision to move here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. It really pains me that -- to hear your life circumstances. Although I got great sympathy for you, I -- I can't see that much difference between your situation and a Page 18 October 8, 2001 16J1 number of other people who came before us and we denied them. In the last meeting that we met, the one continue -- the one factor that we were all hanging on and the reason we didn't find at that time was the finding that the -- of your -- your exemption in Illinois. I'm having a hard time putting this all together where I can justify it. You voted -- you had the right to vote in Illinois. You never changed your voter's registration, your driver's license. I know about your son's illness, but still, I think some effort could have been made to establish a little bit of -- a little dominancy in Florida a little clearer than it exists. I'm having a hard time justifying where you're coming from, and I'll have to vote no against this particular petition. MR. RICHTER: Well, the -- when we filed for a -- absentee ballot, we were still -- that -- that was in the summer of 2000. It was earlier in the year that we had to do that. And it didn't come through when we -- when it was time to vote in November. So, you know, at that time we were making our decisions to move down here, and then the illness hit us. And -- we don't have the exemption. And we never knew we were getting the exemption in Illinois. The only way we found out was the fact that they told us we were getting a homestead exemption because the first year we -- we did -- we did not apply for it when we got our house. In Illinois you automatically get it the second year until -- until the year after you sell your house. And our house has been for sale for about two years now and primarily that's what we were waiting for. And we just decided we're not going to wait anymore. The house is basically sitting empty now and we're down here except for when we had to be up there for our son. But we didn't know we were getting a homestead exemption. And we had -- had we known that or had we filed January 1 st or November of 2000, then we would have found out that we were getting it, I suppose, just like we did this time. But it is eradicated. It's a certified copy, and we're not getting it. Page 19 October 8, 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. With no other discussion, I'll call the motion. Everybody okay? You ready to vote? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. MR. FAERBER: Aye. MR. YORK: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 3 -2. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. You got your exemption. Next petitioner is Northgate Place Apartments. Anybody here we can -- we can move on. Legally we have to wait till ten o'clock. MR. SKINNER: Well, since we have time. Let me repeat what I said Wednesday. It appears like I'm the bad guy. And I'm not. I want to go just as far as I can in granting homesteads. But -- or anything else. When something is -- is wrong and we see it we change values, whatever. And we're really not the bad guy. We have a -- we have a duty to perform, and that's what we're doing. All of us have our problems. And I'm in sympathy with the gentleman that just left here. But all of us can relate to those problems, but we still have to take care of business. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question on procedure, sir. If the -- if the petitioner here -- is here early, could we hear it now or no? MR. SKINNER: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, and I believe we have some here or one person. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's move on to the nine o'clock agenda, and then we can all -- we can just go back until the time October 8, 2001 expires. 16J1 MS. CHADWELL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So the next one is AT &T Wireless Services. MR. STEPHENS: You never voted on Northgate. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Northgate. We're going to continue that because we have until ten o'clock; right? MR. STEPHENS: Well, that was a nine o'clock hearing. MR. SKINNER: They're supposed to be here at nine o'clock. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It's not from nine to ten that we can hear that? MR. SKINNER: You can hear it even if they come after -- after ten o'clock. MR. STEPHENS: You're right. MR. SKINNER: If you want to, but they're supposed to be here at ten o'clock. You can rule on these now. If they come in later, you can -- you can backtrack and hear it, agree to hear it. MS. CHADWELL: You just -- MR. SKINNER: Now -- well -- MS. CHADWELL: You just can't hear it before the scheduled noticed time for them to appear. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. So we can't hear it at 8:55. MS. CHADWELL: If it was a ten o'clock petition, you couldn't hear it at 9:45. You'd have to wait -- nine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We couldn't vote on it until -- MS. CHADWELL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Unless they're here. MS. CHADWELL: That's correct. But these are scheduled for CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we'll -- we'll go back to Page 21 October 8, 2001 1 6 J 1 Northgate Place Apartments. There's nobody here to represent Northgate, so entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to deny. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second to deny the Northgate Place Apartments. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. AT &T Wireless. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, while we're -- while we're waiting for this gentleman, I'd just like Katie to see if she can't get a picture of Bruce's tie. Look at that tie. That is so appropriate for today. MR. STEPHENS: I followed his lead from the other day. I loved his tie, and I forgot to tell him I wanted it for today, so I had to go out and buy one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're fortunate enough to find one. MR. STEPHENS: Flea market. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought you might have bought it at a tax sale. MR. SKINNER: AT &T, I don't believe they're here, are they? MR. GORHAM: AT &T indicated that they wouldn't be here, that they would not withdraw, that they wanted the board to act. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Motion to deny. MR. YORK: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second to deny AT &T's petition. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Page 22 October 8, 2001 (Unanimous response.) (U p ) 1 MS. CHADWELL: Could I ask for some clarification, Chairman? Is that Petitions No. 1 through 40 for AT &T Wireless Services, Inc.? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's 1 through 40. MR. FAERBER: Mike, I'm also an aye on that. My back was turned, but I heard what it was about. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Motion carries unanimously. We have American National Real -- Realty. MR. FEINER: Good morning, distinguished members of the board. My name is Stuart Feiner for the proponent. Which case is coming before us first, please? CHAIRMAN HENNING: George Washington Carver. MR. FEINER: We're going to withdraw that case, so the board does not have to act on that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And the next one is Realty River -- River Reach Apartments, Tract 3. MR. FEINER: That's correct, Your Honor. We -- we do have a unique situation on this particular property, and that's why we come before you today. We recognize that we have an owner here who has purchased this property recently in 1999 and during the course of that purchase paid some $34 million for this particular property. That owner no longer exists today. That owner, in my opinion, had made some grievous errors during the course of all of their purchases, and my client today has taken over 119 properties that were previously to the -- I think it's 119, to the best of my knowledge, for this particular party. The present client, of course, is a very sophisticated owner of real estate property throughout the United States. Today it's -- is, again, my knowledge and belief that they own and manage over 450,000 apartment units. They own about 280,000, and I think they fee Page 23 October 8, 2001 16J 11 1 manage about another 170,000. So there is no question that there will be comparable sales that can not util -- we cannot use that particular method of viewing this particular property, in my opinion, because of, like I said, the grievous error that the previous management team made in the purchase of this particular property. But I did submit to the property appraiser's office and I did submit to this board or to this information the in -- the income as it was supported for the year 2000, and we're going to look towards that particular income. Additionally, that income information was even submitted, I think, on May 30th to the property appraiser's office. In reviewing and analyzing the income, we can go through it, but it is my opinion that we come to a value of about $24 million, and we find that that value is more appropriate to the value that should be placed on the property rather than the 26 million that is placed on the property today. Last year's appraised value was $21,426,000. This year the increase was to 26,101,000 or over an 18 percent increase in the value of the property. Again, we went from twenty -one million four up to twenty -six -- 21 million up to approximately 26 million. And obviously that sort of increase seriously impacts additionally and will in -- will seriously also additionally increase the operation of this property for the following year. That in and by itself, it is my calculations come to it is approximately a $68,000 increase just in the tax base alone. We're going from $310,000 of last year to this year of over $378,000, and we don't feel the property can support that sort of an increase. And I thank you very much for your time so far. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? Thank you. MR. FAERBER: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was the -- the rent applied to the assessment when you were evaluating this property? Page 24 October 8, 2001 16J1`%, MR. STEPHENS: We did consider their income, yes. But, you know -- and we've talked about income and -- and I know we have new board members and that they -- I don't believe it came out Wednesday. But let me try to walk you through some of the appraisal process. We do by law have to consider all three approaches to value. That's part of the statutes. The -- the petitioner is asking us to value the property point blank based on their own income. We do not feel that is in line with the statutes, nor is that in line with correct appraisal process, reason being is on commercial property not every piece of commercial property in this county is rented out. You have commercial property that is owner occupied. So if you use actual income and expenses on a -- on any given piece of property and valued it that way, then the person that's in an owner - occupied property would suffer because he has no income. It's his place. So when we look at the income, we not only look at the individual income of the property, but we look at the typical income that's going to be arrived at from other similar properties. That is the way that we combine income value, a owner - occupied property. We know how much basically an owner could get if he were to rent his place. So we go through that process, and we examine all that's out there. Not only do we look at the market cost and income, but the income we look at two ways. We look at typical and actual. All right. The packet that I have given out to you, we have done all of those. We do have the property. It did sell for 34.6 million. This is River Reach apartment complex. It is the only apartment complex in the county that has water access. They do have boating facilities and -- and boat rentals and boat launch with this apartment complex. And I would not hesitate to tell you, as Mr. Feiner said, we discussed this. And probably when they purchased the property that might have been a little high figure. But we also had another sale this past year, Page 25 October 8, 2001 6J1 Fountainview. Sold for 63,000 a unit, the same as the subject property. So values are escalating up, and we are still almost $12 million under what they paid for it. So I think we've taken everything into consideration. I believe the assessment is -- is extremely fair and -- and not unreasonable at all. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions of some of the board members? MR. YORK: Whose numbers are these? MR. STEPHENS: Those are their numbers. MR. FEINER: That's not correct. The numbers that you are looking at where it said typical income. I think that what he's pointing to -- MR. STEPHENS: Typical are mine. MR. FEINER: -- were -- are -- yes. Those numbers are prepared by the property appraiser's office. MR. YORK: And you gave them -- you gave them a 37 percent for vacancy and expenses? MR. STEPHENS: Yes. MR. FAERBER: Thirty -seven percent? MR. STEPHENS: That's -- that's based on returns that I get of facilities here in this county. MR. YORK: What were the actual expenses on that property for a given year? MR. STEPHENS: They were 2,099,000. MR. YORK: Two million ninety -nine? MR. STEPHENS: Yes. MR. YORK: And -- so -- so the -- so 1 million, then, would represent the vacancy -- MR. STEPHENS: Well -- MR. YORK: -- of this 3,182,000? MR. STEPHENS: Their -- their gross -- there is no vacancy in Page 26 October 8, 2001 their gross. That's what they received. 16JI . MR. FEINER. The actual vacancy was submitted to this particular body. And the actual vacancy for a very specific response would be 444 thousand, zero, 160. MR. YORK: What percentage is that? MR. FEINER: That represents an 8 percent vacancy factor. The actual vacancy of this particular property was 8 percent, which I would say is typical and normal. MR. SKINNER: Didn't you give us the gross numbers, your gross income? MR. FEINER: We gave you a rent roll which indicates what the market rent was trying to be achieved at. We gave you the actual rent. So, therefore, the difference between market rent and actual rent would be vacancy. MR. SKINNER: But -- but you all -- didn't you also give the actual gross receipts? MR. FEINER: Yes. MR. STEPHENS: Yes. MR. SKINNER: So the rent the -- the vacancy would be moot there because we have the actual rent receipt money. MR. FEINER: Right. MR. SKINNER: Okay. MR. FEINER: And the difference between the actual rent receipt money, as we would say, versus what this particular owner was trying to achieve for each and every apartment to rent it at would be the gross rent, and therefore, the difference then between what he's trying to achieve in gross rent versus the -- the -- the exact actual number that they achieved is the vacancy factor. So this is not done, as we would say, in pro forma. This is not a guesstimate of what vacancy could be if we were building a new apartment complex today. This is the actual vacancy as it existed in the year 2000 for Page 27 October 8, 2001 this particular property. 1611 MR. YORK: Well, the thing I'm trying to bring out is on -- on the numbers that I'm seeing here that the -- the assessor's office has given you a thirty per -- 37.3 percent allowance for vacancy and expenses. And if you're telling me that the actual expenses were 2,0991000 -- MR. FEINER: Yes. MR. YORK: -- then they -- that leaves a million dollars worth of vacancy. Based on income of 5 million, that's a 20 percent vacancy rate. MR. FEINER: And what I say to you is that is obviously not a fact because the actual vacancy is -- MR. YORK: The -- MR. FEINER: Yes, exactly right. And the calculation that we have submitted for vacancy was $444,000. MR. YORK: But the assessor is giving you more credit for more vacancy, not less credit. MR. FEINER: No. Well -- no, I don't think that that is the case at all. I think that we're miss -- maybe misinterpreting that information by saying the appraiser's office -- and if I'm understanding this correctly -- is giving us an allocation for vacancy and expenses that equal in total 37.3 percent in their analysis. MR. YORK: Exactly. Exactly. MR. FEINER: And what we would say is that if vacancy is exactly 8 percent and if expenses should be 37 or 38 percent, then the total expense rate may be higher than what the typical income approach that the appraiser is indicating to this particular board for this particular property as it operates today, as it operates in the year 2000. MR. FAERBER: Can you -- MR. FEINER: Does that make sense to you? Page 28 October 8, 2001 16JI MR. YORK: I -- no. I think -- I think the appraiser's office has been very generous with you. MR. FEINER: No. I don't think we're understanding that correctly then because, in my opinion, and maybe I -- MR. YORK: If you used your actual expenses of 2,099,000 -- MR. FEINER: See -- MR. YORK: -- and use -- and then apply a 4 percent vacancy rate -- MR. FEINER: Right. MR. YORK: -- is what you're telling me -- MR. FEINER: Eight percent vacancy. MR. YORK: Eight percent vacancy rate -- you take 8 percent of 5,076,000, what does that give you? MR. FEINER: I could calculate that for you if you'd like. We have -- we have submitted to the property appraiser's office a separation of expenses and a separation of a vacancy. And our -- MR. YORK: They lumped it together. MR. FEINER: And they lumped it together, right. So our calculation would be -- MR. YORK: What's 8 percent of $5 million? MR. FEINER: According to our -- 8 percent of $5 million would be 400,000. MR. YORK: Okay. And they gave you a million - dollar credit. MR. FEINER: That's off the top of my head. I didn't use the calculator for that. MR. YORK: They gave you a million - dollar credit. They've been very generous with you. MR. FEINER: No. They're given us a million - dollar credit for the combination of both. The actual number submitted -- we have the actual financial statements that were audited by an outside auditor of one of the national audit companies, which we took that information, Page 29 October 8, 2001 16JI typically put it together, submitted it, as well as it was submitted, I think, by Price Waterhouse to -- on May 30th to this office. And we come up -- the actual expense rate of operating this property was about 45 percent. So that is the actual expenses that were submitted. MR. FAERBER: Well -- MR. FEINER: If that answers your question specifically then. MR. YORK: Forty -five percent in expense? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whoa. MR. FEINER: That's correct. Approximately a 45 percent expense rate, which is not -- not typical and not normal for a property of this age and this size on a national basis. Some properties would -- would actually have an expense rate of higher than that. So this property is well within the average of operational expenses, in my opinion. The vacancy factor, is also, I think, typical and normal. So that's how we come up with even -- I think what we're saying here is even by admission of the property appraiser's office, we see that if they value this on the typical income approach and the actual income approach, we see that there's no question that this particular purchaser paid more than they should have had for the property, even on this basis and this basis alone. What we are trying to say is, we have history. We have information that we are presenting to this board for their review to indicate what true value for this particular property should well be. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And, sir, what I see is that your client has some management problems and he needs to clean that up. MR. FEINER: And -- and why -- why is that, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the evidence that you're presenting to us in the area that -- that it's in, that's a big expense for that piece of property. MR. FEINER: A forty -- a 45 percent expense rate is again, not -- not untypical and not unnormal. And we -- we would -- we -- we Page 30 October 8, 2001 16J 1 would say -- pardon me? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I said, boy, I could never -- I just have one little property. But if I had a 45 percent expense rate, my rents would have to soar in order to come -- I can't believe it's a 45 percent -- MR. FEINER: National statistics on -- national statistics on properties are now coming up to about a 52 percent expense rate, believe it or not, on properties in excess of 200 units. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bruce? MR. STEPHENS: Okay. The -- the thing that needs to be taken into consideration is that the percentages that I'm -- used are based on the information that are arrived here in Collier County, not national figures, you know. These are -- you know, the incomes that are given to me in January when I ask for them, not three weeks before hearing date is how I arrive at my numbers in order to do typicals throughout the county. And, sure, there are some complexes in this county that are -- that are doing 45 percent expenses. They're in places like Immokalee where, you know, the buildings are much older and -- and they've got much more maintenance involved in those. But when I look at all of the properties, we're still talking about vacancy in this county fluctuates from about 5 percent to about 10 percent from one year to the next. It all depends on what complexes come on line, you know. And anytime you're in a growth pattern, you're going to have complexes coming on line. Well, if you have three complexes come on line, it affects all of the complexes 2 or 3 percent for anywhere from a year to about 18 months until everything catches up. And, you know, like I say, all of our figures are based on information we get in this county. And -- and, again, I've got other complexes, other apartment complexes that have sold for more than we have this property valued at. It is inconceivable to think that 26 million is -- is an excessive appraisal of this property. Page 31 October 8, 2001 . 16J 1 __ MR. YORK. How how many units? MR. STEPHENS: 556 units. It's about 46,000 a unit, I believe it is. And, you know, the Sable Key, which is the old Berkshire Park. They just sold for 52,000 a unit last year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where's that at, Bruce? MR. STEPHENS: That's at the -- it's right by the county park in Golden Gate. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. STEPHENS: Right there at the entrance. MR. FEINER: Our question pertaining to sale would be, this property sold in April of 1999 is when it sold. So if we want, you could categorize it as a recent sale or not so recent sale. We understand that. But what is an enigma to my client also is that although the property sold in April of 1999, the 2000 assessed value only went up by 1 /10 of 1 percent. It went from 21,407,000 to 21,426,000 for the entire year 2000. Now, the sale took place in April of 1999. So obviously adjustments could have been made in the year 2000. But after my client stabilizes his rent, stabilizes expenses, we come to the year 2001, and we see a 19 percent increase in the assessed value to 26,101,000, and that's where the client has a question . MR. STEPHENS: Didn't you say the ownership had changed since the purchase? MR. FEINER: The management has -- MR. SKINNER: Let me -- let me say this about that sale. Applying that sale to that property. The Department of Revenue has a little -- a name for that, and they call that chasing sales for the local property appraiser. If I took that sale, applied it to that property and not mass appraise everything else by a number of sales like that, then they call that chasing sales. I call it bookkeeping. If we were looking at a sale and apply that to that piece of property, that's just Page 32 October 8, 2001 J1 bookkeeping. But were mass appraising all properties. Grante , t is property sold in '99, and that sale was considered, along with many other sales in the mass appraisal technique for sales occurring in Collier County for the year '99 to apply to that 2000 sale or, rather, 2000 assessment. Now, this year we have increased the assessment, No. 1, because we have the actual income from -- from your client. MR. FEINER: Correct. MR. SKINNER: And, by the way, did -- just for my record, what is your -- your market value for this property? MR. FEINER: Our market value for this property? MR. SKINNER: Yeah. MR. FEINER: The indicated value that we came to was approximately $24 million. MR. SKINNER: From market that you have -- that you have -- MR. FEINER: That we have submitted. MR. SKINNER: In Collier? MR. FEINER: Pardon me? MR. SKINNER: You've -- you've submitted that to us. MR. FEINER: Yes. MR. SKINNER: And that's in Collier? MR. FEINER: Yes. MR. SKINNER: Okay. And your replacement cost? MR. FEINER: We did not submit replacement cost, Mr. Skinner. We submitted -- MR. SKINNER: You don't have a replacement cost? MR. FEINER: No, we don't. MR. SKINNER: Well, see, that's one of the three prongs that we must consider. We must consider all three of those, as Bruce indicated in the very beginning. And if the client -- the client's under the same obligation, and that's one of the three approaches that wasn't Page 33 October 8, 2001 6Jl even considered by the client. So I'm saying this is moot. We ave considered all three approaches, the income, the market, and the replacement. And we figure that -- and -- and the -- and the sale of the property itself, even though it's a '99 sale indicates that we are not too high. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm getting down to a personal end of things because I have a real strong feeling about work -force housing, and it's so difficult to find any -- any places that people can even afford in our community anymore. And I was wondering, number one, how much do you charge on average. MR. FEINER: That was -- that was submitted as well, Madam Chairperson -- Madam member of the board. And I -- we have the averages here. And that's going to be adversely affected, also, by the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I'm concerned with. I wanted to know if your -- if your prices seem to be pretty fair if we are allowing our work force. You know, a lot of it works right here in the government complex. MR. FEINER: Well, in calculating the actual average based upon the market value of what was submitted for review to this body, it would be about $740 a month average rent as it is today. And that, again, will be, I think, negatively impacted, is a personal opinion by a $70,000 increase. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 700 what for a two bedroom? MR. FEINER: Average of all the units. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh. MR. FEINER: I have a compilation here of, I think it was, a 48- page rent roll of which we have submitted page, I think, 1 to 47 and 48. My client does that for security purposes. And he will attest to the fact that that is an actual rent roll, and I have the actual rent roll if Page 34 October 8, 2001 16J this body were -- were to look at it. But pages 1 and 2 basically give the names and the apartments and how much they rent for. And pages -- 48 gives the total of all the apartments together. And that total monthly projected market rent was $416,334 per month. If we divide that by 560 it came to some $740. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, do you have any one bedroom? MR. FEINER: There are -- there are -- I can give you. Do you want to know the average? I don't -- I cannot tell you the average of that. But I can go through them and tell you approximately how much they rent for. I think it was in the $560 neighborhood, but I can physically look for that. MR. STEPHENS: The January 1 of 2000, we go around to every apartment complex in the county and get what their rent is going to be. One bedroom rents from 685 to 765. Two bedroom, two bath, one of them rents for 805 to -- to 905. And then there is another one that's a little bit smaller rents from 820 to 840. They also hit -- hit you with an extra $50 a month if it's a short term. They also have pet deposits and pet rent. And then they -- they also have a fee if you have a boat. MR. YORK: Is that this -- this property? MR. STEPHENS: Yes. MR. FEINER: I don't -- what I would comment to that -- the only thing I would say to you, for example, I'm looking at a two - bedroom apartment which is supposed to be a market rent of $840. That particular apartment in this particular case rents for 760, depending upon the length of someone was there, you can't bring those people necessarily up to what the market value is, in one given jump. That would be horrible. That person may be displaced, if you took a person who was paying 760 and try to get them up to 840. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I've got a little bit of Page 35 October 8, 200 6J1 concern here in the direction we're going. I am all for work -force housing, and I think we should address the tax rates that we charge work -force housing probably blanketly across the whole board rather than this particular hearing. We've had a couple people before us previously that had the same type of thing, work -force housing and we did not find in their favor based upon that. That's a very disturbing number to hear. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I don't think this is the place to weigh that. MR. FEINER: The only other thing -- my only response in retort would be -- and I can conclude. I don't want to be redundant. Like I said, there was only a 1/10 in a 1 percent increase in tax year 2000 when the sale came in '99. We see an 18 percent increase this year. We've submitted the actual numbers of income. We've submitted the actual rent roll that has the -- that suggests on the property today. And we just think that maybe 26,101,000 is not the right number, and we think that certainly -- and we don't think that twenty -one million four twenty -six is the right number. We feel that the accurate presentation for this -- and even similar to what the property appraiser has indicated -- the property appraiser has indicated that the value could be down to about 25 million based on their own income approach, twenty -five five. And based upon their income approach I just think that we -- we need to temper this particular increase to something more in the line of $24 million, and I rest. MR. SKINNER: That was on that one approach. We must consider all three approaches. And our indicated cost of that property was 27.7 million just to replace the property, 27.7 million. And the market value that the petitioner says they -- they have 24 million -- I don't know how they came to that. We have market value from sales Page 36 October 8, 2001 lbj1 of properties in Collier County. We didn't have to go outside o Collier County -- of $34.6 million for this property. So looking at those two approaches and then also the -- the actual income, which is lower than our assessed value, we have correlated all three of those, and that's according to Florida Statutes that we must consider and -- and correlate those -- those three figures. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. MR. FAERBER: I make a motion -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh. MR. FAERBER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would make a motion for denial based on the case that goes presented before us is overwhelming in favor of the tax appraiser. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Property appraiser. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Property appraiser. CHAIRMAN HENNING: A motion on the floor for denial. Is there a second? MR. FAERBER: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion and a second on the floor for denial. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5 -0. Thank you. MR. FEINER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does the same thing apply for Building No. or Tract No. 9? MR. FEINER: Yes. Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. FEINER: Yeah. That -- they were considered as one property. Page 37 October 8, 2001 6J1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. MR. FAERBER: Yeah. They were both 17 and 18 petitions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that was in the motion? MR. FEINER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the board. MR. SKINNER: Was that petition also in that motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was in the motion that I made. MR. FEINER: And if it was not, you can so amend your motion to indicate that accordingly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That was part of the motion and -- and the second. So we'll continue on to TP -50, Aaron Bilton. Mr. Bilton? MR. HAMBLEN: Okay. Fifty through fifty- seven, it's all one property. It's a PUD. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. HAMBLEN: He called me this morning and said that he would not be here. And also that would be the case for Petition No. 68 also. MR. FAERBER: Then I would move for denial of Petition 57 and 58. MR. YORK: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Clarify. That has to do -- is that 50 through 68? MS. CHADWELL: 50 through 57 and 68. MR. FAERBER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's motion -- MS. CHADWELL: Okay. MR. FAERBER: I'm sorry, yeah. MR. YORK: That's a second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: A motion and a second on the floor Page 38 October 8, 2001 for denial. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. b J 1 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries unanimously. Pleasure of the board? We want to just see if there's anybody out there that wants to hear their petition? MS. CHADWELL: You -- you can inquire, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there anybody out there who wants to hear a -- plead their case before the value adjustment board? MR. STEPHENS: It's all staff. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's all staff, okay. MR. STEPHENS: Break. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. It looks like we'll -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Have to come back at 11. MR. FAERBER: We can come back a little early. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We'll -- we'll break until eleven o'clock. MR. FAERBER: Is there anybody on the one o'clock or two o'clock docket that we think we might be able to give a phone call to? MR. STEPHENS: It would be beneficial to -- to have Maureen call the two o'clock. MR. FAERBER: Yeah. MR. STEPHENS: Because we have heard nothing from these people. They have presented absolutely nothing to us, and in -- in the past, they just don't show up. MR. FAERBER: Two of us -- two of us up here have three o'clock appointments elsewhere. And if we could determine whether they're going to show or not would help us out. MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, it would be good if Maureen would at least try to -- we have tried to contact them for a week. They have not responded to our phone calls. MR. FAERBER: Okay. Well, let's give it a shot. Page 39 October 8, 2001 16J j, 1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Value Adjustment Board will recess until eleven o'clock. (A recess was held from 10:19 a.m. To 11:05 a.m.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: TP -157. Is that the --Aaron Bilton again? MR. STEPHENS: This is Carrothers and Associates, the Hilton Hotel and the Baymont Inn Hotel. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is anybody here representing -- MS. SENDEROFF: I am. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please. Is this -- do you want to put all these petitions all in one? MS. SENDEROFF: Actually, I have -- I'm only contesting the value for the B and G Realty. I'm Marta Senderoff. Actually, I had some other petitions that we withdrew. And what I am here to appeal is the -- the Baymont Inn and the Hilton. MR. FAERBER: All three petitions on the Hilton? MS. SENDEROFF: Yes. No. Oh, no, the personal property I withdrew, too. I'm sorry. Just the real property. MR. FAERBER: Well, give us the petition numbers that you're going to go forward with. MS. SENDEROFF: Actually, I was told that we double filed on a lot of petitions so -- 157 and 158. MR. STEPHENS: 157 is a nonexistent parcel. MS. SENDEROFF: Okay. So which is the existing one for the Hilton then? Ninety -five is personal property; correct? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's -- let's -- MR. SKINNER: It's your petition. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Let's figure out which ones that you're going to present today. MS. SENDEROFF: Well, what I'm going to present is the one Page 40 October 8, 2001 16J 1 for the Hilton. I was told that there were different petitions that had been filed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. SENDEROFF: So on different petitions that the numbers are not in accordance to the -- to the appraiser. So which of the ones are the ones for the Hilton that -- MR. SKINNER: Ma'am, we've got four here. MS. SENDEROFF: For the Hilton. MR. SKINNER: Four protests. Three for the Hilton and one for the Baymont. MS. SENDEROFF: Okay. MR. SKINNER: Those are your petitions, and you should be telling us. MS. SENDEROFF: Okay. What I'm going to contest is the three petitions for the Hilton and the one for the Baymont. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. My question is, do you want to lump those all together? MS. SENDEROFF: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. SKINNER: Mr. Chairman, are we -- which ones are we listening to right now? CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're listening to all of them. That's what it sounds like , the Hilton and -- the Hilton's -- MR. SKINNER: So is that 157, 158, 159, and 160? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MR. SKINNER: Is that what we're listening to? MR. FAERBER: I just don't know how we can frame a motion if we're going to have them lumped altogether, especially if they're two different properties -- well, two different properties and one nonexistent property? MS. SENDEROFF: Can we do the Hilton? I've never been to Page 41 6JI y ., n this county before. October 8, 2001 1 MR. FAERBER: Well, this is informal. Don't worry about that. I mean, we're not here -- we don't want -- you know, there's no tricks here. MS. SENDEROFF: No, I understand. MR. FAERBER: Just tell us which one you're talking about. MS. SENDEROFF: The one that I'm talking about is B and G Realty, the Baymont Inn, Folio 21785002027. MR. FAERBER: That's Petition 158. MS. SENDEROFF: Okay. MR. FAERBER: Why don't you do Baymont? MS. SENDEROFF: Do you want to start with Baymont? MR. FAERBER: Yes. At least it's distinct. MS. SENDEROFF: Okay. Okay. I sent actuals, P and Ls on the Baymont Inn. We have a total revenue of 1,035,425 less operating expenses, less insurance. I have a net operating income before taxes, interest, and depreciation of $365,436. We're capitalizing at four -- 12.4, including the taxes. We're deducting the personal property, and we come up with a real property of two million six fifty three nine. We're taking off 15 percent cost of sales, and we come up with a taxable real property of $2,255,800. And I have all the actuals that I've submitted to the property appraiser. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? MR. FAERBER: I -- I don't have anything to look at up here. MR. YORK: I don't have anything to look at. MS. SENDEROFF: Would you like a copy? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. FAERBER: Does -- Mr. Skinner, do you have anything for us to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Quite a difference. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Can you tell us about that? October 8, 2001 16J I MR. STEPHENS: Okay. The first thing, as you can see, with -- with my package, I've attempted to perform all three approaches to value using information here in Collier County. I did receive the -- the income of the sub -- subject property, the actual income of the subject property. But I did not get a copy of it until Thursday, this past Thursday. We sent a letter to the petitioner requesting any information that they were going to present given to us. And rather than send it to us, they sent it to the clerk for the board, and so I didn't get it until Thursday. Of that information, the -- the actual income itself I could hardly read the -- the information. It was just so small, and it was a bad copy. It wasn't a -- an audited statement or anything like that. But, again, we have the situation where, you know, I cannot just take the actual income produced by a piece of property and value it that way without considering other things going on in regard to value. Now, the petitioner, the way the petitioner has -- has chose to value using this their own -- own income, you know, there's, you know, a couple flaws there. Number one, they used 12.4 percent cap rate, which is -- is real high, if you think about it in terms of Collier County. The other things they did, they adjusted 15 for -- percent for cost of sale. Well, the Department of Revenue -- and I believe counsel has been given copies of opinions from the Department of rev -- Revenue stating that you don't take 15 percent off of a subject property, you know, when you're -- when you're valuing it. We can't do it. The petitioner can't do it. And even at that, as -- as the name says, less cost of sale. Well, the property didn't sell, so there is no deduction for cost for which you'd take off of it anyhow. And if you're doing the income approach to value, the income approach to value itself gets you to the value of the property -- the cash value of the property. So there's no adjustment for, quote, Page 43 October 8, 2001 16J unquote, first and eighth criteria which is -- is what a lot of appraisers try to do. There wouldn't be an adjustment on an income approach to value, and is -- is what I'm saying. But, at any regard, if you'll look at the -- the map, you see, for instance, where the -- the subject property is valued -- just the land is valued at five -- at $4.50 a square foot. And if you'll look at the map, you see sale No. 1 this past year sold for -- was at $11.73 a square foot. Now, that is not the Taco Bell. Taco Bell is immediately right of that parcel. But, again, that's right out on -- on Davis Boulevard, and it naturally would have a little higher value than the subject property that's put back. But if you go across 951 to the -- where the other two hotels are, the piece of property that was bought and they put storage facility there, you know, they paid as $8.82 a square foot for that land. So, you know, it -- it's inconceivable to me that we would have it overvalued even from the cost approach. From -- from the market approach, we have 39,700 per unit on this hotel. And does everybody remember the old White's Motel out on the East Trail which is now Gordy's? That facility sold for $41,700 a unit. And I believe that facility would be quite inferior to the subject property in -- in location and -- and even rents that it could generate. Also, you know, back a couple of years the old Fairways Motel -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh -huh. MR. STEPHENS: -- up in the north end of the county sold for, you know, 45,000 a unit. So I don't believe, by any stretch of the imagination, that we have the property overvalued in using -- in looking at, in takings into consideration all of the data that is in this county regarding hotels and motels. We feel our value is very good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? MR. YORK: Is this the one located at Tollgate Plaza there? MR. STEPHENS: It's -- it's not in the Tollgate. MR. YORK. Across the street. October 8, 2001 16J l MR. STEPHENS: It's behind the McDonald's and the Burger King. MR. YORK: Got it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bruce, I have a question. MR. STEPHENS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your assessment per unit, is that including the land, or is that -- MR. STEPHENS: Yes. That is the total assessment divided by the number of rooms they have, and that's the way the -- when I look at sales, I'll take the sale price less the person -- or divided by the number of rooms and then minus out the -- any personal property that might be involved in that because all I'm valuing is the real estate, not the beds and dressers and -- and things of that nature that's in -- in the hotel. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Commissioner Fiala, you had a question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you have anything to say in response to that? MS. SENDEROFF: Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, when he looks at the cost approach here for Subject 1, 2, and 3, what are we talking about in Subject 1, what kind of a commercial property is that? MR. STEPHENS: It's all commercial zoning. MS. SENDEROFF: But what kind? Are we comparing hotels to hotels here or hotels to Burger Kings or other types of properties? MR. STEPHENS: Well, it wouldn't compare all with one. But in terms of location, it very -- very much compares with Sale No. 2. Sale No. 2 had the potential of being any type of commercial facility. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're -- MR. STEPHENS: They chose to put -- 0 October 8, 2001 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Rental units on it. 16J 1 MR. STEPHENS: Rental units. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're basing it on the land use. MS. SENDEROFF: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That was your basis for it. MR. STEPHENS: Well, the basis takes into consideration everything out there. It takes the cost, the market, and the income into consideration. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. STEPHENS: Generally speaking, what they -- what they pay. Well, in fact, the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: The land use on that property, the comparable, I know the land uses out there, and they are equal. MR. STEPHENS: Right. Well, even the subject itself, we got $4.50 a square foot on the subject. They paid $5.36 a square foot for the land. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think the figures overwhelmingly tell us we must deny, so I make a motion to deny. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second. Any more discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any oppose? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5 -0. Now we're to the Hilton. MR. SKINNER: Mr. Chairman, which -- which Hilton are we looking at? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not sure. Is there more than one Hilton hotel that we're talking about? Page 46 October 8, 2001 MS. SENDEROFF: No. The Naples Hilton and Towers. 6J1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You've got three petitions. MS. SENDEROFF: I understand. As it -- actually, these petitions were filed by me, and the numbers were submitted by headquarters in Memphis. I would say that -- I'm not contesting the personal property petition. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one is that? MS. SENDEROFF: Personal property is 14450000251, Petition No. 77. MR. SKINNER: That's not -- that's not personal property -- MR. STEPHENS: They -- they filed six personal property petitions, all of which they withdrew because there was no foundation for the numbers that they submitted. They filed three different real estate petitions on the Hilton, only one of which is in existence. MR. FAERBER: Which is that? MR. STEPHENS: Petition No. 159 is the correct ID number. This is the second year in a row that they have filed on all of these numbers. MR. YORK: So 157 and 160 are nonexistent? MR. STEPHENS: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we still need a vote on that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make a motion to deny 157 and 160 because they aren't even existing. MS. CHADWELL: You may want to offer the petitioner an opportunity to withdraw those petitions if, in fact, she's in agreement? MS. SENDEROFF: Yes. I think I already did that Friday. I sent in to withdraw some petitions that were not in existence. MR. STEPHENS: No. She did not withdraw those. MS. CHADWELL: Would you like to withdraw Tax Petition 157 and Tax Petition 160 which have folio numbers that, according to Page 47 Bruce, do not pertain to the -- MS. SENDEROFF: Yes, please. MS. CHADWELL: MS. SENDEROFF: -- subject property. Thank you. October 8, 2001 16J1 MR. SKINNER: Those two were -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Withdrawn. MR. SKINNER: -- withdrawn. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Continue on, please. MR. FAERBER: Could we have the supporting and the -- and the contrary information up here while you're -- is that your only copy? MS. SENDEROFF: I have one for myself. I didn't know I'd have to bring more copies. I apologize. MR. FAERBER: Then maybe we can look at the assessor's information at the same time. So maybe while she's speaking we could be looking. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: ma'am. You go ahead and continue on, MS. SENDEROFF: Thank you. This is the Hilton, the Naples Hilton Towers, and this was given to me by their management firm. Based on year to end, the year 2000, operations, we have revenues, room revenues, of 2,072,191; restaurant revenues of 2,732,701; beverage revenue of 64,639; telephone revenue, 65,105. We have other incomes adding 20,884. Total revenues are 4,955,520. We have department expenses: room department, $839,086; restaurant expenses, 2,520,925; telephones, 35,405. Total department expense, $3,428,032; gross operating profits, 1,527,488. We also have other operating expenses: general administrative, 452,179; advertising and business promotion, 514,615; energy, 350,725; maintenance and repairs, 189,893; property gross -- gross receipts taxes, 151,670; general insurance, 22,290; administrative October 8, 2001 services, 131,105; management fees, 222,471; land rentals and 6J.1 others, $459,002. We have an operating expense of 2,493,949; income before interest -- interest and depreciation, 966,461; interest, 1,305,184; depreciation and amortization, 896,620; net income /loss, 3,168,265. I've also submitted our analysis of revenues for the year 2001, 6,423,653; cost of sale and department, 3,302,386; operating expense, 1,918,595; capital expense -- expenses, 41,600; central and noncontrolable administrative -- administration and management, 452,400. Total expenses, 5,714,981; net operating income before property taxes, 778,672. We're capitalizing at 12.3, including taxes, deducting the personal property at 15 percent for the cost of sale. Net to real property, ten thousand two eighty -seven eight. MR. FAERBER: You know, with all due respect, the replacement approach, the market approach all support that this 2001 assessed valuation is significantly lower than it could be or should be. And then I'm looking at the fact that your client has a mortgage on this property of 16,500,000, and it's assessed at 17,500,000. We know that the mortgage -to -value ratio is -- it's -- it's suggested here that it's probably 75 percent, but it could even be higher. I can't see how Hilton Towers can, with a straight face, attack this 2001 assessed value of 17,500,000 so for those reasons, I would make a motion to deny the petition. MR. YORK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second to deny the petition. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) Page 49 October 8, 2001 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? 16J No response.) � p ) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5 -0. MS. SENDEROFF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that brings us up to our lunch break. Is there any petitions, afternoon petitions? Anybody here? MR. SKINNER: It is the indication that all of those from one -- one have withdrawn, personal property? MR. GORHAM: Uh -huh. MR. YORK: All the one o'clocks have withdrawn? MR. GORHAM: No, they have not withdrawn. MR. SKINNER: What'd they say? MR. GORHAM: I spoke with Mr. Jack West of property tax control on Friday. He indicated that he would not be able to be here, but he would not withdraw the petitions. MS. CHADWELL: Was something prepared and submitted in writing? MR. GORHAM: No. I talked to him about four o'clock on Friday afternoon. He said, "I won't be there. I've got seven counties I have to be in." MS. CHADWELL: I understood from Maureen that that was submitted to the board that they might have that document in their package. MR. GORHAM: This is just a -- a notice that was faxed to the clerk by Jack West. He says, Due to scheduling conflict, this is to advise that I will be unable to attend the Value Adjustment Board hearing on Monday, October 8th at 1 p.m. I respectfully request that the board consider the evidence that has been submitted. Thank you. Jack E. West, Property Tax Control, Inc. MR. SKINNER: Mr. Chairman, I was talking to Maureen Page 50 October 8, 2001 16J on who schedules all of Kenyon these. We also have an indication orally that the people who are scheduled for two o'clock will not be here also. They have not withdrawn, but they won't be here. But that was just over the telephone, and to protect Maureen and have this thing like it should be, she suggested maybe we could take these personal properties that said they wouldn't be here and also the ones at two o'clock and reconvene at two o'clock and hear all of them and -- and so we keep on a schedule and nobody has any problems with that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Miss Chadwell? MS. CHADWELL: I don't -- I think that's fine, or you can, likewise -- you can, likewise, take action on the one o'clock petitions now. And then you could go forward with some of your other items on the agenda and then reconvene at two o'clock to address those tax petitions at two. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. SKINNER: Okay. The attorney knows better than all of us. But even though they're scheduled for one o'clock, you're saying to go ahead and act on those? MS. CHADWELL: If he's got something that's in writing and it's a matter of the record that he's not going to be -- MR. SKINNER: It was a fax. MS. CHADWELL: -- appearing -- he wants -- and he wants them to consider whatever he's presented, I assume that's something that he's presented it along with his -- has he submitted a package or just the petition? MR. FAERBER: I'd feel more comfortable if we -- MS. CHADWELL: Wait. MR. FAERBER: -- disposed of his one o'clocks at two o'clock just in case. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do, too, okay. Page 51 October 8, 2001 6J1 MR. FAERBER: No. 4, Item 4, is those -- there's no time period to those, so can we dispose of them now? Item 4 are all of the petitions -- MR. SKINNER: Yeah. MR. FAERBER: I didn't understand that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I suggest that possibly we might want to post a sign on the door saying we will reconvene at two just in case that person shows up at one? MR. SKINNER: Yeah. That's up to the clerk of the court if they want to. I don't mean to be -- this is what's so frustrating. It's -- this is tying your time up, our time. And the people, if they're not going to be here, they could withdraw these things. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The presumption is that they're not going to be here. But, I mean, just in case they do show, I'd hate to have them see an empty room and I'll -- MR. SKINNER: We'll put something up that we'll reconvene at -- what do you want? Whatever you want to put on it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two o'clock. MR. YORK: So we're going to cover them all at two. MR. STEPHENS: The note says you -all come back now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. That's my understanding, is that we're going to reconvene at two o'clock -- MR. YORK: Two o'clock. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and handle the rest of the petitions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So I -- we are -- MS. CHADWELL: Can I -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Adjourned until two o'clock. MS. CHADWELL: Is everybody returning at two? MR. YORK: Yes. MS. CHADWELL: Okay. Good. Page 52 October 8, 2001 16JI (Recess taken at 11:30 a.m. and proceedings commenced at 2:00 P.M.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I call the meeting of the Value Adjustment Board to order, and we -- let's see, we're at the one o'clock schedule, so entertain a motion for PP -46 through PP -73. MR. FAERBER: Any petitioners here? I move that we deny the petitions. MR. YORK: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: A motion on the floor to deny PP -46 through 73. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. MR. SKINNER: I don't know whether it makes a difference or not, but those are not consecutive. There were some, you know, that was heard before so ... MS. CHADWELL: We need to specify the numbers on these. MR. FAERBER: Well, it looks like there's no 53, no 55. MS. FIALA: But there is a 46. MR. FAERBER: No 67, and the rest of them were consecutive, 46 the page before through 73. Is that all right? MS. CHADWELL: Did you call out 56 and 55? MR. FAERBER: They're not there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: He did. MS. CHADWELL: Sixty- seven? MR. FAERBER: Yup. MS. CHADWELL: Very good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. We've got TP -19. Is it Deloitte & Touche? MR. YORK: Deloitte & Touche. Page 53 October 8, 2001 MR. FAERBER: Move to deny. MR. YORK: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then TP -19 through 23. MR. FAERBER: Without 21. 16J1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Without 21. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Explain these other ones down there, following were not approved or on a timely -filed basis. MR. SKINNER: For various reasons these were either not timely filed or possibly no check with them or not signed, and the Clerk of the Court said they were just not valid petitions. In the past, you've -- you've made a motion not to hear them because they were not for one reason or another valid. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Have they all been notified? MR. SKINNER: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And is anybody in the audience from No. 4? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not that I can see. MR. FAERBER: I move to deny 4 -A through O. MR. YORK: With the exception of D, not there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We do have a second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) Page 54 October 8, 2001 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? 16J1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. Now we've got a motion to approve the certificate for tangible personal property. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. Motion to approve the certificate -- certificate for real property. MR. YORK: So moved. MR. FAERBER: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries unanimously. And, ladies and gentlemen, what we need to do is to sign these before we leave, and we'll work that down, and I will say the adjournment is sine die. die. MR. SKINNER: That's very important. I don't know why, sine CHAIRMAN HENNING: I understand that's convening until next year. MR. SKINNER: While you're signing that, I want to thank the board very much. I know this is maybe an inconvenience to some of you and very hard sometimes to make a decision on some of the Page 55 October 8, 2001 information given to you. I really a pp reciate you. 16J 1 CHAIRMAN HENNING: I find it a very interesting process and -- and enjoy the learning experience. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. SKINNER: Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:06 p.m. VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD THOMAS HENNING, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR AND CAROLYN J. FORD Page 56 October 4, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE 6 J 1 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 4, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:35 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION at the Supervisor of Elections Building of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Joyceanna Rautio MEMBERS ABSENT: Kenneth Abernathy Lora Jean Young Dwight Richardson David Wolfley Paul Midney Mark Strain Russell Budd Lindy Adelstein ALSO PRESENT: Susan Murray, Planning Services Manager Marjorie Student, Assistant County Atto Misc. Corres: i Date: .Z Item# Page 1 Copies To: October 4, 2001 16 J 1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to call to order this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission for Thursday, October 4th. Please stand and recite the pledge of allegiance. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The first item on the agenda today is roll call, but I would like to make a couple of comments before we start. This is not our usual meeting room, and our mikes are only going into the camera for recording. I believe the mike up here at the front actually does work, so please, everyone, speak up so that everyone in the room can hear you. And, remember, talk slowly so the court reporter can record everything. And please show courtesy to each person, whether it's staff or commissioners or the public. Do not talk over the other person. It's next to impossible for the court reporter to record two conversations at the same time. Thank you. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Abstain. Oh, here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I hope you're here today. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was just trying to get your attention. I'll abstain from being here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Abstain from being here. Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Adelstein. Absent, but excused. Mr. Midney, a new member, is lost in action. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Miss Rautio. Present. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. Page 2 October 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. 16JI COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Present. i CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We do have a quorum. The next item on the agenda is addenda to the agenda. MS. MURRAY: None, Madam Chair, but I would request that anybody wishing to speak on any items of the agenda please fill out a speaker slip. They're located on this table to the left, and hand them to me me, please. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Item No. 4, approval of minutes. We did have September 7th before, so we were given September 19th last night from our Land Development Code meeting previously. I need a motion for approval or any revisions. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I will move for approval of the September 7th minutes. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Richardson and a second by Mrs. Young for approval of the minutes for September 7th. All those in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All those opposed same sign. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll be abstaining from that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries with one abstention from Mr. Strain. Do we wish to consider the September 19th minutes? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So moved. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Richardson -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- and a second by Mr. Budd for approval of the minutes to the September 19th meeting. All those in Page 3 favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: well. October 4, 2001 16J1'4 Those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll be abstaining from that one as CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have one abstention also. Okay. Item No. 5, do we have any Planning Commission absences that you - all are aware of? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing none we'll move on to the next item. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chairman, does that mean coming up? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Since I haven't been here and it's my second meeting, I didn't know that. The next meeting I may not be able to attend due to some medical issues that have to be resolved. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The next meeting being the 18th, I believe, of October? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Hopefully, if you could attend, that will be an informational workshop. We've been attempting to have a review and training session for all new commissioners for quite some time, and I believe that is still scheduled for the 18th if it's possible to attend. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It might be real difficult, but I'll see what I can do. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The Board of County Commissioners' Page 4 October 4, 2001 report, the recap, do you have any highlights that you would like to point out, Miss Murray? MS. MURRAY: None, unless you have questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do the commissioners have a 6 J 1, comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Item No. 7 is the chairman's report. I would just like to make a couple of comments. Again, please do show courtesy to everyone that's in the room when they are speaking and, of course, to the commissioners. I would like to thank the staff for officially placing the pledge of allegiance on our agenda from here on out. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, before we go ahead, I forgot -- Susan, what did the county commission do with that Vanderbilt Villas that we recommended disapproval? MS. MURRAY: At the last minute, they voted to continue it to -- and I don't have the exact date. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't care about the date, but it hasn't been resolved then. MS. MURRAY: Correct, it has not been resolved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. Excuse me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are at Item No. 89 advertised public hearings. The first public hearing is BD -2001 -AR- 1198. All those wishing to giving testimony on this item please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the clerk of courts (sic). (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur of planning services. I passed out an addenda package to this petition. Hopefully, you -all have it. It includes the Resolution Exhibits A and B, the site map that I would Page 5 October 4, 2001 16J1 be putting on the visualizer if I had a visualizer, identification of the partners, and the three letters of objection we received. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I would like to note as a disclosure that I received an e-mail from Mr. Dick Lydon, president of the Vanderbilt Property Owners Association, I believe, with reference to an agreement. It's not attached to my information, but as best I recall they have resolved the issues as long as it's signed, witnessed, and included in the proceedings today that the association will accept that declaration of restrictions. So as a matter of disclosure, I did as chairman receive an e-mail to that effect. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I received the same e -mail as vice - chairman, I guess. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. GOCHENAUR: The petitioner is requesting a 225 -foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 245 feet into a waterway which is about 940 feet wide. The property is located at 430 Launch Circle on Vanderbilt Beach and contains about 1100 feet of the water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a communal dock facility comprising 56 slips supporting the Regatta condominium. The facility would include a mitigation marsh as a condition of DEP approval of the project. Some of the slips would extend north of this into the lagoon. In order to minimize the protrusion, a dredging plan has been approved by state and federal regulatory agencies. The proposed facility and particularly the mitigation marsh would have some effect on navigation in the waterway; however, it would not necessarily impede or prove a hazard to navigation. The facility would also have an impact on the view from the condos to the west. This impact would be significant but not necessarily negative. The facility would be similar to existing multi -slip docks on the west side of the lagoon. Page 6 October 4, 2001 6 The petitioner held a public meeting on J I p g July 6th to solicit community input into the project. According to the petitioner, no objections were voiced at this meeting. Three written objections and one verbal objection have been received. The meralia PUD ordinance allows a maxium number of 74 slips, and the petitioner is requesting only 56. Since the requested slips, which are allowed as a permitted accessory use, require an extension for their construction, the petitioner's responsibility is to propose a reasonable plan to accomplish this goal while minimizing the impact of the facility on the surrounding community. Staff believes that the proposal submitted is reasonable meeting the criteria to the greatest extent possible under the circumstances, and we, therefore, recommend approval of this petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions from commissioners? Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If I may, Ross, I'm just kind of overwhelmed by the immensity of this compared to what we usually see in boat docks. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I realize the PUD underlying it contrasts some of the numbers, but just to help clarify it, typically we allow boat -dock extensions beyond 20 feet in order to get a boat into the water that's deep enough to support it. MR. GOCHENAUR: That's the most common reason for requesting a boat -dock extension. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If that reason were applied to this project, it would change the configuration of this considerably I would suspect. In other words, you would have one 20 -foot boat dock. But 20 foot out from where the shoreline is, how deep is the Page 7 r October 4, 2001 16JV41 water? MR. GOCHENAUR: Well, it depends on where you are on the property. If you look at the drawings that the petitioner submitted that included water depths, they vary. In some cases they're able to put the slips that they need within the 20 -feet limit, but in order to get the maximum number of 56, they have to extend out beyond the mitigation marsh for that one multi -slip dock. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let the record reflect Mr. Midney has arrived. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You have kind of a cart and horse here. I don't know that I'm seeing the full picture. If we have to, I guess, assume that there's going to be a dredging and a lot of fill and a whole situation then before you ever even get to put in the docks. I'm just thinking normally people would come in, and they'd have a shoreline, and they'd be looking to get the dock out to a certain depth, and I'm wondering why this applicant wasn't constrained the same way everybody else was constrained. MR. GOCHENAUR: The constraints were basically the same. The underlying fact is that the planned unit development document allows them a certain number of boat slips. What their job was was to figure out how they could get 56 slips on this property that were all viable. And in order to do that, at one point they had to construct a mitigation marsh to comply with the DEP requirements, which means filling. Again, I'm going to let the petitioner explain this in detail, but they had to create that area in order to get the DEP permits. They're also doing dredging in order to minimize the extension that they need. Even with that dredging, they're still going to need a certain extension to allow the docks. The 245 feet is measured from the absolute most restrictive point, and once they construct the mitigation marsh, that will be well landward. It's easier understood by looking at the drawings than me trying to give a narrative October 4, 2001 description. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So in summa ry, t 6 J 1 problem started because of the PUD, and we really are -- our hands are tied at this point? MR. GOCHENAUR: It's not a problem. It's a challenge. The Board of County Commissioners allowed that number of boat slips. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then we've been dealt a deck that we can only deal one way. MR. GOCHENAUR: Well, again, as I hope I made clear, the petitioner's responsibility is to give us a reasonable proposal for constructing a facility with 56 slips. And I think under the circumstances they've been able to do that in compliance with the code as closely as possible. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I just think it's much, much too intense. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ross -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me, Mr. Strain. Marjorie Student. MS. STUDENT: I just want to put something on the record about that PUD. That reflects a settlement of a lawsuit. I worked on it, and another attorney in our office worked on the lawsuit. Then many years ago when Ken Cuyler was still the county attorney, he and I together worked on a settlement, and the PUD was done to effectuate the settlement that was blessed by the Court. I just wanted to put that on the record. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: My concern is going over the 25 percent. It's just 10 foot, but why couldn't they just go 235 feet instead of 245? MR. GOCHENAUR: According to the petitioner's application, that's what they needed at that most extreme point in order to get the Page 9 October 4, 2001 .6J1 4-1 slips in. We met with the petitioner at least three times to discuss the configuration of the docks. They modified it twice in response to some of our comments as far as to how it will impede the use of the docks to the west. The configuration they came up with was as close as they could get under the circumstances. Although it doesn't meet the 25 percent, it comes close to it. We also have a very broad waterway. So I don't think the end result is going to be an impact on navigation or safety. That was our conclusion. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, rules are the rules. That's why we have the codes to keep people in that area. I mean, ten feet -- I don't see why we are breaking -- I agree with Mr. Richardson here. I've got a problem with that situation. MR. GOCHENAUR: Okay. Possibly the petitioner can give you a more detailed explanation on why that extra ten feet was considered necessary. My understanding is it was a result of the water depth. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Then we're going to have boats beyond that, so then we're going to have to make it even wider. MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. That 245 feet is as far out as anything can legally go. Nothing can be more, so that's most extreme point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ross, the settlement agreement that Marjorie referred to as well as the PUD have identical language in them in reference to the docks. This says, specifically, that the docks are approved for Parcels 1 through 4. Parcel 1 has a -- Parcel 4 has a canal on it. Parcel 3 is mostly submerged bottom lands of which these docks extend past. My question is, if they have by the PUD approval to put docks in those parcels or within those parcels because some of those are Page 10 October 4, 2001 6J1 bottom lands or submerged lands, going beyond the parcel limitation is a change to the configuration of the PUD. Wouldn't that trigger a substantial change to the PUD and thus an amendment to the PUD instead of a dock - extension request? MR. GOCHENAUR: I can't answer that question off the top. My understanding is that the PUD is considered a single site for the purposes of development and that there are points at which the dock can be constructed naturally along the waterline. Whether the parcels that were described when the ordinance was approved have the same legal description as the parcels currently registered with the property appraiser's office, I can't answer that question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I reviewed the legal descriptions, and they appear to be the same. Parcel 3 goes 166 feet into the water, which means they have 166 feet of depth past the seawall of submerged lands right now. So they're asking for the extension of 240 feet which then would put the PUD's accessories outside the PUD boundaries. I know there's an issue concerning amendments, insubstantial and substantial deviations to a PUD and what triggers that, and maybe Marjorie could answer that. MS. STUDENT: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Marjorie, for the benefit of the audience, could you identify your position? MS. STUDENT: Yes. Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. Without studying the PUD and without looking at the code, there are ten criteria for insubstantial changes and substantial changes to a master plan. Any change to the PUD document itself, to the text, requires an amendment to the PUD. A substantial change to the master plan requires the regular PUD amendment, as I recall, and the insubstantial change, you know, if it's under these ten criteria, then that would be the insubstantial change that just comes to the Planning Commission. Again, that would be to the master plan only. Page 11 October 4, 2001 16JI If there is anything in the text that needs to be changed, it is a PUD amendment. Staff didn't raise this question with me, so I'm just kind of having to fly by the seat of my pants, if you will, right now. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Before you leave -- MS. STUDENT: I may need to have a cite. I'll just continue it for -- not for an entire meeting or anything, but maybe for a couple of items and have a chance to go over the PUD document with staff and the petitioner. We can do that. I don't want to try and hold everybody up and sit here and figure it out while you're waiting. You could maybe take some other items. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you have another question for Miss Student? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In contrast to your comment about the material changes to the PUD or master plan, Item No. 1 under the substantial and insubstantial definitions says (as read): "For the purpose of this section, a substantial change shall be deemed to exist where there is a proposed change to the boundary of the PUD." Now, I realize that if they're adding docks that they're going to use exclusively for the PUD, they can't lease them out to anybody else because they're restricted in the PUD. So if it seems that they're only accessible through lands of the PUD and they're there to service only the PUD, you're in essence extending the boundary. So that would be what I would like to ask you to look into. MS. STUDENT: We also have some provisions in the code -- I believe it's in Division 1.6 that deals with boundaries when they abut up against water bodies and how the boundaries are construed. If it runs along a water body, it can go to the center line, or if it goes into the water body, you know, you extend the lines a certain way. Those are all things -- I would just have to have a little sidebar here with staff while you took some other items to see if it did have that effect. Page 12 October 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. 16J1 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, in view of the fact that we have incomplete staff information, I would suggest that we table this until a time certain, and we can come back to it rather than confuse the issue with more testimony not having the complete set of facts. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Theioption would be to table it or to move on to another item or two. Excuse me, Marjorie. If we table to another time, another meeting, or we postpone for a couple of items, they could have the discussion and present the information then. What is the feeling of the board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: I would like to make a motion to table it until the last item on today's agenda. If by that time the assistant county attorney is not able to provide a decisive and clear opinion on this, then we would set a date certain in the future to hear it again. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd and a second by Mr. Richardson to table this item until the last item on our agenda to obtain additional information. Is there any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Moving right along to the next public hearing -- the next public hearing on the agenda is BD- 2001 -AR -1122. This is a boat -dock extension in the Little Hickory Shores area. All those wishing to give testimony today on Page 13 October 4, 2001 this. item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the clerk of courts (sic). (The oath was administered.) 16JI CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Gochenaur. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 20 -foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 40 feet into a waterway which is about 330 feet wide. The property is located at 267 Third Street West in Little Hickory Shores and contains about 30 feet of water frontage. The project consists of construction of a finger dock -- excuse me -- finger pier with one boat lift on either side. The subject lot is a so- called boat dock lot in Block G, Little Hickory Shores. These plotted lots are residentially zoned to support a single- family home. A conditional use for all lots in Block G has been approved allowing docks as principal structures. A variance has also been approved for this and other lots in Block G reducing the side setbacks to zero feet. No objections to this project have been received, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no questions of staff, would the petitioner wish to present? MR. NELSON: For the record, Ben Nelson representing the applicant. I would be glad to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions of the applicant? Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Having -- oh, okay. There is a question. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It seems like we've had these come up before. There's a lot of these sites along here; right? Page 14 October 4, 2001 i 16J 1 MR. NELSON: Yes, there is. This s fairly typical of the design element. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: A bit unusual in that there's no houses associated with any of the lots. MR. NELSON: Right. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The pattern in the past for these, Ross, has been -- there hasn't been one. MR. GOCHENAUR: I can recall one earlier time there was some ob.ections to one of these sites further up, but I guess that all got resolved at the BCC meeting. MR. GOCHENAUR: I'm afraid I don't understand. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, the pattern -- just to clarify, this fits the pattern of the use of these lots that don't have any houses on them. So it's kind of a specialized situation. We don't really have this situation anywhere else, do we? MR. GOCHENAUR: There are other lots -- other waterfront lots that are too small to accommodate single- family homes, but these lots in Little Hickory Shores, Blocks G and H, are the only ones that have the conditional -use approval for boat docks. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. MR. GOCHENAUR: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: With no public speakers, I'll close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approve Petition BD -2001- AR -1122. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd and a second by Mr. Abernathy to approve this petition. Do we have any Page 15 October 4, 2001 J1*44 discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no discussion I'll call the question. All those in favor state aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you very much. MR. NELSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The next item on the agenda for public hearing is RZ- 2001 -AR -1208, Mr. Hoover, with a rezone. All those wishing to present testimony today please stand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a rezone in Naples Park from C -3 commercial to RMF -6 residential. The lot is located on 109th Avenue North, and it's described as Lot 9, Block 2, Naples Park, Unit 1. This is the last commercial lot on that street, and a commercial lot adjacent to residential requires a 15 -foot setback on one side and 25 on the other side, and the lot set for zoning is only 50 -foot wide. So, basically, it's not a buildable lot. The petitioner is requesting to rezone this to residential so he can build a single- family house. This request complies with the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. Staff recommends approval. Staff hasn't received any opposition to this request. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No opposition? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions? Mr. Budd. Page 16 October 4, 2001 16J1 COMMISSIONER BUDD: Chahram, if this is rezoned as residential, that would make the adjacent lot the last commercial lot. What does it do to that property? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The adjacent C -3 lot has a single - family house on it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It looks like there's one to the east and one to the south that are C -3 commercial, and each is single family; is that right? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Back in your compatibility analysis you talk about the subject property abuts other RMF -6 residential -zoned properties developed with single - family residences. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's not really correct, then, is it? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I should have said there's also C -3s with residential development. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That doesn't really affect the compatibility, though. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, it will not. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why are those other places -- did they get caught in some time warp? Why are there single - family residences on commercial -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I do not know. Those are all single - family homes. I don't know when they were built. I did not research that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. That's all I had. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: If the other residences are on commercial, then what's the functional advantage of rezoning this to Page 17 October 4, 2001 la 6 J 1 residential? Why don't they just put the single- family home on the existing zoning -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Our code does not allow residential on commercial lots. COMMISSIONER BUDD: It's that time -warp thing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I did not have a chance to research this. What is a setback for a single- family home? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Seven and a half on either side. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions of staff? Okay. Mr. Hoover, I believe, is here. Would the petitioner wish to present? MR. HOOVER: Good morning, Commissioners. William Hoover representing the petitioners. We've taken this down to the homeowners' association up there quite some time ago, probably four or five months ago in the spring, and we got a vote of -- I would estimate about around 21 -1 in favor of this petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have one. Bill, there's some allusion in here to some previous use of this property. Was this previously a parking lot for commercial next door or something like that? MR. HOOVER: No. We were bringing through -- the Planning Commission approved unanimously a commercial building with the variance on Lot 9 and then to the west for an off -site parking petition. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's not this lot. MR. HOOVER: That's these two properties. But the board recommended denial, so we got a continuance. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I see. Now it's coming Page 18 back. October 4, 2001 16J1,14N MR. HOOVER: Basically, they said, "G: back and talk to the homeowners' association." We did that. And ;o the plan was that my client, who's a builder -- he was, actually, going to put up his own office on Lot 9. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Right, right. MR. HOOVER: But he gave up after the lengthy stuff, and he just went out and bought another building. He said, "I'll just go ahead and build two single - family homes on here if that works for the homeowners' association and if they like the idea. So we resubmitted it as essentially a down -zone. So I think it's almost what they call a no- brainer at this point. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Hoover -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. We have a question. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm familiar with the previous actions and some of the confusion that came out in terms of what the community wanted and what they didn't want. I appreciate the fact that you came back with this, and I strongly support it. MR. HOOVER: Okay. Thank you. It's been -- it's probably why most of you -- I know half of you aren't familiar with it. It's been a couple years or something now or a year and a half from the time we submitted it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Having no registered public speakers, I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I move that we pass RZ- 2001 -AR -1208. Page 19 October 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY. Second. 16J1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mrs. Young and a second by Mr. Wolfley that we approve this particular petition. Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no discussion I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is CU- 2001 -AR -1103, a telecommunications tower. All those wishing to present testimony today please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning again. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is one of the four towers that were approved by a Land Development Code amendment in 1999. The first one for one of the four was approved by this board a few months ago. This is Tower No. 2, and the next item is going to be Tower No. 3. Basically, the Florida Department of Transportation -- they are trying to get towers along I -75 so they can have their communications and the sheriff s department can have their communication equipment installed and also the Florida Highway Patrol. These towers are also going to allow some private cellular phone carriers to have the antenna on those towers. Staff reviewed this, and they are in full compliance with the requirements of the Land Development Code and the Growth Page 20 16J1 .: October 4, 2001 Management Plan. Staff recommends the approval of this today or a recommendation for approval, and staff has not received any letters or any phone calls in opposition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just one. I notice this one requires or is going to coincide with the removal of one that's close by. Will that land that this other one is on revert back to the way it was before the first tower was built? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. First they have to build the tower with the equipment, and then they dismantle the other tower. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Upon dismantle, though, they're going to restore the property to natural vegetation? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They had a conditional use for the other tower? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They had a conditional use approved maybe three or four months ago for Tower No. 1, and right about - -. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm talking about the tower they're replacing. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's an older tower. I don't believe they have the conditional use. That's an older tower that needs to be removed. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Even if they did, would they not need another conditional use if you remove one and replace it? That's my question. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is a conditional use to allow a new tower to be built so they can remove the old tower. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. I think I got that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: A 280 -foot tower, is that what Page 21 October 4, 2001 It is? 16J1 'elm I MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How far is it from the highway? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is real close to the highway. That was one of the problems we were having when we amended the Land Development Code. However FDOT rezoned the highway property, and our county attorney's office opined that it would be okay if it was approved by a Land Development Code amendment which -- we went to an amendment. The Land Development Code was amended in 1999 to exactly say where these towers can be built, and they are built at the exact location. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right. Here is my problem with this: Generally, when you have a 280 -foot stick, you try to allow for a 280 -foot fall line. Let's say we have a little disturbance in the Yucatan and it starts coming this way towards Southwest Florida, and it develops into quite a large hurricane. For some reason or another all the towers are all across I -75. That's a problem for evacuation. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I brought this up with FDOT. Their answer to me was, "This tower is going to be built to a higher standard, and they are not supposed to fall down." Anyway, that's their road. They are responsible for it. They don't want to block it. However, if that happened it's not going to happen before the hurricane. It's not going to affect the evacuation. If it happens during the hurricane, at that time cars should not be on that road. After the hurricane, if that happens they can send a truck and move it to the side. These towers also have what they call a weak point. They fold on themselves. They don't fall down. That was the answer that FDOT gave me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any further Page 22 October 4, 2001 6J1 questions of commissioners for staff? Before we go any further, I would like to point out to our commissioners -- and specifically the new ones -- this is a conditional -use change, and buried within your packet was the conditional findings of fact that we must have. So please remove it from your packet and have it available. We'll need to listen to all the testimony and then -- let's see -- a finding of fact, the four criteria that I listed here, and as a reminder to staff, it would be good if these were attached to the outside of the packets and that they do change the word "chairman" to "member" because each person does have to sign this. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's on the backside. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, okay. The backside for members. It's multi - purpose now. Okay. As long as you have these ready, because once this is over, we must pass them down and provide them to the secretary for the permanent record. Since we have no questions of staff, I would like to hear from the petitioner. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: Madam Chairman, members of the planning board, my name is Joel Gustafson. I'm an attorney, and I represent the applicant. This particular application and the following application is your opportunity to vote again on this item and the following item. As you may recall back in, I believe, in May when it was here in the year 2000. After going through all of the other stuff, because of the fact it was a new ordinance and going through the other several advisory committees or Environmental Advisory Committee, we landed at your doorstep as part of that process. During that process we went through, of course, the environmental issues, and that ordinance, as you may recall, is site specific. So this particular tower location and the one that's subsequent, the next item on your agenda, Item E, were specifically noted and approved as such. Then in the fall of 2000 you were going through the process of Page 23 October 4, 2001 16J1 .1 your twice -a -year modification. You came up with a new ordinance and made these conditional uses. So we're back as a result of a subsequent ordinance being passed after you already -- this board approved it and the commission approved it. But the question you asked as far as those issues as far as its proximity to the highway, this particular tower, for example, is on the rest area on the south side of I -75. It's as far as you can get, practically, from the structures and buildings in that particular location. It also -- it's replacing a guide tower, which was on the north side. This tower, actually, is a safer tower, and it's further from the actual highway surface than the existing guide tower. The staff s comment as far as the safety and the wind tolerance representations -- we had a number of conversations with staff on this, and it's correct. We beat the hurricane tolerances. But if by chance there is a hurricane beyond, I guess, the perfect storm or something like that, what would transpire from that -- they're designed so that they collapse on themselves. They don't fall over as such. It's the way they're designed. They meet those structural guides. In fact, the last time we had our structural person with us going through all of that. We brought him from St. Louis to go through all of that. Your ordinance requires that it be in the DOT right -of -way. This particular -- in fact, if you remember, we're in a conservation area. You appropriately zealously protected or were concerned about us intruding on any more wetlands than there is. So to make this happen it's required to be in the right -of -way. And, of course, fortunately, in this particular case we have a service plaza at this particular location, and yet we're replacing them on the other side of the street. So the question, I think, to ask is what are the consequences as to the old tower. Is that going to be rehabbed back into wetlands? I Page 24 October 4, 2001 16J1 honestly can't tell you what the FDOT plans to do there. Lodestar, in conjunction with DOT, is building this tower, but I would assume that you would -- I believe DOT would be a good steward on that and they would do what would be appropriate for that particular area. We've gone through the process, as you know, of -- the issue here is -- or the particular program that the DOT is putting together for their intelligent highway service system. At the current time, as you're aware, you can't -- if you go to one of those call boxes on I -75, they aren't really telephones. Those trigger, I guess, a battery type of effect that you can let somebody know where you are. It sets off that type of a signal, but there is no phone line that runs east and west across I -75. As a result of these towers, there will be a microwave system installed by DOT which will allow them actually to have a dial service for those emergency boxes, plus all the other aspects of that program such as emergency vehicles coming, reader boards, to let you know where the dangerous areas are or what conditions are as they go along and, of course, the speed passes that you can use for tolls. It will all be incorporated in this and the rest of the interstate system that has tolls. So that's basically the program. Of course, the advantage there is if you have a cell phone and you happen to have a real problem -- at least a lot of people have problems on the Alley or a good portion of them with getting any kind of good phone service regularly on it. That's why we have a number of ready, willing, and anxious co -users who want to put a dish on that. Again, the reason for the height is it's a matter of distance. We could have a shorter tower, but you would have more of them. So we feel this is the best way to keep them out of harm's way and take good care of them. Again, you'll see the next one probably 18 miles from this one. I think that's the distance separation. I'll be happy to Page 25 October 4, 2001 .s answer any questions. 16J1 - ka COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just to streamline things a little bit, would you go ahead and just comment about the second application and how different it is from the first one? Is it only different in terms of location? MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: It's only different in terms of location, correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm not sure. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: It's 240. I'm sorry, 240. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. We take one petition at a time. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: We only vote on one at a time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: As you know, it's the easternmost location just over the Collier/Broward line. It's Collier County on the north side, and this is one that really makes that connection. Mr. Gustafson will be happy to show you where that system work. Scott, do you want to walk out there? MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: I'll show the board first. My name is Scott Gustafson. I work for SpectraSite, which is also Lodestar. To my right here, this would be Naples. Over here would be Fort Lauderdale. This is the network of towers that -- some exist and some are proposed. This is in Broward, and this is to be approved and built. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: Back up to it. MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: The site that you are approving today are -- is this tower here, which is the 240 -foot tower. And then this one which is a replacement tower from the tower that's on the north side. This is the 280 -foot tower. What this is doing is this is building, basically, a network Page 26 October 4, 2001 16J1 because, again, you mentioned there's no dial tone. But there is going to be a microwave system of dishes on these towers that are going to transmit the dial tone which is going to provide services for the cell phones to work, as well as DOT is going to be using portions of the dial tone. In addition, this site here is going to provide dial tone to a tower on Micosoukee that the DOT has for their services. So as you go across -- this is another one that you approved earlier, too, for conditional use. And there is where there's an existing guide tower that is currently used by DOT and a lot of others. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. As a courtesy to the audience, would you turn that way and tell them which -- point to each picture just so they can see it. MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: Sure. Where I am would be the Broward County side. Over there where you see the 1110, that is the Naples side. The towers that we're looking to approve today is this one here, which is our Lodestar Tower 6, which is just over the Broward line in Collier County, and this tower here, which is a replacement tower, Site No. 1107. This is for the 280 -foot tower. This is for the 250 -foot tower, and there is a service area. There is an existing tower just on the north side of it that this tower is replacing, and this new tower is actually further away from 1 -75 than the existing tower. Part of the purpose for this many is because we're trying to send a microwave signal. For that signal to be usable, you have to have it consistently. Also for the services that the DOT as well as PCS and cellular providers are looking to do with their coverages. Basically, it's about 13 to 15 miles in between each tower. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: In Collier County. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have some questions from the commissioners here for you. Mr. Abernathy. Page 27 October 4, 2001 16JI COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Now, the more western of the two towers you access -- or maintain that you have a deceleration lane in connection with the rest area; right? MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: That's the most western one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's what I said. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: Yes. Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Now, the other, what sort of access do you have to that? MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: We've gone over that with both your staff and with DOT. It will be an improved service. It will be grass. It will be an improved service based on the need. The thing they don't want to do -- and you can appreciate this -- is they don't want to build a pull off, paved, curb -cut driveway for the reason that it's limited -- it's a very limited use. There will be people maybe once a week at that site. If you put that pavement in, that kind of invites travelers to pull up on it. So what they'll do is they'll build an improved subsurface, grass it over, and the user or the service people that come out to maintain that -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The shoulder. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: Correct, the shoulder -- will just use the shoulder. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: My other question is, each of these packets has something about a Sun pass in them, and that's a very nice program, but there aren't any toll booths anywhere near these sites. What does that have to do with, this Sun pass? MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: Well, there is no toll booth. The Sun pass is the overall system statewide. As to how applicable it is, that's another thing. Again, remember, you do have a toll booth at each end. The communications or the transmittals of communication as to -- you know, as you come out of any town west of Fort Lauderdale, you go through a toll booth, and .as you leave here to go Page 28 October 4, 2001 through a toll booth A 1 -- 16J 1 east, you go g s to the applicability COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The communications are readily available there. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: Well, as to whether you have the communication with the other side, I don't know. We have a gentleman from FDOT which, I believe, would -- it may not be as applicable on this particular road. That's part of the entire packet that FDOT is putting together. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: For example, we have it up and down I -95, and there's no tolls at all. So the Sun passes won't be applicable there at all. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: When it was in there, I figured it was in there for some persuasive power. In this case it doesn't persuade me of anything. MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: All right. That's fair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just have one question since we brought up both of these towers. On your evaluation criteria, Item No. 8, on the first tower you're mentioning that you do have a microwave system for dial tone. I think you stated that earlier. On the second one you don't -- you eliminated that language. I'm just wondering, do you have microwave system for dial tone on both towers like was stated or not? MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: Scott, do you want to answer that? MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So it was just missed on the evaluation criteria? MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Step forward and state your name into the mike. Page 29 October 4, 2001 16J 1 MR. SCOTT GUSTAFSON: Scott Gustafson. Yes, there will be microwave dishes on both towers to provide the dial tone signals. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions about either one or both of these petitions? We could consider them together, I guess. MR. GUSTAFSON: Do you want to hear from DOT? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. DOT. MR. RUWINSKY: My name is Rick Ruwinsky (phonetic). Actually, I represent the state technology office. THE COURT REPORTER: If you could speak up, please. MR. RUWINSKY: Rick Ruwinsky with the state technology office. Our interest in these towers is for the statewide law enforcement communications network. We have -- we're developing in Collier County Crystal River, Phase III, of the communication network. We have Phase I and II operational from Key West to Flagler County on the east coast. This particular site is critical for us because it ties Phase I to Phase III. We have -- we'll have both the transmitters and receivers as well as microwaves on that tower. The microwave will link Phase III back to Phase I. That ties the whole system together. Essentially we'll have seamless communication for the law enforcement network throughout the state when it's completed. It will include the Florida Highway Patrol, FDLE, Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Department of Transportation compliance officers. To answer your question earlier about the evacuation, it would be our people that coordinate the evacuation, and without that tower they don't have communications. So it's critical for the evacuation route and the planning that goes into it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of Mr. Ruwinsky? Page 30 (No response.) October 4, 200 16J1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we live any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: The only registered speakers I had were Scott Gustafson and Joel Gustafson, and they've already spoken. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Hearing no further speakers from either the public or the presenters, I'll close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I make a motion that we approve -- can we do both at the same time? MS. STUDENT: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- approve Petition CU- 2001 -AR- 1103 as submitted. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Strain and a second by Mr. Budd that we approve the first conditional -use petition. Do we have any discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Technically, we should be recommending approval. MS. STUDENT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Recommending approval. Each commissioner must remember that they should find it, Item A, consistent with the Land Development Code; B, ingress and egress to the property and the various issues of pedestrian safety, convenience, traffic flow, control, et cetera; C, the affects on the neighboring properties; and D, compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. Do we have any questions or discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Call the question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) Page 31 October 4, 2001 16J,1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. (No response.). CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Please complete your information and pass it down to the secretary. The next item on our list is for CU- 2001 -AR -1105, the communication tower. All those wishing to present testimony on this particular item please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Commissioners, again, Chahram Badamtchian representing CU- 2001 -AR -1105, which is another tower for FDOT. This one is located almost at the county line. The height is 240 feet. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff? Any further questions? Would the petitioner wish to present again? MR. JOEL GUSTAFSON: We'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No questions of the petitioner. Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: Just Scott Gustafson and Joel Gustafson, but they've indicated they don't wish to speak. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Hearing no further presentation from the public or petitioner, I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I recommend that we forward recommending approval of Petition CU- 2001 -AR -1105. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Abernathy and a second by Mr. Budd to approve this particular conditional use. All those in favor say aye. Page 32 October 4, 2001 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. pp g 16J l (No response.) COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, may I ask a question? It's just a technical issue. You were very specific in going through the criteria on the prior one. Would you want to amend your motion to incorporate that language as far as the criteria? I know as part of our application we responded to it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. I remind us all that it was a conditional use so, as a reminder, each person must check the proper finding. All right. We are on Item F. MS. MURRAY: May I just discuss something with you. Staff informs me that they have the information for the boat -dock petition if you wish to consider it now. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think we placed it at the end of our agenda, so unless there's some overriding reason. MS. STUDENT: I think you have to untable it and go through another motion to move it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you for that observation. We'll move along to 8 -F, which is PUDA- 2001 -AR -881. This is -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Madam Chairman, I have an announcement to make. Marjorie Student, our assistant county attorney, informed me that we haven't advertised this properly. We called it a PUD amendment, and actually it's a rezone from PUD to PUDA. Therefore, we have to continue it until it's advertised properly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So I don't open the public hearing because I haven't had you sworn in yet. I want to be procedurally correct. Page 33 October 4, 2001 1631 MS. STUDENT: Well, it should be advertised correctly for you to consider it. I think while staff is not -- it may operate like a withdrawal until the time -- not a withdrawal of the petition entirely, but a withdrawal of the item before this commission so it can be properly advertised and brought before you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we won't continue it. It's being withdrawn by -- MS. STUDENT: You're not going to be able to continue it because if it's not advertised properly, then you don't have anything to continue. It needs to be readvertised, and I think it will be scheduled for the first one in November. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Pass it over. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let the record reflect that we've withdrawn Item F. Moving along - -. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Excuse me. Just to clarify it -- I didn't quite understand what was incorrect about it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let me just make one comment here. I noticed when I was looking through the agenda -- I highlighted the fact that our agenda says this is an addendum to the -- excuse me -- an amendment to the Salvation Army PUD. Our packet very clearly states that it was a repeal and adoption of a new PUD. MS. STUDENT: Let me explain. It was like that just in the agenda item to be corrected on the record, and it wouldn't necessarily be fatal as it appears on your agenda. But I asked Mr. Badamtchian how it was advertised in the newspaper, because that is the issue. And I understand from Mr. Badamtchian that it was advertised in the same way that it appears in the agenda as an amendment. In fact, it is a rezone from one PUD to another PUD and repeals the former PUD. So for that reason it will need to be readvertised in the paper. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you for that clarification: COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Right. Page 34 October 4, 2001 16JI,41 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. See, I do read my packets very carefully. Item G, this is SV- 2001 -AR -1265, the Bridgestone /Firestone sign variance. All those wishing to give testimony today please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is variance request for a sign for a newly built Firestone store on Airport Road. The store is located within the Bed, Bath & Beyond plaza on the corner of Airport and Pine Ridge Road. Our code requires business to have 150 foot of road frontage in order to qualify for a pole sign. This property contains 145 foot of road frontage. Therefore, they do not qualify for a pole or ground sign -- for a free - standing sign. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Did you say pole or ground sign? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Our Land Development Code was amended, and we just removed the language about pole and ground signs. We are calling it free - standing signs. So it's just old habit to call it a pole sign or ground sign. MS. MURRAY: They're interchangeable. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are interchangeable now. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If you can't have one, you can't have the other. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are calling them free - standing signs now. That's why they are requesting this variance to build a free - standing sign. They had applied for a permit, and the sign permit was issued for it, and we had to cancel the permit because on the application they had mentioned having 150 foot of road frontage. Later on during the site development plan process we noticed that the Page 35 October 4, 2001 jN1 survey that they had given us showed 145 and not 150 as me on the application. Therefore, we cancelled the permit. In the past several years, the board has consistently denied any sign variances for properties with less than 150 foot of road frontage. Last year one was denied on Airport Road, and the year before another one was denied on U.S. 41. Staff recommended denial of this request. There is no land - related hardship, and there's no reason to approve a variance when they don't qualify for a sign. That concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did the applicant's building permit -- was it submitted by a licensed sign contractor in Collier County? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, it was. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, Chahram, you say that they shouldn't be given a variance to build a sign because they don't qualify for one. That's the very essence of a variance, isn't it? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, Commissioner. But you should have some kind of land - related hardship. You cannot just ask for one with no reason. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Well, if you base it on that, I can agree with that. But saying they don't qualify is sort of circuitous reasoning. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I want to make a semi disclosure. I would rather err on the side of an abundance of caution here. I had a couple messages from Mike Davis who wanted to provide some information, but I was unable to actually speak to him personally, although he did leave a message on my voice mail. So that's my Page 36 October 4, 2001 disclosure for this articular item. p 6J1 Do we have questions? Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Chahram, we just readopted the sign ordinance last night. Does this ruling or the recommendation you're making comport with that? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. We didn't do any changes to that ordinance. I believe when in 1999 or the year 2000 we adopted that ordinance there were some problems with the disclosure or something at the board meeting. That's why we are here adopting it, so there wouldn't be any questions about the validity of it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So there's not a problem with anything being grandfathered in here or anything like that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This is brand new, and the ordinance does apply. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I would like to hear from the petitioner. MR. PICKWORTH: Good morning. My name is Don Pickworth representing Firestone, the leasee on this property. Let me correct one thing that Chahram said. I had at least two conversations with Mike Davis regarding that previous sign permit. It was a lawfully issued permit. There was a suggestion that somehow they snuck in and got a permit they shouldn't because they didn't have 150 feet. Mike has explained to me -- and I'm sure there's others here who know more of the details of this -- that it was based on an interpretation of the issuance of these type of signs at the time that it was issued. The sign wasn't built and, you know, things change. But Page 37 .y October 4, 2001 16 J that is the explanation I have had, that it's not a case of somebody came in and got a permit, you know, that they shouldn't have gotten. That's at least -- you know, if this continues on to the board, I will have him there to -- if that statement is made again -- to take issue with that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could I just ask a question on that? MR. PICKWORTH: Sure. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then the previous sign ordinance allowed free - standing signs on 145 feet? MR. PICKWORTH: My understanding -- I don't want to put words in Mr. Davis' mouth -- is that the -- I think it had to do with the fact that there are a certain number of free - standing signs including, I guess, these directory signs that are allowed. The center itself is signed to a far less degree than what they lawfully can sign that center. As a result of that, at least according to the explanation I got from Mike, they were able to use their rights under that sign to get a permit for this. As he explained it to me, they changed the interpretation after Blockbuster. At least that's the explanation I got. I'm not going to, you know, put words in his mouth but -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I wanted to make sure I understood your statement. You said that the center that this particular business is in is not signed to its ability to sign. Is that what you're saying? MR. PICKWORTH: That's correct. I mean, Ridgeport Plaza could create more parcels and create more signs. There's no question about that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So this is creating difficulty, then, for Bridgestone/Firestone? MR. PICKWORTH: Well, our concern is this: You know, we are the end parcel. As you know, we've got the Chevy dealer to the north of us, we've got a bank, and then McDonald's immediately Page 3 8 October 4, 2001 16JI south of us on Pine Ridge Road, and then you've got the entrance into the shopping center. The Chevy dealer, with the way the lot is, is kind of, you know, raised in elevation there. It's a visual problem. I mean, you've got a road that carries a lot of traffic. We're in there. The bank next door has got a -- I don't know what they call it. It's some kind of a free - standing sign out there. Monument sign? I'm not sure what the current terminology is. And, obviously, the McDonald's sign is an older sign and, you know, goes quite a bit beyond what's authorized under the code today. So, you know, we feel that, you know, a monument sign -- a free - standing sign I guess the word is -- conforming to today's code, which would be obviously a lot less expensive than, for instance, the McDonald's sign, which is not going to be injurious to the neighborhood and in any way, you know, create, quote, visual pollution. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You made a statement earlier that at the time this sign was designed, permitted, at some point the code allowed it, and it since has changed; is that how this came about? MR. PICKWORTH: As it was explained to me by Mr. Davis, at the time the original permit was issued it was authorized. For whatever reason they didn't build it, and clearly today they cannot get that permit without a variance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's a good question because we're talking about 150 -foot alleged frontage on the application, and the way I read this, because our staff discovered it was 145, they had to pull the permit. So we're talking about whether, A, you've got something that was permitted before or, B, it was a mistake on the permit. I'm not clear on that particular fact. Staff needs to clarify that. MR. PICKWORTH: You can clarify that. That is at variance Page 39 October 4, 2001 16J1 with the explanation Mr. Davis has given me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It certainly sounds like it. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I wish I had the permit here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do too. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I didn't think that they were going to argue that. The site plan submitted with the permit says "road frontage 150 foot." On the application it says road frontage 150. The permit was issued based on that number. Then during the site development plan -- you know, we do not ask them to provide the survey with the sign because it's custom, but with the site development plan we ask them to give us a survey. They gave us the survey. The survey showed 145. So I'm not saying they purposely told us it was 150. They might have measured it and measured it wrong. But the thing is, we need 150 -foot road frontage for a sign, and they have 145, and they told us they had 150. That's one thing. This 150 -foot road frontage has been in our code since at least 1991. It has never changed. So this discussion about that it was permitted at that time but it's not permitted now, I do not understand it. We've had this code since 1991 requiring 150 -foot road frontage. Regarding that number of signs allotted for that shopping center, we have some PUDs that -- basically they have language saying that they can have so many free - standing signs. But this is not the PUDs. This is straight zoning. We don't have any language saying how many signs they're entitled to. So I'm a little bit puzzled with this discussion about how many signs they're entitled to or what they would have been allowed under the old code or under the old interpretation. We never had any interpretation other than what the code has, that 150 is the minimum required for a sign. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I have a question for our county attorney. With reference to the issue of 145 feet and our Land Page 40 October 4, 2001 16JI Development Code specifying 150, if we grant this variance, are we setting a precedent that we can have a number more come in? What are we actually doing here? MS. STUDENT: I don't think so, because it has to do with the particular facts of each case, and every case involving land is different. So it would have to be an identical situation. I don't think there is that much -- there may be some, but not that much of setting a precedent because each case is different. It stands on its own as it relates to the criteria for granting a variance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: For granting a variance as well as we need to know exactly what the facts are so that we can make our decision on what we perceive are the facts. MS. STUDENT: The facts that are presented based on competent, substantial evidence. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes, Madam Chairman. I just wanted to make a comment. References were made to an opinion presented by Mr. Davis who I happen to know and respect very much. But in the absence of Mr. Davis here today and what might have been, could have been, might have, sort of, kind of, we thought he said -- in my mind it's irrelevant as far as the shopping center having other sign rights. There's nothing in our packet regarding that. There's nothing regarding the permitting process, that the permit was properly issued and pulled because of other reasons. I'm really interested in testimony as far as what we have. The sign ordinance, as I understand, is 150 -foot frontage. This doesn't have it. We just approved a sign ordinance last night where the County Commission packed the chambers regarding the sign ordinance. It's an important issue to this county. And all this other testimony -- unless I see more information or firsthand testimony, we're talking about something that's not -- that I can't consider. It's Page 41 October 4, 2001 16J 1 just loose secondhand information. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. That was part of my difficulty. I want to base this on the facts. Do we have any further question? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, just a general question. In terms of the sign ordinance that we have, there's a process of getting rid of some of the older signs. There's a time limit code enforcement has until they get downsized or brought into conformance to the current code. MS. MURRAY: Yes, you're correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the applicant is saying that McDonald's, which has an outside sign, is restricted, and part of the reason he's here is in order to get his sign. That issue will go away because McDonald's, if it does not fit the ordinance, will have to downsize to be in keeping with the current ordinance. MS. MURRAY: If that is the case -- I'm not that familiar with McDonald's sign other than to know they have a sign there. I'm not sure if it's nonconforming or not. But if it is nonconforming, then in accordance with the provisions of the code, yes, it will eventually have to come down. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So we should look at this in terms of what will be in terms of the application of the entire code as opposed to what's there now in terms of considering this variance. MS. MURRAY: You really need to consider the variance on the merits which were presented before you within the staff report and the conditions of the property, not the conditions of the center itself. It's really important to keep that in mind. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any further questions of the commissioners? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have one of Don. Page 42 October 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can somebody testify here today that $40,000 was spent on this sign? MR. PICKWORTH: We have a representative of Firestone. MR. ROBERTS: Larry Roberts with Firestone. I'm representing Bo Gallegher. He was on the petition. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. ROBERTS: I don't have the knowledge of that much money being spent. The sign was manufactured and is down here, actually, in the city. At the time we had the permit, we weren't able to put the sign up at the time because there was no building on the site as of yet. That was the main -- you know, if we had the building up sooner, we would have been able to have the sign up. I do want to make one statement. It is a hardship. I mean, we're buried at the end of a shopping center. We have one sign on the building, and everybody else has free- standing signs down the road, and we do not. People are finding it hard to find our store. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There is a sign in a warehouse somewhere manufactured for this purpose? MR. ROBERTS: Right. That was done back in '99 when the permit was first issued. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Does that sign meet all of our current -- the current code? MR. ROBERTS: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You hope. MR. ROBERTS: I got the drawings on it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, you've got your drawings. Okay. MR. ROBERTS: It's 13 x 8 foot high. As far as I know, that meets the code. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Except that it's not permitted on this site. Page 43 October 4, 2001 16J 1 MR. ROBERTS: It's not permitted -- again, that's why we're asking for a variance for this hardship. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're stating your hardship is what? MR. ROBERTS: One, that there's signs up and down the road. Every business down the road has a sign. We're the only ones that don't. Two, that we're on the end of a shopping center buried between, you know, the car dealership next to us, which is about 5 feet higher than we are, and it limits the visibility coming down Airport- Pulling Road. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm trying to find something that relates to the land. Maybe Mr. Pickworth would like to comment because I'm not finding a land - related hardship. That's why I have difficulty supporting the variance on the facts I'm presented. I was wondering if you could elaborate at all. MR. PICKWORTH: Well, the land- related hardship is it is the last parcel to be built. He's at the end of the shopping center, as he said. I mean, we have no -- it's not like there's a big piece of vacant ground next door where the question would be, "Why don't you just get some off of that and make it 150 foot of frontage ?" It's just kind of the last remaining parcel. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No -- I'm sorry. Larry Roberts was the only one. MR. ROBERTS: That's me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: He was the only registered speaker. Okay. Do we have any further questions from the board before I close the public hearing? (No response.) Page 44 October 4, 2001 16J 1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that the Planning Commission forward petition SV- 2001 -AR -1265 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation for denial. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd and a second by Mr. Richardson to accept the staff recommendation for denial of this petition. Discussion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: My fellow board members seem to be willing to strip away any exculpatory comments that the petitioner has made. If you strip both the exculpatory and the inculpatory inferences away from this, the petitioner comes in, and he's got a 145 -foot lot, and he wants to put a sign on it that he could put if he had a 150 -foot lot. Now, we grant variances much more where petitioners are asking a whole lot more than that. If I have to find a hardship -- and we have found hardships that we have pretty much created out of ether in the past -- I could find one in the fact that he is locked in a bunch of old signs and the fact that some amount of money has been expended on a sign. The petition says that it was $40,000, and there's no evidence to the contrary. When I first read this thing, I thought the inference was that the petitioner had lied the first time around, and if I thought that were the case, I would probably deny it even though he is only asking for 5 feet or it only involved 5 feet. But having heard all of this, I'm not convinced of that, so I would resolve it in his favor. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I would like to state that my biggest concern related to the 5 -foot issue and whether or not the permit was Page 45 t!?SF October 4, 2001 6 J. granted erroneously or under false pretenses. I guess my second issue was whether or not we were setting a precedent here. As most of you -all on the board know -- and some of you are new -- I am not a fan of variances, and I struggle each time they come up. I try to relate to the facts. So I guess my effort at coming up with a hardship is this possible last parcel and the fact that it is short 5 feet. So I'm leaning towards voting against the denial, but we have a petition -- excuse me -- a motion before us for denial. Is there any other further discussion? COMMISSIONER BUDD: It's my last effort to preserve my motion. I'm keeping in mind with the motion of denial that this is a recommendation, and we're forwarding it for final action. If this was a final action at this time, I would ask the petitioner if he wanted to withdraw it and reconsider it because I really think their case hasn't been proven. They're just not coming forward with the information. So part of my motion is -- I think it will, in effect, be a wake -up call that when they apepar before the Board of Zoning Appeals they need to be better prepared with elevations, firsthand testimony by relevant people, and get more information in.their favor. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have to agree with that. Any further comments? Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Upon my seconding, I certainly agree with everything Mr. Budd has said. But just to refresh the thought that I had before, while we're looking at the facts we have now, we do know that we have a Land Development Code relating to signs that has been readopted, that through the code work is going to cost -- the signs that are there that are nonconforming that are conflicting with his visibility to be repositioned in a way that I think will remove part of the problem he currently testified to. So that's an additional strength for support of Mr. Budd's motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further comments? 5�911 October 4 2001 6J1 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think Mr. Budd makes a good point. If I vote no, it might be a signal to the county commission .that some of us at least thought it was+ close question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Hearing no further discussion, I call the question and remind you that we are voting for denial of this petition. All those -- when you say aye, you're voting for denial. All those in favor say aye. (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed? (Chorus of ayes.) THE COURT REPORTER: I'm going to need clarification of the voting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: There's a division of the house. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. I'm for denial. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes, for denial. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Rautio, no. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, for denial. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Midney. MR. MIDNEY: Yes, for denial. MS. STUDENT: I think it's tied. It doesn't carry. It's 4 to 4. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's 4 to 4. MS. STUDENT: It doesn't carry. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I didn't mark it. I'm sorry. Page 47 October 4, 2001 COMMISSIONER YOUNG. It is 4 to 4. MS. STUDENT: The motion fails. 16J1 ! i CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The motion fails because it's a tie, so we would like you to go forward. MS. STUDENT: Well -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, wait a minute. MS. STUDENT: What we usually have done is tried to -- because the motion for denial failed -- and I don't know if it's an implicit improvement or implicit -- I don't know what it is, but if you try to reframe -- we had this situation before, and we tried to reframe it, you know, the other way to see what happens, and then -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Then if it's a tie, then it goes forward without approval. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. But, I mean, it sounds like it could be an implicit approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion to approve the petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we second the motion? I can second it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I wonder how this vote is going to come out. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We might as well try it, folks. Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy and a second by myself, which I can do as chair. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I'll call the question. All those in favor starting with Mr. -- excuse me. All those in favor say aye. (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One, two, three -- I'll call it a division of the house. Those opposed? October 4, 2001 (Chorus of ayes.) 16J 1 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm going to need clarification. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Opposed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Rautio, aye. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Opposed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Midney. MR. MIDNEY: Opposed. MS. STUDENT: The same. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. The motion is denied, but it goes forward. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Without approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I would strongly recommend that petitioner provide more documents and staff be better prepared before you go before the Board of County Commissioners. Okay. Do we need a break for the court reporter? THE COURT REPORTER: We're almost done; right? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: There's two more. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All these people want to talk about something. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just wanted to make sure if she needed a five- minute break, the court reporter can have it. Moving right along to our original last on the agenda. It's Item Page 49 October 4 2001 16JI H, PDI-2001 -AR- 1220, an insubstantial change for Marco Shores PUD. All those wishing to give testimony today on this particular item please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. The oath was administered.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. I'm going to need for it to be quiet. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was contacted by the agent for the applicant, Mr. Varnadoe, and we discussed land planning issues revolving around this application. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a disclosure. Do we have any other discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I discussed it with Mr. Varnadoe. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I have not. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a disclosure that I spoke with him. We never caught up with each other, just briefly, with no real substance this morning, but I would like to err in the favor of caution. Okay. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl with planning services. This is a request for an insubstantial change to the Marco Shores PUD. And for the audience and for the newer members, the Land Development Code defines an insubstantial change. There are ten conditions that this petition met, and it is limited only to a change in the master plan, a map change. There is no text change to the Marco Shores PUD. You have in your packet -- I'm sorry, I don't have a visualizer for the audience. The parcel is located south of U.S. 41 on Collier Boulevard or County Road 951. It is south of the Marco Shores -- excuse me, south of the Fiddler's Creek project. Page 50 October 4, 2001 16JI CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have to close the door so the court reporter can hear. Thank you. MR. REISCHL: It is within Collier County. The main road through the project is Mainsail Drive which is a county road that leads to the Marco Island airport which is also in Collier County. Again, without the visualizer, what I've done is put it today on a proposed map with copies for you. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chair, during the lull I want to make a disclosure. I spoke with Mr. Varnadoe regarding this petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. REISCHL: As you get that, the top picture is the way the master plan exists today. The coloring is mine, not the petitioner's. That's just -- I took black and white maps from the PUD. Then the bottom is the proposed that, again, was colored by me and shows the -- I'll give you the little key here. Yellow, obviously, is the roads. Blue are the undeveloped residential parcels, and you'll see the difference in the location and configuration between the two. The green is the golf course, and red is the clubhouse location. The reconfiguration will allow a common entrance to the currently undeveloped parcel. As you can see today, the parcel in the top picture -- in the top picture, the blue parcel to the west will have its own driveway. Then the clubhouse has its own driveway. Then the parcel to the east has its own driveway off Mainsail. The picture on the bottom, they have a common driveway for all of those parcels. They're all accessed before any of the traffic will reach the existing residences which basically front along Mainsail Drive. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Fred, what is the status of that little bitty residential Parcel 2 up there in the northeast corner? MR. REISCHL: That's slated to remain a portion of residential Page 51 October 4, 2001 Parcel 2. 16J 1 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Undeveloped? MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So there will be an entrance to that? MR. REISCHL: Yes. You're correct. I did receive approximately six phone calls. I met with people face to fdce as they've come into the office. I received letters which -- you got some in your packet, and I put some -- I gave some to you today. The concerns that were talked about were that the relocation would alter the views from the existing condos. Again, questions on construction, that construction traffic and a construction mess would cause problems; that fewer than 10 percent of the residents are here, and the hearing should not be heard until more of the residents come to Naples. I heard a few complaints that people were not notified of the meeting with the developer, which is not an official meeting as of today. As you know, the public participation will become a part of it, but as of today that's not a change in the code. They claim they were not notified of the developer's meeting, not of this meeting. Also, that the relocation would put the clubhouse in direct line of the view of their back patios. Now, again, this is still on the other side of the golf course; however, if you look at the -- again, I wish I had a visualizer to point this out -- but on the bottom picture where the clubhouse is being relocated, it's across the golf course from a developed parcel. Now, they are looking at a golf course today, and they'll be looking at a golf course if this change is passed. This is the width of the golf course that they're considering. Because the size of the parcels is not affected, which is the main -- one of the main criteria that makes it an insubstantial change -- it's a reduction in traffic along Mainsail Drive. Staff does recommend Page 52 October 4, 2001 16J approval. And, again, just to remind you that this is an insubstantial change to the PUD. You are the final approval on this. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have questions of staff? Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Are there any conservation areas? I'm trying to decode your map. MR. REISCHL: This is a portion of the Deltona settlement agreement. This entire parcel is a developable parcel. If they wanted to, they could develop the entire thing. There were tens of thousands of acres, I believe, that were given to the state as part of the settlement agreement. Those are the conservation areas now owned by the state. This entire parcel is developable. There is no preserve areas required or nothing like that. It's an unusual circumstance, but that's how it got there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So this is a joint mitigation situation that predates this being here? MR. REISCHL: This PUD was the result of that settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: When did this PUD first come before the board? MR. REISCHL: '84, I believe --'81 -- 1981. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the fact that they started construction and so forth have permitted them to have an ongoing PUD, you know, the issues we've dealt with in terms of -- MR. REISCHL: For sunsetting? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- sunsetting? MR. REISCHL: That's right. This will not sunset. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One of the -- when we had this description at our first Land Development Code amendment cycle last month, I was persuaded that the reason it's good to have sunsetting and give them another cycle of three years is that that Page 53 October 4, 2001 1 gives we and all the approval agencies an opportunity then to apply the current code to the existing project, not what was originally brought in place, which in this case would be back in 1980 or'84. MS. STUDENT: It's been amended several times. I can't tell you how many times, but probably five or six times since 1981. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The PUD? MS. STUDENT: Yeah, the PUD. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Which was probably from 1981. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. MR. REISCHL: And, again, it resulted from a settlement, an out -of -court settlement, between several environmental intervenors as they're called, Deltona Corporation, the State of Florida, and the Army Corps of Engineers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I was here at that time. That's when I first came to Florida. It was rather exciting. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What we have here then is a newly submitted PUD for us to consider which starts another three - year window. MR. REISCHL: No. This is only a change to the master plan. The PUD is exactly the same in words. That's why you were just given the old copy of it. The only change in this is the change in the map. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Do you see that? That doesn't strike me as insubstantial. You're moving these things around. MR. REISCHL: That's defined by code. That's how the code defines it. (Noise from audience.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Now, audience, please. Mr. Richardson, are you through with your questions for the moment? Mr. Strain has some. Page 54 r October 4, 2001 16JI COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a couple questions to start out. The residential parcel that's being moved that's in the view of the existing residential there, what's the height of the building that will be allowed in that residential parcel? MR. REISCHL: The residential - -. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think it's labeled "two." MR. REISCHL: I believe it's -- I can look it up, but it's three stories over parking. The high -rises are in Parcel 1, the southwest corner. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My second question is, on your coloration that you gave us, there's a -- on the top, the '94 -- I believe it is -- PUD you show a utility site. The utility site is removed on the new submittal. Is that utility site for residential? MR. REISCHL: No, it's for water treatment. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are you aware that there's a clause in the new LDC that says if you move anything that is nonresidential it cannot be considered insubstantial? And if so I wonder how staff viewed that. I can cite the section if you would like. MR. REISCHL: I believe you. Utilities are used for residential. That was - -. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, let me read the section. (As read): "There is a proposed increase in the size of areas used for nonresidential uses to include institutional, commercial, and industrial land uses" -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Slowly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: --"except preservation, conservation, and open space, or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land use." Page 55 October 49 2001 J116" Y I understand you're moving Parcel 2, but if you move those utility parcels, it would seem to me that you're moving a nonresidential land use that would trigger substantial change to the PUD, not an insubstantial. MR. REISCHL: In my analysis the utilities are used for residential. They would not be required if the residential was not there. It's not a commercial -- it's commercial in the fact that the utilities make money on doing this, but it's not open to the general public or commercial in that sense. It's necessitated by the residential being there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The 81 -6 PUD that originated with this site did call that a utility site and included it in calculation for its utilities sizing, and it labeled residential as well. Since they separately labeled it in the PUD and it was approved that way, I just -- Marjorie, you may have to help here in trying to help me understand how the utility site can be defined as a residential site in this case. MS. STUDENT: Well, I'm going to sit here if I may because I didn't want to drag this big book up there and collapse the podium. This is what the section says. I'm going to have to defer to staff again because we rely on staff -- and perhaps Miss Murray can shed some light on it -- to do interpretations of this code as it relates to, you know, strictly land -use matters as opposed to other legal matters like constitutional law and things like that. And what it says, as he read, and I'll read it again (as read): "There is a proposed increase in the size of areas used for nonresidential uses to include institutional, commercial, and industrial uses except preservation, conservation, or open spaces, or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses." The question then becomes how would staff interpret a separate -- if that information is correct, a separate site that is a designated utility on the master plan, and would that be considered a Page 56 October 4, 2001 16J 1 nonresidential use under this language or as contemplated by this, or is there some kind of ancillary use to serve a residential facility? So I need to defer to the current planning manager on this point. MS. MURRAY: Unless the PUD says otherwise, we would opine that that utility is there to serve the residential uses of the property, and it would be considered an accessory use to the residential uses. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Does that satisfy, Mr. Strain, your questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I understand that. It just seems -- I mean, residential and nonresidential I thought we were pretty clear. You either live in it or you don't. You don't live in an industrial site. MS. MURRAY: It's an accessory use to the residential structure. It wouldn't be there. It's not a commercial use. It's to serve the residents of the area. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could I just -- Susan, just a matter of clarification. If this were viewed as a substantial change - - it's my hypothetical -- would this have been submitted to a more intensive review by other agencies or other staff or groups in the county? MS. MURRAY: If it was substantial, it would -- the final decision would rest with the Board of County Commissioners, and yes, it would be subject to a different set of reviews. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The general problem I have here is this seems to kind of fall in a little bit of gray area between substantial and insubstantial. To a layman, which really I am, I look at this and see a whole bunch of stuff going on. There's a lot of things being moved around. It certainly seems very substantial Page 57 October 4, 2001 to me. If that were the case then I would , you know, have 16JI appreciated more staff review from our experts to make sure that what we're doing is really going to be supported. MS. MURRAY: That petition -- the purpose of that petition and the purpose of the criteria in the code is essentially to determine if it's substantial or insubstantial. In our opinion, we are coming forward to you saying the requested amendment is considered an insubstantial change by the criteria we evaluated in the code. If you do not share that opinion, you do have the final say in this, and you're welcome to vote that way, and I would suggest -- I'm sure Marjorie would agree -- that you state very clearly for the record why you disagree with it. MS. STUDENT: I'd like to state one other item for the record. If you look at how the insubstantial changes are to be reviewed, there are criteria for the -- the only difference between an insubstantial and substantial change is how many levels of review it goes through. But you still are bound by the criteria for rezoning that are in the code when you look at this substantial change. It's not like there's no criteria there. It's just that it doesn't go to the Board of County Commissioners after it goes to you, and the Planning Commission has the final order authority on that. But you still have criteria which is the same for an original application to utilize in making your determination on whether or not to approve the petition. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But what I think is missing -- I agree with what you said, Marjorie, but what I think is missing is the expertise of the rest of the ordinance -- of the county organization to really take a look at this. I just think we're being denied that opportunity, and my feeling is that -- and we'll hear from the applicant. My feeling is that they're really doing some major changes. MR. REISCHL: If I could interject or answer that. This was reviewed by environmental and by transportation. It went to other Page 58 October 4, 2001 16J: review agencies that would see if this was a PUD amendment. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, we don't have those criteria and responses and so forth that we normally see or that analysis. MR. REISCHL: I don't normally include review comments in my staff report. I incorporate them in or write them in, but I don't give you the responses that the reviewers wrote. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Since everybody grabbed their code books, it would appear that Mr. Budd is reading quickly from the code book and has a comment or two to make. COMMISSIONER BUDD: The only comment I want to make was in regard to the issue of substantial and insubstantial. I think we're going to hear a lot more on that, and that's going to be a key point on this thing. For our own purposes as planning commissioners and for the public's input, I think it's important to realize that substantial and insubstantial is not a matter of opinion, whether it's major or minor, big or small, a lot or a little. That's not what substantial and insubstantial is. There's very specific language in the code, I I specific criteria under the zoning section on what is technically substantial or insubstantial. Mr. Strain brought up one issue that, if his assertion was found to be true, would clearly make this a substantial change. But in our correspondence that we got from the public -- and I expect some of the testimony we're going to hear is going to address that issue of substantial and insubstantial. The only relevant criteria in making that determination is in an opinion relevant to this code. Again, from the correspondence, and I expect from a general inclination, there's going to be a strong assertion that it is substantial. As one commissioner it's only going to matter to me if it's relevant to the criteria in our code. MS. STUDENT: Okay. I just want to state for the record that, really, the only difference here is the number of bodies it goes Page 59 October 4, 2001 16J I through. Everything else is the same. If it went to the board, I guess under the code it would be treated like a new application if it were a substantial change. But the review criteria are the same. They are found on page 2:233 for rezonings generally which we apply W PUDs and 2:241 which are the criteria for the PUDs. Those are the criteria to guide you in making your determination as to whether or not to approve this petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are those enumerated here? MS. STUDENT: That's if you find it's insubstantial. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We don't have those right at our fingertips. MS. STUDENT: I'll be happy -- if you bear with me, I can read them into the record. I have them here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is it a possibility -- MS. STUDENT: Or somebody could make some copies. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I think that making copies would be easier to have in front of us, specifically, and we obviously have a number of people that stood who were sworn in, and we have a presentation by the petitioner. So during that we could listen to what's being said to us and have copies made. Does that feel good to the rest of the commissioners? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Because we can proceed on without taking too much time. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm going to need to change paper very shortly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Well, why don't we take a break on behalf of the court reporter so she can change her paper. We will take about a seven - minute break. We'll take a recess. Thank you. Page 60 October 4, 2001 �.b �1 (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Everybody in their places and positions, please. We are ready to reconvene. I believe staff has finished its presentation, and we now have the petitioner who would like to speak. Mr. Varnadoe. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, George Varnadoe of the law firm of Young, vanAssenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson for the petitioner, WCI Communities, Inc. WCI is the contract purchaser of the undeveloped resident tracts in the Marco Shores golf course community, which I'll call Marco Shores hereafter, and the golf course. Also here today to answer questions or address the Planning Commission we have Margaret Perry, a planner with WilsonMiller; Dan Johnson, an engineer with WilsonMiller, who were the engineers and planners of the project; Al Moscato, a division president of WCI; Wanda Cross, who's the vice president and project manager on behalf of the project; and Pat Bradshaw of Bradshaw & Gill landscape architect firm doing the landscape design of this project. Mr. Richardson led me into my next issue. It was kind of maybe a brief history of this project that does have some history. Mr. Midney, I'll move so you can see me. It's going to be kind of difficult here today. I've got a lot of exhibits, and I've got my own Vanna White, Margaret Perry, who's going to have to move around a little bit so the audience and the Planning Commission can see them, so just bear with me. It will take a little longer, but I want everybody to understand the presentation so that if you do have questions at least we're all dealing with the same subject. The history of the project, I think, is important. This project dates back to -- the original PUD was done in 1981. We've got an aerial somewhere, Margaret. Hold it back here, Margaret. Turn it to Page 61 October 4, 2001 16J 1 the side so we can all see it. I need to be able to see it a little bit better. You can see what's -- north is to the top, State Road 951 is on the left. The airport is on the far right. What you see cleared on that was cleared in the early '80s and then dredged and filled and the golf course built by Deltona. When Deltona had its problems with permits in the late '70s or early '80s, the State of Florida and the federal government ended up with a settlement agreement, so- called, being entered into by Collier County, the State of Florida, Deltona, and environmental intervenors whereby Deltona deeded some 15,000 acres to the state. In return for that they got some development rights on various properties around the area. This is one of them. This is specifically vested in that settlement agreement as far as environmental and as to density and intensity. The other areas, of course, include the other parts of Marco Shores Fiddler's Creek and some land on Isle of Capri, etc. This is about a 321 -acre site. After that time, development took place with several developers. Margaret, turn that around here. These people in the audience will know where these are, but the board won't. This is Tropic Schooner in this area here and here. This is the Mainsail condominiums which is a series, I think, under -- they're all called Mainsail, I think, 1 through 4 maybe. You have Fairways Villas I and Fairways Villas II. There's the golf course in this area coming down and going over here and back around. There's some undeveloped tract here at this location in here and over here. This is the maintenance facility. There's also some utility sites -- Florida Water Service has both a water treatment and a sewage treatment facility on the project. In 1994 -- the PUD was amended, I think, at least twice. In 1985 it was amended, and it may have been amended subsequent to that. In 1994 there was a substantial amendment to the PUD. The '94 PUD amendment did not change any of the criteria or regulations Page 62 October 4, 2001 16JI with regard to the developed parcel. Obviously, they did not try to change the application of any standards to the existing condominium development. It did update the PUD as to the undeveloped tracts. That PUD document also had several major changes. There was a four -acre commercial tract which was deleted. Density was reduced by 400 units or about 20 percent. It allowed for high -rise parcels in Tract 1, which is the tract down in this area here. It increased open space by about 15 acres, and it changed the routing of the golf course or golf tract. No development has taken place on those undeveloped tracts of the golf course since 1994, so the aerial fairly reflects what's on the ground today with regard to those parcels. The golf course is still in the pre -'94 plan as shown on the reported plat. The development tracts as they appear on the pre -'94 tracts are, as I said, still -- you can see still see them clearly. You can still see the development tract in this location. As Mr. Reischl explained, the purpose of this amendment is a master plan change, and even though Mr. Reischl went through it, before I go through what the changes are, I think I'll explain what they aren't. There is no change to the PUD text, so there's no change to the number of units allowed. There is no change to the allowed uses. There is no change in the heights of the buildings, no change to the setbacks. We weren't changing the basic criteria. We're simply making a map change. It reflects a relocation and reconfiguration of the residential parcels and the golf course tract. Basically, we're going back to the basic location where these tracts were prior to the '94 amendment. Margaret, why don't you hold up our proposed -- this is kind of a large rendition of what Fred Reischl passed out. As I said, the relocation basically reflects what's on the recorded plat now and what's in the pre '94. Parcel 1, which is this parcel down in this Page 63 October 4, 2001 6J 1 location here, is the parcel that allowed high -rise tracts to have some very significant setbacks. All buildings have to be set back 500 feet from Mainsail Drive and 500 feet from the nearest existing residential unit. Parcel 2, which is the low -rise parcel, which is -- we called all of this Parcel 2 just to delineate what we're talking about as far as development standards. As you see it became linear in shape with the golf course on both sides of the two main parcels, this one and this one. It also allowed us to move the vast majority of the low -rise units away from the airport. If you remember, there was a big development parcel in this area right here. With the airport here, it allows us to move them over in this area away from the airport, which we think would reduce the number of complaints and potential conflicts with the airport. The golf course tract, which I'm sure you're going to hear about, is right now on Mainsail Drive in between one of the Fairways condominiums and Tropic Schooner right in this location. We're moving it over here internal to the golf course and away from Mainsail Drive. These changes allow it to have a common entrance, one entrance, to the undeveloped parcels or the main parcels. We still have this little small five -acre tract -- three -acre tract up here. It also allows us to move the maintenance facilities, which is located here, over to its location here away from residential. The original PUD application did not contain the movement of that maintenance facility. It was moved -- we got with staff and changed the application on a later date in response to concerns from residents. If that's going to cause this to become a substantial change, then we won't move it, but I'm telling you it's being moved for everybody's benefit, and I hope and trust that the residents would say they want that thing moved. It's not very -- where's that aerial that's kind of oblique? Again, 0=0 October 4, 2001 16J 1 forgive me for taking this much time, but I am trying to -- there is an oblique aerial of the site. Margaret, let me look at the date on this. It was taken in '96, so it reflects probably all the units on it with the exception of a couple of buildings in Fairways II. You can see in this location that some of those are still -- this is the so- called maintenance facility. It's got a water tank. It's part of the water management system for irrigation. It's got machinery and the usual stuff you find. It's right on the main road. Perhaps -- I want to use a conceptual master plan, but I think I can demonstrate some of these changes and discuss some of the issues better from this. This is conceptual in nature, but all the proposed development on here does reflect what would be within the project boundaries of the new development tracts we're talking about. I think you can see all the layouts we're talking about. We end up on the eastern side, instead of having development in this area, with nothing but golf courses. You can see the common entrance here. I think that there are some benefit to the existing residents from these changes, and I'm sure we're going to have some questions that we can hopefully respond to. First, the project entry for the main part of the undeveloped units moves to the west over here. I think that has some benefits, first, with that construction traffic for the low -rise development. Previously, the entry was in this area. That construction traffic will no longer be passing along Mainsail Drive in front of all the existing residential units. That construction entrance is now going to be in this location here, so as the trucks come -- this is only one entrance for this project mainly or only because it's surrounded by state land. We talked about all that land surrounding it as part of the 15,000 acres of Deltona. This property has got a surveyed line around the edge of the property, and you can kind of see it on here. On the inside you're allowed development. On the outside it Page 65 October 4, 2001 16J 1 belongs to the state, and it's part of conservation lands administered by Rookery Bay, and you can't touch it. So we're limited to one entrance into the project. But I do think it's;a substantial benefit that the construction traffic for the low -rise parcel and also the construction traffic for the golf clubhouse, which is going to be updated and a new clubhouse -- rather than construction traffic coming in front of the Fairways I and Mainsail and being adjacent to Fairways II, that will be moved and come down to this location for the relocated golf clubhouse. Second, the relocation also ensures that in the future traffic -- all site traffic going to the golf club or going to those residential units in the low -rise will not pass in front of the existing condominiums on Mainsail Drive. And as a long -time resident of Collier County who happens to live on Crayton Road, I can tell you I would applaud any change that would reduce the traffic in front of my neighborhood. We have an increase in open space of about 8 1/2 acres mainly because of the changes in the development scenario that are proposed. I think upgrading the clubhouse facility, providing new and upscale residential units is going to raise the property values for everybody in this project. Obviously we're going to be redoing the golf course to something in keeping with what WCI has on its other golf courses in Collier County, which are, of course, very nice. Finally, WCI met with representatives of various condominium entities on site. I know that some people feel they were excluded from that. Please accept my apologies. It certainly wasn't the intention to exclude anybody from that meeting. We've received written questions from some -- one of the condominiums, Tropic Schooner, and we have responded in writing to that, and I would like to make that part of the record, please. I have copies if any of the Planning Commission members would like to see those. I know that we don't take time to read this stuff as we go along, but that's for the Page 66 October 4, 2001 record. 1611 They had questions -- I'm not trying to say that I know all their questions, but they had questions about buffering the existing residential from the entry road and the new development. Margaret, hold that up. As I understand it from talking to residents, we're talking about this road here and how we are going to buffer ourselves from Tropic Schooner, Fairways II, and Fairways I and what they'll be seeing as they look out the back of their units. Although there is a significant separation between any of our development and their development -- I think the closest development is about 350 feet building to building. That is in excess of a football field. WCI has committed to adding a landscape buffer. If you -all excuse me, I'm going to step over here where the audience can see that. Mr. Strain, can I borrow your microphone? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It doesn't work. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It only works for the camera. It doesn't work for the audience. MR. VARNADOE: I think everybody's going to be able to hear me. I've got a big mouth, and I've been accused of that several times. WCI has committed to a landscape buffer along the east side of this entry road and along the north side of this road. Boy, is my hand steady or what? Damn, George, you're getting old. The idea of putting the buffer there was that we would not be blocking existing views of the golf course from Fairways I, Fairways II, or Tropic Schooner. We would be blocking views of the entry road and partially blocking views of the residential units that would be across the road from those units. At the top of this, you can kind of see a so- called cross - section. This is a depiction of an existing Fairway I, Fairway II unit that's two story. You can see that we're going to be redoing the golf course. Page 67 October 4, 2001 16J1 The golf course is actually going to be bringing in a lot of dirt to get some mounding and rolling effects on the golf course, and then the road will actually be -- the entry road here will actually be below the golf course in this area. Mr. Taft can talk about it later if he needs to. You will not actually see that road from their condominium units. The idea is to kind of mimic the views they have now, that is, golf course and then vegetation, which is what they look at today. There have also been some questions about the proximity of the golf course clubhouse, which is in this location, to the units and does that cause any problems, and what's going to be seen there. It's 400 feet from the nearest Fairway -- I think this is the Fairways I unit here -- to the edge of the golf course tract. And that building on that -- although the building hasn't been designed, the building, as WCI always does, has a circular entry in the front, and the building is towards the rear of the tract. So we think that the nearest unit to that golf clubhouse is going to be at least two football fields, 600 feet. So it's a substantial distance with not only the landscape on the golf course, but also the landscape buffer I talked about along here. What we're proposing is a Type B buffer, but one that allows for the clustering of trees and shrubs with vistas and filtered views of the golf course for the units that are going to be located in this area. A typical Type B buffer, for those who aren't used to county standards, has 1 tree every 25 feet, and it tells you how tall the trees have to be when you put them in, and then shrubs underneath that. It ends up with a very military looking buffer. We want the flexibility to cluster those trees and shrubs so it provides a more natural look or meandering look as opposed to a straight -line boulevard type of look. We tried to provide continuous views of the golf course to the existing condominiums, but also provide screening of the entry roads in our future development. October 4, 2001 I don't think I want to go a lot further. I want to have to, of course, respond to questions and issues that are raised by the audience. Margaret Perry is here to address any questions there may be on whether the amendments meet the development code requirements you were asked to look at, and we can certainly hear her if we need to. There's one item -- two items that I want to address. Although they don't specifically have to do with the PUD amendment, I ask your indulgence while I put this on the record. We've had meetings with Tropic Schooner and their representatives. That's the large condominium development on this location. They have expressed concerns about what's going to happen with the drainage association because when we met with representatives, WCI said, "We're going to put this drainage association back in place and implement what's required." The deed restrictions for this project require a drainage association -- and they're the deed restrictions that go to all the property that everybody owns in there are subject to, including us. The drainage association was put in place to manage the overall water management system for the project. The South Florida Water Management District permit requires the same thing. As Mr. Richardson noted, 1981 is a long time ago. This has never been fully implemented. The method of assessment is convoluted and probably antiquated. They had asked us to commit that we would not try to come up with a system that would overly burden the existing condominiums in there, that they would not be required to pay more than the share they would have under the original plan in the event we are going to have more lakes or bigger lakes or different lakes than originally contemplated, and we're certainly happy to make that commitment. We've also committed to work with them to revise the method of Page 69 October 4, 200 6J1 assessment to a more simplified method and probably would suggest strictly an acreage assessment which would put more of the burden on the golf course and less of the burden on the residential units. The one that's there now -- I won't try to go into it -- puts more of the burden on the residential and less on the golf course. Because there are deed restrictions, it's going to take the cooperation and agreement of the majority of the unit owners that are there to come up with a better plan, and we commit on behalf of WCI to work with everybody to come up with a plan that's fair and doesn't overly burden the existing unit owners beyond what they are subject to today. The second thing is that Tropic Schooner has two buildings that don't show on that plan, but they're in this general location right in the corner down here very, very close to the property line. One is, I think, a rec building, and the other one is a little maintenance building. They were concerned that we might have a lake or development very close to them. For the record, we commit to provide enough buffer so that we don't -- they don't step out of the door of their rec building and fall into a lake or whatever we'll be setting back from that property line. So with that if you have any questions, I'll be happy to respond to them; otherwise, I think we ought to hear from the public. Please leave us an opportunity to respond to the issues or questions they might have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a couple of questions. One question I have -- just want to clarify is, you said there is a drainage association that's going to be reactivated? MR. VARNADOE: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And the purpose of that? MR. VARNADOE: The purpose of the drainage association was to maintain the drainage facility for the entire project so that Page 70 October 4, 2001 16J1 there's one system of drainage for the entire project. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You need to maintain them, and you're not worried about increased stormwater at all -- MR. VARNADOE: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- or the retention? MR. VARNADOE: No. We'll be building another lake to provide the stormwater for what we're going to be building. Once that's in place, the requirement under the deed restrictions that exists is for one association to maintain the entire system, and the residents were rightly concerned that more of the burden didn't fall on them as a result of what we're doing, and that won't happen. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're going to spread out the sharing of the drainage? MR. VARNADOE: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mine was a matter of, I think, density. It looked like -- my eyes are not that good, but it appears that the PUD is planning 1,580 units? MR. VARNADOE: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How many exist between Tropic Schooner and Mainsail now? MR. VARNADOE: I think there's over 500 units built. I think it leaves right at a thousand units for the undeveloped tracts. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How many units does WCI intend to construct? MR. VARNADOE: That hasn't been totally determined, but it certainly can't be any more than that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It doesn't look like it could be. Are those quads or duplexes or what? MR. VARNADOE: Right now -- and they're still in design, but those are designed as four - plexes at the present time. What you're Page 71 October 4, 2001 6J i going to end up with is five high -rises here. You'll probably end up with six to seven hundred units in this location here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Did WCI acquire the golf course? MR. VARNADOE: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And you're going to be reconfiguring that? MR. VARNADOE: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Vamadoe, did I under -- let me start over. MR. VARNADOE: Don't trick me now. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If we find that this is an insubstantial change and approve it, that gives a certain administrative finality to it. That's it. Am I right? MR. VARNADOE: Subject to any aggrieved party appealing it to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They can appeal? MR. VARNADOE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All right. Then did I further understand you to say that if we were to think that this is a substantial change because of that utility facility, the moving of it, that you would be willing to leave it where it is? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir, but I don't want to leave my answer like that. I don't think that's in the best interest of the community, and I'm not talking about WCI. If that's the outcome of this hearing, then I would ask -- and I haven't talked to the client -- I would ask WCI to come back and do another PUD amendment to move that. I think it's in everybody's benefit to get that down to the east end of the property and away from Mainsail Road. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Page 72 October 4, 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Varnadoe, you've indicated several statements that had the word "commitment" in it. You committed to someone that there will be a modified Type B buffer in one area. You talked about a commitment to change the assessment charges so that it's more equitable. I'm just going to ask staff -- if I'm interpreting that correctly -- if these commitments then would become part of the committment section of the PUD. MR. VARNADOE: Let me -- I'm not trying to -- let me respond, and then I'll let them respond from there. As to the buffer, we put a notation in that regard on the PUD master plan that, obviously, becomes the approved master plan. That is part of the PUD at that point in time. I'll let staff respond as to the legal effect of the commitments that we're making with regard to the drainage association. This is not mentioned in the PUD. It's not part of the PUD. It is one of the big issues for residents down there, and I think that they wanted to hear on the record WCI's position with regard to that drainage association, and I told them I would make those statements, Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Where I'm headed is we've just gone through a big deal about public participation, as you know. In the new ordinance that we've passed on up to BCC, we've had quite a more extensive procedure for the public to be involved at early stages and throughout the process. Part of what we identified that needed to be tweaked in that was that there was a commitment section that when the developer or applicant has these meetings, which are manadated now under the new ordinance, that the commitments, in fact, would have to be written down and brought forward as part of the process to the approving bodies. I'll come a little bit in the middle here. I'm hearing commitments, but I'm not sure it's going to get appropriately reflected Page 73 October 4, 2001 16J l in the PUD, and if it is in the PUD, then it really moves it more to a substantial change. Because it says you're not going to have any changes to the PUD language, yet I would like to have some way for these commitments to have a better remembered and a better enforcement vehicle. I think the PUD amendment would be the best way to do that. So that's my concern. MR. VARNADOE: I understand that, and I don't want to get into -- I'm not trying to get into a debate with you, but I certainly understand your point. There is nothing in the PUD today about the drainage association. So any amendment with regard to that doesn't appear appropriate. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I just used that as an example of something you said. MR. VARNADOE: I understand. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: There may be other commitments that you've made to people in this room or to people out there that's not part of the record. MR. VARNADOE: Some of those commitments are always going to be external to the zoning process and the PUD process in this instance. With regard to the buffer that you were talking about, I was merely showing you that it does become part of the record and is reflected on the master plan. It will become part of the PUD amendment. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't want to argue about this. My point is, you say that some of the commitments made in the future will not be part of the record. I contend that if you follow the new ordinance they will be part of the record. MR. VARNADOE: I guess you and I disagree on that, sir. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm not sure the word was "commitment," Mr. Richardson, as much as it was contacts to the information that was discussed. So we'll keep that one for future Page 74 October 4 2001 16J 1 discussions, but I certainly do sympathize with what you're saying given past experiences you've had. Mr. Strain had some questions. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got two questions. The first one is, Mr. Varnadoe, in '94 you did a plan amendment, a PUD amendment at the time. Contrary to the differences here, you've received letters of objection on this particular plan amendment, but in '94 on public record it was stated there were no objections. You did a great job in '94, and I'm just wondering why there's a difference between the actions in '94 and the actions now on the objections you're seeing now. MR. VARNADOE: I think, Mr. Strain, you're going to have to listen to those objections and see what they are. I'll tell you that to the best of my ability, as you know from working with me, I try to work out with the residents their objections. In fact, we met with some of them this morning and tried to answer questions and concerns. I think we're better to hear the objections and questions and then try to deal with them here as we always do. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The other question I have is, the approved PUD, which is the '94 version, Section 503(A)5 has a couple of sentences that I would like to read, and then maybe you can explain to me how this plan addresses those. MR. VARNADOE: I would be glad to. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: (As read): "Tracts TU and El as depicted on the PUD master plan on Marco Shores Unit 1 plat are not owned by the petitioner and are developed or under development. These tracts are currently contiguous to the golf course. Petitioner agrees that in any reconfiguration of a golf course these tracts will continue to have an equal or greater amount of contiguity with the golf course tract as described in the record plat of Marco Shores Unit 1." MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. Page 75 October 4, 2001 16J 1 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Could you explain how the movement now is to help fix that? MR. VARNADOE: Absolutely. Tracts TU and E 1 are Fairways I, Fairways II, and Tropic Schooner. At the time we did the amendment in '94, we did not have a golf course alignment, if you would. We simply defined it as a golf course tract. Those people were contiguous to the golf course, that is, as my Funk & Wagnell describes it -- they border on or were abutting the golf course. And what we've done is make sure they continue to abut or border upon the golf course as you can -- let's do our master plan -- I'm sorry, the conceptual plan. Sorry. As you can see, this is Tract -- I think it's Tract T. I don't know whether it's T or U, but I think this is Tract T, Fairways I. They continue to abut the golf course. U continues to abut the golf course. Tract E -1 continues to abut the golf course here, here, and over here. So we've been very cognizant of that. I was the author of that language, and there was some concern about -- that they were going to not have golf course views, and we wanted to make sure that they did. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And your definition of contiguity, then, is linear, not depth. MR. VARNADOE: Absolutely. That's exactly what the dictionary describes it as. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How narrow do you think that could be before it wouldn't be plotted? MR. VARNADOE: Well, you're doing a golf course. What's the normal width of a golf course? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you could have a cart path at 11 feet and still be part of the golf course. MR. VARNADOE: I don't think that's -- we certainly haven't done that. Page 76 October 4 2001 16J oo 1 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know you haven't. I was just asking about your definition. MR. VARNADOE: No. I think it's a practical man's definition, and that is if you border on a golf course then, you border on a golf course now. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions of Mr. Varnadoe for the moment? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. Madam Chair, as the LDC provides, I want a chance to respond. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Our first registered public speaker -- I would like to remind you that if you were not sworn in, please bring that to our attention when you approach the podium, and we'll call two or three names and ask that you just sort of come up and line up over here so we can move quickly. The first public speaker. MS. MURRAY: These names are tough. Excuse me. Jean LeFebvre would be the first public speaker. Then Jarig and Jila Wiglama would be on deck, please. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One thing that would be very helpful for our court reporter is to state your name, say where you live, and spell your name. That would be very helpful. Come on forward the two or three names that were just mentioned. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Miss Murray, how many do we have? MS. MURRAY: Twelve. MS. LeFEBVRE: And I have an hour? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No, not quite. THE COURT REPORTER: Your name? MS. LeFEBVRE: My name is Jean LeFebvre, and I live on Marco Shores at the Fairways I I. Page 77 ri October 4, 2001 16J l CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Spell it. MS. LeFEBVRE: L- e- F- e- b- v -r -e. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MS. LeFEBVRE: I'll bet you don't have it right. I wouldn't want to be in this gentleman's shoes that was just up here a few minutes ago because there's no way that this is going to be accepted by all of us easily. I'm concerned -- I've been there six years. I live right across from where the golf club is going to be or is proposed to be. If this map is accurate, it says an inch is about 200 feet. Well, the way I look at it it's going to be about 200 feet behind me. Where I used to sit -- for six years now I've been sitting out looking at a beautiful golf course at night and the stars; that's all going to go away. I don't even know how much impact we have here. If we all say we don't want it, does that make it go away? And if not, then at least I would like it to be as livable as possible. I have concerns that there would be things like streetlights -- am I going to be looking out at streetlights? I'm not sure I want that road behind us. The gentleman says it takes traffic away from the front of the condo, yes, and it puts it right in the back of the condo, which is where I am all the time. I mean, my car is at the front. I just would like -- one more thing also. It says here insubstantial. Well, I'll tell you, I don't see much insubstantial because this is going to affect us tremendously. Everything is being changed. I just.hope that there's some sort of a compromise that can happen, and we can get some of the issues taken care of at a later date. I don't suspect any of that is going to happen now. I mean, I don't know. This is the first I hear of it. But those that are looking out for my interests in the condo association, now do your thing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Next speaker. Page 78 October 4, 2001 16J 1 MR. WIGLAMA: We're a husband - and -wife team. Is that all right? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Speak one at a time. Go ahead. Say who you are, where you live, and spell your name. MRS. WIGLAMA: Good morning. My name is Jila Wiglama, and we live in Unit 215 in Fairway I. We just recently bought the house -- the condo as an investment for our -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Spell your name. MRS. WIGLAMA: Jila, J- i -1 -a, and the last name is Wiglama, W- i- g- l- a -m -a. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MRS. WIGLAMA: You're welcome. We recently bought this condo as an investment for our future, but when we heard about this new development, which we didn't know anything about until a couple weeks ago, it got kind of scary because we didn't know, you know, how far this back road is going to be from our backyard and if we will have our privacy still and if the club facilities will be located in the back of our backyard. And also, like, you know, we don't want to sit in our backyard in the evening and see the cars going back and forth and the lights as he mentioned and also the hazards of the fuel and all that in the air. We like to enjoy our house, but this movement or this new development is kind of scary to us. We don't want to lose the value of our property because that's what we've planned on for our future or for our retirement. We would like him, you know, to be more concerned about our point of view as well, someone who just invested what they have for the future, and see our interest in it as well. At least, you know, let us know about what is going on. Not just all of a sudden we here this and that is going on, and we had no idea. We don't know how much it's going to affect our association, our Page 79 October 4 200116J 1 monthly fees, our water if they're putting I iiin new lakes, how it's going ' all unknown to us anA scares us and we want to work out. Its , answers, please. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. WIGLAMA: My name is Jarig Wiglama, J- a -r -i -g W- i- g- l- a -m -a. I'm also the state health inspector here, and I will be inspecting that clubhouse one of these days, I believe. My sympathies and my -- I echo exactly what Jean said earlier and my wife. We've been there just a couple of months now, and we had to work pretty hard and save a lot of money to get in there. Now that we're in there, we just received all this information, just within a week, about these developments. We heard rumors prior to that. We heard rumors that somebody was going to come in and buy us out and all sorts of things. I'll try to narrow it down, but when we sit out on our little lanai there and look out there across the golf course, I can just envision this clubhouse that's going to be about a football field away from me. It seems to me it's going to squeeze that Fairway No. 4 a little bit even tighter. I've already witnessed golfers out there in their golf carts sober or whatever coming over by our area. I've seen golf balls banging off of trees and heading over in our direction. Now, with this squeeze of the golf course, is it going to bring them over a little tighter into our place? Are we going to have golf balls banging in and out of our place? I've seen a lot of intoxicated drivers out there. Is it going to squeeze it even tighter? Do we have to deal with this every day when we look out there? I'm just concerned about the value. I'm concerned about the quality of life that we're going to have, and I'll just leave it to somebody else to pick it up from there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Next speaker. MS. MURRAY: The next registered speaker is October 4, 2001 16J1 Ellen Fernandez followed by James Williams. MS.FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Ellen Fernandez, F as in Frank, e- r -n -a- n-d-e-z. I am a property owner and a permanent resident of Fairways II at Marco Shores. My property is a unit that backs up to the 18th green, and I'm on the second level of that development. I'm here in reference to the proposed WCI development that affects our property on Mainsail Drive. A group of the owners in Fairways II have met informally with some of the WCI representatives, and we have asked very specific questions. And in response to some of those in Fairways I who are new owners who feel like they have not been informed quickly enough about this development, then I would urge you also to go directly to WCI because you will get your questions answered. There is no reason to be afraid about it at all. Do go and ask. That's the only way you're going to find out. When we first found out about this, we went directly -- actually down to the Marco Shores Country Club and found out some information there. Our condo association president, Jean McKinley, has also been very instrumental in making sure that we have the information. I would like to just go over just a few of the questions that we asked. This is not limited to all of the questions, but we talked about median enhancements, landscaping, and some minor illumination that would certainly only enhance the property. I must admitted that Collier County, unfortunately, has not done a very good job of keeping the medians clear and cutting it. We have to wait until the grass grows about four feet high before we even get a cutting out there. That has just happened this year definitely. Also, we talked about the construction phasing, including the golf course renovation, the four -plex condos, the high -rise phasing, and also enhancements to the entry. Page 81 October 4, 2001 ].6,J 1 Further, we talked about the relocation of the maintenance facility. Those of us in Fairways II, particularly those that are near the pool area which look directly -- almost directly into the maintenance facility have expressed that they feel very grateful to WCI for wanting to move that facility because they're looking directly at the water tower, and it's not the best view in the world. So that should certainly enhance the property. Further, we talked about the construction traffic concerns, which Mr. Varnadoe directly addressed and, also, the environmental considerations. It's my understanding there has been some discussion here about the public -- basically the utility facility, which is only on the maintenance area for the golf course. To me that can only enhance the entire area. And if the considerations are made and the commitments that are made that I'm hearing here today are done properly, then I feel that it can only enhance our property value on Fairways II. I've owned my property for three years. I bought it under construction. I. in consideration and also getting my further questions answered with WCI, am fully in agreement with the developer. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: James Williams followed by Janice Williams. MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jim Williams. I'm the president of the Commons Association and the president of Mainsail IV Association, which are across the street from Fairways I and II. Our concerns for many years have been drainage which we haven't had. We haven't had any control over that since 1994 at the time that the Anteramian Development Company bought the golf course. We have had problems with drainage. We've had problems with easements coming from the course across the street into the lake, and nothing has ever been resolved. Page 82 October 4, 2001 16J 1 We feel that a drainage association being reactivated with this development is going to enhance not only the golf course side, but also stop some of the pollution that's going into that lake, and there is a lot of pollution going in there. The movement of that clubhouse can only enhance the entire area. If you live there and you're there 12 months out of the year like I am and you get 240 or 250 golfers a day up and down that street and a certain number of beer cans and McDonald's wrappers and all the other things that they decide to dump on their way to and from the course, you would appreciate the fact that it's going to be now down at the other end, that their access is going to be through their own property to that golf course. Moving of the maintenance facility will be beneficial to all parties. Just getting it down to the east end away and getting rid of a lot of that tractor noise, mower noise, and everything early in the morning for the residents. We are also seeing an increase in property value at Mainsail. Three months ago properties were closing there in the neighborhood of one hundred and eighteen to a hundred and twenty thousand dollars. I know what's happening because we have to approve all sales. I've just seen two close within the last three weeks, one for 129,900 and one for 131,500. Does that say that people are viewing what's going to happen positively? I think they are. The drainage association definitely needs to be revised. We've talked about this for years and just hope that this will improve and go on with the development. Most recently Florida Water has just been really cracked on by the DEP for failure to monitor drainage. It was amazing to me that after all these years, within the last 30 days they've drilled 6 shallow wells on that golf course to monitor the quality of the drainage. So there's a lot of positive things happening, and we feel that the development by WCI in that area will be beneficial to everyone that lives in that area. Page 83 October 49 2001 16J l Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Janice Williams followed by Jamie Greusel. MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Janice Williams. I'm on the board of directors at Tropic Schooner condominium. We have 240 units out there. We're situated on 19 acres of land, 23 buildings. We are one of the largest developments on that road abutting Marco Shores Country Club. I think we have a very large interest in what's going on here. Not all of our owners are happy about this project coming in, and I won't give you my opinion, but a great percentage are overjoyed with it. e will lose something out there. We will lose the peace and tranquility. The acre of land that we're viewing is wonderful. I've lived there for nine years. It's a pretty spot to be. But change is going to come, and we must accept change. If it has to change, most of our owners fully accept and support this development. It can only bring good things to us out there. We have been in discussions with WCI and their attorneys. We submitted a letter with 12 items -- 12 or 13 items, and they've been presented today for the record. We are pleased with that. Some of the items haven't been answered sufficiently to our concerns, but we are still working with them, and we feel that we can work that out. The only thing is or biggest concern is this Marco Drainage Association. We are members of it with Mainsail and Fairways. The deed goes back to -- I believe it's 1982 when we were -- I think it was July of '82 when we took it over from Deltona. There was an agreement with Deltona. We took the property, and also we took three sections in our bylaws relating to the Marco Shores Drainage Association. I can tell you we do not understand it. We have all read it. We don't know what our responsibilities are. We don't know what our • -_ •, k October 4, 2001 16JI percentage of sharing of costs would be. The document is so complex we have had attorneys look at it. We feel that maybe those sections could be rewritten. We would like to work with WCI and maybe adjust our deed. It would be a big process for us to go through. I don't know if it would be possible, but we would be all striving to meet that end. WCI's attorney made a commitment this morning to the Planning Board that they would, yes, in fact, look into the issue and working with us and maybe give us a pro rata expense for it. We're on 19 acres. The full development is going to be 330 acres. If we had 19 percent of the total or however it would work, we would not like to see us paying for more lake maintenance than we are right now for one lake. We pay approximately $2,000 a year to maintain and prepare that lake. It's a living lake. It supports fish, alligators, birds, and so forth, and we would never want to lose it. We're kind of happy with communications with the WCI attorneys. We can only -- we'd like it to remain the same. And we wish WCI didn't come in. But on the other hand, our property values have escalated so since this news has gone out. I mean, you would have to be very foolish not to want this development to come in. If we have to have a change, this is a good change. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Jamie Greusel followed by Martha Smith. MS. GREUSEL: Good morning. I'm Jamie Greusel. I am counsel to Tropic Schooner. When I registered this morning to speak, it was obviously before the presentation. Subsequent to that presentation I did meet with Mr. Vamadoe, and I would like to state for the record that Tropic Schooner's concerns have been adequately addressed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Martha Smith followed by Pam Gruber. MS. SMITH: Good morning. Page 85 October 4, 2001 16J 1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe this is the lady that needs to be sworn in. MS. SMITH: Yes. (The oath was administered.) MS. SMITH: Good morning. It's still morning. Okay. My name is Martha Smith. I am vice president of Fairways I at Marco Shores. We are here this morning to talk about changes. The owners of Fairways I are not here to dispute the rights of the developer or the present or future owners or to develop the land that is already approved for residential development. What we're here for is to receive information and express concerns regarding the proposed changes to the PUD and the revisions of the master plan. I do want to make a comment about the hearing, though. I understand some of the developments down there were notified before Fairways I. Our hearing notices were dated September 14th, 2001, and received by some units owners on the 17th or later. Others were sent to the wrong addresses, old locations, or no notice was received at all. The board of directors and unit owners of Fairways I were not invited by WCI to the preliminary meeting on August 22nd at the country club to preview the proposal for the future development. So at best there has been less than three weeks for us to study the consequences of the proposed changes. The second thing I would like to talk about are -- some of our concerns are declared map changes and the modified use of insubstantial. Number I. the new relocated 25,000- square -foot clubhouse that is to be situated behind the existing condos, Fairways I. The existing clubhouse is accessed off the main road at present and buffered from surrounding developments. Number 2, a two -lane road proposed behind existing condos. The existing condos have Mainsail Drive in front. Presently traffic flows in front of the nonliving areas of our .. October 4, 2001 1611 development. The proposed plans do not decrease the current traffic. The plan is to divert future traffic off of Mainsail, and the result is the addition of hundreds of cars using the road behind Fairways I, including construction traffic. There is a potential of a thousand cars using a single entrance and exit from Mainsail and State Road 951 with no secondary road or exit roads that exist. A guardhouse with a main entrance in close proximity to an existing condo. Third is our environmental concerns. There is a quote, "The Environmental Advisory Council did not hear this petition because an environmental impact statement was not required." That's according to the August 23rd, 2001, report by the community development environmental services. Question. Regardless of any subsequent large tract relocations and reconfiguration changes, no environmental impact study needs to be revisited. Accepting a study of seven years or older, how can this be consistent with today's goals of reducing short- and long -term environmental impacts? What evidence is being submitted that the proposed relocations and reconfigurations do not create an environmental impact? How was this decision made that the removal of vegetation, relocation, and the addition of a road is not an environmental impact? And is this consistent with federal, state, and local regulations? Would the submission of an environmental study be accepted at a state level? Now, we would like to submit our requests. Number 1, we request that a hearing be rescheduled and no decision be made today. There seems to be some details left unanswered. Number 2, zoning concerns to be addressed because of new roadways and uses of a new and relocated clubhouse. Number 3, an environmental -- updated environmental impact study be submitted addressing short- and long- term changes. And, No. 4, provide a reasonable timeline between the meeting notice and the hearing to allow for increased participation of Page 87 October 4, 2001 16J l owners. We hope you will consider our requests. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Pam Gruber followed by Jean McKinley. MS. GRUBER: My name is Pam Gruber. I am an original owner at Fairways I. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Your spelling. MS. GRUBER: G- r- u- b -e -r. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. GRUBER: I've recently been appointed to our board just within the last few weeks due to some of our owners selling and another one recently passing away. So all of this is new to me being on the board. Martha and I have scampered. As we said, we didn't get notification of that first meeting with WCI, so we've been scampering to get all the information out to our owners. We heard back and talked to a lot of them. Some of them are here today. But we certainly haven't had time to get feedback from every one of them. So I'm not really here to talk to you as a board member. I'm here to talk to you as an owner. I've been there six years. The brunt of what is happening out there is going to be behind Fairways I. They keep saying they're doing us a favor by taking the traffic off of Mainsail. Well, Mainsail is the main road. We're used to hearing the traffic. We're used to hearing the trucks. Now all the trucks and all the traffic is going to be right behind Fairways I. Some of it will go to Fairways II. The majority will be behind Fairways I. We are looking across a small fairway at a 25,000 -foot clubhouse. They are also putting in, as I said, a road which is going to impact noise, traffic noise, both in front and behind our condo, and it's only 350 feet. They can buffer as much as they want, but I can still hear a car or quite a few cars. I'm concerned about the environment. We have a lot of animals out there. It's a very pristine area. There are abutting areas out there in the development against I, October 4, 2001 161 the mangroves out there. I don't know what environmental effect that will have on the mangroves out there. I certainly don't want to look out and see them dead in five years because nobody studied it. There are so many changes going on right now. Insubstantial is a word that, you know, I find laughable. This is very substantial. You're moving so many things around. You're causing changes to the environment. You know, I can't understand why this hasn't been studied. They say it has been environmentally. I don't know where those results are. I haven't seen them. As far as changing roads, putting in new roads, to me that's a substantial change. I don't trust these words "commitment" and "intent" and, "yes," we'll do this and that and the other thing. I would like to see something in writing about what they intend to do. And I really -- to say I don't want it in my backyard, I don't think any of us do. If I lived on Mainsail across the street, I'd be jumping up and down right now, of course. They're going to take the clubhouse from where it is, and they're going to dump it in our backyard. They can try and hide it as best they can, but we're still going to hear the noise. We're still going to see the lights. We're going to be greatly impacted by this. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain would like to ask a question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You had said you're one of the original buyers? MS. GRUBER: Original owners. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: About how long ago was that? MS. GRUBER: Six years -- five or six years. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you bought -- the building was only created about six years ago? MS. GRUBER: '94. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The original plat for that property Page 89 October 4, 2001 6J1 did have more invasive site work across from your building originally, and they changed it in '94. MS. GRUBER: In '94 when Antaramian bought it? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. MS. GRUBER: Right. i COMMISSIONER STRAIN: He actually helped it be less impact for you at that time. MS. GRUBER: Well, we saw his plan. His plan was very -- what should I say -- it was -- he had the high -rises going in on Parcel 1. He had the other buildings going in behind Tropic Schooner and that parcel back there. He had incorporated the entire community. He kept the main road on Mainsail. He kept the clubhouse as it was. He was going to redo the clubhouse. He was going to put in a nice gated -- not gated; I shouldn't say that -- a nice area in the front. He was going to put in, like, some kind of canoe ramp or something down there on the lake. He was going to incorporate the whole area. Now WCI is coming in, and they're putting in the whole area. Behind us it will be gated. We're not using that clubhouse. That is for their members only. We're not even going to be using the golf course because it's private unless we want to join. You know, so they're not doing anything for our benefit. They're doing it for their own. And they're putting everything and consolidating everything where it is now because they want to have a gated community, and they want to have it private. They don't want to put the other condos back where Antaramian had it behind Tropic .Schooner because they won't have their gated community because they can't gate us off in my opinion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Jean McKinley followed by Harry Poulos. MS. McKINLEY: I'm Jean McKinley. I live at Fairways II. Page 90 October 4, 2001 16J1 McKinley is M- c- K- i- n- l -e -y. We at Fairway, the people that I have talked to at Fairways II, all have a very positive attitude about WCI building the golf course and the facility in the back of us. We would be delighted. Since I am in the first building of Fairways II next to the maintenance area, it would be to my and to my neighbors' advantage to have that moved. Not only is the view not pleasant since so many trees died that lived there before, but there is often a smell of gasoline. There's equipment back there. They store their fertilizer, which often you can smell, and it seems to me that moving that maintenance area back by the airport would be a great advantage. As I said, we're all very positive about it and feel that WCI, whatever they put up, is very top scale. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Harry Poulos followed by Patricia Sulima. MR. POULOS: Good morning. My name is Harry Poulos, P -o- u-1-o-s. You know, I don't know how many in the room remember Gene Sarratin (phonetic), Esquire, who was there for the opening of the first club. They're now going to remodel it. Before Gene passed away, I had a chance to talk to him and, someone commented, "This club is a little too small." He said, "Don't worry. They're going to build a bigger one." I'm quite elated that it's going to happen. I think that many people in this room must have visited the WCI Community. I haven't, but I've heard a lot of good things about it. I've heard some pro and some con here. You have to remember one thing. We that live there will be the salesmen for WCI to sell their property which are quite -- four times as many units as we have there now. They're more concerned to compliment us or to make us happy. I'm pretty sure if they're good salesmen that's what they'll do. But I don't have to tell them. I think they're doing their job. Actually, they've demonstrated that ability in their past communities. But remember one thing. We have to sell their properties Page 91 October 4, 2001 6J1 because we live there. That's how Marco Island was built, and I was there for the opening of that. I was there when the Mackle brothers were discussing that the clubhouse that they built is too small and some day they're going to build a bigger one. I wish they were here to see this. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Patricia Sulima followed by Richard Skokowski. MS. SULIMA: Hi. I'm Pat Sulima, S- u- 1- i -m -a, and I'm a resident of Fairways II in the third building on the 18th fairway. I can only concur with what my neighbors said. We really feel it's going to be an advantage for WCI to come in. And as far as the traffic is concerned where we are, we've put up with a lot of people going to the airport, going to the clubhouse. It will be a little quieter. Sure, we're going to put up with some construction for a year or so until that construction is completed behind us, but I think it will only be good for us. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Richard Skokowski. That's your final speaker. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. SKOKOWSKI: Good morning. My name is Richard Skokowski. That's S- k- o- k- o- w- s -k -i. I see it's nearing lunchtime, so I'll keep it brief. I'm in favor of WCI coming in and building. It's going to enhance all of our values. Everything they said in the positive is good. Fairways I, I can see their point about saying, "I don't want to see the golf house back the -- the club back there." I don't blame them. But by the same token you can't please everybody. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Varnadoe. MR. VARNADOE: Sorry, Madam Chairman. I didn't mean to hold up proceedings. I think we've heard -- and I tried to take some notes -- the pros and cons, and I appreciate both of them. I think as Mr. Strain pointed out, a couple of the speakers, Ms. Gruber and Ms. Page 92 October 4, 2001 16J1 Smith, bought when the prior plan was in place when they had even more development behind them and a road right next to them going back to that property. As I have indicated, this plan shows the entry road is going to be a minimum of 200 feet from the nearest residence. It will be below the level of the golf course. They will not be able to see that Type B buffer there. One gentleman -- a couple speakers have mentioned the clubhouse and the proximity. Their scale is different from mine. What I would like to do to kind of put that to rest so Mr. Richardson will be happy that it will be a real commitment is to put on the plan that the golf clubhouse building will be a minimum of 600 feet to the nearest Fairways 1 building. So there would be two football -- at least a two football field separation from building to building. Folks, that's a long way. As far as any impacts from those buildings, if you look at our conceptual plan, the closest units to that clubhouse are units that we're going to be trying to sell for a lot of money. We can't have activities going on in that clubhouse -- because that will be built first -- that detracts from people trying to live in close proximity. Everybody knows with these clubhouses you have the grand entry in the front. But all the activities in the golf clubhouse are in the back because that's where the carts are and the pro shop and the restaurant overlooking the golf course and the meeting rooms. There's nothing to the front other than some grandiose entrance that makes a statement, and I don't mean that in a negative way, but makes a statement for the project. I'm not going to take any more time, Madam Chairman, unless you've got questions or your board does that they would like to address. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I want to make sure I understand you correctly. You're willing to put on the master plan map a statement Page 93 about the 600 feet distance from Fairways I? October 4, 2001 6J1 MR. VARNADOE: Building separation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Building separation. Okay. That makes it a portion of the document. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Varnadoe, WCI is a quality development. We've seen that time and time again, so my comments are not meant to detract from what I'm sure will be a quality project. With our new public participation plan -- and I keep coming back to that because what we have here is kind of a poster child for why the new public participation plan will really keep a lot of this sort of thing from happening in the future, because you will have had -- if you follow the ordinance -- and I'm sure you would -- you would be having public meetings that would be recorded. And although you weren't at our meeting last night, there was a section added that there will be -- any commitments made by the developer during these sessions will be written down and made part of the proceedings. What I'm having a little trouble with is that we have kind of a floating set of commitments. I'm sure WCI has good intentions and will do everything that they say they're going to do, but the staff and, you know, the county really has no way to check off to make sure that you did what you said you were going to do if it's not part of the record in some way. Now, we've got some things on the record, but I wrote down just as they came along, you know, a dozen items that were mentioned by various people that represent what you might have said to them, but now are not anywhere in our documentation for the county to be able to say, "Did you actually phase the construction? Did you put in the landscaping like you said you were going to do? Are you going to move" -- you know, some of these things that you said you're going Page 94 October 4, 2001 16JI to do. So I'm just wondering if there's some way we can help resolve that. The other missing piece is the lack of communication with Fairways I. At least that's how they represented it. You know, there again, with new public participation we wouldn't have had that opportunity to miss it. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. I understand all that. That's all very nice. Fairways I was invited. I think Mr. Laing -- MS. SMITH: No, he was not. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. UNIDENTIFED FEMALE: No. MR. VARNADOE: He's not the president? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. THE COURT REPORTER: Your name. MS. SMITH: My name is Martha Smith. I am the vice president of the board of directors. Robert Laing is in close contact with me, and he was indeeed not invited. In fact, I notified him of what was going on. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. VARNADOE: All right. Whether he was or not I guess I was misinformed. The sum and substance of it, Mr. Richardson, is I'm dealing with the law as it existed then. We did try to reach out to the community. We intended to reach out to the community both verbally and in writing with regard to their issues. We will continue to do that. I think the major commitments as they relate to the development are in the master plan or on the master plan. We tried to indicate that. If there is something else that you think that should be on that master plan, I'm happy to do that. Anything we said here today is -- I've been doing this for longer than I care to admit, and the only thing I've got going for me is my credibility. When I stand up here and say Page 95 October 4, 2001 16J 1 something, if the client doesn't do it, then I don't represent them. But we have tried to put the major commitments as they relate to PUD matters on the master plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because it is an insubstantial change versus any other substantial change that would be placed into the document. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain, I know, is waiting. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Marjorie -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Marjorie, are you going to talk on the record? Are you having a sidebar? MS. STUDENT: Yes. I was having a sidebar with Mr. Varnadoe. I guess I need some further amplification maybe from staff and Mr. Varnadoe about putting the changes on the map. If it's stuff that explains the map, that's okay, but I just have to say if it amounts to amending the PUD on the map, I have a problem with that without going through the process. That's all. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I'm still not clear here whether we resolved the issue of substantial or insubstantial, so we may have to discuss that just a little more. MR. VARNADOE: We can do that. There are no building separation requirements in the PUD. As you know, that's not a normal PUD thing. You have setbacks from property boundaries. And, of course, those are in the PUD, and we're going to live with that. All I was simply trying to do was respond to this question of whether the clubhouse is going to be 300 feet or 600 feet from the nearest building, and I was simply suggesting we put a notation on the map that it's going to be 600 and try to do what Mr. Richardson says and calm some of the concerns down that people have. I'm trying to be responsive here and not cause problems. Page 96 October 4, 2001 16J 1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now, would that be -- MR. VARNADOE: If there are any further questions for me, I'll be happy to answer them. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a couple. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just so I understand it, George, the road that's going to be put in, you are going to buffer that road against the Fairways I building. So they'll have an adequate buffer of some type, I'm assuming? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And then the other issue that they brought up was the streetlights. Do you intend to put streetlights on that road? MR. VARNADOE: There will be some illumination on that road. The PUD has a requirement that those be directed away from residential properties at the current time, and we will live with that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we need -- Mr. Budd, did you wish to speak? COMMISSIONER BUDD: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we need more clarification from the staff? MR. REISCHL: On what question? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: On the issue of substantial or insubstantial. Since we took the time to -- MR. REISCHL: My office says that it's an insubstantial change. It's a reconfiguration or relocation without changes in acreage. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Reischl, just let me be argumentative for a moment. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How unusual. Page 97 October 4, 2001 1 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, just to perhaps correct my misunderstanding. PUDs, at least in some aspects, have as part of that process a list of commitments that are made to support that PUD. There's a commitment section, development commitments. I'm just struggling with if we're now coming up with another grocery list of commitments that have come out as a result of good -faith efforts between WCI representatives and the public, I'm just really trying to protect staff. I don't think that then makes this an insubstantial document. I think it really moves it more towards a substantial change. MR. REISCHL: Substantial change? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Substantial rather than insubstantial. If we were, in fact, going to give the staff the tools to follow up on these commitments, in fact, we would just like to see -- I would like to propose that this be considered substantial and be moved back into the process now that we have, in effect, the new public participation ordinance virtually in effect -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: "Virtually in effect" meaning that it will be in the very near future. As this process will initiate itself, it very well might then satisfy all our problems because that document does clearly state how these commitments are to be dealt with and made part of the record. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson, I want to respond just a moment as the chair. I understand what you're saying; however, we cannot hold hostage projects that are going through a system if we have changes that are going to be enacted to our Land Development Code and to our ordinances. As a firm believer in the rules of law in this country, l have to take exception to the fact that this is virtually accepted because it has not gone before the Board of County Commissioners. So we cannot put ourselves in a position, in my October 4, 2001 16J 1 opinion, of holding items hostage. If that's the reason we would choose for changing this to substantial versus insubstantial, I would have to vote against it. I believe -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would certainly not want to -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would certainly not want to hold anyone hostage these days; however, I think that the commitments that are be stated would be a sufficient reason for this to be put in the substantial category. And if it turned out that we had a code that caused them to go through a different procedure, whatever the code is, the code is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Miss Student, I believe you wanted to make a legal comment. MR. REISCHL: While she's talking, if I can just be clear on what staff analyzed was an insubstantial change. It was relocation and reconfiguration. We didn't analyze any buffers or anything like that, just for the record. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All right. Miss Student. MS. STUDENT: Okay. What I wanted to read into the record was the section that deals with language changes just so everybody is clear (as read): "Language changes to a previously approved PUD document shall require the same procedure as for amending the official zoning atlas," which means a rezone. And I do know that there can be commitments made on the record, I believe, that don't necessarily find their way into a document, and staff -- I don't think staff could shed some light on how those would be enforced. If it is a problem, I don't know if there can be private documentation that these things could be put in, but those are a couple of concerns that I wanted to put on the record. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Miss Murray. Page 99 October 4, 2001 16J 1 MS. MURRAY: I'm not sure I can shed a lot of additional light. Some of the commitments I heard were related to drainage easements and whatnot that really don't have anything that's enforceable by the county. I mean, that was a deed restriction, and we don't deal with those. They don't end up in PUD documents, and we don't enforce them. Commitments about buffering are perfectly acceptable on a PUD master plan. Buffer areas, conservation areas, that sort of thing are very typical on a PUD master plan. The commitment for a separation of the building, usually you deal with those within the text of the PUD document itself. I will offer this opinion that the PUD document has already been adopted with setbacks for structures, and it sounds like what Mr. Varnadoe was proposing was merely a clarification of the location of the clubhouse structure on the master plan with a distance requirement. I have a mixed opinion on that, but I'm tending to lean towards that it would be acceptable to staff. It's really merely a clarification of location, which actually helps all of us in our review process. With the master plan, we tend to be very general. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, in answer to Mr. Richardson's concerns, I don't read the code the same way he does. There are 11 indicia of whether change is substantial or insubstantial, and no matter how strangely we may feel about it, if it -- if this duck doesn't have one of these 11 legs, then it isn't a duck, and we can't just call it that because we want to. The question is whether -- what our interpretation is of No. 4 of the proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses. That's the nub of the question. We'll discuss that, I guess, later. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just as a follow through, Item 11 says, any modifications -- and I'm paraphrasing -- of the PUD document. It seems to me that some of the things we talked about would modify the development commitment section of the Page 100 October 4, 2001 16J I PUD document. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it says -- you have to go on and finish the sentence: Which impacts any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification in 1 through 9 above." So if it ain't one of those, it's still not a duck. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Quack, quack. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd, I think you wanted to comment. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'm prepared after you close the hearing to make or consider a motion with the assumption that this is an insubstantial change. If that is a linchpin item in the mind of other commissioners, then maybe we should hear a specific motion to consider or not to consider this insubstantial. I'm in agreement with the county recommendation, and I'm willing to proceed with that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wasn't it applied for as insubstantial, so shouldn't the motion -- I mean, I don't think it's our decision to make that. It's our decision to approve it as submitted or not. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I agree. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, if we find it's insubstantial, Mark, it seems to me implicit, and that is our finding, that this utility item is a residential land use. We would also almost have to find that in order to maintain -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the other side of the coin is that the utilities site has been now designated or told to us to be a maintenance facility for the golf course. If it's a maintenance facility for the golf course - -. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Those are two different things, aren't they? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just the maintenance -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah -- Page 101 October 4, 2001 16J l COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is it a main facility for the golf course, George? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm talking about a water plant that -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, that's what staff said and George -- THE COURT REPORTER: Wait a second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time. MR. REISCHL: That was my misunderstanding. The water tower confused me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let's clarify that point because it's important to me also to meet those 11 criteria. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This helps it is what I'm getting at. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. MR. VARNADOE: It functions as a maintenance facility for the golf course and the residential tract, but the main purpose is a maintenance facility for the golf course. We have a water tower on there that supplements the water management system for the entire area. But as I told you, that wasn't part of our original application. If that's going to make you say it's substantial, I don't want that considered, and I will deal with that at a later date. We need to get on with this. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Where I'm coming from is if it's part of the golf course in servicing it or the maintenance it, it becomes part of the recreation area then, which is not something that is applicable as far as one of the triggers. So, you know, it may be fine then to leave this in there and change the PUD. MR. VARNADOE: I think you heard everybody say, "Let's move that." COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But I'm trying to find a way to see Page 102 October 4, 2001 16J1 the -- MR. VARNADOE: And I agree with you. I mean -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It should be moved. MR. VARNADOE: Our -- THE COURT REPORTER: Wait, wait, wait. MR. VARNADOE: Excuse me. I'm sorry, ma'am. t is not a -- there are utility sites on the site, Florida Water Service. They're at the far east end. This is not that. This is in conjunction with the residential and recreational aspects of this project. So it's not a nonresidential from my perspective, but that's just my opinion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Certainly it comes closer to being a residential use than the other things that are cited here which are institutional, commercial, or industrial. It certainly doesn't sound like one of those. MR. VARNADOE: I can certainly affirm you it's none of those. sir. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: None of those. Do we have any further questions of staff or of petitioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: None whatsoever. I'm going to close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of this board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that's predicated upon my assumption that staff s interpretation that the disputed parcel is an accessory use to the residential, so my motion is consistent with the insubstantial assumption of this petition, and that is that we recommend approval of petition PDI- 2001 -AR -1220 with the assurances as to the distance of building separation and assurances on buffering that were stated by Mr. Vamadoe and restated by Susan Murray. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second it. Page 103 October 4, 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd and a second by Mr. Abernathy to approve this particular petition. Discussion, please. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just one thing, Madam Chair. It seems that the practical man's definition failed and we go with the definitions that are in the document. I would just like to admonish WCI -- that's the wrong word. I would like to encourage WCI to go forward with what you have been doing, and that is trying to contact them and meet with the community and particularly the Fairways. Now, again, you may not be able to satisfy everyone, but I really think that everything you can do to help continuing to be a good neighbor is going to be helpful to this whole process. And when we do get the public participation plan, I wouldn't have to ask that question because I'll know you would have done it. So with that I support the motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other statements you would like to make? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm basically convinced that we can keep it in the insubstantial. I certainly have learned a few additional items today. I always appreciate people pulling out their code books and looking very carefully, because we do not want to make mistakes here. We want to be able to go forward with what our code does say as it exists now, and I feel comfortable that WCI is going to make every effort to try to work out some of the other details that we have. So with that, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you, and thank you -all for attending and being such a polite audience. We have one Page 104 October 4, 2001 16J1 more item, so clear the room quickly. We'll take a five - minute break to clear the room. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ladies and gentlemen, we are back in session. We are considering our tabled item which was placed at the end. Our first item was BD- 2001 -AR -1198. We are back in this public hearing, and I believe our county -- our assistant county attorney would like to state something. MS. STUDENT: I think you need to maybe do a motion to bring it back to the table. COMMISSIONER BUDD: So moved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd and a second by Mr. Abernathy to untable this. We are now back in public hearing officially -- oh, excuse me. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney, for the record. Questions came up about the construction of language in the PUD document and the settlement agreement relative to private docks being that there's any accessory uses on Parcels 1 through 4. This parcel line isn't in the water. First of all, the language is "on the parcel." It doesn't say "solely within the parcel" or "solely in the parcel." It says "on." And we have other situations, RSF -3, for example, where docks are accessory uses, and the zoning line if they're situated on the water goes along the waterway, yet all these properties enjoy what's called common law riparian rights. Part of the common law riparian right is the ability to wharf out, if you will, and get to navigable Page 105 October 4, 2001 16J ]. waterways. So it will be my opinion that the fact that this goes a little bit beyond that parcel line for all the reasons stated doesn't present a problem. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Yovanovich -- oh, do we need a staff presentation? No, it's your turn. MR. YOVANOVICH: You were just about to get to me. For the record, Richard Yovanovich representing the petition;. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Senior brain freeze, sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay. I would like you to take notice that there's nobody here in the audience opposed to this, which is something that is unusual for this area. I think you -all have seen me come before you on other occasions where we've done boat docks in the same area, and there's been representatives from the area expressing concerns. We have done, I think, a very good job of educating people in the area. We met with the residents -- even people who aren't adjacent to this, but people who usually come here and speak -- and showed them what we had planned to do. We even got the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association to recommend approval of this subject to our recording the deed restriction clarifying that the only individuals who could utilize these facilities are owners or their tenants of residential units within the Regatta. We have made that commitment. They have reviewed and approved our deed restriction, which we will get executed and recorded, so we stipulate to that condition. I have Todd Turrell here and Tim Hall if you have any specific questions regarding the proposal. I just wanted to help Mr. Wolfley by showing the distance. There's quite a bit of distance between where the 245 ends, and it does include the boat that may be there. So there's ample navigability to address safety and navigation. These are criteria that we have to Page 106 October 4, 2001 16J1 comply with. We don't have to meet every one, but the calculation is 25.6. It's a little over 25 percent into the waterway. But I hope that that is acceptable to you and the other members of the Planning Commission. It was acceptable to the community. It concurred because we ended up sliding the finger pier out -- in a little bit. It used to be straight out, and it was shorter to move it to accommodate some concerns. That's why it's out like that. Unless you have any specific questions, I hope that the staff report is complete. You've seen the application. All of that is part of the record. We were -- under the PUD, it actually says a minimum of 74 is permitted. We have scaled back to a maximum of 56. So we have -- it's a maximum of 56. I hope we can be rewarded for our efforts in working with the community and having them not be here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That is quite a reward when it comes to this particular area and these particular issues. I think you've done an excellent job from what I see. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a quick question. The fingers that goes out -- whatever you call that -- how close is that to the docks on the other side? That seems to be the closest area. MR. HALL: It's -- THE COURT REPORTER: Your name, sir. MR. HALL: Sorry. Tim Hall of Turrell & Associates. From the outermost dock to that, it's 93 feet. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Stay in one place. MR. HALL: It's 93 feet. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the innermost docks run the closest, but that would be something like 80 feet, I suppose. MR. HALL: Yes, sir. That was done to allow appropriate backing distances for the boats on both sides. That's one of the reasons that the finger pier is not straight up and down. The Barefoot Pelican condominiums have a lease which allows boats up to, I Page 107 October 4, 2001 16J 1 believe, 38 feet, and in order to accommodate the appropriate backing distance, if they did put a maximum -size boat in there, we shifted the finger pier out a little bit to allow more room for them to navigate. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And communications have been made with those folks as well? MR. YOVANOVICH: We wanted to let everybody and anybody know what we were doing. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And they had no objection to it? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We had a neighborhood meeting, and those who attended got to see the full presentation. They were very pleased. Ross mentioned there were three letters. I don't know where they're located, but they're obviously not here so ... COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, they were on the third floor waiting for us to show up. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I was just going to comment that I think we've been here long enough. They can read the sign over there and have found the supervisor's training room, so they should be here. That's my opinion. Any questions from this end? Any further questions at all? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that the Planning Commission approve Petition BD- 2001 -AR -1198 subject to the stipulations listed in the resolution. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. Page 108 October 4, 2001 16JI CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Budd, a second by Mr. Abernathy to approve this petition. Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no discussion I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. That is the last of our public hearings. Item No. 9, old business. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any new business? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a question. MS. MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I'll give you the question first. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You partially answered the question earlier, but I wanted to expound on it a little bit. I mentioned to Marjorie that at some point I thought it would be good - - there's so many new members on this board -- that we have some kind of workshop or training session to go over a series of things, not just the -- I think it's important -- the county attorney's office has an excellent presentation on the Sunshine law, which I think all the new members could benefit from. At the same time I would like to discuss openly with staff some concerns I have about packages and the way we might be able to improve on things so there would be less questions coming up at these meetings that are -- I don't know how you want to call it -- known up front a little bit more. So I know you had scheduled a workshop or you told me there's going to be some kind of thing the next time. Is this going to be as involved as what Page 109 October 4, 2001 16J1 I'm talking about, or is it going to be something different than that? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, we're hoping. And to answer your question, I believe it was the 29th of September that I was on the board for two years, and I've been waiting for my orientation. We made a major effort. Mrs. Young was very successful. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: One year ago I made the same suggestion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We've had a number of changeovers, as you know, with staff changes and that type of thing, and so we kept moving forward with a positive attitude, and it is set for the 18th of October. I believe there's a couple set of documents that have been produced that I have been carrying around that you should have been given and Mr. Midney and Mr. Adelstein. If they don't already have them, make sure they get them. That's why I was so concerned that your medical issue would keep you from being here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. My wife -- she's going to be in surgery. It's going to be hard for me not to be there. MS. MURRAY: My question was kind of related to that. You don't know this yet, but you have a very heavy agenda on the 18th of October. It involves Comprehensive Plan changes as well as our regular agenda. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If I'm not there, will it be shorter? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes. MS. MURRAY: Possibly. You may want -- I know this is a sore subject, but you may want to consider -- I will make a concerted effort to try to keep the agenda a little clearer when we do have this workshop. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Let's try this question. I don't have a calendar in front of me. We do have Land Development Code in the normal cycle coming up in November; is that not correct? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. Probably towards the end of Page 110 October 4, 2001 November. I'm sorry. I don't have any schedule or calendar with me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: They gave us the new revised special stuff, and they didn't give you a -- MS. MURRAY: I just didn't bring it with me. I can only carry so much. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Abernathy, what is the first date in November? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: One of November; Thursday, November 1. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How does that fit for those of us that are here? We're missing Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could I suggest -- I don't have my calendar either. I apologize for that. Maybe we can e-mail Susan our available dates or maybe, on the other side, the dates that are difficult, and maybe she can sort it out that way based on that. MS. MURRAY: I would be willing to do that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Maybe on the 18th, if that's possible, we could actually carry on a discussion in the open, not just e- mails, of when we would have this. Would that be good? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman, I'm trying to facilitate finding a date. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We do have, then, two hearings in November for the Land Development Code. MS. MURRAY: I believe you do. I just don't know the dates off the top of my head. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All right. In deference to Mr. Strain, who obviously is a well - informed board member on all the details and mechanics of our particular charge, let's go ahead then and try to let Susan know by e -mail or a telephone call when your dates are available. We would like to have it in November as soon as possible so we do not allow this. I remember the motion being made, I believe Page 111 ^ October 4 2001 6J1 - l 6� b Mr. Budd, that we absoluteOwere not going to change this, so Y guess we can change our mind. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The supermajority. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Supermajority. MS. MURRAY: I honestly did not know they were loading up the agenda with all these items until yesterday, and I apologize. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Just as a matter of curiosity and logistics, who loaded that agenda? MS. MURRAY: My staff. Unfortunately, I'll blame this on the comprehensive planning staff because it's their items that are making your agenda so full. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Comprehensive, okay. MS. MURRAY: They are the comp plan amendments which, as you know, can be very long. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I look forward to those. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That will be entertaining for sure. So we will shoot for coming to a conclusion and hopefully will have some dates available to us when we talk in public on the 18th. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just to support Mr. Strain's point in asking a question of what would be involved in it, they'll have their presentation, but I feel that's our opportunity to have any kind of discussion we want to have. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's been that way in the past times I've sat in on the board, yes. I would hope that would continue that way. MS. MURRAY: In the interim, could I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MS. MURRAY: I'm going to hand out my business cards to the two new people that probably don't have them with my e -mail address on them. I am encouraging you -- and Mr. Richardson is an excellent example because he always e -mails me his questions before Page 112 October 4, 2001 the hearing or after the hearing sometimes -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Sometimes. 16J1 MS. MURRAY: -- and asks about comprehensive planning issues or interpretation issues of the code or procedural issues, whether this is the correct procedure or not. I have a lot of difficulty with coming to these meetings and having my staff pulled out into the hall to read books and pour over our code. I would rather do that ahead of the meeting for you -all if you have those kind of questions. If you're concerned that this is not the proper procedure, I would rather know about it ahead of time. What happens is inevitably the rug gets pulled out from underneath a lot of people's feet in this forum, including my staff and including the petitioner and the public who comes here when those issues are raised. If that is a question and your input is -- I love working with you guys. We really value your input. We do not plan in a vacuum. I value the public's input as well. We take heavily into consideration what you say and your opinion. I guess I would ask for the same respect back to my staff. If you have a question about whether or not this is even a proper procedure, I ask that we not make each other look like idiots in the public, that we are supportive of each other. I will make a comment for the record that I am very supportive of this board in the public when I talk to the public -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Even when it's not deserved. MS. MURRAY: -- about what a great group this is. I'm a very sincere and honest person. I hope you will respect that. I'm not trying to smooze you. I do make those comments in the public, and I just would appreciate the same back. It's difficult in a public forum to have those kind of things happen. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: In response to that, I would like to say that I do not under any cirumstances want the public to think that Page 113 October 4, 2001 16JJ we're solving problems by e -mail and that they just are taken care of and not actually mentioned on the record. In some cases I think we will have to be very careful about making that statement because -- I am still distressed at last night's statement by staff about the excavation. I recognize I have more of a responsibility to review a few things, but I truly do not want to feel like I e -mail two pages and then it's just forgotten because I didn't bring my copy. I didn't want it to carry on any longer with the Land Development Code last night than it did. I just do want to make the statement that, A, we don't want to feel like we're doing things that the public can't have access to or we're solving problems via e-mail, and that we do make our meetings here run more smoothly and actually get some of those answers to the questions that we asked, and we can ask them -- even ask a better question so it's easier for the public to understand. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I understand your comments, and since I'm a new member, I've been kind of vocal lately, and some of the issues brought up today were brought up initially by me. It was not brought up as an attack on your staff or trying to undermine anything you -all have done. In fact, I've probably worked with most of your staff longer than you have. I like everybody in the department. I think they're doing an excellent job. But part of the problem I had this time, and I think you're aware of it, is I didn't have the documents I needed to do the research in a manner that allowed me any time to contact anybody ahead of time. When I was down at the county scrambling for money to get documents that were referenced in our package, I got them, but then when I got back home to try to read them in the evening, I found out I only got one side of a two -sided document copied. So I still couldn't use it. So I went down on my own time and pulled them myself and made the copies so I would have a complete package to read. Then I Page 114 October 4, 2001 i6J1 read them -- I couldn't read them until the night before, and I didn't get a chance to e -mail you and then receive an e -mail back. I don't even get e -mails every 24 hours with the way it's set up. I don't have time to tie in. So please don't take it offensively. I did not mean it that way. I'm just trying to make sure the record for the county's liability is as perfect as it can be and everything is on the record. That's my intent. MS. MURRAY: I appreciate that, and I don't take anything personally. I have very high standards about meetings and public forums and professionalism as do you, which is obvious, and I appreciate that. So it's not taken as a personal attack at all. I just want it to be more of a facilitation of communication. I pointed out to Commissioner Rautio that I do maintain a list throughout our meeting of things that you bring up. If you're missing items in your agenda that you just realized, obviously, the night before the meeting and you can't contact me, may be some organizational tools that you would like to see changed in the agenda. I keep a running list for my staff s presentations in ways that I think they could more clearly communicate to you, their analysis both verbally and in writing, as well as any pictures they show you so that you can be clear on where, you know, our position is and what our interpretation of the code is. I do do that at every meeting, and my first priority when I go back is to contact my staff via e-mail or in person and list it out and make sure that they, hopefully, next time do a better job. But, as we all know, it's an ongoing process. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Susan, could you add to your list that we would like to have some water up here? MS. MURRAY: Yeah, you told me that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And maybe a sandwich. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Sorry. That would be an expenditure. Page 115 October 4, 2001 16J 1 16ol 1 Water, I think, is relatively free. Any other comments under the new business section here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Number 11 on the agenda is public comment. I don't see any public out there. There is no comment. We had no addenda, so we have no discussion for Number 12, so I just need to entertain a motion and a second to adjourn. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Move to adjourn. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We are adjourned. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:33 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOYCEANNA RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY MARGARET A. SMITH, RPR Page 116 V/-""' October 18, 2001 16JI TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 18, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:35 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: NOT PRESENT: Joyceanna J. Rautio Russell A. Budd Kenneth L. Abernathy Paul Midney Lindy Adelstein Lora Jean Young David J. Wolfley Dwight Richardson Mark P. Strain ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie M. Student, Asst. County Attorney Susan Murray, Chief Planner, Planning Services Misc. Corres: + Date: Page 1 item# f j Copies To: October 18, 2001 611 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to call to order this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission for Thursday, October 18th, 2001. Please stand and j oin me in the pledge of allegiance. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Next item, roll call. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Rautio, present. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Present. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson, absent but excused. Mr. Strain, absent but excused. We do have a quorum. Is there any addenda to the agenda, Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: No, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Next item would be approval of the minutes for September 20th. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd, a second by Mrs. Young for approval of the September 20th, 2001, minutes. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Page 2 October 18, 2001 res onse. (Unanimous p ) 16J1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Do we have any Planning Commission absences that you're aware of? Okay. The next item would be No. 6, the Board of County Commissioners report, recap of September 25th. Do we have any specific questions of staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, Madam Chairman. Susan, on page 6, top of the page, that item I was interested in about Eagle Creek and their storage, personal storage lockers, it sets it out there, but it doesn't say what happened to it. MS. MURRAY: The board denied that petition. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, good for them. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions, or did you have any highlights you wanted to cover, Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: No. I did want to mention that we had our first public hearing for the LDC amendments. And to preface that, I did want to say that the staff did forward the LDC amendments with all of your recommended changes to the Board of County Commissioners. We had our first public hearing. There was one speaker in the audience. Some of the issues that came up were the sunsetting issue and the three -year time frame and the requirements for the applicants to notify the property owners for the public meeting. Those were some of the discussion items. I'll give you a final report after we meet again with them next Wednesday and they have their final public hearing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I have nothing specific in the chairman's report for No. 7. No. 8 is the advertised public hearings. The first item we have today is VA- 2001 -AR -1311. All those wishing to give testimony today, please stand, raise your right Page 3 October 18, 2001 hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. 16J 1 (The speakers were sworn.) COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's no one here for the petitioner? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It doesn't look like it. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I guess he's not here yet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I think we ought to put this over till the end of the agenda. I don't think you can have a hearing without a petitioner very well. COMMISSIONER BUDD: We can proceed, and if there's questions and he's not here to answer them -- you know, we have a schedule for a date and time certain. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What's the -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't feel strongly. Whichever way you want to do it, Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Is the pleasure of the board to continue on, or would you like to postpone this to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would like to continue on. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Continue on. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is an after - the -fact variance for property located on Frank Whiteman Boulevard. The house was built in 1953, and in 1991 they applied for a permit to expand the house. And the plans showed side setback at 7 1/2, and later they gave us a survey showing 7 1/2. And the -- they were issued a final CO. And subsequent to that, the house was sold. And last year the house was sold again, and the new owners asked for a survey. The new survey showed that the old surveyor was wrong, and the side setback is 6 1/2 and not 7 1/2. And they are applying for a variance to remove the encroachment there. While they are at it, they are also asking for a variance to the other side of Page 4 October 18, 2001 16J 1 the house, on the west side. That side does not really require a variance. At the time the house was built setback was 5 feet. Later in 1974 we changed the setback to 7 1/2. So legally they are not in need of a variance, but to make sure that they will not have problems in the future, they are asking this also be added to the variance request so there are no problems with that in the future. Staff recommends approval of this variance. The area was It developed many years ago. And, as I said, at that time the side setback was 5. Most homes, they have 5- or 6 -foot setback. This 6 1/2 -foot setback is not going to be out of character with the area. And, again, it happened many years ago, and since then the house was sold twice. And we know that it wasn't the applicant's fault. It wasn't the owner's fault. It was the surveyor's fault in 1991. Staff recommends that we forward this to the BZA with a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I would like to ask a question. You said it was the surveyor's fault in 1991? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 1991. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: 1991. We have a copy of the survey which was on the back of the application -- excuse me, the permit. Could you clarify who actually was the surveyor for the -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This survey -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: --'96 one? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The wrong survey was done by Mr. Art Cornell (phonetic). CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: By whom? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Art Cornell, his name is. He's a surveyor on Marco Island. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Don't they normally put it on the survey? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Their name? Yes, they do. I had to Page 5 October 18, 2001 16J1 copy a portion of the survey to fit in your staff report. The survey was 11 by 17. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The paperwork we got said that it would be expensive for them to do something for the house to bring it back into code. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They have to basically tear it down. I don't know any other way of, you know, changing the setbacks. Once you remove the wall, you have to change all the trusses, and the roofing structure must come down, and it will be very expensive to correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who owns the house now? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right now the house is owned by Mr. Adam Hubschman and before that was owned by Mr. John Enlow. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So Hubschman went ahead and completed the purchase despite the fact that he had this -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They completed the purchase subject to the previous owner either obtaining a variance or -- I don't know what -- the other contingencies they had. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, the petition -- or the variance petition we have in front of us originally shows Mr. Enlow, and that's crossed out to Mr. Hubschman. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. Enlow was the owner who sold the house in nineteen -- in the year 2000, I believe, to Mr. Hubschman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And we don't have anyone here to give us a little clarification. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. Enlow was supposed to be here this morning. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And just clarify for me then, what future complications are they trying to avoid? Page 6 October 18, 2001 16JI MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are worried that in the future -- you're talking about the west side of the house; correct? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Correct. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. They are worried that in the future if they want to sell the house and somebody else is going4to say, "The setback is 7 1/2; how come yours is 7.3? So they dust want to have this added to the variance. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They're afraid that history will be lost by the time the next sale takes place. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It could happen. It was built in 1953. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions? Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that the Planning Commission forward Petition VA- 2001 -AR -1311 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Budd, a second by Mr. Abernathy for approval of this petition. Do we have any discussion? All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Next item on the agenda is PUDZ- 2001 -AR -986, a rezone for Walnut Lakes PUD. All those wishing to present testimony today, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, planning services staff. The petitioner is requesting a rezone from RSF -3 and Page 7 October 18, 2001 16JI agriculture to a planned unit development to be known as Walnut Lakes PUD. As you can see on the visualizer, the site is located on the north side of U.S. 41 approximately 2 miles east of Collier Boulevard. The proposed 204 -acre planned unit development permits a mix of residential dwellings including an assisted - living facility that's designed around a golf course, lakes, open space, and preserve areas. As you can see on the master plan, the preserve area's along the north. To the north is the Naples Reserve golf course community. To the east is the West Wind Mobile Home Park, and to the west is vacant agricultural land. This master plan is slightly different than the one you have in your packet. It's revised by transportation. It limits the ingress /egress to this point up here. The one you have has two access points. That has been eliminated. Only the one to the north -- everything else is pretty much the same as what you have in your packet. The traffic impact review indicates that the project will not significantly impact any traffic capacity standard. The Future Land Use Element indicates that the site is eligible for residential densities not to exceed three units per acre. The base density is four units per acre, but it's within a traffic congestion zone, so it drops down to three units per acre. This PUD proposes a maximum density of three units per acre. And if there is developed an assisted - living facility, staff is requesting that for every acre converted from residential use to the ALF use, that three dwelling units per acre be subtracted from that maximum total dwelling units. That way we don't double -count that land. A review of consistency and compatibility with adjacent uses indicates that the development standards are fairly consistent with the nearby uses in the PUD zoning districts to the north. Staff has found no consistency problems with this project. The golf course intermixed around the perimeter of the project provides a nice visual buffer. Staff has not received any letters in objection to this petition and is recommending that the October 18, 2001 6J1 petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions of staff? Okay. We'd like to hear from the petitioner. MS. BISHOP: Good morning. Karen Bishop, agent for the owner. I really don't have much more to add than what Ray had. I have my engineer here to discuss water management issues if there are any questions. The site was previously permitted and platted at three units to the acre. And actually, they cleared it and were digging the lake, and then it sat for a very long time. So we're picking up and taking it over from there. You can see that there is a buffer on our northern edge which will be in conjunction with a buffer to the north, which is the Naples Reserve project. Other than that, it's a pretty typical golf course community, residential mixed use. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a couple. Karen, could you tell me for whom Mr. Saundry is acting as trustee? MR. BELLOWS: I passed out this morning the list of beneficiaries. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's for this item? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. That takes care of that. MS. BISHOP: We have Mr. Saundry here to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. That's fine. I have one other question. On page 12 of your submittal, Footnote 1, rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots which abut reserve areas may be zero feet. I take it a reserve area is the same as a preserve area? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. It could be something that's saved on Page 9 October 18, 2001 the golf course that doesn't quite fit in that reserves that we g q p 1611 permitted, but yet it's still in that area that we would call a reserve or restricted area of development. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. If the rear yard is zero feet, does that mean the person who steps out his back door is not on his property anymore; he's in the reserve area? MS. BISHOP: No, not necessarily. Actually, these lots can be platted to have a reserve area in the back. Collier's Reserve is one that has a rear area that's a no -touch area, but it's part of the ownership of the lot. So you will -- you can own property that would be reserved and you can't -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You can walk on it, but you can't touch it. MS. BISHOP: Pretty much, or build on it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of the petitioner? Do we have a registered public speaker? MS. MURRAY: I have two registered speakers. The first is Jerry Trask followed by Charles Maurais. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Please come up to the microphone, state your name, and spell it for the court reporter, please. MR. MAURAIS: My name is Charles Maurais, M- a- u- r- a -i -s. We represent Jerry Trask. MR. TRASK: My name is Jerry D. Trask, and we represent West Wind. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And we'll have one person at a time speak. Okay? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Madam Chairman, would it be all right if the speakers went to this microphone? I can barely hear from that one. I'd appreciate it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Page 10 October 18, 2001 6J1 MR. MAURAIS : Is this better? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, it is. MR. MAURAIS : Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. We represent West Wind, which is adjacent to this development. We have several concerns, I believe, before us, and I'd like to get some answers if we could. We have got some plans and drawings, but we have a few concerns about this. Number one is the drainage. As you know, West Wind, during some heavy rains, we are pretty well inundated with water. We'd like to know what the drainage situation will be and how this drainage is going to be taken care of. Will there be retention basins in this property large enough to hold the water runoff? Another one we have is the sewerage. During some high water times, our sewerage pumps are unable to handle the sewerage, and we'd like to know if this is going to be addressed. The other thing we have, of course everybody knows about the schools on Manatee Road. They now have portable classrooms. What's this -- what's the impact going to be on this? Traffic, I've heard some reports on the traffic. The road is being developed, I think, currently as we speak. What will happen? Will there be traffic lights at this intersection, and is 41 going to be widened sufficiently to handle the traffic? We've had numerous accidents in that area. Another problem we have and it says in there adult living facility. We'd like to know what that means, and how that is going to affect us because the layout we have actually shows single lots on the property. Is it going to be a large building, small building, individual homes? What will it be? I think that basically -- we'd like to know what type of drainage -- like I said, drainage is our main concern, personally, because we do have a lot of water. We have canals around our property, and during the last season, the last recent storms we've had, they've actually overflowed quite considerably. And we'd Page 11 October 18, 2001 16J1 like to know what the impact will be. Will there be a buffer zone between their property and our property? If we could get some of those answered -- that was a lot of questions. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sir, did you broach any of these questions with either the developer or with the planning staff prior to this meeting? MR. MAURAIS: We sent a letter dated October 8th. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: To whom? MR. MAURAIS: To the planning services, Ray Bellows. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time. Don't speak from the audience. We will -- I wrote down, I think, most of your questions, and we can have the petitioner answer some of the issues on drainage and talk a little bit more about what you're asking for specifically. MR. MAURAIS: We did send this letter registered mail, by the way. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. TRASK: He covered about everything I needed to cover too. I'm a little concerned about -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Speak to us, please. MR. TRASK: I'm a little concerned about the zero backyard that she was talking about. I'd like to know how close that's going to come to West Wind property, to our canal. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I believe, Ms. Bishop, you have a few items you might want to cover, and staff might be able to elaborate. MS. BISHOP: I'm going to leave the drainage up to Reed Jarvi and just go over the fact that it is an existing permit with already a lake in the center, so we will have on -site retention, as most permits require. The outfall Reed will speak directly to, but we will have to permit through South Florida Water Management, so the neighbors Page 12 October 18, 2001 16J1 can be assured that we will not be adding to their problem because we won't be allowed to do that. The perimeter buffers are the typical landscape buffers in Collier County, 15 -foot buffers. In a lot of areas, we're going to incorporate the golf course as a part of that buffer leaving as much natural vegetation as we can, but pretty much everything that's out there is pretty nasty. So we'll be bringing in a lot of landscaping to cover that. I believe the other thing he was talking about was the zero lot lines. None of those rear yards will be abutting the perimeter of their project. And still, even then, I would have to have the typical 15 -foot buffer, as the code would require. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: He also asked about the sewage treatment. MS. BISHOP: Reed's going to speak to the sewage also. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And with reference to traffic, he can handle that also? MS. BISHOP: He's a multitalented guy. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And then how about the -- a little bit of elaboration on the adult living facility. What does that really mean? MS. BISHOP: Well, we've had several ideas of what kind of product we're putting out in here. One of the ideas have been a -- this is an adult community specifically, so the school issue too -- he was talking about the schools. We are planning an adult facility. The ACLF section of this has been an idea we've been kicking around that -- where you go and you start in maybe a single family, you move into a multifamily, you move then into an apartment, and then you go to assisted living, all in the same area. So you stay, you know, in your neighborhood from the time you move in until the time you pass away. We haven't really come up with what that idea would be. Most likely that facility would be located closer to U.S. 41 because of Page 13 October 18, 2001 b J a. the issues of having its own kind of, you know, trucks and everything else. We wouldn't want to bring those through the community, so they'd be farther to 41. The standards for that building are in the PUD already. We haven't really located -- and we haven't decided whether we are or aren't going to put it in there, so we just just -in- cased it and given us criteria to use if that's the direction we head in. But right now all we're looking for -- or all that we're planning at this juncture is the multifamily adult facility. And Reed will speak to the sewer and the drainage. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Ray, did you have a comment? MR. BELLOWS: Just about the letter. I don't recall seeing any letter. I would have responded -- all of these issues are pretty straightforward, and I could have answered those things. I apologize if for some reason I -- just maybe part of -- put it in a different file by accident. I'm not sure what happened. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: He did mention that it came registered mail, and sometimes that holds up the delivery of it. If they have a copy, they may want to present it to you now so at least it's in the record. Okay. Mr. Jarvi. MR. JARVI: Hi. My name is Reed Jarvi. I'm a professional engineer with Vanasse & Daylor and representing the petitioner today. And I'll cover, I think, most of the questions. I wrote them down too. First we'll talk about water management. There currently exists a water management permit on this property, which was Naples Isles. It was about early '80s; I think '81, if I remember right. And it had single - family homes across the whole area with this lake system that is currently constructed part of the water management system for the project. Our project is going to be changing the layout a little bit, and the PUD plan's not up right now. But it's a series of lakes not dissimilar to what's there now, but they'll be reshaping them Page 14 October 18, 2001 16J I to use the product that Mr. Saundry is looking for directly. But we will be working all the water management internal to the site. We designed -- we are into our second round with the water management district, and we're fairly hopeful that in the next 10, 15 days we'll have a permit -- or excuse me -- a staff report that will give us the permit for the water management district. We've talked to FDOT because we are discharging into the FDOT right -of -way, and that has been approved by FDOT. So we have the permit. We are in the final stages of the water management district permit for the site. And then more specific water management issues will be handled when we do the plats and plans in the, hopefully, near future. So hopefully that'll answer that question. But basically it's all self - contained. It runs to the south. Currently there is a control structure approximately here on the site. We are not using that control structure. We are actually raising -- that control structure is permitted at, if I remember right, elevation 2.75. We are actually raising that to 5 1/2, per the water management district's direction, to keep the water table up for natural vegetation purposes. So it will be self - contained. Sewage, I'll just briefly talk about sewage. You know, we — at the PUD stage, we don't do much more than sewage calculations and show that there are -- the plant has the capacity, and that we have done. When we do it, it'll -- at the plats and plans stage, we'll be doing our sewage lift stations to make sure it works from our standpoint and should not affect the West Wind property any more than it is currently. The last one was traffic. We looked at traffic. At the present time we don't believe there'll be a signal at the entrance. Our project will be going -- will be just using the main accesses up here. The Naples Reserve has -- is under construction now and is building this access road. We'll be using that as our main access. The access off 41 is a secondary access at this point in time, and so most of the traffic will be going to this access Page 15 October 18, 2001 road. 16J1 Calculations have been done that show that that will function adequately as an unsignalized intersection, so we don't expect it to be a signalized intersection. Otherwise, the traffic is basically within standards -- the traffic that we add to the system on 41 is within level - of- service standards for 41. And best I know, there's no immediate scheduled widening of U.S. 41 in this vicinity. I think that answers the questions I wrote down. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: There was the comment about the zero yard -- backyard zero lot line and how close would it be to the West Winds. I'm not sure I got a clear answer on that. MS. BISHOP: Okay. Well, we have the typical landscape buffers, but none of the zero lot lines are going to -- their zero edge is going to be along the property line of West Winds. We will always have a buffer, and in this case we are using the golf course as a buffer between the two. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bellows, do you have a statement? MR. BELLOWS: No. I was just going to point out the golf course abuts the West Winds, so they would not have any properties abutting their property line. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of either staff or petitioner? Yes, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question. It says that it's in a traffic congestion area and that the project trips exceed the significance test on U.S. 41 at the project buildout but will not lower the level of service below the road's adopted level -of- service standard. Could you explain that a little bit? MR. BELLOWS: The transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan has certain criteria that all rezones must meet before the Board of County Commissioners can recommend Page 16 October 18, 2001 l 1 approval, and that is each road has what's called an adopted leve o service that they can operate at. And if they operate below that, then it could trigger concurrency, which is a separate ordinance dealing with issuance of building permits on roads that are deemed deficient. The level of service of these roads are operating at an acceptable level of service. There is another section to that that says what is a significant impact, and that's generally 5 percent of the Level of Service C design capacity of the adjacent roadways. And this project exceeds 5 percent, but it will not lower the level of service below the adopted standards. So, therefore, it's not an overall significant impact, and we can recommend approval. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm just wondering because I know that there's a lot of traffic delays. Every time I come in here I see it, and I wonder how we could have gotten to the point where the roads are supposedly, you know, within the limits of their capacity, but yet there's rush -hour delays almost every day. MR. BELLOWS: Also, I'd like to point out, this -- before I answer that last part, this project is already zoned, for the most part, RSF -3. They can pull building permits now for single - family homes within this development without having to get this rezone for much of the site. This PUD rezone allows them to do other things, such as a golf course and assisted - living facility. But for the most part, the residential units are already vested in. Now, the overall traffic capacity system has been impacted by delays in road construction. We had not built roads for three, four years, and the capacity that we had prior to that has now reached its limit since we had -- and now we're in a full -blown road construction process to catch up for the time period where we weren't building roads. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I thought the infrastructure was supposed to be there concurrently or first. MR. BELLOWS: For the most part. For this project it is. For Page 17 October 18, 2001 16JI other projects within the county, at the time they were going through the rezone process, those roads were listed on their five -year work program as being built; however, they were not built, and now we're rushing to catch up with that. MS. STUDENT: I just would like to state for the record -- and I don't have the adequate public facilities ordinance right in front of me, but at least for transportation there is a three -year window for that. In other words, it's -- and that's in the Rule 9J -5 as well. So if it's in the five -year CIE and going to be constructed in the third year of that five year, essentially you have a three -year window. And for parks and recreation facilities, you have a one -year window. I just wanted to explain that for the record. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young, you have a question. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yeah. What is the level of service, then, for 41 down there? MR. BELLOWS: I believe that's in the staff report. I don't list the actual buildout because this language basically comes from transportation. And they're not stating what the actual level of service is, but they are saying it is consistent. And maybe Reed can -- MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi for the petitioner. The level -of- service standard for U.S. 41 in that area is Level of Service D. The level -of- service projection for our buildout, which is 2009, is C in that area. So it's actually better than the standard, the projected. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: By 2009. MR. JARVI: By 2009. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions? No questions? Okay. That was the last public speaker? MS. MURRAY: Yes. No more speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No more speakers. I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? Page 18 October 18, 2001 16JI COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that the Planning Commission forward Petition PUDA -2001 -AR -986 (sic) to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. 1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Budd, a second by Mr. Abernathy for approval of the petition. Do we have any discussion? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Madam Chair, I'm going to have to recuse myself from the vote. I've had previous dealings with Mr. Saundry. MS. STUDENT: I beg your -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You're going to abstain from voting. MS. STUDENT: Yes. Because as I understand it from talking with Mr. Wolfley, there is a voting conflict of interest. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any other comments? Hearing no further discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response with Commissioner Wolfley not voting.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have one abstention. Motion carries. Thank you. Next item on the agenda for public hearing is RZ- 2001- AR- 1050,a rezone from C -4 to C -4. All those wishing to give testimony today, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a rezone from C -4 to C -4, and Page 19 October 18, 2001 16J.1 this came about as a result of the zoning reevaluation program in the early '90s, 1990 and '91. The existing zoning at that time was -- throughout the county was evaluated for consistency and compatibility with the new Growth Management Plan. In this particular case for this parcel and a half, the board added four conditions, which you saw in your staff report. And the petitioner wishes to remove one of those conditions, which is the access for four of the parcels onto Tamiami Trail East. The method to remove that one stipulation, one condition, is to rezone the parcel from C -4 with the condition to C -4 without the condition; hence, that's the petition that's before you today. The petitioner (sic) was reviewed by our comprehensive planning staff and was found that it was consistent with the Growth Management Plan. It was reviewed by our transportation services division, who had no objections. And it was also reviewed by fire, who asked to modify the -- one of the other stipulations for no access to Floridan. They would like controlled emergency vehicle access, which usually is not a problem. It's not a paved -- it's usually a stabilized subsurface and then grassed over. The fire department knows it's there, but it's not -- it looks like landscaping and not a road, so the public doesn't use it. I've received no objections to this petition, and staff recommends approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Fred, I don't read Dawn Wolfe's letter the same way you do, I'm afraid. She says, "The Transportation Planning Department will recommend that the modification be conditioned on the provision for cross access to the original lots to minimize entering and exiting traffic conflicts." Now, that disappeared in the -- or was ignored by the rest of the staff. I assume if they could achieve these cross - access points, they might Page 20 October 18, 2001 t not even be botherin g 16J I to come in here. MR. REISCHL: Right. I believe that letter was written prior to -- Mr. Jeppesen had subsequent conversations with Ms. Wolfe, and that was resolved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yell, the record, then, ought to be brought up to date with something else from Ms. Wolfe saying that her previous objections have been satisfied, I would think, because the record as it stands says she has this condition. So I'll leave it to you to do something about that. A more serious problem begins on page 3 at the bottom. There's a statement "Fire access to the site from Floridan Avenue may be required." There's nothing in here to indicate that the East Naples Fire District is of that view. And the staff proposal says, "The restriction currently reads 'Access onto Floridan Avenue is prohibited.' Staff proposes this be revised to 'Access to Floridan Avenue is prohibited, except for controlled, emergency - vehicle access."' Then you go back to the summary findings, and -- where is it -- "The only access to the adjacent single - family neighbor will be for emergency vehicles." Well, it starts out sounding like the fire department wants to be able to come down Floridan Avenue to access -- to get to this lot for fire purposes, but then the language turns around and sounds like the fire department wants to get from this property to Floridan Avenue. I can't imagine they would want to service this property itself from Floridan when they've got Highway 41 to travel on. In other words, what we're giving here is something the petitioner has not even asked for. So is it "to" or "from" or -- the minute you cut this access, you know darn well that for one reason or another, the occupant of this property who wants this developed is going to find it convenient from time to time to go out onto Floridan Avenue. And the fact that you've Page 21 October 18, 2001 16J 1 got some stipulation that says the only time it can be used is for fire -- what, is the fire department supposed to come down 41, cut through this lot to get to Floridan? Is that the idea? MR. REISCHL: I think it was for the access of the trucks. Again, I don't want to use "to" or "from," but to have trucks be able to use that as a cutthrough. Whether they come from Floridan or come from 41, to be able to not have to back up the truck, but to get onto Floridan with a big fire truck. Now, it's controlled access because it's going to be, as I said before, a stabilized subsurface that's sodded and, you know, doesn't look like a driveway. It's going to look like landscaping, like sod. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it seems to me it would be more orderly if the fire department would make some kind of a written presentation of what it is they want, whether it's to or from or both ways or whatever. And I don't know how the petitioner feels about that. MR. JEPPESEN: Greg Jeppesen representing the petitioner. As far as I know it, it's to be able to get trucks, you know, through the property. Whether they come down Floridan or come down 41, there's some properties along that corridor that, you know, are between Floridan and 41 that -- actually, I think that the rental place right next to it, the fire department made them put in an access on Floridan because all the fire hydrants are along Floridan, and they need just to get back there and need to be able to drive through. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you understand that they're going to use your lot as a cutthrough for fires unrelated to your lot or just your lot? MR. JEPPESEN: Just to be able to serve our lot. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Your lot. MR. JEPPESEN: Yeah. There's roads, I mean, you know -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The lot next door already Page 22 October 18, 2001 has that cutthrough? 16 J 1 MR. JEPPESEN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I want to make sure I'm clear on that. You're saying that you think the fire department will only use this access for your property? MR. JEPPESEN: Yeah. That's my understanding. MR. REISCHL: That's my understanding also. MR. JEPPESEN: Yeah. Because that area of town has a grid system. I mean, there's roads -- it's not -- everything around there is easy to get to. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. But there's quite a distance between Martin and the other street, some distance, anyway. MR. REISCHL: The fire department requires turning radii for the trucks depending on the size of the building that they're protecting. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And this lot wouldn't be big enough to do that? MR. REISCHL: That's right. Therefore, they want the emergency access. MR. JEPPESEN: They have to back up onto 41. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Now it's beginning to make a little better sense. MR. JEPPESEN: Regarding the access easement requirement, cross access, when I met with Dawn, actually before she wrote that letter -- you know, in looking at that old ordinance, there should have been provisions for those four lots to have cross access because, I mean, land's going to have to be bought and sold. And this parcel and a half got sold, and now there's no cross access. Her intention of that -- that requirement was that in the future when projects around us get redeveloped -- I mean, we're going to put in a cross access in the front of our property. So in the future, you Page 23 October 18, 2001 16J 1 know, whether it might be 10 years, might be 50 years, you know, the people next to us can cut through our property and use it. It's just looking into the future since it wasn't done in the past. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Lots on either side of you developed already or -- MR. JEPPESEN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: East? MR. JEPPESEN: The one on the north side is developed already, which is the truck rental place I was just talking about, and the one on the south isn't developed yet. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is someone here from transportation that could clarify this for us, make some testimony on the record? MR. MULLER: Sorry. I wasn't sworn in. (The speaker was sworn.) MR. MULLER: My name, for the record, is Russ Muller, and I'm with development services, engineering. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have to speak up a little. MR. MULLER: When he comes in with an SDP, we'll make sure that the SDP would accommodate future access to the property to the west or north. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you stand for the proposition that the East Naples Fire Department has made -- made this request to you, or did you -all just know that they needed that? MR. MULLER: The East Naples Fire Department, I don't know what their request was. I just know that as far as the cross access, he's going to provide it for the future properties, undeveloped property. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We're talking about access to Floridan Street (sic). Do you know anything about that? MR. MULLER: I can't help you with that one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Page 24 October 18, 2001 16JI CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any further questions of staff? Would you care to do a regular presentation? MR. JEPPESEN: No. It's pretty self - explanatory other than I'd -- you know, regarding the fire issue, I'd kind of like to have that addressed at the SDP process regarding -- I mean, it may be approved, the controlled access, but as far as the means and way to do it, have that approved at the SDP process. I mean, I haven't -- I haven't talked to the fire department regarding this either, and I'd rather not agree to a -- you know, a detailed type of -- that's not really the intent of this petition. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair, the intent of this petition is just to give a general requirement. What we'll do is I'll have Fred clarify with the fire department before this even goes to the Board of County Commissioners so we all know we're on the same page, and then the details, of course, would be worked out at the SDP -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because the way I read this recommendation is that you're only following through on the petition versus the additional analysis you provided for the emergency - vehicle access. MR. REISCHL: Mr. Jeppesen just requested the access from 41. The fire reviewer requested the emergency access. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And I guess maybe I'm missing something, but you're referring only to the rezone for the access to the site, and it doesn't specify the controlled, emergency - vehicle access in your recommendation because he didn't petition for it. MR. REISCHL: It's in the resolution. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's in the resolution. MR. JEPPESEN: It's something that's going to come up later in the SDP, and it's -- you know, because that provision's not in this restrict -- you know, it isn't allowed with the restrictions in place Page 25 October 18, 2001 16J1now. It s better to deal with it now because otherwise it 11 be a problem. MR. REISCHL: Today's restriction says access to Floridan is prohibited, and that includes fire trucks. So if the fire department requires a -- an access during SDP review, this would allow them to have it. They may -- as Greg said, they may not -- during their SDP review, they may not want it. But this would at least allow the possibility without going through this rezone process again in the future. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So it is in the resolution, but it's not in the statement for the recommendation. I just want to make sure I'm on the right page here and that you're agreeing to this access. MR. JEPPESEN: I'm agreeing to the access, sure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any other questions? Any there any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that this Planning Commission forward Petition RZ-200 1 -AR- 1050 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Budd, a second by Mrs. Young for approval of this petition. Do we have any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. Page 26 October 18, 2001 16J 1 No response.) ( p ) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. MR. JEPPESEN: Thanks. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Moving right along to RZ- 2001 -AR -13 76, the La Quinta Homes rezone, all those wishing,to give testimony today, please stand, raise your right hand, and bpi sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a rezone for a single lot in Golden Gate City which is located at the corner of 24th Avenue Southwest and 52nd Terrace Southwest. The property is zoned single family RSF -3, and the applicant is requesting to change it to RMF -6. What happened was the building permit was issued for a duplex for this lot. By mistake a building permit was issued for this lot, and we only caught the mistake after the house was almost complete. The Growth Management Plan allows rezoning up to seven units per acre because this lot is within the density band of an activity center. And as you can see from the zoning map, this is the lot in question, Lot 1. And we have RMF -6 here, RMF -6 here, and RMF- 12 here. And the person who issued the permit in the building department by mistake thought this lot was also RMF -6; however, this lot is RSF -3, as you can see in here. It says RSF -3. And the building permit was issued thinking that it was RMF -6. This -- the duplex which is almost complete is surrounded by duplexes on either side, east and west. And my staff report says to the south there's a duplex. Actually, it's a triplex to the south. And there's a single - family house to the north. Staff recommends approval of this -- this rezone since it will not be out of character with the area, it's surrounded by RMF -6 and RMF -12, and the mistake was Page 27 16J1 '14 October 18, 2001 made and the building permit issued, and the house is almost -- the duplex is almost complete. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: There must be some logic why the lines are drawn as they are for the RSF -3 and the 6. Did you look into that concept? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. I didn't, but I noticed that there are other places that -- as you can see, there are RMF -6's all over, but this lot in here is also RSF -3. I don't know why they did it that way. They meandered the lines to include some in RSF -3 and some in RMF -6, and I don't think there's any real logic behind it. This is a row of RSF -3. I believe they want the entire road to be RSF -3, but they back into RMF -6. So I don't think there was any real logic behind it when they drew those lines. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair, this is a really weird situation here. You'll notice that a lot of the multifamily and single family are split, actually, behind the lots -- I mean, to the rear. So you have -- rear to rear you have single family abutting multifamily. I'm going to guess that this was probably done as a result of the development patterns in the area. Generally we try to follow street lines and other natural property -- or boundary lines when we're drawing zoning designations on a map. And when you're starting out with a clean slate, sometimes that's a little bit easier than if you're starting out in an area that's been developed for a while. I'm going to guess that's probably kind of what happened here, was the lines attempted to follow in some logical pattern the existing development patterns in the area when they were originally drawn. Normally you don't see the back to back, you know, with the multifamily and the single family. It's a little bit different case here than you find throughout a lot of the county, but Golden Gate City's been around for a while. That may be an explanation. Page 28 October 18, 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions from the board? Okay. No questions of staff? Petitioner, would you care to present, please? Excuse me. You have to come to the mike. MR. MORALES: Good morning. My name is Carlos Morales. I'm the owner of La Quinta Homes. What happened here, I bought this lot thinking that it was a duplex because it's all surrounded by duplex. And I checked with the planning and the building department, and they said yes. I applied for a permit, and they issued it. That's basically it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: May I ask who you bought the property from. MR. MORALES: A Realtor. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: A Realtor. MR. MORALES: Yes. I bought it from -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you recall who that Realtor is? MR. MORALES: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you care to state it, please. MR. MORALES: Dave Hoff, I think it is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And which company does he work for? MR. MORALES: He's a broker, I think. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Huff, H- u -f -f. MR. MORALES: Dave Hoff, yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- o -f -f? MR. MORALES: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And then the building department went ahead and gave you the permit. MR. MORALES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So it was an error on their part also. MR. MORALES: That's correct. Page 29 October 18, 2001 6 1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Wow. I think we have some registere public speakers if you have nothing else to present. MR. MORALES: No. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. The first registered public speaker, please. MS. MURRAY: The first registered speaker is Simone Gartner followed by Manetta Osburn. MS. GARTNER: Good morning. I'm sorry. I have a cold. Thank you for taking the time to listen to us. My name is Simone Gartner, S- i- m- o -n -e, Gartner, G- a- r- t- n -e -r. Listening to him about the way that the maps and stuff are laid out, myself and this lady here, we own the duplex across the street, which is L- shaped. It actually sits on both streets. We have two separate addresses. I face this gentleman's duplex. The street in front of me is solid single family, and then at the end of the street you have this duplex that faces the opposite way, so it really kind of is an eyesore. When we built our duplex, we had to go through extensive things for drainage. They don't have the proper drainage. I don't think the property's elevated enough. We're concerned about the flow of the water. We had to put a certain amount of trees on our property, which I don't see any trees on their property. It butts up against a neighbor's yard, which the air conditionings are going to be kind of loud. Sorry. My throat's very sore. But because it is multifamily, the parking -- their driveways are very small, which they're going to start parking on the streets unless fences or trees are put up. And we understand that we live in a multifamily residence, but we chose it because the one whole side is single family. It's one of the nicer areas. But the way that it sits at the end of the property just looks -- you have all these homes facing this way, and then you have this orange duplex sitting there that faces the opposite street. And Page 30 October 18, 2001 16JI. those are basically our concerns, is that they -- I mean, we don't expect them to tear it down. We have to be realistic, but they should like we had to: Proper drainag4 trees, you know, things to comply p prevent 15 cars from parking in this driveway and so forth. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What street do you face, please? MS. GARTNER: I am on 52nd, which -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're on 52nd and you're -- MS. GARTNER: Their duplex sits on a corner. Here's the street. We are right here. And ours is an L- shaped on the opposite corner. Ours is L- shaped. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. MS. GARTNER: And our property has, like, big ditches for lots of drainage of which, by the way, when we did ask for the drainage, it took them a year and a half to get the drainage in, and we just got it a couple weeks ago. So we're concerned. What, are we going to wait two years to get the drainage into this place? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you're concerned about drainage issues and landscaping -- MS. GARTNER: Parking. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- requirements. MS. GARTNER: So they have to comply like we do. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: The next speaker is Manetta Osburn followed by Patricia Deutsch. MS. OSBURN: My name is spelled M- a- n- e- t -t -a, O- s- b- u -r -n. Simone and I built a duplex on the opposite corner. It is our home. We live there. And addressing the issue of how these streets were laid out, I'm sure it had something to do with density, which is a serious problem in the area where we live. I don't know if there are restrictions for density. In a multifamily neighborhood, of course, you're going to have more people, but I believe there are probably a Page 31 October 18, 2001 16J1 lot more people living there than the structures were ever intended to house. When I received this notice, it made me angry because I don't see this happening except in places like Golden Gate or Naples Manor where such things are -- are ignored by the -- by the government that we put our trust into to manage these things. I hope not. But we do have a number of problems in Golden Gate that should be addressed. Nevertheless, we object for the reasons that Simone set forth. The drainage does not appear to be adequate. The color is -- is horrible. It's pumpkin and mustard, if you can picture this. Anyway, I appreciate the time that you've taken to listen to us, and I hope that we can make some resolutions here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Next speaker. MS. MURRAY: Patricia Deutsch. That's your last speaker. MS. DEUTSCH: My name is Patricia Deutsch. The last name is D- e- u- t- s -c -h. I've lived at -- I live at 2380 52nd Terrace. I've lived in this home for, like, 21 years now, so it's been nice not to have a property built next to me. My two bedroom windows on that side of my home are, like, within 20 feet of his air - conditioning systems and well systems where you're going to hear this at night running, and I find that objective (sic). I think that there should be a privacy fence of some type put up so that I -- you know, when we're trying to sleep at night, that we're not hearing these things kick on and off. The privacy fence, the color of the home. We know it's built. We can't tear it down. You know, they have a patio that just sits on 52nd. And with no drainage, my yard, since we've had a lot of rains here lately, has been flooding. I did not have this problem before. So, you know, I know we've got to live with what we've got there, but we've got to make -- you know, Mr. Ramirez (sic) has got to do something to make it livable for all of us. You know, these Page 32 October 18, 2001 16JI people with their little patios, they're going to have 20 trucks parked there having their little barbecue, which we understand. But it's -- you know, what do we do? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does his place face on 24th or on 52nd? MS. DEUTSCH: It faces on 24th, but the patio sits on 52nd. So, I mean, it's really out of line. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So it's a side yard then. MS. DEUTSCH: Right. It's a side yard. And, like I said, the air - conditioner units and the well units are adjacent to my two bedroom windows. You know, one on the front side of my home, and one on the back side of my home. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's the back of his building? MS. DEUTSCH: Yes, the back of his building. And we're, like, within 26 feet. You know, I mean, I guess when I get up in the morning, I can make my bed and his too. So I just thought that was awful close to my property line as far as -- you know, when you don't know what the property jurisdictions are, you just figure that's the way it is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Chahram, could you elaborate a little bit on the idea that this gentleman has a different set of regulations for drainage and landscaping than the people right across the street? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: For one thing, the house is not complete, 100 percent complete. So the landscaping, if that's the problem, our code requires basically two trees per unit, two shade trees per unit, so he has to plant four trees on the site. I don't know how many of them he has planted, but he has to plant four trees. For the drainage, I think they are talking about the street drainage, the swale that's on the street, and that's transportation Page 33 October 18, 2001 16J1 department. They take care of that, and it's not his responsibility. It's a street drainage. And for a duplex or a single family, you don't have to provide for the water retention on site. That water retention requirements only start when you have three or more units. And what was the other one? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, the buffering -- concern about the parking. How many cars can be parked there? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They have room for four cars, and it's -- cars, they will be entering the property from 24th Avenue, since it is -- the building is facing 24th Avenue. That's where the driveway is located and the parking spaces. For the orientation of the building, when you have a corner lot, you basically pick which side your house is going to be facing. And since there is another duplex in here -- there's another duplex in here facing that 24th Avenue, and he decided to make his duplex face 24th Avenue. And about the color, I don't know. We don't have a restriction on how -- what color you want to paint your building. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I think I understand that our building department made a mistake. It sounds like the Realtor made a mistake. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Possibly, yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What are the controls that we have internally to identify immediately what the zoning of a piece of property is that a permit's coming in on? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I think basically we go to the zoning map when somebody applies for a permit, and that's where the mistake occurred. The person who reviewed it didn't notice that that's RSF -3 here and this lot belongs to this zoning district and not this. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Just for my edification, when a staff members look at this map, they see those very dark lines also; right? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. Page 34 October 18, 2001 That's not just for our -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: � j 16JI MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. This is a copy of the map. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Made a mistake. Now, I still have trouble -- as a licensed real estate broker in Florida, there's a certain amount of responsibility there. This gentleman is a contractor. I find it difficult to see that this went this far. I'm not sure what the resolution is because these people obviously are impacted by a mistake that a broker has made, someone who's a contractor -- both have licenses -- and then our own building department. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: But if this house was made into a single - family house, let's say, we will still have the same setbacks, and the air conditioner still will be there. And that doesn't mean that in a single family they are going to have less cars or less people living in that single family. I understand their concern, but changing this into a single family, it's just going to change things inside the building. It's not going to affect the footprint of the building, the location of the building, or location of the well or air - conditioning unit. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you're saying changing it to a single - family home, the structure. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. It's just going to change the inside of it, not the outside. And the objection is basically for water -- for drainage and for the location of it and where the air - conditioning units are sitting, and those are not -- those are not going to change. Single family or duplex, they're going to stay where they are. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How many bedrooms per unit MR. MORALES: Three bedroom. Page 35 October 18, 2001 16JI COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Three per unit. So I would have to say that certainly there's going to be more parking at a duplex than a single - family home unless they're going to have a six- or five - bedroom home there, which I don't think would fit. I'm particularly sensitive to this drainage issue since I'm subject to one of those at my house. What can be done so that these folks or the lady that lives to the north doesn't get flooded out because the property was raised, and it tends to flow? Is there any type of drainage down to the swale? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is a swale -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I understand that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- but it's maintained -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Between the units. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Between Nn_ 1 and ? T .nt 1 and 2. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Lot 1 and 2? There is a drainage easement here which part of it's sitting on Lot 1, part of it's sitting on Lot 2. It's a 12- foot -wide drainage easement, which is supposed to bring the water down to the street on 52nd. And there's another drainage easement on the east side of the property, which is supposed to bring the water down to the 24th Avenue Southwest. We can make sure that these drainage swales are graded properly and water flows the way it's supposed to. MS. MURRAY: Prior to the issuance of final CO, the grading of the lot will be verified to ensure that the water is flowing to the drainage easements and then to the proper swales which then carry to control structures located elsewhere in that neighborhood. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have some additional questions? Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm just -- I'm also quite Page 36 October 18, 2001 16J 1 upset about this drainage situation and that their property is not going to be influenced by the fact that -- a mistake was made honestly. I have no problem with that. But if this drainage can't be corrected, then something has to be done about this. MS. MURRAY: I don't think it's an issue -- in other words, the building, regardless of whether it was single family or multifamily, would still have to comply with the drainage requirements for grading of the lot and the flow of the water. So I don't think that the drainage problem -- you know, we could certainly have staff look into it, but it may be exacerbated by other development in the area. I don't -- I don't know. This development will be required to comply with the drainage requirements. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: One more, just a clarification. These ladies with the duplex across the street had one set of rules, and this gentleman, the contractor, doesn't have to adhere to those set of rules now that he's applying for -- MS. MURRAY: I'm not sure which rules they were referring to. The corner lot situation is you have two fronts and two sides, so the setbacks apply on -- the front -yard setbacks apply to the structure on both sides of the street, and then you have no rear -yard setback requirement. You have two side setback requirements. And your side setback requirements are typically less than your rear setback requirements. The problem is you have to choose a street upon which you want to front, or you can design your building -- it sounded like one of these ladies had a duplex that designed their building to front on both streets. That is kind of an issue that's inherent with corner lots. You end up with a frontage on one side and a frontage on the other side that looks like the side of a building and not necessarily the front. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I'm going to allow -- the public Page 37 October 18, 2001 16JI hearing is still open, so if you can testify to some new facts, please, I'll let you speak. MS. GARTNER: First of all, Mr. Huff works for Naples Realty. As far as the drainage, when we did our place, we had to have special pipes. We -- it cost us a fortune to have additional dirt brought in. Zoning made us do that. Because our driveways were wider, we had to have bigger pipes put in. I don't think your driveways are as wide as ours, but on the left side of your property, there's no drainage. There's trees and it flows. There's no drainage on the back of the property going to her house. There's no pipes. There's no nothing. On the part facing me, there's no pipes. There's only pipes under the driveway. And there's not enough elevation, and there's not enough dirt. We had to bring in all this and pay for it ourselves to have that done. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How long ago did you build? MS. GARTNER: March of -- year and a half, two years. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Would you care to make another factual statement? State your name too. MS. DEUTSCH: Okay. Pat Deutsch. Just to reaffirm what she said about the drainage and the noise from the air - conditioning units, I think it's -- you know, we've got to live together and live peacefully, so that's what I want. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You can come up and speak too. MR. MORALES: As far as what they're concerned about, the drainage, I have gone out of my way and put an 85 -foot culvert to cover the whole front area of this duplex, 85 foot. On the side that they talking about that's facing is where the septic tank is. There's nobody going to park there. And the drainage that they have, they have a catch basin to the north, and that's where the water is flowing on their side. On my side it's running to the west -- I mean -- to the Page 38 October 18, 2001 6J1 west; right? To the east. And, you know, the -- the -- what do you call? The fellow that does the permit for the right -of -way has an elevation that they have gave me, and that's what I did. He told me that I could put two culverts or put one, and I put one, an 85 -foot culvert. And I got parking for six car on each unit (sic), six car. Not four, six. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Six cars? MR. MORALES: That's correct. My driveway is 20 feet by 40 feet -- 30 feet. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And your 85 -foot culvert, what type of material is it and what size is it? MR. MORALES: It's 12 inch. That's the requirement that they do in Golden Gate City, and they -- you know, but I could have done 20 -- two pieces of 20 feet. I went the whole side of the road, 85 foot. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that culvert empties into what? MR. MORALES: It's going into the east side. That's where the water flows, to the east. Now, to go back on the backyard, I have put gutters. I have put gutters in the back of the house, you know, 6 -inch gutters with -- I put a pipe underneath the ground to drain into the ditch. So the backyard is not going to be flooded with my water. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And one question I have for you, Mr. Morales, is your La Quinta Homes, what type of state license do you have? Which category? MR. MORALES: GC. It's a general contractor. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have a GC license, a general contractor license. Okay. MR. MORALES: So there's no water going into their yard because I got gutters all around the house. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you're talking about a gutter which is a roof drain. MR. MORALES: You know, the gutter goes on the back of the Page 39 October 18, 2001 16J l house. It's a 6 inch. All of my roof water will drain into that gutter, go underneath the ground with a pipe, and drain it to the ditch. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you're actually draining by a roof drain, and the gutter system is tied into the culvert? MR. MORALES: It's going into the culvert, yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Tied into the culvert. MR. MORALES: No. You can't tie it in. It drains into the swale. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I'm somewhat familiar with that. MR. MORALES: But, like I said, I have put in 85 foot, so it's more than sufficient. Now, the house in front of mine, they have big ditches in there that looks ugly and stuff like that. Water sit there all day long. On mine it doesn't sit there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Just one other question. Just to establish for the record, how long have you had your general contractor's license? MR. MORALES: Well, I am the owner of La Quinta Homes, and I have a gentleman that is the vice president who holds a license. I don't hold a license. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You don't hold a license. MR. MORALES: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And how long have you had him in your employ? MR. MORALES: Three years. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Your earlier testimony, Mr. Morales, you said you bought this piece of property from an owner who was represented by David Hoff, is that right? Page 40 October 18, 2001 161j MR. MORALES: That's correct. There was a sign for sale. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. MORALES: And I went ahead and bought it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Now, did he tell you that it was zoned for duplex or -- MR. MORALES: I didn't ask for that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Didn't ask. MR. MORALES: I did not ask. What I did was I bought it, and I went to the planning at the county. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And they told you -- MR. MORALES: And I asked them if I could build a duplex there. The question (sic) was yes. I applied for a permit, I paid for the permit, and I started a house. I mean, it's -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So the misinformation was from the county staff, not from the Realtor. MR. MORALES: That's correct. But, I mean, I do whatever. I got about six or seven pine trees in there. I'm still not done with the landscaping. So, you know, I still got a little things to do there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I have one question for him. You bought this piece of property not knowing what you were going to build on it? MR. MORALES: No, sir, I didn't know what I was going to build on there. I check to see whether I could build a duplex. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: After you bought the property? MR. MORALES: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Boy, that changes the economics, doesn't it? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: This is somewhat fascinating. As a licensed real estate broker in Florida -- I'm inactive -- it's required to Page 41 October 18, 2001 16JI have the information what the zoning is when you're purchasing a piece of property. And you are a builder, so you would be very interested in that. I'm having difficulty understanding -- MR. MORALES: Well -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. -- the complete innocence and then coming to the county -- which I have almost no tolerance for -- telling you that you can build a duplex there. MR. MORALES: Okay. The situation was -- if you look at this lot, you got a duplex to the west, a duplex to the east, a triplex to the south. You know, it's surrounded with duplex except to the north. So that lot sits right there. So, you know, it's really a critical situation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, you know, I believe in research and getting facts, and that's what I feel that you had a responsibility or a Realtor had a responsibility. And I'm not sure where we fit into this whole picture, but there are definite responsibilities to get facts and figures on what it is that you purchased and what you can build. MR. MORALES: Like I said -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm not overly sympathetic. MR. MORALES: Like I said, I went to the county, you know, in a goodwill to find out what I could build there. And, you know, if I'm going to be punished for that, that's okay. But, you know, what else can I do? I trusted the system. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any further questions or discussion here? Questions of staff? No more registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I have a motion to start with, but I do have some discussion. I'm also a real estate broker and a general contractor, and I can see how Mr. Morales could purchase the Page 42 16J 1 .4 October 18, 2001 property and then -- fully believing that a single - family home might fit, could be feasible and then in talking 4o the county, would determine that a duplex would fit and could make that transition and purchase that. I've been involved in transactions similar to that, so it's not inconceivable to me that -- that the tale that he's told us is not (sic) credible. In regard to the drainage, I'm depending on the county staff, that they will follow through in the building inspection process and make sure that the invert elevations of the swales and the culverts and the drainage structures are all at the proper elevations. And as with every project we approve, or in the development process, we have to go with that reliance. The landscaping isn't complete, and again, I'm depending on county staff that the landscaping will be consistent, as with every project that's permitted and built within the county. And the parking, if there's parking for six vehicles, that again, it's dependent upon on the county staff that it's appropriate within the codes and that the turnaround radius is provided for the parking and that everything is in order. So with that reliance upon county staff, I'm left with the dilemma of, should this reasonably be a duplex? And it looks like a little notch taken out, and with every other property on 24th Avenue Southwest in both directions being duplex or higher zone with the RMF -129 I can see how a mistake could be made. And I don't -- while I'm with Chairman Rautio, I'm not overly sympathetic with the staff on making such an error, I don't see how we can reasonably punish Mr. Morales. But I think we should rely on the county building department to make sure that the adjacent neighbors' rights are not infringed, with proper landscaping, drainage, and parking considerations. So with all that, I don't know if there's any other discussions. If not, I'll be prepared to make a motion. Page 43 October 18, 2001 16JI COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I agree with everything you said. I think the one uncontroverted fact and uncontrovertible, I think, is that the county made an error in issuing the building permit. Now, I'm not convinced that a single - family home would have the same footprint that a duplex has, so I don't think it's necessarily all same, same. To build a single- family home of that dimension on -- in that particular neighborhood would seem to me to be the priciest house on the street, and nobody wants to do that. But the point is that the structure is there. The neighbors' reservations about the property can be addressed by staff, and I can't -- I don't think we can penalize Mr. Morales for having taken the county at its word. So I'd be prepared to second the motion when Mr. Budd gets around to making it. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'll make a motion that would prompt discussion and debate. I, therefore, move that the Planning Commission forward Petition RZ-2001 -AR- 13 76 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to rezone this property from RSF -3, residential single family, to RMF -6, residential multifamily. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Budd, a second by Mr. Abernathy to approve this petition for the rezone. Further discussion, please. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is there anything that we can do from -- from the county staff standpoint to try to see that something like this doesn't happen again? MS. MURRAY: Be more careful, I suppose. I think Mr. Budd pointed out it -- and I think I was even called in to Ed Perico's office to examine the issue and found that you just had to study the map quite a bit to figure out where the zoning lines were. And I'm not making excuses. A mistake was made. But I think in this case, you Page 44 October 18, 2001 16JI know, it was just kind of a difficult read on the map, and we'll try to be a little more careful. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Reliance on the county to make sure these -- all these things do come to pass would be the only way I could agree to do it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, relying on the county, this gentleman's relied on the county, and look where he got. I'm still having some difficulty with this. I'd like to hear from the rest of the board. Mr. Wolfley, I know you want to speak. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm a little unclear. The people who are not -- the neighbors are not -- I'm unclear of what they want, I mean, what they think. They say the structure is there; nothing we can do about it. But I'm unclear about what they want. What do they want? COMMISSIONER BUDD: The hearing's closed, but it seems to me what they want is their rights not to be infringed. They have an air - conditioning unit that's nearby, but single family or duplex, as long as we're within the building setbacks, there could have been an air - conditioning unit there either way. They're concerned about the landscaping. The requirements of the county are clear. We've stated numerous times by different commissioners that we're expecting the county to enforce the landscaping requirements and the drainage that -- again, we're relying on county staff and the inspection and final CO process to approve that, and those requirements would be there. Drainage would be an issue for a single - family home. Landscaping would be an issue for a single - family home. The one major point, which Mr. Abernathy brought out, I have to agree with, is that this house or this -- because it is a duplex, with the sizes I see here, it works out to 2,467 square feet. That would be an awfully big single- family house. It's quite doubtful, I think, that a Page 45 October 18, 2001 16J l single- family home would be built in this neighborhood at that size. So the structure that we have is probably almost certainly physically bigger than a single - family home that would reasonably be built here, but there would still be drainage and landscaping issues to be considered. So I think that all that can reasonably be done for the neighbors has been discussed. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MS. MURRAY: May I also clarify just when you're thinking about how you're going to vote that, of course, you have to consider the required rezone findings. And two of those most important findings are, of course, consistency with the Growth Management Plan and compatibility. And I think that staff has presented to you that this request is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and a duplex is compatible with the neighborhood. I just wanted to remind you of that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yeah. I, too, am concerned about the rights of his neighbors. So I would say to you, Mr. Morales, it's a good time to be a good neighbor. Talk with your neighbors about their concerns, and live up to what the county requires, but talk with your neighbors and make sure that you do your very best to be a good neighbor yourself. MR. MORALES: Sure. No problem. COMMISSIONER BUDD: And with that in mind, Mr. Morales, it is not within our abilities to regulate the color of your house. I would suggest that as a good neighbor you'd consider something other than pumpkin mustard orange, but that's your privilege. MR. MORALES: Let me say something to that. There's some houses there that are painted green. October 18, 2001 16JI CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I know, but we're -- we closed the public hearing, so we really can't take testimony from you. Thank you. This really is a dilemma for me. And I'm not sure how this board's going to vote, but on principle I'm going to say that I feel there were a number of errors made here. There was a responsibility on the part of the petitioner. We do have to rely on county staff. I think this project will be watched very closely. But on principle I'm going to have to vote against it. So is there any further discussion? Hearing no further discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Aye. Okay. Motion carries, two against. Thank you. Next item is -- okay. Next item -- do you need a break by any chance? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: CU- 2001 -AR -990, this is a conditional use for a fire station in the estates zoning. All those wishing to give testimony today, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a conditional use request for a fire station on Page 47 October 18 2001 i J1 Immokalee Road. Actually, its going to be located at the corner o Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard, and the applicant is Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control District. Fire stations, police stations, and things like that are considered essential services and are permitted as conditional uses use -- uses throughout the county. And basically the property in here is zoned estates and surrounded mostly with vacant land. And the applicant is requesting to build a fire house -- fire station on this property, which will also have a future EMS station. Staff recommends that you approve this with the condition -- with all the stipulations listed by staff in the resolutions (sic) of approval. Basically they have to provide right -turn lanes to the station, improve the access on Immokalee Road. And that's the only stipulation, basically, we have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Where is this in relation to the existing fire -- firehouse? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Existing firehouse is how many miles? Four miles to the west of this station. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. If we don't have any other questions of staff, would the petitioner care to present? MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane, and we are in agreement with the staff recommendation and the stipulations. And just for the record, to reiterate the findings of the staff report, this petition can be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan, which is Condition A. Ingress and egress to the property may be found to be adequate, Item B. Number C, the effect on neighboring properties is minimal, in part based on placement of the structure and the open spaces provided on the plan. And, finally, the petition can be found compatible by and large because there's very little around October 18, 2001 6J2 the subject property at the present time. In fact, this fire station will provide opportunities for potentially some other transitional -type uses in the future to those property owners. And that concludes my presentation, members of the commission, thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of the petitioner? No questions. Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I move that we approve -- send forward CU- 2001 -AR -990 to the county commission with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I second that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Whoops. Board of Zoning Appeals. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We have a motion by Mrs. Young, a second by Mr. Wolfley for approval of this peti -- excuse me -- this conditional use petition. Do we have any discussion? No discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Please fill out your findings of facts form, sign them, and pass them down to the secretary, Mrs. Young. Okay. Now we are going to be considering the Comprehensive Plan amendments, and I'd like to take a ten - minute break, if that's okay with the rest of the board. We're in recess. Page 49 October 18, 2001 163", (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We are back in session. If everyone would take their places, please. Could we have staff in position, too, please. Okay. I think we're ready to consider our amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. We have five of them before us today. This is for transmittal. The first item will be CP- 2000 -1 (sic). Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney, for the record. And I just do want to put on the record that I reviewed these amendments. I believe it was towards the end of September. And there are a number of wordsmithing and -- issues that need to be dealt with; nothing that changes the actual substance, but just for clarification purposes. And with the -- just the number of things that are happening in the county right now, staff and I haven't been able to sit down, but we anticipate doing so before the board. So this has come up before. So just if you'll make your motion, whatever the motion is, you know, with the idea that some clarity needs to be added and some formatting issues and they need to be dealt with as well, that would be fine. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. As you might be able to see, I have a number of colorful tabs, and I think that -- I wholeheartedly agree with you, Ms. Student, that there's some definite wordsmithing that needs to be done, some formatting consistencies so that we can really move through these. I won't bring all of these up, but for instance, when you approve one mixed -use district, you might want to include the next time that if it's approved, it gets placed in the list. One of them I thought was interesting, the item on the technical -- the research and technology park subdistrict. It was left out of one of the policy areas. And this seems to be pretty consistent throughout the changes that are here. I do have some very specific questions on some other items, though, but I will trust staff that they will indeed Page 50 October 18, 2001 16J I wordsmith, and they will format, and they will present a document that Collier County will be proud to have go to DCA. With that, let's try the first item. I wanted to clarify. Should we make a motion on each individual comp plan, or should we straw vote and then vote on everything? MS. STUDENT: The way I believe we've usually done this is to take a straw vote after each individual item and then have the official vote be the final vote. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. BLAIR: Good morning. For the record, Aaron Blair, comprehensive planning department. And what the petitioner seeks to do here is to amend the existing Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element of the Growth Management Plan to expand the estates neighborhood center boundary, which is located at Pine Ridge and Collier Boulevard, to include Tract 114, as you can see on the map here. This is the subject site, and the petitioner seeks to add this. It's a 5 -acre parcel. As you can see on this map here, what's in orange and also what's in green is in the current neighborhood center subdistrict. The green part of the parcels is restricted to just water management and open space requirement, and the petitioner -- the two things he's seeking to do is, one, to add this parcel, but also to delete this open space management here, just to completely delete it. And instead what we'll have is just a right -of -way buffer and also the street, which is 11th Avenue Southwest here, which will be a buffer. Another requirement I just talked about was the buffer. As you can see in the packet, they want to change the right -of -way buffer. And staff has included text that, along with Nancy Siemion, landscape architect for planning services, feels that is -- would do better justice here for a landscape buffer. And I believe that the petitioner agrees with it with an addition of just one word that we Page 51 October 18, 2001 6J1 would like to add, which would just state that the project shall provide a 25 -foot wide landscape buffer abutting the external right - of -way. So it would be for the external here along these roads. But what the petitioner and I have talked about is a loop road that would go through the property. And then that way, if there was a loop road, then they would have that buffer also in that loop road. And instead we would like to have it for external roadway only, and then you'd have your normal buffer on the internal loop road. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So am I understanding you correctly that the petitioner is agreeing to delete their language and insert your language with the addition of the one word "external" right -of -away? MR. BLAIR: Yes. As far as I understand, they are. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And just while we're on that issue, when we talk about staggering the rows of trees and planting a double row of hedges that are at least 24 inches high and they're going to attain 3 feet in a year, have we identified types of plants that meet that 12- inches -of- growth -in- 12- months criteria? MR. BLAIR: I think Nancy has a list of different plants that she recommends to people that -- she knows what works best and what'll reach a certain heighth. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is it realistic that this does happen? I see this an awful lot, and I'm just curious. MR. BLAIR: I'm not sure. I guess she wouldn't have it in there if she didn't feel that it would be realistic. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because I do know of a number of projects that never obtained the heighth, and then the hedges were cut down, and it's sort of fascinating to drive around town to see this. And I'm just curious if there's some new Miracle Grow that we have, and we can rely on the criteria that the plants will cooperate also. MR. BLAIR: We just rely on Nancy's judgment on that because Page 52 October 18, 2001 16J l that's what her title is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And if the plants don't cooperate, what happens to the -- the property owner? MR. BLAIR: That I don't know. I don't deal with the landscaping portion of the project. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I guess it becomes a code enforcement issue, as Mr. Abernathy just commented. I'm not sure what they do at code enforcement when the plants don't grow. Okay. Does anyone have any specific questions? MR. BLAIR: We do recommend approval of this with the staff s language. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: With the staff s language. Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I do have a question. You say that the market demand analysis has a trade area that overlaps the market trade area for VB /Collier Boulevard. That means you're questioning the validity of their showing of need? MR. BLAIR: Well, we were -- just wanted to note that so that you -all would have that information, that what the trend has become -- that we've seen the market area for a lot of projects come in and that they're using the same market area with -- it varies a little bit, but it's generally the same, which is going to be, because that's where most of the development is happening also. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's funny these market analyses and traffic analyses always come out to support what the petitioner wants to do. If they don't, as you pointed out in this case, that's not a fatal shortcoming? MR. BLAIR: If the market analysis did not? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. MR. BLAIR: I would assume yes. That means the market doesn't support it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, the -- if you carve out Page 53 October 18, 2001 16J 1 the part that's overlapped, then you'd have a question of whether it supports it or not, wouldn't you? MR. BLAIR: This is true. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was wondering, this is a privately owned piece of property? I mean, it may not have any bearing on this, but I'm just -- MR. BLAIR: I believe so. I believe it's owned by Mr. Larry Brooks. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And is there any specific use that he has in mind for it? MR. BLAIR: The application didn't state any site use. Maybe the petitioner can answer that question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think in the Comprehensive Plan we're -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just sort of curious. If we change it to this and then put up something that's objectionable, then it'll be in a situation where we approve -- but, again, it's just a question in my mind. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. The petitioner may wish to comment. Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the commission. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the petitioner. I'd like to introduce Larry and David Brooks, two of the property owners that are here today, and Wayne Arnold, the project planner, and Dean Smith, the project engineer, who are here to answer any questions. This is a simple, straightforward Golden Gate Master Plan amendment to add 5 acres to the neighborhood center that's already been designated at the southwest corner of Pine Ridge Road and Page 54 October 18, 2001 16 J1. Collier Boulevard. This is not a commercial rezoning. This is merely an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which will make the property eligible to apply for a commercial rezoning at some time in the future, along with the other parcels that are within this neighborhood center. The Planning Commission would have the opportunity to review the actual commercial rezoning of this property at some time in the future. We believe this addition provides for a logical extension of the boundaries of this neighborhood center to the intersection with 11th Avenue Southwest. It will also enable people to access this neighborhood center and Pine Ridge Road from 11th Avenue Southwest without ever having to get on Collier Boulevard. We are in agreement with the proposed changes to the text recommended by staff, with their one addition of the word "external." We have made a presentation to the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association several months ago, and they have no objection to this amendment. We also offered to meet with the Golden Gate Civic Association, and they said that they would contact us if they felt it was necessary for us to come make a presentation to them. And so far we have not heard any more from them. We'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have, and we would respectfully request your recommendation of approval to the county commission. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions for Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Straightforward. Okay. Next item, or do we want to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, straw vote. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would like to vote on each one. I may have difficulty voting on one of the last two, and I would like to get my vote in. Page 55 October 18, 2001 16J I CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Then if it's agreeable to everyone, we can take a quick vote on each one. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I make a motion that we forward Petition No. CP- 2001 -1 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do I need to make any findings, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: This is legislative. It's a comp plan amendment. It's legislative, so it's different than quasi-judicial where you make a finding of fact or legal conclusion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have the motion by Mr. Abernathy, a second by Mr. Adelstein for approval of this particular amendment. Do we have any discussion? All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Number 2. MS. TAYLOR: Yes. Good morning. My name is Amy Taylor for the record. I'm with your comprehensive planning staff. Before you for your consideration is Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2001- 2, the Buckley Mixed -Use Subdistrict. The geographic location of this is just north of the Collier County Public Library on Airport Road and northwest -- at the northwest corner of Airport- Pulling and Orange Blossom Road, and it is in the Naples -- North Naples planning community. The petition seeks to amend an existing Future Land Use Element and Map of the Collier County Growth Page 56 October 18, 2001 �.- 16JI Management Plan to create a new mixed -use district known as the Buckley Mixed -Use Subdistrict to the urban mixed -use district for specified lands located northwest of the corner of Airport- Pulling Road and Orange Blossom. The intent of this amendment is to develop a small - scale, mixed -use development that encourages the principals of traditional neighborhood districts at a -- this amendment establishes a mixed -use, site - specific subdistrict that creates -- its intent is to create a pedestrian- friendly environment for small -size retail and office uses with a residential component developed on the same site. The amendment proposes to cap retail uses at 3,250 square feet per acre and office uses at 4,250 square feet per acre while ensuring a residential component within the same building of a substantial percentage. A minimum of 25 percent of the maximum residential density would have to be constructed prior to the development of 40,000 square feet. This would equate to 86 dwelling units. The entire site is 22.84 acres. If built out to maximum capacity, the project could be developed with 74,230 square feet of retail, 97,070 square feet of office, and 343 residential units. I want to also provide a clarification. In the -- in the agenda package, the summary stated a little higher. It had been that -- we had calculated for a full 23 acres to provide for the square footage in the residential units. And as we were developing -- and this was for the advertisement. As we were developing the staff report, the acreages were -- were reevaluated based on 22.84 and the intensities and densities, which were -- are a little less. The existing conditions of the site are that its designation is future -- is urban mixed -use district /urban residential subdistrict, and it is within the traffic congestion area as identified on the Future Land Use Map. Under the criteria of these designations, three dwelling units per acre will be permitted. In addition, the parcels could be Page 57 October 18, 2001 16J 1 eligible for an additional 8 dwelling units per acre under the affordable housing provision of the density rating system. Both parcels -- it is actually two parcels -- are currently zoned agricultural and are being used as a commercial nursery at this time. The surrounding land uses are to the north Brighton Gardens Assisted Living Facility; east is Airport- Pulling Road, currently being expanded to six lanes; the Vineyards residential community to the east, Lakeside of Naples residential community, a church, and a plant nursery all to the east; south is the currently being constructed Collier County Public Library site; and to the west is Emerald Lakes. The -- a commercial demand -- or commercial analysis was not submitted by the applicant. We used the 1998 update of the commercial inventory of Collier County, and specifically the North Naples community, and did a brief analysis for you. Based on that 1998 commercial inventory, there -- there were 499 properties that were identified as commercially zoned in the North Naples planning community. It is a -- something that the -- the petitioner has proposed if there are not enough of the smaller pieces of property. There are quite a few, up to 27 or 5 percent of -- of the properties were only -- were over 10 acres. The remainder were less than 10 acres. But staff concluded that while, based on the 1998 commercial inventory, there is sufficient commercial acreage in the North Naples planning community, this project would be one of the first of its kind to be developed in the county. A mix of uses to include a substantial residential component could set an example for development of this kind or redevelopment of this kind at a smaller scale and provides the opportunity for residents to live, work, and shop in the same location. The Airport- Pulling Road corridor, in terms of its appropriateness for the area, is anchored by two activities centers. Similar approved and developed uses along this segment of Airport- Page 58 October 18, 2001 16J1 Pulling Road between the two activity centers are consistent and compatible with the proposed amendment. The Lone Oak PUD has 25,000 square feet of office space. The Willow Park PUD is approved for 7.47 acres for office and retail uses. The new Collier County library is being constructed to the south and will have an interconnection to the subject site. North of the subject site is the Brighton Gardens Assisted Living Facility with a density of 22 units per acre. One of the biggest challenges for any of these mixed -use properties will be interconnection. Opportunities for interconnectivity with adjacent residential will be a major difficulty for any new small - scale, mixed -use development in Collier County. The potential for increased internal capture by allowing higher densities on site will only partially mitigate this issue. Market conditions and/or increased traffic congestion on major roadways may provide incentives for existing neighborhoods to seek interconnection in the future. And primarily what I'm -- I'm thinking of is the Emerald Lakes. There is access to the north of the site at the -- at -- just north of the assisted - living facility. There will be no internal access to this mixed -use development. Properties that are east of Airport Road, there would be no opportunity or real good opportunity for pedestrian access. But this project would be, as I stated before, one of the first of its kind in Collier County. And staff does recommend approval of this petition with one specific change. There are -- the -- in the language there is a -- 50 percent of the commercial buildings -- there's language that states that 50 percent of the commercial buildings would have a residential component. I did get a call yesterday from the petitioner, and they're actually doing the site design at this time. And they found that they were -- one of their last designs was at 42 percent, and they would Page 59 October 18, 2001 16J l like to -- to move that cap down to 40 percent. Staff has no objection to that. Staff does recommend that the Planning Commission forward this petition to the BC (sic) with recommendation for approval to transmit. Any questions? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do have a question just to clarify for me a little bit about the concept of the process to get an interconnect. I was intrigued by what I read in here and how this is a new concept, but what would they have to go through to get an interconnect, say, to Emerald Lakes? MS. TAYLOR: It would have to be an agreement with Emerald Lakes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So it's all private. It's nothing to do with the county. They don't have to come to the county to do anything from a county standpoint for an interconnect? MS. TAYLOR: They would need to have that agreement before they could start that process with the county, for an interconnect. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I guess I'm misunderstanding. We're not talking about a rezone. We're not talking about a variance. What are we talking about to encourage if the market conditions will encourage this and the traffic congestion of the road is encouraging? MS. TAYLOR: Frankly, if the site is so popular and it's very -- very welcoming and there are uses there that Emerald Lakes would like to have easier access to -- the assisted - living facility, for example, may want to have access. There is actually an access to Emerald Lakes just north of the assisted - living facility and access to the assisted - living facility from that access road. That -- that's a potential there. But if -- if Emerald Lakes wanted to have additional access, other internal interconnection, pedestrian or bike path -wise, there would have to be an agreement between the two property owners to provide that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you care to say something Page 60 October 18, 2001 16JI about that, Ms. Bishop? MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop, agent for the owner. We're huge interconnect fans. Pretty much all the projects I work on, it's a fact of life because of what we see that we want to ' - especially when you have a commercial element near a residential element, the whole idea that somebody would go out on the main drag just to go a couple hundred feet and pull into the commercial seems to be a little ridiculous. I have spoken with the lakes -- the Emerald Lakes people, and at this time they have a history of not wanting interconnections. Even to the library they're not -- they removed their pedestrian -- or I think voted down their pedestrian connection to the library. Across the street with the Pulling commercial that we just did, we have been working with the church in Lakeside to interconnect through the church, through Pulling, to Orange Blossom, and we are currently working on that now. There is no way that the county can get involved in this, unfortunately, at this point because it's all private property. Now, we are willing to certainly connect to Brighton Gardens, and that would -- if they could connect to the commercial at the corner, that would even be better. But right now -- and I have a meeting with the Lakeside people next week to -- actually, it's next month at their board hearing -- to go over the things. And the main things that they want to know is that I'm not doing anything to mess with them in any way, shape, or form visually, connection -wise, anything. So that's what I'm going to go there and tell them, is that, you know, we're going to be good neighbors and make sure that their lifestyle is intact and their ambiance is intact and go from there. But as interconnect fans, we would love to see those kinds of things happen. It would just make sense. As we've all seen on the roads lately, it just makes sense. But it has to be through private Page 61 October 18, 2001 1 6J 1 cooperation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. That was a point I definitely wanted clarified. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Karen, I like your project or your ideas. I'm just curious. If you're -- if you're talking about people living on the site and working in these small retail, you're really talking about affordable housing, aren't you? MS. BISHOP: Oh. No, no. We're -- we're actually kind of talking like downtown Naples. I mean, if you think about it, you're going to have -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Upscale small retail. MS. BISHOP: Exactly. And you're going to have apartments that are going to be upscale apartments. They're not going to be -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. I didn't know what your -- MS. BISHOP: -- what you're saying, affordable housing to that degree, but even -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- what your market segment was, but it's upscale. MS. BISHOP: But even what I've seen down the street with some of the -- what we call affordable housing, they're nice - looking jobs. They've been, you know, not a blight on the visual as you drive down the roads. But in this case the whole point is to keep people there and not to create the traffic and interconnect the library and be able to walk here and walk there and literally have what I think was the intent of the activity centers to begin with, was some sort of traditional neighborhood designs where people got out of their cars and actually got on their feet and walked from place to place. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does Brighton Gardens have any interest in a pedestrian -- MS. BISHOP: We are hoping so. We've actually contacted October 18, 2001 them and __ 16J1 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- for those that are ambulatory? MS. BISHOP: Well, you know, I actually s e some people sitting ut in the parking lots and stuff, so I was inkin that maybe g p g � g Y there is an opportunity for some of the retail we would have or even office space -- maybe there's attorneys or there's the dentist or something where those people that live there can come to this facility. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Couldn't be much closer, could they? MS. BISHOP: No. And the bicycle paths, unfortunately, right now are destined for the back of curb on Airport Road. And what we're going to look to do is try to do some internal pathway to keep people off that main drag because that's one of the issues, I think. With some of these neighborhood designs and what we're doing on our major roadways, we're literally building facilities that keep the public from getting on them because it's a little scary for me to walk on six lanes of 55- mile -an -hour traffic. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Last question. Do you know off the top of your head what your linear frontage is on Airport Road? MS. BISHOP: Off the top of my head, I do not. I know that we have a problem with depth. That's one of the reasons why we're going to this kind of project, because we don't have the depth to get residential far enough, you know, to do anything really nice and get it far enough off the road. But I think we -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm talking about your north/south dimension. MS. BISHOP: Right. Yeah, the frontage. Reed's doing his -- MR. JARVI: It looks about 1500, 1600 feet. MS. BISHOP: It looks about 1500, 1600 feet. Page 63 October 18, 2001 16J1 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Almost a third of a mile. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a few questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, please, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What -- how were you able to get from the 69 residential units that were planned by the acreage to 343? MS. BISHOP: I'm going to have Joe McHarris speak of that because this type of design is specific, and Joe is the one that developed the language for this based on projects that have been done in other areas including the one that we have done at -- right down the street from here, at the corner of Orange Blossom. The problem with these smaller parcels, you have difficulty making them work with anything, especially when you have a linear issue, like this one does, with the geometry. It's a skinny site, so you can't really create a market. You can't sell the property. And commercial here would be way too intense or you'd start creating, what we see, the strips going all the way down, which is what we're trying to stay away from. So what you're trying to do is come up with a difference between buffering the intense commercial and the residential behind you, and so you come up with this mixed use. So I'll have Joe explain. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. But my problem -- oh, Joe, go ahead and do that first. MR. McHARRIS: The way we got to that -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Identify yourself, please. MR. McHARRIS : Oh, I'm sorry. Joe McHarris, agent for the owner -- is to take the density bonus for that area that's available and then a multiplier, and then you add that to it, and you can come up with that. The other thing is that to make a mixed -use commercial work you have to have some residential components there, and you're not talking about 10 or 12. So the two actually go together very Page 64 October 18, 2001 16JI quickly to provide for the amount of mixed use and residential on property to support the commercial in its early stages as it builds out. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So basically what you've done is gone from 3 units per acre to 15 units per acre. MR. McHARRIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Could you answer my question regarding the road access onto 41 (sic)? Last year it went up 24.28 percent. If we put 343 acres -- 343 units and all of this commercial, what kind of effect is that going to have on Airport, which now -- is almost impassable as it is now? MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi, Vanasse & Daylor for the record. We've analyzed the corridor of north/south on Airport Road for traffic specifically, and Airport Road, as you know, is going -- undergoing changes as we speak from four lanes to six lanes in this area. And at the same time Livingston Road has -- it's not there yet, but it's planned to be from, well, actually, south county all the way through Bonita. But the section south of Pine Ridge is just starting construction, and the section north of Pine Ridge, which would be parallel to this, is in the final planning stages as we speak. So by the time we are -- by the time this project is anticipated to be completed, there'll be at least two more lanes with Airport Road and four to six more lanes with Livingston Road. So the distribution of the traffic north/south actually is expected to have a slight decrease on Airport Road with the advent of Livingston Road. And so we've gone through that analysis, and we show that in the worst case we have, which is the 300 - and - some -odd dwelling units and the commercial, that it's anticipated that Airport Road will remain within level of service standards in the buildout year, which is anticipated to be 2006. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: When you say you expect it to be, if it's overcrowded now -- and there's no problem that it is; Page 65 October 18, 2001 16J1. trying to drive from north coming down, it's almost impossible today during the normal business day -- you're going to have this more vehicles and say, "Yeah, but it's going to be okay. Livingston will carry it off." The actual facts are that we have what we have now. I understand it's going to be expanded to six lanes, as it is below that to six lanes, and it still hasn't solved the problem. I'm just wondering how 343 units along with your commercial is going to fit into this and make it work properly. MR. JARVI: Well, part of the answer is the mixed - use -type of development because, as Joe said and Karen, too, that being a mixed use, not all of that traffic would be on Airport because there'll be interactions between the uses within the development. Additionally, on the commercial standpoint, commercial we usually have -- we have what is called pacified traffic, as you're going down wherever and you decide that you're going to run into Home Depot and grab something or grab a burger at McDonald's or something. Your primary trip or primary reason for being on that road is not to go there; it just happens to be there on your way. And there's many different names for this, but mainly it's called pacified traffic. So there's a percentage that comes off for that, and then there's a percentage that comes off when you have a mixed - use -type development, that the people that are leaving their homes for either retail use or an office use are also the same people that are coming to the retail use or office use, so you have a reduction from those types of uses. So by the nature of it being a true mixed -use community, you actually have a significant reduction of trips than if it was a separate, stand -alone -- or three separate: Office, retail, and residential uses. So you don't have the full impact of the -- of all the commercial, office, and residential units that you would. So that's one answer to -- or a partial answer to your question. But mainly the answer is that you have two additional lanes of -- Page 66 October 18, 2001 16J1 of capacity coming in now and that are coming on -line now for this area. And then in the near term, the next couple years, you're going to have four or six lanes of traffic capacity coming on Livingston Road from a north/south character, north/south standpoint. And we've gone over this methodology with staff, and we've all come to an agreement that the methodology is correct, and they agree with our analysis. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And you're not planning on having an anchor store or any anchor stores in your commercial? MR. JARVI: I can't really answer that, but from my understanding, the answer is no. But that's really not my part. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You understand what I'm saying. You're talking about traffic inside, but if there's an anchor store, you're going to have people coming from other places just to get to that store. MR. JARVI: We will have that anyway, whether it's a dress shop boutique or something like that. But there will be an interchange or interaction among the residents that live there and the retail, so you'd have -- I mean, even if it was an anchor store, you'd have that same interaction, but you wouldn't have people from outside the area or outside this development coming to the project. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Obviously you can see I'm kind of worried about the traffic problem, and I'm trying to get some answers that will make it justifiable. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Jarvi, I'm curious. The statement was made earlier about the commercial activity centers on both ends anchoring this on Airport Road. A commercial activity center was not designed to have any residential in it. We were all supposed to get in our cars and drive there and then wander around and do a whole lot of shopping and then leave and go home? MR. JARVI: I think the original intent -- and I wasn't here Page 67 October 18, 2001 16J when they brought that up, but what I understand, the original intent of the activity center was a mixed use. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It was? MR. JARVI: That's my understanding. And that's why you have a density bonus in the activity centers. However, you know, from observation it doesn't happen hardly, if at all, that you have residential within the activity center because the land in general is so valuable for commercial. So it's more valuable for commercial than it is for residential. Plus people -- you know, most people don't want to live at Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road, you know, within 50 feet of that intersection because it is a large noise and hazard to your lifestyle, probably. But my understanding is originally the concept was mixed use. It just hasn't really developed that way. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And the idea of so much commercial, you wanted to -- you had limitations on where you could have other commercial, so that pretty much forced you to be in those activity centers and not do any mixed use, not do the residential. And that's -- I've been here 22 years, and it's always sort of intrigued me to listen to some of those arguments in the very beginning. MR. JARVI: I agree. When I first came here 12 years ago, I said, "This is -- from a traffic engineering standpoint, this is exactly what you don't want to do." CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that's why this is being touted here as the first of its kind in the county and that we're actually going to set a good example and maybe actually focus on what we call a traditional neighborhood design versus gated communities and chunks where people are because you have to get out and drive. MR. JARVI: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Because I was impressed by what this said, and hopefully there will be other projects that could use this as a model within our community. We've changed an awful lot in 22 years here. October 18, 2001 16J1 Okay. Do we have any other questions or comments? Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? We might as well go ahead and do them one at a time since we're right -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that we forward Petition No. CP- 2001 -2 to the Board of County Commissioners recommending approval. And I'm not clear on whether the staff -- staff had a condition that wasn't in here. MS. TAYLOR: Yes. It isn't in there. It's the reduction from the 50 percent requirement of -- 50 percent of commercial (sic) buildings down to 40 percent that would need to have a residential component. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Subject to the staff condition. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy and a second by Mrs. Young for approval of this petition with the change that staff suggested on the residential component. Do we have any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One opposed. 6 -1. Motion carries. Thank you. That concludes that item. Next item is CP- 2001 -3 Livingston/Pine Ridge commercial infill M IF October 18, 2001 subdistrict. 16J1 MS. JOURDAN: Good morning. For the record, my name is Jean Jourdan. I'm with the comprehensive planning department. Before you for your consideration is Comp Plan Amendment Petition No. CP- 2001 -03. Representing the applicant is Terrence Kepple of Kepple Engineering, Incorporated. The location of this property is -- it contains 10.47 acres more or less and is located at the northwest quadrant of Livingston and Pine Ridge Road. The parcel lies within the North Naples planning community. This is the subject parcel. The petitioner seeks to amend the existing Future Land Use Element of the (sic) map of Collier County Growth Management Plan for the addition of 10.47 acres to the Livingston/Pine Ridge commercial infill subdistrict of the urban commercial subdistrict for the specified lands. The proposed text change adds language under the urban commercial district, Livingston/Pine Ridge commercial infill subdistrict, page 31, Section B. The intent of the amendment is the petitioner proposes to add 10.47 acres to the Livingston/Pine Ridge commercial infill subdistrict as to allow retail and commercial office uses on the site at the northwest corner of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road. The northwest quadrant would allow single -story retail commercial uses and up to three -story professional or medical - related offices. As proposed this amendment would allow for a maximum of 40,000 square feet of leasable area for retail, commercial, and office development. The surrounding uses of the property is to the north, which is the Community School of Naples. It's a private school. It's zoned CF for community facility. To the east would -- from Livingston Road is a single- family dwelling which is zoned estates. To the west we have a conditional use, which is Naples Progressive Gymnastics Camp. And then to the south, which is across Pine Ridge Road here, we have the Page 70 October 18, 2001 16JI PUD which is a community containing 276 dwelling units on 39 acres. The staff has recommended that the CCPC forward Petition CP- 2001 -3 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval to transmit to the DCA. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I noticed in the findings and conclusions we were talking about the subject site has residential development options up to 15 units per acre with the affordable housing density bonus applied. And it says, "Staff concurs with the petitioner that the site is not suitable for a residential project." Could you just elaborate on that just a little? MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. The -- the subject property has an existing 6.7 FPL easement which encumbers the property. So, therefore, there's only 3.8 acres of the property which is usable. The property actually ranges from 57 feet wide to a maximum of 167 feet in width, so it really affects what they can put on the property. Although they could put up to 15 units, it would not be a viable project with the size of the property due to the encumbrance of the FP &L easement. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just have a question. Right now, of course, there is a nursery right underneath the FPL lines. MS. JOURDAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What is going to be there, just out of curiosity? Nothing? MS. JOURDAN: Right. They could not actually utilize that for anything. The only reason the nursery could utilize it was because it's things that could be moved, such as plants and things like that. So no stationary type object would be allowed to be placed under those FP &L easements. Page 71 October 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So would it be, like, a 16J1 landscaping or green area? MS. JOURDAN: That's possible. I don't know what they plan to put there at this time, but they're limiting the building square footage to 40,000 square feet, which isn't a large building. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not a very nice site for all that construction. MS. JOURDAN: Actually, it's not. It's not viable for too many things, actually, because of the FP &L easement. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Almost turn the FP &L easement into a lineal park. Any other questions? Anyone care to comment from the audience? MR. KEPPLE: For the record, Terrence Kepple representing the petitioner. I don't have a formal presentation this morning. I think most of your questions have been answered. But if you have any other questions, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions, Commissioners? Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll go again. Madam Chairman, I make a motion that we forward Petition No. CP- 2001 -03 to the Board of County Commissioners recommending approval. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Abernathy, a second by Mr. Budd for approval of this particular petition. Do we have any discussion? All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Okay. We are -- next one is CP- 2001 -4, which would create the Page 72 October 18, 200 6JI 9 Henderson Creek mixed -use subdistrict. Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm David Weeks of the comprehensive planning section. This petition seeks to amend the designation of the subject property which is -- presently that designation is urban coastal fringe which, from a residential standpoint, limits the property to a maximum density of 4 units per acre with the exception of affordable housing or transfer of development rights. It's also within the traffic congestion area. So essentially, outside of affordable housing, it's limited to 3 units per acre residentially; with affordable housing, as much as 11 units per acre. And it also is allowed to develop any of those types of uses allowed throughout the urbanized area, such as community - facility uses such as churches, child -care centers, nursing homes, ALFs, recreation and open spaces uses, and essential services, that kind of in- between category of residential and commercial. But what they're proposing for this 83 -acre site is to create a mixed -use subdistrict that will allow for regional commercial uses primarily as well as affordable housing or work -force housing for the property. A few -- I'll highlight a few of the points in this amendment as it was proposed, modified by staff, and agreed to by the petitioner. Again, I want to stress, as the petitioner did in their application, that the intent of this subdistrict is to provide for regional commercial uses, not community and neighborhood commercial uses as you typically find in the activity centers and as you would typically find in most of our other commercial provisions in the Comprehensive Plan. One of the shortfalls of this regional commercial is the sense -- not on the petitioner's part but the fact that we don't have a definition for that in our codes, and I'm going to address that later in my presentation. But the proposal of the 83 -acre site would be a maximum of 40 Page 73 October 18, 200116J 1 acres for commercial development and a maximum of 325,000 square feet for commercial; a maximum of 500 dwelling units, but the residential units on the property will be subject to the density rating system. So they're not getting anything special here, but it's an acknowledgment that they can provide as much as 500, and they are committed to, they are required to provide a minimum of 200 dwelling units on the property. And that goes back to the purpose asserted by the petitioner is we want to have a mixed -use project of regional commercial uses and work -force housing. We're saying, "That's what you say; let's put it in the text that you'll do that." Additionally, there will be a loop road provided through the project from U.S. 41 to 951, Collier Boulevard. The regional commercial uses, at least one of them, will be limited to a minimum of 100,000 square feet. Again, you're saying it's going to be regional commercial, then let's tie their hands to provide regional commercial. The remainder of the project, as far as commercial uses go, would be allowed to develop as small as 20,000 square feet of regional commercial uses. And that I'll also touch on again in a few moments. We've suggested, they've agreed to, a maximum of 10 percent of that total of 325,000 square feet, or 32,500 square feet, to be used for nonregional uses. So we are allowing for some community, some neighbor -- we're not saying you must build these huge -- two huge or three huge or so forth -- buildings on the property. A small amount of neighborhood or community commercial would be allowed such as you would oftentimes find on outparcels. And that's also one of the points. They're limited to a maximum of four outparcels. They all must be located along Collier Boulevard, and they all must have internal access. We're not precluding at this point to having access directly onto Collier Boulevard, but we are mandating that there be access internal to the project so that a person -- I will point out a similar situation: The Home Depot on Pine Ridge Page 74 October 18, 2001 16J1 Road. There's a Checkers. There's an oil change business. Neither of those -- and I'm not suggesting that's what we're proposing, but as an example, both of those uses are on outparcels within that total site. Neither of those uses has direct access onto Pine Ridge Road. They can only be accessed internal to the project. That's the concept. Certainly if they have larger development of -- the outparcels can be as large as 5 acres, so they conceivably could have their entire nonregional commercial use -- uses, square footage, built on an outparcel. And in that case it might be appropriate to have a direct access onto 951. But regardless, they must have internal access as well. There are certain prohibited uses, certain types of nonregional prohibited uses, and we've listed a few of those here, such as grocery stores. Again, focus on regional commercial. The height is limited to a maximum of one story and 35 feet for the commercial uses; residential allowed at three habitable stories. And I think that's the main points I wanted to -- also, interconnections would be investigated to the properties to the north, most of which are in the activity center. Now let me jump -- I got a little bit out of order. As far as the location goes, the visualizer here shows the subject property and the strike pattern. It fronts on both 41 and 951 and is adjacent to the south of the activity center, the mixed -use activity center. The dashed line is showing the boundaries of that mixed -use activity center. So to the north are properties zoned mostly commercial, C -2 and C -4; also some ag properties, mostly within the activity center. To the east across Henderson Creek is a mobile home park. To the south adjacent is a mobile home park. And further to the south beyond Henderson Creek where it turns east /west, more mobile home development. And to the west across Collier Boulevard is the Eagle Page 75 A October 18, 2001 1 b J 1 Creek development, a golf course residential community, at a low density of -- I just looked that up, but I think around three, maybe four units per acre. It's a typical, low - density golf course residential community. As I -- as you hear me continuously stressing, regional commercial, because that's what the petitioner has asserted, that that is their intent to provide, work -force housing and regional commercial uses. In looking at the commercial inventory, we don't take that into account, the county's commercial inventory, this particular type. What we identify are the total acres of commercial zoning, the total square foot of the development that's there, the zoning districts of the various commercial properties. But we don't -- and the dimensions are provided, the acreage is provided. But we don't have any type of particular analysis as far as large commercial sites that would accommodate regional commercial uses. There are some examples in the staff report of what we're talking about of the large regional commercial uses: Home Depot, Costco, Pace Warehouse, Sam's Club; and then some of the smaller ones, but nevertheless regional uses, Sports Authority, Toys "R" Us, I think, would both be examples. And, as we mentioned, the square footage of all of those larger ones exceed a hundred thousand square feet. The Sports Authority is one example of a smaller one, and it's just over 40,000 square feet. Another frame of reference for building size, the county's Development Services Center on north Horseshoe Drive is also approximately 40,000 square feet. The particular -- I'll phrase it as a concern from the staff standpoint has to do with simply making sure that what the petitioner's proposing is what they are limited to and, in fact, ultimately develop. And, as I mentioned earlier, there's no definition of regional commercial use in our codes. There certainly are Page 76 October 18, 2001 . 6J1 definitions and examples in the planning literature such as Urban Land Institute. So staff s recommendation is to approve this petition. But understand, please, that when this comes back for the adoption hearing, assuming the board does transmit it, you may see a little bit of additional language here added by staff or recommended by staff, and one might be a definition of regional commercial. Number two, that 20,000 square foot minimum for the other regional commercial uses either may increase or may be augmented by having a stair step. A certain amount of square footage of regional commercial can be at 20,000 square feet. A certain amount, for example, might have to be 40,000 or 50,000. Again, this is to ensure regional commercial uses and to account for the fact that there's, in our opinion, adequate inventory of commercial sites that would accommodate a 20,000- square -foot building. We don't think that's where the particular need is at. We do agree with the petitioner, though, the large sizes are very limited. Essentially, you would have to go to an undeveloped quadrant of an activity center to be able to accommodate the size of commercial for these large regional commercial uses that they are proposing. The other thing is -- which I've not discussed with the petitioner; this'll be new to them. I see their reaction. But one of the things that's provided here, they have committed to the 200 dwelling units, but there's not a trigger mechanism; that is, there's not some requirement that after you build X square feet of commercial, you must get your residential component going. And the concern there is, again, make sure that, in fact, happens. I'll give you an example of a parallel circumstance: Carillon Plaza shopping center. It has a residential component to it. The PUD was approved with residential behind it and, of course, the shopping Page 77 d October 18, 2001 16J center on the frontage. Well, the shopping center got built, but to this day the residential hasn't -- hasn't begun. Will it ever? Well, time will tell. But there's no trigger mechanism to make sure that it happens, and we think it's appropriate that there would be some type of trigger mechanism. Again, you're saying you're going to do it; let's put the language in there that ensures that that does, in fact, happen. And of course all these different requirements and limitations would be carried through to the next step which, as you know, is the rezoning process. This is the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but there are, as you can see, a lot of specific provisions in here, again, proposed by staff and the petitioner jointly. And in some cases we modified the language, and they have agreed to these changes. And with that I think I'm done. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I want to ask a question. Is there a current definition of work -force housing /affordable housing in a dollar value, what the apartments rent for or that type of thing? How do we define this work -force housing? MR. WEEKS: Not work -force housing but affordable housing, and that's why we -- staff proposed that those words be used as well. The affordable housing, first of all, links to the density rating system, the density calculation, and the Future Land Use Element. And then, secondly, the bonus ordinance that the county's adopted, how do we determine how many affordable housing units you get? It depends on the number of -- of dwelling units you're proposing, the size of the units. And there is a linkage to the -- I think it's the median household income for Collier County. So there is an ultimate linkage to income levels. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And in this particular subdistrict, we would have similar rules and regulations criteria, so it's architecturally sort of the same? MR. WEEKS: Yes. The only reference to that here is that the October 18, 2001 16JI two components, residential and commercial -- I believe it's in there -- would be developed with architecturally similar style. Our opinion is that at this point we're not going to try to get more specific. Let that be dealt with at the zoning stage. Typically what the zoning process would result in is simply a requirement to comply with the provisions in the Land Development Code, that Division 2.8. And that spells out certain architectural embellishments and the limits to the amount of blank walls on buildings and so forth. We would simply rely on that to -- to apply to this project. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is this sort of an idea of an advance vision for community character? We're going to try to have a particular look to it? MR. WEEKS: Not from a staff perspective. No particular thought being given to that or mentioned by the petitioner. Certainly once this -- if we get there and once it does come for the rezoning, that could be discussed further. We may be further along, we the county, in the community character process. As you know, the plan itself was adopted or endorsed by the board, but we're yet to see the actual implementation. And that's what we're -- depending on where our implementing regulations are at, that may be applicable to the site, or you may, independent of that process, make certain recommendations as far as the property goes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I'm trying to make a linkage here, but I'm not sure how to ask the question yet. I want to think -- I want to hear what the petitioner says. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: David, I'm troubled by the fact that all the brain power over in the planning department cannot come up with a definition of regional commercial. And if you've had time to cogitate on that, why should I believe that between now and then, whenever then comes up, you will be more successful? Is it going to come to you in a dream or in the shower? What's so difficult Page 79 October 18, 2001 1 6 J 1;'4 1 about defining this? MR. WEEKS: One never knows where it'll come from, Mr. Abernathy -- no. Purely facetious. The timing of this, the process, this petition, I'll say, evolved. It actually was originally submitted as an expansion of the activity center. So it's evolved through the process while it's been in our hands, gone back and forth, trying to fine -tune it, trying to tie it down. And as a result, I'm just going to say we ran out of time. I did look at regional commercial. The literature I looked at, however, was specific to shopping centers, and that's not what they're proposing here. But I'm certain that the literature's out there. It was just -- I'll say staff ran out of time to specifically come up with that definition. I'm sure it exists. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is "commercial" a word of art that would exclude industrial? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it does. And also I'll go ahead and point out again that the language here limits them to level of intensity of C -4, so C -15 29 3 and 4. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So that would take heavy industrial out of it altogether. MR. WEEKS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Would there -- could we at this point agree that the regional commercial is limited to retail as opposed to any kind of wholesale operation there? MR. WEEKS: I think that's safe to say because I can't think of any wholesale uses allowed in the C -4 district. If I'm corrected, so be it. But the C -4 and lower districts primarily deal with retail. Your wholesale pretty much starts at C -5 and then into the industrial district. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. I'm just deathly afraid of being mousetrapped, as I was once before, and when we come back for a rezone, the petitioner saying, "Well, if I had known October 18, 2001 16JI you were going to define it that way, you know, I would have done things differently at the comp plan amendment stage." What if you now say 150,000 square feet, and he says, "Hey, I can't agree to that "? Where does that put us? MR. WEEKS: One of the reasons for the specificity you're seeing here is to make sure that there is not a misunderstanding as much as possible. For example, again, we're specifically stating the maximum commercial intensity is C -4. Therefore, if they come in at the rezone stage and want a C -5 use, they're out of luck. The language is very clear, and it's for the benefit of both sides. They walk away with a very clear understanding of what their limitations are -- hopefully a clear understanding -- and, likewise, the county has a clear understanding. This is what the language says. This is what it means. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Good. Okay. Well, I expressed the same misgivings to a couple of the petitioner's agents and asked them to come up with a better definition if they could, but that was just a few days ago. So we'll see. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You say affordable housing. Is there a price figure for that, or how are they going to determine what is affordable housing? MR. WEEKS: I can -- don't know the specifics enough to answer that right to the point, but I will, again, say there's a linkage in the median household income for Collier County as to what affordable housing means. In a certain sense, you might say that's one of the problems that we have in Collier County, is our median income is so darn high. And, therefore, having 80 percent of that or 60 percent, some certain percentage of that -- and I think it is 80 percent, I think is what the code says -- is still a relatively high figure. The flip side of that in a certain sense is economically it certainly Page 81 October 18, 2001 16 J I makes it a lot more, I'll say, viable or easier for the developer. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. But you're still giving me 80 percent of the median income. We still aren't coming up with what that figure absolutely represents. MR. WEEKS: I believe the median income for the county is around 65,000, I think is the 2000 figure. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So you take 80 percent of that, and then you multiply it by what? MR. WEEKS: Eighty percent times 65,000 gives you the income level -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. Then what happens? MR. WEEKS: -- for the persons that are allowed to -- to occupy the dwelling units there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I mean, you're still not telling me. These are all going to be rental units then? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Now I'm back where I want to be. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of Mr. Weeks at the moment? I think Mr. Yovanovich has a few comments he'd like to make. Ms. Young go ahead. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Is this the time to ask you about the traffic impact of this proposal? I mean, it's already LOS -D, and that is -- you're proposing this kind of growth in commercial traffic. Aren't you suggesting future deadlock, you know, ala Pine Ridge? MR. WEEKS: A couple of comments on that. First of all, I'm going to let the petitioner address some of the particulars of the traffic impacts, the actual number of trips and so forth it's going to generate. I think your reference to Level of Service D, that is the adopted level of service for the county, not necessarily the functional level of service. That is how it's operating today. There's a difference. October 18, 2001 16J1 Here's what we adopt. The county says we must maintain this level of service. And then over here is the way it actually operates because potentially it could be operating above the leve, of service adopted or below, at least for a short period of time. 4 t does operate below -- operating below its level of service, then the county is required within, I think, a maximum of three years to do something to improve that circumstance: Widen the road, build a new road, change the level of service, lower it. We have to do something, though. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: But in good planning this isn't something we want to continue to do. MR. WEEKS: I agree. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: They have done that in the past. We don't want to do that in the future. MR. WEEKS: I agree. And ultimately -- I don't like passing the buck, but the decision - makers are the Board of County Commissioners. Ultimately they have to determine if they want to go along under the present policies, which means that we can go as far as two or three years below level of service or not. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich representing the petitioner. I have with me Bill Schrage and Rob Warstler, who are the petitioners; Wayne Arnold, the planner on the project; Dean Smith, the engineer on the project; and Chuck Nolty (phonetic), who prepared our market analysis. Again, we're at the Comprehensive Plan amendment stage, and we will have to get into a lot more detail at the time we come through with the PUD analysis, to get more specific into the traffic analysis that Commissioner Young was alluding to or getting to. I think it -- we've done the requisite analysis we need at this point to have support from staff on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but we will have to do a lot more Page 83 October 18, 2001 analysis when we go through the PUD process. 16J l David, as usual, did an excellent job of explaining what our project is. We have committed that this is a regional commercial type of center. David is right. Most of the definitions talk about shopping centers. And since I've met with Mr. Abernathy, my client and Wayne and I have gone through the literature. And we're really more what they classify as a power center, meaning that we are -- we are a project that has multiple stand - alone, anchor -type stores. We'll have one store that will be a minimum of a hundred thousand square feet, and then we will have other regional -type uses, like Toys "R" Us, Sports Authority, that will be smaller, but it won't be your typical shopping center. So what we've come up with, Mr. Abernathy -- and I have not had a chance to share this with David -- is a definition that would probably need some working with, but would read something to this effect: Regional retail would be defined as retail typically dominated by large anchors, including discount departments stores, off -price stores, warehouse clubs, and the like, some of which offer large selection in particular merchandise categories. Regional retailers also typically have square footages ranging from 20,000 square feet to over 100,000 square feet. And what we've done is we've done -- primary trade area are generally 5 to 10 miles in area with typical store separation of 5 miles for any particular retail user. So what we've tried to do is show you we're not -- that we're talking about -- you know, Sports Authority is not going to be on every corner. It's going to be -- there may be more than one Sports Authority in a community, but there is a rather large separation between stores, and that's how -- the approach we've taken. That's where we're coming from. And hopefully we'll enhance where we've come with staff and evolved with staff, and hopefully we'll show you that we're not talking about a commercial neighborhood -type October 18, 2001 1611 shopping center. The project, as David pointed out, does front both on U.S. 41 and 951, and there will be an interconnection. The anticipated alignment will be with the entrance of Eagle Creek. Eagle Creek is still -- their association is still controlled by the developer, but we contacted the president of the golf club, who is -- it's not controlled by the developer, and asked him to meet with us and bring people he thought were appropriate so we can get the residents' opinion as to our project. And we met with six or seven different representatives of their condominium associations as well as the residential areas within Eagle Creek, and they were favorable to our project. They did -- obviously they said, you know, when it comes through zoning, we'll get to see better detail. But their concerns were not with our uses, but with, one, they wanted to see if we can assist in obtaining a traffic light at that entrance, their entrance and our entrance. We obviously would like that and are going to work with the state. This is a state road, and we're going to work with them trying to get a traffic light there. And they wanted to assure that we had good landscaping in the medians, but they wanted landscaping that was not high that would block the view of what's going on. They wanted lower level vegetation. So I think we can obviously accommodate their request as far as landscaping goes, and we'll do our best to try to get a traffic light there. As David pointed out, we have provided for interconnectivity for properties to the north, which is in the activity center that already exists. And we're committed to doing that, and we'll work with that property owner for an appropriate location for that interconnectivity. Affordable housing, obviously it is tied to income levels. It ranges. There's very low, low, and -- I forget the third. MS. STUDENT: Moderate. Page 85 October 18, 2001 16J 1 MR. YOVANOVICH: -- moderate is, I think, the three terms, and they're all tied to our median income. It will -- at this point it is anticipated it will be a rental community, but we have committed to at least 200 units meeting that affordable- housing definition. So that will evolve, and we'll have to come back with an agreement with the county to get a density bonus that will address affordable housing. So that's -- that usually comes through at the time of the PUD. So that commitment is there. We also committed to the residents of Eagle Creek and to your staff that if we get transmittal from the Board of County Commissioners to the Department of Community Affairs, we would submit our PUD application. So at the -- as close to as possible -- and the timing won't be exact, but as close to as possible as the adoption hearing to the comp plan amendment, soon thereafter you will be seeing for approval, hopefully, the PUD. But we will already be in the process where staff will have had an opportunity to review our PUD. We will have met with the neighborhood to show them what we're planning, so you will get a -- what you're approving is basically what you're getting. And we have tried to make very, very detailed -- and agree with all the changes to what staff is -- what staff is recommending. We have no -- no problems with their changes. I -- unless you have specific questions of any of the subconsultants regarding any of the issues, we'd be happy to answer those questions. But we wanted to reiterate what David had said, and this is probably -- we have committed -- and he's right. He did not talk to me about the trigger mechanism. The only thing I could commit to is obviously we'll work with staff to figure out what that is. Affordable housing's not as -- you don't control your destiny as easily as you do regular residential. I mean, you've got to work with state agencies to get commitments from them as to financing. So we will work with October 18, 2001 16JI the trigger with David on those issues between now and the adoption hearing. We have committed -- and we've said right up front we want it to be a mixed -use project, which is different than how a lot of the activity centers have developed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do have a question. I'm not sure who can answer it specifically. The concept of a large regional retailer, such as one that sits out there right now, one the county -- Wal -Mart, they never built a supercenter in Collier County. A supercenter would be over a hundred thousand square feet, but they would usually have a component of a grocery store in it. Are we excluding the concept of an internal grocery store of a very large retailer such as Wal -Mart, as the example, by putting -- excluding the prohibited use here of a grocery store? How does that impact? I just want to make sure we're not being too specific. MR. WEEKS: You've certainly identified an area where we need to clarify. That is a freestanding grocery store or a grocery store in a shopping center, your typical, like, Publix, Winn - Dixie, Food Lion. That's what -- our intent is to say you can't have that here. Conversely, to directly answer your question, no. The intent is not to prohibit the grocery store component within a larger use. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: As long as that is a regional commercial use -- MR. WEEKS: That's right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- it can have the various components with -- inside. I just want to make sure because, as Mr. Abernathy said, sometimes we go, "Now, I would have done it differently if I understood what you really meant." I do believe we have legal comment. MS. STUDENT: Yes. I think for clarity, David, we might need to write that in there as what it is because I can see down the road that it's going to come to an interpretation, perhaps, at some point. So I October 18 2001 6J1 think for clarity -- and if I might, I just wanted to answer the question about the affordable housing because it's taken as a percentage of our median income in the county, which changes over time. And then, if I recall correctly, a percentage of what those different income levels are are attributed to what would be affordable for somebody making that kind of money. In other words, if they make $30,000 a year, perhaps 33 1/3 percent of that or 35 percent of that for mortgage, interest, and tax payment of that figure would be determined to be what they could devote towards rent or mortgage payment. And then, you know, you can factor then what a monthly payment would be. And that's -- if memory serves me correctly, that's how -- to Mr. Adelstein's query, that's how that's arrived at. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So we may want to clarify that particular concept. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think we're on the same page. We understood that Super Wal -Mart was not a prohibited use, but we couldn't come in with a -- say Publix came out with a new hundred - thousand- square -foot store. We could not do that. We understood that. So I think we'll -- we'll work with staff on clarifying some of those issues. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because on one hand we don't want to deal with the idea of just a grocery store, but on another hand, we don't want to limit the -- a very large retailer that might have that component there and not argue about it six months from now. Any other questions or comments? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Question for David. How does Mr. Yovanovich's definition of regional commercial retail commercial (sic) suit you? It sounds pretty good to me, at least a start. k October 18, 2001 16JJ MR. WEEKS: We might want to tweak it, but I think it -- I think it reflects that we're in agreement philosophically, whether the actual wording, you know, we need to tweak a little bit one way or the other. But as with the project in general -- and we've been very much in agreement of what they wanted. The changes that staff has made to their language is simply to make it more specific, to tighten it down. But what they've stated that they wanted is -- is what the language is saying they're going to provide. This language here, the regional commercial definition, as a starting point, I agree with it. And, again, philosophically we're on the same page. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Much more mellow this time. I'm impressed. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's almost not as much fun. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He's not sure that's a compliment. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It was meant to be a compliment. Any other comments from up here? MR. WEEKS: I just wanted to go back to the question of affordable housing. I just wanted to make it clear that the specific language in here, in this provision, deals with the provision of affordable housing, that a minimum of 200 affordable housing units would be provided. The project can, and I would assume will, have a nonaffordable housing, residential component to it. I don't want you to walk away thinking this is only going to be an affordable- housing project along with the commercial. That's not necessarily -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But I can understand that affordable housing is only going to be rental, not purchasable. MR. WEEKS: I'll have to clarify that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Practically, yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. I just want to make sure that that's what you're saying to me. October 18, 2001 16J1 MR. WEEKS: There is the ability to have affordable housing ownership, I do believe. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There is. But I'm saying in this particular project, that is not what's going to happen. That's what I wanted to know. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How do you know that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Now I know it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now you know it. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I was doing a little bit of math. I don't have a calculator, so I may be wrong, but 80 percent of $65,000 a year is $52,000 a year. That I guess -- and then 35 percent of that is $17,000 a year. So roughly $1500 a month is what you could charge for affordable housing. That -- that seems almost meaningless, that's so high. MS. STUDENT: Well, we have different levels. There's very -- there's very low, low, and moderate. And it's unfortunate, I guess, that Mr. Mihalic, our housing director, is not here. But there are different percentage levels, depending. And this has been a problem for Collier County because we had issues with the Department of Community Affairs about this. And it's the fact that -- I think at one time we either had the highest or the second highest median income in the state, so excuse the figures. And there was even talk about breaking it out for earned income levels because the earned income level here is quite a bit less than the median income. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It really is a shock. I tried to help some people that needed some help on a personal basis. And at one point a couple years ago it was, like, $1,075 they could be subsidized for rent, and I'm saying, "That's awfully high." I mean, I don't even pay that for my mortgage, and I have a single - family house. So it really does skew it. And I think I'm going to do a little more research myself in the future so that we have this information readily available Page 90 October 18, 2001 16JI to us. But it is like sticker shock for what you consider work -force housing and affordable housing and what can. be actually subsidized by the various programs. It's an absolute sho . MR. YOVANOVICH: And please know that we have met with Mr. Mihalic about the project, and I think we have his support. And those numbers, you've got to factor in family size. You've got to factor in a lot of different things before you get to the -- MS. STUDENT: Family size is part of it too. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- before you get to what the number is. And we'll work with Mr. Mihalic on that, and we're committed to the affordable- housing definition, whatever it is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Whatever it is. I -- MR. WEEKS: If it's of interest to the Planning Commission, we could certainly gather some information on affordable- housing density bonus, the process, to kind of give some better understanding of what it means. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would be very helpful. I'd appreciate that. So thank you. We'll watch for that soon. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You were saying, Ms. Student, that there's three levels: Very affordable, moderately or -- MS. STUDENT: No. Very low, low, and moderate, and this is if memory serves me correctly. And I don't recall what the different percentages were for those, but there were three levels. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you can't have it all at the moderate. You have to have some at the very low, some at the low? MS. STUDENT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: In order to get into an agreement with Mr. Mihalic, he will not let you just do moderate. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Pardon me? MR. YOVANOVICH: He will not let you just target moderate. He will -- he will require a mixture. Page 91 October 18, 2001 16J1 . COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And who decides what his mixture is? MR. YOVANOVICH: There is a -- it actually is -- there's a matrix that is involved in how you get your bonuses and how many units. It's not -- it's not an automatic, as far as your number of bonus units you get. It's -- there's an administrative process we'll have to go through with Mr. Mihalic. MS. STUDENT: I would submit, for equal protection of the law purposes and also some other considerations on exclusionary zoning, that we would have to consider those different income levels. And we could not exclude, you know, one or the other for the reason there's some case law. It's out of another jurisdiction, but it's been very telling for local governments everywhere about exclusionary zoning and excluding out certain housing types and certain income levels. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You're saying that we will do that, we will exclude the higher end, or that we should or -- MS. STUDENT: No. For the affordable housing, you look at all three levels. And to exclude one or the other might be -- might be problematic from an equal - protection -of -the -law standpoint. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So in other words, you couldn't say no medium. You can't say only very low. MS. STUDENT: I think usually you find it going the other way, where the tendency would be to have moderate but maybe not very low. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because to me affordable housing is, like, $400 a month, and $1500 a month doesn't do anything for most working -class people. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I just wanted to point out here, too, that we're talking about a maximum of 500 dwelling units, and we want the 200 affordable or work -force housing items. Somebody Page 92 October 18, 2001 161l has done some calculations to make sure that that's going to work within our definitions? MR. WEEKS: Yes. Yes. And the commercial acreage is a maximum of 40 acres, which leaves approximately 43 for residential. But if they -- which would not allow them to get quite to 500. But it's a -- the potential is there that they could get their commercial square footage on less than 40 acres, which means more residential available, which means they could achieve the 500. The 500 dwelling units, though, is -- again, is not the mandatory; it's the 200. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But it says residential development shall be limited to a maximum of 500 dwelling units subject to the density rating system. MR. WEEKS: Yes. Let me phrase it differently. If, for example, they could get all of their commercial development on 30 acres, which leaves, then, 53 acres of residential, doing the math, they could then exceed 500 acres. They're being limited to 500. MR. YOVANOVICH: Five hundred units. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Units. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll take the acres. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You'll take the acres. Want some floor area ratio too? Okay. Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just going to say, you know, we're only talking about those 200 units. The other 300 units can be whatever. So I just -- let's not get hung up on the 200 too much. MR. WEEKS: Well, let me -- again, that density rating system, when it goes into the rezoning process, will calculate. Aside from affordable housing, it's three units per acre. So if they say, "Well, we're just going to provide the 200 affordable housing," the density's going to drop way down. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just wanted to make sure I Page 93 October 18, 2001 6,J 1 understood which direction the math was going. I think I've had all my questions resolved. Any other comments? Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Close the public hearing? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's not a public hearing. Aren't we in -- MR. WEEKS: This is an advertised hearing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Advertised hearing. Okay. I guess I better close that public hearing. I didn't do that on the other ones. Sorry. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, I move that we forward Petition No. CP- 2001 -4 to the Board of County Commissioners recommending approval subject to an expanded, enlightened definition of regional commercial use and such other language tweaking as we've alluded to here this morning. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy, a second by Mr. Adelstein to approve this with his language there. Do we have any further discussion? Okay. I call the question. All those in favor, aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I just want a point of order here. Marjorie, I don't think the record reflects that I closed the public hearings previously. Do I have a problem from Robert's Rules of Order or not? MR. WEEKS: There was actually a single hearing for all comp plan amendments. You actually did it correctly by closing it at the end. The change that occurred is we typically -- Page 94 October 18, 2001 16JI CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have one more. MR. WEEKS: I take everything I just said back. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that's why I sort of stopped, hesitated, and thought, why would I close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We voted on them one by one. That's what's -- MS. STUDENT: Yeah. I think that's what -- what changed things, because they're being considered individually. And I don't -- I don't think it's fatal. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: As long as our attorney says it's not fatal, we'll move right along to -- MS. STUDENT: You might just want to state for the record that your intent was -- on CP- 2001 -01 through 03, that your intent was to close the public hearing before the vote on each of those, and you might want to say that. That would be -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. It was my intent to close the public hearing on the first three different comp plan amendments from 1 through 3. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. CP- 2001 -01 through 03. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: CP- 2001 -1 through, dash, 3. That was my intent, to clarify the record. Thank you. So now we get to talk about CP- 2001 -5 with reference to the research and technology subdistrict. MS. TAYLOR: Yes. Good morning again. Amy Taylor for the record, comprehensive planning. This petition was actually directed by the board in their May workshop as a result of a request by the Economic Development Council of Collier County. The -- in response, the -- the comprehensive planning staff prepared some background information. They did an industrial inventory of the county, updated it from an older inventory -- so it's 2001 updated data -- as well as examined the types of uses that were allowed within Page 95 October 18, 2001 business parks and existing Indus trial straight g zoning. 16JI It was the -- the impression of the Economic Development Council that the industrial zoning alone and the business park designation alone did not provide for the combination of uses that they would need in order to encourage and attract those that would want to reside in a more formal research and technology park. The comprehensive planning section also developed framework language for the EDC to review and add to for their specific needs in terms of their target industries, which are aviation, information technology, and health technology. There are a couple of aspects of this petition -- and I'll make this brief and be available for questions -- that are different from the business park. The roadway access. Currently the business park allows -- is only allowed along arterials. The research and technology park would be allowed on collectors as well. The -- this would include Vanderbilt, Goodlette, new Livingston Road. There's only, as you can barely see on this map, a few designations for major and minor arterials, including U.S. 41, parts of Airport Road, and County Road 84. So there's fewer opportunities but quite acceptable locations along the collector roads for a park of this type. This also allows for -- to provide, from a land use perspective, incentive, C -1 through C -3 uses. The -- it also provides for another opportunity for work -force housing or affordable housing. If the property -- the property -- the park could not locate adjacent to residential unless it had a work -force component -- work -force housing component to it. When it is adjacent to commercial, it can have up to 40 percent of the acreage as residential work -force housing. There is a -- as far as the combination of uses that the EDC felt it needed to attract their target industries, when we did an examination of the -- the industrial zoning and the business park Page 96 October 18, 2001 16JI zoning by SIC code, we found that things like a computer software development could not be located -- or is allowed in industrial but not be located in a business park. And at the same -- in the same case where a programming assistance company would want to locate probably near or it would be nice for it to be near that software development company, that is allowed in C -1 but not in a business park. So this is kind of an example of -- of combining these types of uses within a regional technology park that would provide that -- that dynamic and that combination that the EDC feels that it needs. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any specific questions? Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No questions. I just think the area is definitely in need of this type of a -- type of park, without a doubt. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I agree with the concept also. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So do I. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have anyone from the audience wishes to present? Apparently not, so I will close the public hearing on this one for sure. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that we forward Petition No. CP- 2001 -5 to the Board of County Commissioners recommending approval. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I second that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, boy. I have a motion by Mr. Abernathy and a second -- I'm going to go with Mr. Wolfley -- for approval of this particular petition. Do we have any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say Page 97 October 18, 2001 aye. 16J1 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Number 9, old business. Did we establish a date for the training session we've discussed for the last two years? MS. MURRAY: Yes. I have two dates, and there's not much of a choice here other than if you just don't want these dates. November 15th we have scheduled for the presentation to be done by planning and -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: November what? MS. MURRAY: November 15th. And the second date is December 6th, which will be the presentation by the county attorney's office. And I believe you may have already had part of that already. Was this not part of a series? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. I think we never could get -- MS. STUDENT: There were problems in scheduling and then we had some with the commission, and it had to be changed because not enough people would be here. So there have been problems with scheduling throughout. MS. MURRAY: I placed on the agenda a five -item limit. So all the staff knows not to put any more than five items, and hopefully a few of those will be things like boat docks and whatnot. We usually have a pretty healthy mix. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hopefully they're Keewaydin boat docks, not Vanderbilt. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: November 15th is the second date? MS. MURRAY: November 15th is the planning presentation, and December 6th is the county attorney's office presentation. 0 October 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. 16JI MS. MURRAY. . Is that acceptable. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Sounds good to me. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What time of day? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: What date did she say? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It would be our same regular meeting, scheduled meeting. And we'd have a few petitions, at the most five, before that particular presentation so we can have time for discussion and interchange with the staff. MS. MURRAY: And am I to understand correctly that the planning staff s presentation is just kind of a general overview presentation of the role of this board as it relates to the role of the county commissioners and our relationship with staff and a little bit of the structure of Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan? COMMISSIONER BUDD: It would seem to me it would be appropriate, and it might be staff s role, is just review the differences between the quasi judicial, legislative, land use because the manner in which the petition approaches us totally affects the governing criteria and how we're supposed to act. And that's not always obvious, and some description on your part would probably be very helpful. MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And then we can ask some specific - type questions that relate to the concepts you just presented. MS. MURRAY: Okay. That's fine. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That will be very useful. MS. MURRAY: The other item I had was the LDCs have been ordered. And, Mr. Wolfley, we had to just order you a new book. So I would stress -- I'm going to lecture a little bit here. These books are upwards of $75 apiece, and I hate to keep having to buy them for new Page 99 October 18, 2001 1 bJ people every time they come along. If you could -- you get the supplements. If you wouldn't mind keeping your books up to date, that would be very helpful for us so that we could just turn them over to the new members that come along. And then they don't have to have messed -up books, and they can follow what's going on and be -- jump in feet first and know what's going on right away, hopefully. And that'll take about a month to get, hopefully within the three -- I would say within three weeks they should be here. I'm also having a problem with the SIC code books. They were originally published in 1987, and the original publisher no longer publishes them, so I'm having to go through other sources to try to get those books, and I'm working through one of our secretarial staff. So that's going to be a little bit challenging, but I hope we'll be able to overcome that. And I think that was all I needed to mention. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we -- I think those were the big blue ones; right? MS. MURRAY: Those are the bound, dark blue books with the gold lettering. That's the Standard Industrial Classification. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That was the national? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do any of us have those? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I have one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Didn't you just give us a huge one that's sitting on my shelf at home? MS. MURRAY: That is the NAICS, which is the update to the SIC, Standard Industrial Classification. And that is what we will be actually amending the code to go to. We will be doing the conversion from the Standard Industrial Classification to NAICS. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. That makes sense. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Budd and I are about to get our feelings hurt. We don't have either one. Page 100 October 18, 2001 1 61j MS. MURRAY: You don't have the NAILS? Okay. I bring them and people aren't here, and then I take them home. I will bring two more. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any new business? Do we have any public comment? No one's out there in the audience. Discussion of addenda. Move for adjournment. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I so move. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are so adjourned. Thank you very much. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:53 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 101 V November 1, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE 16J 1 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 1, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:36 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: X]:�:�I:1iLVAIT0 2 Joyceanna J. Rautio Russell A. Budd Kenneth L. Abernathy Paul Midney Lindy Adelstein Lora Jean Young David J. Wolfley Dwight Richardson Mark P. Strain ALSO PRESENT: Patrick G. White, Asst. County Attorney Susan Murray, Chief Planner, Planning Services Misc. Corres: Date: 1 � Page 1 Item# i Copies To: November 1, 2001 161l t .;,(Ue proceedings commenced with Commissioner Midney not present.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to call to order this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission for Thursday, November 1 st, 2001. Welcome. The first item on the agenda is pledge of allegiance. Please stand with me and join us in the pledge of allegiance. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have an announcement to make. We have obviously exceeded the capacity of this room for fire safety, so each of you who is not seated at the moment must stand out in the hall and observe our proceedings from the hall. We have speakers out there that you can hear what's going on. It is a safety issue. So, please, if you're not seated, move toward the hall. (Commissioner Midney entered the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And if you happen to be a speaker, if you have somebody here that is a friend of yours and trade out their seat, please do so. And we're going to change the agenda this morning. Mr. Weigel, can you talk to him? (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Unfortunately, we may exceed the capacity of the hallway too. (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: If you could depart the room quietly, we'll call the roll. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. Good morning. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd. Page 2 November 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY. Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Rautio, here. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. . -i 16J1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Present. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We do have a quorum. Thank you. Do we have any addenda to the agenda? MS. MURRAY: Yes, Madam Chair. For the record, my name is Susan Murray, current planning manager. Item G has been continued, and honestly I'm not sure why. I don't know if that was at the request of the petitioner or not. I just got a notice that it was continued. Marjorie Student has jury duty today. I understand Patrick White is supposed to be filling in for her. I don't see him, but David Weigel is here, so I'm sure we're covered. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: He'll be satisfactory. MS. MURRAY: As well, I know you wanted to have some discussion on e- mails. I don't know if you want to have that now. I know Mr. Weigel's here to discuss that with you, I believe. I just wanted to bring that to your attention, and that's all I have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And has someone made a request, then, to move Item E to be the first item on the agenda? COMMISSIONER BUDD: So moved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. Page 3 1k November 1, 2001 6J1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Everybody on the right. CHAIRMAN, RAUTIO: -- and a second by -- everyone on the right -- a second by Mrs. Young to move Item E, PUDA- 2001 -AR- 843, an amendment to the Bucks Run PUD, to the first item on the agenda. Do we have any discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Are the people on both sides here that represent that? Are the attorneys here? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe I saw everyone. They may be standing in the hall too. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, because it's so -- they may have counted on that being later in the schedule. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, they do -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Before we vote we're in discussion. I'll recognize Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold representing Bucks Run. Mr. Cuyler, our attorney who's been working on our affordable - housing component, is on his way. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is that mike on? MS. MURRAY: It should be. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Somebody said they saw him in the building. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is Mr. Cuyler in the audience anywhere, in the hall? Well, actually it's not fair, then, to the petitioner to move this. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Madam Chairman, while we have this, what is the number of this? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: This would be E, as in elephant. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: 8 -E. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. The -- I have 834 on . _. , mine, not 843. November 1, 2001 1611 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, I have 843 on my agenda. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. But on the -- on the actual packet, it's 834. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm dyslexic. I didn't notice it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, it looks like we have succeeded in one more typo for this particular agenda and packet. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, 43 is 34 backwards. It's close. MS. MURRAY: It's not really relevant. We know what the -- the petition name is. It doesn't affect the advertising requirements. As well, I need to read into the record the correct title for another one of your items. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. But we're not doing that. We have a motion and a second on the floor to move this item on the agenda, and we're in discussion at the moment. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would offer a -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. I would like clarification. Are we dealing with 834 on this Bucks Run, or is it 843, as the agenda states? MS. MURRAY: 834. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you, just for the record. Okay. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would just offer a tabling motion until both sides are ready. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Or we can withdraw the motion if we want to. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would move we withdraw the motion and go on with the next case. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Page 5 November 1, 2001 6 J 1 *~ - COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I was going to amend it and take these two boat dock extensions first and slide it in there so we won't have to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. Go to the top of the agenda. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's reasonable. So would you like to amend your motion to hear Public Hearings A and B first on the two boat docks, and then the third item would be the Bucks Run PUD amendment? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That sounds fair to me. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Second, okay? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Second agrees. Any discussion? Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just to comment, the -- it would only be fair if the other two applicants, C and D, had no problem with being pushed to the latter part of the agenda because they're going to have to wait through the Bucks Run issue now, and I'm not sure that's fair to them. It might be fair to have Bucks Run move forward, but is it equally as fair to those other people that have been scheduled all along? So do we have any objections, then, from C and D? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That is a consideration. If they're handy, would they please step forward. MR. DUANE: Robert Duane, for the record. I'm willing to defer Item C until you've finished your business this morning. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Hoover's on both, so it doesn't make a difference. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Hoover? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, he's on both. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. He's on both, so he's here Page 6 November 1, 2001 1611 anyway. Okay. Any other comments, discussion on our amended motion? Mr. -- Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want -- I had a meeting with Mr. Cuyler and Mr. Arnold here a day or so ago regarding Bucks Run. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We'll do our disclosures when I call -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, we're not there yet? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- each individual item. We're not quite there yet. We still have a ways to go to -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: My apologies. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay. I call the question. All those in favor of moving Item E to C, change it to the third item on the agenda, say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Okay. Moving right along, we will have a discussion of e -mails at the item on new business. Any other addenda to the agenda? MS. MURRAY: Just that I need to read the title whenever you're ready. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: For which item, please? MS. MURRAY: That would be Item C. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's an amendment to the agenda then, isn't it? MS. MURRAY: Not really. I mean, there's -- it's just a correction. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The title of it. MS. MURRAY: A correction, yeah. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Go ahead and correct that one. Page 7 November 1, 2001 16J1 MS. MURRAY: Okay. It would be VA- 2001 -AR -1295, Robert L. Duane, AICP, representing the Collier County Public Utilities /Wastewater Administration, requesting a 3 -foot variance in the "A" Rural Agricultural Zoning district from the required minimum side yard setback of 30 feet to 27 feet for the proposed Sludge Holding Tank No. 2 for property located at 5600 Warren Street in Section 20, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay. Moving along to approval of the minutes for October 4th, do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think I have a motion by Mr. Wolfley, a second by Mr. Budd to approve the minutes for the October 4th meeting. All those in favor say aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a correction. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, we do have a correction. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 114 says -- and this is my discussion -- "When I was down at the county scrambling for money to get documents." I don't go to the county for money, and I don't want that to be on the record that way. I used the words "on Monday," when I was down at the county scrambling on Monday, not for money. So if I could make sure that gets corrected. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's been enough scrambling for money already. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I read this morning's paper before I came in too. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So we have a correction on page 114 for Mr. Strain's remarks. Are there any other corrections to the minutes? 0--= -= November 1, 2001 Okay. So we have a motion to approve revised minutes. 1611 Y pp COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would so move. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. First and second agree? All right. All those in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. We have revised minutes. Planning Commission absences, do we have any anticipated absences during the month of November? Hearing none from other commissioners, it is possible that I will be out of town on the 28th of November, which is a scheduled Land Development Code meeting. So Mr. Abernathy, as long as he's here, he can run the show. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Come to think of it -- no. I'll be here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. Board of County Commissioners report, recaps of October 9th. Do we have some highlights you would like to present to us, Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: Not unless you have questions. I did want to let you know that on 10/24 the Board of County Commissioners approved the LDC amendments pretty much as you -all have recommended. There were really no substantive changes to those. So the public participation strategy is now in effect, and we have been telling applicants as of October 1 that they needed to abide by that as policy. So you will see some petitions come through that have not participated in those -- that process. They were in -- in the analysis stage way before October 1. But anything as of October 1 or later will be required to comply. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Susan, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this recap. This is the second time I see November 1, 2001 16,11 item that are listed here, but they don't give what the disposition was. There's one that starts on page 3, continues to the top of page 4, the Vanderbilt Villas PUD. And then there's one at the bottom of page 4 that continues -- or is it -- let me see. Yeah, the Eagle Creek PUD, and then -- well, that's'�denied 5-0. Excuse me. Then the following one, White Lake Industrial Park PUD, it sets out the whole issue, but it doesn't give a disposition. I thought that's what this thing was supposed to do. MS. MURRAY: You're correct. Our office doesn't handle this. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can you -- do you know off the top of your -- MS. MURRAY: I do know. The White Lake PUD was approved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Okay. And the other one that you mentioned COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Vanderbilt Villas is the second installment that was built too close to the first. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you said. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Vanderbilt Villas, is that -- MS. MURRAY: Vanderbilt Villas was actually withdrawn, and if you see right under Item 8 -A, usually they put the result of the hearing at the bottom under the item, but here they had put it at the top. It says "withdrawn" right at the top there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just to clarify that, though, Mr. Abernathy, it was withdrawn at the applicant's request because the -- I listened to that part of the hearing -- because they determined that the sense of the commission was such that they were going to be defeated, so they took it back and were going to try to work it out with the -- between the two parties. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So that withdrawn with the Page 10 November 1, 2001 colon applies to A, B. and C, is that 16JJ pp MS. MURRAY: No. That would just apply to Item A. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you take the time to express to whomever it is in charge of formatting this particular report that we'd like a little more clarity -- MS. MURRAY: Sure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- to save us some time and your staff time? Any other comments, questions from commissioners on the Board of County Commissioners report? Okay. Moving right along to No. 7, the commissioners -- excuse me -- the chairman's report. I'm going to take a little time here today and talk about some guidelines of -- for all the public, for staff, petitioners and, of course, for planning commissioners. First item for the planning commissioners would be a reminder that we must disclose all ex parte communications. When I call the particular item for the public hearing, that is the time to get my attention and let me know if you have spoken to anyone. Number two, reminder for those who come to the podium, please state your name clearly. If it's unusual, spell it for the court reporter and, also, that only one person in the room speaks at a time. I'd like to remind each person to kindly wait until the person speaking finishes their thought process before attempting to answer a question or to comment. It makes it so much easier in this particular board, and we do not want people anticipating an answer to a question, whether that be staff, a petitioner, or someone from the public. So we certainly appreciate you -all being here today. And, again, only one person speaks, and we cannot have people speaking from the audience because it's impossible for the court reporter to get an accurate verbatim record. Thank you. With that, I'd like to open the advertised public hearings. The first item is BD- 2000 -27, a 15 -foot boat dock extension. All those wishing to present testimony today please stand, raise your right Page 11 November 1, 2001 11'nnd,` and be sworn in by the court reporter. 16J1 (The speakers were sworn.) MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 15 -foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 35 feet into a waterway which is about 300 feet wide. The property is located at 217 Bayfront Drive in Lely Barefoot Beach and contains about 88 feet of water frontage. The projects consists of the construction of a U- shaped dock and boat lift on a lot which is currently unimproved. No building permit for this facility would be issued unless a building permit were issued simultaneously for a single - family home on the lot, and even then the dock could not be legally used prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the home. The proposed dock as shown in the petitioner's drawing has been modified in response to the concerns of the owner of neighboring Lot 21, and the second boat lift has been deleted as shown in the amended drawing. And this is what I've passed out prior to the hearing this morning. We've received no objections to this petition. It meets all relevant criteria, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff`? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ross, on subparagraph H you say that the petitioner owns a 27 -foot vessel. I can't find anywhere where the petitioner said that. MR. GOCHENAUR: That information was provided to me separately. I have a letter from the petitioner which states that. It wasn't in his original application. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The letter is not in here either, is it? Page 12 November 1, 2001 MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, it's not. 16J1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of staff? Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair. Ross, this dock cannot be used, then, until the house is placed on the property that it's serving. That's what you said; right? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, correct. That's generic to all such -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is there such -- is there any procedure that that dock could be posted so that someone else doesn't come along and start using it illegally? It just seems like it's an attraction to someone to start to use prior to the time it's legally appropriate to use. I just wonder if they ever have any posting that would say, you know, you can't fish off this dock or you can't boat here or something because it's not -- why have the rule if we don't have a way to enforce it? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought you couldn't build it until you had a structure; is that -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: He's going to build it. MR. GOCHENAUR: You could build the house and the dock simultaneously. And in answer to your question, technically that would be a construction site. So, for instance, trespassing would be prohibited since the house would be under construction at the same time as the dock. I don't think -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I misunderstood. I thought they could go ahead and build a dock ahead but not use it until the property has a house on it. You're saying it has to be simultaneous. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of staff? Would the petitioner care to present? Page 13 November 1 2001 6J1 MRS NELSON: For the record, Ben Nelson representing the applicant. I'd be glad to answer any questions anybody might have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What will the first lift hold? What does -- the first lift, what capacity does it have? MR. NELSON: The capacity of the lift is a 16,000 -pound lift. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The correction that we were just handed shows a 10,000 pound. Is that right or wrong? MR. NELSON: It's probably a typo. It's a 16,000 -pound lift. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the correction needs correction? MR. NELSON: Well, I'm not sure that the lift capacity has anything to do with the extension. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Having no registered public speakers, I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I make a motion to approve BD- 2001 -AR -11 -- no that's the wrong one -- BD- 2000 -27. We're getting ahead of ourself. MR. BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy, a second by Mr. Budd to approve the BD- 2001 -27. Do we have any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) Page 14 November 1, 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. Second public hearing petition would be BD- 2001 -AR -1182, a 5 -foot boat dock extension. All those wishing to give testimony today please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Gochenaur. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 29 -foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 49 feet into a waterway which is about 390 feet wide. The property is located at 41 East Pelican Street in Isles of Capri and contains about 431 feet of water frontage. There's a typographical error in the staff report that says that's 231. That conflicts with another reference in the staff report that says 431. The correct water frontage is 431 feet. The project consists of the removal of existing mooring pilings seaward of an existing legal nonconforming dock and the replacement of pilings which would protrude 5 feet further into the waterway than the originals. And I've shown that on the drawing here. The proposed new pilings would increase the protrusion of the dock and, therefore, the nonconformity, requiring approval of an extension to the full 49 feet. No deck area would be added to the existing dock. We've received no objections to this proposal, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ross, I'm a little -- would you explain the concept of a legal nonconforming deck? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. There was a time when docks could be constructed to any length without a boat dock extension petition. If the dock was legally built according to the county rules Page 15 November 1, 2001 16 J 1 that were in effect at the time, it's considered legally nonconforming. The addition of these two pilings results in a 5 -foot extension to the legal nonconforming dock. And the code says that you can't increase a nonconformity; therefore, the property owner had to come back and basically legalize the entire facility just to have these pilings. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So it is now completely legal? MR. GOCHENAUR: If you approve it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So it's no longer a nonconforming covered dock after this action. MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. It'll be a legal dock. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? Would the petitioner care to present? MR. NEAL: Jerry Neal representing the owner. The dock was built in 1976. And, as Ross said, back then the rules were totally different than they are today. The owner of today just purchased it, just remodeled the home, and just brought his boat in and found that the existing facility would not accommodate his boat. For one, the boat would slide underneath the roof of the boathouse and get caught up underneath of it, so he's asking to be able to shift it out away from the boat dock -- boathouse, existing, 5 feet in order to keep his boat from getting caught underneath the roof of the boathouse. If there are any other questions ... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No questions? Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: With no registered public speakers, I close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion to approve BD- 2001 -AR -1182. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. Page 16 November 1, 2001 1611 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy, a second by Mr. Budd to approve this boat dock extension petition. Do we have any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay. We are now at the changed agenda for Item E, which is now C, PUD- 2001 -AR -834, amendment to the Bucks Run PUD. All those wishing to give testimony today, even those in the hall, please step inside, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn by the clerk -- clerk of the courts. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Your turn. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with the planning services staff presenting the Bucks Run PUD, Petition No. AR -834. The petitioner is requesting to amend the Bucks Run PUD, which is located, as you can see on the visualizer, on the east side of Collier Boulevard, the Golden Pond PUD to the west. To the north is a vacant agricultural land with -- and a landscape nursery on part of it. To the south is an approved but undeveloped Mission Church PUD. To the east is the developed Vanderbilt Country Club PUD, and in the southeast corner is the Collier County treatment facility. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And before you go any further, are there any disclosures? Mr. Strain, we'll start at your end. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I spoke with the applicant's representative, Mr. Wayne Arnold, and we discussed my concerns about the project as well as his. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I also had a conversation with Page 17 November 1, 200111 6J I . 4 Y Mr. Arnold and Mr. Cuyler, same -- referring to objections that I saw, problems. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. I was contacted by the applicants and had a telephone conversation with them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I had a telephone conversation with Ken Cuyler regarding this. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Cuyler and Mr. Wayne Arnold, who is the planner for the petitioner. And I also had a telephone call from a Mr. Mike Davis, who is a property owner in a land trust very near this piece of property. We discussed my concerns. We discussed affordable housing. I asked a number of questions to clarify points in the petition for -- that we're considering today. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I met with Mr. Cuyler, and Mr. Arnold joined us via teleconference, and that's -- we had a conversation about the petition. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I met with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Cuyler regarding this petition. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I feel left out. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you very much. Okay. You may continue. MR. BELLOWS: The Bucks Run PUD was approved in 1999 in Ordinance No. 99 -79. It allowed for 156 dwelling units at that time at a density of four units per acre. It also allowed for a church and a school. The proposed amendment is to increase the number of units to 348 via the affordable- housing density bonus process. In your agenda packet, you will see an attached affordable - housing agreement that's prepared by our housing and urban improvement. We have the housing and urban improvement director here to go into Page 18 f November 1, 2001 detail of that part of the application. The Land Development Co §,J � and Growth Management Plan allow for increases in density via this affordable - housing process. The reason we have a PUD document that's not striked through and underlined is the fact that there were significant changes due to the increase in density, and we treat it like a new PUD. And so, therefore, there is no strike through and deletions. We're treating this like a brand -new project, and that's why it's presented in this format. The Future Land Use Element has what we call a map showing where a future development can go and the densities. It's located in the yellow area which is urban residential with a base density of four units per acre. If it was located within a density band, it would be eligible for three additional dwelling units per acre, but it's not in a density band. So, therefore, to increase the number of units to make an affordable- housing project, the county offers its bonus incentive program. And with the -- an executed affordable - housing density agreement, they're eligible to receive up to 8 additional dwelling units for a total of 12 dwelling units per acre, and such is pointed out in your staff report. So the proposed petition is consistent with the Growth Management Plan with the approval of the affordable - housing density bonus. The transportation review indicates that the subject site would generate 1,152 weekday trips and 115 during the a.m. Peak hour, will not lower the level of service on Collier Boulevard or any other road and, therefore, is consistent with Policies 5.1 and 5.2, the transportation element of the Growth Management Plan. In regards to compatibility with the adjacent land uses, one of the more important things that staff looks at when we change densities -- you can see that this is a copy of the master plan. Basically not much has changed on the master plan from the originally approved master plan. The access still is off of Collier Boulevard. We have a Page 19 r 1 200�+� 6 J 1 November , -- preserve areas in -- centrally located with an access to the back. In the west track is proposed for the church, school, and possibly a day- care facility. In the eastern tract is proposed for this affordable - housing project. The affordable- housing project was originally intended to be -- and I think it may have snuck into your staff report -- be limited to 55 and older. That was the original submission by the applicant; however, they were not able to work out that process to their satisfaction. And they resubmitted the affordable- housing agreement after the staff report was prepared to eliminate that requirement. I hope that you got the revised page to eliminate that requirement in your document. The compatibility issue is the fact that we'll probably be dealing with multifamily instead of single- family housing type. The rental -- the affordable - housing agreement points out to rental units. The property to the east in the Vanderbilt Villas PUD currently contains multifamily structures that would be similar in nature to what's being proposed for this affordable- housing project except that this will be a rental unit versus their condominium type of units. I have an aerial photo attached to your staff report that basically shows the structures. As you can see, they line the property line to the east side. From a compatibility of structure to structure, the multifamily buildings proposed for this development would be compatible to what's being proposed in Bucks Run. We also have water management lakes and preserve areas. The county transportation department has requested an interconnect with the property to the south and the property to the north; however, it may not be feasible to have the interconnect to the property to the south. That PUD is far along in its development and design, and there's some environmental issues that may prevent the interconnection at that point, though we still think we can get the Page 20 November 1, 2001 interconnection to the north. To the north is vacant agricultural OM4 or is partly developed with a landscape nursery. And to the south is the Mission Church PUD, and if we could get that interconnection, it would be a natural connection between the two church/school projects. Staff has received just recently a petition from residents within the Vanderbilt Country Club objecting to the affordable- housing component of this petition primarily. They do have some concerns with traffic also. As you can see, we have numerous people here, so I guess -- I also wanted Greg Mihalic to speak now to address the affordable- housing component to give you a better idea of the price ranges in that market. MR. MIHALIC: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Greg Mihalic. I'm director of housing and urban improvement for Collier County. I really would like to reserve most of my comments until after the petitioner makes their presentation so I'm available to answer questions and talk about what's going to be in this project, if that's okay with you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It might -- MR. MIHALIC: If you have questions now, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It might be; however, we had questions last time on an affordable- housing issue. Would anyone care to just ask him some general questions now to clarify points that were not clarified previously that wasn't in the staff report? Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have specific questions about your affordable - housing agreement. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't know what the appropriate time would be to bring those up. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go ahead. Page 21 November 1, 2001 16J1 "'COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It was included in our packet, and I need to -- unfortunately I thought it would be something we should have reviewed prior to this meeting. Mine seems to be incomplete. Page 6, No. 9 is a beginning of a -- it says "Authority to Monitor. The parties hereto acknowledge that the Director of Collier" ... That's it. The rest of the document's missing. The same thing applies to page 7. The same thing applies to page 8. And I'm just wondering if the completed document has all those paragraphs completed in it, or what happened that we got a version that wasn't complete? MR. MIHALIC: I'm not sure, but we'll check on that and be sure there is a complete original version. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm just wondering if it has any relevance to this meeting today. MR. MIHALIC: It's a legal question, but really it's my understanding legally the affordable - housing density bonus is really not even an issue that's generally presented to the Planning Commission. We tried to include it so you had a complete package, but the Board of County Commissioners really makes the decision on that document to the best of my knowledge. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. But we do have the opportunity to review it, and this board -- MR. MIHALIC: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And this board truly wants to be able to read the documents in total. It may not be your fault, but someone who provided this information leaves us wondering about verbiage. MR. MIHALIC: I'm afraid I can't -- I can't answer that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Richardson, you had a question. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, Madam Chair. I just want to make sure that -- on the public record that I understand that this application's coming in under the Ordinance 90 -89 which is the -- Page 22 permits this density. MR. MIHALIC. Yes. November 1, 2001 16J1 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And that from staffs standpoint this application fully meets the requirements of that ordinance. MR. MIHALIC: It goes far beyond the requirements of that ordinance, and that ordinance has now been integrated into the Land Development Code, so it no longer stands alone. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions for Mr. Mihalic at this time? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any other information other than if you have other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Staff is recommending that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ms. Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ray, under your findings for the PUD, page 2, Finding No. 3 it says in the last sentence, "The subject PUD proposes to allow residential uses at a density under one unit per acre, which is consistent with the Future Land Use Element." Is that a typo? MR. BELLOWS: Which page? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 2 of the findings for the PUD, Item No. 3, finding. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. It should read 12 units per acre. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Does the finding still remain the same then if it goes from 1 to 12? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The staff report earlier on under Growth Management Plan consistency talks about the compatibility. There was just a typo in that reflection there. Page 23 November 1, 2001 16J 1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Certainly one that I tripped on also. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And on No. 7, under your summary finding, the last sentence says, "Relative to this petition, development of the subject property is timely, because supporting infrastructure is available." I drive the roads out there every day multiple times, and I know that there's probably going to be discussion about the roads. I had heard that Dawn Wolfe might be here to discuss that. Good. She is. The roads are two lanes out there, and I can tell you that the level of service on those roads from a driving viewpoint is not acceptable. I'm sure that you're going to have some counter to that, and I'd be curious to -- (Applause) MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I live out there too, and I understand the conditions. And Dawn Wolfe will be here to elaborate the changes she's making to the level -of- service standards through the next LDC amendment cycles to make them more realistic to the conditions out there and directions that the board has given staff. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I look forward to her discussion. And I have one other comment. On your rezone findings, No. 5 under the pro it says, "The proposed zoning change is appropriate based on the approved residential land uses to the east and the south." The residential land use to the south is a church. I mean, there's a church there, not a residential land use, isn't that correct, or at least it's zoned for a church or approved for a church? MR. BELLOWS: Which page are you on now? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 2 of the rezone findings, Question No. 5. MR. BELLOWS: I don't see that one. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I can show you my copy if you'd like. MR. BELLOWS: This is Exhibit A, findings for PUD or -- Page 24 1 x November 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. Rezone findings. We had two findings in our packages. One that says PUD and -- MR. BELLOWS: Number 5? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. 16JI MR. BELLOWS: Summary findings? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. Number 5 under pro. It says that the residential land is to the east and to the south. I think there's a church to the south or is proposed to be a church to the south; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Residential land uses to the east -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: To the north there's a nursery. To the south there's a church, a zoned church. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Just to the east. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's the questions I have of staff at this time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I, too, am concerned about the transportation element with the terrible problems we have now on our infrastructure, our roads. You say this project will generate trips of approximately 1,152 weekday trips. And, of course, with people going out to their jobs, that'll be at the peak period of use. How can you say that this will not have a significant affect on 951 ? MR. BELLOWS: I said there is a significant impact, but it does not degrade the level of service below the adopted standards the county has maintained for the minimal service standards. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: What standard would that be? Would that be D? MR. BELLOWS: D. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Wolfe, do you care to comment? Page 25 November 1, 2001 16J 1 MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe, transportation planning director. One of the primary issues we've been battling for the past year is the issues Wjth transportation and our level -of- service standards. We currently have submitted a major modification to our level -of- service standards and capacities which had not been updated since 1997. That is one of the reasons why we are here telling you that this is consistent because we are still working under those old standards which do not necessarily incorporate the most current technical parameters. You will be seeing a significant change in roadway level -of- service capacities and how we grade and rate whether or not a new development is at significant and adverse. However, because the current level -of- service tables are contained in the Comprehensive Plan, we are bound by the tables that are contained in there. And by going from those tables, they're being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code, and we can only measure them against those standards. Our hands are tied to measuring them against what our code and Growth Management Plan require. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are the new standards going to be more liberal or more stringent? MS. WOLFE: The majority of them will be significantly more restrictive. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What's the process that you're using to develop these new standards? MS. WOLFE: We are using the most current version of the nationally recognized highway capacity manual procedures and utilizing methodology developed by the Florida Department of Transportation, which is consistently applied throughout the State of Florida and which is based on most current standards. It has taken us Page 26 November 1, 2001 awh 6JJ ile to get all of the data in order to p rovide the most accurate tables. One thing we are doing is we are removing the specific tables from the Growth Management Plan to allow ease of update of those tables. That is something that is currently in the pipeline for our next round of amendments to the Growth Management Plan. So we are actively working towards updating them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How soon do you expect that to be available to be actually used? MS. WOLFE: Susan, what's our time line on our Growth Management Plan updates? MS. MURRAY: That's usually a comprehensive planning issue. I'm going to say at the earliest this time next year, Dawn. It's usually about a year process before it's transmitted and then adopted by the board. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: About a year. Mr. Midney, you had another question. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why is this change in the standards coming about now? Is it that people were more tolerant of traffic congestion before, or what's happened? MS. WOLFE: I can't explain what happened prior to October of last year when I came on board here. I can say that our application of these and review of these criteria has been ongoing since last year, and it takes some time to actually generate them and make sure that they are consistent with accepted practices. I can't say what happened prior to now, but they've been applied generally consistent with what's in the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. It's just that because some of them were quite expansive in their allowances for capacity, the nexus of whether or not they are either significant or adverse were very hard to define based on those standards. And that's what we're trying to remedy, but Page 27 November 1, 2001 it does take a little bit of time. 16J1 We do have other avenues to ensure that the immediate areas of any development through the Land Development Code are appropriately evaluated and upgraded to ensure safe and operational consistency when these projects do develop. So there's other steps down the road where we will ensure that we will maximize the safety out there on the roads as well as make sure they provide for turn lanes and other improvements potentially at adjacent intersections, not necessarily their direct access, to make sure that conditions are at least tried to be maintained. But until we get those changes in place which we talked about over the past year -- and we are forwarding now so that we can actually implement them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Could you clarify this for me? Would this -- if we approved it, then would we be approving a lesser road capacity which will be improved by law in later time? MS. WOLFE: We actually are -- would be -- you would be recommending approval of this based on a roadway capacity that actually is greater than will -- would be approximately one year from now. But there's -- the county is very aggressively pursuing all projects to address what we have identified as deficiencies. And this is in our program -- at least in the early stages for design, within our five -year program. So we're actively pursuing improving the roads within this area and this road in particular. It's a matter of timing, being able to pay for these improvements. But we're actively pursuing to address the issue of level of service out on that road regardless of what the Comprehensive Plan says the level of service is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Midney, you had one more follow - up and then Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. I will be pleased to Page 28 November 1, 2001 1611 see a more stringent requirement because it's been somewhat frustrating to me in my short time on this board to see that -- you know, when it's plain that there is traffic problems on certain roads and yet it's presented, you know, when PUDs come up that everything is, you know, sufficient, you know, even for the proposed increases, which in a common sense basis doesn't make sense to me. But, you know, we have to go by what the law says. MS. WOLFE: And I share your frustration. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Dawn, if you take this table out of the comp plan and just put it in an ordinance, aren't you making it more susceptible to political -- politicization? In other words, every subsequent commission -- a couple of votes change on the commission, and you could go back to liberalizing it again. MS. WOLFE: As long as we're basing it off of technical merits and accepted practices, it will be not readily changed just to meet a -- a decision that may be made by the board. These are of a technical nature and are based on facts and accepted practices. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I hope -- your optimism has got to be forward looking, I would say, rather than backward. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Having experienced four, five years' worth of efforts at getting a solid operational code for utilities and knowing what happened on the ground versus what was there and what was approved by our Board of County Commissioners who didn't understand all the technicalities, you are very optimistic. (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ms. Wolfe, as long as you're there. On this particular application, all that -- what we've talked about is forward looking and I'm sure will be helpful because Page 29 November 1, 2001 16J you'll be there to make sure it happens. But in terms of this specific application, what the board, commission, here typically struggles with is concurrency. We're looking forward to capacity that's three years out, typically, when you apply the -- the judgment that the capacity's going to be there. Can you give us some insight as to what the road plans are of improvement for this specific -- that would affect this specific project, how its timing will come in and relative to what we'll be asking the applicant, the timing of whatever improvements he plans for this property, to see if we can get this to dovetail? MS. WOLFE: Well, first off, a PUD approval does not give explicit concurrency approval. That is issued at a later time in the development process. That is another issue we are addressing in the Land Development Code. Rather than adequate public facility certificates or your concurrency certificate being issued solely at the time of building permit, we are looking at moving that up to where with -- when a site development plan is submitted, that is the time at which we will say yea or nay on whether or not concurrency has been met. And we are going to be addressing the issue of cumulative rather than this is what the count is now, but also looking at what other projects are out there and pending that also have a direct implication to what our level of service will be. The timing of when this plan is submitted will either fall within our current standards if it's applied for early on, or if it's later on, it could be subject to more stringent standards in regards to concurrency. Our five -year capital improvement program has identified a design stage for the 951 widening. We are actively looking at multiple alternatives and resources to advance all projects that we can within that program, seeking state and federal funds as well as what we have locally to put into that program. And we will continue to try and advance needed projects. But right now we -- it's not Page 30 November 1, 2001 6J .� F . construction funded in the five years as part of it taking a while to get to the point of where you can go to construction. We do have the design funded in the next five years because it had not been previously designed, and we will be designing that for six lanes out there, not just a four to a six lane. Our goal is to put what is needed at one shot, as with many of our other projects. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And in this particular petition fiat we're looking at, as far as concurrency is concerned, no one's goingoto wave their magic wand and suddenly all these units are going to appear, just like no one's going to wave the magic wand and suddenly all of the roads are going to appear that we need, that we know we need. So there is a time frame, which I know the public is frustrated as is transportation, but we have to have a concept of the timeliness of this as it moves through the process, although it may be very slow. MS. WOLFE: If, for instance, the -- the application was approved and they submitted a site development plan next month, they would be subject to the current Land Development Code criteria, which means they could wait until the time of their building permit to actually get their adequate public facilities. And since we are still functioning under the old level of service, they would be issued a level -of- service certificate for concurrency. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that is a reasonable expectation of anyone who owns property, whether you're an individual family, individual homeowner, you expect certain rules to be in place; or whether you're a developer, you expect certain rules to be in place and be able to work with them. I think Mr. Strain had a comment. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I want to make sure we stay with this petition. We're doing good, but we want to make sure we focus on Bucks Run. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. That's what I was going to Page 31 November 1, 2001 16J1 do. There's a sentence in the Growth Management Plan consistency summary that was provided to us, and it sparked my interest in the sense it said, "However, all road segments within the project's radius of development influence will operate at an acceptable level of service at the project buildout in 2003." So I thought maybe there was something that I didn't know about in regards to that date, 2003. And I went to your department and pulled your long range or your five -year plan. And the information I got on that plan dovetails with what you just said. The construction funding for Vanderbilt Beach Road to 951 is not even slated to be obtained until fiscal year '03, and that's unfunded at this point. They don't know the source of funding from what -- it's a shaded box on your report. And the same for CR- 951 from Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road. All of it, including right -of -way and design, everything, is shown as unfunded, and there is no construction date for funding within the next five years. So those roads at this point are going to be like they are for a while; is that correct? MS. WOLFE: Yes. And if I may clarify, our five -year capital improvement program is based off of current needs based on the -- the more realistic level -of- service tables. We did not feel it was appropriate to define a capital improvement program that was based on the dated tables in the Growth Management Plan. As a planning tool, we have the ability to try and apply the most current technical standards in establishing what projects need to be when. So the capital improvement program is reflective of what -- our real -time needs versus what we can apply legally from the Growth Management Plan, which by applying the level -of- service tables from the Growth Management Plan, the statement contained in the staff report is correct because of the higher degree of capacity that's allowed under the current tables. Page 32 November 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. 6 J l COM y CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: So are you saying that neither the improvements on Vanderbilt Road nor 951 are scheduled for as early as 2003? MS. WOLFE: We can go to construction if funding is found for Vanderbilt Beach Road by 2003. From a production standpoint, County Road 951 will not be ready to go to construction by that poi 4, in time. We do have caveats within the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code which allows a window of -- if it is committed for construction, and albeit these are not committed for construction. But, once again, we have to go based on the level -of- service tables that are in the Comp -- in the Growth Management Plan which indicates that these facilities are operating at an adequate level of service and meets the consistency test for determination of this application. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other comments from the board? I just would like to say that those of you that were not here during the intense discussions about level of service and what that meant for our Board of County Commissioners to apply those to our various infrastructure that we have, specifically roads, you've missed out on an awful lot. And sometimes it's difficult to understand why a level of service was set, say for instance, at D, and a lot of it has to do with availability of funding and the public's willingness to pay for this infrastructure. So we're all in this together. Any more questions of Dawn? Mr. Bellows, any further comments you'd like to make before we give the petitioner an opportunity to speak? MR. BELLOWS: No other comments at this time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions of Mr. Bellows? Moving right along. Petitioner, please. MR. CUYLER: Good morning, Commissioners. Page 33 November 1, 2001 16J1 i Y `AIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning. MR. CUYLER: We do appreciate the opportunity to -- for the record Ken Cuyler with Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson. Caught again. We do appreciate the opportunity to speak and to present to you our petition. I apologize to Mr. Adelstein and Mr. Midney for not calling you. I hope you won't hold that against me. We did offer to all the planning commissioners the opportunity to talk to you either by phone or in person to present to you some issues we thought were important and to listen to your issues. And, as a matter of fact, we gave that opportunity to the adjacent neighborhood, Vanderbilt, as well. We asked them last week if they'd like to meet to us -- meet with us so we could explain to them some of the things that we thought were important about our project and to hear any issues or concerns. I know that's certainly something that the Planning Commission has encouraged in the past, and we wanted to do that as well. We had a meeting set up, and that meeting was canceled by the neighbors, and we're not sure why. But for whatever it's worth, we don't know what they're going to say today or what their issues are, but it really doesn't matter because we have a petition to present, and we're going to do that. With me today is Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor, who will speak immediately after me and talk to you a little bit about the petition; Blair Foley, who will answer any engineering questions; and Bill Hoover, who's both owner and trustee of a portion of the property and also with Hoover Planning and Development. We also have Mitchell Friedman, who is with the work -force housing group and is prepared to talk to you a little about their product, what they do, what their history is, what they try to accomplish, and to give you some idea of what their building product looks like. I wasn't going to do this, but before I let Wayne come up and start talking to you about the project, I think there's a couple important things to keep in mind, one of which is the density bonus system in Page 34 November 1, 2001 1611 this county was set up by the Board of County Commissioners. Sometimes we get into these hearings and there's a lot of discussion about I don't like additional density for this reason. Is this the best way to promote work -force housing or affordable housing? Is this the appropriate density bonus system that we should have? I would suggest to you that you have a very important job in reviewing petitions under the regulations that exist. But those policy questions -- and I think the people in the audience need to understand this. Those policy questions have already been answered by the Board of County Commissioners. There is a density bonus system in place where a developer can come to Collier County and say, "What are your rules? What is it you want me to do ?" And they'll go to Mr. Mihalic, and he'll say, "This is the system that we have, and you have the ability to acquire additional units per acre if you make certain written commitments in agreement form to Collier County." And this is the way that the Board of County Commissioners has decided that it wants to promote a very important issue, and that is affordable housing or work -force housing in this county. I would also suggest to you that Ms. Wolfe's discussion is extremely important. I think the chairman brought out several important points, and that is not only is it not legal, but it's not fair for developers to come into this county, file an application, meet all the rules and regulations, meet everything that staff suggests to them, and then go to a higher level and have them told, "Well, the regulations we have may not accomplish right now exactly what we want them to. It may be a year or two before we can get to that point." So I would suggest to you and hope that if -- the one relevant question for Ms. Wolfe is, does this petition meet the transportation guidelines and requirements today? And the answer to that is yes. And if you ask her that question, she'll tell you that the answer's yes. Page 35 November 1, 2001 16JI 4 We can't be sure what those regulations are going to be a year from now. We don't know what they are. You don't know what they are. If we were here a year from now or two years from now and there were new regulations, we would meet those regulations, or we wouldn't expect to be approved. But we have to deal under certain guidelines, and that's what we've done. So I -- I don't think this is a particularly complex project, but you -- I don't envy you your decision - making requirements. I know sometimes it's tough when 200 people are sitting in front of you. No matter how good the project is, it puts a lot of -- a lot of pressure. But I think when you hear this petition, that you'll find it's in compliance with all of the county rules and regulations. And it's not just a mediocre project. It's a good project. So with that I'll let Mr. Arnold take the podium and give you some idea what our project is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ken, I may have a question for you. You had mentioned that you had given an opportunity last week to speak with the residents? MR. CUYLER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Was it the residents or the developer? MR. CUYLER: It was the residents. We had a meeting that I had understood -- and I can be corrected, but my understanding is that we had a meeting set up that was going to actually be with residents that were interested in talking to us and not necessarily opposed to the project at that point because we didn't know. As a matter of fact, I think Mr. Bellows will indicate prior to today there was one letter of objection. So this is a situation where somebody Page 36 .' November 1, 2001 ,* 16JJ decided it was better to come into the Planning Commission and bring 200 people to talk to you than it was to meet with us last week and possibly try to find out what this project was about. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So -- ladies and gentlemen, please respect the speaker. So you're saying that it was the Vanderbilt Country Club Homeowners Association you had the meeting with; is that correct? Maybe someone else could clarify that. MR. CUYLER: It was residents from Vanderbilt. I think that it was the association, but I can't swear to that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Because under the public participation, you would be required to in the future tell us exactly who you met with and what the concerns were. MR. CUYLER: I'll try to find that out in the meantime. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And, Mr. Wolfley, does that satisfy your question? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. I'd just like that clarification. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ken, my problem with this has been the increase in density, and I'm trying to understand what you had just said about -- listening to Dawn about the current standards being applied. We've got a crisis in this county on roads. And to that extent, we've even got a sales tax initiative going on to try to correct it. The crisis is there because we've admitted mistakes in the way this was -- roads were laid out or approved or projects approved on the roads in the past. Admittedly, we're having new standards come into play because the old standards aren't right. But you're saying that even though we know the old standards are wrong and they aren't correct, that we should continue to approve projects that are overburdening the system based on those old standards? MR. CUYLER: I'm saying not only should you, but you're legal Page 37 November 1, 2001 16J1 -- legally required to do that. If you -- what about the next project that comes in after us? Are you going to say no to everybody for the next year that wants to develop on 951? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think the beginning format, Section 2 of the ULDC -- or 1.2; I'm not sure of the correct section -- says that we are supposed to be doing what's in the best interest, public safety, and welfare for the public. (Applause) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I'm not sure approving old standards that have been acknowledged as being wrong is in the best interest of the public. (Applause) MR. CUYLER: I would suggest that you're not dealing with old standards; you're dealing with today's legal standards. If -- if you have a question as to whether you're legally required to follow today's standards, there is an assistant county attorney sitting right there, and I'm confident that what he'll tell you is yes. I mean, how is anybody going to know what the rules are supposed to be in terms of development? Do we have traffic problems? Yes. Do we have a huge advocate for curing those? Yes. Ms. Wolfe is standing over there. The Board of County Commissioners knows there has to be some cures. But if the question is -- I mean, we've heard a lot lately about, you know, being a country of laws and rules and regulations. That's what we are. I mean, you don't want to go down to the supermarket and stand in line, and then they say, "Well, y ou know, it's 89.50, but we decided to raise it to 150.50." I mean, you don't change the rules when people are in the middle of their activities. And I think it's fundamentally unfair for a developer to come in and say, "What are the rules? All right. I will meet all of your rules" and then get to a philosophical discussion -- and I understand it's an Page 38 November 1, 2001 16J1 important discussion, and I understand its becoming, you know, a very real situation. But to come to the Planning Commission and say "I've met all your rules and regulations" and be told, "Well, our roads are not in good shape. We're not sure exactly what the future rules are going to be, but we have a concern right now you're going to impact that road, and we're not going to approve your project because of that," that's just fundamental unfairness. Nobody can operate under that system. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You do have a PUD that is approved within the rules. It exists right now. MR. CUYLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Now you're tripling that or doubling it or over doubling it. That's where my concern is. The rules are changing, apparently. MR. CUYLER: Right. But -- (Applause) MR. CUYLER: I think -- you know, and I don't want to tell you how to do your job because -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ladies and gentlemen, please. We need decorum. MR. CUYLER: I don't want to tell you how to do your job, but those types of philosophical discussions -- you can make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. They are the policy makers. We're not coming in and saying, "Could we have additional density because we want it ?" What we're doing is, the developer went to Greg Mihalic and said, "We are a developer of work -force housing, affordable housing. We have been told your county promotes that. Could you tell us how you promote that ?" "Yes. We promote that by increasing density." "And what do I have to do ?" "Well, you have to have a certain type of product. You have to have certain income levels," which Greg can go through. "You Page 39 - November 1, 2001 1611 have to meet certain requirements, and then you go to the Planning Commission. You go to the Board of County Commissioners, both of whom are supposed to be promoting affordable housing, which we have a huge deficiency of I mean, that's -- another issue in the county is, do you have enough affordable housing? The Board of County Commissioners makes the policy decisions of, do we have additional density? How are the roads doing? What should the regulations for the roads be? How do we promote affordable housing? Should it be through tax incentives? Should it be through additional density? And your comment about there being additional density, Ijust — I would suggest to you that it -- it's not fair to say, "I don't want any additional density," even though in general I understand what you're saying. But if you come under a specific program to accomplish a specific goal that the Board of County Commissioners has established, that's not dust coming in willy -nilly and asking for additional density. There's commitments that developers make, commitments to provide a housing type that this county needs and the board has said it wants. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We have a disagreement, but I understand what you're saying. MR. CUYLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Cuyler, before you leave, I think Mr. Richardson has one quick question. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No, not a question. I just would like to hear from Mr. Arnold. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We're ready to go to Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Good morning. Wayne Arnold representing Bucks Run Land Trust, Grady Minor Engineering. Mr. Cuyler did a good job, I think, explaining where we are because it Page 40 November 1, 2001 seems the cornerstone issue here today is regarding the affordable - housing component of this project, which is on the eastern two - thirds of the project, if you will, and not necessarily the church and school proposal that sits on the Collier Boulevard frontage. On your monitors I know Mr. Bellows has showed you the master concept plan for the planned development. It's a fairly straightforward -- there's an east and there's a west tract. The west tract along 951 is where the church and school are intended to be. The only issue that has come up that I'm aware of involving the church is the potential interconnect that's shown next to the preserve in about the middle of our project, that Mr. Bellows is pointing to. That interconnect is something that we're indifferent about. We didn't initially offer that. That was requested. We will agree to keep it there if you wish. We will delete it if you wish. It's really a nonissue from our perspective. The access point to the north is a little bit more important to us personally because there is a joint agreement to participate in bringing a bridge across the 951 canal, a hundred - foot -wide canal there, that will be shared with future potential development, the landscape nursery currently and whatever else happens in the future across that project. The bridge needs to be constructed and -- and would be designed to be able to share limited access points to Collier Boulevard, which I think would be to the benefit of the general public. The issue with respect to the affordable- housing component that we show, I think that it's important to note from the perspective -- and you have a reduced aerial in your packet. There are essentially two buildings at Vanderbilt Country Club that have an orientation to the Bucks Run PUD. There's one 24 -unit, three -story building that's parallel to the property line. There's another building that sits at approximately a 45- degree angle that has maybe one unit that could Page 41 November 1, 2001 16J1 potentially have any view toward this project. And then there's a small pool and the club building that sits near the property line. But, in essence, the building at the Vanderbilt Country Club -- the nearest building is about 110 feet from our common property line. Vanderbilt Country Club provided a 10 -foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Bucks Run PUD. We're proposing to have an 80 -foot- wide buffer between the two projects. So the nearest orientation of buildings that you will have between the nearest three -story building in the Vanderbilt Country Club and the proposed maximum three - story building that would be associated with the work -force housing is going to be about 190 feet minimum separation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: 190 feet? MR. ARNOLD: About 190 feet because of our 80 -foot buffer and their 110 -foot setback. I think it's even more important to note that the orientation of their building, their front door may face Bucks Run, but at their property line you have their buffer. You have their covered parking, a drive aisle, covered parking, and then the buildings. Their lanais and the orientation is to the lake and the golf course that that building also fronts on. So your amenity is not the current vegetation at Bucks Run. Your amenity is the existing golf course and lake system that's in the Vanderbilt Country Club. So I think from a perspective of any physical impact or even view, it's very limited. You have 24 units that are there, but I think when you look at the extent of the vegetative buffer that would remain and the separation between the like building types, I -- you know, as a professional planner, I don't see any compatibility question whatsoever with that situation. I don't think that anyone can make a compatibility argument that the St. Agnes Church or Mission Church PUD has a compatibility issue with another church and a work -force housing project. I don't see that as being a relationship that's incompatible at all. And, in fact, I would say that it's a very good Page 42 November 1, 2001 have � opportunity to a e those two components side by side. % CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you have a specific question, Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY Yes. Wayne, did you -- as we, I think, discussed a couple of days ago, did you have a plan for your buffered area, your vegetation that you're going to put in? It sounded like you just were going to use your -- that 190 foot and not buffer it with vegetation. MR. ARNOLD: Right now there is existing vegetation on our side that we plan to retain in place. It's stated there as a landscape buffer. That's what it's intended to be. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What is the height of that vegetation? MR. ARNOLD: The height of the vegetation varies. I don't know if Mr. Hoover has any specific photographs of it, but there's largely pine trees and -- it's slash pine trees. They're probably -- you know, 20 to 30 feet is typical slash pine. There's some, you know, understory vegetation there. But it's our intent, except for the exotics that we would be required to remove from that, that we would leave it in place. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So if you're on the third floor in the Vanderbilt Country Club, those units there, those condos, you're not going to see the view of the affordable - housing units. MR. ARNOLD: I don't think I can tell you that you will not see those units, but what I can tell you is that nearly a 200 -foot separation with their -- their vegetative plantings -- which are your typical Type B buffer. It's got a row of trees 25 and 30 feet on center; and they're, you know, planted four years ago. So they're not very mature vegetation at this point that's in their buffer. But what I'm telling you is we're leaving the mature vegetation intact. And, in fact, we'll be supplementing that on site with our own required vegetative Page 43 November 1, 2001 16 Jl 6 requirements to meet the county's landscape codes, etc. So it's certainly less expensive for us to go ahead and leave the vegetation in place rather than try to supplement it with other vegetation, but we certainly will.':. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wayne, you started out your presentation with the comment that you thought the problem with this whole thing is the affordable housing. Based on my conversations with you yesterday, I wanted to assure you that is not my concern. I don't care if you're putting in multifamily, high -rise luxury or you're putting in affordable housing there. My concern is the increase in density and the reality of that on the infrastructure for that area. I want that clear. (Applause) MR. ARNOLD: I didn't mean to imply that that -- that was so the case, but what I've heard, the focus so far has been on the fact that it's affordable housing. And I understand your concerns about the level of service, but as you heard Ms. Wolfe say and Mr. Cuyler reinforced, we are consistent with the standards that are in place today relevant to the traffic. And I think that it's important also that we look at this in the context of what's really happening on that Collier Boulevard corridor and the Vanderbilt corridor and everything, really, in that eastern Collier County area, because this is the corridor. This is where lands are still available at 40 -acre pieces of land. You don't find them on Airport Road. You don't find them on Goodlette -Frank Road. You find these pieces of land along Vanderbilt, Collier Boulevard, etc. And the one incentive that we do have for bringing in the much needed affordable housing is a density bonus. And understanding that, we could have asked for more. We didn't. We're asking for the number that's a marketable and very economical number for the Page 44 November 1, 2001 16JI developer to build. And you're going to hear from them in just a few moments to take you through what they do and who they are, and I think that you'll be impressed with their qualifi tions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Arnold, just for the record then, I'm hearing you represent that the buffering that's going to be provided on this project exceeds any of the other Land Development Code requirements. MR. ARNOLD: It certainly does. We would be required to provide you with a 10 -foot landscape buffer under the current code. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We had a discussion about the west tract and the building of a church or child care, whatever, and how you would determine this setoff at the four units per acre. It was my suggestion that if you build one of those things there, that you just concede the 60 units altogether rather than trying to say how much of the 15 acres is attributable to the church and how much is attributable -- is not attributable to it. Have you -all had a chance to roll that around? MR. ARNOLD: Well, we've talked about that. And to be very honest with you, to give up those additional units, we would need some representation that we're moving in a positive fashion forward on this project relative to the balance of the project, which is essentially the affordable - housing component. And I think if we're looking at a positive recommendation, I think we can be in a position to go ahead and say we can give up all of those 60 units, because right now it's based on a ratio of acreage to units at four units per acre, which is the density that's essentially the base density for that property. Page 45 November 1, 2001 16J1 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But it sort of puts the cart before the horse, doesn't it? MR. ARNOLD:.. Well, I understand what you're saying, and I -- I totally expect the chrch to utilize all of it. You do raise a very practical question, when we spoke, about how you account for -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Allocate. MR. ARNOLD: -- just what's the church property. And I went through with you an analysis of it's parking, it's water management, it's -- etc. And I can't tell you whether or not the church uses 10 acres, 12 acres today; but once you get into the site planning, I can certainly tell you. You may find that when it's all said and done you end up with 1 acre, and I don't think anybody's going to come and want to put four units there unless, as you and I discussed, it would be, you know, for a minister and, you know, a home minister's residence or something. But otherwise, I think that it's something that -- as we move forward into something, that we certainly are going to entertain your suggestion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: I really don't have anything else to add relative to the compatibility. I know we're going to hear from a lot of speakers, and I know Mr. Cuyler indicated that we'd really welcome the opportunity to come back and rebut or, I guess, respond to any comments that arise from their discussions, because at this point we don't know what they are going to say. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. So that concludes your presentation for now? MR. ARNOLD: It does. The Pinnacle Housing representatives are here, and they're going to make a brief presentation for you as well. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And then we can open up to public speakers, additional speakers. V November 1, 2001 Excuse me. If that's going to be something -- if you could, P.4 6 J I it, like, over there so that the cameras can pick it up and the audience hopefully can see a little bit too. Right behind the attorney sort of. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Push that other cair over in this direction. Push it this way. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: There should be a microphone over there that you can turn on and speak from also. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You have to look on the monitors. MR. FRIEDMAN: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the board. My name is Mitchell Friedman. I'm a partner and principal in Pinnacle Housing Group. I'd like to just spend a few minutes and tell you who we are and what we do and how we believe that the development that we propose is consistent and will be a value added for this particular community. Pinnacle -- let me just first say -- introduce my associate Karen Warner over there. Karen has a few slides that will show up on the screen. MS. WARNER: I was hoping to actually show them on the -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. You're going to have to state your name and -- and speak a little closer to the microphone. It's not picking you up. Maybe it's the tone. MR. FRIEDMAN: Is that better? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Much better. MS. WARNER: For the record, my name is Karen Warner with Pinnacle Housing Group. MR. FRIEDMAN: Pinnacle Housing Group is a housing developer, multifamily- community developer, based out of Miami. The principals -- and there's four of us -- have been involved in this type of community development for the last 13 or 14 years, although Pinnacle as a company has only been in business for approximately five years. The developments that we do range from typical, single- Page 47 November 1, 2001 16J 1 '' :family -home ownership to garden - style, suburban -style developments -- which is similar to what we're proposing here in Collier County -- to also high -rise, 13 -, 14 -story structures with 4- or 5 -story parking garages. So we have the depth of experience and knowledge to be able to develop many different types of housing and many different types of developments. Before I go into the specifics of Bucks Run or Pinnacle Run, let me just kind of tell you the types of developments that we do. One of the most important things that we do and one of the things that's extremely important is management. We manage our properties. We make sure that the tenants that we put into our developments are worthy of living there. They undergo a series of background checks. They go through an extensive interviewing process, and we're very careful as to who we place into our facilities. Secondly, the tenants that we work with we work with on an everyday basis. We just don't put people in a housing development, we put them into a community. And as a community we ensure that they're involved in every aspect of the community. We empower them to make sure that we're making this community the best that we can. Another thing that we do to ensure that this type of development is -- remains what we say it's going to remain, is we have a very tough standard of maintenance. We keep these facilities in the shape that they were when they were brand -new. We also provide security. Most of our developments, including this one over here, is going to be a gated security that can only be accessed by guard. We also make sure that people can't do things that none of us would like to see in a development. For instance, we don't allow car washing. We don't allow trucks up on blocks. We don't allow things that would -- typically might be in a development that some of us would find to be unsightly. We conduct ourselves in community - November 1, 2001 . AN spirit. We're good neighbors, and we develop communities that we think are something that the overall community is very proud of. Let me just take you through a few of the developments that we have to give you an idea what we have. This is Douglas Pointe Apartments, which is in Miami, Florida. This just won a BS -- BASF award last year. This is 176 units, two- and three- bedroom units. It's a hundred percent leased and everything is going very, very well. Next. As I mentioned, we also do some home ownership. This is a Port Royal and Las Terrazas development that we did, again down in Miami, 40 and 28 units respectively. But I think it gives you an idea of the scale and type and the quality of the developments that we do. Again, you can see another development that we have. It's called Forest Green. You see the tot lot, which all of our developments have. Again, you see the types of developments and housing that we do. This, again, was home ownership. This is a development that we did of almost 450 units that is down near the Everglades National Park. This is one -story and two - story developments. That has been very successful. It's been there since 1993. This is Pinnacle Cove. Pinnacle Cove is in Orlando, Florida, equidistance between the theme parks and the airport. This is 420 units. This is currently under construction. We anticipate moving our first tenants in this Thanksgiving. This is another development called Hidden Grove. This is a series of 200 quadraplex units that has just been completed. Tenants will be moving in as we speak right now. As I mentioned earlier, we also have the depth to do different types of developments. And although it's not particularly germane here, I just thought it was important to give you an understanding of the types of things that we can do. This is a recently completed high - rise in Miami one block off Biscayne Boulevard, viewing onto the Page 49 November 1, 2001 16J1 5 kin bay. You can see it s a 13 -story structure wit h a -story par g garage. Another high -rise that we completed approximately three years ago is a ten -story facility which is in the heart of the central business district of Miami. And one last one that we'd like to show is one that we did approximately nine years ago. It's a seven -story mid -rise of 160 elderly units. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I guess we have one more last. MR. FRIEDMAN: Excuse me? Well, this one -- because it hasn't been actually built yet. This has just started under construction. In fact, we broke ground last week. This is 14 stories, 4 -story garage, with a mixed use retail surrounding the entire property. So with that, that just kind of gives you an idea of the types of developments that we do. I think you'll agree that you we -- you know, we try to strive for excellence and we maintain excellence throughout the property. Let me kind of take you through Pinnacle Run as we see it right now and as it's proposed in your application. We're proposing to do 288 units that are configured in 13 buildings, three -story buildings. Currently -- can you hear me? As currently configured right now, we have broken Pinnacle Run down into two different phases. Phase I is going to be 160 units immediately over here, surrounded by a lake with a road that circumnavigates the entire development. And as you can see in this particular Phase I, we have seven buildings strategically located around the property. Phase II, which is this particular location on the map as I'm showing, is six buildings, again three story, surrounded by two different lakes, surrounded by the wetlands area and, again, having ample parking to satisfy the needs of the tenants. Page 50 November 1, 2001 1611 The buffer that Mr. Arnold was discussing with you a few minutes ago we highlighted over here in green. And as you can see, the Vanderbilt development is situated over here. The whole landscape buffer over here is all marked in green. And, as Mr. Arnold said, this is going to be a substantial landscape buffer. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sir, the written record would indicate that -- that your housing is surrounded by lakes. I don't think that's what you meant to say. The houming surrounds the lakes. MR. FRIEDMAN: The housing does surround the lakes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: Specifically, of the 288 units that we're going to have, we're proposing that we have 8 one - bedroom units, 182 two - bedroom units, and 98 three- bedroom units. We intend to have a separate maintenance facility for things that we need to make sure that the facility is kept up in a first -class manner. We will have a separate clubhouse, and in that particular clubhouse we will have amenities such as community rooms, exercise facilities, computer labs, recreational facilities, tot lots, and central laundry facilities. I might also add that all of our facilities also give the tenants the option to have washer and dryer hookups or washers and dryers in each of their facilities. We will have two active and passive recreational areas within the facility, and we believe that this will be a self - contained facility, meaning that our tenants will be able to -- once they come home, be able to do their living and their recreating on property. With that, I have no further issues, although I would like to introduce Blair Foley. MR. FOLEY: Good morning, Commissioners and Madam Chairman. Blair Foley for the record. I'm representing the petitioner, and I work for the firm of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, and I'm a Page 51 November 1, 2001 16J1 professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. I want to be brief. I just want to talk a little bit about the development issues of this project, and I know that staff has received some input from the opposition. I just wanted an opportunity just to, in advance, comment on a few of the things. I've been involved in civil engineering, land development in this area, Naples specifically, for over 14 years, and I've looked at hundreds of projects in similar size. And in my professional opinion, this project is a very doable project. It's one that can be constructed, from an engineering standpoint. And unlike -- or just like many other projects, there are issues, of course, that we need to resolve. And during our due diligence period, we've -- we've met with county staff, and we've come up with -- with some issues that also the opposition, perhaps, will mention as part of their -- their argument. But I wanted to touch base, basically, on -- on two items. There is a concern about the area immediately adjacent to the county water plant and the well system that's in there, and there may be some discussions about blasting. We're well aware that blasting is not allowed in this particular area; however, it doesn't preclude the ability to construct lakes. There are -- there are alternative methods to -- to dig lakes. You could use a hammer with a hundred - thousand -pound track hoe or something of the like. There -- there are ways to get that done. And we don't see that as -- as a burden that will prohibit the project from becoming successful. We've included that in the pro forma numbers, to construct the lakes such as that, and the numbers still work pretty successfully. So we don't propose to blast and -- and interrupt any of the -- the well fields in the area. We also had some meetings with Collier County land development engineers to confirm that that's a feasible alternative as providing water management systems. Page 52 V November 1, 2001 16J1 Another item I wanted to talk about is sewer. Water, of course, is available along County Road 951 or Collier Boulevard, if you will. Sewer, however, will be, perhaps, addressed. We -- we have met with a consortium of developers in the immediate area, and a couple of them are here. They represent over 160 acres in immediate area of Bucks Run. And we proposed and also inclu ed in our pro forma to extend the necessary force main facilities to the north as mandated by Collier County to connect. And that also -- it's a fairly large number, but we also -- it's not uncommon for developers to get together and construct their own facilities. And we also feel that this can be done and not suffer -- the project will not suffer any architectural elements that we've seen in some of the opposition's writing. So, in my opinion, these issues are pretty standard and benign as far as engineering elements go with the proj ect. We will remain available for comment and, hopefully, rebuttal if any other items come up. But it's a pretty successful looking project, and -- and we're excited about it, and we hope that we get a favorable recommendation from your board. With that, I'll close unless there are any specific questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson first and then Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: From your experience as a project manager and engineer, looking at this project, I note that it's going to be phased, Phase I and Phase II. Can you give me any sense of the -- I know there's some marketing considerations, but some sense of the length of time it would take for this project to become a reality, given its approval? MR. FOLEY: I can't really speak to that. It's -- it's specific to be in two phases. And I do know that each phase will stand on its own from an engineering component. As far as the marketing and -- Page 53 16J1 November 1, 2001 and the marketplace, I'm going to defer to our clients, Pinnacle, because they obviously chose this piece of property and the area that they did due to their background information and what's available as far as the marketplace goes. I can't speak specifically to that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, let's set the marketplace aside then, just from your project. Let's say you were given the go right now. Pick a time certain. How long does it take for this to come on -line and before we see some of the impacts on our infrastructure? MR. FOLEY: Okay. At an absolute minimum you're looking at well over a year, probably, before you get the approvals and have actual construction, I would say. Something around that is an average time frame for Phase I. We do have to get other permits, as you know: Site development plan approval, water management approval, that type of activity. So, you know, an estimate would be, perhaps, 12 months. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's for the actual construction? MR. FOLEY: No. That's for the permitability, and then the construction would begin after that. So we're -- hard to say on the product. I'm going to defer to Pinnacle. MR. FRIEDMAN: Based on our experience, if we were to do Phase I, which is 160 units, after the one year that Mr. Foley just talked about, construction alone would take another 13 to 14 months. So that's well over two years. And if we were to do Phase II, you're looking at at least another year out after that, so that would really take the entire development completion date well past '03, certainly the last quarter of '03 or early '04. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: See, I think these facts are very important to our understanding of your project and its impact on the community. What we see now, of course, are roads that are Page 54 k November 1, 2001 chockablock, but we do have some hope that there's going to be some improvements. And if we could time your product to come in when the infrastructure is actually going to be available, I think it would relieve everyone's mind. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just as a comment to that, Mr. Wolfley (sic), the transportation just acknowledged there is no funds to put the roads in out there for even five years from now. So even within their time frame, the roads won't be there. That's what my concern would be. (Applause) COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just after the facts. MR. FOLEY: Other questions? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The lakes, are they for aesthetics or for stormwater management? MR. FOLEY: Sir, Mr. Abernathy, they will probably serve both purposes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Both? MR. FOLEY: Certainly for water management purposes. But, you know, a lake is a pleasing element to some of these communities, so I would say that it would -- it would serve both purposes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How deep do they have to be to take care of the runoff, the water management? MR. FOLEY: Well, it's really a surface -area issue, as far as storage goes. It's not really a depth; however, when you encounter the rock -- we'll probably propose these lakes to be 12 feet in depth. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Twelve feet? MR. FOLEY: Twelve feet. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions or comments we want to make to the petitioners at this moment? I think Page 55 November 1, 2001 16J 1 it's time that we're going to have to take a break for the court reporter. Mr. Cuyler go ahead. MR. CUYLER: Let me just take two minutes, and then we'll wrap up the petitioner's side and you can -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. CUYLER: -- proceed with public comment. A couple questions were asked with regard to the 7 -acre parcel. If the Planning Commission agrees with us that this is an excellent project and worthy of approval, we will -- if a church or school is built on that parcel, we will discount and delete any residential units per acre. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's a 15 acre, isn't it, the west? MR. CUYLER: Yeah. That includes the 8 plus the 7. It's for both. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Sorry. MR. CUYLER: With regard to the canceled meeting that you asked about, my secretary dealt with a secretary at Vanderbilt. The word we got was the association was in agreement that we would have a meeting, and the association canceled the meeting. Now, if somebody wants to correct that, that's fine, but that's the word I got. I called and checked that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you for clarifying that. MR. CUYLER: And just real quickly as a final statement, I was standing there listening to Pinnacle, and I heard somebody behind me say as they were looking at the pictures, you know, This is supposed to be low- income housing." You know, I think that the point is people have a big misperception as to what low- income housing is. And, again, I'm going to hope Mr. Mihalic, at some point later in the proceeding, tells you what these rents are and what we're really talking about for affordable housing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And, Mr. Cuyler, along that line, Page 56 November 1 2001 161j4 perception is everything, unfortunately. And I do believe that we have a certain perception that exists now with reference to work -force housing, affordable housing, or what someone calls low - income housing. So hopefully we can deal with that yet today. MR. CUYLER: Hopefully we can clear that up before the elid of the meeting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Now, you've wrapped up your presentation? We do need a break for the court reporter. And I would like to ask whoever can hear me, if the fire marshal is here, if the facilities management person is here, or if there's a deputy sheriff here, during the break please come up to the front because I'd like to talk to you. We're going to take a -- about a ten - minute recess. Thank you. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to repeat something that was said earlier. With reference to the Petition G, which was RZ- 2001 -AR -1143, which was a rezone for Golden Gate Capital, Limited, that has been removed from our schedule. So if anyone is here that came for that particular item, it will not be heard today. So if you leave, you can give your seat up to someone in the hall. Another announcement is I did check with our facilities people, and if you do not have a seat, you cannot be in the room. It is unfortunate. It's a fire - safety issue. So we -- I was going to ask to have one -- one level of people standing along the wall, and I cannot allow that due to fire safety. And if we had an emergency to get out of here, those people in the hall, please make sure you use the stairs. The hall is probably more crowded than this room is at this point in time. I want to thank the audience for being so basically polite. You've maintained yourself, and we want to continue that during the Page 57 November 1, 2001 16J1 public comment. Please do not cheer and clap too loudly. Expressions are fine, but I'd like you to keep it at a minimum so that we can move along quickly. And, again, thank you for your patience with us today. So we are at the public comment section. Our first registered speaker, Ms. Murray. MS. MURRAY: Yes, Madam Chair. I have 12 registered speakers. And could I ask the individuals in the hall to be quiet, please, or shut the door? Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We either have to shut the door for the hall, or those in the hall have to keep it down so we can hear, because we can hear you. We appreciate you being there. MS. MURRAY: One individual, Michael Fernandez, has asked to speak twice on two different issues, I think one associated with the housing and one associated with the church, is what he told me. I will leave that up to you. And with that, would you also like me to use the timer, or did you just want to let everybody know that five minutes is the max? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have five minutes, and I'll allow a certain amount of discretion. We would prefer that you don't keep repeating the same thing that the previous speaker has said and that -- try to bring new facts and information. And as a reminder, you are testifying here today, so you must give facts. That is very important because this is a verbatim record, and you are actually providing testimony in a public hearing. So we will have the timer, but if you're not quite finished, it's my discretion, as the chair, to allow you to continue. MS. MURRAY: So you do want me to use this? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. Go ahead and use the timer. MS. MURRAY: I will attempt to use it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. The first registered public Page 58 November 1, 2001 speaker? p 16JI MS. MURRAY: Steven Hartsell. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And do spell your name for the court reporter and identify any group that you represenor whether you happen to be a property owner. MR. HARTSELL: For the record, my name is Steve Hartsell. I'm an attorney with the Pavese Law Firm. I'm here on behalf of the Vanderbilt Country Club Community Association. With your indulgence, Madam Chairman, there are obviously a number of folks here from Vanderbilt. What we have attempted to do is to coordinate a presentation that may run a bit longer than five minutes each, but we have -- what we've tried to do is to kind of avoid a parade of 50 people up here taking their two or three or four minutes. If you would indulge us, we would appreciate that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I appreciate that. Thank you. MR. HARTSELL: I have probably four or five folks who are going to speak after me. What we have done is in addition to the speakers from Vanderbilt, the association retained Michael Fernandez, a planner with Planning Development, Incorporated. Mike will be speaking first. He's got some -- actually, a presentation with regard to the application. He's got to take off. What I'm going to do is turn it over to Mike right now, let him speak. And if I could, then we'll introduce additional speakers from the country club, and then I would like to have the latitude to close with some legal arguments. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would be fine. And Mr. Fernandez can speak on both items that he had registered on, during his presentation. MR. HARTSELL: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Michael Page 59 November 1 2001 16JI Fer%aniez with Planning Development, Incorporated, for the record. Furst I'd like to, on behalf of the Catholic church that owns the parcel to the south of Bucks Run, address a singular issue, and that has to do with the access that's-being proposed as an interconnect between the proposed Bucks Run development and the church's own parcel. Our parcel was rezoned early last year to PUD. It includes a 50 -foot buffer along our north property line that also serves as a wildlife corridor. It's a commitment that was made to other agencies, and we took that into account when we designed the site, including the site circulation. And it really does not mesh with an interconnect with the property to the north, which we had fully anticipated being a residential project at the time. So that's the only issue that the church wished to address, and that is the interconnect. And we'd like to see that removed from the proposal. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're asking for the entire interconnect to be removed? MR. FERNANDEZ: The one that goes between the two parcels, due to environmental and on -site circulation constraints. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's nothing in your PUD that would require you to do these interconnects? MR. FERNANDEZ: Actually, the proposal was to put the buffer in there to provide a shelter between the two developments. The other agencies took advantage of that wildlife corridor that connects some vegetation that goes around the front and along the canal. We have a 660 -foot preserve, wetland, and created marsh area in the rear of our property, and all those are connected. It also connects the two wetland areas that you see on the Bucks Run development that abut our property, and that provides some continuity into a wildlife corridor, which the agencies were looking for. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chairman? Page 60 November 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, sir. 1611 COMMISSIONER STRAIN. Could I ask a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You had mentioned that the church to the south -- when was that approved? Do you know the approximate date? go MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe it was approved in November of COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because in the same time period, the Bucks Run original PUD was being put through. And you had said that you didn't anticipate residential in the Bucks Run PUD, but it does show on the original PUD that there was going to be a church there. That's why this inter -- MR. FERNANDEZ: The original Bucks Run PUD was actually named, if I can say it correctly, Muriel (phonetic) PUD. That was the original PUD. It was -- subsequently they changed the name to Bucks Run; and when they did so, they amended to provide for a church and for a school, and that was subsequent to our application. When we went forth, we were relying on the fact that the entire parcel would be developed as a residential PUD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just so you know, the church on the Bucks Run PUD did show up on November 23rd of 1999. MR. FERNANDEZ: And I think the Muriel PUD was predecessed -- preceded that by two or three years. Mr. Hoover's here, and he could probably -- he's one of the landowners of the Bucks Run parcel -- process that application and probably talk to that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My concern was simply that had the church to the south originated about the same time as the Bucks Run amendment that I'm speaking of, the one that does show the church -- which it sounds like it did -- then your church would then know that there was a church to the north, not just residential, and Page 61 November 1, 2001 they pould have allowed the interconnect. 16JI M" R. FERNANDEZ: We didn't provide for that. And, again, if you go back and research the history of it, it was a residential development, and it was reviewed upon at that time, and that's what we relied upon. And that was one of the reasons for providing this corridor, retain vegetation along that entire edge. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Continue. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm also representing today the Vanderbilt Country Club. And looking at the PUDs, I wanted to bring forth a couple points, and they have to do with the appropriateness and compatibility of the development. We're looking at an intensification from 4 units to 12 units an acre, which is a huge increase. Historically staff has looked at adjacent intensities of just 2 or 4 units as being significant enough to say that they're incompatible. Here we're looking at an intensity of 12 units adjacent to a project that has 2.5 units an acre in intensity. One of the problems that we have in addressing this -- and I myself, as a professional -- was that we have insufficient information to make judgments upon. Reviewing prior PUDs for affordable housing -- and I've got lots of examples that we've collected from staff -- their PUDs included applications that had site plans, elevations, renderings, and a great many other exhibits that allowed a neighborhood to make an assessment. We've seen today pictures of elevations and of site plans, but none of them are included as part of the PUD. We can't accept those as being what they're proposing because we don't know that for a fact. What we're dealing with is that drawing that's up on the board, and that gives us a little bit of -- is a little unsettling. The Bucks Run PUD was adopted in November of 1999, and we note that one of the major changes in that was a reduction in the amount of proposed preservation of wetland areas. We're seeing a Page 62 November 1, 2001 16d l pattern of that here. The application that's being proposed today -- and it's unfortunate that you do not have an underlined and struck -out version, because one of the things that they have eliminated was a development standard that said that -- in the original Muriel PUD said 60 percent open space for the entire project. It is fully residential. In the Bucks Run PUD that's in effect right now, it says that 60 percent open space will be required for the residential portion of the project. If you'll review the current PUD that's proposed, that provision for open space has been eliminated altogether. It's not addressed in the PUD document at all. What is addressed is, in the PUD master plan it says -- and it -- I assume to be a nonbinding estimated land use breakdown which provides for 52 percent open space without identifying its location or its distribution across the site. We further note that the applicant has substituted a commitment to retain 25 percent of the existing on -site vegetation with an emphasis on largest contiguous area possible to a commitment of 5 acres of retained vegetation with a balance of the 9.75 being with an option to develop the rest of it as landscaped areas. So what -- they're coming back -- is they're -- we're looking at an intensification of a project, but we're looking at a reduction in the quality of the development standards that were proposed originally and which were relied upon by the homeowners that now live next door. So we're looking at more intensity, less mitigation of the impacts. The petitioner has also eliminated a provision that required a perimeter berm shown on the master plan to be entirely located outside all upland and wetland preserve areas. That may not seem overly significant to you, but as a site designer, it's very significant in how much greenspace will actually be left after a project's completed. I'll note that in the Exhibit B to the PUD, they're actually showing this perimeter berm within their proposed buffer that's located on the Page 63 November 1, 2001 6J J 1 #4 1 east boundary. And in regard to that buffer, their representatives have just said, we are committed to keeping an 80 -foot separation between Vanderbilt Country Club and the closest building. But in their document what we're seeing is that they have a 30 -foot right -of -way easement that they say may be vacated, and then it says a landscape buffer. And all that would be required to meet that requirement with the Collier County Land Development Code is singular trees spaced one every 30 feet. There's no commitment to retain that vegetation other than what you've heard verbally here today. There's nothing in their PUD that says that they will do that. That gives me another pause because that is another item -- and I've got their existing master plan with me here today. In the existing PUD that exists today, there's a commitment to keep all 50 feet of that as retained vegetation. It was purposefully deleted for the purpose of going forward with this amendment. So we're given a great deal of pause when somebody says, you know, we are providing it, but there's nothing in the document that says so, and it's been deleted from the current existing zoning. We're wondering, as well, if that easement gets vacated, if that 50 feet gets that much closer to the project. Then there's a question of density. Another item that was previously deleted from the existing PUD stated that it be no more than 12 units per net acre on the subject property. What we're looking at now, based on 12 units per gross acre, could really -- could end up being more than double that or 24 units per acre. That's especially relevant when you look at the size of the parcel they're talking about being 24 -- just over 24 acres. You'll also notice that approximately 80 percent of the wet -- of the preserve area is located within that 24. You'll also note that they're required to keep a 25 -foot average buffer around the perimeter, adding probably another acre of land to that area. They'll have to keep water Page 64 November 1, 2001 management and other necessities there. 1611 They've acknowledged that there's a prohibition for doing blasting near the water treatment plant. There's also a Land Development Code requirement that doesn't allow you to do one within 350 existing structures, which the residents' homes within the club will be in that -- within that 350 feet. That's going to increase the site development cost of that site. And that becomes relevant because this is an affordable - housing community that sets an upper limit on the amount that they can charge as far as income (sic). And what we're seeing is that there's substantial costs that are going to be incurred in the site development that may not have been taken into account that may also lead to reduction in their ability to produce these kinds of developments that they're showing us. We would have a much greater sense of -- of comfort if we actually had some of these committed to, but there's nothing, again, in the PUD that commits to the quality that you're seeing here. In the church site that we're doing just south of this parcel, the differential between the ability to put lakes and not put lakes ended up costing -- is going to cost approximately $200,000 of off -site fill. On this site we could see something of that magnitude occur as well. It's not just a prohibition in doing blasting. It also has to do with breaking through a confining layer that's creating the wetlands. And the wetlands that are on their property are contiguous and connected to ours, and there's a likelihood and assumption here that that same rock confining layer occurs on both properties. All this gives us pause that maybe they haven't done their homework not well enough -- not well enough to commit to a site plan within the PUD that is generally committed to at this stage to give people some level of comfort. And, again, I've got numerous examples here of just that. Page 65 November 1, 2001 16J1 And Finally, when dealing with conceptual compatibility, there's nothing that we've seen in the staff report or in the presentation by the petitioner to indicate that the population that will utilize -- the residents that will utilize this facility have the appropriate amenities and resources in this area. In other words, is this an appropriate place to put an affordable - housing development? Are there the parks that are -- that they will utilize? Are there employment centers? Those are valid questions. And we're looking at a development that is committing a hundred percent to low to very low affordable housing. That's very different than many of the affordable- housing projects that have been considered and approved by this board and the Board of County Commissioners in the past, which have been mixtures of market rate and -- market rate and low - income housing, and that's important. Good planning practice has told us over a period of time that it's not desirable to concentrate large areas of affordable housing together. It's much better to integrate it with market -rate housing. That's not what this project proposes. So whether or not it's appropriate here we don't believe has been addressed in the application by the applicant. To sum it up, basically there's not enough information to review here to make good judgments on. What you're seeing here is not part of their application. It's not part of their commitments. And we've got a great deal of pause when we look at their project and we look at the existing PUD today that made some pretty good commitments to landscape buffers, to retain vegetation, to open space, and they've reduced them in their applications. They haven't increased them. They've increased intensity, but they've reduced them. We would suggest to you it should be the other way around. They made those commitments to gain the support of our community, to do four units an acre. If they would like to increase it, the intensity, then the mitigating factors should be increased as well. Thank you. Page 66 November 1, 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do have a question. You indicated that you thought, I think, about $200,000 additional cost in fill. I think I heard you say that as I was taking some notes. But did you do some calculations on your additional development cost in general? Did you have an opportunity to do that? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, I didn't. But we're cognizant that they're -- you know, they have a bridge to construct. They have an entry drive to construct. Although they're talking about a consortium to put together the sewer, that's an issue that the church tackled and tried to put together as well. We weren't able to do it. We basically came back and committed to only building the sanctuary, limiting it to weekend service until that infrastructure's put in. We're willing to commit our fair share. But all these items suggest that there's higher - than- normal improvement costs subject to this property. And there's a concern, again, without the lack of commit -- without -- with the lack of commitment on a site plan, on amenities, on the architecture, that we may have to see a balancing act by the developer subsequent and down the line to balance those items that maybe they are unaware of or haven't taken into account fully. And I would not necessarily expect them to at this point in time, except that it's an affordable housing, and they're asking for this kind of density. Usually you're not concerned about how much the guy is going to ask for. In this case we have to be because they're -- they have an upper limit that they can charge. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that point. So you are claiming that there could be the relationship between the additional development costs and what the project looks like in the future, which you're indicating to us is not committed to. MR. FERNANDEZ: Absolutely. A specific example, one of the easiest things for a developer to put aside would be landscaping. Page 67 y. November 1, 2001 i 16J1 And right now, although verbally we've heard different, the only thing that the developer would have to do on his eastern buffer is provide one tree every 30 feet. Because it doesn't specify a Type B buffer or a D buffer or any other LDC buffer there, it would default to the adjacencies, which would only require a 10 -foot buffer. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And as we go through this, Mr. Fernandez, if some of these commitments occur that they agree that they're going to put them in writing, you or the attorney would feel more comfortable? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I think what we're -- we're looking for at this point is denial of the petition because it's insufficient. If they come up or reapply and they have additional information that we can review and rely on, then we can make a new assessment. But right now we don't see an assessment that can be made while either looking at their PUD document, their PUD master plan, nor compatibility in the overall scheme of things that would warrant an intensification of 12 units an acre adjacent to a 2 1/2 unit adjacent proj ect. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a quick question, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Do I understand, then, you're representing for your clients that you do not believe that the ordinance for affordable housing can be applied to this project? MR. FERNANDEZ: The ordinance for affordable housing, in my understanding and review of it, is simply one of a commitment to dollar amounts and number of units and size of the units. There's a very limited provision to a broad -brush architectural unified style that November 1, 2001 1 6J . has very little to do with actual conceptual drawings, as you could do a myriad of different elevations and designs within that scope. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Fernandez, then you're saying yes or no? I'm not sure what I heard. MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't think that the intensification has been substantiated as far as compatibility with -- which is being reviewed concurrently with the PUD. I think the affordable - housing application is -- relies on the review of this board and the Board of County Commissioners looking at that issue of compatibility and appropriateness. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you're alerting us that we should be directing this inquiry to our attorney in the final analysis as to whether this ordinance can be applied or not. MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. I think it's a judgment call by you and the Board of County Commissioners on whether it's appropriate or not. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't read the word "appropriate" in this particular ordinance. It's -- it has some broad parameters that they have met as they've come forward, at least that's what we're going to try to determine. So ultimately I'll be looking to Pat or somebody to help -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, aren't they two separate issues? One has to do with the affordability. Yes, they've made the commitments. I think your director has said they've signed off on that relative to those financial commitments. What hasn't been reviewed and what they're here before you -- they could put affordable housing on this site right now. They just don't get those additional units. All we're talking about is those additional units, those eight additional units per acre that raises the intensity. There's nothing to prohibit them from building below- market -rate apartments on this site right now as it currently stands. What they're asking for is an intensification, and Page 69 k tr s. November 1, 2001 that's part of the rezoning process. 16J1 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: The next -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, next speaker, but I guess Mr. Hartsell would like a quick comment. MR. HARTSELL: Well, yes, ma'am. I was going to -- I said that I would call the other speakers forward so that we did that in kind of a coordinated fashion so it didn't get -- MS. MURRAY: I have the list. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Ms. Murray has to do that, and she has the list. MR. HARTSELL: Okay. Just briefly with response to Commissioner Richardson, it was a good question. I happen to have the affordable housing section here. It's section 2.7.7.4.2, which answers your question. Yes, the affordable - housing ordinance does apply. It has to be applied. And the section that I just stated states that compliance with Growth Management Plan and land development regulations: The affordable housing density bonus shall be available to a development only to the extent that it otherwise complies and is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the land development regulations, including the procedures, requirements, conditions, and criteria for PUDs and rezonings. Thank you for letting me do that. And I'll sit down until my closing comes, which is -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. HARTSELL: -- right after Judge Wilson. MS. MURRAY: The next speaker is William Cooper followed by Richard Calabrese. And, Richard, if you would line up along that wall, please, and be ready to go after William, we'd appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: He's the person standing in the hall. Page 70 i t November 1, 2001 1611 MR. COOPER: We'll bring him in. Good morning. I guess it is still morning. My name is William Cooper. I am a resident of Vanderbilt Country Club. I'm also a member of the board of directors, although I am not representing the board of directors at this particular meeting. I am speaking for myself as a owner. I would like to introduce all of the owners that are here, bit I'm sure that you would appreciate that I not do that. But I would like to point out that there are 172 present and that we also have a signed petition which supports the presence of those here. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why not have the folks that are from your country club raise their hands so we can see. MR. COOPER: Okay. Good idea. Will those raise their hands. And the hallway. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We gathered there are quite a few in the hall. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Maybe we should have those people who aren't involved raise their hands. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: My goodness. MR. COOPER: We also have 202 on our petition with concerns about this particular application. There was some question raised earlier by the petitioners as to the -- their request to meet with us prior to this meeting. There is some confusion as to the originality of that request. Records are not always kept in detail. I'm not sure if they requested it, or maybe we requested it. But in any case, I am sure that it was us who canceled it, and we did that out of respect for them. We knew that they had a entourage of people with a lot of background and with a lot of information, had gone to a great deal of expense, and we appreciated that. And we did not want them to make a presentation to just a handful of us, and the time was too short for us to assemble the amount of people that you see here today. So out of respect for them and nothing more, we did cancel that meeting. Page 71 November 1, 2001 16J1' .'fN We have several speakers lined up, and I will give you a little bit of the background on them. Mr. Calabrese is going to follow me, and he is a resident and also has background in the real estate business. Jack Prete will follow Richard, and his background information is a developer of senior housing. Following Jack will be Richard Platt, who has been associated with the airline industry. And then finally Judge Wilson, who has legal background information and has also been much involved in zoning requirements similar to this in the state of Kentucky, all of whom are residents of Vanderbilt Country Club. So at this point -- at the end I will have one further closing remark with a request. That's after Steven gives his closing remarks. So at this point, I am awed by your responsibilities and particularly after having briefly read this morning Zoning Decisions. And in reading this I see that there are, not to mention all, probably, but 18 items that you have to take into consideration, plus probably some that you don't anticipate. In going through these, I find that probably 13 of these 18 have impact upon your decision - making process. So it is my hope that you act wisely, intelligently, and forthrightly in making a decision concerning this application. I'd like to call on Mr. Calabrese. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let me ask you a question before you leave. MR. COOPER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You were careful to point out that you were not speaking for the board of Vanderbilt Country Club -- MR. COOPER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: member of it. MR. COOPER: That's right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Page 72 -- although you are a Does the board have an November 1, 2001 611 q4 official position as an entity, as a board? MR. COOPER: Well, you must understand that Vanderbilt Country Club is undergoing transition right now. While undergoing transition the board is still controlled by the developer. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: By the developer. Okay. MR. COOPER: And the developer is present here, but he is going to speak for himself, not -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I got you. Okay. I understand. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you, Mr. Cooper. MS. MURRAY: Richard Calabrese followed by John Prete. MR. CALABRESE: Madam Chairman, I have something to hand out to you people. I thought I had a sufficient amount. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: If you could spell your name, please. MR. CALABRESE: Calabrese, C- a- 1- a- b- r- a -s -e, and my first name is Richard. Good morning. I live in Vanderbilt Country Club. I've looked through the staff report, and it seems inadequate because it doesn't have very many details in it. So I thought I would look at the big picture. I've made copies so that you could see what I was talking about. Today we're looking at a development that is going to change the character of our community. Has anybody given any thought to the density problem because of all the building that is being done? It's not just this one thing. If you look at the -- at what I supplied, everything that's shaded is building that's going to come up. At the north end we have Immokalee Road, which is always jammed with traffic. A lot of cars and trucks and vans turn onto 951 from about seven in the morning until ten in the morning. The traffic is incredible going north and south. If you look at the west side of 951, we have a Publix which will open next week and bring in more traffic; then Pebblebrooke development with more cars; then there's a school outlet; next, Ibis Cove development with lots of children and Page 73 November 1, 2001 16J1 cars; then affordable housing not yet built. How many families will this bring in and how many more cars? On the corner there's a new shopping center and an Albertson's and, again, more automobiles. Now you move to the east side of 951. You have a nursery; you have Crystal Lake RV Park, a church, an academy, and more housing; Vanderbilt has an exit and an entrance; now this development with a church, a school, day care, and affordable housing and, last, yet another church with schools -- with a school and day care. What are we doing with all of these people? What are we going to do with all of these cars? Do we just add school buses and cars going to the day care with the already heavy truck traffic that exists now, or do we just say, let's see what happens? Let's not put our children in danger before we say, "Have we overbuilt ?" I ask you to please reject this proposal. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. (Applause) MS. MURRAY: John Prete followed by Richard Platt. MR. PRETE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. First I'd like to thank you for extending the courtesy to us to take us out of order on your agenda. I know you have a busy day. I'd also like to thank you for your special scrutiny of the issues around the traffic congestion which already exists in our area and which would be compounded by this project. We all use the highways, and there's already a serious problem. Unfortunately, as we heard from your staff, there just isn't the bucks to go around. Perhaps we're growing faster than what we really should. Growth is a good, healthy thing. Uncontrolled growth is a problem. It's a problem for everybody. As I say, we all use the highways. By way of background, I am a developer of senior housing up in Connecticut. I'm retired now. But I've seen traffic studies by traffic Page 74 November 1, 2001 6J engineers, and as I look at the information that's available to us here, it is very scanty. In fact, most of it is nonexistent. In fact, I'll guess, since there's no way of knowing, really, whether a traffic study by a qualified engineer was performed at all for this property -- and considering the tremendous impact the property will have to our area in addition to all the other yet- to -be- built and under - construction projects right -- that one mile,pr so between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier -- between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road, we're just going to have an enormous traffic problem, and that is what I'm here to address. That's the key issue in my mind. Of particular concern is the existing problem that we have on Collier Boulevard. And, as I say, these problems would be significantly compounded if this petition is granted. It seems to me and to the previous speakers on our side of the aisle here that there's scanty and very unconvincing evidence, not only with respect to traffic, but the others that I'm not into. But particularly with respect to traffic, which seems to have been glossed over or glanced over, but I want to take another look at it. There are no plans to widen 951 or Collier Boulevard in the immediate future. There's no money. There's no nothing for five years except talk. And having some experience in this area of government, I know that talk is not extremely valuable in terms of practical applications. Sure we have to talk about what needs to be done in the future, but so far there's no bucks. And, as a matter of fact, as one of the commissioners pointed out, there is a need urgent enough to impose a special tax in order to address the highway problem. And here we are adding -- well, here the developer is attempting to add more problems to the problems that already exist that have not been addressed. All this adds up to that stretch of highway is very likely to result in congestion and will almost certainly result in a Condition F highway. Page 75 z November 1, 2001 16J1 And if I'm not mistaken, there's a mandated moratorium on Condition F highways. I'm not sure whether that's state or federal. To all this the petitioner wants to add another 120 -pupil school, a church, a day- care center, and 288 units of multifamily housing. And I'm going to take a guess that they'll be after the 60 units that are approved on the front 15 portion, too, because I have had no assurances that the church is ever going to be built, at least I didn't hear it here today. But I did hear the developer loud and clear say we're not giving up our prerogative on those 60 units. On the proposed development itself, the peak hour traffic is projected to be 150 -- 115 a.m. And 133 p.m. Trips. There's no mention whatsoever regarding the traffic generated by the proposed church, day -care center, related housing, and school. The petitioner's projection seems unrealistically optimistic, almost laughable. In affordable - housing developments, there are mainly working folk with a national average of about 1.8 vehicles per family, depending what state you're in. They leave in the morning to go to work, and they come back in the afternoon. So let's see. That works out -- without the benefit of an engineer, that works out to a maximum of 515 peak -hour trips per day. I don't see where the 115 came from, but perhaps your staff can fill us in on a little bit more details on that. But in any case, 115, 133 are the trips per peak hour, and I don't read it that way. It works out to 518 peak -hour trips per day. Even assuming that only 75 percent of the residents go to work on any given day, it's nearly three times the projected peak -hour trips in the proposal before you. The petition is also completely silent on public transportation, which I thought we wanted to make a priority in this county, the same as affordable housing is a priority. This petition is completely silent because there isn't going to be any. So, therefore, everybody's going in cars. Am I Page 76 R .a i November 1, 2001 out of time? I'd like to -- 1 61 I :..: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Close. Go ahead. 1 , MR. PRETE: Close up? Okay. The petition is completely silent on this issue. To make matters worse, as our developer pointed out, there isn't going to be any -- any egress other than an ent -- other than Collier Boulevard itself. I wish I had more time to go into that. But I know from personal experience just how difficult it is to get onto Collier Boulevard from our exits and entrances, and I'm sure everyone in this room shares the -- the knowledge of just how dangerous it is with trucks ripping up and down at 55 miles an hour fully loaded with fill and so forth. This thing I want to get in. The commission staff, in recommending this petition, states the project trips will have a significant impact on Collier Boulevard from the project's entrance onto Vanderbilt Beach Road. That's a quote from the proposal. What entrance on Vanderbilt Beach Road? There's no information from the petitioner whatsoever regarding how he plans to provide cross access south across St. Agnes's property to Vanderbilt Beach Road. So all this traffic is going to go one way, right onto that busy little two -lane highway. I think that's a critical point because you have kids coming in and out of there, school buses and what all else, and they're all going to come right onto that busy stretch of highway. I'm finishing up right now, Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. I'm not -- I'm just saying that my -- the report in front of me does not say the project's entrance onto Vanderbilt Beach Road. Mine says project entrance to Vanderbilt Beach Road. MR. PRETE: But there's access -- cross access is shown on the -- on the proposal map as if to say there are other opportunities that will be worked out. We know that those alternatives are impossible Page 77 November 1, 2001 16JI 4 are not possible. The -- the St. -- the Catholic church, St. Agnes, have already indicated that they're not opposed to affordable housing. They can't. They don't have the power to grant a right -of -way across their property so that this petitioner can get to another entrance and egress onto -- directly onto Vanderbilt Beach Road. In summary -- I better get to that -- vital information from the petitioner is vague or missing altogether. And Collier Boulevard is already overburdened for a two -lane highway, and there's no plans for a widening. I trust the commission will do what it's empowered to do with a public trust. Protect our interests from inappropriate development invasions, and please turn down this petition. Thank you. (Applause) MS. MURRAY: Richard Platt followed by Judge chapel Wilson. MR. PRATT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Richard Platt, and I'm a resident of Vanderbilt Country Club. Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts on this proposal. I'll attempt to keep my remarks short and to the point. While these are my words, I believe they accurately reflect the concerns of those of us at Vanderbilt Country Club and in the North Naples community. But first I'd like to say that we are not opposed to the proper development of the lands that surround our community. On the contrary, we support the proper development of the community through a well- thought -out, well - planned project that is consistent with the current land use and adds value to the community. Any project that adds value to the community adds value to our neighborhood. All that said, judging by the number of people that are here from Vanderbilt today, I believe it's safe to say there are serious concerns Page 78 November 1, 2001 that the proposal 16JJ on the table fails to meet those objectives. Specifically, we are concerned the proposal has the potential of having a dangerous and adverse effect on the area by exceeding infrastructure capacity, increasing traffic patterns, and destroying wildlife and wetlands. When one looks at the proposal, while general in naturQ, it is void of any real well - defined planning specifics and generates real concerns about compatibility and consistency with existing land use patterns. The intensity of the land use specifically stands out. This is not about affordable housing. This is about land use density. The proposal more than triples the existing land use patterns. Such a project would completely change the character of the neighborhood. It also raises real questions about the impacts on roads, schools, recreational facilities, and, most importantly, the environment. Given the fragile nature of our sewage and water treatment capacity, one has to question what a project of this nature would do to existing capability and what problems it would cause in the future. The proposal is short, if not devoid, of addressing environmental issues. There is considerable concern that the cost of addressing environmental issues in this project will lead to an overall reduced quality of the final product, meaning they put so much money building the required lakes and buffer zones, there's not much left to build a quality house, thereby making the project inconsistent with the neighborhood. In summary, as neighbors we find the proposal inadequate and insufficient in enough detail to be able to support it. It raises many concerns and leaves far too many questions unanswered. We are in favor of building a better community, one we can all share in. Unfortunately, we see no value added to the community in this proposal, but can easily predict problems, numerous problems, that will add burden to the taxpayers of this community and reduce the Page 79 November 1, 2001 . 16J1quality of life in our community. I'll close it with one final thought that seems to support Commissioner Strain's views. Responsive government listens to the people it serves and then leads in that direction. If outdated standards need updating to avoid the mistakes of the past, I'm confident this board will ,lead in that direction. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Platt -- (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm intrigued by what you had said, and I took a few notes -- as I do when speakers are up -- to ask additional questions. And one thought occurred to me with reference to this particular graphic I've been handed. Could you help define for me what you perceive as to be the neighborhood we're talking about here? Are we talking about the neighborhood from Immokalee Road clear down to Vanderbilt Beach? When you say "neighborhood," in your mind what is your neighborhood? MR. PLATT: Neighborhood has to be inclusive. It can't be exclusive. We can't just say Vanderbilt Country Club because we are part of the overall community there. So when we take a look at the planning factors to be considered here, we need to take a look at the overall infrastructure. Where are the children that live in this proposed community going to go play? The closest recreational facility is 3 miles away down Vanderbilt Beach Road, which is an extremely high - traffic road. The nearest school that exists right now is a mile and a half away. There are -- these children that are going to live there are part of our community. We're not talking about the golfers at Vanderbilt here. We're talking about North Naples. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I was just curious. I was trying to get a real sense for what you perceive as to be neighborhood and community because that is helpful. Thank you. Next speaker. MS. MURRAY: Judge Chappell Wilson followed by Tim McCann. November 1, 200 1611 JUDGE WILSON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Chappell Wilson. And for the record I'll spell that. C- h- a- p- p- e -1 -1, last name is Wilson. And I own property at Vanderbilt Country Club. And the address is 8450 Danbury Boulevard, Unit 202, Naples. I'm a retired trial court judge from Kentucky, and I've chosen Vanderbilt as my home. The thing that I did when I retired, I looked at whether or not I'd return back to my home, which was originally in Homestead, Florida, but I chose not to go there but to come to Naples. And the reason for that is Naples is a beautiful city with a lot of amenities. It has good golf and good fishing. It has controlled, orderly growth, but most of all it has lots of nice people. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You want to repeat that statement, "controlled, orderly growth "? Clap for that one. You give us some -- the benefit of the doubt that we do try here, sir. Thank you. JUDGE WILSON: And for the part that you, the commission, plays in that controlled and orderly growth is very much appreciated by me and from the residents who chose to come here, and for that we say thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're welcome. We try. JUDGE WILSON: When I retired after 21 years on the bench, I vowed never to go back to the courtroom or go into the public arena, but only to the golf course. And so when I did that, I came to Vanderbilt. But I heard the complaints and the fears and the concerns of my friends and neighbors there, and I felt like I was compelled at least to speak up now and to voice their fears, which they won't get the opportunity to make today. My neighbors are concerned about a high - density development that will impact their quality of life, and it will also impact the property values of their property if the development is improperly Page 81 16JI November 1, 2001 N done and approved. I understand your job. I know what it's about. I understand the input and considerations that you will have to have in order to make your findings, come up with your conclusions, and then ultimately make your recommendation to the board of commissioners. Prior to becoming a judge, I was an attorney, and I worked in Frankfort, Kentucky; Commonwealth of Kentucky; department of commerce; the planning and zoning division. And in that division I had a responsibility of drafting the new law for Kentucky, which is KRS Chapter 100, which has the planning and zoning statute in it. I walked that legislation through the legislature who ultimately adopted it. I conducted public hearings much like what we see here today. And then I had the privilege of going out into the county and having that plan implemented by the various governments. So I understand what goes on here. And I -- and I understand also that it's incumbent upon the petitioner when he comes forward asking for a rezone of a classification to not adversely impact the comprehensive land use plan as it exists. And I understand the obligations of the commission to make sure that the quality of life, the existing character of the community is not, then, detrimental to the future. What I've heard here today and what little I have seen with the petition gives me cause for great alarm. Primarily that is the alarm of my neighbors and friends, many of them who are sitting here in the audience and most of them who are standing out in the hallway. But first of all, in my observation here today and from the documents that I've reviewed, I've concluded that the petition is vague, it is incomplete, and it is missing the necessary supporting documentation. There is no valid analysis with the traffic problems coming onto Collier Boulevard. We hear today that there's 115 traffic trips. In Page 82 November 1, 20011 6J1 'Kentucky we compute that by taking the number of residents, multiplying out the number of vehicles per day, movements of ingress and egress. And if that's the formula I use there, it would equate to almost 600 vehicle movements per day out of this -- out of this development; 288 residents, almost two cars per resident. Everyone goes to work. Everyone comes home. And then people go to shop and to eat. The incomplete description of the buffer zone also causes me a problem. The PUD indicated 50 feet. Today for the first time I've heard a figure of 190 feet. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's okay. JUDGE WILSON: And I will close in about one minute. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's all right. You're doing fine. JUDGE WILSON: The -- the problem I have with that is there's no guarantees. There's nothing in writing. There is no showing that the zoning change will not adversely affect the existing community, and that's one of the findings in your statute. It also failed to show that -- the other sites available on which this development could be placed without a zoning change, and it's failed to show that the existing infrastructures will support this unit. In other words, where do the residents go to work? Where do they shop? Where do they eat? Where do the kids go to play, go to school, and recreate? In addition, the petition has not shown that the developer will not advance the project in the best interest of the existing community. My conclusion is that the petition -- the petitioner is attempting to build what is a needed development but only in the wrong place. There is no justification for changing the existing character of our community east of 951. And for all these reasons, Commissioners, I respectfully ask that the petition be denied. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Page 83 November 1, 2001 16J1 (Applause) MS. MURRAY: Tim McCann followed by Glenn Cribbett. MR. McCANN: Good morning. I'm Tim McCann. That's spelled M- c- C- a -n -n. My wife, Karen, and I own a home in Vanderbilt Country Club, a property that's adjacent to Bucks Run, as we've heard here earlier this morning. We filed about 18 pages of detailed written comments regarding the petition that is the subject of this hearing. Unfortunately, because we did not learn of this petition and hearing until a few days ago, we were unable to file those comments until this morning, although they will be part of the record of this proceeding, and we'd request that they be included in the package that goes up to the commissioners. You will not have had an opportunity to review our comments in detail prior to your decision on the petition, so we wanted to briefly summarize our comments with this short oral statement. We appreciate the opportunity to address you, and we appreciate the significant time and efforts expended by the Planning Commission staff in preparing the documentation for the petition. We especially want to thank Mr. Ray Bellows for the assistance that he has given us in trying to learn about and analyze this petition. Despite the fact that our comments are highly critical of the staff report that recommends approval of the subject petition, we assure you that our criticism is not directed personally at anyone on the staff. In fact, we suspect that the myriad of deficiencies in the staff report are a result of the insufficient information provided to the staff by the petitioners. The focus of our comments is straightforward. Although the staff report recommends approval of the petition, we believe there's an insufficient factual basis for the Planning Commission to approve that recommendation for action by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. Accordingly, we respectfully request that ; November 1, 2001 16J1 the Planning Commission recommend denial of the petition and retention of the current zoning. In making this request, it should be noted that we do not oppose affordable housing. We do oppose rezoning petitions that fail to comply with all applicable Collier County legal requirements. As demonstrated clearly in our written comments and comments of people who have been up here before, the subject petition does not comply with those legal requirements. And absent such compliance, we believe the Planning Commission must deny the petition and retain the current zoning. For example, based upon our reading of the staff report, it appears that appropriate evaluation of rezoning petitions must establish a factual basis upon which the Planning Commission may act. Although the staff report reflects substantial effort to evaluate the petition, it appears to fall far short of the evaluation requirements specified by the Collier County rezoning rulings. The staff report is replete with conclusory statements that appear to be unsupported by any underlying data or meaningful analysis of that data. Absent any meaningful data and detailed analysis supporting the conclusory statements, there is no means by which a third party, such as yourselves, may objectively evaluate the credibility of those statements. This, in turn, prevents the development of a factual basis that is required before the Planning Commission can act upon the staff recommendation. We believe this failure requires that the petition be denied and that the current zoning be retained. I have other things to comment on, but in order to shorten this up, I would just like to call your attention to one specific example; and that's with respect to the staff report's Exhibit B in the rezoning findings, and specifically it's Item No. 10. I believe you'll find it on page 4 of Exhibit B. . __ . November 1, 2001 16J 1 You'll see there that the entire discussion of this critical issue which involves whether or not the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area is presented in one pro and one con -- and no cons. And that one pro or advantageous statement says, "Typically urban intensification increases the value of contiguous underutilized land." The summary findings then discuss the subjective nature of this determination, recognizes the importance of zoning to property valuation, and then concludes, quote, The mere fact that a property is given a new zoning designation may or may not affect the value. Well, if -- is that analysis sufficient to satisfy the Collier County rezoning requirements? The staff report fails to address the critical zoning issue related to property values in the adjacent area. It purports to address this issue by discussing what happens typically with respect to contiguous underutilized land. But the Vanderbilt Country Club, which is adjacent to it, is not underutilized land. I'm sorry. Do you want me to continue or -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You can continue. MR. McCANN: I'm almost finished. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're almost done. MR. McCANN: What is the purported project's impact on Vanderbilt Country Club property values that is on contiguous utilized property? The staff report is silent. It is not possible to make any determination about this important zoning issue based on the staff report, and this is but one example. Not only does it fail to address the impact on contiguous utilized property, the staff report simply concludes that zoning regulations may or may not affect property values. Of course, any of us in this room could have made that statement, but it does little to address the critical issue raised by the Land Development Code regarding rezoning requirements. Given the importance of this issue to any proposed rezoning, it is Mwe November e ber 1, 2001 16JJ imperative, we believe, that the staff report provide the Planning Commission with factual information related to property values potentially affected by the proposed project. The failure of the staff report to do so leaves a glaring and gaping hole in the staff s evaluation and does not constitute the type of factual basis needed for the Planning Commission to act. Accordingly, we believe this fatal flaw requires the petition be denied and the current zoning retained. In summary, we believe that these and other substantial deficiencies identified in our written comments clearly demonstrate that the staff report fails to provide the required factual basis supportive of the recommendation to approve the rezoning, and we request that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the petition and retention of the current zoning. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, I'd be pleased to try to answer them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young. (Applause) COMMISSIONER YOUNG: May I have a copy of the petition to which you refer, or did you already give it to Ms. Murray? MR. McCANN: I -- of my comments or -- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: No. The entire petition with 222 signatures. MR. McCANN: I believe someone else has collected those and submitted them. MR. COOPER: I have collected those and -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have to be at the microphone. I think Mr. Cooper referred to this. MR. BELLOWS: I'll provide copies of everything that we got. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Because I made a note myself that we did not have a copy of it, and it hasn't gone down the dais to look at the names and that. So, Mr. Bellows, you'll be able to get that to us? Thank you. Because we do need that as part of the record. It's Page 87 November 1, 2001 16J1 very helpful. And she is our secretary who's duty bound to make sure she has a copy. Thank you. MR. McCANN: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Glenn Cribbett -- (Applause) MS. MURRAY: Glenn Cribbett followed by William Saunders. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe Mr. Hartsell has stepped up there for just one moment. MR. HARTSELL: I'm not Glenn Cribbett. I did request an opportunity to summarize, and I -- what I wanted to summarize was the group that I was representing as opposed to the entire public. The folks who had just spoken were part of the committee that retained our services, so if it's -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The next speaker is not one of yours? MR. HARTSELL: No. He's the developer, and he's -- we're not representing him. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We will grant you that. MR. HARTSELL: Thank you very much. For the record again, Steve Hartsell, and we do thank you for your patience and appreciate the time that you're taking to listen to the questions that have been raised. Some of the issues that you've heard from Mike Fernandez and from the neighbors relate to the incompatibility of the intensity of a 12- unit - per -acre rental project that's next to a 2 1/2 -acre (sic) residential subdivision; the lack of infrastructure, roads and sewer particularly, that have been proposed here. We've heard some speculative suggestions about the possibility that roads will be available at some point in the future or that a consortium might be put together in order to provide the sewer that would serve this project. But we haven't seen any evidences -- evidence that that's actually 00M6 - going to occur pursuant to this proposal. November 1, 2001 161l There's a lack of any evidence that supports granting what is the maximum bonus density that would be permissible through the affordable- housing density bonus program -- located -- as you've seen in your land use map, located essentially at the edge of your urban services district -- when this proposed community particularly is going to require special services like mass transportation. What you've found is that we're putting -- or we're suggesting that there be the maximum bonus density possible at the edge of the urban services area as far as possible away from things like mass transportation and the services that would -- that would serve these folks in this intensive density. Mr. Cuyler suggested that you were essentially duty bound to approve this application for affordable housing because the community recognizes that affordable housing is important and has put provisions into the code that affordable- housing providers need to meet. I would suggest to you that this application has not met all of the requirements for affordable housing. I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Cuyler that you are duty bound to approve the application. As one of the previous speakers pointed out, it's not just a matter of filling out the request for affordable housing and wrapping yourself in the mantle of this is a good thing for the community. You also have to find a location that is appropriate for the increased densities, the bonus densities that are being requested. We would submit that at 12 units an acre, this is inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. I refer you to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element in the density rating system. It talks about a base density of four dwelling units per acre, but it does state specifically, and I quote, within the applicable urban designated areas, a base density of four November 1 2001 16J 1 7 k residential dwelling units per gross acre is permitted, though not an entitlement. The base density of -- the base level of density may be adjusted depending upon the characteristics of the property. We would submit to you that the project that's immediately adjacent to 2 1/2- unit - per -acre Vanderbilt Country Club has not demonstrated that it's even entitled to four units per acre. Now, I know the first reaction is, wait a second. It's already a four - unit - per -acre PUD. That's true. The question then comes to mind, what evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the four - unit- per -acre PUD that's already there, that's zoned, that could be used for affordable housing, is inappropriate? What's wrong with the density that's already there? There's been no evidence to show that. Second, the Growth Management Plan shows that the base level density may be adjusted depending upon the characteristics of the property. We submit the density based on the characteristics that have been shown, particularly with regard to the level of services that are presently available, with regard to roads, with regard to sewer, with regard to development costs, would really argue more for a reduction in density more consistent with what's at Vanderbilt than it would for a tripling of the density, as has been requested. What about the bonus density? Under the Growth Management Plan, again it says density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as criteria in the Land Development Code. I'll be relatively quick, relatively. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're an attorney. It's relative. MR. HARTSELL: Thank you. It's important to remember -- and I appreciate the comments of the transportation department. But it's important to remember that unlike their review of this project where they felt that their hands were tied with regard to whether they could object to the proposed density or to the PUD, your hands are Page 90 November 1, 2001 16J1 not tied. And I think that's very important to remember. Its been suggested that it's not fair to apply the new standards that are coming down the road to a project that has been presently submitted to you for review. I would submit to you that this isn't a question of whether there is going to be any use of the property that's permitted; rather, it's a question of whether you are going to take the maximum base density that's already permitted at four units per acre and essentially triple it at the edge of your urban services district. That's the thing that you -all -- that's the decision you -all have to consider today, and we would submit to you that it's not appropriate, that there has been no evidence to show that you should, in this location, triple that density. The neighbors understand that affordable housing can presently be built at Bucks Run. Bucks Run wants the maximum density but hasn't demonstrated that they've got the evidence to support that. As I pointed out before to Commissioner Richardson, Land Development Code 2.7.7.4.2 requires for affordable- housing density bonus to be granted, there must be a demonstration of compliance with the growth management code and the land development regulations. Looking again to the Growth Management Code Future Land Use Element Policy 5.3 -- and I quote part of that -- discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities. Well, I would submit to you that what's being requested here is specifically inconsistent with Growth Management Policy 5.3. This is encouraging urban sprawl. It is pushing higher densities out of the edge of your urban services area. Future Land Use Element Policy 5.4, new development shall be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. Again, as you've heard from numerous speakers, there is no compatibility between this 12- unit - per -acre project and the existing surrounding land use of Vanderbilt at 2.5 units per acre. Page 91 16J1 November 1, 2001 'Wf The question about the buffers, the argument has been made -- although, as Mr. Fernandez pointed out, you hear about the buffers, but they're not required as part of the PUD ordinance or as part of the application. That seems to have been expanded upon either today or subsequent to the application. As all of the neighbors have had to. look at this information and review it for compatibility, they don't have the information about the buffers. When the exotics are removed, what's going to be out there? We hear that there's an intention to leave the existing vegetation, the native vegetation that's out there, but again, that's not part of the application. Concurrency issues, generally if concurrency with regard to roads, with regard to sewer service has not been demonstrated, how can this project -- how can this PUD rezoning be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Mr. McCann provided a very detailed review of the staff report. I just want to summarize about five or six points that relate specifically to the requirements that the Planning Commission has in terms of reviewing this application. Under Land Development Code 2.7.2.5, certain findings need to be made by the Planning Commission. Subsection 5 of that section is whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The staff report fails to identify any changed or changing conditions that make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. These are the findings that you -all have to address. Number 6, whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Again, the staff report failed to meaningfully consider whether the proposed change will adversely influence the living conditions in the neighborhood. Number 7 -- I'm sorry. Number 10, whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. As Mr. McCann pointed out, the staff report again fails to address Page 92 {' November 1, 2001 bJ1 adequately what impact this project will have on property values in the neighborhood. Number 11, whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with the existing regulations. Again, the staff report fails to address whether that proposed change will be a deterrent. Number 12, whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. Well, that's exactly what's being requested here, triple the density for these folks compared to the rest of the folks in the neighborhood. That's not been demonstrated as being appropriate. I have one jurisdictional issue which I just throw out, and that's the question of whether there's been adequate notice of the review for the approval of affordable - housing density bonus. It's mentioned, as best I can tell, as part of the -- as part of the agenda, it's mentioned that there is affordable housing in this project, but I have not seen any notice that there is going to be an actual review of the affordable - housing density bonus that gets reviewed or approved today. While we are here, and obviously to the extent that we've participated, that may waive the objection for a number of folks who are here. The question comes to mind of whether any of the other 800 residents or other people in the neighborhood have waived their objections or are even aware of the fact that not only is there a PUD that's being requested increased density, but there's going to be a review of the affordable - housing density bonuses today. On behalf of the Vanderbilt Community Association, we submit that the application falls far short of what's necessary to demonstrate that they have met the requirements for affordable - housing density bonus. We also believe that the approval of the PUD as proposed fails Page 93 November 1, 2001 16J1 , S � i to meet the criteria of the Land Development Code for the reasons that I've outlined as well as those that numerous other folks have outlined. And, finally, we would submit to you that for the reasons that I've outlined, it's inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan and, for all of those reasons, should be denied. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do have one question for you. MR. HARTSELL: I appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You kept using the phrase the "edge of the urban district" and that we were -- you were implying that we're encouraging urban sprawl here. Where do you consider the far edge of our urban district -- urban boundary? MR. HARTSELL: Well, looking at the land use management plan, you've got the urban development area is the area that's shown as yellow. And from what I can tell, this project is right next to Vanderbilt, which is essentially at the edge of that district. When you -- at the eastern edge of that district. It's got a strange line that -- or -- anyway, that's -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just wanted to clarify because I didn't think this was at the edge, and staff is discussing things over there at the moment. MR. HARTSELL: Certainly to the extent -- I understand that it may not be on the very -- on the very edge between rural next to it and this being the urban services district. But it does appear to me that what's happened is the Vanderbilt community is essentially being used as a buffer from your nonurban area for something that is very intense at 12 units an acre in your urban area. We just don't think that's appropriate to make Vanderbilt the buffer between the urban services district and -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because Vanderbilt is in the urban service area. Page 94 November 1, 2001 16JI MR. HAR TSELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And the line is out further. I was just wondering what you meant by "edge." MR. HARTSELL: Well, I'm -- as we look at the blue -- the blue arrow there -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellow9. This line here is Collier Boulevard or 951. The yellow arrow, representing urban residential, extends 1 mile east of 951, incorporates Vanderbilt Country Club. MR. HARTSELL: So to the extent that we are -- I will amend my remarks. We are not actually on the edge, but we're within a mile or so of the edge. Certainly it appears to me that we are tripling the density out within a mile of the edge of your urban services district, which means that all of your services are going to have to go out to that edge. The question is, between I -75 and this area, is there any other need for the kinds of urban services that this level of intensity is going to require? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I just wanted to make sure we were clear that we do intend to have urban services within the urban services district, and that is part of the concept. If you keep lowering the density in an urban service area that's been agreed forever, then we have major pressures on the rural fringe and then even further out so-- MR. HARTSELL: And that's a valid point. But what's important to remember here is that we're not suggesting that you should lower the densities within the urban services district. What's already approved there right now is at the maximum density that's approved. What we're suggesting to you is that this is not an appropriate place at this time for tripling those maximum densities. At some point in time when the roads are available, when there's actually sewer service that's available, this PUD might be appropriate Page 95 1 6j. November 1, 2001 for that level of density. But we would certainly argue that today this is definitely premature at very best. And it's for that reason that we argue that it's not only premature, it's inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and it ought to be denied. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You and a number of your speakers have made much of the deficiencies in this PUD application. Do you think they are remediable, curable? Could the deficiencies be cured with a little more workmanship? MR. HARTSELL: Well, certainly the absence of information that has been provided could be cured by providing more information. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. HARTSELL: Whether you provide more information or not, the question is, how do you demonstrate that tripling the density at this location is going to be appropriate today as opposed to some point in the future? I don't know if that's -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, then you're -- MR. HARTSELL: I don't know what else they can provide. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Then you're saying that no matter how much this application was beefed up, it would still not pass muster. MR. HARTSELL: I'm not sure if you beef the application up that still is going to provide the roads, for instance, within the time frames of this development taking place or demonstration that sewer capacity is available or reasonably likely to be available instead of speculative. So I -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, then why have we spent all this time picking at these deficiencies if the long and the short of it is that if those deficiencies were cured, you would still be against it? Page 96 November 1, 2001 16J1 MR. HARTSELL: It's not a question of whether we're against it or not. It's a question of whether this application meets the requirements of the code. And we submit to you that the application doesn't meet the requirements of the code, that there has not been evidence that's been submitted to you or as part of the application process that demonstrates that this level of intensity ought to be , _ approved at this location. What you've heard with regard to kind of picking at the deficiencies is the frustration of a group of neighbors trying to figure out why it is that there's going to be a tripling of density next door to them. And they go and they pull the application and go through it, and they find things, for instance, like the buffer that used to be there when they moved in, as part of the previous PUD, has now been removed. The specifics of the requirements, Mr. Fernandez pointed out, have been amended. This document, for instance -- I mean, it is COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't want to go back over all those deficiencies again. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We're not going to go over the deficiencies, please. MR. HARTSELL: You asked the question. When the neighbors are trying to figure out what's going in next door, there's a brand -new PUD document. It doesn't -- it's not a comparison of a strikethrough and underline. Here are the things we're taking out; here's the stuff we're adding. It's just a brand -new document. They have to go through and try and figure out or find out, where's the original? What's actually changed here? It's those kinds of things that are frustrating to them. That's why you find a lot of picking at the deficiencies. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What I'm asking is, in all candor, if all of these mechanical deficiencies in here were satisfied, I Page 97 November 1, 2001 16J1 >E think your people would still be against it because it's an affordable housing or it's too much density. MR. HARTSELL: No. I think that it's -- I think it's important for you to understand that this is not an argument against affordable housing. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's an argument against density. MR. HARTSELL: It's an argument against tripling the density next to their neighborhood. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, you know, we could have gotten -- cut to the chase a long time ago, as far as I'm concerned. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are you suggesting, though, you and most every other speaker, that we have the authority to change the traffic issue? Right now the law says they have the right to build this as far as traffic is concerned. We may not agree with that, but the point is we can't change it. And, therefore, we have to go with what we are told. That's the law. We can't change the law. MR. HARTSELL: Let me address that. It's a valid question, which is really what the applicant is urging. You can't really do anything about it. And I submit to you that you absolutely can because you've got a responsibility to determine whether this is compatible in this neighborhood. And I submit to you -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Wait a minute. You're off the subject that I'm on. I'm talking to you literally about one issue, and that is the traffic issue. We have to live with what we are given. We'd like to say, hey, I don't particularly like the traffic issues in my area, either. We'd like this or that. But right now that department said to us that this PUD absolutely meets the criteria as far as traffic is concerned, and I don't believe this board has a right to change that November I, 2001 16J1 in any manner, just including that traffic issue. I'm not discussing the others. MR. HARTSELL: Let me -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But that issue cannot be changed. MR. HARTSELL: Let me ask -- if that were true, there would be no need for this board. I submit to you that you do Piave the responsibility to take that piece of information where the staff has said to you, we've looked at this. It doesn't meet the new standards that are coming through. It meets the present standards today. That's one element of information that you need to look at. Staff is not, I would submit, suggesting to you that this is a great development from a traffic standpoint. They're suggesting there are problems. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. MR. HARTSELL: Now, based on those problems, I believe that it's incumbent on the board to look at this and to say from a compatibility standpoint, there are problems associated with this level of intensity. We shouldn't triple the intensity just because the standards say, under the present standards, that's not a traffic issue. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You are an attorney; am I correct? MR. HARTSELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And you're telling me that this board can change existing law at their whim. MR. HARTSELL: No, sir. I'm not telling you you can change the law. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, that's -- MR. HARTSELL: I'm telling you that the law right now requires you to take all of the information you've been given -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I am not discussing -- MR. HARTSELL: -- and make a determination. Page 99 Y. t November 1, 2001 16J1 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I am not discussing the other issues. I mean, I understand what they are. I just wanted to make it clear to you that as far as the traffic issue itself is concerned, you're asking us to change what is now existing law. MR. HARTSELL: I don't believe that I am. We're not asking you to change the law. We're asking you to recognize there are traffic problem's out there. Don't approve a tripling of density when you already recognize there are traffic problems out there, and there's no requirement that you approve tripling of density. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The last point I will make is there are a great many PUDs that come before us. Anything on Airport Road then, as far as you're concerned, should not be added because there's already such a traffic problem there, anything else will increase the traffic problem. MR. HARTSELL: Tripling of the density? I would probably argue that point where you're asking to triple the density on a place where there's already traffic problems, yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What about doubling the density on that traffic -- again, we have a problem. MR. HARTSELL: That's exactly the point. It's not that affordable housing is inappropriate in Collier County. The question is -- after you demonstrate that you meet affordable housing, essentially, minimum thresholds, then the question is, where in Collier County do you increase the densities? And I submit to you you don't increase them where you already have problems. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. White, when it comes to the statement of level of service and what we're trying to do here, could you just give us a little guidance on the fact that -- concept of the magic wand? We have rules. We have a time frame for the roads. Could you just elaborate a little bit on that for our benefit when we make the decision on criteria and for all of these people that Page 100 November 1, 2001 have taken their time to come here and hear today? 16JI MR. WHITE: Thank you. Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I believe that Mr. Hartsell is in particular, perhaps, talking about in LDC 27325. And in particular this is a provision that deals with Planning Commission recommendations. He's talking about sub 3, which talks about the conformity of the PUD with goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan. And if I understand the gist of his argument, it is essentially that he's asking you to find -- although he's used the term compatibility, I think he's talking consistency, in my way of understanding this, in that the project is inconsistent because the density is somehow inappropriate. And that's where it lapses over, one, into the compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood on the one hand; on the other hand, he's talking about capacity in terms of concurrency. And, now, it's obvious that you cannot be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of proposing development that would exceed the capacity at the time that development's approved. That would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that would, under this particular finding, be something that you could make a determination it's not in conformity with. I believe you've also, just to be balanced about this, heard staff say essentially that it's their opinion that as to the Growth Management Plan and as to the issue of concurrency and as it relates to consistency, that this project, at the time of development, would have adequate capacities such that it would be deemed concurrent and, hence, consistent. So it's to your determination which end of the teetertotter carries the weight. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. MR. HARTSELL: We would urge you that we have the heavy end of the teetertotter. Page 101 November 1, 2001 6J1 -CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I would believe you would feel that way. How many more speakers do we have? MS. MURRAY: Three. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have three. Okay. Because we have to move along, and we will have an issue -- a technical issue here by quarter after 12 when it comes to the court reporter. So you're next. MS. MURRAY: Glenn Cribbett followed by William Saunders. MR. CRIBBETT: Good morning. My name is Glenn Cribbett. I represent Worthington Communities of Naples. We are the developer of Vanderbilt Country Club. And I believe all my minutes have been used up, so I will try to be brief. Just trying to lighten the affair here a little bit. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I got the humor. MR. CRIBBETT: Nobody laughed. We certainly have a concern because we still own quite a bit of property in Vanderbilt, and being a developer we obviously can also see both sides of a situation. We -- our goal is always to develop communities that are highly marketable and ones that we can, you know, certainly deliver on the promise. I don't know that I can say a lot of new things here or raise a lot of new questions that haven't been said because I think that's been very well done by -- by the folks that have been up here previous. We do have two concerns in a major way, and -- and number one would be the character of the community that's proposed. And, again, it's been said and there was some argument as to whether that was, you know, a viable thing to point out, but that the application was deficient in terms of exhibits and things and specifics. And although we have been shown some things here today, certainly without that being part of the petition, perhaps there is no guarantee Page 102 November 1, 2001 6 J fir that that's what will be delivered. In light of that, you know, a buffer would certainly be a major consideration or a concern on our part as to how it is buffered from -- from our existing community and whether, again, you know, just from a compatibility standpoint, everything, including architecture, just fits within what's existing there. Second to that -- or actually number one, probably, would be the density issue and the fact that they are asking for densities that are over five times what we've achieved at Vanderbilt and how those do, in fact, impact the infrastructure that's in place. I'm not going to sit here and argue from a legal standpoint. I don't know what you can or cannot do. I think you -- in a position you are, you can make decisions that you feel are in the best interest of the public. We have certainly fallen victim to that on occasion when faced with similar - type issues and -- and would always hope that the decisions are, in fact, being made in the best interest of the public. With regards to traffic, I'll just caution one more thing, that because there are a lot of communities along the corridor, most of them are new, and I don't think that corridor has really reached its full potential. So what we do see today, that is considered extremely bad at a lot of times, I think can potentially get worse given that no other development comes into the corridor because, again, most of the communities along there are very immature in their development at this stage, and so it's easy to see. Given that -- again, I don't have any new things to raise, but in terms of representing Worthington Communities and our position, we do respectfully ask that you deny the petition as it has been submitted to you at this point in time. Thank you. (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: William Saunders followed by Gayle Grosso, Page 103 November 1, 2001 who's your last speaker. 16J 1 MR. SAUNDERS: Good morning. My name is William Saunders. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good afternoon. MR. SAUNDERS: That's S- a- u- n- d- e -r -s. I'm a resident of Vanderbilt, 8454 Gleneagle Way. I'm here this morning because I, like many of the people that are in this room, came to Vanderbilt thinking we had found a way of life, a place where we were secure, a place where we'd be looked after, a community that was an outstanding community with lots of nice features. I can understand Vanderbilt's concern when they have 89 more units to add traffic to our Vanderbilt Beach Road, that are unsold at this point. I think the basic issues that we have to contend with here are the fact that this project is going to change the way that we at Vanderbilt can live our lives. We're not going to have the security and the freedom that we currently have. We don't want to have to put fences up around our community to keep people out of our town houses and out of our estate homes. Many of us are not here a good number of months in the year, and it makes our homes and our properties in Vanderbilt very, very vulnerable. We think that placing a community of triple density right next to what is an estate community at this point flies in the face of everything that we thought we were buying when we came to Vanderbilt. We feel that this board has a fiduciary responsibility to think about that and to protect the interests of the people who have purchased in our community. I can assure you that if this was a little later in the season, we would have probably had another 200 people down here today, but a lot of our friends and a lot of our neighbors aren't here at this point. But the ones that I've talked to are all very, very concerned about the same things. We don't care if that property gets built on if it's built Page 104 November 1, 2001 16J1 on in normal density under normal conditions. But to allow a tripling of the density, I think, places a burden on us that we don't feel we deserve. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm going to ask a rhetorical question to you, sir. If this triple density had teachers, policemen, sheriffs deputies, construction workers, would you have a sense of freedom and security lost if these rental units were handled by that type of person? MR. SAUNDERS: Well, it's been my experience -- I'm an old builder and developer, retired. I've built thousands of houses, and I've built many, many, many communities. And I can assure you that I've never found the situation that you're speaking of to end up being true. Generally what happens is that the -- the services that are necessary are overburdened with problems, and they can't deal as effectively as we'd like to think we could with the issues. It's nice -- it's a picture -book idea, but in reality I don't think that it works. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It seems to me that either your candor or your lack of being in step with the rest of the people who have professed and kept telling us that affordable housing is not the issue -- you just said that's exactly what it is. MR. SAUNDERS: No, I didn't say affordable housing was an issue. What I'm talking about is density. What I'm talking about -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, no, no. You're talking about building fences. MR. SAUNDERS: Well -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You don't have to build fences -- MR. SAUNDERS: -- we have to -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- in Pelican Bay. MR. SAUNDERS: We have to do what we have to do to protect Page 105 November 1 2001 16J1 our -- our interests where we live. I'm not saying that I think that affordable housing is the issue here. I think that this density is -- is a big -- is a big issue. I think in the interest of brevity and so that I don't get into something that I'm not going to have the time to speak to, I will -- I'll -- I will thank you for the time that you've allotted me and trust that you will give every consideration denying this application. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Gayle Grosso, who is your final speaker. MS. GROSSO: Hello. I'm Gayle Grosso, G- r- o- s -s -o. I'm a resident of Vanderbilt. And I didn't intend to speak today, so I have a very short statement. And -- but hours ago the very first speaker who said -- who spoke for the development and stated that it was not fair for a developer to follow all the regulations, to jump through all the hoops, and then be turned down, well, to me that -- it's not fair to the residents of Vanderbilt and to the other homeowners in the area who purchased in there after looking at the plan and looking at what was surrounding and saying, "Yes. This is a good community. We're going to have a church here." South of Collier there's very large lots. There's nice homes through there. We've got golf courses to the east of us. We've got this community that's going to be 154 single - family homes. Now, that's a little dense, four homes to an acre. But they're going to be individually owned homes, and people tend to take care of homes that they own, that they have ownership, and so this will be a good community. I think Vanderbilt would be a good place for me to invest and to live. I don't like the idea of it being changed to the triple density. I don't think that's fair. It's not what we bought. It is not the community that was supposed to surround us. When you talk about fairness, fairness is sticking to what was there, and that's just my -- Page 106 November 1, 2001 161l..4.;. my comment, is that fair is fair, and it's not what we saw when we bought. Thank you. (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I believe -- Mr. Cuyler, I'm not sure how long you're going to take, and we need you to summarize this. Can you continue on? Thank you. Go ahead. She can handle you. MR. CUYLER: Okay. I was just going to first of all say, thank you for your patience. I understand this has been a long hearing. Mr. Wayne Arnold is, again, going to rebut some of the comments that were made, and then I'm going to have, hopefully, a very brief -- and I use that in every sense of the word -- summary to wrap up. MR. ARNOLD: Hi. Wayne Arnold representing the petitioner. I'd like to go back over just a few of the comments that were made. There were several references to your findings, and separately -- although a component of those findings is the issue of compatibility that I talk about a little bit separately. First of all, let me talk a little bit about those findings and the fact that they've referenced deficiencies with the application. This petition has been in the process for months. We've submitted everything that's typically required of those applications and more. We've worked with staff. The documents have gone through modification. We've gotten the transportation department to look at methodology, etc. Those issues have all been addressed to the satisfaction of your staff and your county attorney's office. It would not have made it to this point if it didn't. We believe, as far as we know, we are consistent with all provisions of your plan and your code with reference to having a complete and sufficient application. There cannot be any question that we have enough information to make that decision. Page 107 November 1, 2001 16JI One of the questions that was raised related to whether or not we have -- you know, are there changing conditions. There certainly are changing conditions that warrant changing the project from its original focus that occurred many, many years ago under a zoning change when there was little development out in this corridor, including Vanderbilt Country Club. But this Planning Commission approved a commercial comprehensive land use plan change for the other side of this intersection. Now, you heard from many of the same residents during that process where a portion of Bucks Run was proposed to be become, really, an office -type project. They didn't like the offices. With the Planning Commission's discretion and our applicants agreeing, we withdrew that component of the application and said, "We'll come back another day. We'll withdraw our commercial opportunity." The changing conditions are the Comprehensive Plan amendment did not go as planned over a year ago, but you did approve a 30 -acre commercial development on the other side of the road that is in the process of being rezoned to have a community shopping center there. So you do have a changing condition. You had the applicant tell you that, "Where are the schools? Where are the facilities for the children and the people that will live here ?" Well, there are proposed to be common amenities as a part of this project. They have a clubhouse. They have barbecue areas. They have play land -- you know, play areas for the children. So those amenities will be provided largely on site, like any community. We're not a country club community, so we're not providing a golf course as our recreational amenity. And clearly we are looking at a different age group than you have at Vanderbilt Country Club for the buyer or the renter of this particular project, but that goes with any project. They're not all the same, and that's what makes Collier County what it is. You have Page 108 November 1, 2001 6J1 very many different projects that make up Collier County. You look to their own community, and you look to the density. The buildings that are immediately adjacent to our property line are 24 -unit buildings. If I take out the area that's necessary to satisfy m parking and my water management for only those units, I'm going to end up with exactly the same type of net density I have for my parcel of land because we're proposing 24- and 20 -unit buildings on our property. Mr. Hoover is putting up an aerial exhibit on that property, and it doesn't. I don't think, highlight it extremely well, but maybe Bill can point to the building in question that's parallel to the property line. That's a closer view of it. And you can see that we have essentially two buildings that are along and are parallel to that property line. Again, that's the 110 -foot distance from the property line that I referenced earlier. Again, we made the commitment on the record, and we'll be happy to amend our PUD document to put in place the 80 -foot buffer requirement. That's why it was on the master plan. It wasn't that we're trying to hide anything here. That's what was proposed, and that's what we're willing to commit to. Again, I want to remind you that your code's minimum requirement for residential to residential is a 10 -foot wide buffer. We're providing a minimum of eight times that buffer. We're providing like units at three -story maximum height. I don't think there's any question that that can be a compatible relationship. If Bill can flip back to that other aerial view -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But before you -- stay there for a second on that one. When you were talking about the buffer before, you were talking about mature vegetation, and this is pretty dense vegetation in there? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that's -- the mature, dense Page 109 November 1, 2001 16JI vegetation you're referring to will be incorporated into this buffer. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You can go to another one now. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: The other view that I think -- and Bill can point to it -- within their own community, it's not an entirely three - story, multifamily development. It has many housing types in there from single family to the 24 -unit buildings that are nearest us. And I'm going to argue that if it's not compatible to put a three -story unit 200 feet away from their own three -story units, how can they say that they're -- they have their own internal compatibility? And I argue because that's -- because that's the way it is anywhere you go. You don't all have a community that's made up of single family or just multifamily. You have a community that's made up of many housing types, typically, and I think that's exactly what I'm trying to point out, that compatibility relationship. If it's land use to land use, we're really going to boil it down to residential to residential. And when you look at it further, we're 24 -unit building to 24 -unit building. I don't see how we can be incompatible. They've also said that there are deficiencies here with respect to our Comprehensive Plan. I think you can point to at least two locations in your staff report where staff has noted that we are entirely consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. We're consistent with the proposed density rating system. We don't violate your level -of- service standards for roadways. We've gone through that analysis. We've heard Ms. Wolfe indicate that we are consistent with the methodology that's in place today for that. We have water and sewer availability by tying into a line that Vanderbilt Country Club brought down from Immokalee Road, so the sewer and water are available. We don't have a concurrency issue. And, as you heard their own representatives indicate, concurrency is Page 110 November 1, 2001 6J1 really determined at the time of building permit. Sure, there's an opportunity that if things don't go as planned, we could end up not building 288 units; we might get to the 260th unit, and the next building you're in a moratorium condition. That's the same situation anybody else is in in Collier County. There's absolutely no difference. That's the way it works. I think, again, they talked about that increasing traffic congestion and somehow being incompatible, but the same question would be, are you going to say no to three other projects that come in at four units per acre, even though they've met all the methodology tests? I don't know what the test is if we don't use the standards that are before us. I think it's pretty clear from the staff report, when you look at that, that the tests of compatibility, Comprehensive Plan consistency, compliance with our standards are all in order. The issue really should be, is this an appropriate location? And I'm going to tell you that the conditions have changed. There's a demand for more affordable housing in Collier County. Your plan, when it talks about affordable housing, says you shouldn't cluster affordable housing. And immediately people say, well, East Naples has a lot of it. North Naples is getting its share. You're going to have to go to Golden Gate City or up to Immokalee Road or 3 miles west on Vanderbilt Beach Road to find another affordable- housing project. And I think that in this particular case, we're not clustering those. We're providing a need. And I would challenge the argument that this is on the edge of our Urban boundary. It's a mile inside the urban boundary and it's in our urban services boundary. That's where development's supposed to go. That's our incentive for providing affordable housing, a density increase. So with that, I'll wrap up and let Mr. Cuyler go ahead and address -- Page 111 a s i.. November 1, 2001 16JI COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a quick question, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This is a process question. We've heard a lot of verbal things said, commitments that you've made and now kind of reinforced, renderings and so forth have been made. I just want to know from staff whether or not our process includes the inclusion, if you will, of this material as part of the documentation that goes forward to the BCC. Because they're under oath and, you know, for -- for one of the opposition to say -- well, they've said it. "But it can't be true because we haven't seen it in writing." I just wanted to make sure that if it's said, it's really part of the record. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. For the record, Ray Bellows. Collier County's initiated a process of taking over the PUD document. And commitments made during the Planning Commission, staff will make those insertions into the PUD document. And it will not be up to the applicant to, hopefully, put those in at the time of the Board of County Commissioners. We'll ensure that it gets in at the time of the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. MR. WHITE: If I may add, Madam Chairman, specifically the LDC in 2.7.3.3, I believe, reflects what Mr. Bellows has told you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ray, it might be helpful to point out to the audience here that this isn't the last step in the process, that there's something called a site development plan that would get into all the specifics that people have been com -- the absence of which they've been complaining about. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. The -- this is the first step in a Page 112 November 1, 2001 6J1 # land development process. We're looking at Growth Management Plan consistency requirements. To date I have not had anyone contact me personally to come in and look at the file to see the traffic study. There was a large traffic study. They've -- I had several general phone calls, but no one came in to actually look at the traffic study. Clearly it would show that we're consistent with the current Growth Management Plan, the traffic circulation, the traffic element. You know, staff will -- tries its best to fulfill all the analysis requirements. We have several -- many different review agencies that review these things and comment, and we try to summarize those in the staff report. The staff report is not a full analysis; it's just a summary. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And one other comment, too, then, from the staff standpoint is the appropriate notice. A gentleman was talking at the break that a lot of these people didn't seem to know what was going on. But you're satisfied from staff that you brought with you that it is appropriate notice. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We're required to have a 15 -day notice requirement. That's what happened. We mailed out letters to property owners within 300 feet of the PUD. We placed signs at the property boundaries, all consistent with advertising requirements. And we have a great turnout to show. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And the affordable - housing element was mentioned in the -- in this -- in these letters? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chair, I'll try to be brief. Again, thank you for your patience. You'll be happy to know I was scratching a lot of notes off as Mr. Arnold was talking in recap. There's been some discussion of things that weren't in the petition. We've dealt with staff for months. We've met all the county Page 113 November 1, 2001 b J 1 requirements. We've done everything that staff has asked us to do, both from Mr. Mihalic's point of view and Mr. Bellows' point of view. There has been no competent substantial evidence that the traffic is not in compliance with your regulations, and we have Ms. Wolfe who says that it is. We have no competent substantial evidence that the water /sewer facilities are any issue that you have to deal with at this point. We're required to meet those when we develop, and we understand that. I find some of Mr. Fernandez's comments disturbing because to not meet with the petitioner and then come in ten days later or a week later and say they didn't -- you know, they didn't show us X information, we would have been happy to explain that to Mr. Fernandez. So I just don't think that's a valid argument, particularly in light that we have met all the requirements. Mr. Hartsell talked about me saying that the -- the commission is duty bound to approve this. I did not say that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Hoover. MR. CUYLER: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Hoover, please. MR. CUYLER: I did not say that, and I would not say that. What I was saying in my exchange with Mr. Strain was that the philosophy of whether there should be additional density as -- as a trade -off for affordable housing or work -force housing has already been decided by the Board of County Commissioners. They've set up a system. I understand you have to look at land use perspectives, and I actually understand that. And it was really directed to something I heard a couple people say, and that is, "This isn't about affordable housing; this is about density." Well, you can't separate the work- force housing from the density. They go together. In order to make a viable project, you have to have them go together. This is not a case of urban sprawl. That is where, as the Page 114 November 1, 2001 1611 chairman indicated, the policemen and the nurses and construction workers -- you know, they're not going to live on Gulf Shore. They're not going to live in Pine Ridge subdivision. They're going to go where it's affordable and where they can raise their families. And this is a location that meets all the criteria that's necessary, and it's also -- it is growing very fast out there. And I think one important point that I've heard that I just absolutely disagree with is the "don't approve this at 12 units an acre because of the roadways or because of the water and service," because the next three projects, whether they -- you know, you're going to quickly add up to 12 units an acre. So if you don't vote for this because of that reason, you practically have to decide you're not voting for any more projects, and that's just not where we are at this point. I would submit to you that affordable housing, work -force housing in this county has a track record. I hope Mr. Mihalic's going to say a little about that. It's worked out well. It does give people a place to affordably live and raise their family. And in conclusion, I would suggest to you that this not only legal -- I know we've met the legal requirements. I'm not concerned about that. But it's fair and it's right and it's the right location. And we would ask you to approve this petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Mr. Mihalic, would you care to elaborate some on the work -force housing, affordable housing? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioners. I really heard a lot of things this morning, and I guess we need to sort of step back and look at the big picture again. And I guess the big picture is this Comprehensive Plan has many elements. One of those elements is the housing element. It says we're supposed to provide affordable housing for all residents of Collier County. Unfortunately we don't. Page 115 November 1, 2001 16J1 The State of Florida has released a study this year that says we're at least 18,000 units deficient at this time. And last year in Collier County we created 6400 new jobs requiring new employees, and next year the projections are 7,000 more new jobs requiring new employees. And, you know, work -force housing is really a quality -of -life issue, but not as much for the residents as for the people out here. The quality of life to provide them with the services that they expect to have in Collier County, that's the quality of life that work -force housing will assist. And this developer has really stretched a long way. You know, we talk about density. Yes. I mean, every unit you can use a piece of property for lowers the cost of each individual unit. So, you know, he really needs 12 units an acre to bring down the cost to -- about a quarter for the land cost per unit is what was originally on this property -- or a third, I guess. That's why this developer can offer some units -- and he's offering units as -- as low as 35 percent of median income. Now, let me just talk a little bit about that. The median income right now in Collier County is $65,000 a year. The average wages in Collier County are $28,000 a year. So obviously that 65 isn't made up by workers. It's made up by those people that have nonwage earnings in this county; that is, people that are coming in and moving here with their incomes already sustained and have investments in other nonearned income. That's going to continue. Like I said, we expect 7,000 more jobs next year. Collier County has not been able to meet these people's needs. And employers see it. I'm sure they see it in the country club. They cannot fill the jobs that they have. I know they can't because no employer is filling all their jobs these days. It's just the way it is throughout the market, in all industries. Page 116 November 1, 2001 . 1611 The average house -- now we're really home - ownership based, and you know, this is a rental development, but we really want to help people become homeowners. But one of the steps to that is letting them live in an affordable - housing development where the rents are reduced so they can save up for those ooing costs and down payment costs and the other costs they hale and get a little bit ahead. The average home price in Collier County at this time is $350,000. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Average? MR. MIHALIC: Average. The average price in the City of Naples is over $500,000 at this time. This developer, because of assistance with the density bonus, because of assistance in deferring the impact fees -- which is later on -- and because of our assistance in getting other state, local, and federal assistance for this development, tax credits, taxes on bonds, sale loans, things like that, IRS credits, he's going to offer some one bedrooms as low as $305 per month. Some two bedrooms will be as low as $366 a month, and some three bedrooms will be as low as $423 a month. You can only do that with some assistance. That will allow that very, very low- income family to have a start. And, you know, you had in your packets some of the rents that are -- what things cost in the community, and the fair - market rents are at least 400 to $500 a month higher than that. Now, the only way for a developer to do that is through local incentives, state and federal incentives. And that's what we are experts in the system at. I've been here for approximately ten years now. I really thought -- as Mr. Cuyler said, we've done a number of work -force housing developments around the community that have simulated (sic) in well, there really are no problems. In many cases the quality and amenity levels are higher than lower -end condos in the same neighborhood, and that's the reality of it. We do have transition Page 117 November 1, 2001 16J1 programs to help people become homeowners, but that's becoming more and more difficult. I think that it's crucial that you, the planning commissioners, understand that for quality -of -life reasons, we really need to approve developments like this sort. And also, they tell me, you know, affordable housing is good, but not in my back yard. I've been hearing that for ten years. It's not going to change. It's not going to change at all. Employment centers are in all areas of Collier County. We are only able to put density bonuses in the urban area. We're hoping to change that. We're hoping to increase density for work -force housing in the urban fringe and possibly in the rural areas, but that's not available at this time. So all of the affordable - housing density bonuses, all of the multifamily must come into the urban area. And that's becoming more and more difficult, and this is just one example of it. Oh, okay. Mr. Cuyler wanted me to say that not all the rents were at the low levels. This particular development will serve people who are at 35 percent of median income, some units; some at 50 percent of median income; and some at 60 percent of median income. Let me talk about who that is, because I think that's important. A single individual or a family of four at 35 percent of median income, that family will make $22,750. At 50 percent of median income, which is the midline, they will make $32,500 family income. And at 60 percent of median income, that family will make $39,000 per year. In the school system of Collier County right now, half of the families have incomes of less than $30,000 a year because those families participate in the free- and reduced -lunch programs offered by the school system. And that is in every school in Collier County. At least 12 percent is the minimum of every school in Collier County -- and that's Barron Collier High School, and it goes up from there -- that the kids who are already living in these neighborhoods would qualify to live in this development. And, again, we're creating 7,000 Page 118 November 1, 20011 6J1 jobs more a year. Next year 7,0001 more jobs will be created in Collier County. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions from the commissioners? MR. MIHALIC : Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'd like to ask Mr. Cuyler a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe Mr. Abernathy would like to go back to Mr. Cuyler. I'll grant that for a couple of minutes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ken, I'm still -- I'm sort of Johnny One Note on this east tract, west tract. If I made a motion to approve this petition, the PUD rezone, with a ceiling of 288 dwelling units on the east tract leaving you the option of either building a church or a school or four units per acre on the west tract, can you accept that? MR. CUYLER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. CUYLER: May I also make another commitment that I meant to make in my closing statements and didn't. We will assure to it that the closest building on our property is a hundred feet from our property line because that's approximately what the neighboring building is. So we will do whatever's necessary for our site plan to orient that at least a hundred foot away from -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chairman, I've got a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Cuyler. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Cuyler, before you disappear -- while you're waiting -- Page 119 November 1, 2001 16J1 MR. MIHALIC: Mr. Strain, I wanted to say that you were right, that we did drop some text style of the density bonus when it was printed. I've looked at the original. We will correct that as it moves forward. Thank you very much for pointing that out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're welcome. I just hope that it doesn't have a bearing on the way this board might look -- MR. MIHALIC: It has nothing -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- at the whole project. MR. MIHALIC: It is nothing that the developer has to add. It was a textural (sic) paragraph on -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's not substantive? MR. MIHALIC: No, not of substance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Mr. Cuyler. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Cuyler, since you're in the mood to make agreements or agree to things, would your -- would your applicant agree to defer certificates of occupancy on the residential portion of this project until the roads in that area were four laned, meaning Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road to Airport Road? MR. CUYLER: We -- we could not do that. If you -- if you put that in as a regulation everybody has to abide by, then any other petition I bring in front of you -- we'll comply with the rules, but with regard to volunteering that, no, sir, we can't do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I would have no objection to putting that in, that any work in any development in that area, wait now until those roads are up to par. (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Before we go any further on that particular item, Mr. White, I would think you need to clarify from a legal standpoint how that can or cannot be done, particularly Page 120 November 1, 2001 1611 by this body. MR. WHITE: Well, I was thinking in terms of job security. There would certainly be a lot of it if that were, I believe, the practice that were followed not only by this commission but by the board itself. I can hear all kinds of equal protection arguments going off in Mr. Cuyler's head. I think absent a voluntary agreement on his part to acquiesce to that condition, it may be a difficult one to enforce. Given that it isn't something that the staff has recommended, it would seem to be to some degree, quote, inconsistent with our provisions in the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC pertaining to concurrency. So although it may be one that has appeal, I'm not sure that it's something that we would be able to prevail upon in an appeal. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Getting close to contract zoning, I think, if you're -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. MR. CUYLER: If it gives you any comfort, we obviously have to meet concurrency in all aspects of the infrastructure at the time of development. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, perhaps a middle ground, if you will, between Commissioner Strain and what you just said, but I understand you have to take it in terms of the applicant. As we've heard from Dawn today, the level -of- service standards are anticipating to be changed, and I think we can rely that within a year or so that there will be some different standards and, presumably, tighter than we currently have. Now, given that for a moment, you plan to phase your project, Phase I, Phase II. Perhaps I should be asking Wayne. As your SDP comes along, would you be having an SDP covering both phases at the same time, or would it be one at a time? And I think you know where I'm -- MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold. I understand where you're headed, and I think at this point we're not in a position to know Page 121 November 1, 2001 16JI whether or not were coming in for an SDP covering both phases or only the single phase. And I wish I could tell you that that's, you know, something other, but the fact is that we don't know. We may go ahead and depending on financing, etc., they may move forward for a portion of Phase II, even, as an extension of Phase I. I just don't know, and I can't commit to that at this time. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I'd like the attorney to listen, then, to what I'm proposing. I propose that even though the applicant has not given us definitive words on this, he has presented that he's going to develop this in two phases, Phase I and Phase II. And we've heard from transportation that there's going to be some changes in the rules in that period of time, and I'd like to have our -- whatever action we take conditioned to the then conditions that would apply at a Phase II time to at least get some assurance that -- that there's going to be some help on the way as far as capacity is concerned. MR. WHITE: If I understand -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Does that make any sense? MR. WHITE: If I understand your proposed condition, it suggests to me that the condition would be something along the lines that Phase II would be deferred for approval until such time as -- it could only be considered under a set of rules that have yet to be themselves approved. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, just slightly different. I'd say that Phase II would have the new rules apply to it, whatever they are. Now, if no rules came along, well, they'd get home free. But I just want to make sure that -- MR. WHITE: Well, there'd have to be some timing -- some limit set even to consider discussing it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, the time limit I would set would be the time that they come in with Phase II versus Page 122 November 1, 2001 their Phase I. 16J1 MR. WHITE: That may be well before such rules are ever in effect. They may be challenged. They have to be, to some degree, reviewed by the DCA since they're Comprehensive Plan amendments. I'm thinking that an 18 -month time frame may be actually more accurate. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. WHITE: Possibly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're saying an 1.81 nth -- I didn't -- MR. WHITE: Because before they're fully adopted, I don't know. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, the engineer has already stated to us that it's going to be at least 12 months for them to get through the permitting process, another X months to get to the point where they can start construction. So we're looking like 18 months plus. MR. WHITE: The thing to keep in mind is that applicants are entitled to have their applications, once they're sufficient, considered under the rules then in effect. So part of that time frame, if you will, will be used up while their sufficient application is being reviewed and moving towards approval. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Perhaps the applicants can help us with this quandary. MR. CUYLER: I don't know whether to let Dawn speak before me or not, but I -- I think that we're obviously willing -- as I've said, I guess, from the first words out of my mouth this morning, we'll abide by the rules. If the new rules come into effect before we have our second -phase site plan done, then we have to and, you know, will adhere to those new rules. I can't tell you what the time frames are. Obviously we would not want to commit that we apply the new rules, you know, that aren't in effect. But once they're in effect, we're Page 123 y November 1, 2001 16J bound by them just like everybody else is, which I think, in part, addresses the issues that have been raised. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think I almost understood what you said. MR. CUYLER: We'll meet whatever regulations -- if the new rules come in and we haven't done our Phase II, then we'll adhere to the new rules. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And, Dawn, do you want to -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Better define what "done" is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, you better. (Several speakers speaking at once.) MR. CUYLER: In effect, site -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: SDP is going to be the trigger? MS. WOLFE: We are anticipating, with the changes to the Land Development Code, that the adequate public facilities will be determined at -- at site development plan stage rather than being issued with building permits because it's kind of late to be making that determination when people are going in, pulling their building permits. They've put a lot of extra time and effort into it. Zoning is a time at which you make some consistency determinations; however, that doesn't guarantee you absolute rights that you're going to get your adequate public facilities certificate in order to move forward. We are moving to change that so it's not at building permit, but it's no later than site development plan. One thing that is currently already in place is that site development plans, if they have a significant amount of traffic -- that's a thousand vehicles per day or 100 vehicles in the peak hour, peak season -- are required to do a more detailed traffic assessment. And through that process when they submit their SDP, it shows that Page 124 November 1, 2001 1611 we, at a minimum, need them from their entrance to Vanderbilt to have four lanes out there in order to maintain acceptable operations. That would be a condition of their SDP. Those mechanisms are already in place in the Land Development Code but don't come into play until we know specifically what is requested. The zoning allows us somewhat more general. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought the zoning was the point at which those determinations were made, not the, P. MS. WOLFE: No. And, for example, under commercia zoning we indicate they can have up to a certain square footage, but we don't know exactly what it is that they may be putting in. For instance, a McDonald's has a higher trip - generation rate than sit -down restaurants do, and they have to be evaluated differently. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I got you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions, comments? Ms. Murphy (sic). MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray for the record. I would just -- it looks like you're getting ready to take a vote. Just -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We haven't closed the public hearing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We haven't closed the public hearing. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We just want to make sure everything gets on the record. MS. MURRAY: When and if you're ready to take a vote, I just need you -all to be sure -- if you're voting against the project, you need to clearly state why you oppose the project. If it's consistency, problem with the Growth Management Plan, I'd appreciate that you elaborate a little bit as to why you feel it's inconsistent, which element you feel it's inconsistent with. We need to convey that to the Board of County Commissioners. As well as it is part of the record, Page 125 '4 November 1, 2001 16J1 and it is part of your requirements as a board to elaborate on those findings. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Bellows, you're standing there. Would you like to make a couple more comments? MR. BELLOWS: Just a -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Quick comment and then we'll have to make a quick break. MR. BELLOWS: Just that when you do make your motion that -- and if it is for approval, that you stipulate again the additional -- the additions you want to be made to the PUD document. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I couldn't hear that. MR. BELLOWS: Any additional stipulations or conditions of approval that this Planning Commission would like to see added to the PUD document, I'd like it restated. A lot of things have been promised here, and I just want to be clear on what the applicants need to -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. If I close this public hearing, do you have enough tape to do that? Okay. No further comments? I close the public hearing. Now, what's the pleasure of the board, but we will have to watch the court reporter to get some more paper in here and take a short break. What's the pleasure of the board? Public hearing's closed. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like to have -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Madam Chairman, I'll step into the breach, I guess, and make a motion to approve the PUD amendment, whatever -- is it an amendment or a -- recommendation of approval of the Petition PUDA -0I -AR -834 subject to the following -- well, whatever staff stipulations there are; plus, on behalf of this commission, that the east tract be limited to 288 dwelling units; that the 60 units attributable to the west tract either are forfeited as -- as housing units if church, child care, or school are built there, Page 126 November 1, 2001 1611 or they can be built at the rate of four dwelling units per acre in the west tract. Further condition, that at the -- that the petitioner agrees that at the time of submission of a site development plan for the second phase, he will be bound by code requirements in existence at that time. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Abernathy, a second by Mr. Budd to approve this particular PUD amendment; document, being amending the Bucks Run with the three specific items outlined. MR. WHITE: Madam Chairman, I just want to make sure that we have on the record that the motion would include, if you will, by the inclusion of the application for the bonus density, a, quote, recommendation on that as well. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Was that not covered in -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought it was implicit, but I'll make it express. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Explicit. Okay. The bonus density for affordable housing. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, discussion? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I was just going to say, what discussion do we have, and do we have to change tape? We're going to take just a two - minute break here. Don't move. (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We're ready. Okay. Mr. Richardson, you have the floor. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just in terms of the motion -- motioner and -- I would also like to see staff review the transcript for any other commitments that the developer has made to make sure that they are appropriately reflected. Page 127 7• Y�7 November 1, 2001 16 "1 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll accept that. I'd like to just make a couple of comments about this. I'll be very brief. A lot of people have disavowed that this has anything to do with affordable housing. Obviously it has everything to do with affordable housing because were it not for the affordable - housing density bonus, we wouldn't be here. You can't build this many units on that tract of just ordinary housing. So it's -- affordable housing is warp and woof of this whole thing. And I don't think -- it's not in the record, or maybe it's inferable from what Mr. Mihalic said, but it's a fact of life that we have a tremendous deficit of affordable housing. All you need to do is drive up from here to the airport in the morning and see that you're sort of a lone ranger going north, and there are hundreds and hundreds of cars coming south containing people who work here but can't afford to live here. So I think we need to construe these rules in a liberal way to accomplish a goal that's been stated by the county commission and one which I wholeheartedly support, and that is to increase our housing stock of affordable housing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain, you go first in your discussion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. In hearing all this discussion today -- and it's something that I did say to the applicant yesterday -- I thought their PUD was equally vague, as some people have expressed. I also believe it to be incomplete, and the documents that have been presented to us to make our decision on has been -- have been acknowledged as incomplete. Those same documents today have been acknowledged to be inaccurate. I don't believe the density is supported by Division 1.4 of the ULDC and Section 2.1.2 of the ULDC. And also, we've received something passed amongst us that says "For the Record." If this is for the record today, it's 18 pages we have not had time to digest. Page 128 November 1, 2001 6J1 So those are my concerns that this condition -- I shouldn't say condition of approval. Those are my concerns against approval of this particular amendment. (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I really respect and appreciate all the hundreds of people who have come out here. I have a different perspective from you -all. I've lived and worked in Immokalee for the last 17 years, and on a daily basis I spend time with the kind of people who would be moving to Bucks Run if it's approved. There's hundreds of people who are here, but there's hundreds of people who are not here, and those are the working families, the husbands, the wives, and the children. I think the tone of this meeting would be vastly different if there were 50 percent of the people in here children. And even though they're not here in this room, I think that the commission should take their desires into effect, as we're taking your desires also into effect. These people are going to be of different age from most of the audience, different race, different ethnic background, as well. The families that we're talking about, many of them live in Immokalee, and they face an hour or an hour and a half commute every day to go to and from work because there's a lack of affordable decent housing in the Naples area. And I know many of these families. Immokalee has become a bedroom community for Naples. The people who live there, most -- many of them work in the coastal areas. And, in effect, what we have in this county is segregation of the people who are working versus the people who are living in a different part of the county entirely. And I wonder, do we really want that? Do we want our community to be that segregated? In just the three meetings that I've attended here, we have approved hundreds of housing units on these same crowded roads Page 129 w November 1, 2001 r 16J1 that we're talking about, but there's been very little public comment against the approval of those units. Is it fair for people to want a willing labor force to work on the golf courses, in the restaurants, in the hospitals, maintaining the yards, but to want those people to remain distant from their own neighborhoods and schools? I personally know many of the families in Immokalee who have moved up from dilapidated, overcrowded housing into better affordable housing, some of the things that have been constructed, some in Immokalee and some in other places. And I can tell you it's good for the parents, and it's good for the children to have a better place to live. And it's also good for the whole community because when one part of the community gets an improvement in their standard of life, it's good for everybody. Affordable housing is attractive and it's clean. It allows the parents to feel safe when they go to work and for the kids to have a better place to come home to. This board has to respect the desires of the people that are present, but we also have to think about what's best for the county as a whole. And there are many people who are not represented because they're not well organized, and I'm talking about the working families and the children. I work in a medical center in Immokalee that serves many of the people -- the type of people who might move to Bucks Run, and I've had times when I've been able to tell people who didn't have a place to live, "Hey, you can go over to Sanders Pines" or "You can go over to Farm Workers Village." And it feels good to be able to give them that kind of an alternative that I know will greatly improve their quality of life. Just one more thing. About the traffic, if the work force is closer to their place of work, this will take a lot of pressure off the main traffic arteries. So although there will be more congestion in the immediate area, there'll also be somewhat compensating release of some of the traffic where people are having to drive long distances Page 130 November 1, 2001 on themain 16JJ arteries. And someone else made the point about the parks, that there wouldn't be enough parks in this area. A lot of these places where the people are living now they don't have parks ether that are close by. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other comments from commissioners here? Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Although I may not be as lengthy or eloquent as my two bookends, you know, we do have some affordable housing going in across the street, approximately 200 units. I just can't help but feel that this is premature. It just -- (Applause) COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I -- I just feel that -- there was a discussion about CO'ing when this thing got four laned. I would be in full approval of that. And I'm afraid I just can't support this particular project at this time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson? Okay. Being no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor of approving the petition as outlined with the stipulations and the density bonus, the various items that have been clearly stated on the record, say aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. Page 131 November 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY. Aye. 16J1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. The motion carries 7 -2. Thank you very much for your time and effort here today. We want to take a brief recess to break. Your next action will be before the Board of County Commissioners, and I would strongly recommend that you meet with the developer and his representatives. Thank you again for your time and enthusiasm. (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'd like to bring the meeting back to order for just a couple minutes here. MR. WHITE: Ladies and gentlemen, order, please. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. What is the pleasure of the board up here? We have a couple more items yet on our agenda. A couple of them appear to be long, and I think we're going to probably have to break for lunch. So unless there's some real compelling reason not to break for lunch, I believe we need to do that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Are you buying? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mass exodus to the Subway. Two o'clock? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'd say we can come back here right at two o'clock; is that fair? Okay. We are in recess for lunch. Thank you very much. Be back here at two o'clock. (A lunch break was held from 1:03 p.m. To 2:01 p.m.) (The proceedings recommenced with Commissioner Young not present.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are back in session again for the Collier County Planning Commission. I believe we are on Page 132 November 1, 2001 6J1 Variance VA- 2001 -AR -1295, a 3 -foot variance with reference to the Collier County wastewater facility. All those wishing to give testimony today please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Before I get into the presentation, I'd just like to make a correction on thcf agenda and the resolution that's attached to your staff report. The v riance in question has been changed to a 3 -foot variance instead of a 7 -foot variance. Originally the application when submitted, based on a conversation in the preapplication, made a misunderstanding that there may have been an after - the -fact variance also included in this; however, that's not necessary. The property is a side yard setback, so no other setback variances are required. So I want to just make it clear that we're requesting a 3 -foot variance from the required 30 -foot side yard setback to 27 feet, and that's what your staff report reflects currently. And I have -- based on that change in the resolution, the attached conditions of approval have been modified to reflect that. As you may recall, this is the Collier County wastewater reclamation facility. The conditional use was approved just last month for this site to allow for an expansion from 8 million gallons a day to 16. This petition is a result of that approved petition to allow for an expansion. This is a proposed sewage holding tank, sludge holding tank, No. 2. And, as you can see on the conceptual site plan, this is Warren Street, the entrance into the site. You come in, there's an existing sludge holding tank. The proposed addition comes out to this point. Due to the location of existing structures, it's kind of forced into the side yard setback 3 feet, thereby request -- the applicant is requesting a 3 -foot variance. Page 133 November 1, 2001 16J1 The review criteria contained in your staff report, I think, is pretty specific in that there is some unusual circumstances. We have a county need to provide this use. The need to provide this additional capacity necessitates the expansion of the sludge holding tank. The only place to put it is -- will result in this encroachment. We can't make the tank smaller in order to make the capacity of the rest of the system work properly. Staff has not received any letters of objection for this variance. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I was just curious that you did any calculations on the -- a mathematical calculation with reference to the loss of this 3 -foot variance and the size of the tank. I mean, I'm just curious. Maybe the petitioner can answer that, because you're saying that you can't do it for the -- MR. BELLOWS: That was just the information that I had received. I'm not -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. All right. And I think someone else has a couple other questions. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Did I understand you to say that the petition -- I mean the resolution has now been changed to substitute 3 for 7 and 27 for 23? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That was something else I had. Do we have any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: On this latest condition that you just passed out, Ray, it said any other encroachments will require a separate variance. I guess that goes almost without saying. MR. BELLOWS: That's just -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Are you telegraphing that there are some other -- MR. BELLOWS: No. That's standard. We put it in all Page 134 November 1, 2001 j i 611 variances. It's just an assurance that there are not -- if they do depict something different on the site plan, that this is not an approval for that. (Commissioner Young entered the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? I'd like to hear from the petitioner. MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane. I Ave here today Thomas Wildes (sic), the operations director for the public utilities division. I also have Dr. Jerry Taricska from Hole Montes & Associates. He's the designing -- one of the designing engineers on the project. He will be happy, probably, Madam Chairman, to address your question better than I can. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. DUANE: Let me just do one little housekeeping matter here. First, Mr. Bellows -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Duane, would you pull that down just a little? MR. DUANE: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're not picking up quite enough. Thank you. MR. DUANE: We're deleting Item B on the conditions of approval. MR. BELLOWS: That's what I handed out to them. MR. DUANE: Okay. Very good. Thank you. I have a number of exhibits and graphics I can go through, but I think Ray has pretty much covered it. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I did want to say that, having read this staff review, if I voted against this, I'd be voting against motherhood, apple pie, America, and sludge. You truly were very creative in the choice of the words and all that were here. So it was, like, heavens, Page 135 November 1, 2001 16J1 you know. I don't really support variances too often, and I certainly don't want to create a problem that -- Collier County having to pay more money of our taxpayers' dollars because we're going to go from 8 million gallons a day to 16 million at this facility. But truly the verbiage here really made me wonder if I could say anything negative. I did want to ask just one little question. The other ones were answered. Who actually owns the Royal Palm Golf Course at Lely? What homeowner association has that? It certainly wasn't obvious from all the other item -- people listed here who that belonged to, and that's their maintenance facility. There's -- somebody has to be in charge of it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That's the adjacent property owner. MR. DUANE: We notified the Fairway Villas Homeowners Association, the Tanglewood 1 Homeowners Association, the Lely Club Property Owners Association, the Lely Civic Association. And we've had ongoing discussions with them through the history of the expansion of this plant letting them know as our plans move forward, so they were provided a notice and copy of this petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's why I was just curious as to really which one of those groups spoke for the Royal Palm Golf Course. And I was not clear on that, and apparently it's not readily clear to you either. MR. DUANE: I -- other than the four associations we noticed, I'm not sure I can answer your question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's probably not really totally relevant, but I just wanted to make sure that we didn't overlook a particular association or some group that wasn't making themselves readily known to you -all. But when it comes to the sewer treatment plants and sludge facilities, they usually make themselves known. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And all property owners within 300 Page 136 November 1, 2001 16J1 feet, including those property owners associations, would have been notified anyways through our advertising process. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. MR. WIDES: Commissioners, just for the record, Tom Wides from public utilities. We have had a series of ongoing meetings, as Bob has mentioned, with the homeowners. And I believe it's the Lely Golf Community that, in fact, owns that facility, and we have had discussions with those folks. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. And I did have the question about a mathematical calculation on the size of the tank versus if we didn't give you this variation. What would we lose? MR. TARICSKA: Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Taricska with Hole Montes. No calculations -- I haven't done any calculations to determine if the volume -- how much volume would be lost. But what we'd probably want to look at is not -- it's the shape that was presented in the first design and makes this shape important for the second design. The rectangular shape of this tank here is -- what we do in this -- in this tank here, we aerate the sludge in order to keep it from settling out. So if we were to have to cut 3 feet off here and -- or try to change the shape over here to make it fit, then the effectiveness of the aeration wouldn't be as good. So it would suit the operators better if we didn't have a strange shape here. We could try to cut it off some more and reduce the volume, but then we would have to redesign the aeration part of it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that would affect whether or not we had -- could expand to 16 million -- MR. TARICSKA: It wouldn't give us as -- some would say as much horsepower here to handle this. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Soto speak. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So to speak. Okay. Any other Page 137 r� November 1, 2001 6J1 questions? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. Is there any anticipated other variances going to be required? MR. DUANE: No, there are not, sir. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any other -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's no traffic impact, so I don't have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And please do move your microphone towards you now. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. With no registered public speakers, I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? Someone make a motion, please. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I make a motion that we approve Petition No. VA-01-AR-1295. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Strain and a second by Mr. Budd for approval of this petition. Do we have any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. We are on PUD- 2001 -AR -881, a Salvation Army PUD amendment. All those wishing to give testimony today please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. Page 138 November 1, 2001 16JJ (The speakers were sworn.) DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a PUD amendment for PUD -- as we call it, Salvation Army PUD located on Airport Road, corner of Airport and Estey. What-they are doing is they are -- they have purchased 0.73 acres of land adjacent to the property there, and they're adding it to the PUD, which is basically somewhere in here. It's a small strip of land, and they are not proposing any new uses for that land. It's just being added to the PUD. That's change number one. Change number two, the PUD has this commercial tract along Airport Road which is 0.55 acres, which used to be C -5, then it was rezoned to PUD to allow for a thrift store. Now both sides of this property is developed with car dealerships, and they are amending the PUD to allow one additional use, which would be car sales and display. They have a lease agreement with Morande Kia to take over this half -an -acre site and add to the dealership. Those are the two changes to the PUD. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What's in that little slot there now? Is that a car rental place? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: In here? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: On Airport. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, sir. There's nothing. It's -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You said there's car dealerships on both sides. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: On both sides of it, and this -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, who does -- the car rental, who's property is that on? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: The car -- okay. There is a car rental place -- there's a car dealership in here and a small building there with a car rental place. And, again, most of it is car dealership. Page 139 p COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aw November 1, 2001 16J1 And the piece on Airport is vacant? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: The piece on Airport Road is vacant. I have a picture -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's pretty vacant. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- which will show the property is between this fence line here and this fence line here. As you can see, there are a few cars parked, but it's supposed to be a vacant piece of land. I have another picture which would show basically the property is between this fence line and this fence line here. This is the -- this is the land in question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any further questions of staff? Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. In your report, Chahram, you mentioned that they are not proposing any new uses for the additional parcel. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The additional parcel is currently zoned as RMF -6. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is zoned RMF -6, and it's a small -- basically it's a small piece located right there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On their site plan, they reference that, and I'm trying to find -- reference that area now as being residential, slash, community facility areas. Is that correct? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are calling it residential community facilities. They have developed some housing units for -- I believe it's for unwed mothers or something like that, and they are planning to build a chapel. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, that's kind of where I'm heading. If the -- if they say in the statement that they're not planning Page 140 November 1, 2001 6J1 w to change any of the uses or add -- not proposing any new uses for the additional parcel -- the additional parcel is currently zoned residential -- and then they change it to the PUD reference as a residential community facility, under those permitted uses, they could put multifamily dwellings, adult day -care centers, child day -care centers, noncommercial recreational facilities, community centers, churches, chapels, houses of worship, caretakers residence. And I'm just wondering if it wasn't -- how it was advertised. Are we doing a rezone here? I mean -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are doing PUD to PUD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. So has it -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Does the neighborhood realize the potential that could be on that parcel? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: We basically advertised as a rezone from PUD and RMF -6 to PUD for the Salvation Army. And I talked to some of the neighbors around it. They know. And what I meant by they are not proposing any new use for that, I meant any additional use that wouldn't be in the PUD already. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And has there been any objections from anybody in the neighborhood? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Chahram, the .55 acres that's currently a commercial strip, is that a functioning business right now? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. It's a vacant piece of property right now. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is this proposal, then, to Page 141 l 1. November 1, 2001 16J1 take that property in addition to this .73 acres of the car dealership and make it all car dealership? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, sir. The car dealership's going to be just on this corner here, and the additional land they are adding is in here, to the current location. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the .73 is the one you pointed to first? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: .03 (sic) is in here on Estey on the west side of the property, northwest. And the car dealership is on the southeast side of the property. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But I understand you to say that the .73 is going to be made -- or has currently -- is going to have an arrangement with Kia to continue to function as a car dealership? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: .55 is the lease agreement function as a car lot. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. I've got them backwards. What this is leading my question to -- and perhaps it'll go to the applicant. This is Salvation Army. They are a tax exempt organization, 5013 -C, etc. Is it your understanding that they intend to take a piece of property that's in Collier County that's presently commercial and convert it into -- and continue it as commercial but take it out of our tax base as a result of their -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: That -- there are court cases, actually, that a tax - exempt charitable organization, when they have a property, if they use it for charitable uses, it's tax - exempt. And once they have a commercial enterprise, it's no longer a tax - exempt property. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It is no longer a -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Is no longer a tax - exempt property. There are churches which own office buildings and shopping -- strip plazas, and those cannot be claimed as tax - exempt properties because Page 142 November 1, 2001 1611 they are income - generating properties. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So I should have no concerns that this is going to be taken off the tax rolls as a continuous -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. You -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: --commercial operation. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe you should have no concerns. And I didn't mention this in my staff report because it's not a land use issue, it's a tax issue. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I could generalize that it has something to do with the welfare of the community by taking money away from our tax base, but that may be a stretch. But perhaps the applicant can speak to this. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right now it is part of the Salvation Army, so right now it is a tax - exempt property. By building a commercial enterprise on that property, it's going to be back on the tax roll. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. And we will have that as a commitment? MR. HOOVER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Bill Hoover representing the petitioners. If I recall -- I believe you guys are heading in the right direction, and I think the agreement in the lease is that if -- this was intended for a Salvation Army thrift store, which they -- which they've never built. And it's sort of like cutting in between the two Morande car dealerships, and they're tight on room. So they basically just want to put cars over there, new vehicles for sale, and that may well put that back on the tax base where it's a taxable thing. And if I remember right, they told me that if that happened, Morande Kia would pay the extra in the rent. MR. WHITE: Madam Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. Page 143 November 1, 2001 16J1 MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. The purview of that decision - making is with the tax collector's office and it's based upon what happens on January 1 of any particular year and the use that's made of that property according to the statutory criterias evaluated, for the large part, by the property appraiser's office. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's not something -- MR. WHITE: I think it's something -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- we can ask for a commitment. MR. WHITE: You can certainly ask questions about it and entertain a discussion on it, but I'm not sure that it's a proper basis for decision - making one way or the other, but we're certainly glad to provide the information. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But if the applicant volunteers that -- the information to us, that's helpful to us in a general community sense. MR. WHITE: Whether they volunteer it or not, I think you have the right to ask for it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any other questions right now? Chahram, I would like to point out on page 3 of our staff report under the utility and water management section, before this goes forward to the Board of County Commissioners in whatever form, please double -check the citation for the Collier County ordinance for water and sewer, how -- if that's a current number. I think it's way out of date, and it's part of the programming that's in somebody's word processing machine or computer that hasn't been changed. So please make a note of that. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'll double- check. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay. Do we have a presentation? MR. HOOVER: Bill Hoover, Hoover Planning again. The -- I can tell you what they plan on doing on the new piece of land. Page 144 November 1, 2001 16J.1 They've -- already have an engineer under contract and a architect. They're putting a chapel up there, so that's the only intended use, as far as I know, for the new piece of land. And you probably know most of the Salvation Army's built qit. So we've got essentially two pieces of land left here, and one wo d have a chapel, and the other would have new vehicles for sale. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Did we have any other questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: One of them's going off the tax roll, or the chapel is, and the other one's coming on. MR. HOOVER: Yeah. They just -- because I think it had a duplex on there which was not very nice. I'm not sure if they got that down or they're going to be taking it down very shortly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: With no registered public speakers, I close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I make a motion we approve PUD- 2001 -AR -881. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Strain and a second by Mr. Adelman (sic) to approve this petition. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Quick comment. My approval -- my statement of approval is based on the representations that have been made by the applicant and by staff. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And I was going to say, do we have any -- we have a motion and a second on the floor. Do we have any discussion? That was the discussion. Anyone else care to add their comments? Page 145 s .w November 1, 2001 16J 1 Okay. Hearing no further discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) Those opposed, same sign. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. All right. We are at PUDA - 2001 -AR -1404, an amendment to the Silver Lakes PUD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Disclosures? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I haven't sworn anybody in. One second. All those wishing to speak today and provide testimony please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I believe it's necessary to have some disclosures. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. I met with the representatives of some of the homeowners, Mr. Belanger, and then Attorney Tony Pires. We discussed some -- they discussed some of their concerns with the proposal here today. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I had a telephone call from Mr. Pires relative to this application. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I had a meeting with Mr. Joe Belanger and Mr. Tony Pires at their office, and we discussed a variety of issues, some of which I had brought up myself. And just for the record, Mr. Belanger is a property owner, member of the homeowners association board. And he's also the cochair of the transition committee, so he had a lot of interest in exactly what was going on. And Mr. Pires is the attorney for the homeowners association. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I had a discussion with the Page 146 November 1, 2001 6J1 same two individuals. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No further disclosures? Okay. There was something I was going to ask. All right. Chahram. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is-ia PUD amendment to the Silver Lake PUD. Basically what they are trying to do is -- this is the extent of the changes. They have a park and travel trailer area which was 26 acres. They are reducing it to 24. They have a residential area which is staying the same, a conservation area -- I'm sorry -- recreation area changing from 97 acres to 78 acres; conservation area increasing from 3 acres to 26 acres; and the buffer area, reduce it from 5 to 3 acres. This is the extent of the changes to the PUD document. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And these are after - the -fact changes? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Some of them are, yes. I will explain them. This is the existing PUD document, PUD master plan. As you can see, they have a preserve shown here, small preserve shown here. And they have a residential tract -- actually, it is a travel trailer tract, TTV tract, in here. What they have done, they built a golf course over most of these areas, and they have -- building department has also issued a permit for a person to build a -- what's called a residential unit on the TTR -- TT -- TTRV tract somewhere in here. Basically I show it to you in here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. Did you say there's a building permit issued? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Issued and -- yes. So the extent of changes are change this small tract in here from TTRV to residential; make this as a recreational tract -- since they already built a golf course, make this recreational tract. The golf course is already there. And in exchange this top portion -- this large tract here was shown as recreational tract. They are making most of it conservation. They are Page 147 a ` . November 1, 2001 16J1 keeping around 8 acres of it as recreational tract. Most of it is common conservation tract. The way this happened was a few years ago we did not have SDP requirements for golf courses. They just did construction plans, so the planning department did not get involved with the construction of golf courses at that time. Since the Deltona line is somewhere in here -- that's the Deltona line, and our environmentalist was supposed to be here to explain to you what that means. If you have a question, he'll be here shortly. He's here. And the permitting agencies, Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District, they did not claim any jurisdiction over preserve areas south of the line. So that's why they have the supplement south of the line. South of the Deltona line they did not claim jurisdiction over wetlands, and wetlands could be removed. That was a supplement done by the original developers, Deltona and Army Corps and South Florida Water Management District. So, therefore, Army Corps and water management district, they did not have any jurisdiction over -- they didn't claim jurisdiction over these two preserves that were shown on the master plan, and that's how they were able to basically build a golf course on the preserve. Now, they've -- they have removed some lots from here. They want to put them over here. They are not increasing the number of lots. They are just relocating them. A portion of these lots, they will be north of the Deltona line; therefore, Army Corps claims jurisdiction over that land. And it's my understanding that in exchange for that, Army Corps basically asked to have a preserve or conservation area over this portion of the PUD. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do they have that permit yet? That's one of my questions I hope you're going to address very specifically, in the last e-mail I sent you. Page 148 November 1, 2001 16J1 DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yeah. I have the -- they don't have the permit as of yet. They will -- I talked to Dwight Nadeau yesterday after I received your e -mail, and according to what he told me, the permit will be issued shortly. It's imminent, but they don't have it as of yet. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I have your questions here. I was going to go over them. This project was reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council, and they unanimously recommended approval since this area was within the Deltona supplement and they are adding acres of preserve to the PUD. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. Did you say because this area -- and you just pointed down here -- was in the Deltona settlement area? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is within the Deltona settlement area, yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I thought you just said it wasn't. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. Anything north of this line is not. Any -- everything south of it is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You had me going in the wrong -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's the exact opposite of what you just said. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- direction. You had me going the wrong direction, Chahram. Apparently I was not listening close enough. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. You heard right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So you have now -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You heard what he said. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You have just now said that -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is within the Deltona settlement Page 149 } er 1 2001 November 16J1 F = . area. The Deltona settlement line is somewhere in here. Anything south of it is part of the Deltona settlement; anything north is not. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And that's not what you said in your earlier presentation. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Now I'm at least on the same page, on the same drawing. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. The EAC reviewed this, and they unanimously recommended approval. However, the EAC was advertised under PDR and not a PDA. So to make records clean, we decided to go back to the EAC, which they're going to hear it next week. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that's the only reason that -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's the only reason. Basically our staff report is going to be the same. Exhibits are the same. Everything is the same. The only changes basically are these four numbers. And we told them about these numbers, and we showed them the map, and they unanimously recommended approval. And you had a question about lot sale status. He's going to address that. And you also had a question about the storage area. This PUD master plan has a note here in storage area. Storage is basically permitted as accessory use -- not as a permitted use, as a accessory use to the PUD -- throughout the entire recreation area. And -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. Let me read the question just so everybody knows what you're talking about. My Item No. 2 was as far as the executive summary, the storage issue, why was there no mention of the issue of relocation of the storage site on the 40 -acre tract in the executive summary? It appears to be a major issue to the property owners, which came up in my meeting. Moving the main location from the back of the property to the front of the project seems significant to me. And that's why I wanted to clarify. Why -- Page 150 November l , 2001 6J1 why did -- why did I have to go to a meeting to find out about the significant storage issue and not -- did not find it in my packet? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: It may be significant to some people, but storage is permitted throughout the cons -- recreation area. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So anyplace -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Anyplace within the recreatA area they are permitted to have storage. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: By whom? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: By the PUD document. The PUD document says accessory uses within this area. Within the conservation -- within the recreation area, one of the accessory uses is storage to be used as an accessory use to the permitted uses within the park. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Like we learned on a PUD that came in here a couple of weeks ago, when there's a change to a site plan that affects the people there -- I think it was the Marco Shores PUD. When you're moving an area like a storage area from out of view, where it is now, to a place that's blatantly in view of residential people that are living there, that's a significant change. Why wouldn't it have been mentioned and brought to our attention? Because, I mean, it is a -- it is quite a deviance from what they're showing here. I mean, they're showing a lake now. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Master plan -- it is not a site development plan. It's not a site plan. Master plan is more or less a conceptual plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But Marco Shores had to bring theirs in for a change two or three weeks ago, and the same kind of thing here. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They -- if they had an area in the PUD document that said this is the area you're going to have the storage Page 151 November 1, 2001 1,6J I and they are moving that tract, yes. But the PUD document says -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But it shows -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- within the con -- within the recreation area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But it shows the storage on the graphic master plan, and that's the plan that this board says was the relevant document in the other case. I don't know why it wouldn't be in this case. If the storage area on this one is shown graphically as an exhibit and attachment in that northeast corner and it's no longer going to be there, that seems to be a significant impact on the residential people living there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe Ms. Murray would like to comment. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. I think probably it was just a miscommunication or misunderstanding in terms of -- our interpretation of it was that the storage area was to be located anywhere within the recreational area, and that probably just wasn't made clear on the master plan and the old PUD document, as it was written. We try to write them a little bit more clearly and better these days. And unfortunately, I guess it wasn't clear to the residents, and staff didn't think it was a significant impact in the terms of our understanding of that. And, you know, it's -- it's brought forward now. And I think we just need to, you know, go ahead and move forward with the understanding that the storage area is going to be relocated. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically by making this conservation, they had to move the storage. And the storage area, according to the PUD document, could have been anywhere within the -- within that recreational tract. Staff received several letters of objection from neighbors — from people living within the PUD. And the main question they bring up Page 152 November 1, 2001 is that this commercial storage or commercial ministorage 16J1 development -- which the PUD does not allow that. It is not a commercial PUD. It is basically RV park. And this is not a commercial tract. This tract is a recreational tract within that RV park. So whatever uses they have in here must beccessory to the park. They cannot have uses that are open to the general public. It's reserved to the people who reside in the park, basically tenants of the park and lot owners of the park. They have the right to use it, and nobody from the outside. And that -- I believe there -- there was this rumor that a miniwarehouse is going to be built and it's going to be somehow open to the general public. And that's what started this -- opposition letters that I received, because they all mentioned the exact same thing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I haven't quite finished all my questions, but Mr. Adelstein, I'll defer to you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm confused. You got conservation area, and you got -- you talk about recreation area. Are you talking about them being the same place? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, sir. From here to here is conservation. From here to here is recreation. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: New proposal? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is the new proposed master plan. Under the old master plan, the entire tract was recreational. They had no conservation here. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm with you now. Thank you. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And one of the other questions was the ownership disclosure and clarification. Who are the Page 153 November 1, 2001 owners -- 16J1 DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- of the property and -- Chahram. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm going to say it one time. Do not anticipate your answer before we finish the questions. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sorry. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: As I was saying, who are the owners of the property; and are there more than two of them, as listed in the documents; and are these persons all officers of Conquest Development USA, L.C., the entity listed as owner? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: According to the notarized affidavit I have received, there are only two owners. And I talked to them, and they confirmed that yes, there are only two. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You've answered my second question on the storage. The permit issue, what are the status of the state and federal permits, and are they issued, and what are the effective dates? Can you answer that, or do we have to wait for the petitioner? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I think Dwight can answer that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We'll wait for him. And then the Item No. 4 was reality versus compliance. Clarify the statement in our executive packet. This amendment is intended to make the PUD document and master plan to agree with the improvement on the ground, end of quote. Does this mean that the reality on the ground does not comply with the PUD document; and if so, how many items are not in compliance with the legal PUD requirements for the project? Are these inconsistencies subject to code enforcement action? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. The PUD master plan, as I told you, showed preserve in here, preserve, and in reality there's a golf Page 154 November 1, 2001 16J 1 course. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So it's a preserve versus a golf course. Okay. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: And also showed a residential area here, road going to the cul -de -sac there. And in reality there's also a golf course there. Part of the golf course is there. So - -hand, as I said, one permit was issued in error by the building department, which was built, and this minor change is going to take care of it. And beside that, I think everything else is according to the master plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And are any of these inconsistencies subject to code enforcement action? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. Because, as I told you, at the time they built the golf course, we did not require site development plan for golf course; therefore, staff did not review the construction of the golf course, planning staff. And since 1996 or '97, I believe, we are requiring all golf courses to go through site development plan. Before that they were exempt from it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And how do you exempt a golf course when you actually have a PUD document that you would think from a master plan someone designing it would know where to put that golf course? I'm missing something, if there's some relationship between some degree of review and SDP for a golf course versus someone who understands what the document represents. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe what they did, they went to the agencies, state and federal agencies, and they were told that since this is within the Deltona area, they don't claim any jurisdiction over wetlands or preserve area, and that's how they were able to clear most of it. And basically they moved some dirt, and they made it into a golf course. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I guess that they would not claim any jurisdiction over our PUD document either, would they, the Page 155 y November 1, 2001 federal or state? Jill DR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. PUD document they -- they don't really look at it, I believe. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Apparently. And I guess one of my last questions -- actually, there were two, and Mr. Nadeau's going to answer the question on the lot sales and why the information seems so out of date. The other one was, as far as the application, my question is please clarify why four phases only have preliminary acceptance and what specific tasks or events must be accomplished or occur to receive final acceptance for those. Can you number them or tell me why -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yeah. I had a discussion with John Houldsworth about that. It appears that the inspectors went there, and they had some problem, minor problem, with the catch basins and the way they were built, and they are fixing the problems. And according to John, it was not a major thing. It was just minor mistakes, and they were in the process of fixing it, and they should get the final acceptance soon. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we're only talking about improperly constructed catch basins that holds up four different final approvals? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's what I was told yesterday. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And do you know how long this has been going on? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't know. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Don't know. Maybe the petitioner could help on that one. That's the end of my questions. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have to leave. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have to leave. Okay. We do have a quorum still. Thank you. Let the record reflect that Mr. -- Commissioner Midney has departed. Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got some questions, Madam Page 156 November 1, 2001 16J l Chairman. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a quick question. Staff is kind of caught in a time warp this particular application. And I would expect that if we had a siliilar set of circumstances in the current time frame, we would have a series of either variances or new PUDs or code enforcement actions. But because of the history of this, we just have to try to catch up with where we are. The facts are that we have people that are living there, and they're feeling impacts by whatever it is that the applicant is now wanting to do. And one of the sore points seems to be this storage area moved because of its isolation now and closer proximity to the people, were it to be moved. Can you describe to me what the storage area is for, what it -- function it performs in this PUD? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a request from the audience to speak more directly into your microphones for everyone to be able to pick it up. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Under Section 5 of the PUD document, commons, slash, recreation area, under accessory uses it says customary accessory uses or structures incidental to recreational areas and, comma, or facilities including of -- including structures constructed for purposes of maintenance, comma, storage, including RV storage, comma, recreation or shelter, with appropriate screen and landscaping. That's all it says. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the answer to my question is that that's what it's currently being used for, or is this an intended future use? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is what they can use it for. Basically they can only use it for RV storage and storage incidental to recreational areas and facilities. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I haven't been out there. Page 157 November 1, 2001 16J1, . s Car`you describe to me what size building this is? Is it a three -story building, one -story building? What is it? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They don't have any rec -- any buildings there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, it talks about structures, so I just need some guidance as to what it is we're talking about here. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. The PUD document talks about structures. They basically -- they can have a maximum of 15 -foot high structure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But you're saying there's no structure there now. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: There's no structure there. This area was -- under the old master plan, was supposed to be a lake. But the conservation area -- basically most of it is being used for conservation. This smaller recreation area, that's all that's left. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do believe Mr. Strain has another question or two of staff. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. I'm trying to figure out where to begin. In the lower left -hand corner of the revised master plan, you're showing a water feature in Tract CR. There's, I believe, a storage area there right now; is that not correct? I drove by there yesterday, and it looked like there was a storage area there, and I'm wondering why it isn't now shown on this plan. Is that another omission on the part of the applicant or -- not a building. It's a fenced -in yard. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: The storage area in here? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. Down in that lower left - hand corner, there's a bunch of trailers and a fenced area that looks like it's being used for storage. And I am just wondering why that's not brought up today, as well, as another change. But, I mean, if you Page 158 November 1, 2001 16J 2 don't know about it, Chahram, I understand that. You're certainly -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't recall seeing that. But the PUD document allows storage areas within the recreation tract, and this is a recreation tract. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. They Couldn't of -- okay. I'm just -- they showed the storage area in the previous PUD document with a specific location, and I was wondering if one -- they should have shown it on the revision. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: On the revision there are no storage areas shown. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And to back up into a further discussion on the preserve area, you had mentioned that because of the Deltona settlement agreement, that the Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida really didn't -- weren't too concerned about those areas. And I understand that. I've worked with the Deltona agreement for six years now. But in their PUD they specifically address those preserve areas as being preserve areas, and the PUD is their -- the applicant's agreement with Collier County. And I understand why the Corps wouldn't care and why South Florida wouldn't care. But it seems to me if they're in violation of their PUD, then they would have known that when they applied for the permit to build a golf course there. Anybody that owns property knows very well if a preserve area is on their property because it's virtually useless to them. And it seems to me that we ought to -- code enforcement ought to be -- at least be looking into this in regards to the way the PUD's formatted for that area. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: The thing is since we didn't review a site development plan, we didn't know, planning services didn't know. They brought this up with us saying that "We built a golf course here and this is preserve, so I'm trying to amend the PUD to Page 159 November 1, 2001 16J accommodate that change." That's why we did not start the code enforcement case. However, should this PUD be turned down, this request, then we have to start code enforcement case and make sure that they comply with the approved PUD master plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The PUD that they -- that is approved for the project currently references that the project shall be platted in accordance with the subdivision regulations in tracts as shown on the PUD tract map. They further go into saying that an SNP will be required over the entire PUD and must be submitted for approval in accordance with county subdivision regulations. So when these lots and the roads and everything in there were put in for their construction plans, wasn't -- was an SNP over the entire site submitted then; and did that SNP, do we know, show these preserve areas? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is an SNP -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Could you please use the microphone? I'm having a terrible time hearing you. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm sorry. I was looking at the map. There is an SNP. But, as I said, this predates most of us, and I couldn't figure out how these things happened, but they happened. They are -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You know, and I'm certainly not blaming you, Chahram. I'm just trying to find answers. I'm -- I'm puzzled as to how this got this far like it is. That's the point of my questioning, is trying to figure out if there's more out there that I -- that might help clarify it. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I tried to investigate, but I went to our records and trying to see what happened. I just couldn't come up with a good answer. Things happened in the past, and that's all I can say. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Page 160 November 1, 2001 16JI CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions at this moment of Mr. -- or Dr. Badamtchian? I believe petitioner has a few things you'd like to enlighten us on. MR. NADEAU: Yes. Good morning (sic), Commissioners. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau, RWA. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're going to have to get right into that microphone. It's not picking up well. MR. NADEAU: Good morning (sic), Commissioners. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau, RWA, representing the applicant in this Petition PUDA-2001 -AR- 1404, Silver Lakes. With your indulgence I'm going to make a short presentation, and then there is going to be a -- a presentation by our environmental consultant that will explain the Deltona settlement agreement area as well as the permitting endeavors north of that settlement agreement area, and then Mr. Cuyler will stand up and address some issues as well. The proposed amendment, as Dr. Badamtchian described, is that we're going to increase the conservation tract from 3 acres to 26 acres and reduce the development area by 2 acres, redesignate some RV development area to recreational residence or residential, and the net result is an increase of 2 acres of open space over the entire site. Now, the PUD document does need -- have to be amended because the land use table within it would not accurately reflect the new PUD master plan, should it be approved. This is the reason for the change in the actual application. The original application that was submitted in February -- it was subsequently revised in, I believe, it was September -- September for -- to include the one page of the PUD document. There are no -- there is no intention of increasing any of the dwelling units within the develop -- within the project. And, again, it is -- the reason for the request is to update the PUD master plan to reflect the existing seven phases of development as constructed on the property. Also, the Page 161 November l , 2001 6J1 proposed changes will allow the final phase of the project to be developed. Are there compliance issues? Yes, there are. The reason for those compliance issues we don't know. The project is ten years old. The review procedures were different, and they evolved based on the politics of the day. And I can tell you that rather than focusing on culpability of who did this, maybe we should focus on the resolution of it so the residents of the park can enjoy the lifestyle that they're accustomed to in the park right now rather than going through a potential compliance issue, which I don't think that any of the people in the room want to see. Now, is there opposition to this request? Yes, there is. I think there is. But if I can quote from a letter that may be read into the record tonight -- or today -- and this -- this is coming from Mr. Belanger and Mr. Dechelis (phonetic), who are the cochairman and chairman of the Silver Lakes Ad Hoc Transition Group. And I'm not going to read it entirely out of context. I'm going to read it -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let's hope not. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Just a little bit. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Just a little out of context. MR. NADEAU: Actually, the members and the residents of the transition group do not oppose the concept of what Conquest is applying for; however, we take a position of looking down the road to see what effects will come about from these changes. That's a valid concern, and we support that concern. The developer, should he choose to put a nonresidential storage opportunity in the western portion of the site as proposed to both the water management district and the Army Corps of Engineers -- currently there are no plans that have been submitted to Collier County for a site development plan -- that would be a surface RV storage area that primarily will be grassed. There will be Page 162 November 1, 2001 16JI approximately a 5,000- square -foot maintenance building where there will be some impervious surface for parking. I am authorized to commit to any reasonable buffering, setback requirement that the residents may desire, that you may desire. And, really, with that, I don't believe that there's any significant issues. Yes. We do have a tier of lots -- if I may. Yes, we do have a tier of lots that were the RV lots that -- with the consideration of the residents, potentially during the construction of Phase II -C and Phase II -D and F, they were feeling that maybe we should move these tiers of lots. And our Fairway No. 2 would be a little bit wider, and there wouldn't be a safety issue, because it is a fairly narrow, nine -hole, chip- and -putt course. The first two, the 1 and 9, were constructed in the first phase in the commons /recreation area. As you can see, the brown is the commons /recreation area throughout the project by which those common uses, water management uses for lakes, recreational facilities, recreational facilities, the clubhouse, the hurricane shelter. It's all constructed in the commons /recreation area. So they decided we'll pick up those lots, and we'll go ahead and show the county a final phase. And I believe it was Phase II -E where these lots would be going. And that infrastructure to support those lots would fall below the Deltona settlement agreement line, and permits wouldn't be available. The county does have documentation of those lots being proposed into the commons /recreation area. We understood that we needed to amend the PUD document to reflect that the lots would go up in here, and we needed to have our South Florida permit documents as well as an Army Corps authorization to construct the two - thirds of the lots, put the pads in for the RVs. We're taking 3 acres of conservation area, preserve area, that was not jurisdictional to Collier County, South Florida, or the Corps at the time of construction. I cannot tell you why the administrative Page 163 November 1, 2001 16J 1 procedures at the time didn't reflect construction plans being in areas not designated for commons /recreation use. But the residents do enjoy that golf course, and they want to continue to enjoy that golf course. So some people may agree with me, but I feel like I'm on their side. I want to help them. I will -- I'm authorized to allow this Planning Commission to provide for some reasonable setbacks, buffering should a storage -- RV storage facility and a small maintenance building for the park to be located in the westerly portion of the property. Now I'd like to let Mr. Butler explain a little bit about the Deltona settlement, what the status of the permits are, what the mitigation costs are going to be, those sorts of things. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I just wanted to ask you if you agree that it's only a matter of incorrectly constructed catch basins that have kept the final acceptance for those four phases. You don't have that? MR. NADEAU: Yes. I do have an engineer from McAnly Engineering who is the engineer for the property, and he tells me it is only the water management holdup for the final acceptance of those referenced phases. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And just out of curiosity, does he know how long the time frame has been that this has been going on? You're going to have to come to the microphone and state your name, please. MR. PARKER: Yes, ma'am. My name is Shane Parker with McAnly Engineering. I'm an engineer on this project. I took over in the middle of the project, and I do know that the Phases D, -- B, D, E, and F are the last phases to get final subdivision acceptance. They have worked in the process, and they do have final water and sewer approval from the county. And they've been working in between construction of the other Page 164 November 1, 2001 16J1 phases and during the off - season when most of the residents are gone, trying to fix the boxes. I do know the boxes -- we have narrowed the punch list down to particularly B, D, and E, and we just got a few boxes to check. And if everything's good, then we'll be performing an inspection next week. And then if everything goes good, we'll be writing a letter to the county requesting an inspection. And then it'll be up to the county to inspect. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And it's been going on for just how long, out of curiosity? MR. PARKER: I'd say about a year and a half. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Year and a half. MR. PARKER: But, now, that's only for some of the older phases, like D. And then E came along later, and then F was about a year ago that it got its preliminary subdivision acceptance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's going to satisfy me, as an underground utility contractor, for the moment. I just -- thank you. That's all we need to beat that one up on for now. MR. BUTLER: Good afternoon. Ian Butler with Butler Environmental. I am an environmental consultant for the applicant. The status of the South Florida Water Management District and Corps of Engineers' permits, we've been in permitting for the better portion of a year. The public notice for the Corps of Engineers should go out next week, meaning that they have a complete file, they're satisfied with proposed mitigation, the proposed site plan. We had a meeting with the water management district last week also. They have a submittal from me they need to review. It's my understanding, though, that any items that are left are small. The mitigation numbers, verbally at that meeting and in subsequent phone calls, have been agreed to. It's just a matter of paperwork, from what I understand. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And are these almost -ready permits Page 165 November 1, 2001 dictating to the property owner where the storage facility goes? MR. BUTLER: Yes. The first -- the initial application to 16J both agencies represented the storage unit on the west -- excuse me -- on the east side, which is where -- right there. After further review the district required -- or suggested that we move it to the west because it would allow for a larger, more contiguous wetland area and that the eastern portion of the proposed 40 -acre site isn't -- is a higher quality wetland than which is on the west. So as a result of that suggestion, we moved it to the west. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Is there -- Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You mitigated the wetlands in the west; is that correct? MR. BUTLER: That's correct. And in addition, the layout that you see right now, the site has -- or the 8 -acre commercial area is actually smaller now. The agencies required a buffer along the northern strip in an attempt to eliminate secondary and cumulative impacts to off -site wetlands. So after we submitted everything to EAC, that development pot has actually shrank. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you have been allowed to do mitigation. MR. BUTLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That you're acknowledging. Okay. On the right side of the site plan where the storage area used to be and where there currently is a bunch of piled up concrete and disturbed areas that seems to be more important as a wetlands than the left side that is undisturbed, you're adding Tract A, which is homes that currently do not exist. If you were to put that tract there and the storage area was behind those homes, I would assume that would be detrimental to the sales of that development. So you're moving the storage area to the west, putting it in front of existing homes that you've -- that have already been sold. Is that what is Page 166 ` November 1, 2001 ,� z 6J1 happening? And maybe you're not the right person, but maybe Mr. Nadeau can address that. MR. BUTLER: That would be a -- yeah. That would not be me. The environmental -- the environmental criteria are what moved the storage area from the east end to the west end. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But you did it so you could mitigate. So if you mitigate on the left, you can mitigate on the right. I mean, you can mitigate either way. MR. BUTLER: Again, it was merely an environmental issue to move it to the west. Existing homes and lots weren't part of the criteria for where it should be located. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Nadeau, do you have an answer to that question that I asked about why you would put the storage area in front of existing homes when you have undeveloped and unbuilt homes on the right side where the existing area is, and those people buying there would know what they're buying in front of? MR. NADEAU: The answer to that question truly is environmental. We were proposing to have storage on the east of the site, the initial application. However, as a result of a district request for additional information, they mandated that if there were going to be any impacts to that wetland, that 37- acre -ish wetland lying north of the Deltona settlement agreement line, that it would be more appropriate in the impacted areas along the western boundary of the property associated with 951. It was not a planning decision. It was an environmental decision. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When you approached those agencies about this, did you tell them that you already had disturbed the area on the right substantially? MR. NADEAU: I was not involved with the permitting, so I would have to defer to the environmental consultant. Page 167 a November 1, 2001 16J1 MR. BUTLER: Ian Butler again. Would you please repeat. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When you approached the agencies and they made an evaluation on where the most -- best wetlands were, did you tell them that the wetlands on the east side of the property were filled with concrete and chunks and disturbed properties and bush - hogged or bulldozed? Did they know that? I mean, because -- MR. BUTLER: To the -- to the best of my knowledge, I don't know the significant -- or how large that area is. I do know and they are aware that there is piled up concrete and that there is some machinery that is parked there at certain times. Again, they're looking at the overall aspect of this, the entire site. The west -- a good majority of the west half of the proposed project site is old ag land that has a series of furrows, and the vegetation is not native. There's a lot of melaleuca. There's a lot of primrose willow in there. As a result of a water management and Corps permit, the remaining conservation area, including the disturbed area you're talking about, will be in a conservation easement and -- which will be under the cri -- success criteria for either restoration planting, bringing it back to what it was prior to ... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Did we ever clarify how large this concrete and -- this supposedly very valuable wetlands that's got concrete and things parked on it now, somebody made a decision that that was more valuable than the ag furrows up front. Is that what you're telling us, from South Florida Water Management? MR. BUTLER: Yes. That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And how big of a -- an area is this? We're talking about disturbed wetlands that are prime quality. MR. BUTLER: To my understanding -- and the last time that I had seen that area it was -- there had been no clearing conducted. It was a matter of a couple vehicles being parked and some -- again, Page 168 November 1, 2001 6J1 some concrete being stacked there. It was not -- there was no excavation. There was no trees being -- that were knocked down to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And how long ago was that? MR. BUTLER: Six, eight months ago. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any other questions at this moment? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I was going to ask -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, Mr. Abernathy. Go for it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: South Water -- Southwest -- South Florida Water Management District, do they mandate what you have to preserve and what -- what you can put your recreation on, or do they -- somebody used the term "suggest." Do they have the authority to absolutely mandate it? MR. BUTLER: Well, they -- they don't have the authority to mandate where you put it, but they have the authority not to grant your permit based on what you're proposing. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That would be pretty close to mandating. MR. BUTLER: As close as you can get. Right. Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The tract that you've referred to on the top left, the tract, I guess, shown as CR. I've heard it referred to in two different ways. It's recreational on the master plan, yet I've heard the environmentalist talk about it as being commercial. MR. NADEAU: No, no, no. It's not commercial. It's commons /recreation. It's common areas where infrastructural improvements, where recreational facilities, where these ancillary - type uses to the park may be developed, commons /recreation. CO Page 169 November 1 2001 16J1 tract, conservation or preserve. AR is the residential, and Tract A is the RV lots. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So his reference to it as being commercial was just a misstatement relative to the -- MR. NADEAU: Yes. You can call it a misstatement. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't want to call it anything. I want you to tell me what it's -- how it's going to function. MR. BUTLER: If that was what I -- what I stated, it was a misstatement. I was not referring to it as commercial. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I make them all the time. Mr. Nadeau, would you just flesh out a little bit for us what your plans are for that site? I know you've talked about a building for maintenance and some RVs. But I'm -- I'm really interested how it's going to function in this community. Are only the people that live there going to have access to this because it's part of this PUD, or is it going to be an off -site, commercial operation or what? MR. NADEAU: The PUD provides for accessory uses for the exclusive use of the residents of the park. There are ancillary commercial uses that are permitted both in your Land Development Code as well as in this PUD. There are no current plans to submit a storage facility to Collier County for site development plan review. However, there is intent shown by virtue of the fact that a storage facility was identified on the district and Corps permits that were applied for to allow the final phase of development of the lots. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you don't really know right now what's going to happen or -- MR. NADEAU: Well, I believe that it's pretty much up to the approval of this PUD -- this PUD amendment. I cannot get in the mind of my developer. I do know -- I have been told -- there are no immediate plans to submit something to Collier County for site development plan review. Page 170 w �1 •- November 1, 2001 16JI COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, if something were submitted, it would be covered under this revised PUD. MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir. It would. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So -- MR. NADEAU: And it is currently permitted there now because it's commons /recreation designation now. And I believe there was a comment made -- access will only be taken off of Silver Lakes Boulevard. There will not be secondary access off of Collier Boulevard. Yes, it is accessory to the development. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How do you tell one group of permitting authorities one thing and another group another thing? In other words, if you've got a building -- a 5,000- square -foot building that you've told the water management district about and the Corps of Engineers about, why do you not tell the county? MR. NADEAU: Because we haven't submitted for our site development plan. That's really the only time the county would find out about it, although it was depicted in the environmental impact statement attendant to this petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And then we just don't see anything in it -- in our executive summary. Okay. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I questioned that. The answer they gave me is when you go to the permitting agencies, they want to see the highest impact that you can have on that property, and that's why they showed that. They told me they have no intention of building what was shown. It was, like, in excess of what they will be building, if any, and that was just to show them the maximum impact that they may have on that parcel. MR. NADEAU: And if I just might correct Dr. Badamtchian, it's not a matter of intent. There was intent to build storage there. We had to show that rather than -- future phase there is an intent to Page 171 .oJl November 1, 2001 6J1 build a storage facility. Whether or not it actually is constructed, believe, is up to the developer and the results of this public hearing as well as the Board of County Commissioners' public hearing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is this recreation area that's an! ancillary use to the park, is it accessible from inside the park? MR. NADEAU: It is accessible via pedestrian ways. As far as vehicular access, no. There is a water managements berm that separates those lands to the north of the Deltona settlement agreement so that those historical waters just stay on the north side of the park. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How do you get vehicles in there? MR. NADEAU: We don't have any access to -- no vehicular access at all currently into lands north, that 40 acres -- that 37 acres north of the settlement agreement line. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought it was for storage of RVs. MR. NADEAU: No. We -- well, it could be for storage, but we are not proposing to submit anything to Collier County for -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: For a building or for storage. MR. NADEAU: Currently not. But if there were -- if there were going to be storage proposed, it would be accessed potentially off of Silver Lakes Boulevard in some location within this area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Outside the gate? MR. NADEAU: No. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Inside the gate. MR. NADEAU: Inside the gate, because it is for the exclusive use of the residents and guests of the park. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Nadeau, before you depart and we start listening to other -- the public comment, the one last question on Page 172 November 1, 200 1 6JI my e -mail I was trying to get details for, it seemed odd to me that you submit a document on the 31 st of August with information on the lot sales and who owned and that type of a thing from the developer as of the 22nd of February, and I was looking for a little update on how many people owned the lots at this point. That was one of yq# items listed in - -: AU: Yes it was. After Mr. Cu speaks, I Cuyler s vl MR. NADEAU: y p talk with the developer. I can tell you that when I made the application back in February, this PUD monitoring report information was available to me. So I just transferred that existing information into the application for this PUD amendment. So the information from the PUD monitoring report was imported into the application itself. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: In August? MR. NADEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: In August. Okay. All right. That clarifies part of that. So I would like to have some clue of where we are. MR. NADEAU: I will check with him right now. Mr. Cuyler would like to make a few comments. MR. CUYLER: Good afternoon. For the record, Ken Cuyler. I first of all want to make it clear for the record that I normally don't travel with crowds. I just -- it just happens to be one of those days. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's the first day in November, and they are here for you. MR. CUYLER: I've been retained -- was retained rather recently to address any legal issues with regard to this petition. I've gone over it, and frankly, I don't see any legal issues at this point. Primarily it's environmental and planning in nature. I have advised boards in the past sometimes when I get asked questions, the best answer is we are where we are. And with regard to the compliance Page 173 M1 �* November 1, 2001 16J1 J issue, I'm sure there's a number of people that perhaps wish things had been done differently in the past, but we are where we are. And if you look at what would be necessary for compliance if there were an enforcement action, for example, I don't think the residents would .be happy with what the developer would have to do in terms of going back to what was there. So it's something that perhaps didn't work out as well as it could have, but we're -- sometimes we're just left with those situations. With regard to the storage, it's environmentally driven. I know a number of you, Mr. Strain in particular, deals with agencies constantly. A number of you do development. And when the agencies tell you what they want, you tend to listen. So I think that "mandate" perhaps isn't the exact word, but it probably is pretty close. I will reserve any other comments. I understand that an attorney will speak to you on this issue. If anything comes up, I'd like to reserve some time to address those if you wish me to. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And just -- just for your understanding, Mr. Cuyler, when I read the executive report and it outlines five different things that this PUD amendment is going to take care of us (sic) for here today and it clearly states that the changes are related to environmental permitting requirements and I don't have anyplace where I can find those environmental permitting requirements -- there's no information in here to tell me what it was that required that -- and then I go to a meeting and discover that the homeowners are somewhat upset over the issue of the storage and that's not in my document either, it's difficult for me, as a reasonable planning commissioner, to make decisions on what's presented to me. That seems to be inadequate. And we went through that earlier today, but this is very clear that it -- it's just not here. MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. I hope some of that has been Page 174 November 1, 2001 6J1 filled in. And if we can add anything to it, of course, we would like to do that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And I do believe tlliat some of the -- perhaps some of the people that are here will be able to clarify for us what's actually on the ground out there with reference to the wetlands and that type of a thing if -- since I haven't taken an opportunity to go out and look at it. MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. We're interested in -- in them articulating what their concerns are, too, so we can address those as well. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because I think we do have a number of areas of agreement here for this. But when someone says it's our intention to do X and Y and then it was the intention of the PUD documents to do very certain things and obviously the master plan was not followed, there was a major intention there. So I want to make sure that we have an opportunity to protect what the document says, what we're asking it to be changed, and what the property owners have every reasonable expectation at this point. MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. NADEAU: And in response to your request regarding the number of lots that remain to be constructed, it is only those 38 lots that are requested to be above the settlement agreement line now. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And so every -- all of the lots have been purchased, and it's just a matter of constructing? MR. NADEAU: I cannot say that all of these lots have contracts on them. I don't know that. But these are the only remaining lots that are to be constructed. I believe that there are contracts or sales that are throughout the phase, and it is probably one of the last phases, that being Phase II -F or something possibly in Phase II -E. But the only lots remaining to be constructed are the 38. Page 175 November 1, 2001 16J1 ` tl CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And that makes sense. But I guess the sentence that we were all looking at at one point in time was the word that the travel trailer park lots had been sold and so much number had been sold, and that was the information you had given us in February. And I thought it was useful to have an idea as of today, or at least the end of August, how many of these people really own here, and are we talking about just a few things that need to be sold again. Because you've got a lot of homeowners then or property owners that are interested. MR. NADEAU: I'm going to send my client out to the hallway and probably put him on a cell phone and see if he can get some information out of the park, because we don't have that information available. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that's what I'm looking for. How many homeowners are we affecting or how many property owners are we affecting at this point in time? And this is really outdated information. Thank you. MR. NADEAU: I -- I will say that we do have 53 letters or signatures of support for our proposal, and I'd like to offer them to the commission as well as the clerk or Susan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. NADEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I think it's time to have registered speakers. MS. MURRAY: Yes, Madam Chair. We have five registered speakers. The first one is Anthony Pires followed by Joe Belanger. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: While you're coming forward, Mr. Pires, you should probably wear a big symbol of the Naples Pier on you, and your name would get pronounced forever on out correctly. MR. PIRES: For the record, Tony Naples Pires. Tony Pires, P- i-r-e-s. I know Barbara, and I'll try to talk slowly, Barbara. Page 176 November 1, 2001 16JI THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Or else I would get rubber bands or other devices thrown at me. Court reporters have been known to do that. Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, you've listened very intently to the presentation by the applicaPt and his representatives in this particular issue. I may ask the indulgence of the chair and the Planning Commission to go beyond the normal five minutes only because I think a number of the factual issues you have raised can be addressed by myself and Joseph Belanger. And in this particular instance, I'm representing Joseph Belanger; and in this particular instance, Joseph Belanger is a property owner within Silver Lakes RV Park. Now, in this case I think this Planning Commission is always driven by facts. What are the facts? Do we have the most pertinent, relevant facts applicable to a particular issue? In order to do that, normally you would have a number of speakers present their particular knowledge of the facts. And I think it's also a hallmark of this particular Planning Commission that you look for public input. And I believe any attempt to prevent relevant facts from being provided to this board does a disservice to the commission; does a disservice to the Board of County Commissioners, to whom you make recommendations and advisory decisions; and to the public as a whole. And your query is, why am I saying that? The reason why is I have a letter from Ken Cuyler I received yesterday at quarter to five via facsimile that basically says if anybody in this park is up there and objects to this petition, we're going to sue the tar out of you guys. I quote -- he quotes a section of some covenants and private contractual agreements allegedly in the deed restrictions and in the covenants applicable to Silver Lakes. I have copies for the record. (As read): "Accordingly," says Mr. Cuyler, "any of your clients Page 177 y November 1, 2001 1 that accepted a deed within the Silver Lakes development voluntarily submitted themselves to this provision. Accordingly, the developer hereby demands evidence of your client's consent, in writing, to the Developer's Petition PUD-200 1 -AR- 1404 as required by Section 13.06 of the Declaration. Be advised that if any such property owner fails to provide consent, in writing, such person is in violation of the Declaration and covenants. Further, if any such property owner, or anyone on their behalf, formally or informally objects to the Developer's petition, after they have contractually obligated themselves to consent to such petition, they will be considered in violation." The last sentence of the letter, "Be advised" -- "Please be advised, however, that the Developer reserves all rights to pursue all available remedies, including damages, against any property owner who violates these contractual obligations. Be advised further that damages, in this case, would be -- entail extremely significant monetary damages." I can tell you there are a significant number of the residents of Silver Lakes here today, and property owners, in attendance. I'll make a copy of this for the -- if I may. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Would you have -- the property owners please raise your hands. I want to see -- and you -all sat through Bucks Run. MR. PIKES: And, as I mentioned, I'm representing -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We could have put one of you on one side and put out in the hall -- okay. Thank you. MR. PIKES: As I mentioned to you, I'm representing Mr. Belanger, and he will be providing some additional facts. We'll try not to be redundant, repetitive, or reiterate things. And he's doing so at great risk to liability -- potential liability. We think that this is an -- is offensive to what this Planning Commission tries to achieve. And I think from the issue of facts, the most amazing aspect of this Page 178 November 1, 2001 16JI whole application is as to the facts. The fact that they wish to make a change to correct the situation in the southern end about those lots, we are in agreement. There's no problem with that. The fact -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go slowly. I'm going to write this down. MR. PIRES: This proposed change is -- represents the lifestyle that they have been accustomed to, as Mr. Nadeau mentioned, because the golf course and the golf course holes are in this area. So to place these lots that were initially planned to be here (indicating), up here (indicating), is no problem. To correct the issue with regards to a golf course being in these preserve areas, which is the lifestyle, to paraphrase Mr. Nadeau, to which they have become accustomed, is no problem here and here. To correct the issue with regards to the lots and trailers in this area -- because that permit that was issued and that needs to be corrected in this area -- is no problem. A couple issues where there might be problems -- and, again, I think it's important for facts to be known to this Planning Commission. And I'll treat it as facts. I'm not going to treat this as objection for fear that Mr. Cuyler may sue my client. Fact, the site plan, master plan, shows storage area. Fact, the master plan shows a lake. Fact, the PUD in Section 2.3(A), project plan and land use tracts, the project master plan, including layout of streets and general depiction of land use, is illustrated graphically by Exhibit A, PUD master development plan. Section 2.3(B), areas illustrated as lakes by Exhibit A shall be constructed lakes or, upon approval, parts thereof -- if I may, with your indulgence. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You may. Unfortunately, it's going to beep at you until she pushes the button. Continue (A discussion was held off the record.) MR. PIRES : 2.3(B), areas illustrated as lakes by Exhibit A shall be constructed lakes or, upon approval, parts thereof may be Page 179 November 1, 2001 r . 16JI constructed as shallow, intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. Such areas, lakes, and intermittent wet and dry areas shall be in the same general configuration and contain the same general acreage as shown by Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Where does the developer propose to put a storage area? Lake (indicating), which would violate, I would contend, the fact -- the provision of 2.3(A) and 2.3(B) of the master plan. Now, the developer has taken various positions with regards to what is intended and not, and I think you've heard some of that twisting during some of the presentations. I have some materials I'd like to make part of the record that, again, are facts. The applicant has stated in his petition as part of the rationale, in a correspondence from Dwight Nadeau -- which is the cover sheet on this package -- of August 27th, 2001 -- and I've underlined it for assistance -- "The purpose for this amendment is merely to depict the current development pattern as it has been permitted through its seven platted phases" -- which is correct -- "and to reflect the intended last phase of development as it has been permitted" -- past tense, existing tense -- "with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District," not a fact. Right after that are the existing site plans and then an e-mail from the staff of South Florida of October 9th (sic) where I inquired as to the status of the South Florida permit. October 19th, status: Under review. Mr. Butler, who's the biologist for the developer, advised that there was a recent meeting with South Florida. That's correct. That was October 25th, status: Under review. Army Corps -- I have an e-mail from Army Corps. As to status, no permit has been issued. Again, Mr. Butler was correct -- or Mr. Nadeau -- with regards to that. They're planning on posting a 30 -day public notice clock next week. No permit is issued, in other words, for Army Corps or South Page 180 November 1, 2001 16JI Florida, contrary to a two - month -old representation in the PUD submittal. Unfortunately, this representation was carried through in the staff reports, including that of the EAC. Okay. Slow down. Thank you. Thank you for not throwing any rubber bands at me, Barbara. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: She can't type that fast to throw and type. MR. PIRES: Additionally, from a standpoint of fact, if you go through -- once again, what are the facts? October 3rd letter from Tim Hains, who's an attorney for the developer, to Joe Stewart is in line with what Mr. Nadeau was saying, that "my client advises us they have no present plans to build the storage facility." "Since there are no plans to build, there is no decision as to where the facility will be located." "However, there are no plans to request a building permit." Then I've also attached correspondence to South Florida of October 5th from Ian Butler, the biologist, that says please see the enclosed drawing and PUD documents for more details as to the location and size of the storage area. This is the storage facility that is proposed in this area, which is designated "lake" under the master plan. And if you recall the language in 2.3(B), that's to be a lake for intermittent shallow area. I would submit to you that's (indicating) pretty detailed for a storage facility that's not proposed or planned. That is the area -- 5,000- square -foot building, 201 spaces submitted to South Florida on October 5th as to what is proposed. Now, I don't know how accurate they're being with South Florida because I think Mr. Nadeau said, well, we tell them, and we actually don't mean it. But that was submitted on October 5th, and South Florida has the stamp on that particular document. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now, would you say that that's an Page 181 �. November 1, 20 6JI� intent? MR. PIRES: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you call that drawing an intent to do something? MR. PIKES: Absolutely. And, once again, that's an area where the lakes are. What I also find interesting is the representation -- if I can use the visualizer and stand over here for a moment. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Remember, you don't have to talk fast. We'll give you time. Not walk, I said talk. MR. PIRES: The applicant has indicated that the higher quality wetlands are in the eastern area. The applicant, upon inquiry, I think by Mr. Strain and others, was asked, what is in the area that was designated as storage? This is the -- again, the higher quality wetlands as represented by the applicant. And in the higher quality on the visualizer -- do you have it? Thank you, Chahram. That's in the higher quality wetlands. These were taken two days ago on October 30th. Here's another photograph, and you can see the water standing. This is two days ago. And obviously some vegetation has been removed. This is another photograph taken October 30th of the area that is generally indicated as storage area on the original PUD master plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you have any idea, Mr. Pires, about the square footage that we're talking about here, how large of an area? MR. PIRES: No, I do not. Mr. Belanger may have some more, and he may also have other indication as to how long it has been there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And how -- MR. PIRES: Also, there is a -- it looks like a diesel storage tank of about a thousand gallons in that same area. These are all being Page 182 November 1, 2001 art of the record. made p Again, the diesel storage area, and you can see the project to the east. And this is taken to the north showing some of the vegetation in the area. But, again, this is in the area that is indicated as being storage area, and it's been there at least two years. There's a dirt road going to that. MR. WHITE: Not to interrupt Mr. Pires' presentation, Commissioner, but -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, there you are. MR. WHITE: Here I am. I'd ask that if he can, proffer who took those photographs, whether they fairly and accurately depict -- MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. I will. MR. WHITE: -- etc., so that if they're becoming part of the record, that they be admitted as evidence, if you will. MR. PIRES: Mr. Belanger will testify that he took these photographs on October 30th, and he will testify that they fairly and accurately depict what they purport to represent. And so I think with regards to this particular application, this board is asking for facts. This board is asking for candor. The facts are that -- what the remedial actions that are requested by the PUD amendment were. They maintain, again, what the community has been accustomed to as far as the amenities. The issue with regards to the storage area, again, the storage area is depicted on the PUD master plan in the northeast area. It's been utilized as such. The -- there are lots in the northwest area that currently is designated as lake. That's where the proposed storage area is currently desired to be located in. There are lots there. Those people will also be here today. And they are, once again, coming here to exercise their rights, even though there is that correspondence from the developer saying don't you dare talk about this. We think this board needs to have all the facts. It's not an issue where they're opposing the developer, even though there may be a desire by the Page 183 November 1, 2001 6 J 1 •� "., developer to have an all -or- nothing opposition. If the developer was truly candid with wanting to take the remedial action necessary, all of the items requested in this amendment would be appropriate except for that one wherein this proposal to put a storage facility in the western side. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So, Mr. Pires, are you saying, then, that you agree with, I guess, each of the items you listed as fact except for the change for the storage facility? MR. PIKES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that's the only thing that you're suggesting that your client is majorly concerned about? MR. PIKES: That's correct. And if Mr. Cuyler thought there were no significant issues, I wonder why he dropped that hammer on me yesterday at quarter after five. MR. CUYLER: I'll be happy to explain that when I -- MR. PIKES: One of the questions -- in response to the questions you were asking about the infrastructure, the Phase B, D, E, and F plats, Phase B plat was recorded in September of '95. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me? MR. PIKES: The Phase B plat -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: '95? MR. PIKES: Phase II -B plat was recorded September of '95. The Phase II -D plat was recorded November of '96,1 believe, and II- F, November of '99. Those are the ones, I think, indicated as having preliminary acceptance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I think your photo showed possibly a leftover manhole structure, and a couple of those items on there to me looked like they could be leftover catch basin parts. MR. PIKES: I may characterize them as debris being stored in a wetlands area. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It would look like it's debris being Page 184 stored. November 1, 2001 MR. PIRES: Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for your 16J1 consideration, indulgence. And we ask that you make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think Mr. Richardson would like to -- MR. PIKES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- ask you a question. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you, Mr. Pires. I'm, frankly, not interested in cat fights between two lawyers, okay, so just to get that on the record. Let me see if I can characterize your position, because I'm not sure it came across to me properly, and you can correct me. You like the changes that have already been made which were in violation of the original master plan but that this action would -- would legitimize, but you want to retain the portion of the old master plan that has not yet been constructed, meaning the lake. You'd like to have the lake there because it's called for, and you'd like the storage area to stay where it is as it's shown. And I guess -- though I don't know that I've heard you mention it -- that you would not like to have the tract on the upper left -hand side brought into the picture. MR. PIRES: For clarification, as indicated, the improvements that were made -- you know, the golf course, which is over some of the lots, the people -- that's in place. The people have become accustomed to that, and they've purchased with those in place. They purchased with this shown on the site plan, but they purchased with this in place. And they have no objection to these lots basically being relocated up to here. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. MR. PIRES: There's no problem with that. And the golf course was built -- this was to be a preserve, and that's in place, and that's on Page 185 November 1, 2001 16J 1 ;th�ground, and that's acceptable. But they also bought with the storage area in this area. And they don't need -- necessarily need to have that lake there, but not the storage area in this location. And for clarification also -- I'm not sure if it was clear — the access to the storage area is before the gate. It is not after the gate. It is before the gate. I'm not sure if Mr. Nadeau accurately or succinctly addressed that issue. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Inside the gate. MR. PIKES: No. Outside the gate. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They said -- Mr. Nadeau said just the opposite. MR. PIRES: I believe you'll hear from Mr. Belanger it's in this area. In this area there's a lift station right here, I believe -- and Mr. Belanger can address that -- and a panel controlling the irrigation system, which is after the gate. This is the -- where we believe the proposed entry is. It's just before the gate or outside the gate. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: West of the gate. MR. PIKES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So what is your bottom line, Mr. Pires, at this point? What are you seeking from us today or a remedy or -- MR. PIKES: From Mr. Belanger's perspective -- because, once again, I'm representing him in this issue today because of the threat; he's willing to take that risk -- is that the petition as submitted with -- be recommended for approval to the Board of County Commissioners with the exception that this Tract CR be over in this area and that there (indicating) to here (indicating) be conservation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. PIRES: That would allow the storage to be in this location on the eastern side as originally depicted on the master plan. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, you sort of put him between the rock and the hard place if the South Florida Water Page 186 November 1, 2001 Management District won't let him put the storage there. 1611 MR. PIRES: We'll work with South Florida and Army Corps and -- to assist them in that particular endeavor to -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Enlighten them or -- MR. PIRES: No. Assist them. 4 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time. MR. PIRES: One other interesting aspect, as Mr. -- Dr. Badamtchian indicated, EAC is hearing this again next Wednesday. We've had a biological report prepared since the time -- we weren't part of the August 7th because we were not notified of the August 7th EAC, even though we had been involved with staff and the developer. And I don't know if the EAC's recommendation will be the same as last time. It may, and it may not be, based upon the data and the report that we have from the biologist that the property owners have retained. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Pires, what does your biological statement say about those wetlands? MR. PIRES: Well, the statement says that -- first of all, that the data site utilized -- with regards to the hydrology, may need to have new hydrology tests done because of the water table pipes in that area; that the quality of the wetlands is equal on either side, basically. The biologist recommends that the area of impact not be 8 acres, but be 3 acres and that it be located in the eastern portion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Thank you very kindly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. (Applause) MS. MURRAY: Joe Belanger followed by Joe Stewart. MR. BELANGER: Good afternoon. My name is Joe Belanger. I'm on the board of directors for the Silver Lakes POA. I'm also Page 187 November 1, 20011 6J 1 •� 'electdd as the cochair of the ad hoc transition committee as a voice of the homeowners of Silver Lakes. I stand here today under threat of law -- of a lawsuit, and I open my arms to that lawsuit and welcome and remind the lawyer that they can't get blood out of a stone, because I have nothing. The people in the park have been -- have not opposed the changes proposed on the PUD plan except for the location of the storage area. Every one of us in the park from day one -- and I've been there since 1993. When we bought in, we were told we would have a nine -hole executive golf course. Today their fliers still advertise a nine -hole executive golf course. We were told that this was going to be nature trails and nature walks with a -- with possibly a lake. We find out today they want to put in an 8 -acre storage area. And if you look at this, I looked at one thing, and that's a commercial storage area. Now, we don't have any objections if they were to put the storage area where it is originally depicted, here, on the original PUD map. They already have an entrance into that area, as you're seeing by the pictures depicted by Tony Pires. Okay. They have that entrance there. It's a fenced -in area already. It's just below the lots. The lots start a little ways above that, that entrance. And we feel that it would be a lot more honest to the people coming in our lovely community -- and we do have a lovely community, and we have some of the best people in the world in that community, and I can answer to that on a personal note. I feel that it would be a lot better if the developer was -- was to put the storage area where it was originally designed. And then when he sells his lots, at least the incoming people would know what they're buying into. We knew what we were buying into, and we don't like to have it changed. Now, we've worked with the developer since January, since .. November 1, 2001 1611 February. We've tried to come to compromises with the developer at several meetings -- Mr. Chahram (sic) was part of that meeting -- one of those meetings -- to no avail. They want -- they want everything or nothing at all. I asked the developer the other day at a meeting he held with the homeowners if the ruling came down that he could have everything except for the storage area in the west portion of that grounds, would that be acceptable to him, and he said, "No. I'll withdraw my petition." I don't -- well, that's -- and I think had we not received that fax last night -- because I held a meeting with my people last night and asked them not to get up, not to submit their names, and let I (sic) take the -- the blunt (sic) of that fax as a lawsuit. They don't need that stuff at this point in time. I think had they -- had that fax not come in last night, you would have had them lined up knee -deep in the halls ready to speak and saying the same thing as I am saying right now. I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think we have a question. (Applause) COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ouestion. please. I'm iust curious. I'm not sure nothing at all would be such a bad resolution of this. What am I missing? MR. BELANGER: Well -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You said -- you're representing that you've been told that they might withdraw the application. That would mean that all of the amenities that are there would continue to be there. The only thing that would be missing would be moving that Tract A up for the pads up on the north side, but the rest of it would remain open just the way you've got it, you know, nature trails, so forth. Page 189 November 1, 2001 16JI MR. BELANGER: Well, I think we have to cross that bridge when we get to it. Right now we're not at that bridge, and personally I feel it would be a foolish move on a developer to tear up a nine -hole executive golf course. It would deter -- deter the fact -- the -- the -- the selling point of the park, and I would -- I would probably assume that a lot of us would move out of that park and -- and -- or file a lawsuit on fraudulent inducement of sales. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But perhaps you're misunderstanding me. I didn't mean that we'd go back to some sort of enforcement action. I would just say that whatever -- as somebody has mentioned, whatever is -- has happened has already happened. If we left it the way it is -- I'm not talking about going and tearing anything out. Left the way it is, it seems to me you've accomplished most of what you desire, that is no new storage area up in the front left and the storage area where it is. The only question would be about the location of that Tract A pads. MR. BELANGER: If -- if you were to rule that the developer could have everything that he is asking for except for the location of the storage area, which we would like to see in the east track (sic) and not the west track where they propose to put it, that would be acceptable to every one of the homeowners in this park. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. MR. BELANGER: Any other questions? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just want to make sure that it is your -- MR. BELANGER: I knew there was coming one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- to make sure that it is your testimony that you've been told that the developer would tear out the golf course? MR. BELANGER: I believe that most of the people in this room that were present at that homeowners' meeting when I put my Page 190 November 1, 2001 161j arm around the gentleman and asked him clearly, Ted, would you accept a ruling of a partial settlement without the -- without the -- without the storage area, could you accept that? He said, "Definitely no." M CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So he would not accept it, but did he go on to say that he would attempt to -- MR. BELANGER: He would withdraw his petition. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Just withdraw his petition. So we don't have testimony that says he's going to tear out anything. MR. BELANGER: He has made -- let me clarify something. In a lot of the meetings that we talked to -- homeowners' meetings, okay, and board meetings, he kept telling us that that 40 acres is his 40 acres. Okay? That's his 40 acres. And if we want to do anything with the 40 acres, that we have to purchase it for $2.2 million. He does not agree that that 40 -acre track belongs to the density of the park. All right? Now, in discussion with that, he has told us that if he cannot put a storage area in that area, he's going to come back and tear out -- in a letter that he wrote to the homeowners, he stated that he would be forced by you people, by the Planning Commission, to tear out the golf course and revert back to a putt -putt golf course. That's in writing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm not sure that that's what we would be looking to do. MR. BELANGER: I -- I didn't say you were. I said that's what he said. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I think Mr. Adelstein -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: He -- he answered the question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Answered the question. Dr. Badamtchian, do you have some other clarification from staff s point? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: When I started my presentation, you Page 191 November 1, 2001 1 asked the question about the enforcement, if we have a code enforcement case on this. And it's going to be up to the code -- code compliance department, code enforcement department, to decide what they want to do. I -- it's possible that they could take enforcement action and require them to comply with the PUD master plan as it's approved today. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But couldn't one of the actions it would take is to say let's sit down and work out what is reality and not reality and resolve it, kind of like we're doing here today? That was the impression that I got from the executive staff summary that was written. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: The owner of the property must agree to that. We cannot force that -- we have an approved master plan, and they have not built according to the master plan. It's like having a building permit and not building according to the building permit. So either they amend the master plan, or they comply with the master plan. And as long as the developer of the property doesn't ask to change those things to what's on the -- on the ground, the development's in violation, and code enforcement action may be taken. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. But wouldn't there be some connection or relationship to the number of lots that have been sold, that there are now individual property owners and that, perhaps, the developer doesn't have full control anymore? Isn't there a relationship? Maybe I'm missing something. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: County attorney can answer this question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. White, that goes to why I was asking what the current ownership matrix is of this particular PUD, because if we get into this horrendous, antagonistic battle of what is and isn't and what did or didn't happen, isn't there some responsibility Page 192 November 1, 2001 6J1 that the property owners have, now that they're owners, to help resolve this issue? MR. WHITE: I believe you're suggesting that they may need to be added, if you will, as coapplicants? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm really not sure. I don't quite understand how the developer can be this adamant about ripping out something because he's got a problem but that we have agreement on, what, four out of five issues here. And is there not some relationship to the number of people that actually own now and have responsibility, or is it totally under -- the PUD totally under the developer still? MR. WHITE: One of the hallmarks of PUDs, of course, is unified control. But I think when you get to an amendment like this, it may, indeed, be an issue that needs to be addressed by the applicant. I don't know that it was something that staff analyzed or not. I can't give you a simple legal answer. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Can't give me a legal answer. So when it comes to the developer, obviously he applied because he wanted to make some changes. He wanted to comply with what the reality on the ground is. And the homeowners went along with him, but there seems to be a major difference of issue. If -- MR. WHITE: I'm not sure how the, quote, lots are owned, if it's in fee simple, if they've received warranty deeds. There's -- what I'm saying is there's no simple legal answer because there's a lot of factual issues out here that I have no information about. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I guess maybe -- that was one of the reasons that I definitely wanted to know how many people actually owned. And do they have some stake in their community, then, that they have to be responsible for what the finish of this PUD is? MR. BELANGER: Madam Chairman? Page 193 y{ November 1, 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MR. BELANGER: The figures that you asked for from Mr. Nadeau earlier I just gave to Mr. Nadeau. He has those figures of how many lots have been sold in the park. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And then that might help me ask the question again. MR. BELANGER: I believe we're at approximately 87 percent. George, correct me. About 87 percent ownership. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And so Mr. -- MR. WHITE: There may be aspects in there or restrictive covenants, for example. I mean, there's obviously one provision in there that seems to be pretty draconian in terms of -- but those are the conditions under which those folks bought. And there may be other ones in the restrictive covenants, for example, that say that they will not object or that they will agree to go forward with any application. And that may be, indeed, the very provision that Mr. Pires was making reference to in the letter from Mr. Cuyler. So, you know, like I said a moment ago, there are a number of facts out there that make it difficult to give you a simple legal answer. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And from a factual standpoint, we don't have control over those deed restrictions. MR. WHITE: Well -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's not part of what we get to hear here today or rule on. MR. WHITE: Typically the government's not afforded a right of enforcement for those types of restrictive covenants. As a matter of fact, our Land Development Code typically indicates, as do many others, that there is no right of enforcement under the deed restrictions unless it's expressly granted. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Wow. Do we have any other questions here? Page 194 November 1, 2001 I think we have additional speakers. 16JI MS. MURRAY: The next speaker is Jerry Strauss -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you, Mr. Belanger. MS. MURRAY: -- followed by Joe Stewart. MR. PIRES: Madam Chair, if I may just speak with Mr. Belanger. I don't know if Mr. White wants Mr. Belanger personally to verify the photographs or -- MR. CUYLER: We'll stipulate to that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. MR. STRAUSS: Madam Chairman, my name is Jerry -- it's Jerome M., really, but I go by Jerry -- Jerry Strauss. It's S- t- r- a- u -s -s. My wife would have been here. She had to leave to -- I'd like for her to be here because we both moved down to paradise together from Indiana in 1995 when we bought our property at Silver Lakes. And on the little brochure that they handed out to share a dream with them, and that was what we were going to do, is share a dream. And we bought -- and I can show you where -- on this map where we live. We live right -- right in here, right about the end of this Tract CR, this point. And we bought -- actually bought three lots. We bought three lots. We bought those from the developer. And we also bought a home from the developer because the developer sells homes, and we bought the concrete pad and all the rest that was built by the developer. And all of this was very important to us for the privacy that was afforded us by that 40 acres that was behind us. And were it not for the representation to us that that would be a nature preserve, wetlands, walking paths, we wouldn't have bought there. Those are facts. That's why we bought there. Now, there are others in this audience that bought there, our neighbors, for the very same reasons and would testify just exactly as I had testified if it were not for Mr. Cuyler's letter last evening, Page 195 November 1, 2001 16J 1 H. t because they were prepared to do that. And I can tell you -- I could give you the names of those persons. I'm hesitant to do that. And I could tell you there are at least -- almost every neighbor of mine, almost every one except one I can think of down that strip, bought on that representation, that there would be nothing built, that that would be a wetland. There was a wetland, that there would be nature trails, and so on. And one of the other things I -- Mr. Pires asked me to bring to your attention is that in Conquest's recent letter to the -- and this was dated, I guess, the -- let me get the day of this letter. This is something that was sent out by Conquest to all the owners of the park. This was sent out by Mr. Bridgett. He states this, and I quote: It has been suggested by members of the Collier -- now, remember this was sent out by the Conquest -- by Conquest, and with this letter was a form for everyone to sign showing that they had no objections to the petition before this group. It has -- quote, it has been suggested by members of the county -- Collier County planning staff that if the PUD amendment, paren, map change, is not approved, they would have no alternative other than to enforce the original map, end quote. Now, we bought on the representation -- we're not golfers, but I love being in that park, and I love the fact that it has a golf course. And these other people bought on a representation that there would be a nine -hole executive golf course, and that is still being handed out today, this very day. This is an enormous threat to these individuals. And when they received this letter, everyone was panicked. We've been panicked about this development behind us. They're panicked about the golf course. But all of us are ready to accept every part of the petition that's before you except the only thing we ask is that that piece of development that is in the west, the storage area, be moved back to Page 196 November 1, 2001 16JI the back in the right area where it was originally, PUD, on the east half -- east side of the property where it's originally placed. And that's the only request. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No questions of this gentleman? We have another registered speaker. MS. MURRAY: Joe Stewart followed by Robert Murrell. And that's your last speaker. MR. STEWART: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. It's been a long day. I'll be brief. I promise. My name is Joe Stewart. I represent Mr. Jerry Krauss (sic). Mr. Krauss indicated on the map where he -- where his current home is. And what he didn't tell you is that when he bought his property, he had -- he didn't tell you he was a lawyer, and he had included in his contract a specific provision that said the storage area would not be moved from its current location, which would adversely affect his property. I corresponded with the developer on this very point sometime in September, and I got an interesting response from them. The response is included in the materials provided to you by Mr. Pires. And I know this board is not interested in -- it's a letter dated October 3rd. And I know the board's not interested in cat fights between lawyers, but I'm sure that the board is interested in the applicant's being truthful with this board. I wrote down, I believe, verbatim what Mr. Nadeau said, which was there is an intent to build this storage facility. Now, reading from this letter from the developer's lawyer dated October 3rd, I see in three places where they indicated there is no intent. Of course, if there was -- if there is no intent to construct a facility, one wonders why it is that they're requesting a change. But verbatim from the Page 197 November 1, 2001 16J 1 letter, my client advises us they have no present plans to build a storage facility. Another quote, since there are no plans to build, there is no decision as to where the facility would be located. Another quote, however, there are no plans to request a building permit. We received another letter from the developer's lawyer and -- (Unidentified speaker with inaudible question.) MR. STEWART: Certainly. It's in the materials. October 3rd. Is it -- did you -all find it in your package? Because if not, I have it here. (Several speakers speaking inaudibly.) MR. STRAIN: It's not the same lawyer that's sitting here in the audience; is that what you're getting at, Ken? MR. CUYLER: Correct. MR. STEWART: Okay. Well, then I'd like to address a quote from the developer's lawyer who is in the audience. I also wrote down what he told you folks. Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Before you go any further, we're talking about an October 3rd letter signed by a Timothy Hains of Quarles & Brady? MR. STEWART: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we were looking at the right letter. MR. STEWART: It should -- those quotations should be underlined. Okay. Moving on to the current representation, what Mr. Cuyler told you -- and I believe I wrote this down correctly -- is, quote, we are interested in the residents articulating what their concerns are. Now, to me that seems to be absolutely contrary to the attempt to chill statements by the residents before this board. Now, there was a -- there was a discussion of this draconian covenant that was pointed out the last -- in this correspondence. I Page 198 November 1, 2001 I 6JI i question truly whether the developer included that covenant n there as some type of an escape hatch which would allow it to make whatever type of representations orally or in contracts concerning the development of this property, and then later on do an about -face and rely on that provision. Quite the contrary. Most of the times when courts look at provisions like that, they try to enforce provisions so that they make sense. And the only way that I can make that provision make sense is that, sure, the residents would agree to representations -- to requests by the developer for zoning changes, like most of the zoning changes they've requested, as long as they are not contrary to specific representations they've made by the developer's sales representation -- representatives and in the written documents. Any questions? Those are all the comments that I had. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Do we have another registered speaker? MS. MURRAY: Robert Murrell is your last speaker. MR. MURRELL: My name is Robert Murrell. I'm with Samouce, Murrell & Francoeur. We also represent Mr. Belanger today as well as representing the ad hoc committee for the issues. Most of the issues have already been discussed, and obviously I won't go back over those. I would like to add one additional comment that -- Mr. Strauss had read from the letter from Mr. Bridgett from Conquest Development, and I'd like to complete that paragraph. And it was in terms of where -- when he suggested that it was the planning staff -- that the PUD amendment change, if not approved, they would have no alternative other than to enforce the original map. And it continues, if this happened, we would be required to recreate conserva -- recreate conservation areas, eliminate golf holes, and construct the last lots where originally planned. This would Page 199 November 1, 2001 -�16J 1 destroy the golf course. As developers of Silver Lakes RV Resort and Golf Club, we do not want this to happen. So we have here a representation from the developer that he, too, doesn't want this to occur; and yet we also have the threats that have been made that if the approval isn't granted to everything, that it will be removed. Again, Mr. Belanger has indicated his desire that all the items be approved except for the movement of the storage facility. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I want to make sure, you are an attorney; right? MR. MURRELL: I am an attorney. I am counsel for -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I just want to ask you a basic question. As the chairman of the Planning Commission, I don't really think that I have a category of responsibility called therapist, but there sounds from the testimony here today that we have some huge animosity occurring in this particular development. We, as commissioners, have enough information to make a motion to determine what we're going to do with what we accept. And I hear you say that there's only one big issue, which is the storage, the two tracts switching -- MR. MURRELL: Correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- and that there seems to be no way to discuss this and come to a conclusion. I mean, we could say, as a Planning Commission, that, gee, thanks for all the testimony. This looks good. We have this one issue. But there's the aspect of the environmental permitting agencies saying something different -- MR. MURRELL: Correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- which would create a problem. But you, as an attorney, can you act as a therapist, provide some sort of way to come to a reasonable conclusion here? MR. MURRELL: We -- we have certainly tried to do that. We've tried in the past and have, from almost the beginning when Page 200 November 1, 2001 16-Ji these things were presented to the ad hoc committee and to the unit owners at Silver Lakes, indicated immediately to the developer that we'd approve everything except the storage facility, and we'd, you know, like to work on trying to get the storage facility moved to the east side and that we were available and would be ready, willing, and able to work with the -- the agencies in terms of whatever we could do to try to convince the agencies that the best place to go would be on the east side. There are -- there are additional factors in play. Every week more factors come into play. There's already a community, as we've seen in the pictures, on the east side of -- of that area as well. So, I mean, the community comes back to it as well as -- you know, the acreage north of the 40 acres is also, you know, probably going to be developed reasonably soon. So, I mean, it's not like we're going to have a wetlands that's going to extend forever and forever. But, you know, we stand ready, willing, and able today to work with the developer in trying to bring that about. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: See, I've been on this board for two years. Normally when we reach a position like this, they're -- everybody's willing to cooperate. That's partly why we have a public participation element now. And people are afraid to speak up, but we've got a lot of facts in front of us that -- I know where I'm heading toward, but I'm not sure that's going to solve the problems here. I'm really not. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Stewart (sic), as I recall, there was testimony that that preserve area is north of the Deltona line; is that -- do you agree with that? MR. MURRELL: Most of that is north of the Deltona line, that's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, why did the south Page 201 November 1, 2001 6J1 water -- why are these jurisdictional -- we were told that they did not exercise jurisdiction over things south of the line. Well, why didn't they exercise jurisdiction over the area north of the line back when this whole development started? Do you know? MR. MURRELL: I do not know that. I wasn't involved in the process. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Did the original PUD have this storage area in the eastern area? MR. MURRELL: Yes, sir, it did. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Had a storage area? MR. MURRELL: Well, it's just a -- it was a small square area right there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All right. Now, can the South Florida Water Management District -- that was in the original PUD. Can the South Florida Water Management District -- and, Mr. White, I'd like your input on this as well. Can they come along and say you've got to move it out of there? MR. MURRELL: I think it's more -- I would agree with what Mr. Nadeau said before. I think it's more of they may not permit you to place it where you would like to place it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's already there. It's been there. MR. MURRELL: Well, no, sir. I don't think it -- I think as to South Florida, it is -- I don't know that it is there, and I think that's one of the issues. I think the petitioner could probably -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's not a storage area. It's just a junk pile. Is that -- is there is a difference? MR. MURRELL: Yeah. It's -- it's marked on the PUD as a storage area. I think, again, it's part of the cross matters that we have between the different governmental agencies. It's shown on the PUD as being the storage area, but I don't -- I do not believe that South Page 202 November 1, 2001 6J1 Florida ever granted or has given permission for a permit for a storage area to be at that spot. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, why ask the South Florida Water Management District? If -- if you're content to leave it in the eastern area, what are you asking them for? What are they being asked to do? They're being asked to move it down to the west. MR. MURRELL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: To sanction that. MR. MURRELL: That's correct. And we would like to go back in with the developer to ask South Florida to move it to the east -- or to leave it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Leave it in the east. MR. MURRELL: To leave it in the -- to leave it right where -- where it is and where it's being used. That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Abernathy, at the time a PUD is submitted, South Florida usually isn't involved in any review. So the PUD could show anything it wanted to, subject to South Florida's final review when they go in for a building permit. When they go in for an SDP at the county, the staff at the county at some point would ask for their South Florida permit now that they've actually applied to do something, and that's when it would show up. The debris that's out there I don't believe was ever applied to be there. I think it just -- it just is there. I don't think -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's just there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. I think that may be where the confusion is. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. White, do you have a comment on Mr. Abernathy's? MR. WHITE: I believe you've reached the correct analysis and conclusion. Page 203 November 1, 2001 16J 1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, a light bulb has kind of turned on for me about this. I've been trying to figure out why there's such an arbitrary and capricious position being taken by the applicant -- that's my assessment -- and the only answer I can come up with is that it must be big bucks in putting it -- this area over on the -- (Applause) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Cuyler. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Let me finish. If this is truly a dollar issue, then it seems to me we might have some grounds for you to negotiate, to work out some sort of financial arrangement that would resolve this issue. I mean, if just moving things around isn't -- I don't -- from what I'm gathering, is not going to solve this problem because the applicant, as I'm reading it, the testimony, is intent on making some dollars out of a new use in this area. And perhaps there could be something the homeowners could work out that would offset that financial loss to him and leave things the way they are. MR. MURRELL: That has certainly been our concern. I mean, we've had two major concerns. Number one was since it is an accessory use, we felt like what better accessory use than when it -- where it was originally planned, where the road was cut for it, and where it was set. We also became very concerned as -- as the -- as it appeared that the entranceway into this accessory use is going to be outside the gate, and certainly that led to our concerns and, I think, the letters that the staff has received in regards to it being a commercial activity. You know, you put everything together -- number one, moving it; number two, the fact that we agree to everything else in the amendment, and you add that with it being an entrance outside of the Page 204 November 1, 2001 16J1 gate -- and it doesn't really appear to be an accessory use. And then that's going to be simply a code enforcement nightmare, potentially, down the road. But I think -- I think you've hit it exactly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Wolfley, did you have a question for him or -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because I want to get Mr. Cuyler back up here and ask him a couple questions. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's where I really have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. MURRELL: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Do -- we have no further registered speakers? MS. MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Cuyler, you may have some comments to make -- MR. CUYLER: I do. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- but I certainly have a question or two. Why don't you make a comment or two, and you may assuage some of my concerns. And if not, I'll ask you my questions. MR. CUYLER: Okay. Mr. Pires didn't point out -- if -- if I, as an attorney, have been accused of writing a -- what has been perceived to be a threatening letter -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Draconian. MR. CUYLER: -- a draconian threatening letter, I don't have the opportunity to do that very often. I'm not a litigator. But, yeah, I -- I wrote a letter. I -- last time I looked, I had a client to represent, and my client's getting a little tired of some of the rumors that have been floating around. And one thing Mr. Pires didn't point out -- and I put in my letter, first of all, that CCPC doesn't have jurisdiction of Page 205 b November 1, 2001 16J l deed restrictions. It's not an issue that I was going to raise at CCPC. And secondly, we knew that public participation was important. We normally welcome comments of the public, but it's possible to contract your right to speak away. For example, if you sign a nondisclosure agreement and you contract with someone on a nondisclosure agreement and then you stand up at the podium and say "I have a constitutional right to say anything I want to say," then go get a lawyer, because you're going to get sued. Under these circumstances there is a provision in the deed restrictions, and it says -- and if the attorneys -- if Mr. Stewart doesn't think it's viable, then, you know, tell him to advise the people to stand up and talk. But there's a provision in the deed restriction that says by acceptance of this deed, the -- you are on notice that the developer may be making changes to his plans; and if we ask you to consent to those, you will do it. So I sent a letter saying that, you know, that provision exists. I told Mr. Pires in my letter I wasn't going to raise it at the CCPC. As Mr. Stewart said, I said I was ready to hear what the comments were. I saw Mr. Pires sitting out there. I knew they were going to be talking. So, you know, I was interested in what they are saying. Let me also say that Mr. Pires indicated I said there were no issues. I didn't say there were no issues. I said there were no legal issues. And, as you have seen, there are no legal issues. And, as a matter of fact, as the chairman's pointed out, 80 percent of this has been agreed to, and we knew that there were no issues for most of this. It has turned out to be the -- the storage that -- that is the issue. With that, I'll answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, then, may I ask you my therapy question? MR. CUYLER: Sure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I pretty clearly see that 80 percent of Page 206 November 1, 2001 16J l this is agreed to. What is it that is keeping your client and you, representing him, from saying yes? Look at all these people that own property here which, you know, they're here, and they have an interest. Sure, they have a deed restriction, but what is the key element that says you don't want to negotiate or give this up? I -- can I understand that? Do we have a therapy here? Because, I mean, I think I know what I'd like to see a motion come through, but where are we? MR. CUYLER: Let me say this, and then I'll let Mr. Nadeau address it. But let me put it the way that I would. In order to cure those elements that we've discussed have been agreed to, that is those things that were not in compliance with the PUD -- there are certain ratios of land uses on that map, and the ultimate end to those has to be certain percentages. What the developer basically has been forced to do -- although he could have built the storage area, under the PUD, anywhere in that area tomorrow, subject to permitting. The county could not stop him from putting that anywhere he wanted to at the top of that diagram. That would be a jurisdictional issue in terms -- that's my understanding. Somebody can correct me if they're (sic) wrong, but he could do it today, any time. But he's been forced into designating or limiting the area within which he can build it because the conservation area that's now shown is the makeup for those other areas that are no longer preserve and on the map. Now, that -- in answer to your question, why has he designated those 8 acres instead of the other 8 acres, there's two answers, one of which is the jurisdictional agencies have indicated they want to see it at that end; and the second answer is he's the client, and that's what he decided to do. And, you know, in terms of anything beyond that, I don't have an answer. But I'll be happy to have Mr. Nadeau stand up, and he may have some additional comments for you. Page 207 November 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. 1 6Jl COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ken. MR. CUYLER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I guess the essence of what's being said here is that there never was an established storage area at the east. There was some dropping of stuff there, but -- but in order to have had a storage area there, they would have had to go through some permitting, would they not? MR. CUYLER: Correct. And remember, what we're talking about is -- I mean, Mr. Pires made a big deal of -- of the diagram. That's what you're talking about with some kind of storage area. I mean, you'll have slots, and they go -- trailers go in there or rec vehicles. And, I mean, the fact that somebody dumped some concrete and -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Slag pile. MR. CUYLER: Right. I mean, that's -- it may be referred to as a storage area, but it's not what we're talking about. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Nobody was storing anything there. MR. CUYLER: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But isn't this on a master plan, and that's usually something that we and other people can rely upon? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It was never -- MR. CUYLER: Yes and no. The answer is it may be on a master plan. But there's specific language in the PUD -- and it's in most of the PUDs that you look at, and you've probably all seen that language and are familiar with it -- that says this is a conceptual drawing. The developer's not bound to it, and you know, it may go there or it may not go there. It will be in general conformance with that master plan, but that's not a site plan. Page 208 November 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think the master plan is an exhibit, an exhibit that was approved at the time this PUD went through. Just -- MR. CUYLER: Correct. 16J1 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I keep -- MR. CUYLER: It is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I keep going back to this same meeting we had with a different client -- or a different applicant a few weeks ago who argued just the opposite, successfully, of what you're saying, that the master plan locks everything in. You're here saying it doesn't. And -- MR. CUYLER: Well, it -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- I'll be curious to see what the county attorney thinks of it. MR. CUYLER: Frankly -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I would too. MR. CUYLER: Just my comment, it does and it doesn't. I mean, it -- it locks -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now, that's a clear answer, Mr. Cuyler. Thank you for that -- MR. CUYLER: I tell you what. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- elaboration. MR. CUYLER: I served for (sic) county attorney for ten years. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Even if you did -- MR. CUYLER: I can tell you it does and it doesn't. I mean, it does in a sense. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think your competitor was a -- a county attorney as well, Mr. Pires. So I think between the two of you -- MR. CUYLER: I think he was only an assistant county attorney. Page 209 November 1, 2001 16JI CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You've all been trained through the same system here. But I think -- were we not talking about the Marco Shores and that master plan, and we -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you remember that discussion? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- went through -- I mean, we were so careful about getting some little -- the language on the master plan when you don't normally put language on a master plan. And we were being represented that what was here was -- you could rely upon it, and they were here to change that PUD master plan versus the PUD document that had all the text. So I'm -- I'm having a little trouble with this, more than I should. MR. CUYLER: A lot of times you've seen master plans that have different variations in specificity, but a lot of times you'll just have tracts of land that have residential, commercial. And when you come in to develop that, as you know, you -- there's usually language in there that says if we have to move the roads a little, if we have to rearrange things -- you know that you're generally approving X number of units. You know that you're generally approving a certain size piece of property with certain uses that's going to interact in a certain way, and there's traffic that's going to operate in a certain way. But when you talk about a storage area for a recreational vehicle park, it's something that's usually not high on the radar of what a county commission would be worried about or a planning commission would be worried about, and that's usually left within the development. In this case because of a number of things that have happened, it's -- it's become an issue for you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But I would suggest to you it would be high on the radar of all those people who have in good faith purchased out there and are sitting here today talking -- or not being Page 210 November 1, 2001 16JI .,� able to talk to us because of some draconian approach to deed restrictions, that they have some expectation to rely upon what this legal document is. And I, as a planning commissioner, should have some expectation that changing this one item from the front to the -- excuse me -- the back to the front, that's pretty significant. And that's not just like moving something around a little bit. That's pretty significant. And I think Mr. Adelstein has a -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: One more question. Are you -- are you saying you have no knowledge whatsoever of this developer making a -- a separate commercial enterprise out of a storage building off site at that property? MR. CUYLER: I have no knowledge of that whatsoever. And let me tell you something else. I have no knowledge of what Mr. Stewart indicated. And I'm not saying he's -- he's not correct. That was a correspondence that went back and forth between the real estate attorney for the developer, but I had no knowledge of that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm sorry. We have Mr. Wolfley. I'm somewhat baffled here. Go ahead. Mr. Wolfley first and then Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: May I ask a -- you were -- I think -- for one, how many units are in Silver Lakes? MR. NADEAU: We have 400 RV units and 160 recreational residences. And to continue, if I may, to respond to Chairperson Rautio's request, we have 160 recreational residences. 144 have been sold; 16 are left to be sold. There are 400 TTRV lots; 357 of them are sold; 43 are left to be sold. And of the 3 8 that are remaining, they are also included within that 43, within the 43 RV lots that remain to be sold. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we have a lot of property owners that are almost ready to take over a homeowners association. And if Page 211 November 1, 2001 the developer and the property owners were talking to each other, we probably wouldn't be here so long today. 16J 1 1 MR. NADEAU: Possibly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because they must have some rights as -- as owners in this particular PUD that they bought into. But thank you. That clarifies quite a bit for me. I appreciate that additional information. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Can I just finish? MR. NADEAU: Commissioner Wolfley, would you like to continue? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. You were asked -- well, for one, Tract CR, that is to be used for what, one more time? MR. NADEAU: I will read directly from the PUD document -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Please. MR. NADEAU: -- if I may. The purposes of this section is to set forth a development plan and development standard for the areas designated as CR, commons /recreation, on Exhibit B. The primary function and purpose of this tract will be to provide access and aesthetic -- aesthetically pleasing open areas, passive /active recreational areas, hurricane evacuation shelter facilities for recreational /residential uses, and areas intended for -- to satisfy the residents' basic needs for a quality recreational opportunity. Any recreational, social, administrative, or maintenance facilities which may be indicated on the PUD master plan, Exhibit A, shall be considered conceptual, and a placement of such facilities as may be indicated on the PUD master plan shall be considered nonbinding. Except in those areas to be used for water impoundment and principal or accessory use areas, all natural trees and other vegetation, as practicable, shall be protected and preserved. Page 212 November 1 2001 Nove 16JI COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. And then you were asked, were you aware of this plan that's on top of your two plans, this -- this thing for the storage facility, this design? MR. NADEAU: I was aware that there was a plan submitted to the permitting agencies. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. MR. NADEAU: I was privy only to it through the EIS document. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. I believe you were asked a question of where the entry of that was going to be -- MR. NADEAU: That is correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- and if it was off Silver Lakes Boulevard. MR. NADEAU: That is correct. Having no knowledge of where the access point is shown on this -- I see an access point shown on the plan, but I did not have any knowledge of the relationship of that access point with the gate. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That it was actually outside the gate. MR. NADEAU: That it was actually outside the gate. So I will accept responsibility for not knowing that information. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. It just tells me that it's really not for the residents, is what it looks like. (Applause) COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean, I felt -- I felt like all the way along here that we were being led down a path, and then all of a sudden, it got right out from under us and saying wait. But all the consultants said one thing, and now some facts show another thing. And that kind of makes me feel, I don't know, abused. MR. NADEAU: Well, I have talked with the developer, and the developer said that the access point -- if the gate needs to be moved, Page 213 16J g� 1 November 1, 2001 the gate will be moved. It'll be -- this is for the exclusive uses -- use of the residents at the park. It says it in the PUD document. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: One more question. How many sites in this storage -- how many areas for parking and things are in there? Can you tell the -- MR. NADEAU: The plan says a total of 201 open storage parking spaces. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 201. MR. NADEAU: Yes. MR. CUYLER: Is it clear that the PUD requires it to be accessory to the development? It cannot legally be used for commercial use unless the petition -- a petitioner comes in under a separate petition to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to allow it to be used as a commercial use. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Unless they come in to ask for it. That's what you're saying. MR. CUYLER: Unless they come into the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commission -- well, I don't think any of us can represent what the future's going to be, but the question is, is that being used -- is there any way that can be used for a commercial use? And the answer's no. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Then what are we doing here, Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: What we're doing here is that the developer -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That was a rhetorical. MR. CUYLER: Oh. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm sorry. I'm losing my sense of humor. I believe Mr. Strain has a couple of comments, and he may need Mr. Cuyler, and he may need Mr. Nadeau. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Nadeau, can you tell me how much land is north -- in acreage -- north of the Deltona settlement Page 214 line? November 1, 2001 16J1 MR. NADEAU: Yes. It is 37.31 acres. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And your PUD is 146 acres, is it not? MR. NADEAU: That is correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Twenty -five percent of the PUD is 37 acres. And you brought up the PUD, so why don't we turn to page 8 -10, Item J. Prior to final site development construction plan approval, demonstrate that 25 percent of the viable, naturally functioning native vegetation on site will be retained. MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Now, if you take 8 acres out of there for a storage area, how are you going to retain 25 percent of that site? MR. NADEAU: There's other areas on the property where -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you've already filled them with a golf course. That -- that would not be naturally functioning, native vegetation. MR. NADEAU: Not -- I won't take exception with your comment, Commissioner Strain, but there are areas on the property that are allowed and are vegetated with native vegetation. And the provisions of the Land Development Code provide for the planting of native vegetation to comply with that requirement. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you've got viable, naturally functioning native vegetation that isn't in that green area that's on that plan; is that right? MR. NADEAU: Yes, that is correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Also, on that same page I, the project's plan is to be brought to the attention of the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve manager for review. Have any of these changes been signed off by them? Page 215 November 1, 2001 16JI C-1 MR. NADEAU: The -- under the original Deltona settlement agreement, the Rookery Bay National Estuary and Research Reserve was signatory to that agreement; however, they were to be noticed of all development in the area of Deltona settlement agreement. A letter was provided, and there was no response. However, I do not have the documentation at hand with me. They are in the offices of McAnly Engineering. But I did send the letter, yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? I think we have a staff person here who I do not recognize, so please clarify. And are you trying to answer some environmental aspects? MR. LENBERGER: Yeah. I can answer two of those questions. Stephen Lenberger, environmental specialist for planning services. As far as the preservation requirement, 25 percent, that would only pertain to the section of the PUD outside the Deltona settlement area. MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Steve. MR. LENBERGER: And the figures here -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. Previously it was 60 percent and then -- now it's 25? Is that your understanding, open space? MR. LENBERGER: It's -- I'm not talking about the open space; I'm talking about the native vegetation preservation requirement. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Native preservation. MR. LENBERGER: And according to what they have submitted, 69.5 percent of the native vegetation on the northern portion of the property outside the Deltona settlement will be preserved, so that exceeds the preservation requirement of 25 percent. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, how do we know that that justifies the area outside the Deltona settlement agreement? I mean, I understand what the agreement says, but the PUD didn't -- didn't specify that. Page 216 November 1, 2001 16J1 MR. LENBERGER: Right. Those are -- we've had interpretations from the planning services director in the past that the preservation requirement for lands identified as developable in the Deltona settlement have been already mitigated for because there's a lot of preserve areas within the Deltona settlement area. ' ' Okay. You asked a question about Rookery Bay. Rookery Bay has been given a number of the plats when they came in for those different portions of the property. I think it's subsequently notified me that they had no further comments to issue over this project. We have not -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Have they -- do they know about the current changes being -- MR. LENBERGER: No, they do not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They do not. Okay. MR. NADEAU: If I may continue, there were still a couple questions that were outstanding. It appears by those pictures that there are construction debris in the northeast corner of the project site. I don't know -- I have not seen this debris, and without a clear delineation of where that settlement agreement line might be -- I don't believe that the line is staked -- that debris could be north of the settlement agreement line, which will be remediated under the permits that Butler Environmental are pursuing, but it also could be south of the line. I don't know where that debris is. And then finally, in addition to preserving the 30 -plus acres -- excuse me -- about 28 acres of those lands north of the settlement agreement line, the applicant is also going to have to pay -- this is verbal right now from the agencies -- an additional $330,000 for mitigation credits to allow the development, as proposed, for the final phase. Yes, there was a lake shown on there, but the original developers, Misty Harbor, who did -- who did the original PUD, they approached the agencies, and they were told categorically you will Page 217 November 1, 2001 16J 1 not get a permit for that lake there. Now, as far as conciliatory response to the potential storage facility being located on that approximate 8 acres -- because there have already been a request by the agencies to have an additional 50 foot of continuous -- contiguous conservation easement for this permit to be successful. That has no effect on this plan. We can create a conservation easement over this tract, CR, and be recorded, and you wouldn't be able to put any of the commons /recreation uses in there. If Mr. Strauss is -- his lots are in this area in here, I believe he indicated. We would be more than happy, then, to provide at least 25 feet of additional setback for the grassed parking area. And if he wishes, we would put up some visual barrier, whether it be some type of landscaping, whether it be a concrete fence, wood fence. I don't know exactly what it would be, but our petitioner is willing to work with the park. They -- they asked for the storage. And we tried to put it on the east, but the agencies are telling us it's got to go on the west. Now, if -- there might -- you might be able to get a permit, but there may be -- to put the storage on the east, but it's going to certainly cost a great deal more money to put it over there. Why not spend some money and buffer not only Mr. Strauss's lots, but anybody's units that are there now? If I were to offer a 25 -foot setback from the Delt -- from the berm area, would that be acceptable to this commission? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Dwight, I'm still troubled over this storage area question. When did people start asking for a storage area? How long ago? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. Could we -- do you still have tape, Barbara? Do you still have tape? MR. NADEAU: I'm getting an indication that it was Page 218 November 1, 2001 16JJ approximately five years ago. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Has that eastern -- has that eastern area that was marked for storage on the original PUD ever served as a storage area? And by asking that, I don't think piling some slabs and some odds and ends -- it's certainly not land -- not residents' storage, if it's storage at all. Has it ever been used for storage? MR. NADEAU: To my knowledge, no. And I think I'm getting confirmation from some of the folks in the audience. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, that's fairly critical to me. You're not -- you're not moving a storage area. You're establishing a de facto storage area for the first time. MR. NADEAU: That is correct. However, there is some maintenance opportunities that are being utilized in the commons /recreation area in the southwest corner of the property. There are some RVs stored there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. That doesn't change? MR. NADEAU: Well, if we get it up there, we probably would move those units up into the -- up into the northwest -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. NADEAU: -- probably. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We're running into a technical problem here, and she hasn't had a break for over two hours and 45 minutes. So are we through with talking to Mr. Nadeau at the moment? I think Mr. Pires wanted to make a comment. Are we through with Mr. Nadeau for now before we close this public hearing? Go ahead Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, I'll be brief. Just one minute, if I may. As to the storage areas, there are areas in the southwest area -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Page 219 r November 1, 2001 16J 1 ` MR. PIRES: -- down in here currently being utilized for storage. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Stop. Do you have any paper left, Barbara? (A discussion was held off the record.) MR. PIRES: I will be one minute. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. PIRES: There's a storage area where RVs are stored at this area right now, and it -- by the clubhouse. Also, what I find interesting is that we've had months, months, months of opportunities for meetings, including we had a meeting with county staff. Now all of a sudden they're trying to come to the table with issues that could be discussed more appropriately in those settings as opposed to trying to shove this down our throats. And as to the entry being before the gate, Mr. Nadeau knew that in July when we had the meeting because we expressed that as a concern. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I think we're going to have to call a short recess here. We have no paper. We're going to take a five- minute recess. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are back in session again. I think we finished up with the last registered speaker. We finished up with the last questions. Are there any other comments or questions from anyone who would come up from the public or the petitioner, from any planning commissioner? Do you feel comfortable with me closing the public hearing? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Having no further speakers, we close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, I think Page 220 November 1, 2001 16J1 we've heard a good deal of information, some of it a little confusing, but I think some good things have surfaced as a result of the dialogue between the applicant's representatives and the other parties. I think there's a real opportunity for the parties to get together now, particularly as it relates to the -- one of the latest proffers which has to do with the buffering between the proposed area for the storage and the rest the -- the rest of the community. I don't think that's been sufficiently explored to see if it could be worked out and be satisfactory to all parties. So I would offer a motion to continue this hearing until a date certain to be advised by staff so that the -- to give the parties an opportunity to resolve that remaining issue. So instead of having it 80 percent complete, we could have it a hundred percent complete. So I offer that motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have a second for -- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Richardson and a second by Mrs. Young to continue this petition to a date certain with information provided by staff for that date. MS. MURRAY: It's just a reasonable amount of time for the parties to get together. You know, we -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Four weeks. MS. MURRAY: Four weeks is acceptable to us. If we go beyond that, beyond five, then we have to readvertise, and there's a problem with that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It would be 30 days. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Where would the four weeks -- what -- the calendar is buried. MS. MURRAY: That would be your first meeting is December, and I'm not sure of the exact date. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The 6th of December would be our Page 221 k November 1, 2001 16J1 first meeting. We don't have one of our informational meetings on that date? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's greater than 30 days. MS. MURRAY: As long as it's not beyond five weeks, we're -- we're okay, so that should work. And we still have room on our agenda for that, so we can do that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's just five weeks. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It is five weeks to the day. MS. MURRAY: Five weeks and one day? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: To the day. MS. MURRAY: To the day. Then that's acceptable. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So staff doesn't oppose the motion? MS. MURRAY: No. MR. WHITE: I -- I don't believe the staff has the opportunity to do so. MS. MURRAY: Thanks for asking, though. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: When is it scheduled to go before the county commission? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's scheduled to go end of November, right after Thanksgiving week, the 27th, I believe, it is. But -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: 29th. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: 29th? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. Excuse me. 27th. I'm sorry. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: 27th. But that's fine. We can take it to the board in December. MR. WHITE: Is it on the agenda for the 27th yet? Has it been placed on the -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is, but it hasn't been advertised. MR. WHITE: Very good. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we have a motion and a second on Page 222 November 1, 2001 1611 the floor. Is there any further discussion about this continuation? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. I'm opposed to it. I would hope they would work out their differences between here and the -- and the Board of County Commissioners, whichever vyay we signal our feelings on it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd kind of rather finish the job, just continue it to get it done, if we can get it done here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other further comments? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm -- if there's a possibility of it working out to the benefit of those homeowners, I'm in favor of that. If there's not going to be any movement on the part of the applicant, then I would have no reason to go forward. But, I mean, right now there's -- maybe there's some possibility the applicant would consider moving that area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, this applicant does not exude the milk of human kindness by the (inaudible) every vein, so it would seem to me the prospect of looking down the barrel at the county commission and having gone through what he's heard today would be a more substantial impetus than coming back and retreading the whole thing with us again. That's just where I -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Abernathy, they can get hurt even with a BB gun, though, so that's what -- about what I'm offering there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think we should go ahead and just vote on it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We're -- I'm going to call the question. No further comments? All those in favor of a continuation of this petition for Silver Lakes to a date certain, being the 6th of December, say aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 223 November 1, 1,611 COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have one dissenting vote, Mr. Abernathy. Motion carries. It's continued to date certain September -- excuse me -- December 6th. Please get together and talk to each other and come back. Thank you. (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. If you'd clear the room quietly, we still have agenda items here to consider. And the hour is getting late, and it's into the dinner hour. So we are now on -- Item G was continued, so it's H, CU-2001-AR-371 which is a conditional use, I think, "I" or "L" in a zoning -- "A" zoning district. All those wishing to hear -- all those wishing to give testimony today please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Dr. Badamtchian, you're UP. . DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. This is a conditional use for an earth mining activity to be located at the corner of King Avenue. Known also as Brantley Boulevard, and Garland Road, approximately 2 miles east of 951, 951 being here, and it's almost 2 miles east of 951. There is a major golf course, Hideout golf course, in here. And basically what in here they are trying to do -- they have 20 acres, a little bit more than 20 acres, and they are trying to dig a lake slightly under 3 -- 13 acres for a private Page 224 November 1, 2001 fishing lake. And basically -- in my staff report, unfortunately I made a mistake of saying the access will be provided via Friendship Lane. I should have said via Brantley Boulevard. Page 2 of my staff report there's a typo. It is agricultural surrounded by agricultural. The only minor issue -- the only problem or issue is that they have to haul the dirt off site to Brantley Boulevard, to 23rd Street Southwest, all the way to White Boulevard, and from there to 951. That's the only issue that staff can see. Beside that, staff recommended that no blasting be allowed. However, applicants are requesting blasting, and our code says if you are within 250 feet of a house, you cannot do blasting. So they are coming off the map that shows where they can blast. They are two or three homes within the -- like, the neighboring properties, on neighboring properties, and they have come off the map that shows the areas that they can blast and they cannot. And I believe yesterday they had a meeting with the neighbors, and they explained that to them. And they agreed that they will be allowed to blast for three weeks only, and that's going to be the extent of blasting. And basically the off -site removal of dirt will take approximately a year. After that it will become a private lake for fishing purposes. They are in compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Plan since earth mining activity was exempted from the final order, and they are in compliance with all other requirements of the Growth Management Plan. Staff recommends approval subject to staff stipulations. We also recently adopted a -- new excavation requirements, the criteria. They are bound by that. They will comply with it. And I can add another stipulation to say that they have to comply with that requirement, but I don't think it's really needed because it's the code, and they have to comply with it. Page 225 November 1, 2001 16JI CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Chahram, then your Exhibit C, page 1 of 3 on the conditions of approval for this, one of the items, I think it's 3 -- yes -- talks about the hours of operation 7 a.m. To 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Did we not change that to 7 a.m. To 5 p.m. And Monday through Friday in the new ordinance? So that's -- that right there has to be changed. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: We -- we change it. These were written a few weeks ago. I change it to comply with the requirements of that ordinance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you would change that specifically? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I will change it, of course. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And then the question there is No. 4, this conditional use shall expire 18 months after the date of issuance of the clearing permit, and you're talking about a 12 -month operation. I'm not sure I understand the relationship between the 18 and the 12 months. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are saying they're going to do it in 12 months, and what we are proposing, to give them a window of 18 months to finish it. In case they are not done within 12 months, not to come back here, ask for an extension. So we are asking them to finish it in a maximum of 18 months. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But you say that's a stipulation, to limit this activity to 12 months during -- in the -- on page 4 of our executive summary, so I thought that we need to clarify whether it's a specific stipulation and then an expiration. Is there some difference because of the language? I just want to make sure we're clear on this. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The applicant in his response, by the way, is saying he only needs six months. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They said they need only six months. But I was reviewing a traffic study, and in the traffic study, they are saying 12 months. Page 226 November 1, 2001 1611 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, then how can you have one stipulation that says 12 months, and then in the back over here you're giving them 18 months to expire the permit; is that correct? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: It -- let me -- I'm sorry. It should say 18 months. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: On page 4 of the -- DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Page 4 should say 18 months. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I'm not sure I accept that, but at least we'll get those hours of operation and days of operation corrected. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: We'll fix that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions of Dr. Badamtchian? Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Well, I'd just like to follow up on what the chairman said. If they say it can be done in 6 months and you have stipulated 12 months, why are we then advancing it to 18 months? Why not just stop at 12? DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I was worried that they may have problem with permitting and -- which may delay things. We may have, I don't know, hurricane, something that may delay. I just wanted to give them six months to make sure that we are not going to have problems in the future and we don't have to come back and ask for a six -month extension. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MS. MURRAY: That's up to you -all. I mean, you can certainly recommend something different. If you feel that 18 months is too long and you are more comfortable with 12 and you can state your reasons why, you're certainly able to do that, and we will convey that to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We'll ask that of the petitioner. Page 227 November 1, 2001 16J1 DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They're saying 12 months is okay, so we'll change this to 12. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You think 12 months is okay. State your name for the record, +please. MR. ROBAU: Yes. My name is Emilio Robau, and I'm with RWA. I'm one of the principals in the firm. And, sure, 12 months, I think, was our original thought on this anyways. It can be done quicker. It can be done in three months to a six -month period. But, you know, 12 months give us -- gives us a little bit of flexibility depending on market conditions, etc. There is a good need for fill dirt, so we'll hopefully be able to get rid of it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you're familiar with the hours of operation and that type of thing -- MR. ROBAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- in the new ordinance. MR. ROBAU: Yeah. And that can go on a little bit more. I just read the ordinance, as a matter of fact, the night before last. And -- and I did not catch what you had caught, Ms. Rautio, you know, with regard to that, but we're okay. We want to build a fishing lake, essentially. And, you know, we want to be, you know, good neighbors, as I think Hideout has been with the neighborhood out there, and we want to mitigate any impacts that we have. If you'd like, I could just give you a quick presentation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would be fine. Then we have a public speaker. MR. ROBAU: Right. As I said, my name is Emilio Robau. I've been representing Hideout Golf Club since the -- beginning the course about four years ago. At that time they had bought some other properties surrounding this area in order to buffer the course and in order to provide some red cockaded woodpecker habitat, which they purchased as part of their permitting process. And part of that Page 228 November 1, 2001 16JI process -- some of the buffer land that they purchased they wanted to build a fishing lake on. And this is truly a fishing lake. This is not -- it comes under the procedure of getting a conditional use and a -- you know, a commercial mining operation because we have to get rid of the dirt because as you see up here -- I think it's outlined. What we want to leave is we want to leave the lake in an undulation -- undulating fashion with all the native vegetation around it and all the trees. It truly was -- there's a select membership group over there that likes to go fishing. They would basically walk from the course to the fishing lake. These individuals have apparently done this in other areas of the country, and this is going to be a rather sophisticated operation. They're going to stock the lake. There's going to be aerators and so on and so forth. Another reason that I had to go to commercial excavation is I had to go 20 feet because apparently the fish like a deep hole somewhere in the lake. And so there's -- it's going to have a lot of littoral zones. It's going to have shelter for the fish, and we've got to have a deep hole. And so because we didn't want to keep the dirt on site because, as you see, it would -- to stockpile the amount of material that would come out of there, we had to get rid of it. And because we wanted to go 20 feet to get into a hole for the fish, we -- we're into the, you know, commercial mining excavation, which is really not the intent. I mean, after you pay the impact fees and the contractor excavates, and you know, you do the blasting required and so on and so forth, you know, it's not such a profitable venture when you're talking about a very small operation like that. The economy of scale that kicks in when you do real mining operations isn't there. So the real intent of this, I want to reiterate, is a fishing lake. And, quite frankly, when I started this, it sounded really simple. But Page 229 November 1, 2001 1 ( J1 l almost a y ear later, red cockaded woodpecker reports, environmental analysis, and so on and so forth, this has become quite a complicated process. And I hope this is coming into the conclusion of it. And I'm not going to waste a whole bunch more time, but I'd like to go over a couple things just to get it on the record. The property, as well as all properties abutting the subject property, are in the agricultural zoning district. As Chahram has said, this is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and, you know, all the other activities that have been occurring in this part of the county. The reason we need it to be a commercial is because we need to get the material off site. We need to go 20 feet in the holes. Ingress and egress from the site will be off Brantley Boulevard, then 23rd Street Southwest, and down to White, then down 951. We'll get rid of the fill as close as possible to the site as we can. It's in our best interest. A year is fine. That's what we originally -- in our preapplication meeting when we met with Ron Nino, who was originally assigned to this project, he said that a year would be something that we should do, and we agreed with him at that point. Operating hours, we're going to do whatever is consistent with the -- with the ordinances in effect. That's fine too. And the one thing that -- I had a public meeting, I guess, with the -- even though we didn't have to, we had a public meeting with the neighbors. I think one of the neighbors is here to express some concerns about blasting. I don't want to steal the winds from her sail, but we had a public meeting on Tuesday night. The blaster was there. I was there. Moe Kent, the owner's representative -- he's the managing partner of the golf course -- was there, and we had, I don't know, about maybe 16 or so people, more or less. And we tried to explain to them the process: That we would clear, the blasting operations would take about three weeks. Beyond that, that we were going to -- we explained to them the truck traffic Page 230 November 1, 2001 16JI that would occur and so on and so forth. I think we stated to we didn't want to sugarcoat it, you know -- that the blasting for a three -week period might be a hearing nuisance and that kind of thing. The truck traffic would be there. But after a period of a year, what they would be left with at the end of the day was basically a -- a fishing lake. I think there's a caretaker residence that will be on there, and that's the most. And it'll be left as you see it up there, all the surrounding property and native vegetation that we own, and that we would -- you know, we'd leave the trees and so on and so forth. They asked a couple of things. They're concerned, so I just wanted to make sure that, you know, I told you everything they told us. They wanted to know if there was any impacts on the wells, and 20 feet is not deep enough in that area -- I've looked at the soils report. I was part of the other development. We had a hydrological report on that. That's not deep enough to get into the lower Tamiami Aquifer, which is about 55 or 60 feet deep. They were concerned about the truck traffic and, you know, rightfully so. And we told them -- they were concerned not only about the volume, but they were concerned about the speed. And I think as the meeting progressed, their concern turned more towards the speed of the trucks and the children in the area and so on and so forth. The good thing about this, it's a -- we're going to have one contractor actually build this, and I think they're going to use it for other of their projects within a certain radius of -- of the project. I'm not sure exactly where the dirt's going. I provided an exhibit to transportation giving a potential of the dirt going all the way to the county line and all the way down to 951, I believe. But we tried to mitigate some of that concern by telling them that we would really bandy that the contractor kept really close tabs on the speed and the operating of the trucks. And I think to a certain extent, you can tell a truck, you know, if you're -- if you're caught, Page 231 November 1, 2001 16J 1 you won't come back here again, speeding. And we also told them that we would be notifying the sheriffs department to try to get some increased patrols during the initial part of the excavation, which kind of conditions people to slow down. And then thereafter if we need to -- you know, because once the sheriffs department is out there with the blow dryer pointing at you, people have a tendency to start, you know, slowing down. And if that wanes, you know, you get them out there again, and that's how you do that, plus constant monitoring by the contractor. We also agreed to clear a small area on the corner of Garland and Brantley that would provide a little bit better sight distance, which they wanted. Blasting became -- was -- we had a lot of conversation about blasting. The blasting contractor went over, you know, the blasting ordinances and a whole bunch of science and square root -type equations about how far they needed to be away. And I'm not sure, you know, honestly speaking, that we alleviated -- you know, everybody's happy that it's going to be blasting next to their home -- actually 350 feet or so away in accordance with the ordinance. But we did take the opportunity to explain to them that there's preblast surveys and that the county comes out and monitors and that, you know, if any of -- any damage is proven, that the contractor's liable for that. We really need to blast. This becomes extremely uneconomical if we can't blast. The rock there varies in 2 to 4 feet, and we have areas in the lake which we're going to designate as no blast zones in order to keep our buffer from the adjacent properties. So really we agree with everything that staff has written in the staff report, the standard transportation stipulations, the impact fees, and you know, all those things. The one thing that we really would like to have is the ability to blast. And we talked to the neighbors. We tried to explain to them what -- you know, what blasting is about. Page 232 November 1, 2001 16JJ It's done pretty commonly throughout the county. We're not asking for anything else here on this agriculturally zoned property that your ordinance already allow (sic). I think Chahram was really cautious in putting that stipulation in. And we went out and tried to meet with the property owners to get them to allow us to blast. And I think at the end of the meeting the conclusions were that -- and I'm sure we'll have some more comment, but that the conclusions, at least the way I saw them, was that yes, it was going to be a nuisance. We were going to have a pit operating out there for a period of a year. But the neighbors have seen the property increase in value due to Hideout, and they were relatively happy with the kind of relationships they've developed over the past three or four years, and they want to continue that in the future. So that's really all that I have as part of my public presentation. And I've given Chahram a memorandum of the meeting, and I'm going to send it to all the people that attended. I don't think I've left anything else. If there's any questions, please feel free. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just have a quick one. This is a -- a golf course with no -- no homes and -- MR. ROBAU: No. This property -- actually the golf course is separated from this property. Here's the course. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. MR. ROBAU: Here's the property. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. MR. ROBAU: They own parcels around here. I can't quite show you which ones. I'm not quite sure. They've been purchasing them over the past four years. And this is the property that we're talking about, so they would walk here to here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: They would get done playing 18 holes and then walk over and fish, so this is for them, for the -- the Page 233 i i November 1, 200.1, 16J1 - equity owners only? MR. ROBAU: Well, it's -- the petition's in .the name of Hideout Golf, Limited, but I believe that there's only three or four individuals. Maybe other owners would go out there, but I know there's three or four that are really interested in this. I don't know how to answer that beyond that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So these guys just want to get together and build their own fishing hole. MR. ROBAU: Just -- just like they wanted to get together and build their own golf course. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think they want to dig their own fishing hole. MR. ROBAU: And stock it and put the aerators in it and, you know, feeding stations and so on and so forth. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one question based on something you started out -- MR. ROBAU: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- in your discussion. You said- that there were going to be numerous members of the golf club possibly wanting to fish there. The application that you submitted says the owner of the subject property wishes to develop a private, 12 -acre fishing lake on site for the enjoyment of his family. The lake will be private and not open to the public. Are you saying that's not exactly the way it is? MR. ROBAU: Well, the way I understand it is a private facility. I don't know honestly if they're going to open it up to 250 members of that private course. I think that it is two or three individuals and their families who desire to do this. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In your application it was very specific, the enjoyment of his family. And that, to me and maybe to Page 234 - November 1, 2001 the rest of the members here reads a very low profile. 161l MR. ROBAU: It is. And I believe there's one and -- two individuals, and they're listed right under Hideout Golf Club, Limited. Those three individuals, I think, are the ones. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So we're -- our approval of this then, in your mind, would not signify this gentleman and his family or this lady and her family. It would be any number of people. MR. WHITE: Madam Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MR. WHITE: It seems to me that the petition is one for a conditional use for earth mining. And what the, quote, unquote, long term or permanent use is may be something that's allowed in the zoning district. I'm not sure we've broached that issue as part of what the staff s presentation has been. And -- and if we need to in order to address Commissioner Strain's concern, then we ought to. But I'm just trying to keep the discussion confined to the actual application. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I understand what you're saying. But I'm wondering if we knowingly now have been told that this is going to be used for a specific use after it's dug and it's being dug for that use, is that something we should be considering? MR. WHITE: I don't believe so. The only thing I believe that's before you today is the petition for the conditional use to do the earth mining. I don't believe that the, quote, subsequent use is one that's either impermissible or anything like that in the zoning district. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If it wasn't in the package, I probably wouldn't have brought it up. But since it was there, I thought it was relevant. MR. WHITE: I always appreciate commissioners making inquiries and -- and wanting to know all the facts and the law that applies to a particular project. But unless I'm mistaken -- and staff should feel free to correct me -- I believe that the subsequent use for Page 235 November 1, 2001 16J1 recreational purposes is one that needs no further approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe that's correct. Thank you. Do we have any other questions? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: At a hundred thousand dollars to excavate, it's going to cost something like a thousand dollars a fish, isn't it? MR. ROBAU: Well, that's not including the price of a 5 -pound bass from day one, so I'm not quite sure what that's worth. But it's really intended to be a very low -key, private lake. Whether other members are out here or not, I can't tell you. It started with a couple of people for privacy reasons. I'll just leave it at that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And we want to focus on the earth mining aspect. Do we have a registered speaker? MS. MURRAY: We have one. Kay Kulever (phonetic). CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I do believe she's been waiting all day since 8:30. A good civics lesson. MS. KLUEVER: And that it has been. And by the way, my name is Kay Kluever. And it's spelled K- 1- u- e- v -e -r, so it's very deceiving. But this has been an education today, and I've learned to really respect you guys a lot for putting up with all of this and listening to all of this. But my concern -- when you look at the map -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: If you don't talk too loudly, pick up that microphone that's right there. MS. KLUEVER: This is our property right here, right here. And we have a concrete building here. The back two - thirds of this is shop. The front half is all housing. Here is our dream home that we've been working towards since '93 when we blasted our lake, and we went through all of this. So at the same time, I do have an idea of what is going on. But they were very gracious and had a lovely meeting Tuesday night for all of us. But naturally, I haven't even got Page 236 r November 1, 2001 16JI to move into this yet. I was hoping for Thanksgiving, but now it'll be Christmas. And then to turn around and have this blasting so close, I'm worried, and I'm sure you can understand. I'm following it as closely as I can. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can I just ask a question? Let me -- I'm not sure quite what your position is. You're concerned. I heard that. Are you objecting to the blasting taking place? MS. KLUEVER: Well, they tried to tell me that I'd hardly feel it, but I would hear it. And at the same time, I'm so close I don't know how that's possible. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I'm sure you're going to hear it and feel it too. But I'm -- I'm just asking whether you're asking us to put additional stipulations. Can you think of anything else that would be helpful besides not doing this project? MS. KLUEVER: I -- I think as a whole the project would improve the appearance of the corner. And at the same time, they've been very good neighbors, and I'm not about to try to make the poor neighbor, but I want to make sure that I'm covered and they do any repair to my home. I don't want to have any problems. Okay? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. Now, to that point can the applicant speak to any liability issues here? MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair, we also have staff here to talk about our excavation ordinance and blasting and -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would be good. MS. MURRAY: -- that if you would care to hear from them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We had a little sidebar over there and -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: She specifically asked whether you -- if you caused damage on her property, would you handle the liability? And that's -- MR. ROBAU: Well, that's -- I think that's part of the program. Page 237 November 1 1 6 l , 2001 We do a preblast survey that we have to go out to, you know, residences within a certain distance and videotape, take photographs, and so on and so forth to establish the baseline condition. Once that's done, after blasting's completed, if there's any complaints, we compare that to what they actually have out there. And the blaster's got, I think, a $5 million liability program for that type of occurrence so ... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I'd like elaboration from staff on the -- the blasting aspect of it with our excavation ordinance. MR. CHRZANOW SKI: Good afternoon -- or good evening. Stan Chrzanowski, development services. I -- I only have -- you know there's a blasting ordinance as well as an excavation ordinance. There are two different ordinances. The blasting ordinance has all the rules that Emilio said about the -- the 150 times the square root of the charge is the distance that you have to do a preblast survey for. You're not allowed to blast within 350 feet of a house. He's right about all that. There was only one thing that I heard that caught my attention. Did you say your house is under construction? MS. KLUEVER: Yes, sir. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. You're all aware that concrete during its initial set -- right after you pour it, it goes through an initial set. It's very weak. And then, like, 24 hours later, you start getting up to 90 percent strength and whatever. During that initial set, if you do any blasting, you could cause damage that's not visible for a while afterwards. So you're going to have to do some coordination. MS. KLUEVER: This is what I was concerned with. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. It might -- but it -- generally our charge -- our ordinance has been stiffened up so much over the last few years that when they're blasting now, we get a lot of blasting complaints, but I don't see much blasting damage. We get a lot of complaints. People don't like the noise. They don't like the -- you Page 238 . '.. November 1, 2001 16J get more vibration from the average thunder clap than you do from one of our blasts. But there -- that would be my only concern, that if they're pouring concrete and they have gotten a slab poured in the morning or something poured in the morning and this blast goes on, like, three o'clock, you could get some cracking that you don't see for a while. But these guys are professionals. They know that. MS. KLUEVER: Right now we're at the point where the tile is going on. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You probably won't haveoblems. MS. KLUEVER: I just -- you know, I'm concerned for what comes up afterwards. I'm sure any of you would be if you were in that situation. So I just wanted to make sure that we were covered, so that's what -- I've been just listening. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's always one of the hard parts, is concrete during -- if it's not cut properly in proper lengths, like a sidewalk, if it's not scored properly -- all concrete cracks from shrinkage. It's hard to tell from -- if a sidewalk or a driveway cracks, whether it was not scored in time. That'll be up to the preblast survey and the blaster and other engineers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How soon do you anticipate commencing blasting? MR. ROBAU: We're scheduled before the Board of County Commissioners when, Dwight? November 27th. It's going to take us probably -- we don't have to go to the district, Stan. This is no wetlands, one of those unusual sites and so on and so forth. It's less than 40 acres. So it's probably going to take us a couple of more months to get a site development plan approval and an excavation permit. Between now and then, we can also gear up the contractor. So February -ish, I think. And just as an aside, I used to work for a testing company my Page 239 { d November 1, 2001 611 first year out of school. Concrete is supposed to reach 70 percent of its compressive strength in 28 days. The rest of it is asentotic (phonetic). It continues to cure forever. So I think that we're past that risk zone. But we have promised to the neighbors that even if they're outside of the zone where we would typically have to have some sort of a study done, if they had any concerns, we would include them in the preblast survey. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? Do we have any additional speakers? MS. MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I move that we send CU -2001- AR-3 71 to the county board -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I second the motion. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: -- with a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: With all staff s stipulations. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: With blasting or without blasting? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: With. DR. BADAMTCHIAN: The way it has -- staff recommendation is no blasting. But if you want blasting, what I would like to get is a map where they can blast and where they cannot and have it as an exhibit to the PUD document -- PUD -- I'm saying PUD. I'm sorry -- the conditional use resolution as the areas that blasting is allowed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mrs. Young, restate your particular motion. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I forward -- I move this motion subject to a recommendation for a conditional approval, subject to all staff stipulations. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Except blasting. Page 240 November l , 2001 6J1 COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Except for the blasting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mrs. Young, a second by Mrs. -- Mr. Adelstein to approve this petition. MS. MURRAY: Pardon me. Does that include the 12 -month limitation? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It includes the 12 -month limitation and fixing the hours of operation, etc., that we spoke about earlier. All that's included. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any discussion? Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. We have one last item on the agenda for public hearings. That would be PDI- 2001 -AR -1317, an insubstantial change determination to the San Marino PUD. Okay. All those wishing to present testimony today please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. BELLOWS: Madam Chairman, if I may, everyone can pass down their conditional use forms when they're done. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, that's right. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with current planning. The petitioner is Kevin Higginson. He's representing Southern Marsh Golf Club. They're requesting an amendment, an insubstantial change to the PUD master plan for the Southern Marsh Page 241 November 1, 2001 16J1 -- or San Marino PUD. Excuse me. It's been a long day. As you can see, the subject site is located on the east side of County Road 951, and is south of the Forest Glen of Naples PUD to the north. This is a golf course residential community, and they are requesting a slight change to the roadway that -- that enters the PUD and the location of some of the preserve area boundaries within the PUD. In your staff report, you have both the original currently approved master plan and the proposed master plan. I've kind of highlighted in color here the changes. Basically the road used to follow along the property line. Now it jogs around this preserve area that's incorporated here. It originally had kind of a preserve area that wasn't in a very viable condition, and they've relocated the -- all the preserve areas in a more viable area up here. This is a better condition for preserving these areas. Staff has not seen any reasons to recommend denial for this change, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: See no reasons for denial, so you want to recommend approval? MR. BELLOWS: That's it. And the Planning Commission does recommend approval of this one -- or does approve. Excuse me. MS. MURRAY: They have the final authority. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: One other thing I'd like to point out is there'll be a slight change to the master plan that you have there. The little location map has a slight -- a little error on it. This little location map, the actual site should be in the section down below. And Mr. Higginson will provide me with a corrected one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ray, on Item C in your Page 242 w t November 1, 2001 6 J st. analysis, the question is, is there a proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, so forth, of more than 5 percent. Well, since you've got an increase in the preservation area, it seems like that would have been a -- a way to answer that question instead of this circuitous there is no proposed decrease in preservation in excess of 5 percent. That almost sounds like there's something, but it ain't 5 percent. You know, you could turn it around and say there is no decrease; there's an increase. MR. BELLOWS: You're correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, that is not related to the insubstantial issue? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I basically try to reflect the question better that way, but probably the easier understandable way is as Mr. Abernathy said. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Would it be substantial if it -- would it be substantial if you increased it by 50 percent or -- MR. BELLOWS: No. It's only the decrease we look at. They can increase all the preserve area they'd like. It's probably, from that condition, a benefit. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. You have the floor. MR. HIGGINSON: Good evening. For the record, my name is Kevin Higginson. I'm a professional engineer employed by Coastal Engineering Consultants, and I represent Southern Marsh Golf Club, LC. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the reason we're here is during the South -- South Florida Water Management District environmental resource permitting process, some changes were made to our site plan to minimize impacts to the on -site wetlands. So we've had to make some adjustments, one of which, as Ray -- Mr. Bellows mentioned, was to realign the entrance road, and the other was to shift some of the wetland preserves around to make the -- the large contiguous wetland to the east a larger area that South Page 243 November 1, 200 16J1 1 Florida was more agreeable to. And as we came forward through the SDP preapplication meeting, it was pointed out to us that that did not match up with the existing PUD master plan. So that's why we're here, just to sort of do some housekeeping and clean up our PUD master plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Goodness. Clean it up. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I have a question, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This all sounds commendable to bring everything together. But I'm wondering -- you know, we've had a lot of PUDs go through that we never see again, and then suddenly they pop up sometime later and there's been a whole bunch of changes made that we didn't know about. Is this an example of what we might look forward to in the future more often, that is as other jurisdictions take a look at this and make changes, that they'll come back to us so that we can have a chance to pass our hands over it? MR. BELLOWS: I think it's a valid point. Especially when you're dealing with other jurisdictions that have authority over a development of land that this county doesn't control, such as South Florida, then, yes, if there is a change that affects the PUD document, it would have to come back to this board. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That has not always been the case, though. It seems -- it doesn't seem that that's always been the case. We often don't know what the -- they don't have those permits in hand when they come to us. MR. BELLOWS: That's true. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And if there are substantial changes -- well, if there are changes that are a result of that -- that dialogue, you're now saying if it -- if it changes the Page 244 16J1November 1, 2001 physical PUD documents that we have, that is the way things are put together and contiguous and so forth, that it would come back to us? We could expect that to happen? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the reason this came back, it was my determination that there were enough changes to the conceptual master plan that I would not feel comfortable letting a site development plan go through with it not being consistent with the currently approved master plan. So it was my determination that he should come in for this PDI. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So we need to check with your comfort factor then to answer that question. MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's a call in many cases when there are slight changes to a master plan. And we heard one earlier today. One person's opinion may differ from another, and it's really up to staff to be diligent to make sure that when there are changes by other jurisdictional agencies that they are reflected in the master plan. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I, for one, would like you to err on the side of keeping us informed. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: And we thank you for your diligence. MR. BELLOWS: You're welcome. MR. HIGGINSON: Yeah. Thanks a lot, Ray. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any further questions here? Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: I'm happy to say no registered public speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Having no registered public speakers, I close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I make a motion we approve PDI- 01 -AR -1317. Page 245 November 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Strain and a second by Mr. Wolfley for the approval of this particular petition for changing the current master plan known as Exhibit A attached to the PDI resolution. Do we have any discussion? aye. Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. MR. HIGGINSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are on old business, and I believe -- I guess this might be new business, but we spoke about e- mail use before, No. 9. Mr. Weigel, I noticed you came back to join us at this late hour. MR. WEIGEL: That's right. Wouldn't leave without you. I had Pat -- I told Pat before lunchtime to give me a call if I had to be called in from lunch to speak to you at the end of your meeting today. And I was in the elevator when the phone rang, but I was on my way down to check up on you in any event. Thanks for letting me come back to chat briefly about e-mail. As you know, our county attorney office is still chomping at the bit to give you considerable discussion on Sunshine Law, Public Records Law, the ethics laws, as well as ex parte communications. I know you know a lot about that anyway, and it would be somewhat redundant. But at the same time, the refresher course is something we'd love to do. In regard to e -mail, and e -mail between commission members particularly, our advice to all advisory committees and the Board of County Commissioners is keep it to a minimum, e -mail between Page 246 f, 162001 J 1 '' November 1, commission members. Is it absolutely illegal? No. In fact, it is utilizable in the sense that you can send one -way e -mail from one commissioner to another or one commissioner to all the other commissioners. But you don't want a response, and you don't want to solicit a response because once you get into response and if it pertains to a matter that may foreseeably come before you or has come before you in the past, then you have what is considered by law a meeting outside of the sunshine with the three requirements of reasonable notice ahead of time, adequate public facility, and minutes being taken. It all sounds pretty simple, but our advice to the Board of County Commissioners again and again is keep the unilateral, the one -way e- mails, to a minimum if possible. Never solicit a response. If you receive such an e -mail, think at least twice before responding. And in the case of a committee such as this one that has a staff liaison, if you have the question go to your staff liaison if at all possible and make he or she be the one to send a blanket e -mail informing the rest of the commissioners, that way you've gone the extra mile, and I think you'll avoid trouble in almost every instance. I may -- I hope I've addressed maybe the current issues that you have. I certainly will entertain any questions now at this late hour. It's far later for you in your day than it is for me in my day. I had an easier day, I can tell you. But I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Weigel, just -- then there is no prohibition, as you would understand it for our contacts with staff on any subjects? MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely not. It's only between committee members that you run into the Sunshine Law problems. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can you just briefly say what we should be doing relative to contacts with applicant Page 247 t. November 1, 2001 16J 1 representatives or members of the public? MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I think, Mr. Richardson, you take us into the area of what we call the ex parte communications. And you are no different than the Board of County Commissioners, that in regard to those items, the typical items that people are sworn in to testify to that are considered quasi-judicial -- and you certainly have that charge before you to make quasi-judicial decisions -- that you must, in fact, by law identify on the record at the time that the matter is taken up, make an individual disclosure of the ex parte communications that you've had. Now, what we glean from reading the attorney general opinions and the case law is that more disclosure is better than less. I would far prefer that you tell with whom you had such communications. It doesn't matter whether they approached you or you approached them. The important thing is to indicate that you've had a communication with this person, that person, X, Y, Z, etc. It's also important for you to disclose and be able to put into the record any mail or other correspondence -type of communication that you received in regard to the decision matter before you. If you receive e -mail, if you receive hard copy transmittals, or if you can convert your e -mail into printed copies, you can submit those into the record. We advise the client, all committees that we've spoken to with our Sunshine Law discussions, keep a file of the records and things that you get from a public records standpoint; but also bring to the committee meetings those documents, exemplars, maps, drawings, sketches, things that you receive from advocates both for and against the issues that are before you and submit them to the record, and the court reporter will make them part of the record of this proceeding. They'll always be there. Now, why is the law in place in the first place? It's to give those persons who wish to review the matter further in the decision- making Page 248 November 1, 2001 1611 process to know how you and what you have received in your own decision- making that you make individually and then, ultimately, collectively here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. And, Ms. Murray, would you please make sure that a memo goes around to all your staff of the clarification that Mr. Weigel just gave us, that staff should be the source of the information when they respond to an individual commissioner so that that's totally understood? And that way it would probably facilitate everyone's understanding of some changes that happen that we question when we're reading our executive summaries, like we did this time. MS. MURRAY: Yes. I'll do that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are we subject -- as advisory board members, advisory committee members, are we subject to any criticism for declining to engage in an ex parte conversation with a petitioner or opponent of a petition? I know the commissioners -- county commissioners do it for political reasons. Obviously, they should be reachable by their constituents. But should we be involved in the same sort of running -- going through the mill twice, so to speak? MR. WEIGEL: That's a good question, and the answer is, from your county attorney, no. You would not be subject to criticism from the county attorney for declining to do so and keep all of your decision - making, to the extent that you personally, physically can, within the confines of the meeting room. That makes it so absolutely in the sunshine that there can be no question whatsoever. The disclosures that you make are pursuant to county policy resolution, applying state law and case decision, and we think you're protected in doing that. Page 249 November 1, 2001 16JI And we have advised this Board of County Commissioners and you through the years that you may, in fact, have these ex parte communications, as we call them, as long as the disclosure is made. The disclosure is made to avoid you individually from having personal civil liability. And you don't work these long hours to put yourself at risk to have, for convenience, heard someone outside of the meeting room pushing an issue no matter which side he or she may be on. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Without disclosing it. MR. WEIGEL: Well, without disclosing. But even with disclosure the fact is the disclosure makes it legal within the sunshine, but is it -- is it the process that works best for you in your own decision - making? If the answer is yes, what you're disclosing is that you have received information, that may or may not have assisted you in your decision- making, outside of the meeting arrangement which the law, quite frankly, hopes that you will utilize. They want -- the law -- the Sunshine Law wants you to be in -- in regular noticed public meeting to the full extent that you can. And from that standpoint it's certainly facilitative for you, as individuals, to receive information, open your mail, have, even, meetings with people outside of these -- outside of these commission meetings. There's no question there's certainly efficiencies achieved and information that may be passed, but the law wants you to disclose how you received that information and how -- and to that degree how it may, in fact, assist you in your decision - making you make on the floor. That's -- that's what that record is supposed to tell the observer, that the decision that you're making today, or whatever meeting day you have, is based upon what you heard at the meeting that very day and the discussions that you had with other people outside of the meeting and information, physical information, that you've received also. It's -- it's legal as long as you make the full ex Page 250 November 1 2001 16J 1 parte disclosure, however. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? Under old business I would just like to mention that I thought we were going to get a current list of all commission members and their e- mails. I didn't see one at my place, but I have a very nice set of Emergency Medical Service Advisory Council up here. MS. MURRAY: I don't know where that came from. I -- I may have that in my blue folder. And I would ask that you also stay. You have a lot of paper to sign. And, Commissioner Abernathy, I have a question to ask you after the meeting. And I have two NAICS books. A couple people mentioned they did not get them. I'd like to get rid of them. Thanks. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How are we coming along on the LDC books? MS. MURRAY: I -- she told me a month, and that was two weeks ago, so I'm going to say it's another two weeks at the most, hopefully. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. No further old business? Is there any new business? Any public comment? No public comment. No discussions of the addenda. If there's no objection, I move that we are adjourned. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second the motion. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:57 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Page 251 4. i November 1, 2001 16J1 JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 252 November 15, 2001 16J 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 15, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:31 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Joyceanna J. Rautio Russell A. Budd Kenneth L. Abernathy Paul Midney Lindy Adelstein Lora Jean Young David J. Wolfley Dwight Richardson Mark P. Strain ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie M. Student, Asst. County Attorney Susan Murray, Chief Planner, Planning Services lv;sc. Cones: Date: he"d aA Page 1.:: November 15 2001 16J1 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission for Thursday, November 15th, 2001. Would you all please stand and join me in pledging allegiance to our flag. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Rautio, present. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Present. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a quorum and a full board this morning. Welcome back. Is there an addenda to the agenda? MS. MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No addenda. Approval of the minutes for October 18th, do we have any corrections or revisions? Do we have a motion for approval? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I move that the minutes be accepted. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. Page 2 M November 15, 2001 6J1 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mrs. Young, a second by Mr. Wolfley to approve the minutes of October 18th. All those in favor say aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Abstain. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll abstain. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We had one abstention. I'm sorry. Planning Commission absences, we'll start at my right. Anyone? COMMISSIONER BUDD: I will not be at the November 28th, 5:05 p.m. Meeting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Anyone else have any conflicts for either a regular meeting or a Land Development Code meeting? COMMISSIONER BUDD: And also I think the first meeting in December, December 6th -- is that our first one? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I won't be here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All right. Item No. 6 on the agenda is the recap for October 22nd, the Board of County Commissioners. Do we have any highlights or questions? MS. MURRAY: I don't have anything for these recaps. I did just want to give you a little update as a result of last Tuesday's board Page 3 16J 1 November 15, 2001 meeting, which was just a couple days ago. John Dunnuck informed me -- you might be interested in this -- that the board supported funding for a hearing examiner -- for a full -time hearing examiner. And I know we had discussed previously with the board kind of a part -time position and that they would look at minor land development applications such as variances and conditional uses with the goal later on to encompass rezonings and all that. Well, I guess the board was convinced that a full -time hearing examiner would probably be most beneficial at this time, and so they supported funding for that. So the next step would be, obviously, to work out the details of the position description and advertising for the position and amending our Land Development Code to accommodate that. So that'll be coming down the road in the near future, we hope, just to let you know. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Susan, I noticed in the paper that somebody was quoted as saying the hearing examiner should come from outside Collier County to avoid any appearances of ties to the local -- any power blocks and whatever. Is that the position of the commission, or was that just one commissioner's -- MS. MURRAY: I don't think I could answer that, Commissioner, because I wasn't at the meeting. I'm just kind of relaying information that John passed on to me, so I wasn't -- I didn't have the benefit of the perspective of the -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think that's an excellent idea, but I just wondered if that was part of the precept. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Susan, would that eliminate Planning Commission, or just put us in the position of looking at Land Development Code changes and the more code review -type process? MS. MURRAY: Right. The overall policy -type of discussions and meetings and your Land Development Code amendments as well. Page 4 16J 1 November 15, 2001 And, of course, that will necessitate some amendments to the Land Development Code in terms of your powers and duties as well. So I would anticipate that coming up within the next, I don't know, six months or so. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Do you have -- I know nothing's set firmly, but do you have any anticipated time frame that this might possibly arrange? A couple months? MS. MURRAY: I don't at this time. COMMISSIONER BUDD: A couple years? MS. MURRAY: I'll check with John. I'll check with John. And, you know, what I'll do is I'll just try to keep you updated as things move along and the progress and the steps that they're making. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One of the comments that I heard at -- you know, from the TV of the meeting was that they had talked about maybe having a citizens group participate in the selection process or at least be consulted. I would like to think that perhaps some of the older, wiser heads from the Planning Commission might be a resource that should be made available to that process, because it is going to impact our job. And certainly I think one of our older, wiser commissioners might want to step up to that plate. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How about the oldest, wisest one? That would be Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would like to see us represented in that process, however. MS. MURRAY: If I'm aware of any opportunities that come UP -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He's not a citizen -- MS. MURRAY: -- depending on what they decide, I'll let you know. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now, gentlemen, we have to get all our Page 5 w A .. 16J November 15, 2001 1 comments on the record, even the humor. Okay. Other questions about the Board of County Commissioners report? All right. There is -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One last question. Last night you brought up tangentially the fact that the county's being sued. Is that an issue that can be discussed with the -- what are we being sued for? Are we involved in it? MS. STUDENT: No. And when we're in litigation, we generally don't like to really -- you know, it's protected under the Sunshine Law and so forth. So I guess Mike Pettit in our office, our litigation attorney, is handling this. But the developer of the Vanderbilt Villas, the second phase, is suing the county because they allege -- there's some issues about language in the Land Development Code and what it means and how it impacted the site development plan that was submitted. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: As I recall, the -- the commission did not take final action on that. MS. STUDENT: No. They withdrew their variance. They withdrew that. Those are things that will be handled and dealt with in the litigation. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So we shouldn't ask. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Moving right along. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Susan, you can go to court even if you haven't exhausted your administrative remedies? MS. STUDENT: As I -- as I stated, all of those issues will be evaluated as part of the county's defense of that case. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now are we ready to go to Item No. 8? Okay. Advertised public hearings, the first item would be VA -2001- AR -1166, a variance for -- an after- the -fact variance. All those wishing to give testimony today please stand, raise your right hand, Page 6 >2 November 15, 2001 and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) 16J'l MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for an after- the -fact variance for a home in the Glen Eagle subdivision. The house was constructed and a certificate of occupancy was issued based on a -- based on a survey. This is a spot survey. And, as you see, the survey shows over 5 feet along the eastern property line. Green being the house, blue being the property line. And it shows over 5 feet -- I apologize this is marked up. I got this from the building department. It's not a real clean copy. But you can see the 5 -foot distance at that location, and then it continues up that eastern side. Therefore, the house received a CO and was resurveyed. And here you can see that the property line and the house diverge by 2.7 feet; therefore, they're asking for a 2.3- foot after- the -fact variance from the 5 feet that's required. The -- I spoke to the surveyor last night and afternoon, and she said that it was a surveyor's error. Her crew made a mistake. There was no -- nothing more than that that she said. It was a mistake that the crew made, and then they corrected it later with the -- when they resurveyed the property. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions of staff? MR. REISCHL: Well, and you also saw the letter of objection from the neighbor to the east. And this was supplied by the -- Mr. Mudd, the neighbor to the east, and you can see the approximate locations of the houses. I don't know if -- there are no distances between the houses. But you can see that if there were a lot line adjustment done, that both houses would meet the required 5 -foot side yard. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Strain, you have a question? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. I had asked Fred to bring Page 7 16J] November 15, 2001 the original s'urVey with him today so I could compare it to the survey that we've beeri'presented with. And I found that the surveyor, while they claim they've made an error, they didn't make just one error. The original survey has errors in all four directions. I'm wondering how that could possibly have happened. For example, on the left side of the page, there's a note that it says it's 31.4 on the new survey, the one we've got. The original survey said it was 28.9. On the front the setback on the one we have says it's 32.3. On the survey on file it says it's 31.6. On the left side, where it says 4.7 on ours, it was 5.2 on the original. And on the rear where you normally would show four corners on every survey you submit to the county, it was mysteriously not put on the survey that was submitted to the county. So I'm not inclined to think this is just a -- one surveyor's error. There seems to be multiple errors, and the omission of the questionable, the most extreme error in the back of the original survey concerns me. I'm just wondering if you had any input on that. MR. REISCHL: Not from my conversation with Ms. Nelson. And Mr. Strain also asked me over the phone whether there was a problem with fire review. I spoke to the fire code official, and he said that for single- family houses there's no minimum separation, that they -- if they're closer than 10 feet, they consider it one structure and they plan their fire protection accordingly. So there was no -- no problem with the fire code official. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I notice you've been asking us to address the rear north setback, the 2.7. That seems to be the focus. But the front at 4.7 is out as well. That I know, is only a few inches, and generally those can be handled administratively, or is that one here for discussion today too -- MR. REISCHL: Right. We just -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- for the whole -- 10M. t, 16J 1 November 15, 2001 MR. REISCHL: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The whole side of the house is actually -- it's not just cutting off a pool cage if that was one solution. It's the whole side of the house now is over the property -- is into the setback. MR. REISCHL: That's correct. What we mentioned is the closest encroachment. That's why we mentioned the 2.7. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: In Section D you say there might be an alternative remedy, a lot line adjustment with the neighbor to the east. Has that been pursued, and what would it entail? MR. REISCHL: I haven't spoken to Mr. Mudd about that, but I spoke to Ms. Nelson. She said that was the first thing that she pursued and didn't get anywhere with -- I'm just quoting her. I don't know how far or how diligently she pursued it, but she said that was the first thing she did. And then when that didn't work, she went for the variance. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Has anybody checked to see if the surveyor has errors and omissions on their policies? MR. REISCHL: Nothing that -- we don't normally carry records of that, but in the last few years for the Planning Commission's request, we have been keeping errors of -- surveyors' errors. And she did not have any over the last few years, but we don't have her career, basically. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Fred, I understand from -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That wasn't your question, though. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That wasn't the question but -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time. Would you like to restate your question, Mr. Adelstein? Page 9 November 15, 2001 16J1 1 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. The question I asked is does the surveyor have errors and omission insurance? MR. REISCHL: Oh, I'm sorry. No. I didn't ask that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That would be a cost of doing business, I guess, one way or the other. Just make sure I understand. You're -- this is a request for a variance, but you're recommending denial. MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So absent any other reaction by the Planning Commission except following staff recommendation, they'd have to tear the house down? MR. REISCHL: Or pursue a lot line adjustment. Those would be the two alternative remedies. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of staff? Do we -- the petitioner would like to present. You have to come to the microphone and state your name for the record, please. And if it's difficult, please spell it for the court reporter. MR. BARON: Good morning. My name is Avi Baron. We built this house according to the survey that was given to us. And the facts were given to you. I don't know if you have any questions I can answer, but I don't think I can say anything new at this point. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: If you do not receive the variance, how major are the adjustments that you would have to make to your house as it presently stands? MR. BARON: Well, if -- according to the layout, really you can't do anything. You'll have to tear the house down, I guess. I mean, it's the whole side of the house, which include bedroom, bathrooms, and other rooms is on the other side of the line, and you can't just trim the house and fit it within the line. It's -- I don't think it's possible, and I don't think it's possible to push the house either. Page 10 November 15, 2001 16J1 So -- and the question about insurance, I don't think that the survey have insurance. We checked into it, and I don't think that it's even a requirement by the county for survey to have that kind of insurance. So it's kind of scary. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm not sure that the county's the licensing agent for a surveyor in the State of Florida. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It doesn't matter whether it was a responsibility or requirement. Most companies- that deal this way carry errors and omissions insurance. For example, I certainly would check into that before I signed a contract with somebody to do a job like this. Now, you're saying you checked, and they do not have insurance? Are you sure? MR. BARON: I checked. And from what I know, it's not a requirement, and she does not have it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Now, you're -- you're the contractor on this job, then? Is that -- MR. BARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And so this is a -- she came in and performed a service for you, then, to -- as far as the survey is concerned? MR. BARON: Yeah. I've known her for several years, and she's done a very good job and -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I wasn't really -- MR. BARON: -- now she's made a mistake. We hired her, and she's done a lot of work for us. And unfortunately -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you -- you bear the full responsibility, then, in this case because of being the contractor? MR. BARON: I think it's a legal question, but I assume so. I don't know. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What type of contractor's license do Page 11 .� November 15, 2001 16J I you have, what level? MR. BARON: General contractor. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: General. Thank you. Do we have any other questions of Mr. Baron? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. I'm not sure it's relevant, but what are the status of your negotiations with the neighbor over lot line adjustment? Has that been pursued? MR. BARON: Yes. Carol Nelson had tried to speak with him several time. I think she even met with Mr. Mudd once or twice. And from what I understand, the answer was no. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It wasn't a matter of price; it was just the matter of the concept was no? MR. BARON: I don't think it was price negotiated to that point, just the concept. I could be wrong, though. I wasn't in those meetings, but that's what I received as an answer. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The bottom line was no -- MR. BARON: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- for one reason or another. MR. BARON: Right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It would appear that Mr. Mudd is here to speak since he did stand and was sworn in. So do we have any further questions of Mr. Baron at the moment? Thank you. Next registered speaker. MS. MURRAY: Jim Mudd. MR. MUDD: Hi. Madam Chair, Commissioners, I'm Jim Mudd, deputy county manager, but in this instance I'm on leave because I signed that form before I came down here. And I will also tell you right now I'm a private citizen. Yes, I'm the neighbor next door. The code violation was noticed when my surveyor came in before I purchased the home, three days before we -- we went to final Page 12 November 15, 2001 1611 „ and we signed for my house. When those stakes were laid out, I noticed that the -- the home next to me was awful close to the -- to the tune -- and I have a picture -- if you -- if you take a look at the stake -- and this is the back of the home in question. You can't go out the lanai door without walking into my property. So -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's close. MR. MUDD: Yeah, that's close. And that's in the back. The -- so being a county official, I talked to Tom Cook, and I said, "Tom, I'm no surveyor, but I know you've got to have some kind of setbacks here." And I will tell you I notice houses are awful close in Glen Eagle, but I don't think they're this close. So Tom came out with his -- with somebody that had some surveying knowledge and took a look and said, "Yep, we got a problem. Not only do you have a problem in the back, you have a problem along the entire line." And if you take a look at that line out to the front, you'll see that the concrete to the air conditioner touches on the property line. What I'll also say is their surveyor did call me for a property line adjustment. Based on my attorney -- attorney's guidance, he basically said, "Do not deal with the surveyor. You don't even know if this -- first of all, the surveyor has -- doesn't own the home next to you nor the property. We don't even know if she represents the owner." And then I had a conversation with the owner, Mr. Baron, and the negotiation went, "I want you to give me the land," and I said, "No." It wasn't a price. It was "I want you to give me the land." And I said no at that particular juncture. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Would a price be acceptable -- would there be a sale if a price met your demand? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I think I say that in the bottom of my letter based on the objection. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't have a copy of that letter. Page 13 t 3 November 15, 2001 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't have a copy of it 16J1 either. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's right on the back page of where the survey is -- or actually, no. It's about three from the end. MR. MUDD: I basically say at the bottom line, "Property" -- this was dated on the 14th of October. "Property could be purchased that would alleviate the need for seeking this variance. I have attached a sketch of the setback violation for your use," signed, Jim Mudd. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of Mr. Mudd? Any further comment? Mr. Wolfley, before I close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Mudd, how would -- you know, it's a disruptive -- well, the picture's gone. But you see it's close and inconvenient. Would money solve that? MR. MUDD: There's -- there's room between the property in order to do that. I would -- I would rather not have to fight with the neighbor for -- from now until whatever about, "Hey, you're on my property" or "You decided to put a stone path all the way around your back, and oh, by the way, you're on my property at this particular juncture." I'd rather not get into it. There is a distance -- does this mean it goes into evidence? We'll take a look. There's got to be another picture that'll give you a better idea. We can -- the closest to the homes is this area between the ledge of their lanai and the part of the pool, and there's some 10 1/2 foot there, so there's -- there's a way to get the property line in the right direction so that both homes are okay. And then if I ever decide to sell the home in the future, then the person that buys it from me won't have to deal with this issue. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Mudd, clarify for me. Is the lanai yours, or are the pillars yours? Which part is yours? Which house is Page 14 November 15, 2001 yours? . 6 MR. MUDD: The pool is mine. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The pool is yours. Okay. And you are willing to negotiate for the lot line change? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. ti CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That seems reasonable. Any other questions? Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I really have a question that maybe Marjorie could answer for me. Originally in our packet the discussion was on an error in the survey for the setback. But in comparing this new survey to the old, the circumstances and the number of errors on every single corner of the house and the fact that this critical corner -- which I've never seen a surveyor that would miss a rear setback on a corner like that. The certification of the original survey says it was done to, you know, state standards and technical specifications. Is there anybody looking at other -- possible fraud or anything else that may have been involved in the way this was submitted originally? Because this is not even -- the survey we have now is so erroneous compared to the first, I can't imagine a surveyor making that many mistakes. MS. STUDENT: I think -- I don't know that I'm able to answer that question because I think that that may be something that the building department and Ed Perico's shop that -- I don't know what procedures they have in place for that. I do know in another life I worked for a land surveyor, and there's some state standards that they have about, you know, different matters. For example, on lot surveys they have a certain error of closure and things like that. And I think that generally they -- they should have errors and omissions insurance. But I think that other question could possibly best be answered by Mr. Perico's shop. I don't know of any process -- I don't even Page 15 November 15 2 001 16J 1 f. know that that's something that county officials are looking for. I think that professionals operate under a set of standards. And in so doing, that they have an onus on them to be truthful and act professionally.. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And if they don't, their professional licenses can be in jeopardy. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's kind of where I was coming from. There's a lot of errors here, and I'm just surprised at how many there are. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any further -- go ahead. MS. STUDENT: One other observation. And in other instances I know that sometimes the Planning Commission has recommended that the matter be taken up with the Contractor's Licensing Board, and they do have hearings and so forth on things of this nature that take place with people licensed-in the county. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm struck with the notion that the problem is well identified, and it seems to be a communications issue between the two parties. And I'm wondering how our role can best facilitate a resolution to this. And perhaps what I'm hearing with the two positions that have been at least presented to us is that the only thing we can do is -- to move this thing along would be to follow staff recommendation. But that -- it just seems like the parties should be able to get together absent us dropping that kind of a hammer. I'm just puzzled as to why the parties haven't been able to talk about this. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, if the owner wants to sell it, he's going to have to do something. I think that will impel -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Perhaps the contractor Page 16 November 15, 2001 6J1 1 could come back up to the mike and we can hear an opportunity to resolve this. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Baron. MR. BARON: Yes. I would love to meet with Mr. Mudd and discuss it. Like I said before, it's probably just a miscommunication because we wanted to try to solve it. And if there's a price for it, and it's reasonable, we probably can figure it out and be done with it. So I'll give Mr. Mudd a call if you guys don't mind and Mr. Mudd doesn't mind, and we'll see if we can get together and solve this problem. But it wasn't my understanding until now that it's even possible. My question -- my answer was that he would not negotiate. So it's news to me and probably miscommunication, and I'll proceed that -- that way if it's possible and see if we can resolve the problem. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought he said that he spoke directly to you. MR. BARON: No. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Just to the surveyor. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, in view of that, I would at least like to float the idea of continuing this until the parties have a chance to resolve this, and maybe it won't even come back. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Actually, I think that probably what we should do is vote on the staff recommendation to deny, and that will certainly encourage the parties to get together, because I don't really believe that it's just an error and it's just a matter of communication. There is something much bigger here that we don't really focus on at the moment. But, as Commissioner Strain pointed out, there are multiple errors in this issue. And right now we need to solve the problem before us on this particular variance, and I think we should go forward. Page 17 November 15, 2001 16J1 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Close the public hearing? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No further comments, questions? Close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I make a motion -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I have more faith in the -- in human nature than what you've described to me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are you going to make a motion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Rather than -- before we get to the motion stage, before -- rather than getting rid of this by -- by denying it -- that means that the next step would be at the Board of County Commissioners -- I think at this level we should do as much as we can to resolve the issue rather than send it forward, but I'll hear a motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Ms. Murray has a comment. MS. MURRAY: Don't forget there's a time period between now and the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners where negotiations could take place. Also, the applicant would have the opportunity to request a continuance in front of the Board of County Commissioners if he thought he was making progress and just needed some more time. So you have a couple of options. You could vote to continue it, or you could take action, and it would be forwarded to the board with the applicant's opportunity to continue -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: Excuse me. In fact, wouldn't this be going to the Board of Zoning Appeals and not the Board of County Commissioners? MS. MURRAY: Yeah, I'm sorry, I misspoke. Board of Zoning Appeals. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: BCC acting as -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The Board of Zoning Appeals. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, this is the second Page 18 November 15, 2001 1611 time in two meetings that we have tried to take this position that we're going to be the mediator or arbitrator and people will come back to us and tell us how they've made out on things, and I don't think that's a function of the Planning Commission at all. We've got an issue here, and it just cries for an up or down vote, as far as I'm concerned. So I make a motion to forward this petition recommending denial. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy, a second by Commissioner Strain for approval of the staff recommendation for denial of this petition. Do we have any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just -- just a quick comment. I certainly go along with your viewpoint, Mr. Abernathy, in terms of perhaps pushing this to a resolution. I guess philosophically, though, I'm just puzzled by us not wanting to get involved in trying to resolve things and just pushing them upstairs. I'm not sure I quite understand or agree with that concept, but if you have a perception that the BCC -- that, our -- Planning Commission should always just act on what's in front of us and not deal with trying to resolve things outside of that, then I understand your position. But is there any room for -- for a crack of -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There was room. The builder had the opportunity. He sent a representative instead of doing it himself. This length of time when he was put in this position, if the surveyor couldn't get the job done, I think a reasonable businessperson would have tried to approach it himself. Under the circumstances, he hasn't done that. He hasn't given us any -- any Page 19 r � ' November 15, 2001 16J 1 show that he's actually tried to compromise. I don't think there's any question we ought to vote it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: In a situation this significant with as many errors, had it been me as a reasonable person, I would have gone to an attorney immediately if I were Mr. Baron, but I guess he hasn't chosen to do that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So -- go ahead, Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let me answer you. My problem with your approach is that what if Mr. Baron offers Mr. Mudd $5,000 and Mr. Mudd says that ain't enough so they come back in here in two weeks? Are we the great -- the Grand Pooh Bahs of this? Are we going to turn down the variance -- or grant the variance because we think Mr. Mudd is being unreasonable in not taking the 5,000? I mean, where does it all end? MS. MURRAY: That's not in your criteria, by the way. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So that's my problem with this trying to be a mediator. We're not -- not -- that's not part of our charter. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: By the way, I am -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Adelstein, do you have a comment on the record? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Call the -- oops, excuse me. Commissioner Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm sorry. I'm just a little bit uncomfortable, too, because supposing that Mr. Mudd is unreasonable and he, you know, wants an exorbitant amount for the - - then there's not much -- where as if they sort of negotiated between themselves and then come back, then we could turn it down if it seems as though one side or the other is being, you know, in transit. Page 20 November 15, 2001 6J1 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How do we judge that? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're not here for those kind of judgments, though, I don't believe. We're here for code -- addressing this as it applies to the code. And I think making judgment on whether or not someone offers enough money or not enough money is not our jurisdiction, and we should not be looking at it that way. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I heartily agree with that concept. It's not part of our criteria. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Call the question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Apparently it was unanimous, hearing no -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I was persuaded by the cogency of Mr. Abernathy's arguments. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The cogency of the arguments. Thank you. Okay. Moving right along, that was the last of our public hearings for today. The next item on the agenda is No. 9, old business. Any old business that commissioners would like to bring up? Hearing no old business, Item No. 10, new business. This is our planning workshop, long awaited. MS. MURRAY: And Fred -- Fred Reischl has prepared the presentation for you. And after Fred's presentation if you have questions, and then if you want to have an open discussion about other issues in terms of staff support and the function of the board in Page 21 November 15, 2001 16J l terms of how we relate to each other and the Board of County Commissioners, we could talk about that. If you wanted to talk about anything else that's legal, I suppose we could talk about that as well. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought we were going to have a presentation by the attorney or something. MS. STUDENT: Yes. That -- that presentation will be December the 6th. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, once again. And my presentation, as Mr. Adelstein pointed out this morning, will be brief. It's basically just to touch on certain points. And at the end -- if you want to make notes during the presentation and then go back to certain questions, that's how I thought we would handle this. MS. MURRAY: And I guess let me just preface -- Fred, excuse me for interrupting -- that it was our understanding that this was to be a presentation geared more towards the newer members, although I know Ms. Young has been on the board for quite some time waiting for her presentation, but this was to be geared more towards the newer members to give the newer members an idea of what their role was and the relationship of this board with us and the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I thank you. It's been a year since I asked for this. MR. REISCHL: The authority behind the Planning Commission is basically the Collier County Growth Management Plan, which is state mandated and state approved, and the Land Development Code, which you're familiar with, especially after last night. The Growth Management Plan contains goals, objectives, and policies; and the Land Development Code contains specifics that are consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies in the Growth Management Plan, so one is more general, the Growth Management Plan; and the Land Development Code is more specific with more of the bricks and Page 22 November 15, 2001 1 bJl MS mortar of how the Planning Commission does their job. . MURRAY: Let me just interject real quick and just restate what Fred said, that the Land Development Code primarily functions to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan. Your Growth Management Plan is your overall long -term vision of growth and development in the county. Your Land Development Code, implemented by the current planning staff, is your day to day -- the regulations of how you construct the bricks and mortar on the ground based on the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan that says we will have commercial areas here. We will have residential areas here. That's very basic, but I just wanted to interject that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Susan, perhaps -- I know you didn't want it this way, but since that's come up, the commission here, when do we get a chance to look at issues that come up as a result of the Growth Management Plan? Do they come through us, or is that set somewhere else, and we just implement the Land Development Code? MR. REISCHL: No, you do. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: When is that cycle? MR. REISCHL: April, I believe, is when the board looks at it, so you would be earlier in the year. MS. MURRAY: Well, your -- and your -- you just had that last meeting, or wasn't that part of our -- was that part of our nine -hour meeting where the -- I've lost track. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The Growth Management Plan. MS. MURRAY: Your comp plan amendments were looked at? That is primarily where you get involved is looking at Comprehensive Plan amendments that are brought, I believe, two cycles a year, Marjorie; is that correct? MS. STUDENT: Yes. There are two cycles. We generally Page 23 November 15, 2001 16JI only do one. And I might add under the state law, the Planning Commission is the local planning agency, and they have the authority to make recommendations for staff to look at various aspects of the comp plan; and if things need to be adjusted in the comp plan, have the authority to direct staff to bring back information to them in that regard. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Somebody ought to state the obvious. The comp plan and the Growth Management Plan are one and the same. MS. STUDENT: Yes. The Comprehensive Plan is the generic term. Collier County has chosen to call our plan the Collier County Growth Management Plan or GMP. And just as a further aside, the plan is implemented by the Land Development Code, as Susan and Fred stated. It's also implemented -- because some of the policies provide for activities that the county is to perform or programs set up, and it's further implemented by programs. And then the Land Development Code and the comp plan both are further implemented by rezonings and other types of development orders that you routinely hear. So it's -- it's implemented in a number of ways. And you can look at the comp plan as sort of a constitution, which is broad and general, and then the laws that implement it is the more specifics of it. I think that maybe helps put it in a framework for you. MR. REISCHL: And, as Marjorie had mentioned, also on December 6th, you'll have a presentation by the county attorney's office, and that will go into more detail on disclosure and topics of the Sunshine Law. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What time will that be? MR. REISCHL: After the regular public hearings, I believe, under new business, I think. The same -- similar to this. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And hopefully a very light agenda Page 24 November 15, 2001 6J1 from staff. MS. MURRAY: Yes. MR. REISCHL: The petitions that you look at basically fall into two categories, one where you are the final deciding body and the other where you make a recommendation. The two where you have the final authority would be boat dock extensions and insubstantial changes to PUDs. The ones where you make a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Board of County Commissioners -- and, again, as Mr. Abernathy said, to state the obvious, they are the same five commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners sits as the Board of Zoning Appeals to hear certain cases, and they sit as the Board of County Commissioners to hear other cases. So they are the same five elected people. And that would be variances, conditional uses, and rezones; rezones including both straight rezones, for example ag to residential or rezones to PUD, which could be both ag to PUD or PUD to PUD by changing the -- the inner workings of that planned unit development. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Fred, this will obviously change, then, with the hearing examiner coming along? MR. REISCHL: Yes. And we decided to give you this presentation -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's fine. MR. REISCHL: -- since we don't know when that's going to happen. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm just trying to focus on where the changes might occur. MS. STUDENT: I just make an observation. I think maybe that may free the Planning Commission up to do more of the things that are contemplated by the planning acts. You may, perhaps, review different elements of the comp plan and make recommendations and also review different portions of the land code and make Page 25 :a November 15, 2001 6J1 recommendations and have an enlarged ability there. MR. REISCHL: And that is the other -- one of the other main functions would be looking at the regulations, the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. For Growth Management Plan amendments, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, and then the Board of County Commissioners forwards that to state. For the Land Development Code, you would make a recommendation to the board, and the board has final decision - making authority on that. So if there is a future hearing examiner taking over the land use petitions, this would be more of the scope of the Planning Commission. It would be looking at the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code amendments. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Fred, on that point one of the problems I see coming down the pike with this change is the availability of staff to -- to our group. And our resources being what they are, I'm not -- I haven't been given any assurances that we're going to have the staff to be able to perform that function. That's an aside. MS. MURRAY: And, Fred, you might want to explain a little bit in terms of the Growth Management Plan amendment process because it's really a two -step process, and you'll hear the same petitions twice. You'll hear them at the transmittal stage, and then you'll hear them at the adoption stage. And you'll have the opportunity to make a recommendation to the board at both stages, and you might -- it might be a little confusing as to why you're looking at the same things twice. Could you explain to them kind of the process, Fred, of -- the trail of a Growth Management Plan amendment to its final adoption? MR. REISCHL: Well, the two terms that Susan used are pretty descriptive, "transmittal" and "adoption." Transmittal, you are Page 26 November 15, 2001 6J1 sending it to the state. The state makes any changes or approves it as it is or denies it. And then it comes back to you and to the Board of County Commissioners for adoption. And not having been involved in this too much, Susan, if you want to make any more comments on that. MS. MURRAY: Sure. And Marjorie might help me out. It's been a while since I've been involved in the Growth Management Plan process. But if it's still the same as it was when I was working on it, primarily you have a public hearing in which -- and it's called a transmittal hearing. And that is basically the hearing you had, I believe, a couple weeks ago whereby the comprehensive planning staff presents the Growth Management Plan amendments as either submitted by staff or submitted by the public. And the public has to write to petition the board to amend the Growth Management Plan. They pay a fee to do that and fill out an application, and a staff analysis is performed, very similar to what you see in a rezoning application, for example. There's an analysis performed and a recommendation made. That is brought before you. The presentations are made before you, and then you take a vote and make a recommendation to the board as to whether or not to transmit them to the state. That action does not -- and let me back up a second. Once you do that, the Board of County Commissioners also basically goes through the same process. They listen to staff s analysis and recommendation. They listen to the petitioner's side, and then they vote as to whether or not to transmit them to the state. That is not the final action taken. Once that vote is taken, there is a very specific time frame in which the long -range planning staff has to send them to the state. I believe they still have the option as to whether or not to request an ORC report. An ORC -- MS. STUDENT: That's correct. Page 27 November 15, 2001 16J I MS. MURRAY: -- report is O -R -C, objections, recommendations, and comments. And that is a report -- basically an analysis of the proposed amendments by the state, and it's a consistency analysis. It's also an analysis -- it's an evaluation of staff s analysis for consistency with not only the local Growth Management Plan, but also the regional and state Comprehensive Plan; is that correct, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: Yes. And it also looks at whether or not the plan complies with state law, that being the Growth Management Act, which sets some general parameters for the different elements of the comp plan and what it must do; and also whether it complies with an administrative code rule commonly referred to as 9J -5, which has more specific regulations as to how to implement the more general statutory requirements. And the state looks at those criteria to evaluate whether the particular amendment complies with that. And in the ORC report, they set forth if the particular part of the amendment does not comply and what rule or statute or part of the state or regional plan it does not comply with and with some very general suggestion on how the local government can fix the amendment. The local governments are wise to ask the state for that review because later on when you finally adopt, if there's a compliance issue, you find yourself right in an administrative hearing process. So it's kind of to give you a heads up before you adopt on where some problem areas might be. And also the state is quite willing to provide technical assistance to local governments to assist them in having amendments and comp plans that comply. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We deal with the comp plan in a piecemeal sort of way with this endless string of amendments. Isn't there a -- if you're in a more static environment Page 28 November 15, 2001 16J 1 - and you weren't doing that amending all the time or even if you were, isn't there a requirement somewhere along the line that you take an overview or look at the whole comp plan? We did it in the city. It's called an EAR, I believe. MS. STUDENT: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Evaluation and review. MS. STUDENT: That's correct. We did that here in the county. The process really started in '95 into '96 with the adoption of our EAR report, and it was reviewed through a delegation and authority agreement between the DCA and the Regional Planning Commission. It was reviewed by the Planning Commission, the Regional Planning Commission, and found to be sufficient. And then we embarked upon our EAR -based amendments, and we had some problems there and were involved in litigation over those EAR amendments, which culminated in the final order. And we're looking at another EAR. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: When is it due again? MS. STUDENT: I believe it's -- they have to do -- start a -- the process for a report sometime next year. I have to talk to Mr. Litsinger on that. He has more of the particulars, but we've generally talked about it. And it's basically -- the EAR is so you can look at your plan and see what has been accomplished from the objectives and goals and policies that have been set up, what needs to be accomplished, and also takes into account any changes in the law, this substantive law, Rule 9J -5, or the Growth Management Law pertaining to what needs to be in a plan. And so that report is sort of a snapshot of, gee, you know, this is where we were, this is where we are now, and what still needs to be done. And then from that report, new goals, objectives, and policies or the EAR -based amendments are to be drafted that show how the local government is going to continue to meet the goals, objectives, and policies that it has established as well as come up with some, Page 29 `. November 15, 2001 6Jl perhaps, new ones. And this all has to be based on data and analysis that — the local government isn't charged with going out and necessarily creating new data, but best available data should be utilized and then that serves as a basis for the comp plan goals, objectives, and policies. And there's also a basis in law for that because when you have a regulation -- the plan has a regulatory effect -- you have to have a rational basis as a government, as a matter of constitutional law, for what you do. So the data and analysis also serves that function. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's enough to keep us busy without variances or conditional uses or anything else. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just wanted to interject something here. If memory serves me correct, Collier County was either the first or second county to actually create a Comprehensive Plan, and I believe that was finished in 1983. And if I recall, it was Nino Spagna, who was the principal author of putting together a Comprehensive Plan, which was rather small at that time. So Collier County -- even though we've been criticized for not trying to control growth, trying to manage growth -- I believe was on the cutting edge of creating the comp plans. And the other part of that then, after we've looked at the comp plan, which became the Growth Management Plan, the -- that's been 18 years since we actually started this process. And then I think the logic for the Land Development Code, which was passed on the 30th of October of 1991, was so that we had one place that all these different ordinances and all the information was put together. And Mr. Mark Morton came here last night and mentioned how that process, I think, started in probably the early part of 1990 to codify everything into the Land Development Code so we could work from a couple of basic documents. One of my comments here that I would like to make is that Page 30 November 15, 2001 16J 1 Collier County has been on the cutting edge of trying to manage growth for over 18 years. And we're overly criticized for not planning for anything, and it's been in the works for a long time. MS. STUDENT: I just wanted to add to that a little bit. Yes, when -- 1988 when I joined the county, we had the 1983 plan and the zoning ordinance, ordinance commonly referred to as 82 -2. And when that comp plan was done, there was not the mandatory regulations in the Growth Management Law at that time. And in 1985 the Growth Management Law was changed to make comp planning mandatory by local government with a state mandatory review. Before that the Department of Community Affairs would -- local government could send a plan there, and they'd put it in a file someplace. But after the '85 act, then the review became mandatory. And what we did was we did a totally new plan in -- it was adopted on January 10th of 1989. But significant resources were involved in 1987 before I came. And then all of 1988 was taken up with reviewing data, goals, objectives, and policies, having innumerable public hearings. We had a citizens advisory committee. We had subcommittees of that committee. We had meetings almost every night, and we had Planning Commission workshops and Planning Commission meetings, Board of County Commission workshops and board meetings that culminated in the adoption in January of '89. So I think the plan that you allude to was, like, the foundation for that. And that plan was built on with the new plan in 1988 and '89, and then our implementing land development regulations culminated with the code where everything was put together in 1991. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Would this EAR process include, then, some sort of assessment to say how did we get in such a mess if we had such a good plan? MS. STUDENT: It would include an assessment of how -- where we are in terms of what we set our goals and objectives and if Page 31 November 1592001 16J 1 we've met them or not. Then if we haven't, how we plan to meet them in the future, and amendments should address that as well as any changes in the law. MS. MURRAY: Or adjustments to goals and -- MS. STUDENT: Or adjustments, yeah. MS. MURRAY: Sometimes, you know, you plan for certain things, and obviously certain things happen, and it -- you know, so you're constantly -- the purpose is to constantly evaluate the plan, make sure that what you're planning for in the future is still an attainable goal, where do you need to adjust, you know, based on what has happened in terms of your community, in terms of growth, population increase or decrease. And then you make your adjustment to your goals, objectives, and policies based on an analysis of your performance over the -- it's supposed to be every five years. So let me just continue a little bit because I want -- you're going to see these comp plan amendments come back to you, and I want you to understand that where I left -- when I left my discussion -- and thank you, Marjorie, for all that history. It's informative to me. I've only been here five years, and I hear bits and pieces of it, but it always helps to hear it again. Once an ORC report is received -- and let's assume that the county has requested one -- then the next step would be to -- I believe to respond to that ORC report and set up a hearing, your adoption hearings. And that's when, again, you would see the same information come back before you, and I believe staff should analyze and respond to the contents of the ORC report because that information -- let me back up and say that analysis will be contained in the information that is ultimately sent to the state, should the board decide to adopt it. And that would be the criteria and analysis the state would rely on to determine as to whether or not the amendments are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the state statutes, Page 32 November 15, 2001 bJ1 as Marjorie mentioned. So there would be a second public hearing set before you and before the Board of County Commissioners, and that's called the adoption hearing. And that's -- again, your role in that hearing is to make a recommendation as to whether or not the board should adopt the amendments as proposed.. And then the final hearing before the board would be an adoption hearing, and that's when the, quote, unquote, final vote would be taken as to whether or not the amendments would be adopted and incorporated into the plan. Then after that I know, Marjorie, there's a time period by which the amendments can be challenged, and I'm not entirely clear on that time frame or process. Maybe you could fill that in. MS. STUDENT: Okay. Well, once the plan is adopted and sent to DCA, then DCA has a time line. I don't have my statute book with me, but in my memory banks it's coming up, like, 45 days that DCA has to issue its finding of compliance or noncompliance which is published in the paper and also sent to the county as well. And if we're found in compliance, then there's a time line in which the plan can be challenged, and that's basically an intervenor. The person who would challenge would be an intervenor. And they have to have standing. So that means they have to submit some objections or comments to the proposed amendments between the transmittal and the adoption of the plan, and that means they could send letters to staff or appear at the hearings and make comments. So if they have the requisite standing as an affected party and have done that, then they can challenge. And they have 21 days from the time that the finding of compliance is published in the paper to do that. If the plan is found in noncompliance, it's a little bit different. And then a person can intervene at any stage of the proceedings. That already means that DCA has found that it's not in compliance, and we're on the track to an administrative hearing. The matter is Page 33 16J1 November 15, 2001 sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings, or commonly referred to as DOAH in Tallahassee, that has a cadre of hearing officers or administrative law judges, and they conduct the administrative hearing as to whether or not the plan amendment or portions of the plan are in compliance. And I have been through many of those. It seems like -- I don't -- I haven't even kept count. But the hearing is conducted here in the county. It's always been in a hearing room over at the courthouse. And then afterwards the administrative law judge will make a recommended order on whether or not the plan amendment is, in fact, compliant -- in compliance or whether they agree with the county or the DCA or any intervenor. If the proceeding started out as one where the DCA originally found the plan out of compliance, then it ends up going to the administration commission or the governor and cabinet for a final order. If it's one where the DCA originally found it in compliance, then DCA issues the final order as to -- because they can trump the hearing officer, as it were, or administrative law judge. And then that can still go to the administration commission for its blessing. So there are two tracks that you go on in the process, the noncompliance track and the compliance track. And there's also a different standard of proof. If DCA has found the plan originally in compliance, then it's a mere -- like the civil standard, preponderance of the evidence, as to whether or not it's compli -- in compliance. If it started on the noncompliance track, then the local government has the heavier burden, which is a clear and convincing evidence standard, I believe, to show. So that -- so depending on what track you're on affects some aspects of the hearing and some of the processes. MS. MURRAY: I didn't anticipate getting into all that, but I thought I'd take the opportunity, and I thank you, Marjorie. If you Page 34 � November 15, 2001 16JI are interested in that whole process, I imagine -- and I know we used to get information from the region about -- they had bubble diagrams of the whole process and the different tracks it could take. If you are interested, I could pursue getting some of that information from our long -range planning staff so you have an idea of the track and how long it takes. And it's usually, what, about nine months to a year, Marjorie, before an adoption goes from -- an amendment goes from its original submittal to its final -- MS. STUDENT: I'd say about nine months. MS. MURRAY: Nine months. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'd be interested in the bubble diagram. MS. MURRAY: Okay. MR. REISCHL: And, again, that'll become more important if the hearing examiner is implemented -- excuse me -- when the hearing examiner is implemented and your role changes to primarily looking at Growth Management Plan and LDC amendments. Testimony in front of the Planning Commission would normally be in what is referred to as quasi-judicial hearings, which is what we just had this morning, a variance, a land use petition, a conditional use. The other type of hearings that you preside over would be legislative, which would be the enactment or the recommendation of enactment of laws, the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. That's why you don't have sworn testimony, because you're acting as a legislative body for code and Growth Management Plan amendments, but for land use petitions and other quasi-judicial hearings people are sworn in. They're witnesses. That testimony when Mr. Mudd showed the photos, they become evidence. He can't take them back. They will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. There are four general types of testimony that you hear: The staff report, which you get before the hearing; staff presentation; the Page 35 November 15, 2001 16J 1 petitioner presentation; and public input. County staff writes the staff report, county planner, and with input from transportation department, environmental specialists, long -range planners, other engineers, other county staff, depending on the particular petition. And there we analyze how we believe that the petition fits into the criteria that you consider in making your finding. During the presentation staff will highlight some of those facts, and if -- if we get a phone call ahead of time or something, we can put a little more emphasis on something that maybe was unclear in the staff report. And then, of course, we're available to answer any questions that the staff report raises or that we didn't address to your satisfaction. The petitioner presentation, they will obviously put emphasis on the points of the petition that will encourage you to approve the petition, and nothing wrong with that. They are trying to make their case for approval. And public input, if any of you saw the board meeting on Tuesday, there was a lot of public input at Tuesday's meeting. What you have to do as members of the Planning Commission is try to make the often difficult decision of what is competent and substantial evidence and what is the "not in my backyard" attitude. If somebody says, "No, I don't want this" versus somebody that says, "Well, I stood out in my yard, and I saw 12 cars go by in an hour and, you know, if more traffic comes as a result of this," it's your decision. Is that competent and substantial evidence? They're not a trained traffic engineer, but they made the effort to stand out and count cars or whatever other type of evidence they're using. MS. STUDENT: I'd just like to just make a comment here. We had one petition for a conditional use that came to us that was ultimately denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and it was challenged in court. And I've defended a number of these for the county, oh, probably 18, 20 cases, if you added them all together. Page 36 November 15, 2001 16J l And the case law tells us that a neighboring property owner can testify as to facts that they observe, and that is competent and substantial evidence. And in that case it was the issue of a social club out in the agricultural area, but there were people that lived in that area on large, 5 -acre lots, and they testified as to the condition of the road leading into the proposed site and the amount of traffic that was on that road at the time. And there was some interest generated by the public in the proposal, so more traffic was on the road. And they testified how it was a narrow, dirt road, and cars had to drive off on the shoulder, such as the shoulder was on such a road, to get there. And that was all evidence that we were able to use, and we prevailed not only in the case in circuit court, but were able to prevail in the appeal, the Second District Court of Appeals, based on some of that lay testimony and utilizing that case law. So there are times when individuals can testify as to facts that can help the county. And another case involved a conditional use for expansion of a blasting activity, and there was already blasting activity taking place on the site immediately adjacent to where the conditional use was being sought. And property owners testified as to the effect of that blasting on their residences and so forth, and that testimony also aided the county in prevailing in a lawsuit. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I got a question about the quasi - judicial nature. I sat on the Code Enforcement Board for a number of years, and that also was considered quasi-judicial. At one point there was a lot of discussion about how much contact we could make with parties who are coming before that board. And the board, I believe, was like an arbitrator of the county against -- whatever action the county was taking against another group or individual. And I seem to say -- look at this as sometimes happening that way. The county is Page 37 November 15, 2001 16J1 taking a position, like in this variance, against the landowner who defends -- he's his own defense. In that kind of a case, is it wise of us to contact staff off record prior to the meeting, get information that -- or should we just rely on what we were given in our packet as assembled by staff and assembled by the applicant and then rely on everything we're presented at the meeting? MS. STUDENT: Staff can be contacted for information. And also under -- and there'll be a presentation on this ex parte communications on December 6th, and that was my area that I prepared for the county attorney workshops. But, in any event, we have a resolution that is supported by state law, because there was a case out of Dade County, the Jennings case, where -- I won't go into all the particulars of the case. But anyway, a decision was struck down because of ex parte contact and so forth. So there was a cry to the legislature about this because the board -- you and also the Board of County Commissioners sit in an unique position in a quasi-judicial matter, and I'll talk more in terms of the Board of County Commissioners. They are elected by the people, and their constituents feel that, "Gee, these guys ought to be accessible to me, and I ought to be able to speak out. I voted for them. They're my representative on these matters." And then on the other hand, you have the situation where the Board of County Commissioners, when it hears rezones and then when it deals with conditional uses and variances as the Board of Zoning Appeals, sits like a panel of judges. So countervailing that is, "Gee, these guys sit in judgment of my project," or on the other side of it, the neighbors say, "These guys sit in judgment whether this is going to go in here and impact my property value or my quality of life." And so then the thought is, "Well, how great should the contact be ?" Because these guys are really sitting like a panel of judges. Page 38 November 15, 2001 1611 And, gee, if I'm over in circuit court and I sue Joe Blow and Joe Blow goes and talks to the judge and tries to persuade him of the merits of his defense versus, you know, my suing him, you know, I've got a real problem. So -- and that's judicial over there, and this is quasi - judicial, which casts it in a bit of a different light. So that's the -- that's really the dilemma, that you have the situation where you're elected and have some responsibility to your electorate versus sitting in judgment of what an individual can do with his property and how that affects the neighbors and their property rights. So it creates this tension between the two -- I don't want to say extremes -- but the two areas. So what the legislature came up with was a law that would allow the ex parte contact if disclosure was made on the record prior to the testimony and so forth actually being taken, and Collier County implemented that legislation in a resolution in 1995. So that's why we ask -- or the commission states before the hearing commences any ex parte contact that they've had. And what that does is they're supposed to disclose when it occurred, who it occurred with, and generally what the substance of the contact was. And that would go to telephone conversation, e- mails, letters, a site visit, if anybody, you know, talked to you personally in the grocery store or something like that if you ran into them and put that on the record. And then what that does when that's disclosed, it puts both sides on notice, and they can question the commission as to what was discussed and how it might impact their view of the criteria and the petition and so forth and get all that out on the record and make any pertinent objections on the record as well. And this would go not only for the petitioner, but also to the surrounding property owners. And we've had situations where the question has come, well, the disclosure was made, but maybe it wasn't full enough. And -- but by the same token, the person making the objection in court never put Page 39 y. November 15, 2001 16J 1 that on the record, and there's case law that tells us you have to put the record here for the Court to evaluate the procedure. And if you didn't make your case here, then you can't make it for the first time over there. And there's some local case law out of our circuit court where that happened before the Marco Island City Council and Planning Commission on a boat dock, and the court opined that, yes, there was a burden on the individual making the argument in circuit court to inquire further in the proceeding here. So I think I've kind of just given you the sum and substance of the ex parte presentation on the 6th. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: As a follow -up to my question, though, Marjorie, are you saying, then, that routinely we are supposed to state that we had communication with staff as well as the applicants or the other side prior -- because I -- MS. STUDENT: Staff -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: that -- -- haven't heard any of us do MS. STUDENT: Staff can -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- and I know we've communicated with staff extensively. MS. STUDENT: Staff can be contact for information. I think if it goes beyond that other than just information, then it needs to be disclosed. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. REISCHL: And from our perspective we really appreciate any contact ahead of time. Your question to me a couple of days ago about the fire code official, I wouldn't have known the answer if you asked me at the public hearing, but I was able to check with the code official and found the answer for you, so we appreciate that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just to be very clear -- because we asked Mr. Weigel when he was here before when some Page 40 November 15, 2001 16J1 of this came up, and he suggested that the ex parte was as you described but that there was, I heard him say, no restrictions on communications with staff. Now, I view communications as being a dialogue, not just necessarily asking questions. And if there's some shade of that that I need to be aware of, I -- you should -- MS. STUDENT: Mr. Weigel and I will discuss that before December 6th, and we'll clarify that for you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Just as a comment while we're on the quasi-judicial nature of our proceedings, on the 22nd of April of 2000 we, as Planning Commission members, were given a rather fascinating brief called "The Practical Aspects of Quasi - Judicial Hearings, Basic Tools, Recent Fine - Tuning," by a Joanie Armstrong Coffee (phonetic), and this was presented at the 23rd Annual Local Government Law in Florida Seminar. And I noticed that only three of us are still on the Planning Commission that were provided this. It's fascinating reading. It's very detailed. It would be something that I would think that Marjorie Student could write. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And it truly is interesting. I found it in my collection of items. So if staff doesn't have a copy right readily handy to give to the rest of the commissioners, I'll make my copy available, as long as I get it back. I think it would help clarify a number of things, and it would make us understand just even further what -- MS. STUDENT: We have that, I believe, at our office, and so I'll make a note to provide copies. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's fascinating the things I've found that I've collected over the two years that I've been on this board trying to prepare for today. MS. STUDENT: Another thing that I might mention -- and maybe you have received information about it, but the Florida Page 41 November 15, 2001 16J Z chamber puts on a growth management short course, it's called, in Orlando every year, and they've done so, I think, every year since 1990 or 1991. And it has a whole array of issues about comp planning and quasi-judicial hearings, and I've been privileged to be asked to lecture in that a number of times and have enjoyed doing so and have relayed to the participants some of our experiences here in Collier County. And so this year it's going to be in January, and I would urge any of the commissioners, particularly maybe the newer ones that might be interested -- and I can get some information about that for you, but it's very beneficial. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Please do. And the sooner the better so we could plan our schedule. MR. REISCHL: Now a little bit about us, the county staff. When you get our staff report and our presentation, we're not advocates for a petition or we do not necessarily always oppose a petition. We perform an analysis. If the petition, according to our analysis, meets the criteria, we recommend approval; if it does not, we recommend denial. As an editorial let me just throw in there that we see a lot of preapplication meetings that we basically talk people out of, especially variances. This morning's was an example where I was initially told that, yes, we tried the lot line adjustment, and there was no response, so of course, we go forward with the variance. Now, if I had known what was brought out during this hearing, I may have said, well, go back and talk to the person more. There was definitely not as much communication as there should have been. But that's an example of what -- what we -- for lack of a better term -- filter out before it comes to you, so that's why you see a lot of approvals coming from county staff. And our analysis is multifold, but there's two main pillars: consistency of the petition with the Growth Management Plan and Page 42 November 15, 2001 16J 1 compatibility with surrounding land uses. The consistency analysis is performed by the comprehensive planners under Stan Litsinger's shop. And they perform the consistency analysis, give it to us, we insert that into our staff report to you, and you get basically their analysis of consistency. So it's not just a -- a boilerplate language that you get in there. Every Growth Management Plan analysis you see in a staff report has been done by somebody in comprehensive planning going through the points and the Growth Management Plan and making sure it's consistent. And compatibility is even more subjective than consistency. There are lots of ways you can make two differing land uses compatible. One of them is distance. If you have a huge property and you have a factory on one and a single - family home on the adjacent property but there's two miles of vacant preserve or wetland or so in between, then even though the two land uses don't seem compatible, the distance can make them more compatible. Buffers is another thing, and you deal with that a lot on the Planning Commission. The type of buffer, Collier County has Type A, B, C, D; the height of the buffer; the width; the type of plants; is it a wall; is it a fence or landscape buffer. And gradual transition of land use, that's more done in the rezoning process. For example, if you have a PUD that's adjacent to multifamily development, the practical way to do this would be to put the multifamily component of that PUD next to the adjacent multifamily, and then go to something like a duplex, then to a single family, but a gradual transition of land use that way. So there are lots of ways that compatibility can be looked at and two noncompatible land uses made more compatible by those and other methods. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Fred, do you remember a year, year and a half ago where Rich Yovanovich and I went around and around over an apartment community that he wanted to put in Page 43 November e 15, 2001 16J1 next to a rock quarry out on 951 south of the interstate? My question was, should the county be a party to letting somebody build apartments right practically on top of a quarry? And he thought that compatibility only runs to putting something onerous next to something benign, and it seems to me it should run both ways if you want to put something benign next to something onerous. It's not compatible. MS. MURRAY: Absolutely. Yes. MR. REISCHL: Sure. And that's -- and time is another factor too. If that pit was only going to be run for another certain amount of time and then it becomes a lake, then that changes the compatibility analysis also. Another advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners is the Environmental Advisory Council. They, like you, make recommendations to the board on the environmental aspects of petitions. And you also receive their recommendation in your staff report. So if there are any environmental -- unusual environmental conditions, those will be pointed out in your staff report. And in the resolution or ordinance or PUD document, those changes will be reflected in that. So what you see has already been reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council and will be reflected in the staff report and ordinance that you see. MS. MURRAY: Much like you, they receive a staff report with a staff analysis and recommendation, analysis relative to the Growth Management Plan policies and the Land Development Code regulations. So what you get in our staff report to you is basically a summary of their recommendations. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How often does the EAC meet? MS. MURRAY: Once a month. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because in some of the packets, Page 44 November 15, 20016J 1 I've noticed that there's no action taken by them. Do they meet every month, or does it depend on what comes up? MS. MURRAY: They usually meet the first Wednesday of the month. I assume if there was nothing on their agenda, they probably wouldn't meet on land use matters. They also may have special meetings that I'm not aware of on other issues. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I've seen some of their minutes that have been provided to us by one party or another, and there's some unhappiness on the EAC over their perception that we don't pay any attention to what they say. How much attention are we supposed to pay? MR. REISCHL: Well, they are recommending -- making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. You -- because you're hearing is after them, you get to see what their recommendation was also. It's basically an order of events. If the Planning Commission met first and then EAC, your recommendation would go in their staff report. So they're making a recommendation to the board with -- and, again, their primary emphasis is on environmental conditions. If they are looking at a portion of a wetland being destroyed for a certain purpose, they're looking at it from the environmental perspective. You're looking at it from more land use perspective than just environmental. You include environmental, but it's not the prime focus that you're looking at. MS. MURRAY: Right. It's not your focus, but you should take it -- I mean, it is part of the whole regulatory mechanism of the county that's under consideration and that you take under consideration. So you should pay attention to that, and if there are significant issues that you feel strongly about, forward your views, as well, on to the board. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It seems to me we've had Page 45 l Y November 15, 2001 16J 1 part of this discussion before with some of the applications that come before us in terms of their focus versus our focus. Let me just ask the question. Does their focus include issues other than environmental? MS. MURRAY: It shouldn't, but I will tell you that various -- obviously various aspects of the land development regulations outside of the environmental regulations affect the environment. For example, an access point to development which may be located outside of wetlands, but an access point traverses the wetlands. So there's -- there's some crossover there, and sometimes the line gets a little bit gray. But, no, their focus should be primarily on the environmental regulations, and we've tried to mirror them that way to keep their focus. MR. REISCHL: Another example a few months back was the Park Central North PUD. They -- in order to preserve more of the wetland, they made the building footprint smaller and made the building taller. So they're looking at basically a variance because they went from C -1 to -- the PUD was almost entirely C -1 except for the building height, so they were looking at raising the height of the building. They unanimously endorsed that concept. And there were more questions from the Planning Commission regarding the building height, whereas the Environmental Advisory Council thought the building height was a good thing because it saved more of the wetland. So different perspectives. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I have another question. The EAC always reviews it before us, or sometimes do we see it before them? MS. MURRAY: They are supposed to see it before you, and 99 percent of the time we mandate that they see -- by policy that they see it before you. Occasionally you may hear things before them, but we try to avoid that. Page 46 November 15, 2001 16,J1 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But it's usually in our packet what they have said. MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It truly was fascinating to watch the Silver Lakes presentation at the Environmental Advisory Council. Had that really been hashed out there before it got to us, we might not have been here quite as long. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: On occasion I thought I had asked for a copy of the EAC minutes, and I didn't get them. What did -- how does one proceed to try to get the EAC minutes so that I can read it before the issue comes before us? MS. MURRAY: You can contact Sharon Phillips of my staff. If you want to e -mail her, she can -- provided they're available. Sometimes they take a while to be available. Sorry, Barbara. We've had problems in the past, but since Barbara's been on board, it hasn't been an issue. Sharon will be happy to track those down for you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I think what I'm hearing, though, is -- maybe a broader question. Should we be provided that level of detail in our packet? MR. REISCHL: You get the same EAC staff report that they see, so there is probably excess detail on environmental and water management issues. But that's, I guess, easier for us than editing an already written EAC staff report. MS. MURRAY: And the minutes -- I'm sorry -- are also available on -line. I forgot to mention that as well. So once they're -- once they're available and ready, they'll be posted right away on -line, so that might even be easier for you if you want to just check on our Web site. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: What is that? Collier -- MS. MURRAY: Colliergov.net. Go to community Page 47 November 15, 2001 613. development Web page, and there should be a link. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Are the minutes of these meetings on there as well? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I didn't know that. MS. MURRAY: And the board. MR. REISCHL: We are getting more and more stuff on there -- MS. MURRAY: I think all of the -- MR. REISCHL: -- maybe not every day, but weekly. I mean, we get the little a -mails in our department saying now X or Y or Z is now on -line. So keep checking back at our Web site. There's a lot of information on there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. There is. And I learned the hard way from records how you walk through almost two pages of instructions to get to where you want to find a specific ordinance that's been placed. So it might behoove this group to receive the two pages of instructions how to walk through the Web site to get to some of the areas such as an ordinance. When I was looking for the county manager's ordinance and wanted to print it out, it took a while for the people in records and minutes to explain it to me. And then the next day they faxed me. And it makes sense, but you have to understand the procedure to get through the various levels of the Web site. And I think it would be fascinating for everybody to learn that because you could go find things that you didn't realize was right there at your very eyeballs. MS. MURRAY: That's the clerk to the board's site -- MR. REISCHL: Right. We have -- MS. MURRAY: -- and that's a little more tedious. MR. REISCHL: Ours is more user friendly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think so. MS. MURRAY: It's a good site, but you do have to have the Page 48 November 15, 2001 16JI instructions. We'll get those for you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. REISCHL: And one last thing on the Environmental Advisory Council, you also see things -- well, one petition which primarily is environmental, that's an ST or special treatment permit, also sometimes given the long acronym of ACSCST, area of critical state concern, slash, special treatment -- and once, maybe twice a year you'll see one of those. It is primarily an environmental permit. However, the code requires that it goes to the EAC, to the Planning Commission, and to the board. There are exemptions. Not all of them go. There are single - family exemptions, etc. Some of the people who have been on the Planning Commission longer or have been reading the paper longer, the Little Palm Island, that's why you saw that petition. It was a special treatment permit request. That special treatment area covered a wetland. So there are mostly environmental issues, but you get to take a look at those also. That's another thing where probably the EAC is the lead reviewer on that. And I apologize I only had six copies of the magazine, but I wanted to show you a little bit about American Planning Association, and that's something you may want to look into. There's a planning commissioner membership in the APA. I was fortunate enough to go to this year's conference, and it's very educational. They also have special planning commissioner workshops at the APA. Next year it's in Key West, so you may want to investigate that if that's something that interests you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Where was it this year, Fred? MR. REISCHL: Orlando in a very hot and cramped hotel. The magazine is part of the membership. There's also a Florida, I guess, magazine or newsletter. It's not as slick as this, but it contains more Page 49 November 15, 2001 16J 1 Florida oriented issues. They have a planners' book store which has a lot of different information that you may be interested in also, but membership in the APA is something that you may want to think about. MS. MURRAY: They have a Web site as well. MR. REISCHL: Yes. Planning.org is the Web page. And with that, if you have any questions -- and, again, to point out -- as I answered Mr. Strain's question -- not only here, but please feel free to contact us at the office by phone, e-mail, or come in. We'll be happy to get information that we may not have focused on in the staff report or a question that came up to you later; or maybe a constituent called you and raised a question and you want more information on it, please feel free to contact us. We're happy to get that information if we can. Thanks. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got two questions, Fred. We do a lot of updating to the ULDC, and we've got books. How often or how soon after the updates are approved and in print will we be getting supplements to put in these books since they're really relative to everything we do here? Do you know how that functions mostly? MR. REISCHL: It was delayed for a while. I don't know the reasons for the delay, but then this year all of a sudden they've been very quick. Within two months, I'd say. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. Historically we've waited six months -- six to nine months and -- but lately it's been two to three months. We can also give you a copy of the ordinance in its final form once it's signed. I -- the way I usually work it is I take the ordinance, and I just make a note in my book to check Ordinance No., you know, 01- 90 if something has changed while I'm waiting for the supplement. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if the supplement doesn't come out at a time, maybe, when something comes before us that Page 50 November 15, 2001 16J l may attribute -- the supplement may be needed to review, would you note in the packets then that, you know, this -- there is a supplement, something like that, at least highlight it to us so we know not to rely on the paper we have now inside this book and that there's supplements we don't have? Because we could be doing research and asking questions based on wrong information, and that might be difficult. MS. MURRAY: We could try to do that. I don't want to -- there's some burden put on you to ensure that you're reviewing the correct information, and we will provide that for you. But we -- we will do that where we can. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That would be helpful if you could. And then the other -- one last other question I have is on the packets that we get. There's a lot of information there. And in a lot of the information, they reference other documents, sometimes exhibits; sometimes a former PUD; sometimes, like last night, the Access Management Policy or the ULDC has the Access Management Plan. But all those other documents that are referenced every time we get a packet, if staff notices a consistent document coming up a lot in those packets, it would be helpful, if we hadn't already gotten it, to give us a copy of that, at least the first time; and then we would have it for the rest of the year or until its updated to constantly refer to, because I actually go back and do read all the supplemental documents that are referred to in all the packets. And that's -- what most of my phone calls have been to the staff on the Monday prior to the meeting is after the weekend following up and getting all this new information. MS. MURRAY: Can you give me an example of a supplementary document you would want to see because -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. Page 51 November 15, 2001 16J 1 MS. MURRAY: -- I'm not -- I mean, PUD comes to mind but -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I can give you -- MS. MURRAY: -- in what -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- three right offhand. MS. MURRAY: -- circumstance -- in what circumstance would you want, like, an old PUD -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, when -- MS. MURRAY: -- if we're not -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- we were reviewing Bucks Run, it was a comparison to the old PUD, but we weren't given the old PUD. We were only given portions of the new. In Silver Lakes the settlement agreement wasn't included. It was referred to. And, I mean, I have a copy of it from my other work. But at times like that -- the Silver Lakes PUD, I guess staff did provide me one on the Monday that I called, and that was fine. Last night, another example would be the Access Management Policy. I think the chairman even requested that. Those kind of -- that kind of information, from my way of looking at things, becomes invaluable to me. And if you could just start sending me those, if that's not too problematic, or call me and I'll come by and get it, that would be a big help to me in getting this reviewed timely and not bothering you guys so much at the 11th hour prior to the meeting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That was one of the other issues I came up with previously, that when we're talking about the -- for instance, the utility standards and operations ordinance -- I think it's 97 -17 -- that I feel as a commissioner, I should be able to rely on the staff to always make sure they're citing the most current ordinance of record. And then if I need to go look something up, I will. But if I had some of these documents in my library, I would read them in advance. And I do definitely want to see the Transportation Access Page 52 November 15, 2001 16J1 Management Policy. That type of information that we'll constantly be looking at or constantly wanting to either reference, would be extremely helpful. We can ask better questions. We can understand a few more things, and perhaps then we could cut down on some of our back - and -forth discussions we have because we actually understand what it is that staff is trying to do or what the Board of County Commissioners' policy is. MS. MURRAY: I think -- well, we'll do our best to anticipate. And obviously where we mention things in the staff report or we've conducted some type of analysis relative to old documents, we certainly try to provide those to you ahead of time. If there's things that maybe in our judgment are referenced but aren't as -- we feel aren't as important but you may, where things are available on -line, I would encourage you to go on -line. We're in the process of scanning, like, for example, all our old PUDs. And eventually the process will allow people from the outside to -- to view the documents in the record of the old files from their computer. So once that gets a little more advanced, we'd inform you of that, and you could use that as a resource too. I don't want to try to second -guess what may be important to you other than the obvious, but we'll attempt to provide that information for you. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: In regard to this, I find myself continually nonplussed by the fact that I get -- I read the material, get here, and then I'm handed a stack of revisions and additions, which I can't possibly read, and then have to proceed directly to the hearing. Why is that, and what can we do about it? MS. MURRAY: Historically that's just the way we operate. I -- I don't have any other answer, other than -- I mean, maybe Marjorie can shed some light. MS. STUDENT: In the 14 years that I've been here, that's -- that's happened. It happened with the comp plan amendments. And I Page 53 November 15, 2001 think it's a function of -- there may be in some instances -- that was 6J1 the case there -- having short time frames between meetings, having advisory committee meetings, turning out and -- and we had no choice but to do it that way. That's not unusual to Collier County, because in talking with other people that do what I do throughout the state, it's -- it's pretty common. And I think it's just because -- well, with the petition or something, it's a dynamic process, and people are submitting things and have comments and "did you consider that" and so forth before the hearing. And I just think it's because it's a dynamic process. MR. REISCHL: And if I can add a comment too, that may be slowing down. And I don't want to commit to anything, but now under a code change, the county staff will control PUD documents. So what's in the PUD document will be what we are recommending. And if the petitioner wants to suggest changes to that, that will be the petitioner's responsibility. Prior to June, I think, it was the other way around, that for any changes we had to give the changes to the petitioner. They made the changes in the documents. So -- MS. MURRAY: I think Fred's point is we have a little more control now, and we are more aware of the time frames by which we have to submit all this information to -- it has to be submitted to myself, Tom Cook, John Dunnuck before it even gets into print. And we're a little bit more aware of those time frames, whereas the petitioners probably weren't and probably felt it was their petition and their money, and they could submit it -- absent a lack of our own standards that say, you know, here's a cutoff date, they felt that they could submit it at any time. I worked in other circumstances where there has been no new information been able to be provided after a certain date. And it works well in some cases, and then in some cases you just end up continuing things because substantive issues may come up that aren't Page 54 November 15, 2001 16J1 brought to your attention until the last minute. So it's a choice. I guess we've decided to operate that way, and I know it makes -- it makes it very difficult for us as well. MS. STUDENT: And I have to say for our office, too, because I don't know how many times it's happened to me where I've had an attorney catch me out in the hall just before the meeting starts and says, oh, I'm going to raise an issue about so and so. And, I mean, it's just literally out in the hall before the meeting. And sometimes it's also happened where we've been in the meeting, and an attorney will come and raise some issues that they've never discussed with our office. And it's -- it is difficult. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That brings up a very valid point from a procedural, logistical standpoint. Do we as a commission have a right, then, to say that "I can't read this contract. It's 12 pages. This is basically new information" and -- and move for a continuance ourselves? MS. STUDENT: I think -- I think you could. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I was never clear on that point, if we had that right, because we could take a consensus of the board, and in some cases I think it would really make the point to some of the petitioners not to wait so long to get the information to us. MS. STUDENT: I think it depends, too, on whether it's germane and dispositive to what you have coming before you or if it's germane to one of the criteria. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But how do you know that if you haven't had a chance to read it over? That's the problem. I get these packets as I come in. I don't know what is in it; and therefore, I can't evaluate it. But it came, and it's this thick. How do I determine that, and say, "Oh, well, it's germane or it isn't germane "? MS. MURRAY: As staff, you can rely on us because unless something's been handed out to us in the hall -- which I can't say Page 55 November 15, 2001 16JI doesn't happen, you know, five minutes before the meeting. If we get something after your packages have been sent and then have no time to get it to you, we try to do an analysis the best that we can and then summarize that for you in the meeting saying, you know, "Here's the changes. Here's what you maybe should consider." So to a certain extent you can rely on us, to the extent that we have the time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And that's important. But, Marjorie, as long as I feel comfortable that -- either myself or, you know, the vice -chair if he's taking over for me, that should we feel that what was just handed to us and was truly germane and it should be reviewed a lot more closely, we can actually move for a continuance then. MS. STUDENT: Yes. I think you can. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You could recess for a few minutes. MS. STUDENT: You can do that. We've done that too. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I guess our options would be move for continuance if we were really irritated and it was a large packet. We could recess, or we could move the agenda item to some other place -- MS. STUDENT: Further down on the agenda. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- further down. And then when we take a recess, we could take a longer one to actually review the information. But I -- I truly wanted to know what my options were as a chair in trying to control the meeting and actually give a good work product, because I've -- I've been in this county for 22 years, and I've watched times when things were handed to the Board of County Commissioners specifically late in the game because they were counting on the board not reading them. And, I mean, I worked a staff up north, and there were times when, in my position, I was asked, "Could you put all this together Page 56 November 15, 2001 16J1 r and give it to them at the last minute because they won't pay attention, and then we won't have to have these long, lengthy discussions because they'll assume that it's right." And that was never an approach that I appreciated, particularly when it came to contracts. MS. STUDENT: Well, I can tell you from my own experience, when we were doing the comp plan -- original comp plan in 1988, we had situations where we might have an objective or policy written, and there would be comments from the public, and literally it would be recrafted on the floor. And there are also situations like that with some of the implementing ordinances, where members of the public would bring to the meeting their ideas, and it would be recrafted right on the floor. And I think part of it is human nature. And, for example, sometimes if there's been an issue that I have with a development order, and there's been a tendency to, well, I'm not going to fix that or do that. And then as the hearing looms closer, there's a greater desire on the part of the petitioner to try to, you know, change it in accordance with what staff and our office's needs are. And particularly sometimes in the hour before the Board of County Commissioners meeting, there's a great impetus do that. And unfortunately I just think some of it's a function of human nature. MS. MURRAY: That's a good point, because we do experience that a lot, when we've conducted our analysis and we've set -- you know, okay, here's what we're recommending, or here's what we'd like to see, and in the 11th hour, the petitioner finally figures that it's probably best to go before you and the board in agreement rather than arguing. And that's really what we try to accomplish anyway. We try not to bring a debate to you. We try to resolve the issues before the parties come to you. That's not always possible. The same with the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you provide your report Page 57 4 , November 15, 2001 16J1 to the petitioners, or do they have to come looking for it? MS. MURRAY: They're mailed a copy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mailed a copy. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And also, though, we have to remember the concOpt that when you're in a public meeting, it is a dynamic, fluid process and that when the public has an opportunity to present something, it should be considered, and you don't want to just ignore it. And there are times when the public just gets around to recrafting something. Therefore, they're given the courtesy of the board, whether it be us or the county commissioners, saying, "Yep, that's a good change, and we can accept it." Quite often I've noticed over my number of years being involved in these types of things, here and other places, that the better the information is for the change and the more specific it is and well written, quite often portions of that do get accepted, particularly if you're making a major point to get an item changed. And I think part of that dynamic feeling is with some of these PUDs that are out there. The petitioner wants to know what's happening, but there may be a group of people that certainly want to get their point across, and the only time they get it across is during that dynamic, open public meeting. We certainly don't want to keep the public from being involved. And quite often the person that's making it might be a paid consultant or an attorney. But I've witnessed things -- some of the comp plan information -- that was regular public or an interest group such as the League of Women Voters that did that. So we have to be able to sit up here and, you know, take our notes and work our way through it, and I think that's part of the whole process. So we have to be ready, but to have a whole packet of information dropped in our lap that's really new is extremely difficult to deal with. And I know you -all are much more sensitive than Page 58 November 15 2001 16J l previously -- MS. MURRAY: We're the ones making the recommendation to you. So, of course, we want to ensure that we're reviewing all of the pertinent information in a timely manner so that we have time to contemplate and make our recommendations -- that our recommendations to you are accurate. In terms of the public, I want you to be aware of one thing that we really try to do so that the public comes before you in an informed state, and that is we -- when the public calls us or writes us a letter, we try to head off a lot of their questions in terms of procedure, because you'll notice most of the public doesn't come up here and ask procedural questions. They are here to give you their testimony and their feelings about the project. We try to make a really conscious effort to inform people of the process and the procedures over the telephone, if they call, or in writing; or we take the initiative to call them if they've written us so that your time and their time is not wasted here by asking procedural questions. And I just wanted you to be aware of that, because we do try to make a real conscious effort to let the public know about the processes and procedures that are often confusing to them. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And the new public participation plan, which is now in effect, should also change the dynamics a lot, I would think. MS. MURRAY: I would hope. It'll be interesting to see how -- the impact of that. We'll be monitoring that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you think we could have a copy of that in its final form? I don't know if we got one, the public participation. MR. REISCHL: We got it Tuesday, I think, so it's -- MS. MURRAY: Yeah. I'll have my staff make sure you guys get mailed out a - we just got the ordinance in its final form. Page 59 4 t November 1592001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I didn't think it was very old. 16J1 MS. MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So it would be nice if we could add that to our collection of documents. MR. REISCHL: In fact, I -- just to tell you about the first meeting, Chahram had the first meeting. I think it was Tuesday night. Seventy -five people showed up. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What was the -- MR. REISCHL: It was a rezone in Golden Gate City. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And was it recorded, or what's that -- how did that part of it work? MR. REISCHL: I wasn't there. Yeah. It's supposed to be either taped or -- audio or videotaped. Commissioner Henning showed up. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And a record of all the commitments that were made? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Commitment himself. MR. REISCHL: Any other questions? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions? Any other issues we want to touch on at all? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I found it very productive. I appreciate staff s time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Thank you. Nice job, Fred. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All right. We are on Item No. 11 of the agenda, which is public comment, and I don't see any public. Discussion of the addenda, there were no addenda. We're to adjourn. We are adjourned. Page 60 November 15, 2001 16ji There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:25 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 61 Fiala 4 Carter V) Henning Coyle 16JI COLLfil'CUUATY GOVERNMENT PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 (941) 597 -1749 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING FAX: (941) 597 -4502 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT THE FOUNDATION CENTER, 8962 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 ON DECEMBER 5, 2001 at 3:00 P.M. AGENDA RECENED 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of the Minutes of the November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting NOV3 P, 2001 3. General Topics — Commissioner James D. Carter, Ph.D. 4. Sub - committee Reports Board of County Commi$sJoners - Organization Structure Review Sub - committee - PBSD Revised Ordinance Enactment - Clam Bay Sub - Committee - Clam Bay Second Annual Monitoring Report Recommendations - Clam Bay Annual Monitoring & Improvement Schedule - Cattail Removal - Clam Pass Dredging 5. Administrator's Report - Capital Projects - Pelican Bay Boulevard (South Entrance) to Gulf Park Drive Irrigation & Landscape Improvements - Community Issues - U.S. 41 Landscaping - Sidewalk Overlays and Repairs - North Pelican Bay Boulevard Traffic Signal - Sidewalk, Crosswalk Modifications - U.S. 41 Street Lighting (Gulf Park Drive to Seagate Drive) - Financial Statement Review 6. Committee Requests 7. Audience Participation 8. Adjourn ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE DIVISION, OFFICE-AT (941) ~597 - 1749.. AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. MISC. COrfes: Date:4QaL� Item# Copies To: 12/27/2001 15:25 7748301 PUB INFO PAGE 01/01 Fkdo Carter Henning Coyle Coletta 16J1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT THE FOUNDATION CENTER, 8962 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 ON JANUARY 2, 2002 at 3:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of the Minutes of the December 5, 2001 Regular Meeting 3. Sub - committee Reports - Organization Structure Review Sub - committee - PBSD Revised Ordinance Enactment - Clam Bay Sub - Committee Clam Bay Annual Monitoring & Improvement Schedule Cattail Removal - Clam Pass Dredging 4. Administrator's Report Capital Projects - Pelican Bay Boulevard (South Entrance) to Gulf Park Drive Irrigation & Landscape Improvements Community Issues - U.S. 41 Landscaping - Sidewalk Overlays and Repairs North Pelican Bay Boulevard Traffic Signal U.S. 41 Street Lighting (Gulf Park Drive to Seagate Drive) Financial Statement Review 5. Committee Requests Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage — Glen Harrell 6. Audience Participation 7. Adjourn ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PERSON REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS AT THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT SHOULD CONTACT THE DIVISION OFFICE AT (941) 597 -1749 AT LEAST FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. Misc. Corres: Date: a2L _ Item# I (PJ 1 Copies To: ►, 16J1 MINUTES OF THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2001 Naples, Florida k LET IT BE KNOWN, that the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee met in Regular Session on this date, November 7, 2001 at 3:00 P.M. at the Foundation Center, 8269 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108 with the following members present: Mr. Lou Vlasho Mr. Joseph Bawduniak Mr. Thomas Brown Mr. James Burke Mr. James Carroll Mr. John Domenie Mr. Glen Harrell Mrs. Cornelia Kriegh Mr. David Roellig Mr. Christopher Sutphin Mr. George Werner ALSO PRESENT: Approximately sixteen (16) Pelican Bay residents; Mr. Dwight E. Brock, Collier County Clerk of Courts; Mr. James P. Ward, Department Director, Pelican Bay Services Division; Mr. Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager, Pelican Bay Services Division and Mrs. Barbara Sr'nith, Recording Secretary. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of the Minutes of the October 3, 2001 Regular Meeting 3. Security Update — Sgt. Andy Orcutt 4. Sub - committee Reports - Organization Structure Review Sub - committee - PBSD Ordinance Repeal and Enactment of Revised PBSD Ordinance - Discuss conclusions with full Committee - Contract Manager Services — Contract Renewal and Proposed Scope of Services Review - Clam Bay Sub - Committee - Clam Bay Annual Monitoring & Improvement Schedule - Cattail Removal - Dune Restoration - Clam Pass Dredging 5. Administrator's Report - Capital Projects - Pelican Bay Boulevard (South Entrance) to Gulf Park Drive Irrigation & Landscape Improvements - Community Issues - U.S. 41 Landscaping - Sidewalk Overlays and Repairs - Hurricane Preparedness - North Pelican Bay Boulevard Traffic Signal - Sidewalk, Crosswalk Modifications Bike Path Lanes - Financial Statement Review 6. Committee Requests - Community Flag Pole — Requested by Mr. George Werner - Discussion of Payment of Ordinance and Election Costs — Requested by Mr. David Roellig - Pelican Bay Services Division Mission Statement — Requested by Mr. Tom Brown - Video Taped MSTBU Meetings 7. Audience Participation 4621 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 8. Adjourn 161l ROLL CALL Mr. Vlasho called the meeting to order and asked that the record show all members present. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 3. 2001 REGULAR MEETING Mr. Roel ig moved, seconded by Mr. Burke and approved unanimously the Minutes of the October 3, 2001 Meeting SECURITY UPDATE — SGT. ANDY ORCUTT Sgt. Andy Orcutt, Night Shift Supervisor for the North Naples Sheriff's Department. There has been a return during the day shift of emphasis on traffic control due to the volume of traffic that is traveling up and down Pelican Bay Boulevard. That is why you see the deputy out more often on the major routes instead of in the residential areas. We are now going to start to push back towards a bigger emphasis on anti - burglary due to a couple of incidents, which have occurred within and outside of Pelican Bay. By using our computer system and checking average response times by our deputies, Pelican Bay has been shown to have the best response times collectively. This is taking all of the calls we get and analyzing them by computer. Pelican Bay has an 8.2- minute response time to any call. Keep in mind that is an average call and not an emergency call. Pelican Bay is a small area and is easy to get a deputy into most of the communities, even the gated ones, relatively quickly. Sgt. Orcutt continued that another item is an update on alarms that we have been receiving. Pelican Bay is a recipient of a lot of alarms. Between January 1 and October 22 there have been a total of 1,415 alarm calls. That is 238 commercial and the balance being residential, which is a lot of manpower and a lot of alarm clearing. I don't want to throw a lot of statistics at you, but I did want you to know what we are responding to. Sgt. Orcutt asked if there is anything we are not doing that we should be doing? Mr. Bawduniak stated that I had a call into the station by accident from my home. Within five minutes a deputy showed up, which was very impressive and my neighbors were very impressed because they saw what was going on. When it was explained to the deputy that it was 4622 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16JI a false call, misdialing, he was extremely courteous and I expected him to say something like we have too many of these, but he got there very fast and was very polite. It was something that I did on a cell phone during reprogramming and the deputies showed up. My neighbors were very impressed with the response. Mr. Sutphin stated that I would assume that the vast majority of these alarms are false alarms as opposed to genuine. Sgt. Orcutt replied that they are. We do work with the different alarm companies to try to correct some of that, but one of the things that I have noticed is that sprinkler systems when they spray the side of the house and sometimes hit a window will activate those systems. The wind or shifting of weather will also activate those alarms. We have to respond to those kinds of calls because we would rather be safe than sorry. The County has come up with a new Ordinance to try to reduce those calls for service but that is a countywide issue that is going on and not necessarily a Pelican Bay thing. Mr. Sutphin stated that I guess I am one of those statistics. It happened at a time when we were not home and the only explanation they could give us was that it might have been a small bug going across the motion detector. There was no one there when the phone rang, therefore, the sheriff's office responded. Sgt. Orcutt replied yes, to make sure the house was secure and try to contact one of the key holders. Mr. Bawduniak stated that during one of my absences I came back and some of my neighbors were speaking of some mischief with some spray painting being done on some of the houses and some reported drag racing. What is the Sheriff's Department report on those incidents? Sgt. Orcutt replied we are reassigning traffic control. One of the problems is that we don't want to push that too much. We don't want to be constantly shooting radar because then everything else gets ignored. In the computer system we could not find any calls regarding drag racing. No one ever called and reported any drag racing going on. We found two incidents of spray painting. They were very isolated and minor and we don't now whether it was done by kids 4623 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 who live in here or not, but those incidents were a couple of months ago and there has been nothing since that time. Sgt. Orcutt introduced Deputy Dean Walton who is a recent addition to the substation and is working the night shift. Deputy Walton has nineteen years with the department. If you need anything, please call the substation and we will respond. SUB - COMMITTEE REPORTS ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE DISCUSS CONCLUSIONS WITH FULL COMMITTEE Mr. Carroll explained that there are several different issues here that were covered and I gave them the numbers of 1 through 6 in the lengthy treatise that I sent to you. What I am not sure of is whether we as a total committee want to vote on these today or just acknowledge that the Sub - committee has gotten to this point and get your input. I need a little help on whether you want to do that. There are several groupings. The first two items, Selection Process and Eligibility, I really tied in with the voting process and we can deal with those together. The third and fourth items have to deal with the continuity of membership of the Committee, the time line and that sort of thing, along with the length of the member terms. If you recall we had the issue of whether we would have term limits or not. Those two are separate. A third one is item five, which is the Ordinance Approval Process. I think we need to address this as a full Committee and I think we need to decide if the role of the Sub - committee is such that we should have the public hearings or whether the full Committee should participate in these public meetings. The last item, which is the MSTBU Approval Process, is more or less an outline of what our Committee needs to do after we have all of this information and Mr. Brock's straw vote, etc. I would assume we then make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. What I would like to start off by doing is looking at the first two items on the sheet to see if there is any discussion and then we can decide whether we want to vote on those or not. Mr. Carroll continued that the first two items are the Selection Process and Eligibility of the Pelican Bay residents. Our Sub - committee discussed them and there really was not much discussion needed on those and I would just open this up to comments about those two items and whether there is any suggestions or issues. H*Z,I PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J 1 November 7, 2001 Mr. Werner stated that I very much appreciate the work that you and your Sub - committee have done and I know you have put in a lot of time and effort on this. I asked the question at the last meeting, it seems to me like it is being taken for granted without approval by this Committee that we are going to be spearheading the effort to get this revised Ordinance to the public, is that right? Mr. Carroll replied I assume that is where we are. At the last Sub - committee Meeting Mr. Roellig brought up the question of whether we should be considering a position which says we do not want this Ordinance, we prefer the old one. In other words we probably need to discuss that here. If we are concerned that this Ordinance is not meeting our needs, in other words that Mr. Brock's information isn't homing in on what we think ought to be done, then we need to fall back and raise the question again about whether we ought to have a new Ordinance at all. Mr. Werner replied that personally the only thing that I see different is that now you have a popularity contest. My question is, is it worth it? Mr. Carroll stated that I think you are right that the main and only substantive issue is the one you mentioned. I think Mr. Brock has cleaned up some details and gotten rid of some of the changes that were made early on. To that extent it seems to me to be worthwhile. I do think if we decided we did not want this voting process then I would question whether it would be necessary. If we are going to go ahead with the whole question of having a popularity contest or approach, then it seems to me that it is worthwhile to clean up some of these other things. Mr. Werner replied I would agree with you there. Mr. Carroll stated that I think we need to address this question if there is any concern about proceeding with the approach that Mr. Brock recommending. Mr. Sutphin stated that I see it a little differently. I think that what we have been focusing on was the wording of the Ordinance, to make sure that it can be implemented and is understandable. I don't think we have challenged the concept of the popularity contest or beauty contest or whatever you want to call it. It is Mr. Brock's plan to have a straw vote sometime after the first of the year and I think our Sub - committee, and perhaps the full Committee, should make sure that we think the Ordinance is understandable and workable, not to recommend it or not 4625 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 recommend it. Secondly, we need to do whatever this Committee can to make sure that the public is as informed as they want to be. I question how many of them really want to be informed, but that is a different issue, and then take the straw votes from January and act upon it. If the people of Pelican Bay support the Ordinance, then we should do whatever we can to help get it implemented. If they reject it, then we change form and go on to the next point. Mr. Carroll replied I don't disagree with you at all. What I am saying is that we decided we should have some public meetings and if we hold those in January and there is support for it, that certainly helps us decide. We are not going to have the public disagreeing with it and then go ahead and approve it. That would not be very much in the public interest. Are you saying that it is too early for us to address this particular popularity question? Mr. Sutphin replied that I don't think it is our role to determine whether or not we support the taxpayers of Pelican Bay recommending who should sit on this Committee. I think our job is to make sure the Ordinance, if approved, is workable in terms of the length of terms, the timing of when people's terms expire, etc. As originally written there were a lot of problems with it and it would have been very difficult to implement. I think we are making progress in that direction and I suggest that is where we continue to focus our efforts, is the creation of a document that the people can understand and that if it ends up getting approved will in fact work. Mr. Vlasho stated that since I appointed the Sub - committee let me tell you what my thoughts are. First of all, I think the Brock Report is going to go somewhere with or without us. The end reason for creating the Sub - committee was so that we would be involved in all of the details. I think we need to allow it to evolve. I personally don't think we ought to be voting on anything at this point. You said voter input and I think this Committee should be giving your Sub- committee any input that you could massage through and whatever aid you could be to Mr. Brock. As I read your Minutes I thought you summarized it rather nicely in that you would be coming to this Committee, presenting your work and you would not talk about a vote and you would be involved in getting the word out to the citizens. Interest or no interest, we would get the information out. At the conclusion of that process I think it might be the right time for this Committee to take some action. If we are against it then we ought to let the County 4626 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 Commissioners know we are against it. If we are for it at that point we ought to tell them yes we are for it. That is where I would like to keep your Sub - committee working. I would like to see your Sub - committee continue to do all of the work because I think it focuses in a smaller group for attention to an issue and you can continue to have open meetings. Because any members can come to your meeting we are focusing on that one subject at your Sub - committee meeting rather than putting it as an Agenda item at this meeting where it won't get all of the attention that it deserves. That was my thinking and Mr. Werner, if you would, I know what you mean when you say popularity, but I think we ought to not use that. If in fact it is going to work and it is a popularity contest, then it is not worth the paper it is written on. If it is a vehicle to allow the residents to select whom they want to recommend, then I call it a straw ballot vote. Those are my thoughts. Mr. Bawduniak stated that two months ago Mr. Vlasho suggested that the MSTBU take the lead in understanding this issue. At that time nobody here objected to that at all. What we have is an evolving process where the Sub - committee is assimilating what Mr. Brock put out and trying to present it. The main point now is as the full Committee studies this do the individuals have a problem or objection or do they see an objection or problem coming up? We already attacked the logistics, which was a little off base and I think the chart captures a solution that will work. Again, along the way we felt we should understand this as well as possible so that we could communicate it in succinct balanced terms to the citizens. It is very clear to us that they want to have some kind of a say. It is not going to be a perfect say, but a straw ballot, which allows them to express their opinion. Right now it is obviously an on going process where we keep looking for problems and objections and at some point we will have it captured and say this looks pretty good to us, what does the public want? Mr. Carroll stated that I would like to know whether the Committee feels that the Sub- committee or the full Committee should conduct the public hearings that 1 feel we are headed for in January? I think that addresses a little about what Mr. Vlasho was talking about. It is not clear to me whether all eleven of us ought to participate in that or whether you want just the four of us to do that. 4627 ii PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 Mr. Roellig replied that the concern that I have expressed over the last few months is about the low level of interest in the community. Unless there is a large turnout of significant numbers I don't think public hearings would be very beneficial. I think the Sub - committee should look at the possibility of having a large town hall type meeting. I don't see meetings with ten or twenty people as being very useful. Mr. Carroll asked if he thought only ten or twenty people would come? Mr. Roellig replied that is more than have come to any meeting so far. Let's face facts, when Mr. Brock was here before Easter, I don't think there were any more than twenty at any specific meeting and there were 12,000 people in Pelican Bay. At your Sub - committee meeting you had two members of this committee and two people from the Concerned Citizens group in attendance and that was it. I did provide a Memorandum as to how I feel would be a good way to do the terms of office, but that is just my input. Unless there is some real groundswell for this, I can't see a big investment of our time. Mr. Brown stated that I sense we are still looking for a solution and I think it would be good if we could put in writing what the problems are. Any time you have an election you are going to have costs. What additional costs do you want to put on the residents? I think a lot of time has been spent on solutions and we really haven't defined problems that really need to be changed at least I have not seen anything in writing. Mr. Carroll asked if Mr. Brown felt that Mr. Brock's areas of consensus addressed some of the issues that he saw as problems? That was my sense of what he was trying to capture there. Mr. Brown replied I am not worried about Mr. Brock. I am worried about the residents of Pelican Bay saying we have some serious problems here that we need to address and we can do A, B, or C. When we had an election we didn't have enough people to fill up the ballot, but when we had volunteers there were sixteen people applying for two or three spots. If we can define the problems, we can collectively all arrive at the same solution. Mr. Brock is responding because he was asked to respond. EM PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 Mr. Carroll asked if Mr. Brown does not feel the selection process is or has been identified as a problem? Mr. Brown replied I have been on this Committee for seven years and in the years before I got here it was never brought up and all of the sudden it became a great big problem about a year or so ago. Prior to that it was never discussed. Mr. Burke stated that I was at the last Sub - committee meeting and you are doing a great job. Somewhere in the Minutes from that meeting, Mr. Brock is going to go out to the owners of Pelican Bay with a three - question survey. One is, do you want to the new Ordinance, do you want any change at all or do you want something else, is that right? Mr. Harrell replied yes, but I don't think it is exactly those three. Mr. Burke said it was three. Change, no change or what we are doing now? Mr. Harrell replied change, yes or no, no change. Mr. Burke stated that prior to doing that the talk was that we somehow get the new Ordinance in front of the ownership. I had the impression that the Concerned Citizens would turn out thousands and the Property Owners would turn out their thousands and fill the room and people would have input. Maybe I was being optimistic, but that was the impression I had and thought it was a great idea. Mr. Domenie stated that the way I understood it was that Commissioner Carter delegated Mr. Brock to meet with people here in Pelican Bay, which he did, and then to find out the consensus of the people and report his findings to his committee. Indirectly I think we have been charged with the responsibility of coming up with the solution, whether people like the solution becomes a different matter. Secondly, regarding public or town hall meetings, these meetings are advertised, the Sub - committee meetings are advertised and are all open meetings where anybody can attend. I cannot see having another town hall meeting and run up a $4,000 bill, which nobody knows who is going to pay. We already have two public meetings a month. If our concerned citizens have any opinion I think it would be proper for them to express that opinion when the time comes. If they object to it and feel they want to run another Ordinance, I have no idea what it is. 4629 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 Mr. Harrell stated that here is where I think we are. It is kind of interesting. At the last Sub - committee meeting we started talking about should there or should there not be an Ordinance and that was the two questions on the card, yes or no. Then Mr. Roellig brought up, what if you like it the way it is, so Mr. Brock thought that might be a better third question, although I think it is answered if you answer no that you don't want to do it. It doesn't really matter. The consensus is and Mr. Brock's job was to come up with what does the public want and the Ordinance is what the public said. There are some parts that we and the public can play that I would actually turn over to staff and say you guys figure it out. We will do it the best way to make it more efficient and not spend a lot of money. I like the way the Sub - committee was going and we talked about this the last time, of inviting each group. We did just get a letter from the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association saying that they wholeheartedly endorse this. We do have an agenda in front of us in which Commissioner Carter pointed out exactly what he wanted before he would bring it to the Commission, so our agenda is ahead of us. I think the Sub - committee after the first of the year, whether we have to do it twice a month or every week, would be involved in that eagerly to invite each group to come to an open meeting. We need to advertise it, be willing to sit and discuss the pros, cons, what's good, and what's bad, but we are really not here to change it. We are really here to either accept it or not accept it. There is one problem that Mr. Brown keeps bringing up. There was only one problem and that was whether the people up here are elected or appointed. I don't think anybody was dissatisfied with the way this organization runs and if anything, they wanted more power and this ordinance tries to address that and still be under Collier County government. That is really all it is. I think the Sub - committee should call meetings next year, have people come and get the groups to address it. Again I don't think we need to add the third question, you are either for the Ordinance or against the Ordinance. That is really all there is, and no sneaky questions. We don't want to do that. We want the facts the way it is and is the Ordinance clearly explained? Mr. Vlasho replied, well said. Looking around the Committee, does anyone disagree? There was no reply. 4630 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 Mr. Vlasho stated, Mr. Carroll your charge continues, your Sub - committee stays the course and at some point you will come back to this Committee and say here is where we are and we want to recommend it or not recommend it to the County Commissioners. In the meantime, you should from this full Committee who gets your Minutes, seek any input that you do not get at your Sub - committee meetings. Mr. Carroll replied that addresses most of the issues in here. There are details for example having to do with the timeline and as Mr. Brock identified at the last meeting, the timeline is kind of a difficult thing to deal with because of various problems that I won't detail here. We do have certain issues, for example the four of us who are scheduled to go off of the Committee on January 29, 2002. It seems to me that we need to address that right now and say do we want to recommend to the Commissioners that our terms be extended. Really we don't have much of an option, there isn't time to have an election or popularity contest anyway and we could just throw it to the Commissioners and let them scramble around and figure out what to do. It seemed to me we ought to address that issue now and recommend that to them. Mr. Werner asked if that had to be part of the Ordinance? Mr. Carroll replied no, it is a separate issue, but it is created by the work that we are doing on the Ordinance. We are not having the normal appointment process. Mr. Werner replied I understand what you are accomplishing, but the way I read it; it is going to be part of the Ordinance and had me confused. I don't see why the County Commission couldn't act on that just as if it were a recommendation by this Committee. Mr. Vlasho stated that we have two choices. One is that the four members would go off and they would go through the appointment process that could happen in January or we could recommend to the Commission that these terms be continued for another year until the Brock Ordinance is resolved. Mr. Harrell stated that being one of the guys going off I should not make the motion, but I think this is where we are headed we should stay the course. Mr. Bawduniak agreed. Our interest here is continuity and that whatever happens would be a smooth transition if any. 4631 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 November 7, 2001 Mr. Carroll stated that the terms would be extended for fourteen months. Mr. Vlasho replied I don't think that is what Mr. Harrell said. The terms would be extended until the Brock Report is resolved, whenever that is, with the thinking being that at that time the transition would be worked out. Mr. Domenie asked what if we do nothing? What if the voters say we do not want a new Ordinance? Mr. Vlasho stated that it would then go away and we would be back to appointment. Mr. Roellig stated that I would personally prefer going through the appointment process because I don't now when it is going to be resolved and I don't have a problem with that. My personal view is that there is no real interest in the community for this and we are going to get into March and April and be wondering what to do. I will vote against this motion because I think we should go through the appointment process and not try to mix up the transition any more than necessary. Mr. Harrell stated we could discuss that because I can certainly re -word my motion. I have no problem if the motion is to recommend that the four members be reappointed for the full term, but that is not what I quite had in mind, thinking that we were going to go into an election process. If we go into an election process what will we do with those people in limbo land? Mr. Vlasho stated that Mr. Roellig is saying let's stay with the current procedure and in January there would be four appointed, any four people and go through the normal process. Mr. Harrell replied that is not what I would want the motion to be. It may not be my place to make the motion. Mr. Bawduniak stated that we would be asking four people to step forward and be recommended, who may be facing a little over one year's duty and that is a bit of an uncertainty. Anybody that comes on here comes on with the understanding that we are going to be here for four years and as I heard Mr. Carroll say two meetings ago, it takes a while to get into the groove and understand some of the historical significance of how we got where we are. I would not be terribly comfortable bringing four people in and say you may or may not be here for four years. I think that may influence the people you get. 4632 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 Mr. Roellig replied that in my view if you go through the appointment process it would be for a four -year term and that way you are in a two -year transition because you have four people who know they are going to be here for four years. Mr. Bawduniak stated that delays the straw voting process for that whole element which is four out of eleven. Mr. Vlasho stated that the time line would change. Mr. Harrell stated that it seems kind of funny to do that at the last minute. Mr. Roellig replied on the other hand, you are not going to have the election for another year anyway. I don't have a hard feeling one way or the other I just personally prefer that. Mr. Brown stated that somehow there is some humor here about what went on in New York and their change of election and the great significance of this, but I am not going to touch it. Mr. Harrell moved, seconded by Mr. Bawduniak and approved on a vote of 813 to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the four individuals whose terms were to expire in January have their terms extended until the Brock Report is resolved. Those voting against the motion were Messrs. Brown, Domenie and Roellig. Mr. Carroll stated that based on our discussions I don't think we need to dig into details even on this timeline. What we said is that we need to proceed with the public meetings and assess what the public reaction is to this thing and then go from there. I would like to call your attention to Page 3 and talk a moment about the Ordinance approval process because I think I wanted to highlight some of the things involved. Mr. Harrell referred to the Commissioner's checklist. He suggested that to us and we need to keep that in mind. We then suggested two or three public hearings and we said we are going to go ahead with that. The subject of comparing the differences between the two Ordinances, the Sub - committee didn't really address how that would happen, whether the Sub - committee should put an A and B comparison together or not. We will address that and I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Another point that Mr. Roellig brought up was what is the cost of an election and felt we should have that in mind and we haven't gotten a number on that yet. 4633 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 ",- Mr. Carroll continued that there is Mr. Brock's straw vote on which he asks the questions that we already discussed. All of these things seem to be important to the approval process and I only single them out, as our Sub - committee will have to deal with all of these as we deal with the public. After that is done we bring that back to the Committee and decide where to go from there. We will have a Sub - committee meeting and address the points that we have made here. Mr. Werner stated that when your Sub - committee meets, please give some consideration to Mr. Roellig's memo to have elections every two years. I think the way it is scheduled now you would have an election three out of every four years. Every two years you have about a 50% turnover, but that is okay. Mr. Carroll stated that if you study that timeline it is rather strange. There is one year where there is no election. I don't disagree with that at all. CONTRACT MANAGER SERVICES - CONTRACT RENEWAL AND PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES REVIEW Mr. Carroll stated that this issue came up at our last Sub - committee Meeting only briefly in that the Purchasing Department had called me about the question of what we were doing about this because we are on a month -to -month basis with Mr. Ward's contract. What I did was to decide to put it on the agenda for the full Committee to deal with today because it is not really a Sub - committee issue, except that we had prepared a job description three or four months ago. Mr. Ward reviewed it and gave us his comments. We tried to revise it to accommodate his points and then I took another shot at updating it again and went over it with Mr. Ward again and modified it and except for Item 11, it is something Mr. Ward feels is reasonable. If you look at the job description Item 11, Mr. Ward feels that a performance review is a difficult thing for him to deal with because he is under contract he would prefer to leave that item out. I didn't want to leave it out and he really didn't want me to leave it out, without bringing it up with all of you to see whether we felt it was or was not desirable to discuss how we felt things were going on an annual basis. I would address that as a specific item and also ask if you have any questions about the job description as it is written now? 4634 16J1 .. PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 Mr. Vlasho stated that my recollection was that we approved a job description a year ago that was submitted to the County and is now the official job description for this position. My question is how different is this from that job description? Mr. Carroll stated that it really wasn't a job description at least 1 didn't feel it was. Mr. Ward explained that it was attached as an amendment to my contract for an additional one year and when it got to the Board of County Commissioners it got wrangled up in whether it should be bid out again. So, it never actually got approved. Mr. Carroll stated that also on the one that we produced, Mr. Ward had a lot of concerns and he wrote us a letter. We tried to accommodate that and have something with his input, which dealt more with the person in a contractual situation as opposed to an employee. I think that is what this hopefully does. Mr. Bawduniak stated, Mr. Ward you obviously had some thoughts about that and suggested that it be omitted. For your own protection if we don't understand some basic details of how to conduct a Manager's performance review then you are open to somebody at some point to say I am not too happy with Mr. Ward and they look back over their shoulder and draw the rest of us in. There is no way to judge past performance unless there is some basic structure in place like management by objective and what we expect from you each year, which does not have to be in specific terms. At some point somebody can say let's look at how Mr. Ward's been doing and you have no yardstick or you can't measure. It is something that I felt was Basic 101 Management where you always have some list of general objectives and what is expected to achieve them that this Committee, at any time or on an annual basis, could sit down and justify that you are doing okay and also that we are doing okay. If you are not doing okay sometimes the problem could be us in not communicating clearly, not identifying priorities clearly enough for you to get done for the customers or shareholders and citizens what we should. Having said all of that, do you have any ideas on what we could do in a reasonable simple fashion to check your progress or accomplishments on an annual basis? Mr. Ward replied no. Let me just tell you that when you are sitting in this seat or any seat in this business, you get reviewed every time you sit in front of one of these Boards. Whether it is 4635 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 you or it's the County Manager sitting in front of the County Commission, it happens on a very regular basis with us. Reviews in my mind are really tied in the government sector to policy implementation that comes about as a result of what you decide to do or don't decide to do in the budget implementation procedure and how well you do that and manage that organization itself. Those are really the broad general guidelines that we use in the governmental sector or the public with respect to employee review or performance standards. In a very general sense that is about where I am. Guidelines when you are in an Advisory Board relationship as you are here, even if you are an elected Board, I don't think matters a lot. My job is to implement policy that is dictated either through you or through the County Commission. That is what I do for a living, my job is to put policy in front of you, ask you whether you do or do not want to do it and to the extent you choose to do it, come up with rules. In this sector at the very simplistic level that happens during your budget process each year. That's the policy, the goals, your objectives, all your financial policies that you have and that is primarily what we focus on here in Pelican Bay. When I look at what we do, that is how I look at it and that is how I think that you look at it also. Frankly what I try to do is have enough communication with the Chairman to really understand from a community's perspective what is going on within the community and to the extent other committee members provide that to me, that is how that happens. It is not real simple with a very large Board. There are eleven of you here and I am not going to please eleven people twenty - four hours a day, seven days a week. I am happy if I get to the 50% level most of the time. That is a fact of life when you are dealing in this sector. Mr. Ward continued that I said to Mr. Carroll a while ago that I sort of recognize what Mr. Bawduniak indicated. But I do understand what I said to him very simplistically is that I sit in this seat as long as you or anybody wants me to sit in this seat. The minute you don't want me to, I don't really care, I will leave, but I don't want to have to go through a review process that because it is a public agency that I end up in the newspapers about what somebody says that may or may not necessarily be true. My livelihood is sitting in this chair for governmental agencies around the State of Florida. My reputation and integrity are paramount to me. To me it is real simple. If you like it fine, of you don't that's fine to, then I go away and I do something else, but I don't want to a. . PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 have to go through a review process that I can't put my finger on the ball as to specifically what eleven people want or don't want at any one moment in time. That is difficult in this business. Mr. Bawduniak replied that for the very reason that you are dealing with eleven people with different levels of subjectivity and objectivity depending on the subject, it would seem to me that a very clear general set of criteria for judging you on an annual basis would be to your benefit. I would like to hear if other members of the Committee, particularly people who had to worry about corporate responsibilities, if they have any thoughts about it one way or the other. Mr. Roellig stated you put your finger on it when you said corporate responsibility. What we have here is a combination contract/job description, which is apples and oranges and my personal opinion is that it can't work that way. If you have a contract you have a contract. If you have a professional contract, you don't ask the man how many days you sat in the seat. Did he get the job done or didn't he get the job done? That is a professional contract. If you want to have a job evaluation, if you put it in the contract the bottom line is you are going to have to run that through County Purchasing because that will be a requirement that will be in the contract. I don't think that is a good idea and one thing that you have to remember is that you are looking at a contract situation here. Mr. Roellig stated that I am going to do something here that I am probably going to regret, but I will volunteer, because I have done this many times in the Federal government, to attempt to represent this Committee with procurement in the County. I have gone through these types of requests for proposals and evaluations probably dozens of times and I have a pretty good idea what you have to do and what is required for a government contract. I think one of the problems that we have had is that there is a big difference on how contracts of this potential service type are handled in the government and how they are handled in private industry. The County has a specific procedure, which is nearly identical to the Federal procedure. They will come up with an indication of interest of what the contract is about, who wants to apply for this, they will get proposals in and develop criteria for rating the proposals. When the proposals come in they get rated and basically the community will probably recommend the top three if there are many proposals, which will go to the County Commission and they will make the selection. It is 4637 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 IS something I have done many times and would be willing to do that if this Committee wanted me to. I think we can discuss these things, but you get into areas that you don't want to get into. You don't want a performance review in the contract because if you put it in the contract you have to do it and the contracting people are going to come to you asking if it was done. I think this is long overdue and I think this Manager's contract should be advertised and taken care of as soon as possible. It has gone on for well over a year now. Mr. Harrell stated that I think we ought to get this off of our table. Corporately I have a policy to get it off your desk and get it onto somebody else's. This is not the corporate world this is a contract. If we don't like Mr. Ward it takes more than half of us to recommend that he be fired. We set all of our agendas and our goals in the beginning when we do a budget. We meet our budget goals or we don't meet them and we find out every week or every month whether we did or we didn't. We have let this thing go way too long. The last time we had this it went out to bid and Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Ward were the only two that applied and both were qualified. I say let's put him on a one -year contract, accept it and go on with life. We have other problems here and this is not one of them. If we don't like him we can tell him at a meeting, we can make a motion and fire him. He has sixty days in the contract if I am not mistaken. This is not brain surgery, let's go on and get this on somebody else's desk and go on with life. Mr. Sutphin stated that he agrees with Mr. Bawduniak on performance appraisals as being a valuable management tool, but the context of that in the corporate world is a very private session between employee and supervisor, which because of the laws under which we operate is simply impossible, contract or no contract. It just couldn't happen and I wouldn't want to put Mr. Ward through that even if we thought it was a good idea, which I don't. Mr. Domenie stated that I think this is a job description and that's what we are aiming at, the job description, whether he performs it is something else and is not part of the job description. It is a contract, which is presumably open for review once a year in any case and we have the sixty -day clause in there. I think we are covered and we don't need that. Mr. Werner stated that there have been some comments made about the public versus the government sector and I think everybody here should know that our County Manager and PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 County Attorney are both under contract and they may be County employees and they are reviewed once a year. I agree and I think the simplest way to handle this is if you don't like the job Mr. Ward is doing, just make a motion to fire him. Mr. Harrell stated that it would take some discussion before that would happen. We are going to have a Chairman sooner or later who is not going to like Mr. Ward, despite the job he has done and I think it is in our best interest as a big group and that is why I don't want to get to a small group. It is eleven people discussing what really are the facts and I think we come to a better answer every time we do it. If we need a motion to go ahead and recommend the one -year contract for Mr. Ward, I am ready to do that at this point. Mr. Vlasho stated that my recollection is that the last time we went out for proposals that came from the Purchasing Department who said something to the effect that this has been renewed for "X" number of times and their policy called for it to go out for bids and they did that. I also understand that you can always get around that procedure by making it known to the County Commissioners what it is you want to do. Either way, I agree. We have to say we recommend it for a year or tell them to get off their butts and go out and get proposals. Mr. Harrell replied we have two proposals. We have both Mr. Dorrill's and Mr. Ward's proposals. We have qualified people. I haven't received anything to tell me that the contract has been rescinded. Mr. Carroll stated that I think they did rescind it. Mr. Roellig stated that by this time they would be so stale that they would have to go out for bid again. Mr. Vlasho stated they would go out for bid and if Mr. Ward is the only one there is no decision. If there is more than one then there is a decision. Mr. Bawduniak stated that I am an advocate of Mr. Wards. I felt very serious about what I said because I think he deserves a degree of protection because a year and one half ago we sat here and he was on a gridiron and there was not a lot of substance behind finding out what was wrong and we asked him to speak up in his own defense. I personally would like to see him sign up again as fast as he can for another year. MM PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J 1 November 7, 2001 Mr. Vlasho stated that I meet with Mr. Ward at least once a month and although they are not performance reviews, they are in sort of a way because as we talk through the agenda and what is happening and what is going on and I discuss with him what my thoughts are. He doesn't have to listen to them and anything that has to come to the Committee comes to the Committee, but I guess also coming out of the corporate world I just don't like it that way. I understand why we are probably not going to do it that way because I agree with what you just said that it is for his defense not ours, so that it does not become subjective. Quite often Boards of eleven people become very subjective and you only remember what happened last month or the month before and you forget about ten or twelve months ago. That said, I would suggest a motion for you Mr. Harrell would say that we go to Purchasing with the following. Reappoint Mr. Ward for one year if you can do it or if not, go out for bids immediately and come back to us. Mr. Roellig asked that we don't tie the time in. As I recall the Purchasing people would be willing to go out for four years with a one -year extension. I don't think we need to go through this every year. Let's see what their criterion is rather than go out every year. Mr. Harrell asked if it wasn't a yearly contract? Mr. Carroll stated that it is a yearly contract and can be renewed automatically for up to three years. Mr. Roellig replied okay, we just don't want to cut the renewal part out. Mr. Ward explained that the way my current contract worked was that it was renewable each fiscal year based upon price adjustments that you adopt and then are adopted by the County Commission as part of the budget process and as an amendment to the agreement itself. The Agreement on its face stayed in place and the Commission just renewed the compensation level for the ensuing year. Mr. Carroll asked if the County didn't have a policy, which says over a certain number of years it has to be re -bid? Mr. Ward replied no. Mr. Carroll replied that is what they told us before. 4640 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 Mr. Werner stated that I would like to make the motion that we just recommend that the contract be renewed for one year. Mr. Harrell asked if there is somebody on the Committee that has a problem with this? There was no reply. Mr. Roellig stated that I think you still need a fallback if it has to be done the other way. Mr. Vlasho stated that we will see what this motion does and they may say that it cannot be done and you have to go out for bid. Mr. Domenie asked Mr. Ward if he saw any problem with the County accepting this? Mr. Ward replied no I don't. Mr. Harrell moved, seconded by Mr. Sutphin and approved unanimously to recommend that Mr. Ward's contract be renewed for one year. CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE Mr. Roellig reported that the Sub - committee met about one week ago and we talked about the various items. CLAM BAY ANNUAL MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE Mr. Roellig reported that the next Sub - committee Meeting is scheduled for November 28, 2001 and at that time we will be reviewing the draft of the Annual Monitoring and Improvement Schedule for Clam Bay. Based on what we find and our conclusions they will be held for the next full Committee meeting in December. DUNE RESTORATION AND CLAM PASS DREDING Mr. Ward introduced Mr. Ron Hovell an Engineer with Public Utilities who is responsible for the issue of beaches within Collier County. As a part of the County Manager's implementation of whatever the County is doing, Mr. Hovell has been directed to meet with all of the communities in Collier County to talk about what beach restoration has been like and what is going on, especially is relation to Gabrielle and monies that are available from the Federal government under the FEMA Program. The good news is that he brought with him today Mr. Phil Flood with FDEP who handles dune restoration projects. He was down here on other business and we 4641 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 asked Mr. Hovell to bring him today in case anybody on the Committee had any questions with respect to our beaches and dune restoration projects that might happen there. Mr. Hovell explained that as a background for the September 14 storm, Gabrielle, we basically had all the beaches from the County line at least down to Gordon Pass pretty much under water. Some of the dunes were overtopped and completely destroyed. It was estimated that we lost 400,000 cubic yards of sand on the engineered, maintained beaches, which are Vanderbilt, Park Shore, Naples and Marco Island. It does not specifically include Lely Barefoot Beach, Pelican Bay beaches and a few other ones in between. In order to recover from Tropical Storm Gabrielle the State of Florida declared a Coastal Emergency. On September 18, 2001 we had FEMA come through for a preliminary damage assessment and they seemed to indicate that they would declare a Federal Disaster, which they did on October 3, 2001. The Presidential Declaration was for public assistance, so any of those engineered and maintained beaches where we are expending County and perhaps some State cost shared dollars to maintain, FEMA had indicated that they would participate is paying up to 75% to restore those beaches to, in essence, the pre -storm condition. We had estimated about 400,000 cubic yards would run approximately $8,500,000 and the initial source of that funding would be the Tourist Tax Funds with the ultimate reimbursement of up to 75% from FEMA. In order to come up with those initial guesstimates of how much and how we might do this, we had to look at what way we would do the construction. We have some existing permits that are related to having done the hydraulic dredge and fill project back in 1995/1996. Those existing permits allow us to place up to 50,000 cubic yards per year on any of those beaches to help maintain the project life and hopefully defer the next major renourishment project. Under that maintenance permit we approached the State in some way, shape or form of modifying the permit to allow us to do something other than just 50,000 cubic yards a year and it was just within the last day or two that we received the permit modification which changed some of the words and we are now pursuing getting the authority to actually go out and do the work. The existing permits do not cover Barefoot Beach, Pelican Bay, south of Clam Pass Park down to approximately Bahia Mar Lane on the Park Shore section and 4642 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 on the Naples beach our project limits stop at 18`h Avenue South. Everything south of there is not in the areas where we have a permit that we could go and truck in upland sand. Mr. Hovell continued that when we look at the natural beaches, which include Barefoot Beach and Pelican Bay, the question was raised, what about those beaches they were equally damaged and would they not be eligible for some kind of FEMA funding to help restore them? The Public Assistance Guide for FEMA allows that emergency sand placement can be made when necessary to protect improved property from an immediate threat. Since we didn't seem to come up with any properties that met that criteria and there was a second caveat about restoring it to either the pre -storm profile or for protection from a five year anticipated storm whichever is the lesser, we didn't feel we had anything that met those criteria. From a natural beach view that category didn't kick in. Therefore, from an overall restoration point of view, if you lost more or less the same three to four feet of beach that the rest of the County did, which would be my expectation, there is no way to file with FEMA at this point because it is considered a natural beach. The second part of that would be to look at perhaps a longer -term program of some local funds. I know the question has been asked by the Property Owners Association of Chairman Carter to look into if and how Tourist Development Tax money might be used. I think given the history of some of the other beaches in the County, including Hideaway Beach as a perfect example, I would not say it is not eligible. I certainly can't stand here and tell you yes we will do it and that there is any particular percentage in mind, but I think whoever responded to that letter indicated that 1 would be charged with working with the Pelican Bay Services Division to try to develop some projects and ultimately a grant application to submit to the Tourist Development Council and Board of County Commissioners in this next budget cycle. For the Tourist Development Council, that would be the April time frame. Mr. Hovell explained that some of the things that would need to go along with undertaking any project with Tourist Development Funds would be review of the property issues. If we are going to stick strictly to dune restoration in the near term, I guess we would have to look into issues of who are the property owners down to the mean high water line where the State ownership begins. Once we have a better understanding of that and consult with the County M-091 J1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 Attorney to make a determination if it appropriate to use public funds to restore those areas. I am not familiar with your particular status, but I think the property is owned by the Foundation. Mr. Ward replied I think we meet that criterion. Collier County owns down to the mean high water line. Mr. Hovell stated that would certainly aid if it were publicly owned. The second part would be if we ever were to look beyond just doing dune restoration where we could just work with the State and Mr. Flood's office to do that aspect, we probably would not have to go to the Army Corps of Engineers for permits, because we would not be filling any waters and we might not have to get into all of the typical easements and establishing erosion control lines a lot of the things that go on with a typical major beach renourishment project. If in the longer term there was a thought towards extending the existing beaches which is kind of what I got from that letter, then in fact we would have to look at going through all of those things. That is certainly the area that if you have any questions I would suggest you ask them today while Mr. Flood is here and can answer them directly. That is his area of expertise, understanding the ins and outs of the erosion control line. He tends to be the project officer that would come down and brief the local community when those types of events occur. Mr. Hovell continued that some of the other issues would be depending upon what kind of work we wanted to do, getting the appropriate permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Another issue that came up when I started talking to the Natural Resource folks is that there is a particular section, if not most of the section of Pelican Bay, that falls within the Federally Protected Coastal Barrier Resource Act. Maybe from a pure sand restoration point of view there wouldn't be any major issues, but certainly longer term any other types of development tend to be restricted by that Act. I want to go over what the Florida Statute allows Tourist Development Tax Funds to be spent on, as it relates to my program, but there are categories for other things such as advertising and promotions and museums. I am just addressing the pieces that relate in some way, shape or form to the coast. In essence it says to finance beach park facilities where beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment, restoration and erosion control including shoreline protection, enhancement, 4644 J1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 clean up or restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access. As I said, I think there is certainly room to continue to ultimately consider using some percentage of Tourist Development Tax Funds to do some of the work and I will continue to work with Mr. Lukasz on what your particular desires are. Mr. Roellig stated that one of the reasons to talk about dune restoration is because in these storms the dunes are eroded and it impacts our mangroves and other areas and I think that is one of the things we are interested in protecting. Can you describe how far seaward we can go in a dune restoration? Is that the ordinary high water line? Mr. Hovell stated that anything above the mean high water line the State tends to define as the beach berm, the section of the beach that we might think of as the recreational beach. The dune being the more vegetated higher -level back portion of the beach. As long as you don't go below the mean high water line I don't think there would be a lot of concern from the State on how big and wide the dune is, other than from the aspect of what is the impact to things like the turtles or birds or whatever else might want to tend to habitat those areas. Mr. Roellig stated that one of our major concerns is that during these storms, particularly Gabrielle, it washed over the entire beach and destroyed whatever berm was behind it and then flooded the mangroves. I would think we would be interested in establishing a berm with some possible vegetation to try to hold that line rather than continue the erosion. Mr. Hovell stated that I would take that to mean that you want to restore the dunes, much like when I addressed you at the Coastal Advisory Committee, we plan on doing that at Clam Pass Park. You are talking a similar situation where there were dunes and now it is basically flat and there is sand pushed back up into the mangroves. It is certainly our intent at Clam Pass Park to go ahead and dredge Clam Pass this year and put the sand on the Park itself, primarily to restore those dunes and build them back up and re- vegetate them for future storm protection. Mr. Vlasho stated that as we talk of dune restoration, beach renourishment we always have to keep our eye on what it means to the access that Pelican Bay has to the beach. It is great to get funds and it appears the beach needs something done to it, but your Committee should be very cautious and I would encourage all other interested parties to try to go through 4645 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 your Sub - committee so that we don't go off in all directions. The easy thing is to say let's get Tourist Tax Funds and then go get them and find out there is a whole bunch of strings attached that when you talk about getting people excited in Pelican Bay could really get them excited if those strings were the wrong kind. Mr. Roellig stated that I take that to heart because I have mentioned that to. We also need to realize that while we suffered quite a bit of damage with Gabrielle I think we are going to have to make the decision fairly soon on whether or not we want to go forward with an actual study and get some permits. We more or less got by without any major damage in this one. We know we are not eligible for FEMA assistance to rebuild and I think we need to have that kind of protection in place, which means that ultimately we need to get some kind of permit for beach activities if we are interested in FEMA. If there were a major hurricane the amount of damage would be so catastrophic that we definitely would want FEMA's participation. Mr. Vlasho stated that the Foundation keeps reminding me that something has to be done before they become a deck community and not a beach community. Mr. Hovell stated that part of the reason I mentioned that Coastal Barrier Resources Act is that part of that Act precludes Federal Funding of any kind within that zone. Whatever area of Pelican Bay is within that designated zone, even if you were to do some renourishment or rebuild the dunes and go through the next storm event and have damage, FEMA would not consider funding those areas. That is what that Act precludes them from doing. Mr. Roellig replied that we would need to get together to find out what our options are. Mr. Hovell stated that he would get the maps from the Natural Resources folks, but I think it is a pretty significant part of Pelican Bay. I don't think there is a lot of area where you could set yourself up for the future to potentially get FEMA Funds if another storm were to hit. Mr. Werner asked Mr. Hovell if he knew that Clam Bay was a Natural Resource Protection Area and what we are trying to do is protect the protection area? Mr. Hovell replied I do and I throw that out, as what I have been told is no Federal funds, but I do take your point. One of the things that I did before we came here was take Mr. Flood out to Clam Pass and show him where the dunes had been and discussed whether or not the State 4646 J1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 would participate in restoring those dunes. We had the same kind of discussion of you are not protecting structures so why would the State participate? Well, because it is a conservation area and the mangroves are important to us and hopefully to the State too. We are still discussing that. CLAM PASS DREDGING Mr. Roellig reported that the backup data found that from a tidal situation we would not have to dredge Clam Pass. However the Coastal Advisory Committee discussed the other problems of finding beach materials for Clam Pass Park and the bottom line was that we are recommending that the pass be dredged. The bids are in and the program is that it will go before the County Commission on November 13, 2001 for their contract approval. Mr. Ward reported that on November 28, 2001 the Clam Bay Sub - committee will be meeting and we will get a complete presentation of the Annual Report, including all of the monitoring, hydrographic, water quality, biological and plus a program of what is being recommended to happen in the ensuing years. You are welcome to attend that meeting and it will appear in summary format to you at your December 5th Advisory Committee Meeting. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD (SOUTH ENTRANCE) TO GULF PARK DRIVE IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPEIMPROVMENTS Mr. Ward explained that the first phase of the irrigation and landscape improvements are essentially completed at this point. There is a little more on the Gulf Park Drive side, which will be completed within the next few days. At that point we will cease that operation and move on to the U.S. 41 Berm Landscaping Program that we anticipated doing. Mr. Werner stated that we are not going to do the landscaping on Gulf Park Drive and streets, but when are we going to get to the irrigation in that area? Mr. Ward replied that would come up as part of your budget process next year, based upon what our funding levels will be. I will provide you a funding level and recommended schedule to do those improvements that you will consider, but it will be at least another year. 4647 J-1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 Mr. Carroll asked if we really needed to do Phase II next year? As I drive up and down there all the time I know it is not as old as the other area, what convinces you that you need to do that in 2002 rather than 2003 or 2004? Mr. Ward replied that most of that system was constructed in the mid to late 1980's so it is getting rather old. One of the things that we are doing is providing a computerized control system for the irrigation. It is not possible to do it on the old system that is in place and has to be rebuilt in order to do a computerized control system, which is what we have done on Phase I. In addition to that, as a part of the Clam Bay program, one of the commitments that we made to the regulatory agencies was to find a way to try to maintain or reduce the amount of water that we use in the right -of -way program in Pelican Bay. Those rotor heads that are used in the irrigation system are extremely inefficient water users and we have switched to a system that is substantially more efficient so hopefully at the end of the day we maintain or slightly reduce the amount of water we use in the system itself. Those are the primary reasons that we have recommended to you that we do it. Mr. Carroll asked how much we have budgeted for that work? Mr. Ward replied $400,000. Mr. Carroll asked if there was any pay out on that at all? You are just talking about saving water. Mr. Ward replied yes, saving water and trying to be more efficient in providing a computerized control system so that we can reduce some of the labor time we actually spend in maintaining the system in turning the zones on and off all the time. COMMUNITY ISSUES U.S. 41 LANDSCAPING The County has begun construction on the landscaping program in the US 41 median and they are expected to complete that work in January 2002. The contractor is actually doing a good job, irrespective of his desire to close down the Waterside Shops periodically. Other than that major issue, he has been doing a very good job out there. 4648 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 Mr. Vlasho stated that he has a question on Phase II of US 41. We have budgeted our funds and assumed that the County had budgeted their funds. At a meeting on another subject, I was told that they had not budgeted and it went down with the sales tax yesterday. Mr. Ward replied that would not surprise me either. Our funds, although they are budgeted, we will not spend them. I assume during your budget process what we will do will be recommend something to you to do with those funds and discuss with the County what they are going to do with Phase II at that point. Mr. Vlasho stated that I recall Mr. Werner was involved in the discussions along with Dr. Varley and we need to bring that back on the table with them because we marched along assuming that Phase II would happen and now I am beginning to wonder if it is going to happen. Mr. Ward replied I agree. They have authorized the design. What I thought we would do is wait until the design is finished on the Phase II project and once that happens bring that to you to take a look at, make whatever changes are necessary and at that time go back to the County and say okay it is ready to be done, now we are going to figure out the funding levels and when we get to do it at that point in time. The County staff during the budget process this past year didn't say they didn't want to do it. What they said was by the time we finish the design and the permitting, etc., it is going to be fiscal year 2003 before we actually get to the construction of it. At that time the staff has said to the Commission that we will budget it, but we will budget it for fiscal year 2003 and the sales tax issue was not tied to that issue. I am going to go under the assumption that the ' /z cent sales tax issue is still not tied to the Phase II landscaping. When they finish the design we are going to proceed along and talk to staff about budgeting it at the appropriate time. Mr. Vlasho replied that sounds very good but some of us were under the hope and desire that Phase I would be finished and almost immediately Phase II would start. Now you are telling us it is going to be 2003 and finished approximately January, 2004. Now you are telling us we will go another year with the second phase not being done. PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 Mr. Ward explained that I think if the County finishes the design we will have the opportunity to discuss with them how to fund it at that point. They can still do a budget amendment and move some money out of reserves in order to fund it. Mr. Vlasho asked if the Committee was comfortable just sitting? Mr. Werner replied I don't know what alternative there is. Even if it had been designed they could not do anything until the contractor completes his whole project. The way he moves that may be another four or five years. Mr. Vlasho stated that will probably be January. Mr. Werner replied not just the work in front of Pelican Bay, but the entire project up to old U.S. 41. Mr. Ward replied that the proper way to deal with it is to let them finish the design and then we will put the time schedule together and at that point go back to the Commission with it. Mr. Vlasho stated that unless someone objects, the next time I speak with Commissioner Carter I will bring it up. Mr. Carroll asked if we have made any move in getting County interest in putting in lights from Gulf Park Drive to Seagate Drive? Now that we have all of the lights turned on there is this big gap that is very apparent. Mr. Ward replied the process is rather long Statewide in order to get lights in that location, but there is what is called an MPO which is the Metropolitan Planning Organization. I have talked to the MPO and have asked Mr. Lukasz to actually get the forms to go into their work program process in order to get funding and lighting done for that portion that doesn't have lights. The MPO process is extremely long and takes a few years to get through. They are just starting their process currently and we are working with the MPO in order to try to get that started for you, but it will take a long time. Mr. Carroll asked if you would talk this issue over with Commissioner Carter to see if it could be speeded up? Mr. Ward replied I will put that on my list of items to talk to the Commissioner about. SIDEWALK OVERLAYS AND REPAIRS 4650 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J Mr. Ward explained that Transportation, with the help of Commissioner Carter, has started the work on what was Phase I and Phase II of the sidewalk repairs. Phase III, the red area, is scheduled for fiscal year 2002/2003 and is all of the sidewalks with the exception of Gulf Park Drive, Oakmont and the western portion of Pelican Bay Boulevard from Glenview Place up to the start of the Bay Colony area. That will happen next year, but the County is in the process of doing all of Phase I and Phase II. We are installing all of the bio- barrier needed for the tree root system. The County has actually come to the plate in doing all of that work for us this year. Mr. Bawduniak stated that you mentioned three phases and your color code is a little tough to follow, but are you starting by going around the entire Pelican Bay area where there are barriers and fixing those sites first? Mr. Ward replied yes. Mr. Bawduniak stated that hopefully in a reasonable period of time we will see all of the barriers gone? Mr. Ward replied yes and then new blacktop. HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS Mr. Ward stated that Mr. Vlasho had asked me just before the last meeting what the hurricane preparedness was for Pelican Bay Services Division and how does that interface with the County and the Foundation? What I included in your agenda package are the hurricane preparedness manuals that we use for Pelican Bay and countywide for all of Collier County, which we as a Division operate under. The Foundation was kind enough to provide to us their written manual, which we have included in your package also. In my business this is sort of the normal thing we all do, but the question really was do you have a manual and what are the emergency procedures? What we tried to provide to you was just that material. If you have any questions, Mr. Lukasz and I can help you through it, but it is a rather cut and dried process that we go through for hurricane preparedness for our facilities as does the Foundation. I will tell you that all of the County agencies whether it is the Sheriff's office, fire, EMS, us, etc. all work closely together on these things for Pelican Bay as the County does county -wide. 4651 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 'w Mr. Vlasho stated that I wanted the Committee to have it available, scan it, put it in your file and if you ever need it at least you know where it is. These storms come up almost overnight at times and I thought we as an Advisory Committee were at risk of not knowing anything. NORTH PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL Mr. Ward explained that there had been some questions regarding the electrical box for the signal out on the corner and that it is obtrusive to the look of the entranceways that we have just put in. It is important to remember that box has been there for probably eighteen months now, pending the installation of that signal. The contractor has recently mobilized and is putting in the bases for the mast arm signals that will go up. We have worked with them and there is an opportunity at this point because of the installation of the mast arms that are going to be going in shortly to move that box. The County has indicated to us that it can be moved north about 25' from it's current location and still meet all of the traffic criteria that is necessary. We are working with the County's Transportation Department to get a price to do that and hopefully they will fund the Change Order for the contractor to move that box. There is not a lot you can do with the location of those mast arms, they are going to be really big and really ugly and you are not going to like them, but that is where they have to go. It is an intersection and you have to deal with that fact. Mr. Carroll stated that there is a control box, but in addition there is another disconnect box that stands by itself in between the control box and arm. Will that be moved also? Mr. Ward replied yes. SIDEWALK. CROSSWALK MODIFICATIONS Mr. Ward explained that this item would be deferred until your next meeting. Traffic Engineering does not have the design ready yet so we will talk about that at your next meeting. BIKE PATH LANES Mr. Ward explained that he had been asked to pull all of the materials that you had discussed in the past with regard to the bike path lanes or the inclusion of bike path lanes along Pelican Bay Boulevard. Most of the materials were embodied in the minutes of your meetings and I included them in your agenda package. I don't have a specific presentation to make to you 4652 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 1 on this item. It was really a request of the Committee to have this information in order to discuss it a little more fully. Mr. Vlasho asked for any comments or reactions? Mr. Werner stated that after reading through this it jogged my memory that bicyclists are allowed on the roads. They are required to keep to the right of the street and ride single file, not two abreast. They are required to obey traffic signs the same as a motor vehicle, they are also permitted to ride on sidewalks. The question really boils down to, is it safer to have a bicycle lane or is it less safe and I don't know? Mr. Vlasho stated that I think Mr. Ward's intent here was so that we all knew where we had been and that there had been some discussions from people in the audience and I don't think we need to do anything other than be aware of where we are until we hear something else. I would add one thing. In some discussions I have overheard, that if we want to look at the possibility of combining bikepaths with traffic calming there might be some potential where we could look at how we slow the traffic down and have bike lanes at the same time. That is a big step because it would probably result in reducing the number of lanes on Pelican Bay Boulevard and at some point that all has to be looked at and put to bed again if it comes up. In the meantime I don't think it is an official item on our agenda yet. FINANCIAL STATEMENT REVIEW Mr. Ward explained that the Financial Statements that are included in your Agenda Package are for year ended September 30, 2001 so we are now in a new fiscal year. In terms of your general funds we had budgeted a fund balance of roughly $1,300,000 and it came in at approximately $1,560,000. The savings were primarily in payroll and then in the field operations. That has come out well. Your Capital Projects are relatively the same way. The primary difference between the Fund Balance budgeted and what was anticipated is much higher obviously in that we just did not undertake some of the capital projects, primarily in the Clam Bay system that were anticipated to be budgeted. Those moneys essentially roll over into the current fiscal year. Your budget looks as if it came in on target with what was anticipated and slightly a 4653 1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 1.6J1 little better than what we anticipated it to be. That will be a help to you as you move forward into your fiscal year 2003 budgeting process. Mr. Vlasho asked when these would be finalized? Mr. Ward replied that the County goes through an audit process. We generally do not get audited numbers until February of next year. Sometime in late February or early March is when we will get our numbers. Mr. Vlasho asked what the experience on adjustments has been? Mr. Ward replied very little adjustment to these numbers. Mr. Vlasho stated that you had indicated we would get a plus as we moved into this year's budget. Do you have a range of how much additional cushion we would have? Mr. Ward replied that there is $300,000 more than we had anticipated for this year. COMMITTEE REQUESTS COMMUNITY FLAG POLE — REQUESTED BY MR. GEORGE WERNER Mr. Werner stated that at the last meeting I asked if the Committee would consider this if there were any support for having a community flagpole. I thought it would be nice to have one in the U.S. 41 area, either at the two Pelican Bay entrances or perhaps just at the Gulf Park Drive entrance. Do you have any idea what it would cost Mr. Ward? Mr. Ward stated that I just priced one for Pelican's Marsh and for some reason $3,500 sticks in my mind, which included electric to get to the site. I don't now if we have electric issues here, but probably not and it should be slightly less than that. Mr. Vlasho stated that I would be interested in putting in three poles, one at each entrance. Mr. Roellig stated that from a personal experience, at Chateaumere we are looking at putting up a permanent flagpole and we got a price of $2,500 for a 35' pole. Mr. Werner stated that if there is support for it, I would be glad to work with Mr. Ward to come up with some figures for you. Mr. Roellig stated that what we have now is a couple of stick in flags, which are not a long -term solution, and I certainly would be in favor of it. 4654 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 Mr. Vlasho asked if there was anyone who did not think this was a good idea? There was no reply. Mr. Vlasho stated that we would pick an amount not to exceed so that we can give direction. What if we say $3,000, not to exceed $10,000? That way the Manager could move forward as a long as it was under $10,000. Mr. Werner moved, seconded by Mr. Roellig and approved unanimously to move forward with the installation of three community flagpoles not to exceed $10,000. DISCUSSION OF PAYMENT OF ORDINANCE AND ELECTION COSTS — REQUESTED BY MR. DAVID ROELLIG Mr. Roellig explained that he prepared a memorandum and as many of you may know costs were incurred early in the year for the Town Hall Meeting and other election issues. My problem was that this, as far as I am aware, never came to any member of the Advisory Committee and as 1 understand how this was passed, we will be looking at funding half of it. I also have a problem with reimbursing expenditures for private groups. I don't think that is generally a good practice unless it is specifically authorized. I understand that the County Commission has the authority to do that and I have recommended that there be a letter sent to them by this Committee, for which I have prepared a draft. I am concerned about private parties being reimbursed and as far as I know other private parties that spent money have not been reimbursed. Mr. Roellig moved, seconded by Mr. Werner to send a letter to the County Commission requesting that the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee approve any expenses incurred in the future. Motion and second both withdrawn and a vote not called. See discussion that follows. Mr. Domenie stated that we have the President of the Pelican Bay Property Owners here, as well as Commissioner Carter and perhaps they can shed some light on what was agreed as to who was going to pay for this Town Hall Meeting. Mr. Ray O'Connor explained that I am currently the President of the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association. When I read this letter there were a couple of things that I felt that I had to 4655 1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 respond to. I think Mr. Roellig was very closely identified with the Concerned Citizens group and the Concerned Citizens requested the town hall meeting of the current County Commission. They went before the Commission and asked to have a town meeting through Commissioner Fiala who brought it before the Commission. Commissioner Fiala recommended that the Commission schedule a town meeting. Commissioner Carter came to our offices and suggested that due to the time frame that perhaps we could help in the publication of this meeting, setting it up and getting people to come and we agreed to do that. The meeting was televised as well and the Property Owners as a service to the community agreed to pay for the televised portion of that meeting which cost us in excess of $4,000. There was a group that came into this meeting with their own ballot, their own ballot boxes, their own attorney and they had a line set up in front where people had to almost run a gauntlet to get into the meeting. The meeting was supposed to be a public meeting that was to be educational and informative and they turned it into a charade and a circus. Then to come up and say that the Pelican Bay Property Owners, because we are a private organization, we should foot the bill for this meeting, I think is the height of "chutzpah" as we say in New York. We did this at the request of the County Commission. We submitted the bill for payment for the process that the County Commission asked us to do. We never, ever said to the County Commission that you should go back to the MSTBU and get money from the MSTBU. We just called upon Commissioner Carter to pay that portion of the bill, which we felt they asked us to do as a service for them. That is why I come here today and I take exception to the fact that Mr. Roellig calls us an organization that represents only a fraction of the people in Pelican Bay. We represent 3,400 households, which adds up to approximately 6,000 members. I suggest to this Committee without trying to insult you, that you represent five people and only one of which lives in Pelican Bay. You are an Advisory Committee to the County Commission. We are a voluntary organization that the community joins voluntarily and I remind you of that and we don't like to be called an organization representing just a fraction of people in Pelican Bay. Mr. Werner asked Mr. O'Connor if he realized that 4/5 was a fraction? Mr. O'Connor replied 1 do, but used in the terms that it was used does not mean a majority. 4656 `I PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 I Mr. Charlie Dugan — The Pointe at Pelican Bay. I am a taxpayer and registered voter. I am sorry I am going to have to rebut some of the things Mr. O'Connor has said because I don't want to do it. bill? Mr. Vlasho asked if we could keep our comments to why we should or should not pay this Mr. Dugan replied I think I have a right to rebut what he said. Contrary to what Mr. O'Connor said, the Concerned Citizens did not recommend the town hall meeting. That did not come from the Concerned Citizens, it came from the County Commissioners and I have some writing that shows that. We went into that meeting in good faith and we published ballots that we had every right in the world to do and an agenda. We walked out of there and pinned the ears back on people who spent supposedly $30,000. Mr. O'Connor at one of the forums told me, that they had spent $30,000 of the member's money and I can see why he is trying to get some of it back. We spent money too and we prevailed, he didn't prevail. He took an awful shellacking. As everybody knows the Ordinance was ultimately repealed and Commissioner Carter finally voted against it. The point is that we can file for money too and we didn't do it. If anybody should be paid we should. We prevailed at the meeting defending it, not by choice and in a very fair, upstanding way. If he is going to get his money then we should get ours. We were gentlemen enough not to apply for it. We had some big bills in ballots, agendas and mailings. One of the flyers that he is requesting money for, we feel was partisan. It encouraged you to uphold his point of view. If he is going to get his money, we want ours and I don't think anybody should get the money. You people should not be asked to cough it in. Mr. Werner replied we are not being asked. There is no one asking us to do that, it has already been done. Mr. Roellig stated that the price you pay for being a volunteer is to be personally attacked. I didn't start this as an attack on anybody. The problem is that I think this Committee should have been notified of this. I recognize that the County Commission has every right to do this because we are an advisory committee. I am not saying that if the County Commission wants to spend their money that way that's their call. I am sorry you feel that it is necessary to 4657 1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 '0 attack me personally and I guess that is just the price you pay for being a volunteer. I am not offended by your comments, I just object to what you said were my motives and objectives and I think you should stick to the facts and not be worried about what people's motives are. This is past history, let's go on. Mr. Harrell stated that this Committee voted unanimously to support it and it is time to heal the wounds and pay the bill. We were all on both sides of the issue, it was a bad thing, let's go on. If you have bills you want to pay let's look at those too. I think this is the time to heal wounds and bring the community together. Mr. Werner stated that I do not believe Mr. Roellig wanted to open any wounds and is making a very valid point. We would like not to have bills assigned to us without us being involved. Mr. Bawduniak stated that what is bothering me is what kind of precedent is being set here and what could we be set up for in the future. Certainly everything that happened was worthwhile, despite the division in the community. We are heading in a communal direction now, but I guess what I am wondering was the membership contacted or a vote taken to spend the money by the Pelican Bay Property Owners or was that a result of Board action? If that's the way it happened that is history, but I guess what worries me is what Board or organization in the future could do something similar and the MSTBU would be faced with another situation like this? I guess I would like some kind of reassurance that if somebody is going to spend money and there is a real consensus in the community, then we would pay our share. I don't hear that and it bugs me. Mr. Sutphin stated that I have a more generic question. Does the County Commissioner have the authority to subsidize a private lobbying effort, which it seems to me that they did in this case? Mr. Vlasho replied that the County Commission has the right to approve payments as they see fit. I don't want to call Commissioner Carter into this. I apologize to the Committee and to the audience that we got into that kind of discussion. That was not the intent. Excuse me for not having a gavel and cracking it early enough in the conversation. Mr. Roellig's intent was to 4658 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J 1 November 7 2001 bring to our attention that we were being charged. This has already been paid, already done and nothing we can do or have to do about it. I was on the periphery of what was happening and my understanding is that the Property Owners did this as an aid to the County Commissioners, whether that was the perception or not. I am not really in favor of writing a letter, but if that's what you decide to do we will write a letter. The Chairman has heard it, it is in our Minutes and our Manager has heard what is to happen and he can pass it up the channels. If you want to write the letter we will write the letter, but we have nothing to vote on in paying the $4,000 and we are not going to entertain motions or other bills. This was brought to our attention to say that this is an Advisory Committee and to please come through us before you pay the bill. Mr. Brown explained that this brings up a good point and to go back to where we talked earlier about having an election every two years, etc. I think this Committee has the responsibility in working with the Commissioners even in discussions with the people in Pelican Bay. We should say by the way, any election is going to cost you $50,000, right out of the gate. Don't hide the cost. Way back when in the discussions, we were assured by one group that there would be no increase in costs, which was valid. I think anytime we get into something we should put the costs up front so that people say do I want to vote, do I not want to vote or do I want to look at a $50,000 bill? To hide the costs or not address the costs is not doing the service that we should be doing for the community. Mr. Roellig stated that when I prepared this I did not expect Commissioner Carter to be here and I guess he may have gotten the message. It is something that I came across in looking at the agenda and I thought this Committee should be aware of it. Mr. Werner stated that I would withdraw my second if Mr. Roellig would withdraw his motion. There is another part here. In addition to the County doing it without us knowing about it, Mr. Ward would this have been brought to us and would we have been informed about it? Mr. Ward replied if it had come through me, yes. Mr. Brown asked if Mr. Ward had been informed about it? Mr. Ward replied I had not been informed about it. On this issue I would have brought this before you. 4659 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 Mr. Bawduniak stated that it was just said that we were uninformed and we should send a formal letter to the County Commission saying that we would appreciate it as a courtesy in the future being informed before the fact. Here we are sitting, it has happened to us what are we going to do roll over and say nothing and it will happen again? I think it is a point of political courtesy that they should have let us know one way or the other. I am shocked to hear that Mr. Ward did not know about it. Commissioner Carter stated that I regret that it has reached this point. I was advised by the County Attorney and County Manager that this had been resolved. I did not know that you had not been advised or participated in the discussion. I was asked how we could work through it because at one time it was strong feeling in the County and even some Board Members that it should be paid for here. I said wait a minute, three Commissioners raised the issue of the town hall meeting and I said to the County Manager, because I can't to the other Commissioners individually, you go back and walk the halls and remind them that when they open their mouths out there and want something to happen there is a dollar figure attached to it. They are new, perhaps they didn't know, but that is how it all transpired. I regret that it got to this point. We had a bill from another Constitutional Officer, the Supervisor of Elections, of which we, Board of Collier County Commissioners, Collier County Government paid for. The County paid for her services, we had to. You brought up a good point Mr. Brown, anytime you have an election it costs money. Everybody needs to be aware that when you do those and there is nothing wrong with it, but there is no free ride here. I have made a note and I will go back and find our why it got to this point that you were not consulted. I was under the impression that it had been resolved and everybody was on board with it. I will go back to Mr. Weigel, because he is the one that kept bringing it down to me and the one I kept sticking back in his face telling him to get it done. We made too much progress in Pelican Bay through the Clerk's efforts to get everybody to talk and make an input into what you want to do in the future. I said I will not touch that at all until the community comes back to me and says we have had our discussions, we are in agreement with what we want to do and then it will be my pleasure to take it to the Board of County 4660 0 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE E 6 1 November 7, 2001 Commissioners. I made a mistake the first time by being in a situation where I didn't need to be and I won't be there again. I want to assure all of you that is where it is. Mr. Vlasho stated that as opposed to the motion what I would ask Commissioner Carter to do is ask that our half not be charged to the MSTBU and have the County pay for that entire amount. Mr. Roellig stated that is one of the problems with making a motion. I don't want a split vote and I am willing to withdraw the motion as far as the letter. I think the message has gone out. Mr. Werner stated that he would withdraw his second. PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION MISSION STATEMENT — MR. TOM BROWN Mr. Brown stated that I was asked to work with Mr. Ward on coming up with a Mission Statement for Pelican Bay Services and based on his years of experience and wisdom we came up with "Preserve and enhance landowner value and resident quality of life by promptly and efficiently providing the services which answer the needs of the Community within Pelican Bay'. Mr. Carroll asked Mr. Harrell if it was satisfactory because the commercial interest does not get into the wording. Mr. Harrell replied this is fine it is enhancing landowner value, thank you very much for your patronage. Mr. Vlasho stated that when we talked about landowner value with the Foundation we took that out, with the presumption being that if you did all of those things landowner value would increase and you don't have to state that in your Mission Statement. Mr. Bawduniak stated that I like it because it is out front and it says what we all believe. Mr. Roellig moved, seconded by Mr. Bawduniak and approved unanimously the mission statement provided for the Pelican Bay Services Division. VIDEO TAPED MSTBU MEETINGS Mr. Ward explained that the Foundation is becoming more technologically advanced and can now video tape their Foundation Board Meetings and air them on Channel 44 and offer them 4661 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 Ll as part of the improvement that they are doing. If you wanted to have your meetings video taped and shown, have at it. My experience in the governmental sector is when you video meetings you double the length of them. Mr. Vlasho asked for any comments. Mr. Sauve, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Pelican Bay Foundation, stated that if a better medium was requested we could share the costs and make it look better. Right now it is a hand held video camera and run on Channel 44. Mr. Domenie asked if it was broadcast live or at 3:00 A.M.? Mr. Sauve replied it is delayed and I don't know the time. Mr. Vlasho explained that it is good for us to be aware that it is available to us and I would ask that we take this under advisement. My concern would be that people would start talking to the camera rather than trying to solve a problem. Personally our meetings are open and people are welcome to attend. Mr. Sauve stated that the reason we are doing this is that we did a survey and the biggest thing that was clear from the membership was that they do not get enough communication. They can't go to the meetings and this provides them the vehicle to be involved. Mr. Roellig stated that I have been on the Beach Board and their meetings have been broadcast and people do watch them. If we don't do it now, I think we will be doing it sometime. No matter how you cut it, there are people who watch it and if they are interested they know it is on and they can tape it and do whatever they want to do with it. The day will come when we will be doing it. Mr. Domenie asked what is the cost? Mr. Sauve replied if you wanted to do it and have it look better than it does right now, we would probably invest in a better video camera and probably have a dais that you could sit at. I don't have those costs, but if you are interested we would get the costs and come back to you. Mr. Vlasho replied the consensus is that it will probably happen at some point, but for the present let's just let it sit there. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION 4662 J1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 Mr. Donald Levenson — Chateaumere — I want to make a few remarks about the Ordinance and Governance subject. I attended the Sub - committee Meeting on September 27, 2001 and at the appropriate point in that meeting I made a suggestion, which in my estimation was well received because three members following the meeting approached me. It was suggested that I present this suggestion to the full Committee. I did not do so on October 3, because there was not an appropriate lead in. Today I feel it is very timely. I, for one, and I have spoken to many people, but I am speaking from the point that I am very much disturbed about the prospect of another ugly battle between the Concerned Citizens and the Pelican Bay Property Owners. I don't think anybody wants it. It was vitriolic, defamatory and just hotly political and did not accomplish much of anything except getting a lot of people upset and emotional. What we need, we the people need, because we are not all lawyers or civic students, we don't understand what this government language all means. What we need to know in plain old terms, is what does it mean to me and how is it going to affect my life, whether we continue as we are, whether we have the Ordinance or a revised Ordinance? I need to know what the pros and cons are. I have been promised this several times over the past two or three years by influential people who have been in and out of this room, but I have never received the answer. What I would like to see and what I recommended on September 27 is that this is the group that represents Pelican Bay as far as the MSTBU, whether you are elected or appointed. You are the people who understand and should understand these issues and should be making the decisions that you feel in your judgment are in the best interest of the residents of Pelican Bay. I am going to trust in you, which is the way to go. What I recommended and want to see done, is after you have gathered all of the your facts and have heard from any political activists who want to address you, you then take a straw poll among yourselves as to what you think is best for the community. What I don't want to see is heated language in the Pelican Bay Post from these two opposing political groups. I want to see two reports, which are common in our Federal government. I want to see a written report of the majority opinion of your eleven members and a written report of the dissenting members, if there are any. 4663 J1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16JI Mr. Ray O'Connor — Oakmont resident — President of the Pelican Bay Property Owners. I have been away for the summer but a couple of things happened at the last MSTBU Meeting, plus a letter from Mr. Werner to the Pelican Bay Post. I always felt I had a pretty good relationship with Mr. Werner and I would hate to see anything happen to that. I think when Mr. Werner raised the issue of the Pelican Bay Property Owners being the sponsor and supporter of the Ordinance which was defeated, I think perhaps I was expecting Mr. Henry Hamel, Mr. Doug Fairbanks, Mr. Dick Censits, Dr. Alan Varley or Mr. Lou Vlasho to stand up and say wait a minute, we put two or three years into this as a committee that looked at all of the problems in Pelican Bay that we saw over the years and came up with some sort of solution. The aforementioned organizations didn't have the money to do it, so they asked the Property Owners if we would fund such an undertaking. I went back to my Board and I said to them we have been wrangling with this governance situation for a good number of years. We have had several attempts at incorporation, which appeared to split the community and we don't want to go through that again. Also, I think that the Pelican Bay Property Owners want to get out of the governance business. I looked at this process and said I think this is a good way for us to get out of the governance business once and for all. When we bring forth this recommendation to the people it is going to be under the endorsement of the Property Owners, the Foundation, the President's Council and the MSTBU. The advisors that we paid told us that the MSTBU would be the proper forum to bring it forth so that they could recommend it to the County Commission, which is what you do. When the Ordinance was prepared it wasn't even in our possession for more than two days when we brought it here. We didn't add anything to it. We took the Ordinance as it was written. We said to your Committee, you look at it and give your input and Mr. Dorrill will take it back to the attorney and incorporate whatever you want into that Ordinance and we will pay. We paid Mr. Dorrill and the attorney's fees so that this Committee would have its input because it affected you most of all. I admired the fact that you were able to support it because in essence, it was putting you out of business and a new Committee in your place. I won't go through the history of why Dr. Varley came to me, but there were problems with the way this Committee was functioning, the way it was being treated by the County and the way that the Manager related to the Committee. PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 They wanted to solve those problems and it had nothing to do with Mr. Ward's performance. It has to do with the technical area of representation and how Mr. Ward relates to the Committee and I was told there were problems with that and we needed an Ordinance to solve it. I was told that the community wanted to elect the people who served them. We just had an election in Lely where they have a community elected Board and there is nothing wrong with that. When you talk about expenses, I think the Foundation has agreed that if you wanted to piggyback on their election process they would do it. There may not be any major expenses and there may not be $50,000 involved. I wish those other members were here because I would tell them "congratulations you have done something ". I pat myself on the back because I was a part of it. We have brought the issue before the community. Your Sub - committee is discussing this issue; groups are coming together and providing input. The Pelican Bay Property Owners looked at what Mr. Brock had to say and we endorse it wholeheartedly. I remind Mr. Harrell that we never removed the commercial interest from the process. We want everybody to be included and that includes the Concerned Citizens. We want this next Ordinance or the vote, if it is going to be an Ordinance or status quo, to go through and we are not going to be impeding it. I say to the people who were involved, including Mr. Vlasho and myself who happened to be in the room, we have done a good thing and we haven't failed. The Ordinance might have failed, but what we have tried to accomplish has not failed and I don't think it will fail with the good will of the people on this Board and the good will of the people in the community. Mr. O'Connor continued, Mr. Werner sometimes we put issues in the paper because I have always identified ourselves as the complaint bureau. There was an issue put in the Post during the summer and I got a call from the Sheriff's Department all the way up to Pennsylvania saying that we criticized the Sheriff. We had pointed out the fact that there had been some vandalism and speeding along Pelican Bay Boulevard. I got a call from the Sheriff's Department saying that you are criticizing us and we are doing everything proper here. That same weekend the SunTrust Bank Building was broken into and our office was robbed. I haven't heard from the Sheriff since. Then we get calls from people saying why did you change the signage and why did you change the lights, they were fine, so we put it in the paper and people take exception to that. 4665 ii PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 I am sorry about that, but the Pelican Bay Property Owners are here to be a voice of the people. Sometimes the language is written in a way that gets others upset, sometimes what I say gets people upset and I apologize for that. I am only trying to present the Property Owners in the function that I think they should perform for the community. I like most of the people on this Committee. I don't say I like everybody because that is impossible because I don't know everybody. I think what we are trying to do is a community service and sometimes when you perform a community service people's noses get out of joint. For that I apologize, that is not our intention. Our intention is to spotlight what we think are problems in the community and hope that the people who can do something about them will do so. If you had received these complaints about the streetlights and signage and had an opportunity to answer them in the paper, I think that is a good thing. It is not a bad thing and it gets the process moving. Mr. O'Connor stated Mr. Roellig if I offended you, I did not mean to insult you. I thought your letter was too pointed to say the least, toward the Property Owners and not in general. You might have said we do not appreciate the fact that you are spending our money without consulting us and not spotlighting us, because we never asked the Commission to tax this MSTBU for anything that we did for Pelican Bay. We wanted the Commissioners to pay for what they asked us to do. MR. CARROLL LEFT THE MEETING AT 5:30 P.M. Mr. Joe Peruccio — My comment has to deal with the Non -ad Valorem Tax of $293.00. Did we pay for the grass, which was destroyed by the County? Mr. Ward replied that the County workers are your workers. Mr. Peruccio stated I understand that, but did we pay for the sod? Mr. Ward replied we paid for the sod. The Pelican Bay Services Division paid for it. Mr. Peruccio asked why should we? He made the mistake with the insecticide or whatever he did wrong. Mr. Ward replied it is the same thing. The County is you. Mr. Peruccio replied I don't understand. R... PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 people. 1 Mr. Vlasho explained that the people who made the mistake are Pelican Bay Services Mr. Peruccio asked did we dismiss anybody? Mr. Ward replied no. Mr. Vlasho replied that we did not have any one person that we could say was guilty of doing it and the Sheriff's Department investigated the incident. Mr. Peruccio stated that I have talked to a lot of people and that is their comment. The other thing about the landscaping is Pelican Bay Boulevard. I have gone through Vineyards Boulevard; it is unbelievable and looks so much better than Pelican Bay. We have a jungle out here on Pelican Bay Boulevard. If you take a good look, some trees are right on top of each other and are not uniform and it looks terrible. I don't know how much we are paying for this and I guess the County takes care of that too, but it looks terrible. Mr. Ward replied I apologize if it looks terrible, everyone else thinks it looks great. Although they say Collier County, they are Pelican Bay Services Division employees and Pelican Bay Services Division is Pelican Bay so you pay for that. If you choose to make them all go away, they all go away and you don't pay the $293.00 any more and it gets to be whatever it gets to be at that point, but you are paying for that through a separate Non -ad Valorem Assessment, so it is not the County or Pelican Bay, it is you. Mr. Peruccio stated that I think we should look into a private contractor in that case. Mr. Werner replied we had one for a while. Mr. Peruccio stated that Pro Tree Farms does the Vineyards and you have to go through there to see it. Mr. Werner replied they own Pro Tree Farms. Mr. Peruccio replied I know they do, but the comparison is like night and day. Mr. Vlasho stated that if you look at the south end of Pelican Bay Boulevard where we are just finishing, when we finish the north end it would look similar to that. That is the whole idea to be consistent and open it up. Mr. Peruccio stated that to be consistent you have a lot of trees to cut. 4667 1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16JI Mr. Vlasho replied then you have people complain because you cut trees. I agree because I am a proponent of making it all look the same way. Mr. Peruccio stated that if you look across from Bay Colony you will see a bunch of trees and the reason the sidewalk is crumbling is because there are so many trees. Mr. Vlasho stated that is a result of developers wanting things to look finished immediately. Mr. Harrell stated that there is another issue that is called "level of service" and Mr. Ward brings that to our attention all of the time. If this community wants to have people out there cutting grass with scissors we can do that. We can go out there and measure it and make sure it is exactly the right length every day. Mr. Peruccio replied I am not talking about grass 1 am talking about trees and they are not uniform. At the Vineyards they are spaced evenly. Mr. Harrell replied it is all a matter of what people are willing to pay for. Mr. Ward stated that everyone has to understand that WCI and a dozen different developers put in those trees over a fifteen -year development period. Plans change, things change and we are now going back and trying to provide a uniform look throughout the system. It takes time and a lot of money to do it and that is a part of what we have been trying to address the last two or three years. Mr. Peruccio stated that the $500,000 that we are paying for the U.S. 41 median is something I cannot understand. The County picked up the cost of the median landscaping between Davis Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road, which was $1,500,000. Why do we have to pay for U.S. 41 ? Mr. Vlasho stated that there have been MSTU's set up and the developers and /or people in those areas are paying for them. road? Mr. Peruccio stated that if the County is paying for it, why do we have to pay for a State Mr. Vlasho stated that you have to remember when the County pays for landscaping it is being paid for through an MSTU, which is the people who live in that area. ..: PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 Mr. Ward replied that generally in Collier County whether it is a community, a developer or a development they go to the Commission. As a part of the widening program we asked the County whether they would be in a position to help fund the Capital Program if we became a partner in doing that and in addition to doing that they took over the operating cost of the Clam Bay Restoration Program. It is not just Pelican Bay picking up the Capital Cost, but the County is picking up the Operating Cost. We funded 50% of the Capital Cost, plus the County picked up all of the Operating Costs from Clam Bay from two years ago moving forward. It was a good deal for the community to do all of that and I still believe today that it was a good deal that we made. Mr. Peruccio stated that when we first had this problem with the mangroves they projected it to be a three -year project and $2,000,000 with WCI paying half. I understand WCI paid their $1,000,000 and they are not paying any more. There does not seem to be any end to the mangrove money. I don't mind paying the $293.00, but we should put it into beach renourishment, that is where the money should be going. That is our number one priority and I don't see any end to the money going into the mangroves. When is it going to stop? I was in the penthouse of the Monentero and the mangroves looked pretty good, but the money has to go to beach renourishment because the County is not going to pay for it. Mr. Vlasho stated that we are not trying to justify, we are trying to tell you that yes we are concerned about the same things you are and we have looked at all of the issues. With regard to the mangroves, you would have a debate on this table as to whether they looked good. We are disappointed that we have spent the money and at best have sort of held the situation. We are disappointed in that, but if we hadn't spent it, who knows where we would be today? Mr. Ward explained that to move the process forward, this Committee as part of its budget process next year is going to be working with the County on dune restoration and beach renourishment projects. You are going to see that in the coming year and as a part of this budget process. I think this Committee will tell you that we encourage you to be a part of that budget process to set those priorities that this Committee will go through and it takes a very long time, usually three or four months, to set those priorities for the ensuing year. 4669 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 7, 2001 16J1 Mr. Peruccio stated that I don't mind paying the money; I just want to put it where it does some good. Mr. Vlasho stated that on any issues, if you want to know the details first start with Mr. Ward's office and you will get more than you can handle there. Any of us on this Committee are willing to talk about any issue. We don't take our responsibility to make decisions lightly and try to make those decisions intelligently. Mr. Jerry Moffett — L'Ambiance — I want to suggest that for future agendas that it appears from time to time but never gets acted upon and that is the bike path lanes. If we are concerned about safety I can't understand why we are not for bike path lanes. The major roads in Collier County all have bike path lanes. I have reached the conclusion that it is just safer to have a bike lane and I would ask that you to put it on your agenda. JANUARY MSTBU MEETING Mr. Ward stated that I had not realized that your January Meeting is the day after a holiday. I was curious if anybody wanted to consider moving your January Meeting from January 2nd? Mr. Vlasho asked if the offices were open on January 2nd? Mr. Ward replied in the affirmative. A lot of times people are out of town for the holidays, but that is your decision. Mr. Roellig asked that individuals return their meeting request to Mrs. Smith. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 5:45 P.M. Mr. Lou Vlasho, Chairman 4670 Cla m Ba y Restoration and Management 16J1 i BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT Turrell & Associates, Inc. - Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Inc. — Report plumber 5 In fulfillment of DEP permit # 0128463- 001 -JC United States Army Corps of Engineers permit # 199602789 (IP -CC) For: The Pelican Bay Services Division >C� November 2001 TURRELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. Todd T. Turrell, P.E, Cloe Essex 3584 Exchange Ave, Suite B Naples FL 34104 16J1 Tel: (941) 643 -0166 Fax: (941) 643 -6632 e -mail: tttuna3584@,aol.com OR cloe@turrell- associates.com Baseline report, #1: pre - dredging spring of 1999 Time zero report, #2: post - dredging summer of 1999 First Annual report, 43: one year post - dredging summer of 2000 Second Annual report, #4: two years post- dredging summer of 2001 LEWIS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.: Roy R. "Robin" Lewis, III, Michael J. Marshall, Ph. D. P.O. Box 220005 Tampa, FL 33622 -0005 Tel. (888) 889 -9684 Fax: (813) 649 -1425 e -mail: LewEnvSvcs@aol.com / csticnsrt(cDaol.com Baseline and time zero reports, #1, pre and post flushing channel construction in the die -off area, 1997 First annual report, #2: one year after flushing channel construction, 1997 Second annual report, 43: two years after flushing channel construction, 1998 Third Annual report, #4: following additional flushing channel construction in 1999 and 2000, 2000 Fourth Annual report, #5: following additional flushing channel construction in 2001, 2001 16J1 CONTENTS and FIGURES (given in italics) Turrell & Associates, Inc. Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services Report #5 1.0 Introduction to the second annual report 1 1.1 2001 Work Completed 1 2.0 Mangroves 2 Mangrove Stress and Die Off Areas 3 Plot Locations 4 2.1 Graphs, plot descriptions and photographs 5 -13 2.2 Lewis Environmental Services Mangrove Data 14 Monitoring Location Map 15 Graphs and photographs 16 -39 Discussion of results 40 2.3 Aerial Photographs 43 3.0 Seagrasses 48 Results: Transects 1 -4 48 Graphs and transects 5 -9 descriptions 49 -54 Seagrass transects 55 4.0 Conclusions 56 4.1 Mangroves 56 4.2 Seagrasses 58 5.0 Concluding Remarks and Management Focus for 2002 59 Clam Bay Restoration and Management 1 Biological Monitoring Turrell & Associates, Inc.: Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Report #5 16J l November 2001 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND ANNUAL REPORT The Florida Department of Environmental Protection permit #0128463- 001 -JC and United States Army Corps of Engineers permit 4199602789 (IP -CC), authorizing restoration activities in the Clam Bay system make annual monitoring through fixed vegetative survey of the Clam Bay system a special condition of the permit for ten consecutive years. This report presents Year 3 of the schedule with the final due in 2008. The work presented consists of the ten mangrove monitoring plots and seagrass transects set up by Turrell & Associates Inc., in addition to the eleven plots in the die -off area surveyed by Lewis Environmental Services, Inc. Background and methodologies have been provided in previous year's reports and are not repeated here. In section 5.0 the focus of work and specific tasks for the coming year are described. Work items are based on the results of monitoring surveys and have been developed through collaboration with the consultant team and staff of the Pelican Bay Services Division. While some of this work is already in progress, some items are scheduled to be budgeted in fiscal year 2003. 1.1 2001 WORK COMPLETED A focus for the work to be carried out in 2001 was presented in the concluding sections of the First Annual monitoring report. This included the following items which have been successfully completed; 1) Removal of dead trees and limbs from the die off area. 2) Construction of approximately 20 starter islands throughout the die -off area planted with red and black mangrove seedlings. 3) Hand dispersal of red and white seedlings throughout the die -off area. 4) Soils sampling and analysis. 5) Planting of nine experimental grass plots. 6) Flushing channel construction in the die -off area and southern parts of the Clam Bay system. 7) Cattail removal west of the water management berm. An addendum to this report will be submitted with results from the starter islands and grass plots. Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell & Associates, Inc.: Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Report #5 November 2001 2.0 MANGROVES 2 16J1 2.1 Turrell & Associates Inc, Second Annual Mangrove Data: Graphs, Pictures and Plot Descriptions See attached sheets. Plot discussions have been included on the same page. Note, Plot 4 was not surveyed this year. 16J1 4 1 _- bJ1 o �- J o to LD A • ' Z H ss(( Q Z N J a W Q H X •-,• == Q Z W __:' U W li s M O L7 f' Q \H\ t.l_ OS / J Z J W W f� W 1— J SSbd Wb�� ;.:,, CO .i ,,,� •' �! . I `y f, t. � l" ,r ,k � l .— iii ,` , :a ' , Y."' •', '� � .� ' 1 ,`� tip ll„ `� „� Y • 1 \ � i. � ♦ �: -. " F�- ; K. '� fir. ' �� � le 1 • , 1 OR Al At r J Q zZ Q D Z O V W N N H r :7 v � n O ■ ■ 8 R R v o 0 o 833Hi 3Ai l u3ewnN Y U g m W W H V N 0 W w I 16JI mLL v.5 � V �. 0 0 0 to O N N toll 0 -o E '= L N C] O �+ O L > M 3 N ° ' - EQ6cN a m N p 0 . O O N p O O N o N 30; °'��cm Nm .a- ELLOa� � O -.� O O L z3 to m am Q p O O � 2-'° E 3 v. a 3 L Q N m O cc� N 00� OE .� m o o c. 0 o Q- � -p Q n o m O O ° 3 N o "n t0 y U C c N — ° N 8 N N O o E�mo° N tC c N O"5 c E_ p �" E t .. a s 3 O 1:� ° O Q� v> o m c o c al Q vl !• O m O E H O �_ c E— O O v 'a E CL U) w c— 0.0 N c N Q v � n O ■ ■ 8 R R v o 0 o 833Hi 3Ai l u3ewnN Y U g m W W H V N 0 W w I r 7 zZ Q D U W to M H O J CL NE N Mli u) L oc c� t 3 4) >. a t 10) 3 c Z 3��a°'iE -T< � O0 rn ro O n m (a cm 0 E m 3 �rn °OO O�w •• c ' c co m —0 a c jE U) L zo .. N tf- ON r N A N il M .O, sOr 'c p flO - "_ O >O 1 CO c O 0 0 Q O N c = N 0,-o � E`mO E �' X > E > �Mn .c Q c- O MS c = C', O L Mn - 2 L ,c,� ;5- L "- U OL N +' (� N Q L p V M L Q O'er N, m O to 0 'S O N o w L L E (D N (U to > o MT _ A v - n 13 ■ ■ S33?Jl aw M3swnN Y U g m MA W H W = MJ � a N 0 W w 16J1 77- All L lk ♦ + v Op t! . j i� ;" r ° •', r ' � I � " - }I �"s 1, ,��".�+� � I A74 n 11 � z � k u 2 � § a ¥ R C @ CL k 2 5 (n ® U) — ■ c E ■ 0 — E: 6 5 0 0 r 75 W� § � cc E J° E� R c-0 0 CD o � 0k Ek E o E= � 2 A o 2■ 2 §© ■ k m 0$ m ��k� - kgk_02 / § � 2 6 % % m o ° — 5, � 3 � � o � � © 2 § E c E 2� 7 E .0 m § o 2 § cr - 2 2 2 2 4) CL 4) f 2 / 2 ƒ o f § k \ E k >, k m 4)§ 2 E m 0) M E £ 0 en ƒ■ m k 0 o w 0 > �,� / 2 q_ 2 § / ° m CO C: m E c CD ± � � $ ■ m a k Mk� 2 m» In j A O ■ ■ R R H � ( @ o s a _,_m. j 5 m w § $ � } � 16J & a � @ o § $ $ § a 0 - - 0 k k � o o CL ■ � k £ a) 2 2 7 '§ E cm M� 2 2 .g M k § % o — 0 x m v E wCL oco) 0 & 2 % 2 c £ ate£@ q A z £ @ 0 7 k k C § 722/ k § 2 ° g £ \ 2 � D k \ r a ® E + CL f .\ r : o ±Gca ' 0 E c 2 a7 5 0 §$£ Cl. / o a) CL a n : 2 " c @ @ E >, •� _ E(A o C @ k Im §/ 3 + � � $ x I- © 2 k m 0 2 ■ _ § (1) 0) C) 0 ƒ o 2 E u o 2 2 . £ 2 E 2 § 2 w m E$ x § 3 = @ ti k o £ 2 § b £ 4 « 2 0 ;T @ e ]O f .6J I J Q zZ Q O Z O V w 00 O J IL I� 2 In _ - [n V A o ® ■ aaaatann aaawnw Y V 5 m W LU W IL W M 0 ir 11 16J' Co o = v a� c 0Ea a� '� � •,- xo m E 8 > O E a N �, 3•- v� c ?�E.: cu (D D M m ai a) o t° `r E L v1 N (D rt. +• N p Z+ O ENO"- �(DCO to >� co 0 o Y Q' N O 'a i s -a c0 U Y O L. (O + c (i1 — :3 N �o3c�oE4)a� `ov m E c� t ,� T cn a) a 3 � --0 o c a o o c c m O m N N 3 o E ` M � N °r° Q c CL c rn `n c 0).c c o > -' o a a) 3 o U) m > a� o Evan' Q 3� (O m-0 2 In _ - [n V A o ® ■ aaaatann aaawnw Y V 5 m W LU W IL W M 0 ir 11 16J' 0 Y y+ - - ; ~ F •� _,� •`� " �7*= lam•' •� { �� .. K, ♦A Z A;., fi y � .+�. Tom. Stu,. * f • � � a ' • a _ � � t'. M. N 4 , it Ake a w r r , E i �rt � }I • .._ �V � � � �' ,fir " -' � �� :,�- � 1:. k ray. �✓' �`q l��� \ \�,', � 1 e oep Clam Bay Restoration and Management 14 �- Biological Monitoring Turrell & Associates, Inc.: Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Report #5 November 2001 16J 1 2.2 Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Mangrove Data Tree census results are graphically depicted on the following pages along with photographs of each plot. Percent cover of each plot by saltwort (Batis maritima) and numbers of mangrove shrubs per plot are also graphically shown. Please note scales may differ between graphs on the same page. P 01vI D #I `) - r WELL ,Y12 - Top EI. 5.00 NG El. = IAl �II-� -)WELI. yls/ WEI_I_ lop EI NG FI. 1 _ I)OAORAI qC )� -WEII !116 YELL 1111) _ _ 1'np TI 61 WLIL 19 I p EI ].71 I� NG 6J. E� EI. - 15 - - I - L -50 )� ,� NC H 1.3 1 � 1DI1nORnT yA. WELI ¢20 '1 _ I 'NELI. yl'r :l 1'op EI. = I• 1,16 (.I I„1 - 7 I)IIAORAT y7� ` -WELL y1; '.._v /ELl. yzl .I I +1 !op EL .'.. jll Top U. = 2.71 QUADRAT i, �- NG EI - I,�t NG E1. 1.4 I WELL )14--[ I' rop EI. = 2.s6 NG EI. = 1.4 f P O Iv1 D #I r i Figure 19 Map of study site, vegetation plots, and monitoring wells within the primary area of mangrove clie -offs. �� �� `j•���, MONITORING LOCATION 15 WELL N I- -- '^� f 1 MAP Top I ,. NG El. - IA67 By: RPl- 20 Nov. 97 WELL y2 - ---- Top EL = 2.50 .i NG El. = 1.3 I -POND #11 16J1 A'" `'QUADRAT WELL y3 -- yI Top EL = 2.'50 NG EI. = 1.1. WELL ,04 lop EL = .511 1.3 NG EI. = WELL y5- 1 i Top EI. 2.56 / NG tl. = I.5 WELL y7 --� - I, Top EI. _ .55 NG FI. = \ - � I, I,- � �— DUnDITnT y2 ) � WFLL � QUADRAT y.5 -.. \ a6 T p F.I. - 2.6.: 1�. \ No LL I..S WELL y9 Top EI. = 2.54 \� -WELL #8 Top EI. NG FI 1.3� / POND #12 1 POND # 13 1 -POND #14 OND #1 4A\ A� f WELL y11 � rap EL = � 69 T ` NG F.I. = I 1 P 01vI D #I `) - r WELL ,Y12 - Top EI. 5.00 NG El. = IAl �II-� -)WELI. yls/ WEI_I_ lop EI NG FI. 1 _ I)OAORAI qC )� -WEII !116 YELL 1111) _ _ 1'np TI 61 WLIL 19 I p EI ].71 I� NG 6J. E� EI. - 15 - - I - L -50 )� ,� NC H 1.3 1 � 1DI1nORnT yA. WELI ¢20 '1 _ I 'NELI. yl'r :l 1'op EI. = I• 1,16 (.I I„1 - 7 I)IIAORAT y7� ` -WELL y1; '.._v /ELl. yzl .I I +1 !op EL .'.. jll Top U. = 2.71 QUADRAT i, �- NG EI - I,�t NG E1. 1.4 I WELL )14--[ I' rop EI. = 2.s6 NG EI. = 1.4 f P O Iv1 D #I r i Figure 19 Map of study site, vegetation plots, and monitoring wells within the primary area of mangrove clie -offs. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 W N 0 40 0 C c 30 0 U a 20 Cn a 10 0 0 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 Plot 1 - November 2001 Red Mangroves Black mangroves White mangroves 16 16J1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Size Categories (middle of intervals - ft.) Plot 2 - Nomber 2001 25 20 15 10 5 0 Red Mangroves � 20 15 10 5 0 Black mangroves I White mangroves � No white mangroves in this plot. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Size Categories (middle of intervals - ft.) 17 16J1 N E o 20 0 15 0 10 5 0 20 15 10 5 0 Black mangroves I White mangroves � No white mangroves in this plot. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Size Categories (middle of intervals - ft.) 17 16J1 25 20 15 10 5 0 30 N E 25 0 0 20 c 0 15 Cn 10 Z C a) 5 r) 0 120 .I .1 30 0 -- 0 Plot 3 - November 2001 Red Mangroves j Black mangroves White mangroves 5 10 15 20 25 Size Categories (middle of intervals - ft.) 30 16J1 100 80 60 40 20 0 220 N 200 B 0 180 0 160 140 0 120 100 a 80 n 60 C 40 20 0 10 EA DON Es 0 Lem Plot 4 - November 2001 Red Mangroves Black mangroves White mangroves 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Size Categories (middle of intervals - ft.) 16J1 25 20 15 10 5 0 30 NE 0 24 0 18 0 U a 12 Z C 6 a) 0 0 50 .I 30 20 10 0 -- 0 Plot 5 - November 2001 Red Mangroves Black mangroves White mangroves 5 10 15 20 25 Size Categories (middle of intervals - ft.) C 20 16J1 25 20 15 10 5 0 40 NE 35 00 30 c 25 ° 20 15 U) 10 a) 0 5 0 25 20 15 10 5 0 -�- 0 Plot 6 - November 2001 Red Mangroves No red mangroves in this plot. Black mangroves White mangroves No white mangroves in this plot. 5 10 15 20 25 Size Categories (middle of intervals - ft.) 30 16J1 25 20 15 10 5 0 30 E 0 24 0 r 18 0 0 a 12 a� 6 0 p M. ,A M 2 x Plot 7 - November 2001 Red Mangroves Black mangroves 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Size Categories (middle of intervals - ft.) 16J1 160 128 96 64 32 0 75 N 0 60 0 45 0 U a 30 N C 15 0 .� 32 24 16 0 -f 0 Plot 8 - November 2001 Red Mangroves Black mangroves White mangroves 5 10 15 20 25 Size Categories (middle of intervals - ft.) 30 23 16J1 60 48 36 24 12 0 10 N WE O r C: 6 0 U a) 4 N c 2 a) 0 0 20 12 a EN an Plot 9 - August 2000 Red Mangroves Black mangroves White mangroves 16J1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Size Categories (middle of intervals - ft.) 40 35g 30 26 20 16 19 5 0 H E 0 8 0 6 0 U (n 4 a� N c 2 0 r) 0 200 150 6 100 4 59 Plot 9 - November 2001 Red Mangroves Black mangroves White mangroves 0 ■ ■ 25 16J1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Size Categories (middle of intervals - ft.) Nc C O 0 r` C 0 U N N N 5w 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 iii, a a .1_ 2 0 200 150 100 50 A M Plot 10 - November 2001 Red Mangroves Black mangroves White mangroves 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Size Categories (middle of intervals - ft.) 6J1 80 64 48 32 16 I$, E o 16 0 c: 12 0 U cn 8 N 0 4 a� 0 0 325 260 195 130 65 0 Plot 11 - November 2001 Red Mangroves Black mangroves White mangroves 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Size Categories (middle of intervals - ft.) 27 16J1 0 4A i s, ZR7 � INA a * �f iRt � xx 0 >< S � � n 'iJ�k' N✓ ! � s • ', ham. �� sti•?w!`r ` "x �F .,:?- • y�; , n t cig Y s Nip i t a- I(t paw 0 0 2 11 'TV's r, t J 31 t ky Ajw:� a ` * t , r SS �s .#1 7 vy� .•iii � '�i`..5.� �— N + {+ + % �. , #f Z -I *k. a. 0� Ll w ~ / S i 0 ea E y m N A J� m rn ea L > 0 V y m rn rn rn rn rn o o �- rn rn rn rn rn o 0 0 r a r et 00 c'3 in 16J1 N O COO co qT N JOAO3 % O r 0 M; v a N r d sz Z O CL m g Q CD'd 3 � �a 03 N L 1r� V C O av O Q1 000 � CO LO 0 OV 0 N O O ;uaDaad 35 16J1 00 -6ny 00-Inr 00-unr 00-ABY4 00-adv 00 -JBIN 00 -qa:j N N 00-ue f d 66-OOCI U) 66 - ^ON 66 -130 66-deS 66-6nV 66 -Inf 66-unr 66 -stew M vi O "a _U) 3 .y U') N LO O LO A4iuilss 36 16J1 ol 0. `oa O,G as o, aos 0 n O 1,01 oo� o,G oo'a os ooy� il2l. 0 0 (5 r t� .Vi 3 N C ca U) O N to � d� CV) - � A;iuiles 37 16J1 ol o� Boa as �o 02 °oa O a`r °O.T 00,✓ �� OO,G ♦, � O 0 'Olt, 00,a a1, 6, 6&' & � co N 0 CL N d 3 m N C N N .N M N O A4!uiles 16J1 I O O I Cl O ui cc 0 cc m O H O m O 0 0 M O O N O O r r r 00 O a as 3 a� r O (D � Iq M N O � f4iulles 39 16J1 g1 `oa aS, col `o,? O14 ` °'G o °';10 ti oo'°a = s O ° °% i °O, d aV� o � O,G OS�1 o,G as r 65', SA-k o 'G N N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 O (D � Iq M N O � f4iulles 39 16J1 g1 `oa aS, col `o,? O14 ` °'G o °';10 ti oo'°a = s O ° °% i °O, d aV� o � O,G OS�1 o,G as r 65', SA-k o 'G Clam Bay Restoration and Management 40 Biological Monitoring Turrell & Associates, Inc.: Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Report #5 November 2001 16J.L Lewis Environmental Services Inc., provide the following discussion of their results: Salinity and Water Depths Forest -wide salinity averages within the monitoring wells follow a pattern of fluctuation that appears to be influenced by rainfall (Figures 4 and 5). Salinity measurements for each well and for standing surface water at each well site are shown in Appendix A. -` Monitoring wells in these figures are grouped by vegetative monitoring plot numbers. Water depth in the wells and in the puddles or ponds at the well sites are similarly shown in Appendix B. Salinities peaked during late summer within most wells but water level within the wells remained fairly constant until later in the year. Standing water depths next to the wells showed a pattern of drying and flooding cycles - that followed the rainfall pattern seen in Figure 13. Surface water depth at the sites peaked in October. Well -side salinities, when measurable, stayed fairly constant and usually remained below the salinity of the water within the wells. Batis Ground cover by Batis maritima (saltwort) increased dramatically throughout the impacted study area from the first survey in May 1996 to the last survey in December 1998 (Lewis and Marshall, 1999). During 1999 Batis coverage abruptly declined (Figure 15) in all monitoring plots and throughout much of the dead forest. Batis coverage increased during 2000 within most of the monitoring plots and throughout the forest. There were large areas of forest floor that were barren of living Batis at the time of this report. White Mangroves White mangrove recruitment -- White mangrove tree census data (Figure 15) generally showed large fluctuations in shrub (here defined as plants greater than 12 inches and less than or equal to 36 inches in height) counts over the entire project period within the experimental plots. During 1997 white mangrove shrubs proliferated in the control plots but most of these died during the summer. The same pattern occurred in 1996. Numerous shrubs were again present on the last census of 1998. In April 2000 mangrove shrubs were abundant in most of the experimental plots but died back in Plots 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,and 9. An inspection of the size class plots in Appendix C showed that these shrubs did not grow into larger plants. In 2001 plots 3,4,9, and 11 contained numerous seedlings, Plots 2,5, and 6 contained no white seedlings. Some of the seedlings present in 2000 did survive through 2001 but have not yet reached maturity. Clam Bay Restoration and Management 41 Biological Monitoring Turrell & Associates, Inc.: Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Report #5 16J 1 November 2001 White mangrove trees No living, large white mangrove trees are found in any of the monitoring plots by 2000 the largest white mangroves are located in plots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 During 2001 plots 7 and 8 contained whites larger than 3 feet tall. Red Mangroves Red mangrove recruitment Few red mangrove propagules have survived beyond 3 feet in height in Plots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Fig 16 and Appendix Q. Plot 8 and the control plots (9, 10 and 11) contain ° numerous large red mangrove trees. In plots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 red mangrove propagules became established, sprouted leaves, grew briefly and quickly died. Plots 2,3,4,5,6, and 7 contained zero red mangrove during the November 2001 survey. Plot 1 contained only seedlings of red mangroves. Several dead red shrub sized plants were noticed in this and other plots during the November 2001 survey. Red mangrove trees In August 2000 Plots 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11 contained red mangrove trees greater that 48 inches in height (Appendix Q. Successful recruitment of new seedlings however was greatest in plots 8, 9, 10 and 11 where large red mangroves have existed prior to the first survey date (May 9, 1996). A comparison to census results in Lewis and Marshall (1999) showed that numerous mid -size red mangroves have died in Plots 1 and 7. Red mangroves in Plots 2, 3, 4, and 6 have not yet, grown beyond shrub height ( >36 inches). The red mangrove trees in plots 8, 9, 10, and 11 survived through the November 2001 survey and continued to grow. Black Mangroves Black mangrove recruitment Black mangrove counts remained stable in the experimental plots throughout the period 5/96 to 6/97 (Lewis and Marshall, 1997). All of the black mangroves within the experimental plots prior to September 11, 1997, were large trees. Increases in their densities as reported from our surveys were caused by the recovery of trees that we originally believed had died. A few black mangrove seedlings had sprouted in the impacted plots at various times but most of these died. Numerous seedlings sprouted in most plots between June 3, 1997, and September 11, 1997 (the last sample date in Lewis and Marshall, 1997). An inspection of Figure 17 and Appendix C shows that few of the seedlings recruited to the impacted plots have survived beyond shrub size. Plots 6, 7, and 8 contained several black mangroves of slightly larger size.. There were no black mangroves in plot 6 at the Clam Bay Restoration and Management 42 Biological Monitoring Turrell & Associates, Inc.: Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Report #5 November 2001 16J beginning of this project. In April and August 2000 shrubs reaching 6 feet tall were abundant in this plot (Appendix C). Large ( >25 ft in height) black mangrove trees originally seen in the impacted plots 4, 7, and 8 and in the control plots 9, 10 and 11 were still living on our last survey date in August 2000. All experimental plots in the die -off area contained black seedlings at the -- November 2001 survey except for plot 1. Black mangrove trees Black mangroves were present at the beginning of this project only as large trees above 30 feet in height. Plots 1, 2, 3, and 6 contained no large black mangrove trees (Lewis and Marshall, 1997). Large black mangrove trees in the other impacted plots (Plots 4, 5, and - 7) lacked branches and had few leaves. Most leaves were located only on the main tree trunks and were within a few feet of the ground. Most of the leaves were curled or partially blackened. All of the blacks in all plots, except Plot 8, and the control plots (9, 10 and 11) showed these severe signs of stress. Tall black mangrove trees seen in Plot 5 died during 1996. A tree in Plot 7 broke in half. The still rooted trunk survived and sprouted new growth. The decreased count of black mangroves, between the first and third census dates in Plot 7, was due to the death of 4 trees. During the summer of 1997 several of the previously near - death, stressed black mangroves produced flowers and seeds. Presumably many of the new seedlings seen in September and October 1997 are the progeny of these stressed trees. The remaining tall trees in the plots survived throughout the last census reported herein (August 2000). The large blacks survived in all plots through November 2001. Photography Figures 18 -28 are photographs taken during April and August 2000 of the 11 monitoring plots. A comparison of these 2000 photographs with those seen in Lewis and Marshall (1997 and 1999) showed a decrease in ground cover by Batis since the beginning of the project. They also show the growth of small mangrove shrubs and the survival of the larger trees is also evident through time. Clam Bay Restoration and Management 43 Biological Monitoring Turrell & Associates, Inc.: Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Report #5 November 2001 16J I 2.3 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Examination of low level oblique aerials is the most effective method for determining areas of stress and concern. As a full mapping and acreage calculation has not been carried out since the first survey in 1999, the extent of the die -off has been reassessed this year and results are shown on the accompanying map. Aerial photographs with follow - up groundtruthing are used to locate both dead, stressed and recovering areas. A selection of these photos, dated August 20 °i 2001, is presented below with appropriate explanations. Cooking west towards the Pass, this photo shows the area between the County boardwalk and the south Pelican Bay boardwalk. Turrell & Associates Plot 1 is just north of" the County Boardwalk and Plot 3 just south of the south boardwalk. There are two small die - off areas not shown on the 1999 map in this area. Groundtruthing of these areas confirmed that a small number of black mangroves followed by reds died, opening up the canopy, shown below. It is considered likely that the larger area was the result of a lightning strike as it died so quickly, although it is not possible to be conclusive. Ponding and hydrologic stress in depressional areas within the forest is still considered the most logical explanation for the stress observed. Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell & Associates, Inc.: Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Report #5 November 2001 as 16J1 t irrnmdi shit M'one of the new die -off areas in the southern part of the system. The mid part of the system is shown above and a few isolated areas of dead trees can ne observed in the low altitude photos plus a larger. diffuse area to the right of the picture where stress is apparent. 0 J • ,. •. 1' .:!' l.. ,iii A Y r 'ylry Y ' _ . - , !a r MA NOk �� `�,�' iC�. 'i � • � ,ate � \ �'� � � � `� ( tide• a. y� ;�:,r °�: v 41 At Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Alonrlorin €; Turrell & Associates, Inc.: Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Ine.: Report 145 November 2001 16J1 A closer view of the stressed area which is just south and east of Inner Clam Bay and west of The Commons, is shown above. Close to the berm some Brazilian pepper was noted in this area which will be treated and killed in accordance with the management plan. Clem Bay Kestoration and Management Biological Alonitorin4, 'I'urrell & Associtites, Inc.: Second Annual Report Louis I?uvironmental Services, file.: Report 95 November 2001 M 16J1 The main die -off area adjacent to The Strand is shown above. The flushing channels can be seen and the light green color shows Batis coverage which has considerably increased since construction. In the middle of the photo almost due east from the end of The Strand is an area. which has shown excellent recovery since the first report. Turrell & Associates' plot 7 is located in this area. Above this area just north of the north Pelican Bay boardwalk is another area where early signs of stress can be noted. Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell & Associates, Inc.: Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Report #5 November 2001 3.0 SEAGRASSES 3.1 Baseline Seagrass Data 48 16J1 Results from individual quadrats along transects 5 -9 are graphically shown along with transect descriptions on the following pages. For transects 1 -4 in Outer Clam Bay use of a Brownie / Hookah rig (surface supplied compressed air) allowed the majority of the bay area to be surveyed. In this way an overview of benthic resources is provided rather than focusing attention on the four transects where seagrass coverage was noted to be sparse. Outer Clam Bay: eastern and southern sectors. Transects 1 and 2 - Observations of Halophila were more common in transect 2 this year, the grass appears to have died back somewhat in the southern part of the bay in the vicinity of transect 1. The survey'took place at low tide and water depths were no more than 3 feet with visibility less than 6 ". Filamentous blue green algae covers approximately 50% of the mud substrate in the area around transect 1. Traversing the bay east to west new growth Halophila was apparent making up approximately 10% cover along with blue green algae at 20 %. Several southern stingrays and large Horse conch were also observed in the bay along with an Upside Down jellyfish (Cassiopea) around quadrat 2 of transect 2. This species has not been observed by this author in Clam Bay previously. Outer Clam Bay: northwest sector, transect 3 Shoal grass coverage appears to have reduced to a small area of approximately 200 square feet close to the eastern shoreline, continuing the decline in this area noted last year. Densities are less than 10 %. Blue green algae colonize much of the mud substrate averaging 50% giving it a gelatinous consistency in some areas. The substrate is very soft to a depth of approximately 12" and many bivalves, including angel wings are buried in the mud. Channel lust south of the boardwalk, transect 4. On the eastern side of the channel, fairly close to the mangrove fringe approximately 6 plants with a total of 15 blades of Thalassia were observed. One plant had been noted in the time -zero survey, 1999, but in 2000 none were found. As these specimens do not appear to be new growth they were likely missed last year. All are heavily colonized with epiflora (mostly blue green algae) and fauna including spirorbid worms and barnacles. This was the only seagrass observation Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell & Associates, Inc.: Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Report #5 November 2001 16J1 in this area, the mid part of the channel is scoured sand which dries at low tide. Patchy aggregations of mud snails, shell hash and blue green algae were the majority of the observations. A large horse conch was also noted. Dredged Channel leading to Clam Pass The channel was surveyed with zig- zagging transects but the strong outgoing current, estimated at up to 2 knots and scoured sand substrate observed made it obvious that this would preclude seagrass attachment and growth. w r Second Annual: Transect 5 100 90 - - - -- - 80 - - -- 70 -- - - - - -. - d 0 60 - - - -- - - -- U c 50 - - -- -- m - - -- - -- -- - - a�40 a 30 - - -- -- 20 ---- - - - - -- - 10 - - - - -- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Quadrat Number The decline which was apparent last year has continued and the sparse shoal grass coverage, <10 %, noted in quadrats 1 -4 has decreased to zero. Towards the end of the transect, approaching Clam Pass, grass coverage in 2000 was up to 50% in the last three quadrats, this has significantly reduced this year. While the pattern of grass cover remains constant, total densities are significantly less. A single observation of Thalassia, 2 shoots totalling 3 blades was made in the vicinity of quadrat 6. Also noted this year was a reduction in the density of mud snails which in previous surveys have been apparent in every quadrat. Lots of hermit crabs were observed this year in addition to a Remora (shark sucker). Blue green filamentous algae coverage was greater in the southern quadrats up to 70 %. 50 16J1 100 90 80 U L Q 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Second Annual: Transect 6 51 16J1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Quadrat Number Like transect 5 total coverage has reduced this year although the distribution pattern remains the same. The decline has not been as significant as transect 5. Densities are greater on the shallow flats just north of the County boardwalk, which are exposed at low tide and also support dense aggregations of mud sanils. It appears that the existence of shoal grass is looesly correlated with mud snail presence as in all quadrats of both transects, where grass is noted so are snails. a� 100 90 ai 80 v a 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Second Annual: Transect 7 52 16J1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Quadrat Number While the pattern in transects 5 and 6 in the channel leading from Clam Pass to Outer Clam Bay has been a decline in seagrass coverage since the dredging work, this bay has seen improvements which continue this year. Densities of shoal grass were up in every quadrat with mud snails also comprising at least 20% cover. Other observations include horseshoe crabs, mud crabs, fighting conch and tulips and birds noted feeding in the pools left behind at low tide include; White Ibis, Roseate Spoonbill, Tricolor and Little blue herons, White Crowned night heron, Great blue heron and Cattle egret. 100 v 90 80 U L n 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Second Annual: Transect 8 53 16J1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Quadrat Number Shoal grass coverage has also increased in this transect although no observations have yet to be made across the dredged channel in quadrat 6. L of 0 U c a) a� a 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Second Annual: Transect 9 54 16J1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Quadrat Number Transect 9 did not show the increases of the other transects in this bay, but seagrass coverage is consistent and as with all observations in this area appears to be fairly recent growth. Blades of grass are less than 1 mm wide and 40 mm long. The grass blades are not as heavily colonized by epiflora as those in the channel (transects 5 and 6). I, I 'PV i._ I I I I I. I I I .1. .I. �l 1 ,J �I _L. J � N w.� C; C; N U En 0 N M +���� 16J1 N � Go � 444 m m P a +�� CO CO CD �4 ++ p q CLvo d W 3= v NN i .. O P 4 a + i i y O W + bd N `" N i Li Cl) + E- d PQ + 9 i 9 9 9 :D :D Z Z a a r w� W f- (�� CO ao i + 4 ! < W + Lr) ^ cd r w + w � + i i i U �° Z 0 Q 0 m W a + + a a Ma 4 X F- a W 3 w Z Ld n I l ❑ 1 wm P P P C -1 u X W Li. O J 0 0 +���� 16J1 N � � 444 +�� �4 ++ NN i .. 4 a + 4 + N N i PQ + 9 i 9 9 9 :D :D Z Z a a r f- ao i ! < W + Lr) ^ J � w � Q z Q Z N U Z 0 Q 0 4 X F- a W Ld n I 1:3 ❑ 1 -4 4 4 �--I 9 i 4 N M V + 4 + U9 0 o + 00 4 i 4 4 Clam Bay Restoration and Management 56 Biological Monitoring �. Turrell & Associates, Inc.: Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Report #5 November 2001 16J 1 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Mangroves The main die -off area has increased in extent to the north and now encompasses just under 50 acres per calculations made by Turrell & Associates. Inc.. In addition several _ small new areas have been located throughout the system plus two more widespread and diffuse areas of stress, shown as blue on the die -off map (page 3). Results from the monitoring plots give a picture of some additional losses but growth of individual trees and consistent seedling recruitment. That said, the area around Turrell & Associates plot 7 is characterized as recovering and, due to new channel construction within the Strand die -off area, seedling recruitment and _ Batis colonization during the late summer of 2001 was good which is encouraging for the coming year. In addition as shown in the supplemental report, results from starter islands and experimental grass plots were also positive. Groundtruthing of areas showing stress suggests that ponding of water is responsible. This was clearly seen just west of The Commons area where in the slight depressional areas, white filmy bacterial mats could be observed suggesting that water is not moving in and out of the forest effectively. These observations have been used to direct the focus for 2002 and budget considerations for 2003, described in Section 5.0. Lewis Environmental Services Inc. provide the following conclusions: Annual rainfall amounts from 1996 through September 2000 have been much less than the exceptionally heavy rains of 1995 when many large and small trees died. This factor alone probably contributed greatly to the start of the recovery process seen during 1997. ` Batis maritima spread out across the forest floor and within the boundaries of most of the LES monitoring plots since the inception of our monitoring project. However much of the ground cover died during the period from September to December 1999. Presumably this was due to the large amount of rainfall as recorded at the Pelican Bay Golf Course during September 1999. Direct rainfall and heavy runoff from upland developed areas around Clam Bay presumably combined to hold water levels above the tolerance levels of Batis. The control plots (9, 10, and 11), due to shading from an intact mangrove canopy, were never covered by Batis. Previous observations have shown that during the rainy season the Batis ground cover dies back due to flooding. Since the impacted forest, despite the construction of many feet of drainage channels, can still be flooded the ground cover provided by Batis and newly recruited mangrove seedlings and shrubs can be expected to die back following periods of heavy rain. All black mangroves present in Clam Bay Restoration and Management 57 Biological Monitoring Turrell & Associates, Inc.: Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Report #5 16J 1 November 2001 the plots at the beginning of the project were large trees and all of these trees showed distinct evidence of severe stress. Prolonged flooding can quickly kill black mangroves as happened when water accumulated in the shallow basins of the Clam Bay forest. Most of the large ( >25') black mangrove trees lacked green leaves on the upper branches. Green leaves were only seen on the main trunks of the surviving trees. Most remaining leaves were noticed to have died and blackened on several trees within the set of plots between May 5 and July 10. A few trees, that were thought to be dead on May 5, 1996, re- sprouted scattered leaves by the second sampling date. Some of these trees lost all of their leaves again and were assumed to be dead by the third census By the end of the first year of monitoring (September and October 1997) several black mangrove trees that we thought were dead recovered, produced flowers (during July and August 1997), and fruited. We believe this recovery is the combined result of both reduced rainfall (on an annual basis) and better rainy season drainage due to channel construction. They continued to survive through September 2000 indicating that conditions have improved for the largest size classes of black mangroves. They are apparently less susceptible to flooding than are black seedlings and shrubs. The new canal construction work and creek dredging completed in Clam Bay during 1999 and 2000 may reduce the severity of future floods. A maintenance schedule needs to be established for all of the constructed channels. They are subject to blockage by deposited sediments and fallen tree trunks and branches. A large wooden plank was recently removed from a blocked drainage channel in the area where channels were dug during 1999. A large area of mangrove trees, at a site not easily seen by most visitors to Clam Bay, has recovered and its newly recruited trees are growing rapidly. Most of the trees in this area are white mangroves but there are many black and red mangroves mixed in with the whites. This area receives a lot of freshwater runoff from upland developed areas. Ditches were dug around the edges and into the interior of this area during the summer of 1999. Water flowed rapidly from the edges of this area into the large natural channel for several months. The constructed channels have proven effective (Figure 30) because it drained a large pond (that originally supported a dense population of duckweed) in the central section of this region. LES did not establish a monitoring plot in the area prior to channel construction but we do have before and after photographs showing a tremendous growth of new mangroves. All of the ditches around the perimeter of this area were cleaned out during the 2nd week of November 2000. Drainage of additional water from these ditches was immediately obvious and has resulted in additional drying of small ponds within the recovering forest. We expect the recovery process to continue. New problems caused by flooding caused many small red mangroves to die during the period November 2000 through November 2001. The causes of these problems include heavy rainfall and old channels blocked by sediments deposited since the initial clearing with explosives. The large channels need to be cleared and more networks of small channels should be constructed and all old channels need to be inspected to make sure that they are open and flowing. Clam Bay Restoration and Management 58 Biological Monitoring Turrell & Associates, Inc.: Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Report #5 November 2001 16J 1 4.2 Seagrasses Positive observations include the increased Halophila coverage in Outer Clam Bay (much of which appears to be new growth) and the continuing increase in the bay just east of Clam Pass. However the decline continues in the channel leading from Clam Pass to Outer Clam Bay. As the decline has been gradual since the 1999 dredging work it cannot be directly attributed to the construction work but is most likely an unforeseen consequence possibly linked to the extended exposure at low tide which the mud flat areas experience. The poor water clarity means that grasses are mostly observed in areas of 2 feet or less in depth. Thus grasses in the channel prior to dredging were concentrated along either side, hence transect placement. The change in topography has meant that the mud flat areas would be drier at an earlier stage of the tide as all water in the channel system would be within the deeper channel. Hence the flats stay drier for longer. This is considered the most likely explanation although when the decline in Outer Clam Bay is also considered, water quality could be a factor. This is particularly relevant for transects 1 and 3 where the flap gate Seagate culverts may have reduced tidal exchange in Outer Clam Bay. While losses in the channel cannot be helped and are outweighed by the greater tidal capacity, the efficacy of the Seagate culverts should be re- examined. In addition water quality particularly with regard to the downstream effects of fertilizer use should be considered by all neighbors of Clam Bay. Clam Bay Restoration and Management 59 Biological Monitoring Turrell & Associates, Inc.: Second Annual Report Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Report #5 16J November 2001 5.0 Concluding Remarks and Management Focus for 2002 Continued stress within forest areas and expansion of the northern die -off shows that efforts to alleviate flooding in depressional areas must be stepped up. Recovery is occurring, evidenced by high seedling recruitment in the die off area, Batis colonization, - growth of individual trees in monitoring plots and survival of experimental mangroves and grasses. It will however be a slow process and the work this year demonstrates the importance of maintaining vigilance and a proactive approach towards the restoration efforts. The most effective approach is considered the continued use of flushing channels. New channels dug within the die off area in the summer of 2001 averted possible extended flooding by late summer rains and high numbers of seedlings were observed throughout the area following the work. Batis colonization also increased. Within stressed areas, observations of standing water suggest that channels would help drain the forest areas. Thus the main work focus for 2002 is maintenance of existing channels and development and construction of additional ones particularly within areas showing signs of stress. A list of work items to be included is presented below, some of this work is already underway, additional items will be addressed in the budget for fiscal year 2003; 1) Preparation of an overall map showing existing channels and dates of construction. From this a work plan for maintenance and new construction activities will be prepared. 2) Clean-up: prior to any new flushing channel construction all previously installed flagging and posts which are not needed to mark monitoring plots should be removed. Plots will be clearly marked and GPS located to be noted on the map described in (1). 3) Clearing of fallen trees within the main waterways of Clam Bay, particularly in the area north of the Pass up to Inner Clam Bay. 4) Dredging of Clam Pass to be carried out during December 2001. 5) Water management system: reducing the input of stormwater to the northern part of the system continues to be explored as the permitting implications of shifting flow from System IV to III are explored. The effects on downstream forested areas will be carefully considered if this option is completed to execution. 6) Starter Islands and Grass Plots: initial observations through the summer wet season are encouraging although final conclusions and implications of the work should not be made until a full year's growing season has passed. Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell & Associates Inc • Second Annual Report •1 Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.: Report #5 November 2001 16JI 7} Exotic and Nuisance vegetation: the cattail removal efforts which were undertaken earlier this year will require continued maintenance. Placement of flushing channels to drain these areas and at the same time allow inflow of brackish water will be considered. This may help reduce the need for chemical application. An effort to flag and treat Brazilian pepper within the forested areas particularly east of the Commons will also be undertaken. The overview for 2001 is that all efforts undertaken thus far have been successful but that continued and stepped up efforts are still needed to incontrovertibly reverse the die -off. Clam Bay Restoration and Management 16JI Srcond Annual Biological Monitoring Report ADDENDUM: Grass Plantings and Starter Islands Turrell & Associates, Inc. November 2001 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This addendum to the 2001 Second Annual Monitoring Report presents photographs of the experimental grass plots panted within the die -off area, showing progress of the plantings to date. Goals behind the plots we.t to determine whether any other species could establish and survive within the area. This short report shows plot status following the wet season, a complete consideration of the success and implications towards restoration efforts in Clam Bay cannot be made until at least a full dry season has passed. METHODOLOGY Nine test plots were marked in the field with pink surveyors tape and a wooden stake placed in the approximate center of each plot detailing species mix and soil treatment (tilled or untilled). Contractors planted the plot areas during late August of 2001. GRASS PLOTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS Spartina patens, Eleocharis cellulosa, untilled, 26 °14'.512, 81 049'.202 The Spikerush in this plot did not survive the wet season, however despite the obvious inundation at high tide, 90% survival of Spartina patens was observed representing 35% cover with 28 plants. Some propagation of young shots was also apparent. Clam Bay Restoration and Management Second Annual Biological Monitoring Report ADDENDUM: Grass Plantings and Starter Islands Turrell & Associates, Inc. November 2001 2 Eleocharis cellulosa, Juncus romerianus, untilled, 26 014'.526, 81 °49'.176 16J1 Both species are still living in plot 2 although some dieback has occurred giving a percent cover for Spikerush of 20% with 13 plants and Juncus 10% with 10 plants, both have propagated young shoots. 3 Juncus romerianus, Eleocharis cellulosa, tilled, 26 014'.503, 81 049'.166 The Juncus has died back and only 5 plants were counted at <5% cover. 23 plants of Spikerush gave a percent cover of 35 %. Glasswort was also noted in this plot. 2 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Second Annual Biological Monitoring Report ADDENDUM: Grass Plantings and Starter Islands Turrell & Associates, Inc. November 2001 4 Spartina patens, Juncus romerianus, tilled, 26 014'.453, 81 °49'.192 16J1 The Juncus in this plot again died back while Spartina patens shows 30% cover with 18 plants although some specimens appeared stressed with just a few shoots still green. Algal mats on the soils surface close to this plot suggest that it is located in a depressional area and probably water. 5 Spartina alterniflora, Juncus romerianus tilled, 26 °14'.392, 81°49'.182 No Spartina was observed although the Juncus has done better here than in most of the plots, 12 plants at 20% cover were noted. Clam Bay Restoration and Management Second Annual Biological Monitoring Report ADDENDUM: Grass Plantings and Starter Islands Turrell & Associates, Inc. November 2001 6 Spartina patens, Spartina alterniflora, untilled, 26 014'.352, 81 049'.174 Both species were observed giving a total percent cover of 40 %. 7 Spartina patens, Spartina alterniora, tilled, 26 014'.348, 81 049'.150 16J1 Similarly in plot 7, which differs from 6 in having been hand tilled prior to planting, Spartina covered approximately 40% of the plot area with a total of 17 plants. 4 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Second Annual Biological Monitoring Report ADDENDUM: Grass Plantinszs and Starter Islands Turrell R. Associates, Inc. November 2001 8, Spartina patens, Eleocharis cellulosa, untitled, 26 °14'.319, 81 °49'.165 16J1 While the Spartina has survived in all plots thus far, in this one the Spikerush has done better with percent cover at 5% (6 plants). It too has died back some and the dead plants are visible in the foreground. 9, Spartina alterniflora, Eleocharis cellulosa, untilled, 26 014'.277, 81 °49'.160 Again only the Spikerush was still living with 13 plants counted. Clam Bay Restoration and Management Second Annual Biological Monitoring Report ADDENDUM: Grass Plantings and Starter Islands Turrell & Associates, Inc. November 2001 STARTER ISLANDS A typical starter island is shown in the photograph below. These islands were constructed using spoil from the hand digging of flushing channels throughout the die -off area. The material was piled up to an elevation of approximately 6 -8" above grade and planted with a mixture of mangrove seedlings. As the photo shows the seedlings are doing well and some natural colonization of Batis has also occurred. It is estimated that there are approximately 20 such starter islands in the area and a further 30 mounds of spoil which were not physically planted but will recruit naturally.; �6J1 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Second Annual Biological Monitoring Report ADDENDUM: Grass Plantings and Starter Islands Turrell & Associates, Inc. November 2001 A close -up of one of the islands is shown below to illustrate the different seedlings. The tallest are red mangroves at approximately i8" in height while next are blacks at +/- 12 ". Most of the planted black mangrove seedlings appeared stressed and many had been chewed. Two species of caterpillar were observed on one of the plants (chemical treatment is not recommended). The smallest green seedlings are white mangroves which dispersed throughout the die -off area naturally towards the end of the summer. These are to date only around 4" tall. Young shoots of Batis can also be observed on the soil surface. CONCLUSIONS 16J1 Results are encouraging from this brief assessment of survivorship. Approximately 60% of all installed plantings survived the wet season with both species of Spartina appearing the most tolerant of the conditions within the die -off area. As suggested by the soils analysis which was carried out earlier in the summer there are no soils anomalies which prevent establishment of plant species. Survivorship and percent cover will be re- evaluated following the dry winter season at which point the implications of the experiment will be considered. 16J1 7 7 7 7 + -> . .\ 9T a uj 96 3 a sp • °:' WDI WC9 4 40 M> 4 4 -30 a Li Lr) a�.D a 30 a a OD 0 a 30 cn - Q 4, a Of 30 CLAM PASS RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN BATHYMETRiC MONITORING REPORT NO. 2 InckWkV Wrioir Bay Dradge Cuts and Tidal Data Submitted to: Florida Department of Environmental Protection DEP File No. 01284163- Q01.JC Submitted by: Collier County Board of Condoners 16J1'' 16J1 i Clam Pass October, 2001 CLAM PASS BATHYMETRIC MONITORING REPORT NO.2 Including Interior Bay Dredge Cuts And Tidal Data CONTENTS 1. Introduction ...................................................... ............................... 1 2. Inlet Monitoring ................................................ ............................... 1 3. Inlet Cross Sections ......................................... ............................... 4 StormResponse ........................................ ............................... 13 Hurricane Gordon .................................... ............................... 13 Tropical Storm Gabrielle .......................... ............................... 14 4. Interior Channels ........................................... ............................... 14 5. Tidal Study ..................................................... ............................... 17 PhaseLag .................................................. ............................... 17 PhaseRange .............................................. ............................... 17 6. Conclusions and Recommendations ............. ............................... 22 Dredging..................................................... ............................... 22 DuneMaintenance ..................................... ............................... 23 LIST OF TABLES 1. Clam Pass Baseline Location .......................... ............................... 3 2. Clam Pass Width and Area Changes ............ ............................... 12 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Clam Pass Site Plan .......................................... ............................... 2 2. Clam Pass Cross - Section Site Plan .................. ............................... 3 3. Clam Pass Cut 4 Site Plan ................................ ............................... 5 4. Clam Pass Cross - Section .................................. ............................... 6 5. Clam Pass Cross - Section .................................... ..............................7 6. Clam Pass Cross - Section .................................... ..............................8 - 7. Clam Pass Cross - Section .................................... ..............................9 8. Clam Pass Cross - Section ................................... .............................10 9. Clam Pass Cross - Section ................................... .............................11 10. Clam Pass Inlet Hurricane Gordon ..................... .............................15 11. Clam Pass Inlet Tropical Storm Gabrielle ........... .............................16 12. Tide Study Gauge Location Map ........................ .............................18 -- 13. Tidal Phase Lag High Tide ................................. .............................19 14. Tidal Phase Lag Low Tide .................................. .............................20 15. Tidal Range ........................................................ .............................21 16J1 _ 16JI CLAM PASS BATHYMETRIC MONITORING REPORT NO.2 Including Interior Bay Dredge Cuts And Tidal Data 1. Introduction This report was prepared to fulfill the requirements of Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) permit 0128463- 001 -JC and presents the second set of monitoring data following implementation of the dredging element of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan. That dredging was completed in April 1999. Previous monitoring of Clam Pass dredging has been reported in "Clam Pass Bathymetric Monitoring Reports" numbered 1 through 7 which documented dredging events and rates of shoaling in Clam Pass under Florida Department of Environmental Protection Special Permit Condition 10 contained in Permit No. 112659015. The dredging events documented in the first seven reports were limited to dredging of the inlet entrance and did not extend eastward into the bay system channels, dredged in 1999 under the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan. Due to the dynamic nature of Clam Pass and the importance of maintaining the tidal flow to the Clam Bay system, Collier County dredged Clam Pass in the spring of every year from 1995 to 2000. Specifically, the pass was dredged April 1996, under DEP Permit No. 112859039, which was issued on March 28, 1996. In April _ 1997 and April 1998, Clam Pass was dredged under a modification of the 1996 permit (DEP Permit No. 112859039). The pass was dredged in April 1999 under JCP permit 0128463- 001 -JC, as part of the implementation of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan which included dredging portions of the flood shoals and inner channels to improve the hydraulics and stability of the inlet. This report presents the results of monitoring of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan dredging which was completed in April 1999. The monitoring shows that the dredging has improved tidal flushing of the bay system and has -' improved the stability of the inlet. Figure 1 is a location map of the study area, which shows the overall configuration of the bay system and locations of the beach profiles and the DNR reference monuments. I —600 0 600 1200 Scale: 1" = 1200' O U_ X W LL O J C.7 R -34 CUT #1 MR-35 CLAM PASS SEE FIGURE 2 ' 0 R -36 DR-37 LLA UPPER BAY ER -38 ❑R -t CUT #2 CUT #3 DR-4 NORTH BOARDWALK R -41 101 CLAMR BAY CUT #4 BOARDWALK 16J11 �4" Kali 1V1la I "IN CLAM BAY DREDGE CUT SITE PLAN & MOORE 10661 AIRPORT ROAD, N., SUITE 14 ENGINEER FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD NAPLES, FL 34109 COASTAL DATE: FILE: 9068LOC— SCALE:1 =1200 FAX: 941 594 2025 PHONE: 941 594 2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN JOB FILE:9 -068 DATUM: N/A FIGURE: 1 2 O U W CLAM o PASS 16J1 -41 -75 0 75 150 3 Scale: 1 " = 150' 7+50 N M NORTHING- EASTING• W 1 STA 0 +00 N NORTHERN - o '� INTERIOR ` ` - \ ` i Z �� CHANNEL I I T' I I I I I -` I I C I IIxI •s I i I I I 'w4 OUTER m STA 0 +75 CHANNEL \ 7+50 BASELINE STATION NORTHING- EASTING• AZIMUTH 1 STA 0 +00 686123.6 231625.0 359'31'28" COASTAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING STA 0+25 586123.9 231650.0 i ''r' 686124.1 231675.0 359'31'28" STA 0 +75 14' - t- 'I, 359'31'28" i STA 1 +00 686124.5 231725.0 359'31'28" STA 1 +25 686124.7 231750.0 359'31'28" STA 1 +50 686124.9 231775.0 359'31'28" STA 1 +75 686125.1 231800.0 359'31'28" STA 2+37.5 686125.6 232862.5 359'31'28" STA 3+00 686126.1 232925.0 359'31'28" STA 3 +64.5 686126.7 231989.5 359'31'28" 3 STA 4 +10 - •\ � }• a\ rte\ 232037.6 359'31'28" STA 4 +60 686217.0 232084.6 336'1820" < A\ 686234.1 232131.6 336'18'20" STA 5+60 686251.2 232178.5 BASEUNE o J,, o vT In N 01 r o 0 1 r 4 \ BASELINE + + o + + o + + M ' SOUTHERN oo+' f o' f �I ^ INTERIOR <I <I 41 <I <I .41 <I <I <I <1 ~ I CHANNEL N tn fns tn! n !n V1 N M! W N N BASELINE STATION NORTHING- EASTING• AZIMUTH 1 STA 0 +00 686123.6 231625.0 359'31'28" COASTAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING STA 0+25 586123.9 231650.0 359'31'28" STA 0+50 686124.1 231675.0 359'31'28" STA 0 +75 686124.3 231700.0 359'31'28" STA 1 +00 686124.5 231725.0 359'31'28" STA 1 +25 686124.7 231750.0 359'31'28" STA 1 +50 686124.9 231775.0 359'31'28" STA 1 +75 686125.1 231800.0 359'31'28" STA 2+37.5 686125.6 232862.5 359'31'28" STA 3+00 686126.1 232925.0 359'31'28" STA 3 +64.5 686126.7 231989.5 359'31'28" 3 STA 4 +10 686199.9 232037.6 359'31'28" STA 4 +60 686217.0 232084.6 336'1820" STA 5 +10 686234.1 232131.6 336'18'20" STA 5+60 686251.2 232178.5 336'18'20" 4 STA 6 +10 16a6268.3 1232225.5 336'18.20" • RASEUNE COORDINATES USED ON HAD 1927 DATUM BASELINE LOCATION TABLE HUMISTON & MOORE FOR ENGINEERS DAT ' COASTAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB 3 LEGEND: 9/24/01 - - - 4/22/99 ❑ R -42 ------- 10/15/99 PLAN 5679 STRAND COURT NAPLES, FL 34110 SCALE:1 =15Q FAX: 941 594 2025 FIGURE: 2 PHONE: 941 594 2021 _ 2. Inlet Monitoring 16J1 Figure 2 presents the scope of the inlet cross - section survey plan. The locations of the control points and the azimuths of these cross section lines are presented in the Baseline Location Table included in Figure 2. The location is given in state plane coordinates (NAD 1927). The cross section locations in Table 1 are listed in order from west to east. 3. Inlet Cross Sections General The entrance channel of Clam Pass is dynamic due to the fact that it is subject to the wave action from the Gulf of Mexico, which generates longshore sand transport into the inlet. This is a relatively small inlet with limited ability of tidal currents to scour sand from the inlet. However, the reduced restrictions to flow as a result of the removal of a significant portion of the interior flood shoal system - have resulted in an increased tidal prism. The increased tidal prism has been documented as part of a tidal study completed prior to and during the dredging project. The results are shown in the tidal study section of this report. These -- improvements have has reduced tidal phase lag at high and low water conditions and improved the hydraulic efficiency of the inlet. It is expected that the tidal flow will gradually decrease with reformation of the flood shoal, at which point the - effects of wave energy on the inlet system and channel alignment will increase, and the need for maintenance dredging in the future is anticipated. Figures 4 through 9 present cross section plots of Clam Pass. These figures show the pre- dredging, post dredging, and September 2001 (29 month post dredging) conditions of the inlet channel. Figure 2 shows the approximate channel alignment as defined by the 0.0 feet NGVD contour for the October 1998, April 1999, and September 2001 surveys. Historically there has been a tendency toward northward migration of the outer channel, which is clearly illustrated in this figure. Although the channel has had a tendency to close during winter months, it remained open through 2000 and 2001. This improved hydraulic efficiency is a _ result of the reduction in flow restrictions achieved through the removal of significant portions of the interior flood shoals. These shoals had accumulated over many years and are expected to gradually reform. However, until this happens, improved hydraulic efficiency should reduce inlet maintenance costs through reduced frequency of dredging. El 5 16JI -- BL2 A' 0 U f199 ._ _ -__ _ - __ °__3!!il. BL21 .h — lts� 0 " ........ a 1't1Q W N �t ' 2t It }} .A t17 .1! ' J�? �J) CLAM BAY CUT 4 SECTION SITE PAN 5679 STRAND COURT NAPLES, FL 34110 FAX: 941 594 2025 FOR:COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD DATE: 11 07 0 FILE:9068CUT4 SCALE: 1"=50 PHONE: 941 594 2021 JOB FILE: 9068 DATUM: FIGURE: 3 5 0 c� z W w z 0 r= ' Q w J W 0 c� z uj W W W z 0 Q W J W STA 0 +00 2 0 -2 r — -A- -6— -8 10 NORTH SOUTH 12 —Ann —350 —300 —250 —200 —150 —100 —50 C DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 0 u z W w z O a J W DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) STA 0 +50 -2 — � r .A- -6— -8 10 NORTH SOUTH 12 —400 —350 —300 —250 —200 —150 —100 —50 0 16J 10/98 Pre - ' — — - 4/99 Post 9/01 HUMISTON CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 5679 STRAND COURT & MOORS NAPLES, FL 34110 ENGINEER FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD FAX: 941 594 2025 ` 1..sTAL DATE:11 07 O1 FILE: 8042 -XS SCALE: N A �x I PHONE: 941 594 2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB FILE:8 -042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: 4 6 0 c� W L� - z 0 a J W a 0 c� z r W W W z O Q W J W 8 STA 0 +75 6 4 0 a o — W W z \ 4 0 a 6 > J W 8 0 NORTH SOUTH 2 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 0 u z r W W W z O a W J W DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 16J k -100 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 10/98 Pre 4/99 Posi 9/01 HUMISTON CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 5679 STRAND COURT & MOORE ENGINEER FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD NAPLES, FL 34110 FAX: 941 594 2025 �;' COASTAL DATE) 1 07/01 FILE: 8042 -XS SCALE: N/A PHONE: 941 594 2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN ANO PERMITTING JOB FILE:8 -042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: 5 7 0 > W W W z O r Q W J W 0 u z W W z O_ Q J W —1� 0 c� z w W W z O H Q W J W DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) s STA 1 +75 i l i 1 ) NORTH SOUTH r -400 —350 —300 —250 —200 —150 —100 —50 ❑ DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 16J I 10/98 Pre — — — - 4/99 Post 9/01 I HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEER COASTAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 5679 STRAND COURT NAPLES, FL 34110 FAX: 941 594 2025 PHONE: 941 594 2021 FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD DATE:11 07 01 FILE: 8042 -XS ISC ALE: N A JOB FILE:8 -042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: 6 I > z v H W W <L z O Q W W W 0 z W W W z O Q W W W 0 0 z W z 0 a > WW DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 16J111 8 6 STA 3 +64.5 4 2 ' -2 j -a i J -6 -8 10 NORTH SOUTH 12 —700 —150 —100 —50 0 50 100 150 200 9 10/98 Pre - — — — - 4/99 Post 9/01 HUMISTON CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 5679 STRAND COURT & MOORE ENGINEER FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSO NAPLES, FL 34110 COASTAL DATE:11 07 01 FILE: 8042 -XS SCALE: N/A FAX: 941 594 2025 PHONE: 941 594 2021 '' ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB FILE:8 -042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: 7 9 STA 4 +10 o ° z 2 / 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — W W / ` -2- / z _ �+ 0- 4 ~ l J Q W -6 J W -8 -10 NORTH SOUTH -12 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 0 O z W z 0- Q J W i 0 c� z uj W W W z O Q J W -1 STA 4+60 l � 6 NORTH -900 -150 -1D0 - SOUTH 50 100 150 20C DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) STA 5 +10 a — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2 l / 1 6 B D NORTH SOUTH 2 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 20C 16J 10/98 Pre - - - - - 4/99 Post 9/01 HUMISTON CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 5679 STRAND COURT & MOORE ENGINEER FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD NAPLES, FL 34110 COASTAL DATE: 11 07 01 FILE: 8042 —XS SCALE: N A FAO: 941 594 2025 PHONE: 941 594 2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB FILE:8-042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: 8 10 0 > z Li W W W z O a W J W 0 t� Z r W W l� - z O a J W a 1 0 z W W l� z O 1= - a J W DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) s STA 6 +10 i l a — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — t l NORTH -200 -150 -100 - SOUTH 100 150 2C DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) STA 6 +60 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 t J NORTH -200 -150 -100 - 0 SOUTH 100 150 200 16J11 11 10/98 Pre 4/99 Post 9/01 HUMISTON CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 & MOORE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEER FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD NAPL NAPLES, FL 10 COASTAL DATE: 11 07 01 FILE: 8042 —XS SCALE: N A FAO: 9a1 595 4 2025 PHONE' 941 594 2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB FILE: 8-042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: 9 11 Table 2 16J1 Clam Pass Width and Area Changes Station Number 10/15/98 4/22/99 7/00 09/24/01 Station Width (ft.) Area (ft`) Width (ft.) Area (ft`) Width (ft.) Area (ft`) 7 +50 43 139 Number Width (ft.) Area (ft) Width (ft.) Area (ft) Width (ft.) Area (ft2) Width (ft.) Area (ft2) 0 +00 139 117 324 546 215 207 336 351 0 +25 99 100 326 529 192 191 299 352 0 +50 78 84 328 536 198 191 242 334 0 +75 84 82 295 508 198 177 222 297 1 +00 82 74 259 468 130 151 188 292 1 +25 66 70 212 472 99 176 171 284 1 +50 55 88 157 385 95 188 149 272 1 +75 - - 104 301 91 183 134 270 2 +00 110 129 94 249 115 182 131 282 2 +37.5 141 120 98 264 104 190 130 281 3 +00 70 62 106 330 69 145 97 261 3 +64.5 63 100 70 246 68 175 85 234 4 +10 62 59 151 476 133 219 118 238 4 +60 102 78 168 658 120 187 125 246 5 +10 65 73 121 406 86 203 115 280 5 +60 78 68 72 215 64 180 81 261 6 +10 56 64 60 152 53 186 61 245 Average 86 397 184 281 Station Number 10/15/98 4/22/99 9/24/01 Width (ft.) Area (ft`) Width (ft.) Area (ft`) Width (ft.) Area (ft`) 7 +50 43 139 27 139 68 312 8 +00 33 107 55 283 95 384 8 +50 37 119 97 496 132 380 9 +00 32 103 98 502 154 386 9 +50 30 96 99 507 159 419 10 +00 24 78 105 538 98 265 10 +19 23 75 101 513 103 230 10 +50 23 72 99 503 151 399 11 +00 24 76 100 513 99 322 11 +50 19 59 114 581 153 393 12 +00 20 64 103 527 142 210 12 +50 25 80 83 423 146 205 13 +00 28 89 40 202 81 148 13 +50 21 67 30 154 58 161 14 +00 26 84 42 213 72 220 14 +19 41 131 47 239 - - 15 +00 13 41 97 494 217 404 15 +50 6 21 81 413 130 125 16 +00 9 28 92 467 161 233 16 +50 8 25 87 442 137 248 17 +00 7 23 75 380 150 259 17 +50 1 8 1 25 1 60 1 308 1 111 1 234 Average I 13 I 4UZ Zoo ) 12 _ 16J1 .4 Inlet dimensions are quantified in Table 1, which provides a comparison of the inlet _ width and cross sectional area at each profile station for the pre- dredge survey in October 1998, the post dredging April 1999 survey, and the September 2001 monitoring survey. It should be noted that the channel width is measured at 0.0 feet NGVD and the cross sectional area is calculated from the area bound by the bottom profile and 0.0 feet NGVD. The 0.0 feet NGVD contour is used as a common datum for shoreline positioning. For reference purposes, mean high water -- (MHW) for this area is +1.5 feet above NGVD, and mean low water (MLW) is —0.5 feet below NGVD'. Storm Response Inlet sections vary considerably in cross sectional area along the channel alignment. The part of the channel with the smallest cross sectional areas is the best indicator of the hydraulic stability of the system. Because the smallest cross section will have the highest flow velocity, when sand is deposited in this part of the channel by littoral processes, tidal currents will scour back out the sand. In general, the inlet maintains a minimum equilibrium cross section by this process. The equilibrium is necessarily dynamic, because of the variability of tidal energy over a lunar cycle, and the variability of littoral transport rates under changing weather conditions. Pre and post storm surveys from hurricane Gordon (9/2000) and tropical storm Gabrielle (9/2001) provide two examples that illustrate how this works. Other sections of the channel with much larger cross sectional areas are not as critical. Those areas may experience a large percentage reduction in cross sectional area without causing flow restriction as long as the flow area remains significantly greater than the minimum cross sectional flow area. These areas provide storage for sand entering the inlet so that the sand does not clog the minimum, or equilibrium section. Once the storage areas become filled, the minimum equilibrium sectional area must be maintained along a greater length of channel, which reduces hydraulic efficiency, and increase the need for maintenance dredging. Hurricane Gordon Hurricane Gordon was a mild hurricane, which impacted the area on September 17, 2000. Strong wave action and littoral currents pushed sand into the inlet faster than tidal currents could scour it out, and the inlet cross section from Station 0 +00 to Station 6 +10 was reduced by an average of 23% by the storm. Over the next 'The elevations of Mean High Water (MHW) and Mean Low Water (MLW) are based on DEP Special Report No. 87 -2, Predicted Open Tidal Datums for the Florida Lower Gulf Coast, Balsillie 1987, and discussions with the DEP Bureau of Survey and Mapping. 13 16J1 several months, however, tidal currents scoured the inlet back out, increasing the cross sectional area between stations 0 +00, and 6 +10, by an average of 44 %. Figure 10 illustrates the cross sectional areas measured on stations 0 +00 through _. 6 +10 from three different surveys. Comparison between the left and center panel shows how the cross sectional areas were reduced as a result of shoaling that occurred during Hurricane Gordon. Comparison between the center panel and the right panel shows the increase in cross sectional areas that subsequently occurred due to tidal scour. This natural post storm recovery from storm related shoaling is the result of improved inlet stability achieved by the 1999 dredging. This scenario is a further indication that the Clam Bay Restoration Dredging Project has been very beneficial to the stability of the inlet. Improved tidal flushing _ from the dredging of the interior bay channels generated currents strong enough to scour the sand out of the inlet. Tropical Storm Gabrielle Tropical storm Gabrielle, September 14, 2001, had a greater impact on Collier County's beaches than did Gordon. This is because the path and duration of the storm in combination with normal high tides resulted in a significant storm surge. The elevated water level brought high wave energy to focus on the beach dune system, causing severe erosion throughout the county. Although the wave action associated with this storm had the potential for moving large quantities of sand into Clam Pass, the storm surge actually had a mitigating effect. The elevated water level and rainfall resulted in much larger than normal volumes of water in the bay system. When all of this water rushed out the inlet as the storm surge abated, it scoured sand out of the inlet entrance. Basically, the same process that occurred after Hurricane Gordon occurred after Tropical Storm Gabrielle, only in the latter situation, it occurred as the large volume of water, stored in the bay, rushed out through the inlet in a relatively short period of time. Figure 11 shows the change in cross sectional areas, which occurred on stations 0 +00 through 6 +10 as a result of Tropical Storm Gabrielle. 4. Interior Channels The interior channel cuts are shown on Figure 1, illustrating the location of cuts 1, 2, 3, and 4, which were dredged in April 1999. The dredge cuts selected for dredging were identified as channel sections, which represented restrictions to flow in comparison to other, channel sections within the bay system. 14 � O O O L � Q. E ® O O V � O d (� a� r m a� C v .L I O L co 0.0 U 0 .M C O _ N Q 0 a N as E tm U s U 16J 1 0!x 0!x s 0 x4 00. OO x-� 0 x! 00.1 1:1-1x0 00.0 U 09 X9 09 x% sA-9.0 s 0xc' N �x X/ s�xo x O 0! X9 0!X9 O! x� 00x0 00 x- ol x! OO fix! / Sx0 OO LO O LO O O U') x0 -- C7 M N N (-}j •bs) eeiV 15 �I I I 16J 1 0!x 0!x s 0 x4 00. OO x-� 0 x! 00.1 1:1-1x0 00.0 U 09 X9 09 x% sA-9.0 s 0xc' N �x X/ s�xo x O 0! X9 0!X9 O! x� 00x0 00 x- ol x! OO fix! / Sx0 OO LO O LO O O U') x0 -- C7 M N N (-}j •bs) eeiV 15 to L Q cc c 0 c d 0 co�L N C. 0 E U 0 ♦,, U E C L — 0 r CO) o 0 �- as 0. _ _ as � �L E L 'M 0 V '4d ca L ` -a co �a 0 L O CM M N N r It eaabr 16 16J1 m M U+9 _E U )9 +9 � +g I +ti +E C 0 U) -Z N 0 a ■ E o 0 c � 0 T) CL CO ■ 16J1 Appendices 1 through 4 include a detailed site plan for each dredge cut, cross sections at nominal intervals along each cut, and an illustration of the channel cross sectional area at each station from the pre - dredge, post dredge, and most recent monitoring surveys. This information shows that the cross sectional area was significantly improved by the dredging, and in all but a few locations, the cross sectional area has changed very little since the dredging. This illustrates the difference between the dynamics of the inlet entrance, which is exposed to high sand transport rates, and the interior channels, which are not. Dredging of the interior channels contributed to the improved hydraulic efficiency of the bay system and the inlet, however, it is not anticipated that the interior channels will require maintenance dredging as frequently as the inlet. 5. Tidal Study Prior to the commencement of the March 1999 dredging, water level recording gages were installed at selected locations within the Clam Bay estuarine system and Gulf of Mexico to measure tidal ranges. Tides along the southwest Florida Coast are mixed in that they exhibit both diurnal (one tide per day) and semidiurnal — (two tides per day) characteristics during the course of a one -month lunar cycle. Both the pre- and post dredging tidal data collection were carried out for a full month to obtain average values representative of the general tidal characteristics — for Clam Bay. The locations of the gages are shown in Figure 12. Phase Lag Figures 13 and 14 show a comparison of the tidal phase lag at high and low tide conditions between the Gulf of Mexico and the three tide gages in the bay system. — In each case the phase lag was reduced as a result of the dredging, indicating that the filling and draining of the bay became more efficient. Additionally, the pre- _ dredge low tide phase lag was larger than the pre- dredge high tide phase lag, and the low and high tide phases are now much more similar. This effect is the result of the dredge cut, and represents a much greater percentage increase in cross section of flow near low tide than it does at high tide. As expected, phase lag has shown a trend of gradual increase in response to shoaling since the dredging. In one instance, the north gauge indicated a phase lag actually greater than pre- dredging conditions. This reading occurred after Hurricane Gordon and readings normalized within two months. This is another indication of how the dredging improved tidal exchange to allow the system to recover. This indicates that the shoaling of the Clam Pass entrance channel has not had a significant effect on tidal exchange throughout the bay system, although a gradual phase lag increase is becoming evident. The phase lag will increase as shoaling occurs, and maintenance dredging should be done before it reaches pre- dredging values. The decision regarding maintenance dredging should also consider tidal range discussed below. 17 ,t Rk ji At � fs.:i M �, . -..,�• ,;_ � �r�°t .+'.- t 't i r ?ice •rr •, t dl �; �t � �i Cf••' � is Y� pie `' �' '�, ��; '� ; Ah�t \ Jet. � f ti 1! r � ♦� g;:J t r, �x i�J "'!ir fir•• `�'�+ "t� �y-` if ;f, t ° >I r if N_ At it at �Fy� F'rl s tP/. , /rc�.j �;'r�+ � d�.•� }`2,�, ''�' �'� �.t3 .F. � 's 3[ Z . "•gip rdl P Milt "��, `,`��'. L�W?�' -. y� '„tat �M a' s try+ 4F^ +1 r t b fir, rt I� r.'is'� ';�dc .�\ f��. t s �'ii �► i M,�� r s, r Y"At R 3. iz- IP GAGE pdJ�ij < °P yi /P!' 'r'�j` %•s �, �"'�' ,yid ��s11, .yr 't1�}. sd d� t � ✓J ✓� A a°, � {r' C �9� � dry �1' j ✓lip t /J f r r�. ►.�y� + � ' ;:' ,�.�.�. C i, i .,,. J�! d { + /�y `• � °rPl , ' � �' c r � L i ��tF. �' 1�T! � � + yz'r�' �� �t�lt /t r ✓� +t ��'r� %�1ld� °,r�i�,'PI � �, f � . } � � �y yd ♦ . ,► �L..$. �, • ?,Yr /.fir' / r . r; ✓ r. !f I�tr, ���ti't � �,� a . ��` `t ',�� �� i f f R;e ' +4n�o�Mt,ry, a c4 m E m eo V m r m t to a+ J O a cc d O � J H d R t O r- 0 O 0 0 .� .R am 4- E o `~ v !° c� 16J1 °o ri iii sinoH o 19 L i` O Z C 0 ce) U) O J � I.L z ry m �E m= m= J d N N = s a � J H d 3 m J 1-- O 'Q C C m O O N v .� ,X ad E v O C9 Cl) ii sjnOH o 20 16J1 O Z o n 0 O p� J IL rn S' cr 3 m v� .O H O v O O 4. O C O O .L ea a E 0 v L°n C? °a °o ° °o N N r r O O 0133 :13E)Nvu 'Pddll 21 16J1 O z _ F- D O U) z O h V O J F- U) CD w af LO (D rn LL 16JI Tidal Range The relative tidal range was also evaluated for the pre and post dredging conditions at each tide gage location as illustrated in Figure 15. In each case there was a significant increase in the tidal range as a result of the Clam Bay Restoration dredging project. This is consistent with the above discussion regarding tidal phase lag. The dredging opened up the channel and reduced resistance to flow allowing more water to flow into and out of the bay areas during each tidal cycle. Since more water gets into the bay area at high tide and more leaves at low tide as a result of the reduced restrictions to flow, the average tidal range increased. The most recent tidal data, from July through August 2001, show that the tide ranges remain reasonably close to the post dredging values. 6. Conclusions and Recommendations. _ The hydraulic efficiency of the inlet was significantly improved by dredging of the inlet and flood tidal shoals in March and April of 1999. The improvements have been beneficial to the overall stability of the inlet and to tidal exchange within the bay. The increased tidal prism and reduced phase lag have contributed to improved tidal hydraulic efficiency of the inlet resulting in a reduced frequency of maintenance dredging requirements. The long -term management of the Clam Pass inlet system should include continued monitoring of the inlet channel from the gulf to the interior channels and along the dredge cut within the Clam Bay system. However, the most recent monitoring data show that Cut 1, Cut 2, Cut 3, and the inner part of Cut 4 above Station have been relatively stable since the dredging. This is because these cuts are a long way from the shoaling which occurs due to littoral transport near the entrance to the inlet where sand is carried into the inlet on flood tide. The tidal studies should be continued as an integral part of the monitoring of the Clam Bay system. These studies will indicate when shoaling of the inlet has occurred to the point where it influences the tidal circulation in the bay system. Dredging It is clear from the monitoring data that the channel dredging completed in 1999 has improved stability of the inlet. This means that maintenance should be more _ economical because dredging will be required less frequently than has been necessary in the past. Prior to implementation of the Restoration and Management Plan, the inlet was being dredged on an annual basis. It has now been over two and a half years since implementation of the Restoration and Management plan. The most recent _ monitoring data indicates the inlet does not appear to be in danger of imminent closure. 22 16J1 Proper maintenance of the inlet, however, should not be based solely on a condition of imminent closure. In order to provide storage areas where sand could accumulate for some time without diminishing hydraulic efficiency of the inlet, the flood tidal shoal was dredged beyond the extent necessary to restore tidal -- efficiency. This may be considered as advanced maintenance dredging. By monitoring sand accumulation, inlet flow cross - sections, tidal range, and tidal phase lag, vital conditions that contribute to inlet closure can be quantified. -- Furthermore, the volume of sand that would be removed during maintenance dredging can be measured and evaluated in terms of quantities of sand that will be available for management of the beaches adjacent to the inlet. Through the ongoing monitoring program, an appropriate interval for maintenance _ dredging can be established. A need to dredge, however, may also be created by extreme weather events significantly altering shoal rates in the inlet. In other words, although normal conditions may dictate a dredging interval of five years, it may be appropriate to dredge at three -year intervals in order to provide a margin of safety reducing the risk of closure due to an extreme weather event. Currently, the amount of sand that would have to be dredged in order to restore the flood shoal area to the 1999 post dredging depths is approximately 8,500 cubic yards. It has been recommended that this material be dredged to restore the design channel depths in the flood shoal area, and the material dredged be used to partially restore the beach and dune system south of the inlet. Dune Maintenance One of the impacts of tropical storm Gabrielle was dune washover. Sand eroded from the beach and dune system was washed landward over the beach ridge and in a few areas was deposited over wetlands along the western edge of the Clam _ Bay estuarine system. Although wetland areas affected in this manner were apparently small, this illustrates another potential problem, and should be considered in the management of the Clam Bay system. The western edge of this system is vulnerable to impact from washover fans created by storms and their associated storm surge, because the dune and beach strand along the west side of the bay is low, narrow, and vulnerable to breaching. It may be appropriate to establish a storm protection element to the Restoration and Management Plan, to evaluate options for improving the beach and dune bordering the western edge of the Clam Bay system. 23 16J1 APPENDIX 1 Cut 4 Cross Section Data 1 8 STA 7 +10 0 6 0z 4 z Fv W W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Z � 0-2- � 4-- J W -6 -B NORTH SOUTH -1 -2'00 -150 -100 - 0 0 50 160 190 i DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 STA 7 +50 NEAREST CORE BORING C21 8 COMPOSITE X FINES = 5.OX c 6 zo 4 z v 21 W W 0- 2 -4 W -6 -B WEST EAST -1 -200 -150 -100 - 0 6 50 100 190 2 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 8 STA 8 +00 NEAREST CORE BORING C21 0 6 uz 4 z v W W 0-2- � � -4 . W -6 -B WEST EAST -1 -200 -150 -100 - 0 50 100 190 260 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 10/98 Pro ......... 4/99 Post 9/01 HUMISTON & MOORE CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEER NAPLES, FL 34110 FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD COASTAL FAX: 941 594 2025 PHONE: 941 594 2021 DATE:11 07 01 FILE: 8042 -XS SCALE: N/A JOB FILE:8 -042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING L 8 STA 8 +50 0 8 O 4 z w ._.— . —. —. —. z 0-2- r. a � -4 .. / W -8 WEST EAST -1 -200 -150 -100 -&0 50 160 190 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 8 STA 9 +00 0 6 4 z Fv W W z O 1= -2 / -s -B WEST EAST -1 -200 -150 -100 - 0 0 50 160 190 s' DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 8 IG- STA 9 +50 o g > c� z 4 Fv W W u- Z0--.-. - . - . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ .. O -2 �. W -4 16J1 L 1 WEST EAST II ^ -1 V I- 1— IT rT -r-�Or -r 200 -150 -100 160 190 200 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 10/98 Pro - •- • -• -•- 4/99 Post 9/01 it HUMISTON � MOORE ENGINEER CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 5679 STRAND COURT NAPLES, FL 34110 S, FAX: S, 594 FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD COASTAL DATE:11 07 01 FILE: 8042 -XS SCALE: N A PHONE: 941 594 2021 AND PERMITTING JOB JOB FILE:8-042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: L 1 e STA 10 +00 > . 6J 1 0z z 4 w z � • °- -2 i a i -4 w L• -�/ - -6 -8 WEST EAST -1 -200 -150 -100 -;0 50 160 190 260 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 STA 10 +19 o a c� 2 z — — • — - — - — - — • -- — — - — - — — — •— • —• —• -- �` -2 z 0 \ n. ui -6 w -8 NORTH SOUTH -1 -200 -150 -100 -;0 0 50 100 1 10 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 STA 10 +50 0 a z 2 v — . — . — . — . — . /. -2 z -4 � -6 W -8 NORTH SOUTH -1!10 -150 -100 -;0 50 160 1 0 2 0 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 10/98 Pro ......... 4/99 Post 9/01 HUMISTON CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 & MOORE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEER FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD NAPLES, FL 34110 COASTAL DATE:11 07 01 FILE: 8042 -XS SCALE: N/A FAX: 941 594 2025 ENGINEERING DESIGN PHONE: 941 594 2021 AND PERMITTING JOB FILE:8 -042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: L t 8 STA 11 +00 6J1 6 0 4 2 z W .— .— . —. —. —. W -2 -4 a -6 W -B NORTH SOUTH -1 --210 -200 -150 -1100 -40 50 160 190 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 8 STA 11 +50 6 0 4 0z 2 z , W T- W � _2 j I z / 0_4 J -6 W -8 NORTH SOUTH -1 -200 -150 -100 -40 50 100 190 2 0 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) i STA 12 +00 8 6 4 0 z zo 2 v - - - - - - - - • - • - • - • - . - • - . - . W -2 z 0 -4 a ul -6 W -B NORTH SOUTH -1 -200 -150 -100 - 0 50 140 190 2 0 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 10/98 Pro - •- • -• -•- 4/99 Post 9/01 HUMISTON f� MOORE CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 5679 STRAND COURT I ENGINEER FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD NAPLES, FL 34110 � IE�� COASTAL FAX: 941 594 2025 PHONE: 941 594 2021 DATE:11 07 01 FILE: 8042 —XS SCALE: N/A JOB FILE:8 -042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING L STA 12 +50 C 4 0z 2 Z —2 z 0— 4 1. a —6 W -8 NORTH SOUTH —1 —200 —150 —100 — 0 50 160 1 0 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 0 c� z Fv W W W z O H a W 0 0 z W W z O H L4 W DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 16J I L 10/98 Pre -------- 4/99 4/99 Post 9/01 HUMISTON & MOORE CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEER FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD NAPLES, FL 34110 COASTAL DATE:11 07 01 FILE: 8042 -XS SCALE: N A FAX: 941 594 2025 PHONE: 941 594 2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB FILE:8-042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: L z W W z O F L4 W a c� z Fv W <L z O H H W DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) In STA 15 +00 c 4 2 z W W W —2 z o _4 f 4 —6 W -8 16J1 EAST WEST —1 —200 —150 —100 —50 50 160 190 AD DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 10/98 Pro ......... 4/99 Post 9/01 HUMISTON CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 & MOORE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEER NAPLES, FL 34110 FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD COASTAL FAX: 941 594 2025 PHONE: 941 594 2021 DATE:11 07 01 FILE: 8042 -XS SCALE: N A ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB FILE:8 -042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � � STA 15+50 ------ ------ 16J DISTANCE FROM B4scuwc (FEET) 1 U - ' ~'~ '~—~~ - EAST WEST nmTxwoc FROM eAscuwc (FEET) - EAST WEST DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 9101 HUMISTON &MOORE CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 --- 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEERS FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD NAPLES, FL 34110 COASTAL FAX: 941 594 2025 PHONE: 941 594 2021 DATE:11/07/01 IF=ILE*: 8042-XS FDA ISCALE: N/A TUI 0 STA 17 +00 4 2 _ ._._._._.. W tL _2 / J a —6 W -B EAST WEST —1 —200 —150 —100 — 0 50 160 140 2 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 STA 17 +50 ^p 4 0z 2 v 1 w L` _2 z 0-4— a W - J W -B EAST WEST —1 —200 —150 —100 — 0 50 100 140 2 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 0 c� z W U. z O W 16JI L DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 10/98 Pre '•- - - - - — 4/99 Post 9/01 HUMISTON MOORE AM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEER FFOR: LIER COUNTY AND PBSD N APLES, FL 34110 NAPLES, FAX: 941 594 2025 COASTAL 07 01 FILE: 8042 -XS SCALE: N A PHONE: 941 594 2021 ANDI PERMTTINGSIGN 8 -042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � STA 18+28 16J 1 ------ ------ - EAST WEST —150 —100 40 6 50 160 Igo 260 —100 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) - EAST WEST DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) EAST WEST 0 210 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) HUMISTON &MOORE ENGINEERS CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 - 5679 STRAND COURT NAPLES, FL 34110 FAX: 941 594 2025 1 FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD DATE:11/07/01 IFILE: 80 �—XS�SCALE: N/A COASTAL PHONE: 941 594 2021 1 8 STA 20 +82 6 0 4 z2 6J1 v F _ . ------ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . ------ W W -2 1 o -4 �•/ Q -6 W-8- EAST WEST -1 -200 -150 -100 - 0 6 50 160 1 0 2 0 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 8 STA 21 +52 6 a 4 C, 2 z W_ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . W \ -2 \ z \ 0_4 Ji Q J -6 W-8- EAST WEST -1 -200 -150 -100 -10 50 160 190 260 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 8 STA 22 +20 6 0 4 z 2 z .-- W -2 �1 / z 0 � -4 Lq -6 W -8 EAST WEST -1 -200 -150 -100 -;0 50 1 0 1 0 2 0 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 10/98 Pro -' -' -' -" 4/99 Post 9/01 HUMISTON CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 & MOORE 5679 STRAND COURT ENGINEER FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD NAPLES, FL 34110 COASTAL DATE: 11 07 01 FILE: 8042 —XS SCALE: N A FAX: 941 594 2025 ' ENGINEERING DESIGN PHONE: 941 594 2021 AND PERMITTING JOB FILE:8 -042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: L t STA 23 +10 8 6 c 4 6J1 z2 v _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . ! . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . -2 1 t z 0 � -4 a -6 W -B EAST WEST -1 -200 -150 -100 - O 50 100 140 210 1 STA 24+65 8 6 4 0 0 2 z v IC-16 W1 L. -2 / 1 I z 1 0 -4 � L._.J � -6 W -B EAST WEST -1 -200 -150 -100 -50 50 160 190 2 0 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 STA 25 +84 8 6 c 4 0 2 z . -2 1 1 z 0-4- l j � -6 W -B EAST WEST -1 -200 -150 -100 -1 0 6 50 1 0 190 260 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 10/98 Pro - '- ' -- - "- 4/99 Post 9/01 HUMISTON & MOORE AM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 5679 STRAND COURT FQATEJ LIER COUNTY AND PBSD ENGINEER NAPLES, FL 34110 COASTAL FAX: 941 594 2025 PHONE: 941 594 2021 07 01 FILE: 8042 -XS S CALE: N A ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING B -042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: L L 1 STA 26 +39 8 6 c 4 � 16J.L z 2 v . ._._._._. —._._. -2- 0- 4 �. �•/ a W -B EAST WEST -i -200 -150 -100 - 0 50 160 1 0 2 0 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 STA 27 +60 8 6 0 4 2 z v — — — — — — — • -1— — -- - — — • — • — - — — — -2 ` •� I z -J 0 -4 .. � -6 W -8 EAST WEST -1 -200 -150 - 50 -100 0 100 190 2 0 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 STA 29 +13 8 6 0 4 z 2 _.------ ------ _� ------------------ -2 i 0 -4 -6 W -B EAST WEST -1 -200 -150 -100 - 0 6 50 160 190 760 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 10/98 Pro "' - - -. -" 4/99 Post 9/01 HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEER CLAIBLMNYBaROGBOSECTIMIQNT 4 5679 STRAND COURT NAPLES, FL 34110 FAX: 941 594 2025 FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD DATE:11 07 01 FILE: 8042 -XS SCALE: N/A COASTAL PHONE: 941 594 2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING JOB FILE:8 -042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: L L t STA 29 +89 8 6 c 4 z> 2 v 16J1 W- _______ - . / . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . i` -2 p -4 �. Q -6 W EAST WEST -1 -200 0 -150 -100 -&0 50 160 190 2 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 STA 30 +77 8 6 0 4 0z 2 z v . - . - . - . - . - . - - % - . - . - . - . - . W- u- -2 1 z 0-4- / l J -6 W -8 EAST WEST -1 -200 -150 -100 -;0 6 50 160 19 2 0 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 1 STA 31 +53 8 6 _ 0 4 0z 2 z — -- — • — W — - — - — • — — — •— •— •— •- - -- -•- W L` -2 � / z O / / W -8 EAST WEST -1!200 -150 -100 - 0 50 1 0 1 0 2 0 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 10/98 Pro 4/99 Post 9/01 HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEER CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 5679 STRAND COURT NAPLES, FL 34110 FAX: 941 594 2025 FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD DATE:11 07 01 FILE: 8042 —XS SCALE: N/A COASTAL PHONE: 941 594 2021 ENG AND PERMITTING JOB JOB FILE:8 -042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � 16Jl 0----. ------ ------ ------------------ - EAST WEST DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) STA 32+62 CZ3 2- ui . EAST WEST DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) STA 34+23 - EAST WEST DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) - 10/98 Pro HUMISTON &MOORE ENGINEERS CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 5679 STRAND COURT NAPLES, FL 34110 FAX: 941 594 2025 FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD DATE: 1 1/07�1�LE8042-XS ISCALE: N/A COASTAL PHONE: 941 594 2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN _ _ -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � STA 32+04 16J —2" z - EAST WEST DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) IG- - EAST WEST DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) STA 34+23 - EAST WEST DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) — 10/98 Pro HUMISTON &MOORE ENGINEERS CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 5679 STRAND COURT NAPLES, rL 34110 FAX: 941 594 2025 1 FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD DATE:11/07/01 IFILE: 8042-XS NCALE: N/A COASTAL PHONE: 941 594 2021 ENGINEERING DESIGN L t STA 34 +72 8 6 0 4 2 z v / 16J1 o F —4 j ,.J Q —6 W —8 EAST WEST —1 —200 —150 —100 —10 50 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 8 STA 35 +37 6 0 4 z 2 v UJI —2 z � —4 � —6 W —8 EAST WEST —1 —200 —150 —100 — 0 6 50 160 140 260 DISTANCE FROM BASELINE (FEET) 10/98 Pro 4/99 Post 9/01 "Mi HUMISTON MOORE ENGINEER CLAM BAY CROSS SECTION CUT 4 5679 STRAND COURT NAPLES, FL 34110 FAX: 941 594 2025 FOR: COLLIER COUNTY AND PBSD DATE:11 07 01 FILE: 8042 —XS SCALE: N/A COASTAL PHONE: 941 594 2021 ENGINEERING '?In PERMITTING JOB JOB FILE:8 -042 DATUM: NGVD FIGURE: L 16 J1 APPENDIX 2,3,4 Cuts 1,2,3 Cross Section Data Per the recommendation of Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan Bathymetric Monitoring Report No. 1, cuts one two and three were not surveyed during this period. Surveying is to be done on two year intervals. The most recent survey data and cross sections can be viewed in Clam Pass Restoration and Management Plan Bathymetric Monitoring Report No. 1. 16J1 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING UPDATE REPORT NO. 2 FOR PELICAN BAY AND CLAM BAY SAMPLE PERIOD JULY, 2000 TO .TUNE, 2001 PREPARED FOR PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION PIN No. N0103 -082 -002 Planners Engineers Ecologists Surveyors Landscape Architects Transportation Consultants NOVEMBER 2001 Table Contents 16J1 of -- 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Information 1 1.2 Update Report No. 2 1 _. 1.3 Purpose and Scope 1 2 Description of Water Quality Sampling Program 2.1 Sample Point Locations 3 2.2 Definitions of Sample Parameters 3 2.3 Sample Matrix 3 — 2.4 Sample Results 6 List of Figures Figure 1 Report Area Map 2 -- Figure 2 Sample point locations 4 Figure 3 Average Monthly D.O. (Dissolved Oxygen) Class II & III 8 — Figure 4 Average Monthly D.O. (Dissolved Oxygen) Levels for Seagate N/S 9 — Figure 5 Average Yearly NO3 (Nitrate) Levels 10 Figure 6 Average Yearly OPO4 (Orthophosphate) Levels 11 Figure 7 Yearly /Monthly NO3 (Nitrate) Levels for Seagate N/S 12 Figure 8 Yearly /Monthly OPO4 (Orthophosphate) Levels for Seagate N/S 13 Figure 9 Average Yearly TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) Levels 14 Figure 10 Yearly /Monthly TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) Levels for Seagate N /S15 List of Tables Table 1 Sample Parameters 5 — Table 2 Sample Matrix 6 Appendices Appendix A Water Quality Data Tables (Under Separate Cover) 1112 CW1 -87882 Vw.. 051- JWOJDAK C1043 N0101082 -000• ECOR- 20565 1. Introduction 1.1. Background Information 16J1 Pelican Bay is a 1200± acre subdivision located in northern Collier County. See Figure 1 for a location map. The subdivision is served by typical infrastructure including public and private roadways; potable and irrigation water systems; a wastewater collection and pumping system; drainage; power; telephone; and cable. In 1977 the Pelican Bay Improvement District (PBID) was formed to provide much of this infrastructure. To the west of Pelican Bay is Clam Bay as shown on Figure 1. _ Clam Bay is an estuary, which serves as the receiving waters for the drainage from Pelican Bay. During the initial environmental permitting of Pelican Bay, the agencies required water quality testing within Pelican Bay and Clam Bay to help evaluate the impact of development on Clam Bay. The water quality- testing program was first implemented by PBID starting in the early 1980's. In 1991, PBID became the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD), a dependent Division of Collier County. PBSD continued the testing program after 1991. PBSD is currently the responsible entity for the testing program. 1.2. Update Report No. 2 The compilation of the water quality testing data was initially presented in a report entitled "Water Quality Report for Pelican Bay and Clam Bay ", July 1999. Since then, there has been one update report for water quality samples taken for the months of June 1999 through June 2000. Update Report No.2 will update the previous report by evaluating the water quality data collected between July 2000 and June 2001. 1.3. Purpose and Scope The purpose of the report is to present and evaluate the water quality testing data and to determine if there are any significant trends in the data. The scope includes: Gather and cull the water quality data for the period July 2000 through June 2001. Identify the sample point locations. _ . Describe the water quality testing parameters. Identify any significant data trends. PAGE 1 112401 -87882 Vw. 051- JWOJDAK CAM N0101082 -004 ECOR- 20566 16J1 2. Description of Water Quality Sampling Program 16J1 2.1. Sample Point Locations The water quality testing is performed at several sample points within Pelican Bay and Clam Bay. The sample point locations are shown on Figure 2. There are ten sampling locations within Pelican Bay and Clam Bay. Sample points W -7, W -6, W- 1, Seagate North, and UCBCRK are within Clam Bay, which are categorized as Class II waters by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Sample point Seagate South is located in Venetian Bay. The remaining four sampling points are PB -13, PB -11, 13- Glenview and F- St.Lucia, which are located in Class III waters within Pelican Bay. Until 1998, there was sampling taken at one point adjacent to the Seagate culverts. After 1998, sampling at Seagate was suspended. In 2001, sampling was resumed at two points: one on the north side of the culvert, and one on the south side. One purpose of the two sample points us to show if there are differences in water quality between Clam Bay and Venetian Bay, possibly due to the check valves installed on the Seagate culverts. 2.2. Definition of Sample Parameters The sample parameters are given in Table 1. The first column gives the parameter label and name. The second column gives the units of parameter measurement. ._ The third and fourth columns give the maximum contaminant level (MCL) allowable by the FDEP for Class II and Class III waters. Some of the data parameters may not have a stated MCL. In this case, the data could be used as an indicator of some trend in the system. The final column of Table 1 gives the purpose and usage of each parameter. There are fourteen different parameters being sampled within the update period. 2.3. Sample Matrix Table 2 gives a matrix of the sample parameters taken from each sampling location. Depending on the sampling location, the test area and the classification of the location where the sample is taken from, the sample was tested for different parameters. PAGE 3 11/20!2001.87882 Ver:0%- JWOJDAK CAW N0103- 082 -OOD- ECOR- 20585 Q'--q Vmq LL) � N x O LLI a x ¢ V) z O F- L) 0 J H z_ O CL w J CL V) LL.i O z _J H 3 v 0 0 O 0 PZ i O _J 0 � I U ~ � N m Z o t5 �- LLJ H N Q m z� o Q 1 J D o LLJ 0 oZ I 0� W LIJ f--- Q z W J lv W U cr w 0 (n 0 a � ` rn ' 00 0 w �n O) p W C. CC N ) N > II 0) .5 N r N p) w ff) M O Z¢ v U oV)� o M z I— o _z (n O 0 U V) z LLI --� U_ n > :2 Of a LLI V) Q J m �D z v Q ry U LLI F- W Q a_ 3: z w J F- U F- RSA a N O O Of N O M zz O Z 6 .9 � UQ x O V) W J WZ o a 0 Z QO 3a N o LD J • 0 N O N PZ i O _J 0 � I U ~ � N m Z o t5 �- LLJ H N Q m z� o Q 1 J D o LLJ 0 oZ I 0� W LIJ f--- Q z W J lv W U cr w 0 (n 0 a � ` rn ' 00 0 w �n O) p W C. CC N ) N > II 0) .5 N r N p) w ff) M O Z¢ v U oV)� o M z I— o _z (n O 0 U V) z LLI --� U_ n > :2 Of a LLI V) Q J m �D z v Q ry U LLI F- W Q a_ 3: z w J F- U F- RSA a 16J1 7 i m d E R CL m c E m .a E c E n a L « M C r ' ^ e w p c ^ o d E E E E E E o c m V Y 6 u x C O s a d Q A O !Q� = O C C p P C i p M N O 9 O • p d C P A C A A C O 9 C C _O ,$ W _G �' ^ • �. • C Y Ol E C c o « 'w E �Ss La « $ E O E —° > C 0 o E . ° o O w d 0 ° 8 E q • E o a . c w >eF g O c o u o E —c wC C w w E o 0 o -E i e o h G �« M c O Y n N w " CL a p @ O t O c q a > K ° w u g i iw 1 9 O " E O o o° q > o c a E O v o u E v g C • f c E Z E L o 0 ° E A a G O m w r O d O a w 'E Y Y Y6 A w ° C « N w C C j m ° •L N m 2 2 S n S S ; t � �, N Y � n u 0 2 b e aa V U V Q C F C • F C N o= Ic c m W C C — N c w n C q n Y C w b « 3 • g F P g °c Vf O c O c y L CO p U p Y n O w vm• ° a O A •N- e e O C — a x M A V • > e $ a r O m c^ = W d vi U e a 6 w d o c vi x w o a 'z c °a c n --gyp c n C E; > a° v A e p n m m c m w O W q O W « O t C m 21 A o E ° a ° ° a E° n s U V G C c c 0r c C N C R C y c c N c + F F o c c c � 8 c o e E Q o E « a c a c vl o In c ° c =o o a t O c =� ' v ° a c ° E e c vl E a ¢ U w w w � n Q U O c O p Z O M O o M O r Z O z O u w °o • oc m L o Y v vl o — > J 7 • Cq 2 'C m � O «_ O « OM � O r c a o$ u o g c B a o E c c c c e c c c c m 8 _'c c E « E 6 g( g( g€ rn E E E E � E d z °� a «� H E Z- 2 $ Z Z 0 Z g� m, ° E 6 7 i m d E R CL m c E m .a 16J1 Table 2- Sample Matrix Sample Point TEMP COND pH TDS DO NH3 NO2 NO3 TKN OPO4 TP04 S102 CHLA TOC W -7 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X W-6 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X W -1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X UCBCRK X X X X X X X X X X X X PB -13 X X X X X X X X X X X PB -11 X X X X X X X X X X X F X X X X X X x X X X X 13 X X X X X X X X X Sea ate X X X X X X x X X X Seagate Nth. X X X X X X X X X X X X Seagate Sth. x X X X X X X X X X X X Note: " X " indicates criteria is present at this location -- 2.4. Sample Results The sample data are reported in Appendix A, which is provided under separate — cover because of its large volume of pages. It is available for inspection at the PBSD office. Of the 14 sample parameters, dissolved oxygen, nitrates, phosphates, and total dissolved solids are discussed in detail below because of they are the most _- important indicators of water quality. The remaining parameters are not discussed because they are within historic ranges for the sample period. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Figure 3 shows dissolved oxygen (DO) for eight sample points, W -7, W -6, W -1, PB- 13, PB -11, 13- Glenview, UCBCRK and FSt.Lucia for the period between 2000 and 2001. W -7, 6,1 and UCBCRK are located in Clam Bay in Class II waters. PB -13, 11, 13- Glenview and FSt.Lucia are located in Pelican Bay in Class III waters. The MCL's for DO in Class II and III waters are also shown on the figure. The data show a _ general increase in DO levels for the update period, which is a positive trend. NOTE: DO values were not measured from August 00 through December 00 due to problems with the sampling instrument. With this in mind, it is difficult in establishing a permanent DO trend over the given sampling period. Figure 4 shows dissolved oxygen (DO) for the Seagate location. Note the gap in the data between 1998 and 2001, which was explained in Section 2.1 above. Only PAGE 6 11RfV2001 -87882 Vr. 051- JWOJDAK CAM N0103 -W2 -000- ECOR- 20565 16J1 three months of data are available in year 2001. The limited data show that the DO for both sample points are above the MCL and show insignificant difference between readings on either side of the culverts. With the limited data set, it is too early to draw any conclusions on the impact of the culvert check valves. We recommend continued sampling. Nitrate (NO3) and Phosphate (OPO4) Figures 5 and 6 show Nitrate and Phosphate levels for the eight sample points within their classification. Nitrate and Phosphate are ingredients in fertilizers. The higher the levels, the greater the potential that there is fertilizer runoff into the water bodies adjacent to the sample points. Over the Update # 2 sample period, Nitrate levels have either declined or stayed approximately the same, except for PB -13, which increased. The increase does not appear to be significant and is well below past levels for this sample point. Also note that nitrate levels for the sample points located in Pelican Bay water management system are higher than for the points in Clam Bay. This is expected since the Pelican Bay water management system is designed to remove nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate prior to discharge to Clam Bay. Over the Update # 2 sample period, phosphate levels have generally declined, which is a positive result. Again note that Phosphate levels for the sample points located in Pelican Bay water management system are higher than for the points in Clam Bay. This is expected since the Pelican Bay water management system is designed to remove nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate prior to discharge to Clam Bay. We recommend close monitoring of Nitrate and Phosphate. Figures 7 and 8 show nitrate and phosphate levels for the Seagate sample points. Only three months of data are available in year 2001. The limited data show no trends and it is too early to draw any conclusions on the impact of the culvert check valves. We recommend continued sampling. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Figure 9 shows TDS levels for the eight sample points. TDS is a measurement of salts in the water. Low levels indicate fresh water. High levels indicate salt water. The data is consistent with the expectation that sample points PB -13, PB -11, 13- Glenview and FSt.Lucia are located in fresh water bodies in Pelican Bay. In contrast, sample points W -7, W -6, W -1 and UCBCRK are located in brackish water in Clam Bay which is the reason for the higher values obtained. The TDS levels during the update period remain at consistent levels with the previous historical sample levels. Figure 10 shows TDS levels for the Seagate sample points. The limited data show no trends and it is too early to draw any conclusions on the impact of the culvert check valves. We recommend continued sampling. PAGE 7 11!20/2001- 87882 Vx 051- JWOJDAK CAM3 N0103M2- 000 - ECOR- 20565 m > J C M 0 d O ff! _N v 0 Q L V > Q M 7 LL 16J1 N O O N O O O N OD O rn T rn T rn r N .� 0 T 14 v T r co co 0) r co co rn T CD T N c0 O r O O O O O O p p p O D O O O O O T O co ti to U) N T O ( "SM /(,"A.OjBW )Oa U 3 U 3 U 3 a a LL m J 16J1 N O O N O O O N OD O rn T rn T rn r N .� 0 T 14 v T r co co 0) r co co rn T CD T N c0 O r O O O O O O p p p O D O O O O O T O co ti to U) N T O ( "SM /(,"A.OjBW )Oa .y 0 z 4 CL a 0 4 U 0 O O N 16J1 a) rn m A Q r C O 0 .a U- ...................... .... .............. .. ----- - - - - -- rn E co Cn m ti U N CO O CC �— O O OD Cfl it m C4 (a8:"l /("oA.0)Sw)oQ s 0 N t 0 z m _ Ia 0) cc d _ 0 LL N m J C Im r. p 0 V ..� O N H 0 D A -- s c 0 cc 0 m LL .y 0 z 4 CL a 0 4 U 0 O O N 16J1 a) rn m A Q r C O 0 .a U- ...................... .... .............. .. ----- - - - - -- rn E co Cn m ti U N CO O CC �— O O OD Cfl it m C4 (a8:"l /("oA.0)Sw)oQ d J eo L ~ Z M O Z cc a> Q CO M- 3 3 a a Lj- 16J1 N O O N O O O N co Q1 O �i rn rn rn � d rn E co 00 rn co co rn co v rn N co O r O c0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O `- W c! N O W OR I, (O Up 'It ch N 7 O O O O O O O O O O O (JGllU(ue "N)SW)EON d J m ev t C. M O t Q O s O O CL O L d d CD L d 'Q W 7 Im M (J830'(II- 4d•l4d)Bw)VOdO 16J1 N O O N O O O N O O rn T rn T CD T N O 01 T _ O d T E 00 ~ co O T co T T N co O T O O O T co O M-1 tlN� U N U r 3 yy U U 3 a •- a LL ggC U' � ro (J830'(II- 4d•l4d)Bw)VOdO 16J1 N O O N O O O N O O rn T rn T CD T N O 01 T _ O d T E 00 ~ co O T co T T N co O T O O O T co O M-1 O t O Z d U) I- 0 LL N d N J .di R L Z CO) 0 Z 5O L co 4) h m 7 Iun N O Z N a \` LO O to O O O O O O O G C O O C O 08411 1(amw1Stu)£ON 16J1 O 0 Z r O CL 4 O O U 0 O O fd rn 0) m � Q L r+ C O � V � d } MV W c �M TWT V/ C cu rn c V N co rn A P- 0 U) 0 Z a- 0 LL a J r eo s CL 0 s CL 0 O v O IL O a+ c 0 ao CM M 16J1 Q Z r 0 O O U O O O m 2 a) rn 6 r 0 rn U d w d CD E co m co 0) 0 co CD a to M La N LO r LO O Ci r O O O O O 0 O O O (JolIU(sruoydso4d)BtU)tOdO O O 16J1 Q Z r 0 O O U O O O m 2 a) rn 6 r 0 rn U d w d CD E co m co 0) 0 co CD a to M La N LO r LO O Ci r O O O O O 0 O O O (JolIU(sruoydso4d)BtU)tOdO m W .p N w� W OM B r C v cc W A` 'W tr L 16J1 N O O N O O O N OD rn rn /T^ W T T N O O� T wV 0 W T co 0) T to co 0) T O T N O O T O co O T O rl- O O OO 00 � O O O O O O O S 00 I N M N N 0 to (Je4t1/6w)Sal W U � L) U 3 � Y r 1 I CL i CL I U- I i m W .p N w� W OM B r C v cc W A` 'W tr L 16J1 N O O N O O O N OD rn rn /T^ W T T N O O� T wV 0 W T co 0) T to co 0) T O T N O O T O co O T O rl- O O OO 00 � O O O O O O O S 00 I N M N N 0 to (Je4t1/6w)Sal t �O vI O Z L O LL _0) J V .O m O ca 8 5 O H CO) O F- A C O A d O r m L LL N C Z N m 16J1 O O Z CL O Q O O U O O 4 N O Q O m rn N W U_ d 00 as T E 7 E- 00 rn c m rn c t0 rn U 0 m CD C Cl M N N C14 0 (je:muBw)sa.i I N Ol Z W C7 77 `O ti to r V W O N C Z N m 16J1 O O Z CL O Q O O U O O 4 N O Q O m rn N W U_ d 00 as T E 7 E- 00 rn c m rn c t0 rn U 0 m CD C Cl M N N C14 0 (je:muBw)sa.i Ivilson,miller New Directions In Planning, Design & Engineering Naples a Fort Myers • Sarasota • Bradenton • Tampa • Tallahassee -. www. wilsonmiller. cam WilsonMiller, Inc. — FL Lic.,9 LC- C000170 CA 43 fa m E fu V =it wagcc V) o $+ w fo � E � m oC 0 E 0 CL o c—Ea V V i a Q 0 c A 4-j 75 c 4— `+- .c ' a-+ 0 cu 4w �� �a C i c a � (U = cu (n fu a4-' =Mc CL � -0.0 a 0 va M cy� OC) v�i0 9) s Ma 0 rn 0 � .c ce c oo ;�+ o M O� �'+m4)0 c c 0E 0 (u 0mp� � 'a .a ro o-0 0 O� =.i V V C Q) cn i E d7 ,c �A ��v cu w I mf° '�i0�= 3 V m E =° � L o f � �E� %o �a N�o —�oC tcsw V I- V .! F- m F- i 16J1 c �. cn -p Oo Boa) V 0 c m �> an -aN �C� � 0 CL r- 0 fQ V ME cn� C.00 C c 0 E:m fa i (Lp O E v) cn C c� 027 fu .� .� fu W .C: a fu ate--+ E V i a✓ � C: � 0 E O a)0 o rev f C: mo o o� o°- oc c U c cn 0 o N " _0 c a o CU �E a :Lj U I n 0 U r� m ro U 16J1 N N p E N i � cn m O'S =3 V C O L E N L f rp 'O Q O 3 14 'E = C O E � V • ro O 0 E Q O Q N ,� 4-J fu : m O C fLf f0 -a O 'O N � 0 v C X O O "0 _V O L �--� V 0 O 0 O cn 5, O ( w ca (a CL C N L cn C aL-+ v a) A `n >' V C: :3 c E N Q) U 4- p �� -0 p 0 E O O O m '+"— fo C C fd c • L]. O L iv L L 4-J Q) c Q� iv w c ate-+ ate-► _ _� O ui G tn O 4 1,6 N m 16J1 N n =3 C: 0 V qffiffil O O V N C� fu s C� N O N f� C L fu O V E c: � � O cfi fp N .= L N O C !_j +O-+ 0 Q C -0 fa a-+ L cu 0 fd O C V Q M-W E0 E- E E �.� •L fu 0 cu -r- N 0 "O fu 0-0 fad O� 4.1 V _ fu E — .S E m ~ L, C G N C 't (n to N O O N O a N � � M m &- .N �• 010 fl.� O 0 = (V fd � ,� N � O E F-aJ N O w m V L V O fp fu O fp m L O � cn V O ai ZNcn• >O-ry 2 RUC L- _0M C LQ% cp 5 20- m 0 4- (� O M M L- to C CO C V c: :E fu ate.+ m>U J �..►. Ln '- O O m o) -C fu CL ru -0 cU C cv 0 X C u N� V fp N m m �� 3 O= (n .� -C N ==M M fu 00 m Oi M- 16J1 M n V >0% r� m E ra U �o V 4- Ln a-+ Ql ElC C C cu O O 0. C E s co fo �•+ � .,., � � v O V 0 a) CL E m m E co ig � a1 U O cn fo fo � � v m -0 L (1) .a Jd E V a) m .O � •O V CL 3 O E V ��.���v C V cu V O Lo Z ' � '� u u � � � ca fo O i ° cu _ C m O c0 "0 fu =3 I >Lo v CU O 40- .0 Jd L C: O aJ CU a a-+ L O .> X" N cn 3 � � I + o `� o�� -a • —>1 =3 C: M-0 Q1 a..+ >- vi 'v1 fu m 'a c p� E •� 'n c U v v -C a�-► V L V 4L- co a E ° C L aj (a -� j M -0 V •� -I--i C O= m O O a o > 0 u a v�ai 4-J -v v3a�� O� U i..i w-C L 4-J O� = W 16J1 n n C: 0 V ra m fa U 0 cn O -p = O (n v4-J vE°„�ra�:vL �0 c0 –oCL V) v •— Z, ra cn CA fu W aj .c a o E � w fu u U ° N N M -0 °~ °a � -0 -0 o. � ° ,-. V fa, -0 I- V — V -C ,E V C L X O N 40 w -p 0 0 � ate-+ aj , can cL O �+- .��.+ 'Cf ate.+ � cp •-{ O o f ° cr ? ' iv •L X N • X a cn fp C N N cn .�, O a� E'5<- O—,C aJ .0 E. 'S' _� N •= N �' U OL N ) a1 � �_ QJ L Cl d .�..+ cn "O ca -+ C •� N N 6 O tU � . 0-di cn V L a) X M V I- ■ 16J1 V �O L fu fu U C p .� m E��� a� � 5 .� O L _> 'L- -� V o H � O O 70 a C 4- 5 Zi N cu C V 5, >M N 0 `" +' v C: .a � m O p .c a,uow �m C a m 0 � C ca N �� >,v LU O.p.V (D Oa. .0 'fu�a= N 5 V O N O E u 'Lo � :It O 4 fu B p W N 4-J C W+ O �-t E � C � Z O M m MO C C (n N N 4- O (U .0 O N C V p :�_+ O a-' s •L 4"' O 'p V p-� Q N Q a o?� uZ4_ V ao 16J1 T-I 16J1. rl.: ■ ■ oo m o= = L- > c -C 4-J O M .�.� N O- N O� O ,-4 N c: fp .0 , C: O m tf (n -0 •• V O.. V 4-J O N N (� N d E _ •� _ N C 0 ru w L CU a~ a � •Q vy L O- > V tf .0 CL d V fo fu m ~ O 0 O 4-J C N 4-J 'S i O N O atez p L fu .0 40- .N fu • ;Lj C -0 . =3 ._ a. O O '� ry m, V O O e =3 .� p ■� C� C C O V L O O O t71 C Q c M c •L L ai OL Ln fo = fu M -0 •O .61 N (n � c 0 QC -v C 'C3 > 0 c 0) O p .0 O m N C O •s- ra +•J rl O U � Q O c� � U) N � O CU ww3 '' cn L- U C ((1) a V •- Nca ?. Vf —(n V W z± C ��(AvcN O fp L • m O V .T) GA I— co 5 (n _ cn 4-J > O ■ ■ 16J1. 16J •ice °O �C a��oc cfl.3 o 45.0 o O T) N aj C •� p c O 4 M fu — E �E.61 �� O o n c' a) m L .- o��� �o H 0-:E a,.o�,L .� �. O — o � cvo� �V _� 1 Eo +� c c M =cap � w_•— ENRON �+ • ate--+ O te -p fD a..+ .i.+ (/) O O O N c'00 N a- c 13 O' DC ,> O >- L—.- 4-1 0 ■ N °! 3 c N-0 m V O N 0 CU E 0.2 O CO m CD fAl 0 cv�fo V� V op o SIMON M-0 0 ��\/ c O O O 0 0 � 3 E 3 U) Z Qcan�LON� U) FL�� oc �o o v � >13- a V f 0-0-0 Q1 O > c V 0oft% L �. o o O Cl 70 ry IM ° �, > -r- c Y o 4-1 L f0 v- C �O-p. V V M V -(v:3 %ftoo �aV) cn s cm o NOOO' -C3 0 'Q1 Mn O i ��mc O (n c dL fo TOOI 0 ■ ID v 'D Cu p N v, N, 0) N N CT ? N W N NI O' OD O (n c0 co -4 O' CTI ? W NI �'v c C G r 0 W = � y Z ('03, D C� d v v m 0 3 D m m v m m CD p $ d D rC D f m •(i/� o `� N cD p n 0 c CD a � N W .< N• 0 'ON fyy � CU y w w N 3 w m 9 v �. ., p 7 g p 3 y w '^• = CD w om m i ° D w c- z c Cl) Cl) c K chi w 0 y 0 W CD O N C N N n ►I w �a c 0 3 3 ro 1:2 c 3 3 w ?51 n CD CD 3 3 m w � m N N N N 7 CD PrIq ►A s'. CD 0) a (D Q� S g m a)w 3�0 m C, CCD Q o m W � O Im 3, C5 m �ml i ICI= I° M, Wic 0 '3 i Im W D c m �C5 lm �a)'i CD O m co CD Q� m ?5 W z g o K C3 Im W m° Am /a 0 Ir SIN Q C..`` i� �s R N � 4 � v v N c Z 3 3 m m m m m � d m � � m o m a S m NZ 3 C7 m0 m N O O bm 1 n n V 3 m m m N G �{ $ E E a M A m 3 g m o a a 3 a m et p _ a��. Z H' o s s s 8 s s 8 8 s s 8 8 s 8 8 s 8 8 8 8 8 8 s 8 8 s 8 s s s s s 8 s s s 8 ,a m. TWO— N 16- m` a 0 N O N D, C N {,N IC, Im w� c 0 ■ Page 1 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION CLAM BAY RESTORATION FUND OCTOBER 31, 2001 16J1 F.Y.'s 97 -99 F.Y. 2000 F.Y. 2001 F.Y. 2002 Total Exp. Oct. 2001 Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget To Date Balance Expenses EXPENDITURES Environmental Consult. Engineering Fees SO $0 $58,040 $174,653 $232,693 $58,040 $174,653 50 Akerman, Senterfitt, et. al. $207,683 $0 $0 $0 $207,683 $207,683 $0 $0 Lewis Environmental Serv. $78,732 $0 $0 $0 $78,732 $78,732 $0 $0 Tackney & Associates $86,500 $0 $0 $0 $86,500 $86,500 $0 $0 Wilson, Miller, et. al. $67,675 $1,522 $7,245 $0 $76,442 $76,442 50 $0 Dr. Samuel Snedeker $9,997 $0 $0 $0 $9,997 $9,997 $0 50 Hilburn Hilstad $10,550 $0 $0 $0 $10,550 $10,550 $0 $0 Turrell $49,238 $12,701 $4,562 $0 $66,500 $66,500 $0 50 Other Expenditures $41,009 $39,472 $146,324 $188,700 $415,505 $226,828 $188,677 $23 Sub -Total $551,384 $53,695 $216,170 $363,353 $1,184,603 S821,272 $363,331 S23 Tidal Creeks 1,2 & 3 Engineering Construction Tackney $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 50 Turrell $57,101 $1,899 $0 $0 $59,000 559,000 $0 50 Agnoli, Barber & Brundage $2,796 50 $0 $0 $2.796 $2,796 $0 50 Engineering Design Tackney $0 50 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Turrell $26,790 $0 $0 $0 $26.790 $26,790 $0 50 Agnoli, Barber& Brundage $11,596 $0 $0 $0 $11,596 $11,596 $0 50 Capital Improvements $134,830 $51,183 50 $0 $186.013 $186,013 $0 $0 Sub -Total S233,113 $53,082 $0 SO $286,195 5286,195 SO SO Clam Pass Main Channel Engineering Construction Tackney $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 50 Tun -ell 574,291 $4,709 $0 $0 $79.000 579.000 50 50 Agnoli, Barber & Brundage 55,900 $0 $0 $0 $5.900 $5.900 $0 50 Engineering Design Tackney 50 $0 $0 50 $0 $0 50 $0 Turrell $24,980 $0 $0 $0 $24.980 $24.980 SO SO Agnoli, Barber& Brundage $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $10.000 $0 SO Snedaker 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 50 Capital Improvements $251,530 $0 $0 $0 $251.530 $251,530 50 50 Sub -Total $366,701 $4,709 SO $0 $371,410 5371,410 SO SO Interior Tidal Creeks Engineering Construction WMB &P $0 $10,990 $0 $0 $10.990 $10.990 $0 SO Turrell 51,503 $1,497 $0 $0 53.000 $3.000 SO $0 Interior Tidal Creeks Engineering Design Lewis Environmental $17,450 S14,350 50 50 $31.800 $31,800 50 SO WMB &P 55,804 $6,816 $0 $0 $12.620 $12.620 $0 50 Engineering Consultants Lewis Environmental 527,409 $59,110 $27,692 $0 $114,211 5114,211 $0 50 Capital Improvements $25,500 547,478 547,398 SO $120.376 $120,376 $0 50 Sub -Total $77,666 $140,241 $75,090 $0 $292,997 S292,997 SO 50 Page 1 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION CLAM BAY RESTORATION FUND OCTOBER 31, 2001 16J1 ACCOUNTSPAYABLE DATE F.Y.'s 97 -99 F.Y. 2000 F.Y. 2001 F.Y. 2002 Total Exp. $16.082.54 Oct. 2001 Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget To Date Balance Expenses EXPENDITURES Seagate Culverts Engineering Construction WMB &P $0 $8,071 $0 $0 $8,071 $8,071 $0 $0 Engineering Design WMB &P $9,108 $3,277 $0 $0 $12,385 $12,385 $0 $0 Capital Improvements $0 $88,240 $0 $0 $88,240 $88.240 $0 $0 Sub -Total $9,108 $99,588 $0 $0 $108,696 $108,696 $0 $0 Ecosystem Enhancements Environmental Consultants $0 $3,750 $0 $110,700 $114,450 $3,750 $110,700 $0 Other Contractual Serv. $0 $0 $25,198 $262,600 $287,798 $25,198 $262,600 $0 Capital Improvements $0 $0 $8,250 $0 $8,250 $8,250 $0 $0 Sub -Total $0 $3,750 $33,448 $373,300 $410,498 $37,198 $373,300 $0 Fresh /Stormwater Analysis Engineering Fees $0 $0 $16,980 $3,020 $20,000 $16,980 $3,020 $0 Environmental Consult. Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Turrell & Associates $26,455 $56,045 $0 $0 $82,500 $82,500 $0 $0 Other Contractual Serv. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Operating Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Improvements $0 $0 $38,817 $6,624 $45.441 $38.817 $6,624 $0 Sub -Total $26,455 $56,045 $55,797 $9,644 $147,941 $138,297 $9,644 $0 Capital Outlay Improvements General $15,459 $0 $950 $0 $16,409 $16.409 $0 $0 Other Machinery & Equip. $4,727 $13,986 $0 $0 $18.713 $18.713 $0 $0 Sub -Total $20,186 $13,986 $950 50 $35,122 $35,122 $0 $0 Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector $23,041 $0 $0 $1,300 $24.341 $23.041 $1.300 $0 Property Appraiser $8,637 $0 $0 $1,900 $10,537 $8.637 $1,900 $0 Revenue Reserve $0 $0 $0 $3.400 $3.400 $0 $3.400 $0 Sub -Total $31,678 $0 $0 $6,600 538,278 $31,678 $6,600 $0 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $1,316,291 $425,096 $381,454 $752,897 $2,875,739 $2,122,865 $752,874 $23 Rolled Encumbrances which are included in Total Approp. $95,797 ACCOUNTSPAYABLE DATE INV. NO. AMOUNT Aquagenix 10/13/01 307 -2090 $996.50 Turrell & Associates 10/22/01 10 -22 -01 $15.086.04 TOTAL INVOICES $16.082.54 NOTE: WCI THRU 10/31/01 WCI: BILLED TO DATE WCI: PAID TO DATE $948,550.53 $948,550.53 Page 2 16J1 COLLIER COUNTY PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR ONE (1) MONTH ENDING OCTOBER 31, 2001 GENERAL FUNDS Page 1 Prorated Water Community Street Total Rev/Exp F.Y. 2002 Oct -01 Favorable Management Beautification Lights Security Thru October Budget Budget Unfavorable Revenue Interest Income $964 $11,783 $1,739 $1,864 $16,351 $60,400 $5,033 $11.318 Plan Review Fee Income $630 $0 $0 $0 $630 $5,000 $417 $213 Interfund Transfers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Assessment or Ad- Valorem Tax Levy $0 $1,340 $379 $681 $2,400 $2,536,900 $0 $2.400 Unappropriated Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $224,851 $0 $0 Total Revenue $1,594 $13,123 $2,118 $2,546 - $19,381 $2,827,151 $5,450 $13,931 Other Fees & Charges Property Appraiser $0 $0 $736 $1,322 $2,058 $50,700 $2,058 $0 Tax Collector $10 $27 $9 $16 $62 $74,600 $62 $0 Revenue Reserve $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $144,200 $0 $0 Total Other Fees & Charges $10 $27 $745 $1,338 $2,120 $269,500 $2,120 $0 NET REVENUE11 $1,584 $13,096 $1,373 $1,208: $17,261 $2,557,651 $3,330 $13,931 Appropriations - Personal Services Personal Services - Admin. $2,386 $2,402 $2,137 n/a : $6,925 $120,000 $10,000 $3,075 Personal Services - Field $7.900 $49,798 $1,321 n/a $59.018 $954,000 $79,500 $20.482 Total Personal Services $10,286 $52,199 $3,458 $0 $65,943 $1,074,000 $89,500 $23557 Appropriations - Operations Administration Indirect Cost Reimbursements $143,000 $0 $10,500 n/a $153,500 $153,500 $153,500 $0 Other Contractual Services $3,449 $3,489 $1,320 n/a $8,258 $69,000 $5,750 ($2,508) Telephone - Service Contracts $31 $31 $24 n/a $86 $2,000 $167 $81 Telephone - Direct Line $444 $444 $336 n/a $1,223 $7,000 $583 ($640) Postage, Freight & Ups $93 $93 $80 n/a $265 $13,000 $1,083 $818 Rent - Buildings $1,288 $1,327 $1,288 n/a $3,903 $23,900 $1,992 ($1,911) Rent - Equipment $0 $0 $0 n/a . $0 $3,900 $325 $325 Lease Purchase Dell Computers $93 $0 $0 n/a $93 $1,100 $92 ) M) Insurance - General $4.000 $600 $500 n/a $5,100 $5,100 $425 ($4,675) Data Processing - R &M $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $900 $75 $75 Printing or Binding - Outside Vendors $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $4,000 $333 $333 Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. $100 $0 $0 n/a $100 $4.000 $333 $233 Legal Advertising $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $6,000 $500 $500 Office Supplies - General $0 $0 $0 n/a . $0 $3,500 $292 $292 Copying Charges $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $1,400 $117 $117 Minor Office Equipment $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $600 $50 $50 Computer Software $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $300 $25 $25 Other Training & Educational Exp. $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $400 $33 $33 Other Operating Supplies $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $400 $33 $33 Total Administration $152,497 $5,983 $149048 $0 $172528 $300,000 $165,708 ($6,820) Field Services Engineering & Consultants $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $15,651 $1,304 $1,304 Berm & Swale Maintenance $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $5,000 $417 $417 Water Quality Testing $2,322 $0 $0 n/a.' $2.322 $13,900 $1,158 ($1.164) Plan Review Services $0 $0 $0 n/a. $0 $5,000 $417 $417 Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR ONE (1) MONTH ENDING OCTOBER 31, 2001 16J I GENERAL FUNDS Fleet Maintenance - Parts $0 $0 $0 n/a Fleet Maint. Non ISF $0 $0 $0 n/a Boat R&M $0 $0 $0 n/a Other Equipment R &M $0 $1,198 $320 n/a Photo Processing $0 $0 $0 n/a Licenses & Permits $0 $0 $0 n/a Uniform Rental $32 $85 $0 n/a R Chemicals $0 $0 $0 n/a Fuel & Lubricants - Outside $0 $0 $0 n/a Fuel & Lubricants - Inside $0 $0 $0 n/a Minor Operating Equipment $0 $276 $0 n/a Other Training & Educational $0 $95 $0 n/a Other Operating Supplies $0 $4,620 $5,678 n/a Total Field Services $11,356 $45,068 $14,598 $11 Capital Outlay Capital Expenditures $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Capital Outlay $0 SO $0 $0 Security Personal Services $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Contractual Services $0 $0 $0 $22.700 Total Security Operations $0 $0 $0 $22,700 TOTAL APPROPRIA' Net Income from Operations ($172,555) ($90,154) ($30,731) ($21,492) Fund Balance c@i 10 /l /O1 $445,059 $744,545 $139.120 $153,540 Fund Balance @ October 31, 2001 $272,505 $654,391 $108,389 $132,047 Fund Balance Allocations Reserved for Operations $208,105 $490,291 $104,989 $128,047 Reserved for Capital Outlay $64,400 $164,100 $3,400 $4,000 Note: Fund Balance at 10 /1 /O1 (actual) includes Reserve for Encumbrances of $15,050.50 Page 2 Prorated Total Rev/Exp F.Y. 2002 Oct -01 Favoi Thru October Budget Budget Unfav, $92 $35,500 $2,958 $258 $42,300 $3,525 $31,139 $198,900 $16,575 ($ $0 $300 $25 $48 $2,000 $167 $5 $200 $17 $1,618 $26,600 $2,217 $488 $15,100 $1,258 $53 $9,400 $783 $12,300 $12,300 $1,025 ($ $10,100 $10,100 $842 $295 $17,600 $1,467 $0 $44,200 $3,683 $0 $1,100 $92 $0 $7,900 $658 $0 $12,300 $1,025 $0 $2,400 $200 $0 $500 $42 $1,518 $2,700 $225 $0 $200 $17 $0 $700 $58 $117 $9.200 $767 $0 $111100 $9,342 $0 $700 $58 $0 $13,800 $1,150 $276 $3,200 $267 $95 $1,200 $100 $10,298 $46.400 $3.867 $71,022 $668,451 $55,704 (9 $152,200 $12,683 $0 $152,200 $12,683 $0 $0 $0 $22.700 $363,000 $363,000 $22,700 $363,000 $363,000 ($314,932) $1,482,264 $1,167,332 $0 ($683.266) $591.300 $591,300 $931,432 $368,000 $235,900 $223,300 $12.683 $12,683 $0 $340.300 $340,300 $368,335 Water C Community S Street Management B Beautification L Lights S Securi Water Use Charges $ $0 $ $92 $ $0 I Replanting Program $ $0 $ $258 $ $0 Other Contractual Services $ $3,934 $ $22,765 $ $4,440 Motor Pool Rental $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 Cellular Telephone ( ($58) $ $65 $ $41 Postage, Freight & Ups $ $0 $ $5 $ $0 Electricity $ $0 $ $99 $ $1,519 In/a Trash & Dumpster Fees $ $325 $ $163 $ $0 Rent Equipment $ $0 $ $53 $ $0 Insurance General $ $2,000 $ $9,500 $ $800 Auto Insurance $ $2,800 $ $5,500 $ $1,800 Sprinkler System Maintenance $ $0 $ $295 $ $0 Maintenance - Landscaping $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 Autos & Trucks R &M Outside Vendor $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 Fleet Maintenance - Labor $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 TOTAL APPROPRIA' Net Income from Operations ($172,555) ($90,154) ($30,731) ($21,492) Fund Balance c@i 10 /l /O1 $445,059 $744,545 $139.120 $153,540 Fund Balance @ October 31, 2001 $272,505 $654,391 $108,389 $132,047 Fund Balance Allocations Reserved for Operations $208,105 $490,291 $104,989 $128,047 Reserved for Capital Outlay $64,400 $164,100 $3,400 $4,000 Note: Fund Balance at 10 /1 /O1 (actual) includes Reserve for Encumbrances of $15,050.50 Page 2 Prorated Total Rev/Exp F.Y. 2002 Oct -01 Favoi Thru October Budget Budget Unfav, $92 $35,500 $2,958 $258 $42,300 $3,525 $31,139 $198,900 $16,575 ($ $0 $300 $25 $48 $2,000 $167 $5 $200 $17 $1,618 $26,600 $2,217 $488 $15,100 $1,258 $53 $9,400 $783 $12,300 $12,300 $1,025 ($ $10,100 $10,100 $842 $295 $17,600 $1,467 $0 $44,200 $3,683 $0 $1,100 $92 $0 $7,900 $658 $0 $12,300 $1,025 $0 $2,400 $200 $0 $500 $42 $1,518 $2,700 $225 $0 $200 $17 $0 $700 $58 $117 $9.200 $767 $0 $111100 $9,342 $0 $700 $58 $0 $13,800 $1,150 $276 $3,200 $267 $95 $1,200 $100 $10,298 $46.400 $3.867 $71,022 $668,451 $55,704 (9 $152,200 $12,683 $0 $152,200 $12,683 $0 $0 $0 $22.700 $363,000 $363,000 $22,700 $363,000 $363,000 ($314,932) $1,482,264 $1,167,332 $0 ($683.266) $591.300 $591,300 $931,432 $368,000 $235,900 $223,300 $12.683 $12,683 $0 $340.300 $340,300 $368,335 Note: Fund Balance at 10 /1 /O1 (actual) includes Reserve for Encumbrances of $15,050.50 Page 2 Prorated Total Rev/Exp F.Y. 2002 Oct -01 Favoi Thru October Budget Budget Unfav, $92 $35,500 $2,958 $258 $42,300 $3,525 $31,139 $198,900 $16,575 ($ $0 $300 $25 $48 $2,000 $167 $5 $200 $17 $1,618 $26,600 $2,217 $488 $15,100 $1,258 $53 $9,400 $783 $12,300 $12,300 $1,025 ($ $10,100 $10,100 $842 $295 $17,600 $1,467 $0 $44,200 $3,683 $0 $1,100 $92 $0 $7,900 $658 $0 $12,300 $1,025 $0 $2,400 $200 $0 $500 $42 $1,518 $2,700 $225 $0 $200 $17 $0 $700 $58 $117 $9.200 $767 $0 $111100 $9,342 $0 $700 $58 $0 $13,800 $1,150 $276 $3,200 $267 $95 $1,200 $100 $10,298 $46.400 $3.867 $71,022 $668,451 $55,704 (9 $152,200 $12,683 $0 $152,200 $12,683 $0 $0 $0 $22.700 $363,000 $363,000 $22,700 $363,000 $363,000 ($314,932) $1,482,264 $1,167,332 $0 ($683.266) $591.300 $591,300 $931,432 $368,000 $235,900 $223,300 $12.683 $12,683 $0 $340.300 $340,300 $368,335 $152,200 $12,683 $0 $152,200 $12,683 $0 $0 $0 $22.700 $363,000 $363,000 $22,700 $363,000 $363,000 ($314,932) $1,482,264 $1,167,332 $0 ($683.266) $591.300 $591,300 $931,432 $368,000 $235,900 $223,300 $12.683 $12,683 $0 $340.300 $340,300 $368,335 COLLIER COUNTY PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 16J 1 STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR ONE (1) MONTH ENDING OCTOBER 31, 2001 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Net Income from Operations Fund Balance @ 10/1/01 (Actual) Fund Balance @ October 31, 2001 Fund Balance Allocations Reserved for Operations Reserved for Capital Outlay $74,651 $8,919 $57,474 $441,465 $1,079,967 $626,457 $516,116 $1,088,886 $683,931 $516,116 $0 $683,931 $0 $1,088,886 $0 $141,044 $0 $2,147,888 $1,108,100 $2,288,932 $1,108,100 $1,200,047 $0 $1,088,886 $1,108,100 Note: Fund Balance At 10/1/01 (Actual) includes Reserve for Encumbrances of $439,531.66 Page 3 $23,742 $117,302 Prorated Clam Bay Uninsured Irr. & Land. Total Rev/Exp F.Y. 2002 Oct -01 Favorable System Assets Analysis Thru Sept. Budget Budget Unfavorable Revenue Developer Contributions - WCI $0 $0 $0 $0 41,600 $3,467 ($3,467) Interest Income $3,949 $8,919 $7,150 $20,017 84,700 $7,058 $12,959 Miscellaneous Income $0 $0 0 $0 $0 Interfund Transfers $70,725 $0 $137,500 $208,225 832,900 $208,225 $0 Assessment or Ad- Valorem Tax Levy $0 $0 $288 $288 360,700 $0 $288 Unappropriated Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 1,056,832 $0 $0 Total Revenue $74,674 $8,919 $144,938 $228,530 $2,376,732 $218,750 $9,780 Other Fees & Charges Property Appraiser $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,200 $0 $0 Tax Collector $0 $0 $6 $6 $10,500 $6 $0 Revenue Reserve $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,000 $0 $0 Total Other Fees & Charges $0 $0 $6 $6 $36,700 $6 $0 NET REVENUE11 $74,674 $8,919 $144,932 $228,525 $2,340,032 $218,744 $9,780 Appropriations: Engineering & Consultants $0 n/a $0 $0 $348,013 $29,001 $29,001 Other Services $23 n/a $87,458 $87,481 $1,747,904 $145,659 $58,178 Capital Outlay $0 $0 $0 $0 $244,114 $20,343 $20,343 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS11 $23 $0 $87,458 $87,481 $2,340,032 $195,003 $107,522 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance @ 10/1/01 (Actual) Fund Balance @ October 31, 2001 Fund Balance Allocations Reserved for Operations Reserved for Capital Outlay $74,651 $8,919 $57,474 $441,465 $1,079,967 $626,457 $516,116 $1,088,886 $683,931 $516,116 $0 $683,931 $0 $1,088,886 $0 $141,044 $0 $2,147,888 $1,108,100 $2,288,932 $1,108,100 $1,200,047 $0 $1,088,886 $1,108,100 Note: Fund Balance At 10/1/01 (Actual) includes Reserve for Encumbrances of $439,531.66 Page 3 $23,742 $117,302 Memorandum 16J1 E To: Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee From: James P. Ward Date: November 27, 2001 Subject: Collier County False Alarm Ordinance Attached for your information, is a copy of the False Alarm Ordinance that was adopted by the Collier County Commission at their October 23, 2001 meeting and became effective on November 1, 2001. Pelican Bay Services 1- 9- 0':1J:;.z- M::,.:': =�L _11I SioN ;941 7939168 ORDINANCE NO. 2001- -, fi_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUN'TIk ORDINANCE 'NO. 97 -8, THE FALSE ALARM ORDINANCE; ELIMINATING FALSE ALARM REPORT FORMS; REQUIRING AN ANNUAL REGISTRATION FORM FOR EACH FALSE ALARM SYSTEM; ELIMINATING FINE FOR SECOND FALSE ALARM; AUTHORIZING NOTICE TO APPEAR IN COURT FOR SIXTH OR SUBSEQUENT FALSE ALARMS; PROVIDING FOR FALSE ALARM PREVENTION EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM CLASSES AND CERTIFICATES OF ATTENDANCE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE WITH A DEFERRED ENFORCEMENT DATE OF NOVEMBER 1, 2001. # 2/ 12 12 3468) 6� �O Cam, a ISE� WHEREAS, as of April 1, 1997, the Collier County False Alarm Ordinance became effective; and 16J? WHEREAS, the initial false alarm Ordinance provided that False Alarm Report Forms had to be filed to report each False Alarm; and ;7- WHEREAS, the False Alarm Ordinance is administered by the Sliefi'fP!fvffli and WHEREAS, The Sheriff's Offices desires to eliminate such repor{"t and WHEREAS, The Sheriffs Offices desires that fines for False Alar&Ls Lobe E5::.-4 (_n applied until the third or subsequent false alarm occurs at the respective Soured Premises and that a notice to appear for a mandatory court appearance not be authorized until the sixth or higher False Alarm occurs at the respective Secured Premises; and WHEREAS, the Sheriff's Office desires to institute and maintain an educational program that false alarm users may attend to learn to better prevent false alarms; and WHEREAS, a "Certificate of Attendance" at a false alarm prevention class can be credited to the respective Secured Premises to void one past or future false alarm incident except for a sixth or higher False Alarm at such Premises; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners accepts all amendments recommended by the Sheriffs Office. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Ordinance No. 97 -8, the Collier County "False .1111111 Ordinance" is hereby amended as follows: Text underlined is added; text stF"elc44'r-etig13 is deleted. G 3 1. C._,2�.M: a_— =�L _ , 5 Ol o941193916B a - 2 SECTION ONE: Collier County Ordinance No. 97 -8, the "Collier County False Alarm Ordinance" (codified as Article 5 of the County's Code of taws and Ordinances) is hereby amended as follows: 16J1 5RCTION ONE: This Ordinance is titled and should be cited as the "Collier County I-alse Alarm Ordinance." SECTION TWO: DRUINITiONS. As used herein, the following terms shall have the specified meanings unless another meaning is dearly required by the context: Enforcement official means the Sheriff of Collier County, each Deputy sheriff, and /or any authorized representative or designee of the Sheriff. False alarm means activation of a security alarm signal caused by something other than an actual or attempted forccd or unauthorized entry into or forced or unauthorized exit from the secured premises, and which signal results in a law enforcement response. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a security alarm signal is a false alarm whenever an enforcement officer responds to an alarm signal and the responding officer determines that the alarm signal was triggered by (a) a cause other than an attempted or actual forced or unauthorized entry into or forccd or unauthorized exit from the secured premises, or (b) by intentional activation of that alarm sigal based upon a good faith, reasonable mistake that a crime was being committed at the secured premises. Official response means when any enforcement officer responds by traveling to a secured premises in response to a security alarm signal from that premises. Owner means owner of the secured premises, including each co -owner of co- owned property, including, and not limited to, each tenant by the entireties, each joint tenant, and each tenant in common. Premises means any residence, any building or stricture, and any apartment, office, condominium, or any other unit thereof. Responsible party means (a) each owner, (b) each 18 years or older occupant of the secured premises, and (c) each tenant and each subtenant, and (d) other persons or entities, if any, that have by written agreement with the owner agreed to be responsible for false alarms emitted from that secured premises. Secured Premises means the premises intended to be protected by the security alarm system. Security alarm malfunction means emission of any alarm sibmal caused by mechanical failure, improper system design, equipment malfunction, improper maintenance or lack of maintenance, power failure or power surge, or other substantially 2 Text underlined is added: text stntrek4hf�eugh is deleted. >>- 9- 0i:10:52"V:P17g0L DIVIS,ON ;94,7939te3 # 4, 12 16J I similar cause. Malfunctions do not include any accidental activation of the alarm signal by an action that the system was designed to be triggered by. Security alarm system means any alarm device that is used to emit a signal to alert persons of an attempted or actual forced entry into or forced or unauthorized exit from the secured premises, and which system emits a signal (electrical impulse and /or tone) to prompt an official response from any Colter County enforcement officer. Excluded are (1) alarm devices that emit alarm signals because of unauthorized acts to a vehicle, and (2) systems installed by a telephone company to protect only the company's telephone equipment. Signal means a power impulse or audible tone emitted from a security alarm system which indicates that a true or false alarm has occurred. Vacant means premises that are not physically occupied by any responsible adult at any time during an official response by an enforcement officer. SECTiON THltrir?: RESPONSIBILITY FOR SECURITY ALARM SYSTEM AND FALSE ALARMS; REQUIRED RESPONSE. (a) Responsibility for Security Alarm Systems. Neither the County, nor the Sheriff's Office, nor any member of either shall have or assume any responsibility for the installation, repair, maintenance, operation, or effectiveness of any security alarm system not then owned by Collier County. Responsibilities for false alarms emitted by the respective security alarm system rest solely, jointly and severally, with each responsible party. Each active security alarm system in unincorporated Collier County must always have at least one (1) responsible party. No person or entity shall maintain any security alarm system that automatically dials the statewide emergency telephone number (currently "911 "), or any other telephone number assigned to the Sheriffs Office except as then required by federal law, state law, or county ordinance. (b) Responsibility For false Alarms. T?ach owner of the secured premises is primarily responsible under this Ordinance for false alarms at the secured premises. Owners may by lease or other written agreement assign that primary responsibility to persons or entities that occupy the secured premises, or to managers of the secured premises; however, failure of any such non -owner to fully comply with any warning or citation under this Ordinance shall render the owner responsible for such false alarms and the resulting penalties. Fach responsible party is jointly and severally 3 Text underlined is added; text stIF! e}e4Fet -t4i is deleted. i +- -O �0: 62:.M: PaTPCL p,v ISI OBI ;9417939169 # S/ 12 16JI responsible under this Ordinance for all false alarms at the respective p cove secured premises. ER PRO .. SF,CTION DOUR: WARNING Olt CITATION OF FAr Sr ALARM V IOI,ATIONS. (a) First and Second False Alarm. A written warning shall be issued for the first and second false alarm at the respective tM secured premises....r.:i The warning may be left at the secured premises or otherwise delivered to a responsible party. The warning may be left at a conspicuous place within a vacant secured premises, or may be left with any adult occupant, employee, or agent of an occupant of an occupied secured premise. Alternatively, the warning may be mailed to any responsible party by regular United States mail, but if returned undelivered, then mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by actual service by any other lawful service of process. (b) Third Seeand and Subsequent False Alarms. An enforcement official may issue a citation of a false alarm violation of this Ordinance for the third second or any other subsequent false alarm that occurs at that secured premises within 180 days of the last false alarm at that premises. The citation may be served upon any responsible party by any lawful service of process. (c) For the sixth or more false alarm~ at the secured premise,, a "Notice to Appear" (in Courtl can be issued, which "Notice" shall require Prompt payment of a 5100 fine or a mandatory court apl2carance rf the St100 fine is pai its (late_ the mandatory cour`t�n�ne�rance will thereby he canceLeP Failure to ply the 100 fine by its due date will require tile specifiul mand rmry court air ���nr� unfus otherwis • continued or excused. The lodge or other trier of fact can se z inc froLU.Sj 00 to S30O.PILIS other li h costs, 4 Text underlined is added; text &IFUek- 0jr,9ttgh is deleted. - ; :) : ', -M : P. -- LIL -,' ! - I I C*J 16J 1 SECTION FIVEL: FAI-SRALARNI RFGISTI;LATION FORNIS, REPORT !'ORNI GoRREGT-1v A4-:T1oN-. ....... "Mr PW (1) The full name(m), itddres4, home ftnd/or work feiephafte number of ftt least one-(4) responsible individuit! regarding the Unl&js it is obyioug that the'Allmn .-.,,,Ie-red by at cattse other than a syttfem mnifidne6on, the And-m ieehtliciam or tmot] eftuses of S fol good kith totempt i4 mode to prevent thitt Eype Text underlined is added: text SAF+Iek tlwouo is deleted. 1 � - 9 -0,: 0:! -,_' +;FP ' -Ion DIVISION ;941 7939168 # 7/ 12 (a) No Security Alarm System installed on or after Nov tuber 1, 2001, shall be operated unril a completed Form the SherifPs False 1 Unit Alarm Registration Form has been received by the Collier County Registration Form Sheriff's is required Office for each raise Alarm pit A senarate secutity'alarm system The Registration Dorm shall be supplied by the Sheriff's Office or the Zlarm company and shall he filled n �r rnmpletely withthe required information 0) For each Security alarm system that was installed at the-secured premises prior to November 1 2001 the completed Registration Form must he filed not later than five (51 week days of the first false aiurm that occurs aft r November 1, 2001. (c) each Registration Dorm shall automarically expire three hundFed and sixty five (365) days after its date of issuance rich registration renewal must b received by The Sheriffs False ggistration Dorm expires. At Alarm 11nit before the then effective (cast thirty (30) d , before the expiration dare of each then effective Registrarioij Form the SherifPs False 1 Unit will attempt to provide wrirt n notice of the need to renew that form Id) No Registration Dorm shall ,c trinsf rred to any other person, enemy, or site (c) Not inter than five (5 week days nfter each respective ch,-tngc..a responsible person for the respective security alarm.system shaiLmail or otherwise deliver to the Sheriffs Office hnlse Alarm Unit written notice of nil changes that alter any informarion in the then cur t ne t Regi,,mation Form �)_T ach Registrarion Dorm must includ the following information (1) 'rile full name(s)- mailing address resides a and/ work place, telephone member of at least one responsible person re rding the re�sncctive security alarm 2 c name, mlili ildress,md , system at that sec jred premises tclel)ljQDQ_Djjml)Cr le, s o 1 authorized individual represcmariye of a respons' >le person who can be immcdinrcly notiftc(l at that secured prcmisc•� (3 1 f pplicnble ro rile ecured Icicnhone nnmher(.\ of in tl.c evct,r Of n false �iarm �r any_ emery premitieti, t. he name and 24 hour the individual or enrity monitoring; rile respective security alma„ sysr gin Text underlined is added; text stalek gh is deleted. 9- O ;1c:2 IV; - -- ..._JIViS .. ;g4��939i59 # 3,i2 bbl (4) Any clangemus or special conditions Present at the Secured Pr micec that would he of value to the HEM, of security o, f a resPonding person or to the secured premis "s 45) Other information that may assist responding persons in the event that a false alarm occurs at the secured Premises (c;) information contained in the registration application form iss confidential and is exempt from Public disclosure to the exten authorized in Section 281.301 h]orida Starutes,as now or hereafter amended or c„perceded, which as of Novemb 1 2001 ies to propelu owned by or leased the State of Florida or an o� f its 'political subdivisions, including Collier County. and to every other public or private agenq, person. partnership co option. or business entity acting on behalf of any public ggnry-m now or hereafter defined in, or incornorat by reference into Subsection 119.011 21, Florida Statiues. (h) Failure to register or renew a complete Registration Form by its due date shall be a separate violation of this Arricic and shall require p�t payment of a late fee of $25.00. Late fees are in addition to fines SFCTTON SIX: FALSE ALARM 13111-VFNTiON PROGRAM. (a) The Shyriffs Office will ProvidcCi(ucational pril;rarn classes for the prevention of false alarms and shall allow individuals to attend any false alarm Prevention program class. T:ach person who attends a fake alarm prevenrion program class must pay a fee of $5.00 to cover some of the administrative costs This fee must be Pain before or at the time of attcnclance rt the program class. (li) \frer attcn(lance at a proirrim class l)yaPerson associate frith the respective secured premises the Sheriffs Offrc shall issue one 1) "Certificate of Attendance" to the credit of that respective secured premise. The cc rificate may be used by a representative of the secured premises to void one (1) prior or one (1) fuhrre fa15e alarm including the penalties that wcnild otheEMSe result from that fahe alarm No ccrtificare shall apply to a sixth or hit; i u false alarm SECTION SEN Si-,V]--,N: I ,\1,ST ALARM FINES; i?XC ETTiONS. (a) False Alarm Dines. A written warning (for tl,c firsr and second False aianni) does not require payment of a fine. After a citation fora 111iLl jeeafttj or suhsequcnt false alarm violation is issued, a responsible parry shall, within 7 Text pnderlined is added; text stt:velE -tat h is deleted. t1- 9 -01; 10: 52.M; � TROL DIVISION ;9417939168 # 9 12 16JI thirty (30) days of the date of that alarm, pay to the Clerk of the Courts a false alarm civil fine as follows: FALSE ALARM FINE SCHEDULE Number of False Alarms Within a 180 Day Period False Alarm Fine Per False Alarm: First Response ............... Must File - Repsre; Warning issuel no false alarm fine. Second Response............ 14le Report p64 $75.00 Warning issued, no false alarm fine, Third Response .............. File - Report plus Citation issued: $75.00 fine. Fourth Response ............ Pile - Report pits Citation issued: $75.00 fine. Five or mare Responses! ... 1"ile Report,- flklffidatoty eourt appeaf-ftnee and fille of Otot le84 than $100-00 nor more than $300.00 Fifth Response .......... Citation issued: 175.00 fine Sixth or more Responses Notice to Appear issued and a 5100 00 fine if the fine is paid on time. "Timely payment of the $100,00 fine cancels that mandatory court appearance Mandatory court appearance can result in a fine of not less than $100 nor more than 5300.00 at the discretion of the trier of fact (b). r;xceptions: (1) 180 Days Without a False Alarm. If one hundred eighty (180) days pass without a false alarm from the respective alarm system, a "clean slate" status shall be automatically granted to that system if each Report has been filed and all false alarm fines arising out of every prior false alarm for that system have been paid. The first false alarm after "clean slate" status shall require only a written warning; and shall commence a new 180 clay time period form subsequent false alarms from that alarm System. (2) New Alarm System installed. Installation of an entirely new security alarm system at the secured premises, upon written notice of same to the Sheriff's Office and all prior false alarm fines and late fee; are paid, shall be classified as a new system and shall be treated as an alarm system that had no prior false alarm(s) — "clean Blare" status. (3) Good Faith Mistake of Crime Being Committed. No person shall violate this Ordinance by intentionally setting off a security alarm signal to prompt an official response if that was alarm set off based upon a reasonable mistake of fact that a crime was then being committed at the secured premises. The responding enforcement official will determine 8 Text underlined is added; text stiitel 4hr -eugh is deleted. 16J 1 whether there was a reasonable mistake of fact to justify that intentional activation of that alarm signal. If excused, that alarm shall not be counted as a false alarm. SECTION ; �FVFN FUGHT. FNFORCEIIIF.NT AND PENALTY PROVISIONS. (a) incorporation of Section 1 -6 of the County Code of Laws and Ordinances, in addition to all enforcement provisions specified in this Ordinance, and as provided for in Section 125.69, Florida Statues, any person who shall violate any provision of this Ordinance shall, at the election of the County, be subject to the enforcement provisions of Section 1 -6 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, excluding possible imprisonment, except for contempt of court. Violations of this Ordinance may be referred by the Sheriff to the Code Enforcement Board for enforcement pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statwes, including filing liens against the secured premises. (b) Joint and Severable Responsibility to Pay Fees and Fines. All fees and /or fines charged under this Ordinance shall be an obligation owned jointly and severally by each responsible party. lees and fines shall be paid to the Clerk of Court within the time periods specified in this Ordinance except as may be ordered otherwise by a trial judge. Prompt payment of each false alarm fine shall clear and settle that false alarm violation, but shall not affect the Bury to file Registration Dorm. (c) Fines and Costs imposed by Court. lines and costs imposed against a responsible party are to be distributed as follows: F've Iur dollars OH -.AAA 5.001 to the Clerk of the Courts as an administration fee, and the balance of the finds of each fine is to be deposited in the fine and forfeitures fund of the Sheriffs Office to offset the Sheriffs operating budget costs. SECTION TWO: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event that this Ordinance• conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. if any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is helei invalid or unconstirutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall he deemed separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding; shall not affect the validiry of the remaining portion. 9 Text underlined is added; text stft'elc4hT --et& is deleted. i- 9- 01;t0:52AM:PATPOL OIVISIOrl ;9417939168 n 11/ i2 SECTION THREE: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND 16JI ORDINANCES. The Provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re- lettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. SECTION FOUR: EFFECTIVE DATE — ENFORCEMENT DEFERRED. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State, but shall not be enforced until 12:01 A.M. on the 1" day of November, 2001. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, l'lorida, this 1913 =� day of nt?.TD L2 E9— , 2001. ATTEST-".*., 11Y= 7'1110i„K, BOARD Ol- COUNTY COAL IISSIONERS t4st• -.is to ChalrfanCtOI.i.lislt COUNTI',1 1.0] t��are: ally. >•C By: Il facrk IAMB -S . CARTE It. Ph -D., CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and Legal sufficiency: Thomas C. Palmcr Assistant ('aunt), Attorney This ordinonc^ kith the Secretary of S1o;:-.'s Office the c22ddny of Qom, X40 and acknowledgement of that filing received this ,2 heg day of�ov• Deputy ci.lk ..cafe of FLORIDA County of COLLIER I HEREBY CERTIFY l correct oopy of a d**' &rill Board Minutoe WITNESS tray :tl day of DWIGHT E. BROCi' 10 Text underlined is added: text st^• r—eugh Is deleted. as 11- 9- 01;10:52AM;PATR0L CIVIS131A ;9417939168 4 12 _ 16J1 STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of: ORDINANCE NO. 2001 -56 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 23rd day of October, 2001, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 24t1, d of October, 2001. ay c D c r M! .� >. = : - o n 0 DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Court s.• ; ad:1 k,w Ex- officio to .>�gard...o' County Commission; {� By:Teri Mich Z'g Deputy Clerk' -Ti 9� X71 10 Fiala _ 16JI Carter Henning _ MINUTES O%PEL6iRV.�U MEETING OF DECEMBER 5, 2001 L— Nsploc, Florida LET IT BE KNOWN, that the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee met in Regular Session on this date, December 5, 2001 at 3:00 P.M. at the Foundation Center, 8269 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108 with the following members present: Mr. Lou Vlasho Mr. Joseph Bawduniak Mr. Thomas Brown (Absent) Mr. James Burke Mr. James Carroll Mr. John Domenie Mr. Glen Harrell (Absent) Mrs. Cornelia Kriegh Mr. David Roellig Mr. Christopher Sutphin Mr. George Werner ALSO PRESENT: Approximately sixteen (16) Pelican Bay residents; Dr. James D. Carter, Ph.D. Chairman, Collier County Board of County Commissioners; Mr. James P. Ward, Department Director, Pelican Bay Services Division; Mr. Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager, Pelican Bay Services Division and Mrs. Barbara Smith, Recording Secretary. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of the Minutes of the November 7, 2001 Regular Meeting 3. General Topics — Commissioner James D. Carter, Ph.D. 4. Sub - committee Reports - Organization Structure Review Sub - committee - PBSD Revised Ordinance Enactment - Clam Bay Sub - Committee - Clam Bay Second Annual Monitoring Report Recommendations - Clam Bay Annual Monitoring & Improvement Schedule - Cattail Removal - Clam Pass Dredging 5. Administrator's Report - Capital Projects - Pelican Bay Boulevard (South Entrance) to Gulf Park Drive Irrigation & Landscape Improvements - Community Issues - U.S. 41 Landscaping - Sidewalk Overlays and Repairs - North Pelican Bay Boulevard Traffic Signal - Sidewalk, Crosswalk Modifications F"Se. cok cs: - U.S. 41 Street Lighting (Gulf Park Drive to Seagate Drive) - Financial Statement Review 6. Committee Requests 7. Audience Participation 8. Adjourn ROLL CALL ! Mr. Vlasho called the meeting to order and asked that the record show Messrs. Thomas Brown and Glen Harrell with excused absences. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 7 2001 REGULAR MEETING 4671 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 Mr. Bawduniak moved, seconded by Mr. Roellig and approved unanimously the Minutes of the November 7, 2001 Meeting GENERAL TOPICS - COMMISSIONER JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D. 16J1 Commissioner Carter explained that he just wanted to bring everybody up -to -date on a few items. Commissioner Carter reported that U.S. 41 North, as far as the six -lane paving would be done by the end of this month. This Commissioner has been relentless on the Department of Transportation for the last six months. They kept promising me they would have it done by December 30'h and based on everything that has been going on out there the last two weeks, I think they are going to get there. There will still be some improvements to be made along the sides and there may be a disruption here and there. Now we can say that this is probably the best Christmas present this community will get. Commissioner Carter explained that with regard to the median beautification, you can see that they have been working along there. This morning they were doing some additional curbing and irrigation lines and I have been told that within sixty days that project will be complete. When you get into season this year it should look better in front of Pelican Bay, with the traffic moving better here and in the other communities north of here, up to Old U.S. 41. To me, it is good news that we are finally getting that into place. Commissioner Carter stated that we are going to be holding a Land Development Code (LDC) Meeting next week and during the first week of January. We have gone to three cycles versus two to meet the growing demands and needs of this community. It is a very slow process to get change and effect. The biggest thing that affects the North District and may not pertain so much to Pelican Bay, but the Vanderbilt Beach area, is that effective January 1 they will be under a restudy. Translated, that means that nothing can be done in there until that study has been completed, in terms of transportation and how that community will look in the future, without any redevelopment activities. Keep in mind that you will see one project that is trying to wing its way 4672 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 through the system prior to January 1, which is the Vanderbilt Beach Inn, and there is a proposal to do a major change. Unless you want to go to Vegas and lay odds on that one, I would suggest you just sit back and watch. In opinion, this will not get approved and they will begin to operate under the new guidelines, but I am only one Board member and I don't know where the rest of the Board will be on that issue. Commissioner Carter reported that the new library should be open in January and that is at Orange Tree Drive and Airport Road and it is beautiful. Also, I was able to save out of the cost cutting and slicing and dicing of our budget, the government center that will be adjacent to that to serve the North District. A new Commissioner tried to get after that and I explained to him the lease fees would pay for the cost of the financing and if he comes back and asks me again, I have $600,000 down in the City that I would raise questions about intersection improvements and I think that objection would go away. We have saved that for the District. We did not encounter really severe cuts in the budget as it pertains to District 2. 1 think you will find most of the things are there and we will be able to go forward to meet these needs, as this is a fast growing section of Collier County. Commissioner Carter continued that we have been redistricted. It did not affect Pelican Bay, but come January 1 the new District lines will be in place and District 2 will be more compact. You will find that the District runs from the water, east on Pine Ridge Road to Livingston Road, then north to Immokalee Road, right on Immokalee Road to the Interstate, then north on the Interstate to the Lee Collier Boundary and then east to the water. We lost some and we picked up some in the balancing of numbers within the County. Unless something happens within the next two weeks where the Department of Justice does not approve that, we are considering that it is finished and as far as County redistricting, we are in good shape. Statewide redistricting will be a major issue in front of this next legislative agenda. Watch it, watch it, and watch it. We are trying to keep the west part of the State together so that we do not get paired off and at least part of the County does not go off to the East Coast of Florida. There will be some severe negotiations that will go on in the legislature in this upcoming period. Rest assured that 4673 4 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 16J1 the legislative group that came here in September got a loud and very populous reaction from the community here saying, "Do not remove us from the West Coat of Florida in any way, shape or form ". I think that message was well taken and Mr. Goodlette and our other Representatives, as well as Senator Saunders are working hard to keep that in place. Commissioner Carter explained that the State Legislature has been in special session and you say how does that affect us? It affects you enormously. Thus far we have survived. Primarily they did not shift down about $600,000 in Medicaid and Medicare costs that we would have to absorb in the County Budget. It didn't happen going back and looking at their last year's budget. When they go back in session in January, hold on because they will be after us again. As we go into the upcoming legislation I don't think we will find any other severe cuts. In fact, the Governor for the West Coast and Southwest section of Florida in the Emergency Funding did approve some road projects and that money will stay there. I am told also that a very large chunk of money that we desperately needed to complete Golden Gate Parkway and the 1 -75 Interchange survived all of the cuts in that program, going through an Advisory Committee who spent many hours in Tallahassee with Commissioners and Staff fighting to hold that and we were successful. We will get about $8.6 million out of the $9.9 million that we needed to complete that project. It appears that the Governor will not touch that fund, whereas for a while we were concerned that he wanted to take part of it for our effort on terrorism and protection for the State of Florida. We have put forth a whole program in the next legislature and keep your eyes on it. We have proposed four things regarding roads. One, that they would index the County's share of the gas tax. The State has done it since 1989. We have not had that opportunity, so what we are doing is paying for roads at 1989 dollars, while the State has had the privilege of indexing their side to adjust for inflation. Number two, there is a 7% administration fee charged by the Department of Revenue on all of the taxes and that has been part of an incentive fund that was returned to the Counties, depending upon the programs you had in place. It looks like that is going to go away and we have moved the entire 7% to come back to the County of origin. That means Collier County, which is a donor County, has a lot of funds going up there and we would 4674 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 get that total service fee back which we could use in our road projects. I do not know if it will go through this time, but we have also asked that the $.01 in the Tourist Tax that has only been reserved for convention centers and for sports facilities broaden that application and allow it through home option to be at County level and put that in for roads. If we could ever get that through we could begin to take Tourist Tax money and apply it to our road building process. Watch those in the legislature and the efforts that have been made by us, meaning the Board of County Commissioners. I am head of that delegation and we now have a professional lobbyist working for us in Tallahassee, again through the efforts of saying we must fight on very corner to get to where we need to be. This gives you an idea of the progressive steps that the County is taking. Commissioner Carter continued that in terms of the County Budget, we removed $16,000,000 from what I already considered a lean budget. That $16,000,000 was broken out over a number of areas. We took that approach by saying that these items will be deferred. Out of the General Fund we took $3,600,000. We took $1,250,000 out of Capital Expenditures and we also deferred our hiring process by $500,000. We will not fill a position for at least ninety days (90) from when it becomes vacant and we will look for every opportunity to combine jobs whenever it is appropriate. We did a thorough debt restructuring of short-term debt and the finance people will like this. We took the short term debt, probably as I speak, that is being placed depending on how the bond market is going and that will save us $6,000,000 per year through that restructuring of debt. Collier County is AAA rated and we are in excellent financial condition. We have deferred professional development and business travel by $117,000. We reserved the primary health care program, which was another $700,000. A different program as an alternative has to be brought to the Board of County Commissioners by June 30, 2002 or otherwise that would stay in the General Fund. For all practical purposes that is set aside, unless they can find some grand process and vote to do something different. Tourism is down and that has affected our revenue streams from the Tourist Tax. We took the worst -case scenario coming out of October and went back and reduced every category within the categories we fund, based 4675 1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 ki on that worst -case scenario. The good news out of all of that is that when we went through and looked at all of this, and we did this back in September at the final budget hearings, under Memorandum that I sent to staff and everyone else prior to September 11, that we really need to hunker down and all the excess revenues that we were anticipating would disappear because of the recession. Through those efforts we ended up being within one -half of one percent of the revised revenue stream predicted by the Department of Revenue of the State of Florida. On Gasoline Taxes we are 5.4% below what they we anticipated that we would receive. Commissioner Carter stated that I am pleased to say that the Board of County Commissioners has really done due diligence in trying to deal with these budget concerns and matters and still deliver the services to Collier County. We still have not made the final decision on the five -year road improvement program that is under discussion now. There has been two sessions on that and it will come back for final decision in December. The Board of County Commissioners has met 58 times this year. If anybody wonders that we are not meeting enough, I don't think we have to apologize to anybody. We have sat in session many, many times to try to resolve these issues. With the road situation we have what is called an AUIR Program (Annual Update of Inventory Review) and that is for all your facilities. In one year you look good, but in five years it is a disaster. We are looking at what we are going to have to do to try to keep the five -year program in place and what things that we can remove from it or just provide the basics. Whereas you may not see the trees and you may not see the beautification, but we will put the infrastructure in there so that in the future if the communities want to do that, they will be able to do so. That is some of the considerations that are there. We have also talked about lengthening some of the turn lanes in areas, removing cuts in medians and reducing traffic signals by taking them out in certain locations, which will make a lot of people happy, but it does keep the level of service up on your roads. The more traffic lights you put in, the lower the level of service. These are some of the very hard decisions that the Board of County Commissioners currently have under discussion and what they are working with. 4676 1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 16J1 Commissioner Carter stated this was an update to try to tell you where we are and where we are trying to go and to say that I believe the North District has held up well through this and that we will continue to try to do everything that we can to be fiscally responsible in this County, without mortgaging the future and making decisions today which really look good for three or four years and not put you up against a colossal train wreck four or five years out. We will see the sewer and water impact fees go up substantially on January 1 for all of the anticipated new construction that will be taking place on the existing plants. The North Plant expansion is operating and you are not going to have any more crises this year in the North District. In fact, through an inter - connect; we will be able to take excess from the South District while that plant is being expanded. When we get done with that plant, we come right back up North and expand again and then we have to look to other plants for the future to service what I am going to call your urban boundary or service area. That is based on the people who are already here and based on a 65% growth in ten years in Collier County, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that if you put up a concrete wall with an electric fence on top of it, they are still going to come over it and into the County. People are coming here and we are primed to anticipate that growth and plan for it so that we don't get into the jam that we have been into in the past. Those are some of the things that are coming. We are wrestling with affordable housing and other things. If you are not a big water user you are going to be all right, but fees will go up. You will have about ninety days (90) to get accustomed to the fact that will happen. If you use under 5,000 gallons per month you are pretty much home free. If you use 5,000- 10,000 gallons you are not going to feel the pain much. If you go over 10,000 gallon per month, you are going to feel pain. This is a reverse schedule in an effort to conserve our water and resources and at the same time move forward with expanding plants and using wells and other ways to store water when we have so much of it. Mr. Mudd, who is now our Deputy Administrator, laid out a fifteen (15) year plan and did an excellent job. I think everything else is developing in Pelican Bay. As I understand it, you are moving forward and looking at all of the possibilities of what you are going to do with your MSTBU Ordinance. Again, I have said many times, when you have had your discussions, your 4677 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 community meetings and have a total plan of action for this community, I will take it back to the Board of County Commissioners. In the interim I have not been a part of any of the discussions, nor will I be, it is up to you to decide what you want to do, how you want to do it and when you bring it forward it will be my pleasure to do whatever your decisions are. Mr. Werner stated that the landscaping on the U.S. 41 median is somewhat of a travesty as well as the speed with which they are doing it. It is extremely unsafe the way it is being done, particularly coming north where they have three lanes jammed into two lanes and you run through a barricade. When you come to Gulf Park Drive it is very dangerous to make a left turn onto Gulf Park Drive. Commissioner Carter asked for suggestions to take back. Mr. Werner replied, "Yes, get the people to get the curbs in ". They have been working a month on curbs and they do about 100 feet a day and anybody with a curb machine can do it in a day and one -half. The barricades have to be removed, particularly during the rush hour because it is very unsafe. Mr. Vlasho stated that those are good comments and I was going to mention the same thing. At 8:50 A.M. this morning there was nobody working. Coming back I counted and there were five people working on the entire stretch. Mr. Werner stated that I know funds are tight, but the reason we got involved with landscaping the south end was that we were going to participate with the County in landscaping the north end. Don't forget about that. Commissioner Carter replied, "I won't ". I don't believe that has been jeopardized, but there is a lot of stuff coming up and the devil is in the details. They are talking about doing a countywide MSTU or regional MSTU's and I quickly added that you could talk about arterial MSTU's or collector MSTU's, but if you are talking about these being internal, forget it. Pelican Bay has their own MSTBU, which is a little different, but the fact is that several communities have MSTU's. We are not going to pay for everybody else. If they want to work out something in that area, fine, but at this point what I am really trying to preserve is to make sure we get that next 4678 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5. 2001 16J1 ` section in. There were delays, which were out of our control, but I want the funds and to find a way to do it. There is also a movement by some other people that want to extend the landscaping further north than what we have it and I am encouraging them to do it. If they can form a MSTU past where we are, all the way to the County line, I would support that. It is something that everybody sees when they first drive into Collier County. Mr. Carroll stated that the road program that I see in the County has a serious problem as far as the people are concerned. I recognize that U.S. 41 is State, but I travel Immokalee Road east of 1 -75 four to five days a week. The problem is the same, in that most of the time there is nobody working. I drive up and down that highway day after day and you are lucky if you see anybody working. We had the people doing U.S. 41 in here and had much discussion about the fact that a lot of the problems that caused the delay had to do with underground utilities and the designs were such that when they tried to put the pipes in where they were supposed to be they weren't there; a whole lot of excuses. Commissioner Carter stated that they are also realities. Mr. Carroll stated that we should be communicated with in some way about what is going on. On Immokalee Road, which is County, I drive in and out of Quail Creek Country Club and for the last eighteen months we saw ten (10) people working there. All of a sudden it is like on U.S. 41 north, probably through your efforts, there are people all over the place and that is very exciting. Commissioner Carter replied, "You are right and there are probably people very mad in other parts of the State, because I know that those crews and equipment were pulled from other places ". Some Commissioner somewhere is getting laced up and down about a road not getting done. All I know is we are getting ours done. The point is well taken and I will check with Mr. Feder. The difficulty we have encountered is the lack of contractors and I wish we could find more. There are essentially only two contractors in the State and they are the only ones willing to build the roads. They are short on equipment and are short- handed. These are not excuses, but 4679 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 what we have observed and the frustration that we are going through. Hopefully we can do something to expedite the speed in which some of those roads get completed. Mr. Carroll stated that what I would like to be assured of is that the people in Transportation are looking at that very thing. For instance I would think that they would be looking every week at what the number of man -hours were on that particular project. I don't know whether they do that, but if I were running construction I would sure be doing that. If they do, maybe they could communicate with us in some way about what is going on. Commissioner Carter replied, "I think your point of communications is well taken ". When we sign the contract with a builder it is a fee, they have an incentive and there are penalties and what we are finding is that the incentives don't mean anything. We find that sometimes the penalties don't phase them too much because they have so much work that they figure if they get it done you ought to be happy. I will take this to Mr. Feder. Has Mr. Feder been in front of the MSTBU and had a chance to address you? Mr. Ward replied, "no ". Commissioner Carter stated that he would make a note that at one of your meetings it would be a good idea to have Mr. Feder here where he can address these issues and help you with your questions. You have raised a lot of good questions and I know he is wrestling with the same issues. Right now he is a pretty tired guy, as we all are, in trying to figure out how we are going to salvage what we can as a result of our limited revenue stream. There is a light at the end of the tunnel in that there may be other ways of combining some streams to where we are not going to hurt ourselves as bad as originally anticipated. Mr. Carroll stated that I have another question that has to do with the lights from Gulf Park Drive to Seagate Drive. Our Manager, Mr. Ward, informs us this might take us five years to get that on somebody's work list. We now have a gap of no lights from Gulf Park Drive to Seagate and then lights again in the City. Commissioner Carter replied, "I have observed that also and did not know if that was a community desire because they did not want the lights ". We have had some communities very m 1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 16J1 upset because they are going to have lights and other communities who say they want lights. I want to make sure you want me to go off in that direction. Mr. Carroll replied, "it is not a good situation right now ". Mr. Ward stated that we are in the process of submitting a request to the MPO. Commissioner Carter explained that is where we have to start. You have to take it to MPO and see what we can do to go get into the work program. Will the State fund any of that? Mr. Ward replied, `The State has indicated that they would fund it as part of the MPO process, but that it could take up to five years ". Mr. Charlie Popper — I am suggesting that you put lights on the barricades along U.S. 41 because as you drive along and at night you cannot see them. There are lights, which can be put on the barricades. Mr. Dick Sumerby — I am fairly new here and I have watched the road building boggle as everyone else has and you just explained that you couldn't get anyone to do it differently. Do you have any idea how much more it costs to build roads like this? I don't, but I can't imagine that it doesn't cost more to bring a crew in one morning and they are not there the next, two the next and fifteen the next. The equipment sits there all the time and that is a capital cost. If you can't get anybody here, is there any way to go somewhere else and get somebody? Donald Trump would love to come down here and build roads for you and he will do it real good and I am just using that as a name I have heard. Commissioner Carter stated that I had another gentleman come to me and he said he knew a contracting group in Iowa. I said just bring them to us or find out where they are. We have no problem going to those groups and asking will you come here, will you build it; here is what we have to do. If they say yes and they can bring crews in here, all well and good. Mr. Sumerby asked what about contractor magazines? Commissioner Carter replied, "The contractors run all of that stuff'. Once we sign a contract we are out of the picture other than here is the road, and here are the dates and we want it done in this time period. There are incentives in there that if they did some of these other things 4681 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 16J1 December 5, 2001 ' they could build it faster and we would pay them more money. We are finding that in some cases it works, but in more cases now than not, it is not working. Mr. Sumersby asked if you are saying there is nothing we can do? Commissioner Carter replied, "I am not saying there is nothing we can do; we are looking for some workable solutions to getting some other contractors that would come to this State and do it ". Right now we have APAC and Better Roads to contract with and they are the only two in the State. Mr. Jim Hoban — Is there any more information on the safety and noise abatement issue with regard to U.S. 41? We raised this before and it has been an ongoing issue so we would be very interested to hear an update on that. Commissioner Carter replied, "I know we have met and talked about the striping and that will be done at the very end of the construction period and you want the bike lanes, but I don't think that is going to be part of the process ". Mr. John lazzo — Pelican Bay Property Owners Association - This problem was brought up to us some time ago and we are of the understanding that the MSTBU is about to spend a chunk of money to re- landscape the berm. What is that going to entail in the way of dollars and has a botanist, or someone who can tell us the kind of shrubs we need in there for security, done a study? We need to put some heavy shrubs in there with thorns. We also need to go as high as we can with the kinds of trees that would give us noise attenuation. The other thing that I think we have overlooked is that there is pollution via carbon monoxide coming off of U.S. 41 and it is important that we protect the homes along U.S. 41. 1 want this to be brought up as a consideration by the MSTBU. Commissioner Carter stated that you are in the right group to discuss that, but it is really an MSTBU issue. Mr. Vlasho stated that we have had numerous discussions in front of this Committee about noise. It is my recollection that we ended up saying that there was not a real good solution to that problem. As far as the refurbishing of the berm, Mr. Ward can address that issue. a.: PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 1 Mr. Ward explained that we are in the process of doing landscaping improvements to the U.S. 41 berm itself. I have reported to this Committee before that the consultants that have advised us, not only on the landscape issues, but also on the noise issues, have indicated that there is no amount of landscaping that we can put in that is going to solve the noise problem, nor is it going to help it. It will be, what it will be, after the landscaping program is done. We can do whatever we need to do in terms of berm improvements in the way of trees and shrubs and we certainly don't mind working with the residents and showing them what that landscaping plan and palette is going to be, but at the end of the day it is not going to be a way to solve any noise issues. With regard to the security issue that the resident has raised, this Committee has indicated that to the extent that the residents want to construct a wall or something on the back side of that berm, PBSD would be glad to work with them to do all of that and certainly we have no problems in doing that. That is how we would help you with the security issue. Mr. Vlasho asked the dollar figure on that project? Mr. Ward replied, "It is approximately $375,000 and includes the berm from where the commercial is to the south and to the north ". Mr. Vlasho stated that I am not going to get into a big discussion on that right now because these were questions for our Commissioner and I want to get back to our agenda. There is a time that we can talk about it at the end of the meeting. I have been sitting in on the meetings of the committee that is working on the median improvements from Vanderbilt Beach Road north and I don't know where it is going. They have held three meetings and I will keep you informed. I really wonder if Pelican Bay needs to be represented in those meetings, but at least for the time being I will sit in on them. SUB - COMMITTEE REPORTS CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE CLAM BAY SECOND ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Roellig reported that on November 28, 2001 we held a Sub - committee meeting with all members present and approximately twenty (20) people in the audience. There was a presentation on the reports of the consultants. The first Report is the Biological Monitoring .4 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 1 Report. I will not go into detail, but as you look at this Report you will see that there have been many analyses of what has been happening with the vegetation. To make a long story short, with the number of cuts that we have put in, it has significantly improved the drainage throughout the mangrove area. This was well demonstrated when Tropical Storm Gabriella came through. We had a high tide and for that type of storm there was a relatively high storm surge and the bottom line was that the mangrove area was flooded by seawater. You could see obvious evidence of water washing under the buildings and back into the berm. The good news was that this water drained very rapidly. If this had happened five or six years ago, water would have stayed in the north area for two to three weeks before it could drain. In this case it drained in twenty -four to thirty six hours. If you went out to the mangroves right after the storm you would see that the water was eighteen inches to two feet higher than normal. The pneumatophores of the black mangroves and the juvenile mangroves were underwater, but due to the relatively rapid drainage they were only submerged for a short period of time and appeared to have no significant damage. Mr. Roellig continued that the basic idea is that for the first time it shows that areas that had been stressed and in bad shape are recovering and we do have some recovery areas of about five acres. We have more channels, which will be dug to improve the drainage and may have a significant impact. Looking through this area we see that there is a lot more vegetation now than there was in prior years. The other report we should mention is the Bathymetric Monitoring Report, which is done as part of the permit and also for the status of our channels for, scheduled dredging. Back in December when we performed the survey it indicated that area was starting to close in somewhat and we had funds set aside for a program, we went out for bids and then we had Tropical Storm Gabriella come through. It turned out that Gabriella caused a lot of shoreline damage in many areas, but was beneficial as far as the pass was concerned. So much water came in the pass and it flushed out so quickly that it scoured out the entrance to the pass and we ended up with the situation that the entrance cross - section volume was back to where it was when it was dredged three years ago. Since we had the bids in hand, the County, which has suffered quite a bit of damage in he Clam Pass Park area, has requested that we go ahead with 1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 16J1 the dredging although it is mainly to provide beach quality sand for the park area. It will also be a benefit to us for the fact that it will increase the area called the tidal prism, but basically it is a reservoir affect, that when the tide comes in more water can come into the Clam Pass area. Mr. Roellig continued that the other Report is a Water Quality Report. The bottom line is that the water quality parameters appear to be quite good and we have had some positive trends. One of the topics I will discuss a little later is that we have looked at the water quality in the vicinity of the Sea Gate flap gates for the first time. Based on the data obtained and analyzed it appears that the water quality is pretty much the same on both sides of the flap gates. Mr. Roellig stated that you will notice in the Clam Bay Monitoring Report that there are recommendations that were adopted by the Sub - committee and we hope to have an adoption by the entire Committee. I will go through and discuss them briefly. The first recommendation is to prepare an overall map of the mangrove area showing the existing channels and dates of construction, so that we have an idea where the channels are located. We will in all probability dig some additional new channels, but mainly we are going into a maintenance phase so a work plan will be developed to maintain these channels to make sure they stay open. From my personal experience from looking at these channels, in some cases the flow has been sufficient to keep it open and maybe making it a little larger. Mr. Roellig continued that the second recommendation is to clean up the flushing channels. These will be marked with a GPS location and indicated on a map. Mr. Roellig stated that a similar item to #2 is #3 which is the clearing of fallen trees within the main waterways of the Clam Bay system to make sure that we do not impede the tidal flow both in and out. Mr. Roellig stated that Item #4 is underway now. The dredging contract has been awarded and the contractor appears to be on site to start this dredging this month. Mr. Roellig continued that Item #5 is looking at the water management system and we have discussed this before. We are looking at diverting some of the flow from the north to get the SM PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5. 2001 16J1 freshwater out of the Clam Bay system a little quicker. This is still under study so we will be looking at options as we go along. Mr. Roellig stated that Item #6 is the starter islands and grass plots and indications are that coming through the summer wet season has been quite encouraging and we have not had a die off. Several years ago we had some growth and then we had a very wet season which ponded water in the die off area and most of that growth died. We have made it through the rainy season with the new growth and it seems to be quite healthy. We are hoping to get a year or two growing season to be a little more confident of our progress in re- vegetating this area. Mr. Roellig continued that Item #7 is the exotic and nuisance vegetation. As you know we have removed the cattails and there has been some maintenance on that. We have also dug a number of flushing channels so that saltwater will get into these areas to ensure that the cattails do not reclaim them. It takes a relatively small amount of saltwater to kill off cattails, so with the flushing channels we are anticipating the brackish water coming in that area to keep the area free of cattails. You may not necessarily appreciate the aesthetics at the moment, but you do have to admit there is a lot more wildlife in the area. We will also be looking to treat some Brazilian Pepper in the mangrove area. Mr. Roellig explained that Item #8 is a problem and kind of a disappointment in the sense that we have spent approximately $100,000 to renovate the culverts through Seagate and install flap gates on them. The idea was that water would flow in from Venetian Bay and flow out of Clam Pass. The flap gates, with all of the dredging even though the analysis thought it would be quite beneficial, it appears the tidal head on either side is pretty much the same now. Before we did our dredging the water came in from Venetian Bay, but did not come in from the Clam Bay side as much, so there was quite a head difference. We are going to look at removing the flap gates and doing a hydrographic analysis to determine whether or not that removal will benefit the area. I do not want to say that the water is stagnant, but we are not getting the water flow that we had hoped for and that may be having some adverse affects on the sea grass in the area. 4686 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 1 Mr. Roellig stated that the final item is the dune restoration. As I indicated, there was a lot of overflow from the Gulf of Mexico into the dune area with Tropical Storm Gabriella. This concerns me considerably from a couple of standpoints. It was obvious from Tropical Storm Gabriella that when you have an overflow into the mangrove area, the backflow out is very rapid. We want to make sure that we don't end up with another pass into our mangrove area. We are proposing to get a proposal from Turrell & Associates and Humiston and Moore to look at dune restoration. When I say dune restoration, basically what I envision is putting more sand along certain areas. We may not be putting more sand in the so- called wet area. I think everyone recognizes that when you put in a dune that is sort of a sacrificial area that with high tides and the storm effects associated with high tides, some of that sand will be brought back on the beach and some will probably go off shore. We will be looking at bringing in sand to build up the dune somewhat and this will give us a bank account of sand in case we ever do have a severe storm that causes rapid erosion. It is possible that it will be easier to get a permit to do this type of work, but that is a proposal we will be getting from Turrell & Associates. Mr. Roellig continued that the bottom line is that we need to make continued efforts in the mangrove area to prevent backsliding. Hopefully we have pretty much stabilized the area. There has been some rejuvenation. If we can get through another year without a die off, I think we will be on our way to semi - recovery. A year from now we should have a pretty good answer of whether we will be moving from a situation of fighting a slowly losing battle to possibly a turn around area. Mr. Bawduniak asked if the flagging and posts are needed to mark monitoring plots, and how precise do you have to have them located? The GIPS is only going to give you a t 50' and is that good enough unless you have differential and I don't think differential is in this area? Mr. Lukasz replied, "A differential would be set up ". Mr. Bawduniak stated that you would then be down to 3' -15'. There is also a precautionary note that there is no available selective program in place at the time you are doing it. That can happen without real notice and can put you into a 300' error. The other thing is that PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 1 in Item #7 with the cattail removal efforts, we put $107,000 in removal and $65,000 is programmed for plantings. I guess this is the first time I have heard the term "continued maintenance ". Are we counting on the saltwater coming in there or are we going to be facing regular money at regular periods in those areas, which were covered with cattails? Mr. Ward replied, "You will not see continued maintenance in your budget". We will just do it as part of our normal chemical program. We do have to watch it for any re- growth of cattails, but I really do hope with the additional tidal cuts and with that area drying out, that the maintenance of the cattails will be virtually nil at that point. Mr. Bawduniak stated that under the Sea Grass Section of the Biological Monitoring Report there was a comment that the efficiency of the culverts should be re- examined, and does that tie in with the sea gate flap gates immediate removal? I don't understand what it means to monitor the efficiency or check the efficiency. Does that mean take them out and see what happens? Mr. Roellig replied, `That is about the bottom line ". There will be some effort to see exactly what the changes are without the flap gates. These gates are of a design that they are easy to remove. They are basically a piece of rubber over a concrete pipe secured by a band and lifting hook. I question whether or not we have the best design of flap gate on there and we will be looking at that also. If it looks like we need a different design we will see where we go. I think the basic problem is that we, and the Seagate people, felt that the water coming from Venetian Bay would continue on into Clam Bay and then continue out the pass. Basically, it is just kind of going back and forth and not providing the benefit that we had anticipated. Mr. Sutphin asked if there was anywhere else in the country where a similar mangrove restoration effort is going on or are we plowing new ground? Mr. Roellig replied, "I am not aware of any'. Mr. Sutphin stated that the reason I am asking is there any evidence that we are not throwing good money after bad? PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 16J1 Mr. Roellig stated that I think the area is turning around and we have seen other areas where mangroves have died off. I think in this case if we can get another year or two of growth in the north end that will be a positive turn around. Mr. Sutphin asked the price tag for another year of experimentation? Mr. Ward replied, "I believe we are spending $175,000 for maintenance, which is funded through the County's General Ad valorem Taxes ". Mr. Sutphin stated that regardless of where the dollars are coming from, but just how much is going to be spent? Mr. Ward replied, "Approximately $175,000 ". Mr. Roellig stated that the problem is with an area as big as 500 acres; most of the time people would not invest the money to try to rejuvenate them because they are off in a wilderness area. Here is something that a lot of people see and we are trying to get it back to a green and healthy environment. We are still working to make sure it comes back as mangroves, but I suppose in another few years if we were unsuccessful we would have to look at other types of vegetation. Mr. Ward explained that cost figure does not include the dredging of Clam Pass every three years. The dredging might raise the average to about $250,000 per year with the dredging being done every three years. Mr. Sutphin stated that I see Clam Pass as a separate issue. The question is, why mangroves as opposed to something that is green and does not cost as much? Mr. Roellig stated that the way it is now, from time to time you get saltwater intrusion and if you go into areas where the vegetation is exposed to saltwater you restrict the number of plants that will do well in that area. There are not a lot of plants that do well in a saltwater environment. Mr. Werner stated that while Commissioner Carter is still here, the purpose of Item #9, dune restoration, would be to protect a county -owned Natural Resource Protection Area. We will definitely be looking for some financial assistance from other parties. 4689 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5. 2001 Commissioner Carter replied, "I know the County, in terms of FEMA Funds, has assessed all of this as related to Tropical Storm Gabriella, but where all of that is at this point, I do not know". Mr. Werner stated that one of your staff people was at our last meeting and we made him aware of that too. Mr. Vlasho stated that I am assuming that since the flap gates are relatively easy to take off that there is a minimal amount of cost associated with their removal and if they are easy to take off they are easy to put back on. In number #9, the way the advanced material reads, we are going to do that and now it reads as if you will be receiving a proposal and I assume that means you would be analyzing the costs, etc. is that right? Mr. Roellig replied, "Correct'. I assume we would be getting a proposal on what they are planning to do as far as dune restoration. Mr. Ward replied, "Yes, after the holidays ". Mr. Vlasho stated that tied to that also could be your reports and I do not know if your Sub - committee is playing any roll in monitoring the budgets and costs for doing all of this work or is that falling to staff? Mr. Ward replied, "At the moment that is falling to staff'. Mr. Vlasho stated that it might be a good idea for the Sub - committee to at least be aware of those budgets and costs so that someone besides Mr. Ward will be looking at those costs and that Mr. Turrell is aware that it is being monitored. Mr. Roellig moved, seconded by Mr. Domenie and approved unanimously that the Committee adopt the recommendations as presented in the Clam Bay Monitoring Report. Mr. Ward thanked Mr. Turrell, his staff; Humiston & Moore and Mr. Lewis for all of the great work they did for us this year. The reports are great, we are moving forward and I greatly appreciate the efforts they have put in for us. 4690 ii PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 16J1 4 Mr. Roellig asked if a motion was needed to pass these reports on the permitting agencies? Mr. Ward replied, "No that is a requirement of your permits ". ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE PBSD REVISED ORDINANCE ENACTMENT Mr. Carroll explained that there was a Sub - committee meeting held on November 29 with three members present. There were only four or five people in the audience. We reviewed the timeline that I brought to this Committee's attention at the last meeting and incorporated it into our thinking about what would be done if the new Ordinance is looked on with favor by the people of Pelican Bay. I need to comment on the fact that if we don't go ahead with the new Ordinance and in effect remain the way we are, we have this problem of four of us having our terms expiring on the 29th of January. We have been receiving letters from Ms. Filson regarding appointments and she in effect indicates we are eligible for reappointment. The question of whether we should fill this out on the basis of running again for another four year term or whether the Commissioners would like to appoint the four of us to continue until the ordinance issue is resolved is a question hanging out there that perhaps you could counsel us on how to proceed? Mr. Vlasho stated that this Committee at its' last meeting voted unanimously that the terms of the four retiring Committee members be extended until the Ordinance is resolved. I believe Mr. Ward submitted that to the County. Commissioner Carter replied, "I am not sure we received that yet, but it will show on the Executive Summary to the Board of County Commissioners what vacancies there are and that four people wish to continue their terms ". I will move that be accepted, we will get a second and you will still be here, unless somebody has an objection to that. Mr. Vlasho stated that what Mr. Carroll is suggesting is that we requested that until the Ordinance issue is resolved. If the new Ordinance goes in that will come into play. If there were no new Ordinance, then they would have to appoint new members. Commissioner Carter stated that all we want to do is have the continuance on the MSTBU as in your direction to me and I will move that motion in front of the Board of County 4691 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 16J 1 Commissioners and I am sure we will get a second. Usually in those cases it has been my experience if there is no objection, the four will continue in those positions. Mr. Vlasho asked Mr. Ward to get whatever was required to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Carroll stated that the Sub - committee addressed the question of communicating this whole subject to the people in Pelican Bay and we have scheduled three meetings in January. The meetings are scheduled for Monday, January 7, 3:00 P.M., Monday, January 14, 7:00 P.M. and Wednesday, January 23 at 1:00 P.M. These dates were worked out between the availability of this room and Mr. Brock's availability. Mr. Brock agreed to attend all three of these meetings, which our Sub - committee felt was very desirable. He was going to initiate this straw vote that he told us all along that he was going to conduct. He was actually going to do that later this month, but agreed with me that it would be much better if he waited until after the three meetings. The current plan is to issue the straw vote to the Pelican Bay people after the three meetings are completed. He is anxious to do this during peak season and I think this fits his schedule. Questions were raised about who would pay for the straw vote and Mr. Brock indicated his office was going to pay for the process. There would be only two questions on the ballot. One question is, are you in favor or the proposed Ordinance and the other is, are you not in favor of the proposed Ordinance? Mr. Carroll continued that another item that was decided was to ask Mr. Bawduniak to prepare a comparison of the existing Ordinance and the proposed Ordinance on the key issues that are different so that the people could look at it and see what it is about. I think everyone is aware that there is not much difference at all between the new and old Ordinance. The main substantive item is the election process, but really it is a selection process whereby the property owners in Pelican Bay would select the people that they would like to see the County Commissioners appoint. There have been questions raised about how much an election would cost every year and Mr. Ward has made a very detailed estimate of this and come up with $15,000. If we go ahead with this new Ordinance we are committing ourselves to spending 4692 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 1 A . I in $15,000. The County has indicated that they will pay for the first election, but we are all convinced that will soon go away and we will end up paying for it. Mr. Carroll stated that Mr. Bawduniak is working on this comparison and Mr. Brock has suggested that we try to minimize the number of items on the list so that there is no feeling that we are making major changes, when we really aren't. Mr. Bawduniak can take that into account as he prepares his comparison. The question came up of whether the Sub - committee or Committee should be advocating this Ordinance versus presenting it to the people as a factual summary. Several people objected to the fact that we were taking a neutral position on this and not taking a stronger position. We had a little trouble with that. People said you know a lot more about this and we are interested in your opinion and do you think we ought to do this or not? I was able to discuss this with Mr. Brock and he had a rather clear reaction to it. He said you saw what happened with the one -half cent sales tax when the Commissioners sponsored it and that somehow created a negative reaction. I believe I am interpreting his counsel that this Committee should be very careful about getting out and advocating this as the right thing to do, even if we think it is. He did say that certainly as an individual you could say it is a great idea, but as a Sub- committee or Committee he was raising that question. I had a little trouble in the end of not coming to some kind of conclusion whereby we recommend to the County Commissioners whether we think it is the right idea or not. I do want to ask your thoughts on this. Mr. Carroll asked how do we notify the Committee of these meetings? I am planning on having a Sub - committee meeting to discuss this in more detail within the next week or two. We will consider such things as the Pelican Bay Post and there is a TV Channel 96 in Pelican Bay. We have a website but cannot post anything to it at the moment. We can use Mr. Brock's website and possibly we can use the Foundation's website. We can discuss it at the President's Council. Another question is do we want to go to the Naples Daily News and put an article in the paper? These are kinds of things we do not need to work out at this meeting today because our Sub - committee will be addressing this within the next week in detail. 4693 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 1 Mr. Bawduniak stated that the conclusions would be a one -page summary of the existing Ordinance and the new Ordinance. The rational for showing the existing Ordinance is how can you tell what you are changing if you don't have a reference point? Secondly, there will be additional information for those who want to go into it in further depth as to why some of these things are happening. Lastly, we have had a recommendation at least twice by one of our regular attendees about what does it mean to me with the pros and cons and that will be covered on another page. When this is done it is going to be reviewed carefully for accuracy and then it will seek radial distribution for our Sub - committee so all of our other members will have a run at it. It will come together at one of our Sub - committee meetings to say here is what we collectively think about it. The product then refined will come to the MSTBU and we are looking at a limited time and not weeks. Mr. Werner stated that I do not want to give advice, but the comparison is going to be the real crux of the matter. I would encourage you to avoid what has happened in the past and perhaps seek input from the Concerned Citizens and the Pelican Bay Property Owners to see if they have any legitimate differences. Mr. Bawduniak replied, `This is more of a scribe and judgment function ". I am just taking what exists in our original Ordinance and the new Ordinance and saying here is what we have extracted. I have used my own judgment and that is the reason for going to radial distribution to have the other three members say that I missed something or I did not put something in and to streamline it. It is a presentation of fact. Mr. Werner stated that you and I consider the proposed Ordinance a presentation of fact, yet we look at them completely differently. We both looked at the same facts differently. Mr. Carroll stated that both of the groups mentioned have indicated support for the new Ordinance. Mr. Domenie asked if any thought has been given to future candidates? Are they going to be subject to the Florida Financial Reporting Requirements? Mr. Ward replied, "No ". 4694 1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 Mr. Domenie stated that both the Foundation and the Pelican Bay Property Owners have a website and the full Ordinance could be posted on those sites, as well as Mr. Bawduniak's commentary. If both organizations did that you could get further distribution. Mr. Carroll asked if Mr. Domenie felt he has gotten answers to most of the questions that he had posed in his Memorandum? Mr. Domenie stated that I am concerned whether this Committee is going to be asked to approve the wording of this new Ordinance. We have not done that as far as I know, yet we are setting meetings for January 7'h and I don't think there is a final Ordinance that everybody has agreed on. The Sub - committee is going to meet and you are going to recommend it to us. When is our meeting in January? Mr. Ward replied, "January 2"d" Mr. Domenie stated that we then have from January 2nd to January 7th in case there are any differences, to present this to the people or am I missing something? Mr. Carroll replied, "We aren't really asking for the MSTBU to approve that before the meeting ". Mr. Domenie replied, "I don't mean approve, but certainly a final version of it should be circulated to us shouldn't it "? Mr. Carroll replied, "Yes, although there have been no changes to it in the last month, it has not changed very much at all ". Mr. Domenie stated that I don't like the words "very much ". Has it changed or not? Mr. Carroll stated that we had made comments the first month, which Mr. Brock had changed on his website. The last revision is October 18 and I don't think there have been any changes to it since then. We as a Sub - committee are not really dealing with the Ordinance at all. We are going ahead with the presentation of how we bring it to the people and how we compare the old with the new. Mr. Domenie asked if Mr. Brock would provide whatever copies are necessary so that we distribute them at these meetings? Is that the idea? 4695 V PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 16J1 , Mr. Carroll replied, "Yes, I think that is a good point about the copies and we'll let him buy those for us ". Mr. Vlasho stated that we have two things that you are looking for. First of all, you are asking if the game plan is okay? Mr. Roellig stated that I don't have a problem with the game plan. It is my understanding that part of the rationale for these meetings is to get input from the community, so we are not going to say this is it and explain it to them. We will not have a final until after the meetings are concluded. Mr. Carroll stated that we would hold three meetings. We picked one in the evening and two during the day. Mr. Vlasho stated that the second thing we have to deal with is that eventually this is going to come to a point where this Committee cannot be neutral with the County Commissioners. We could with Mr. Brock taking it to them, but I guess that would bother me a little. At some point we will have to say yes or no and that will be this Advisory Committee's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Roellig stated that the appropriate time would be after the straw vote when we see how the vote comes out. If it is 50/50 or 90/10 it is pretty easy. Mr. Sutphin stated that what Mr. Roellig says is a fact of reality. The last Ordinance proposed a pretty significant change in governance. This Ordinance does not change what this Committee does or how it does it, it only changes the input given to the County Commissioners who would then appoint us. In terms of its' impact on this Committee, it is minimal. Mr. Vlasho stated that the truth is of the three recommendations, two of them we could do with or without an Ordinance change. or not. Mr. Sutphin stated that it is almost an individual view if that selection process adds value PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5. 2001 Mr. Werner asked what is going to be the position of the Sub - committee or this Committee when this is being presented on these three dates to the public? Are we going to be neutral or advocating it? Mr. Carroll replied, 'We are not going to be advocating it ". Mr. Charlie Dugan — The Pointe at Pelican Bay — I have been to every one of these meetings and I was at the last Sub - committee meeting of Mr. Carroll's and this issue of endorsement by the MSTBU came up. There was some feeling by the members that they should stay neutral. There was some discussion by Mr. Burke and myself that it shouldn't be neutral. You gentlemen have put hours and hours of work into this and I think that is greatly appreciated. Mr. O'Connor and the Pelican Bay Property Owners have endorsed the Ordinance. I said at the last meeting that the Concerned Citizens would be endorsing it and that will be in the next publication of the Post. I am a great disciple of Mr. Brock's, but I don't agree on his advice. I don't see how it fits in for the County to be telling this group what it should be doing. It certainly is not comparable to the sales tax matter. He has been here on at least two occasions and said that he had tons of letters, E- mails, phone calls and forum meetings. He has a pretty good feeling of what the people in Pelican Bay wanted and he has put that in writing on several occasions. I believe this Committee is an arm of government. The purpose of this Committee is to serve Pelican Bay, it is that simple. I think you need to stand up and be counted. On numerous occasions I have had people from this Committee come to me and ask if we will support this, it is a great thing. I have gotten the feeling, and this is just my own opinion, that the majority of you are for this. Why won't you stand up and be counted. It has the appearance of passing the buck. I know people are skeptical because of what happened on the repealed Ordinance and I can't blame anybody. I have had several of your Committee members tell me that they never saw the whole Ordinance, it was never explained to them correctly, etc. Be that as it may, that is done. Let's get some spine and stand up. People are going to walk in this meeting and ask what you think. For a governance body this is not the way to handle this, it is passing the buck. The groups that were in complete opposition have said that they are going to aCkh 0 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 endorse this, now let's get together and do it together instead of going off with this neutral attitude and ducking the issue. You don't need that and neither does Pelican Bay. I wish that you would really consider endorsement. I thought from the Sub - committee that Mr. Carroll and others had come along with this, I was surprised to hear what he said, I would have to go back and look at the Minutes. You don't have to come out with big letters endorsing this, but be willing to tell people that you do as a group. Mr. Sutphin stated that there is a difference between being a believer and a preacher. Mr. Dugan replied, " I agree you don't have to come out with a poster and place it in the newspaper, but I do think somebody ought to speak up and say we worked on this hard and we believe in it ". This is not the process that took place with the repealed Ordinance. I don't know how you can get it out in front of any more people than you have so far. Mr. Vlasho thanked Mr. Dugan for his comments and stated that we will take it under consideration. Mr. Carroll stated that at some point this Committee is going to have to take a position. For these meetings we are trying to get the public input. We are not trying to go in and say listen to us we have the answers for you. I think you are worrying about something that in the final analysis is not going to be a problem. Mr. Dugan asked if you were planning on doing that after the meetings? Mr. Carroll replied, "yes ". Mr. Dugan stated that of course it is going to be a problem then. Why don't you do it at these meetings? Mr. Werner stated that I think it was you who said we should be representing the wishes of the people of Pelican Bay and what better time would you have of knowing those wishes than after the straw vote? A majority of us thought we were representing the wishes of the people of Pelican Bay when we voted for the first Ordinance. We thought the people who were interested were well informed and knew what was going on. 4698 1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 Mr. Vlasho stated that the last time I felt comfortable that we had done all of that, then all of a sudden it wasn't done. I don't think we are shirking our responsibility; we are just waiting until it is done. This is Mr. Brock's project and if we hadn't appointed Mr. Carroll's Sub- committee, Mr. Brock would be marching along and at some point he would go to the County Commissioners and they would turn to us and say what do you think? That is my feeling. Mr. Burke asked if one of the citizens at the meeting says the Committee has spent many hours working this, why did you do that? What would we explain our role to be? Mr. Vlasho replied, "My view would be that we would not be presenting these meetings if we didn't have a good feel about the thing ". Otherwise we would say to Mr. Brock, go have your own meetings. Mr. Burke stated that would be our position that we feel good about it, but we want to hear more. Mr. Sutphin stated that in the Sub - committee we discussed having one of those three meetings on a weekend. Was there a schedule problem or did Mr. Brock not desire to do that? Mr. Carroll replied, "I did not like the idea ". Mr. Vlasho stated that the game plan appears to be okay and except for the weekend idea nothing further to consider. Mr. Carroll stated that we need another Sub - committee meeting pretty quickly. In order to get the publication in the early January Issue of the Pelican Post, we have to get information to them the week of January 17th. There is a time lag that I fight every month with the Post because I am trying to get them to wait until after this meeting before I write my comments. By the end of that week we have to get something in the Post. Mr. Don Spanier — Oakmont resident — I am the recently appointed Chair of the Pelican Bay Property Owners Community Affairs Committee. They have the function of disseminating information on critical issues of interest in the community and in helping the community to understand the reasons for supporting or not supporting an issue. I am listening to what has been said here I think there are two general conclusions that I have reached. One is that I think 4699 1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 all of us in the room have all reached the conclusion that in essence there is nothing of significance in this proposed Ordinance that differentiates it from the Ordinance that has been in effect. As a procedural matter of providing recommended appointees to the County Commissions to the mechanism of a straw vote, but on all issues that any reasonably informed and engaged stakeholder should be concerned with and affects the way in which governance is carried out in the community and the relationship between the Committee and it's Manager. Nothing has been changed, yet you have set in motion a process that would seem to have the inevitable effect of going to the community. God forbid that somebody stands up at one of these three meetings and says what's the purpose of changing the Ordinance all together? What were you trying to do? That question cannot be answered because in the end we come to a meaningless procedural change in the wording of this particular Ordinance. The only real purpose that I can see in having this series of meetings, whether conducted under the auspices of this Committee or the Community Affairs Committee, is to produce input from the community, not the answer of whether you want it or you don't want it. I would suggest that you are embarking on an end game here that really can blow up in your face. I have not yet conferred with the Board of my organization, but I will this week about the format and subject matter of our meeting on January 91h. It will certainly address this matter and I think there is a need for some very close coordination so that we can better understand what it is you are trying to do. Do you want input or would input be a disaster? Perhaps this timeline doesn't blend itself to the resolution of the issue that you have been trying to resolve for the last year. Mr. Roellig stated that I am a little concerned about the attitude that we have a pretty good idea of what we want to do, etc. My view, and I do not think anybody can seriously question this, is that I don't think more than 1% of the people in Pelican Bay are tuned into this yet. If we have these meetings and nobody comes, the answer will be pretty obvious that the people are not interested. I don't have a problem with having the meetings I think it is time to find out what the community wants to do, if anything. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS 4700 1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 CLAM BAY ANNUAL MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE Mr. Ward reported that we have now finished everything that was in this year's program, so that will be updated for your next agenda. PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD (SOUTH ENTRANCE) TO GULF PARK DRIVE IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPEIMPROVEMENTS Mr. Ward explained that Phase I is now complete. Phase II will start in April of next year after Easter. That program has gone well and we have had a lot of really good comments about that program. I think it came out really well. COMMUNITY ISSUES U.S. 41 LANDSCAPING Mr. Ward explained that Commissioner Carter updated you on the U.S. 41 landscaping issue and I will not go over it again. SIDEWALK OVERLAYS AND REPAIRS Mr. Ward stated that the Transportation Department is working with us on that issue. If we can get them to move forward with Phase II, which they are, I will probably be back to you next month. They are doing the work and we are doing the bio- barrier installation and there is significant cost to doing that installation. It will be another month or so before we have a handle on those exact dollars, if they are going to proceed forward with the Phase II work. Mr. Carroll stated that it appears your efforts have turned that around and I am pleased with that. Six months ago I was concerned about their whole schedule. Now it seems to be in high gear. Mr. Ward replied, "I cannot take complete credit for it, it took a little arm - twisting, but it worked ". NORTH PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL Mr. Ward reported that a request has been submitted to the Transportation Department to move the control panel approximately 20 feet north. They are considering doing that and it is about a $2,100 cost. I will keep you advised as to the status of that relocation. I feel very confident that they will be in a position to execute a Change Order to do that work. 4701 1 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5. 2001 Mr. Werner stated that they have started to install the mast arms. 1 Mr. Ward replied, "I am aware of that and please watch out because they are massive and it will not be pretty'. SIDEWALK. CROSSWALK MODIFICATIONS Mr. Ward stated that the Transportation Department with all of the gas tax issues got hung up on that issue. They have not pushed and I am not pushing. U.S. 41 STREELIGHTING Mr. Ward explained that we are working on an MPO Application request with the County to go through that process. Everybody needs to understand that the MPO process is very, very long. You will have the ability to see that come to fruition over the next few years. Mr. Carroll asked what MPO means? Mr. Ward replied, "Metropolitan Planning Organization ". It is a creation of State government that counties use in order to fund capital road facility projects. Mr. Vlasho asked about the flagpole project and your contract. MANAGER'S CONTRACT Mr. Ward explained that I did speak to Purchasing about an extension to the Contract. They are evaluating the County Ordinance to find out whether or not that is possible. I suggested to the County that on behalf of the Advisory Committee I would prepare an Executive Summary that indicates that you as a body would like to extend that contract without going through the competitive bidding process and put it in front of the Commission. The County can indicate whether they agree or disagree with that and let the Commission decide it. I think that is what we will do. FLAGPOLE Mr. Werner reported that Mr. Lukasz, Mr. Ward and I met and talked about the flagpole. ii What we have decided to do is to install two flagpoles, both on the north side of the Pelican Bay Boulevard entrances. Mr. Lukasz has the locations marked with yellow flags. We felt 25' in height would be about the right size. 4702 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 16J1 Mr. Ward replied we were given authorization by this Committee to do the work; we are just working on getting it installed at this point. Mr. Werner stated that if we find a third pole is desirable at Gulf Park Drive we could do that later. Mr. Domenie asked if they would be lighted? Mr. Werner replied, "Yes, they will be lighted ". Mr. Roellig stated that I am surprised about the 25' pole. We were looking at a 35' pole for our condominium and we have approval from the Foundation for a 35' pole. Is there a reason you were looking at 25'? Mr. Werner stated that is what was suggested. There was a concern that if we went higher it would have to be a bigger pole. Mr. Ward replied, 'The bigger the poles, the more unproportional they get in relation to those entranceways ". We felt the 25' pole would be a little more proportional to what they look like out there. It is going to be a big pole at 25' and the bigger they get, they overwhelm entrances. signals. Mr. Domenie asked how tall are the streetlight poles? Mr. Ward replied, `The median poles are 30' tall ". Mr. Domenie replied, "I mean the traffic signal poles "? Mr. Ward replied, "I am not certain ". I don't think you want them to be higher than those Mr. Werner stated that I don't think the mast arms are going to be higher than the flagpoles. Mr. Ward replied, "If I can remember intersection heights, they are probably 30', but I am not positive ". BIRD SANCTUARY Mr. Vlasho explained that Mrs. Greta Laughlin had called me about a bird sanctuary for the area where the cattails have been removed. 4703 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE " December 5, 2001 16J1 Mr. Ward stated Mr. Lukasz has spoken with her about that issue. What she wanted to do is place some signs out there with respect to what the birds are. My initial reaction is that is a construction area at the moment and I really don't want to harm any of the permitting that we have going on, but we will work with her and come up with a solution that works at the end of the day. I am hesitant to put signs out on the berm at this time, but I will see where we need to go and work within the constraints of our existing permits. If it is a bird sanctuary I did not have a real problem with it, but I think what she is looking for is more of some signage as to what kinds of birds are in that area. That is a good idea; I just want to make sure that we don't do anything that would hurt our permitting activities. Mr. Vlasho stated that you might consider that the signs be put at the tram stations or at the entrances to the boardwalk. Mr. Werner replied, `That would be a Foundation issue ". AUDIENCE PARTICIAPTION U.S. 41 BERM Mr. Spanier stated that it was alluded to somewhat earlier that with regards to the U.S. 41 berm, barrier that there is $375,000 in the budget to work on that barrier berm. That is a subject of real concern and there are a lot of people coming from different directions on the aesthetics of it, the impact on noise and the possible impact on preventing the entrance of unauthorized individuals into the community. It is a significant capital project and I would like to have the opportunity at our January 91' meeting of the Community Affairs Committee to have available whatever graphics you have that indicate what the berm beautification planning project is, so that we can alert people to what is going to be one of the most visible changes in the aesthetics of the community in a long time and illicit some input as to what the thoughts are on what that plan should be. Is there a set of graphics or material other than budgetary support material that depicts this project in a way that it can be discussed? If so, can it be made available by the early part of January for a meeting that we will, at the expense of the Property Owners Association, publicize to get significant attendance? Is there such a body of material or could there be? 4704 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 16J1 Mr. Ward replied, 'We do have a section detail, which shows by section the detail of what the palette of landscape materials will be ". It will take someone to explain that to you because you are not going to be able to look at it and understand where it is, which we would be glad to provide to you. Mr. Spanier asked if it could be a constructive process and I am not trying to derail this thing, but rather anticipate questions? Mr. Ward replied, "I do not have a problem with that, but I will tell you that it is under construction now, so it is not subject to a lot of debate at this point in time ". Mr. Spanier stated that is already a big problem. Mr. Vlasho stated that is not a big problem. We are willing to work with the Property Owners and I am a big supporter of the Property Owners. We have been discussing this project in these meetings for two years plus. It is in process and it is going on. A significant amount of work has gone on with the removal of exotics and I don't know the feeling of the rest of the Committee, but to send someone into a meeting to explain something that has already been approved and is in process, just rings wrong with me. Mr. Ward replied, "I don't have a problem explaining what the program is and go through that ". Somebody asked me that earlier today and the really easy answer is to go to Bentwood Drive and look at the backside of the U.S. 41 berm and that is what the front side is going to look like in one year, after it grows in. A number of years ago we were asked to fix that area, which we did and that has been done for about five years now. That is the best way to tell a resident of how to get a visual of what the berm is going to look like without us having to show you pictures. Mr. Spanier stated that I can inform myself what that looks like, but I think you are engaging questions right now that have a bearing on very live issues of security, entrance to the property, noise abatement, as well as aesthetics. It may have been well discussed for several years, but at least among the actively engaged people on the different aspects of the problem there were nothing but questions as to what is going to be done there. 4705 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 U)i 1 Mr. Ward stated that we need clear lines of demarcation here on what is going on. If the Property Owners Association is going to in some way, shape or form sponsor a forum for that area to deal with security and think that the money that we have budgeted will be able to deal with that issue or that you are going to be able to use some of those funds for security issues along the U.S. 41 berm, this Committee has opined previously that we are not going to be in a position to do that. We are not going to allocate those funds for that. If the issue is that somebody just wants to look at the plans for the U.S. 41 berm and those improvements, I don't have a problem showing anyone that, ever. It is not a debate about the security on U.S. 41. It is a limited focus, a limited discussion, a limited debate to just what that landscaping palette looks like on the front side of the U.S. 41 berm and that is what the money was budgeted for, not for noise and not for security. Mr. Spanier stated that nevertheless, whatever you do there is going to have an impact either positive, negative or neutral on considerations of noise and entering the property and I am not suggesting money be reallocated. Mr. Ward replied, "I am glad to hear that because I have heard to the contrary". Mr. Spanier stated I think I have stated very clearly that there are many perspectives that are engaged at this point. All I am trying to focus on what is the plan. Mr. Vlasho stated that this Committee was encouraged that the Property Owners got involved and if they come with a plan on noise and on security and we can help with that we would be willing to discuss it, but all of the other discussions ended up blind alleys as I recall. We are not discouraging you from working on that; we are just stating our view. Mr. Spanier replied. "Let's use this forum to get whatever material you have on your landscaping project before the group and have it discussed ". Mr. Roellig stated that $400,000 for miles of landscaping is going to give you a minimal project. For security or any kind of sound abatement you are talking millions. It is an entirely different situation. Mr. Jim Hoban — On the plantings, I assume the vegetation has already been picked? 4706 PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 16J1 , I Mr. Ward replied, "Yes it has ". I don't remember the specific palette but there is utilization of a lot of the trees that are out there. On the backside there is Cedar. Mr. Hoban asked if there are going to be trees and shrubs? Mr. Lukasz stated that it is going to be terraced. Mr. Ward stated that if you do as I suggested and go to the Bentwood berm you will get a really good feel for what that will be. It is the very same palette and you will get a good feel for what it will look like in a few years. ADJOURN There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 5:30 P.M. Mr. Lou Vlasho, Chairman 4707 16J1 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE MINUTES — NOVEMBER 28, 2001 Naples, Florida .I .✓ Fiala Carter Henning Coyle Colette LET IT BE KNOWN, that the Clam Bay Sub - committee of the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee met in Regular Session on this date, November 28, 2001 at 3:00 P.M. at The Commons, 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34108 with the following members present: Mr. David Roellig, Chairman Mr. John Domenie Mr. M. James Burke Mr. George Werner ALSO PRESENT: Ten (10) Pelican Bay residents; Mr. Todd Turrell and Mr. Tim Hill, Turrell & Associates; Mr. Ken Humiston, Humiston and Moore Engineers; Mr. Mike Marshall, Lewis Environmental; Mr. Steve Means, WilsonMiller Engineers; Mr. Kyle Lukasz, Field Manager, Pelican Bay Services Division; Mr. James P. Ward, Department Director, Pelican Bay Services Division; and Mrs. Barbara Smith, Recording Secretary. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Presentation of the Clam Bay Annual Monitoring Report 3. Audience Participation 4. Adjourn ROLL CALL Mr. Roellig called the meeting to order and asked that the record show all members present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 1 2001 MEETING Mr. Domenie moved, seconded by Mr. Burke and approved unanimously, the Minutes of the November 1, 2001 meeting. 1 PRESENTATION OF THE CLAM BAY ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT Mr. Ward introduced the consultants involved with the Clam Bay Restoration Project. The primary purpose of your meeting today is to review what has been done during the past twelve months with respect to the Clam Bay Restoration Project and to have the consultants identify for you where we are going over the next twelve months, or at least what their recommendations are and what you want to do with respect to the project. The consultants will also review all of the monitoring data that has been accumulated during that time period. Mr. Turrell explained that the work items that were completed this year were the removal of dead trees and under the leadership of Mr. Marshall and Mr. Lewis, there have been a lot of 70 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 starter lands created and several more channels dug. Soil sampling and analysis was completed this year to accommodate some experimental plantings. Probably the biggest work element this year was the flushing channels that were done by Mr. Lewis and his group. Under Mr. Lukasz's guidance the cattails were removed west of the water management berm. Mr. Turrell continued that the flushing channels in the Strand area that Mr. Marshall and Mr. Lewis have been working on are visible on the screen. Those cuts are throughout the system and this is the first year that they have been in the Strand area. Because of those flushing cuts we are seeing some real progress in the main die off area for the first time. The experimental plantings that we did lived through the summer. The Batis lived through the summer and the green areas that you can see are ground cover. Before, during the summer, the water would pond and get so hot that everything would die. This summer, with the help of those cuts, the water would drain off at low tide and we actually have things living in there. Mr. Werner asked where the plots are located? Mr. Turrell replied they are all along the area. They were planted on -grade and also starter islands that were made from the fill from the artificial cuts. In my opinion, those cuts are starting to bring life into that area. There are a lot of Fiddler Crabs that are living there that did not used to be in there. The main thing is that we are getting the water completely off of there at low tide, where in the summertime water used to pond four inches deep and be 1300, which would brown, burn and kill everything. Now that the water is getting off we are seeing life. Tropical Storm Gabriella deposited thousands of black and white mangrove seedlings in that area and they are also living right now. I am going to keep the verdict out on those until we go through the summer because we have had recruitment of seedlings before and they have all gone away during the summer. I think that with the flushing cuts we have mangroves that have naturally recruited in there that will live. My experience with mangroves is that if Mother Nature puts them there they do better than if man plants them. I am pretty optimistic that the main die -off area is looking better than it ever has. Mrs. Potter — Mangrove action group — Can you please point out those areas where the seedlings are living? 71 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE 16 " 1 8, 2 0 November 2 01 Mr. Turrell replied and pointed out on the map that they are all along here and are too small to see. If you drive along the Strand road you can see them and they are right next to the channels. They are elevated areas and are about four inches higher than the rest of the ground. The reason they are higher is that they are built out of dirt removed from the channels dug by Mr. Lewis's crew. They are approximately ten (10) feet x ten (10) feet and not visible on the map. Once you see some pictures a little later you will know what to look for. Mr. Turrell showed pictures of the starter islands, indicating the plants that were planted and also indicating plants that were naturally deposited and had rooted themselves. The sites are marked by red flags on the corners. The seedlings are growing, not just in the sites, but also out in the other areas. We are optimistic that Mother Nature has planted some mangroves for us that will survive the summer and if I am here at this time next year and they have gotten through the summer, then I would say we are on our way to a recovering system for the first time since I have been here. We also did some experimental plots with Spartina and Juncus where those plants lived. We had some others such as Core Grass and Spike Rush that did not live, but the Juncus and Spartina both survived. Those were options. If we go through another summer period and the mangroves in that area are not getting green and the mangroves that planted themselves aren't doing well, an option to get that area green would be to go in with a planting program of Spartina or Juncus. The natural progression of these kinds of plants in some salt marsh systems is that once they establish themselves, they don't necessarily preempt mangroves. If mangroves want to come in and root themselves amongst that grass, they will eventually out - compete the grass, shade it out and it still could become a mangrove forest someday. In some ways those could affect the soil chemistry to actually encourage that, but that is an option. I am not going to recommend a massive planting program. At least at this point, now we know they live out there and we are identifying what could be artificially planted. Mr. Turrell showed pictures of the Riley encasement plantings. This is not our project, but we can see the little mangroves popping out of the top of the encasements. Our estimate of the survival rate is 60 %, but Mr. Riley will have to provide you his number. It appears that some of those are living. I don't have much experience with those types of plantings and I don't know 72 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 what they are going to look like when they start breaking the pipes apart, but we wanted to report to you that there are some mangroves living in those pipes. Mr. Roellig asked if there were any volunteer mangroves coming up in that area? Mr. Turrell replied that yes there are some volunteers there also. There are volunteer mangroves throughout the 45 acres. Mr. Humiston stated that the report just submitted contains some charts and graphs that document how the dredging has improved the pass. Mr. Humiston showed slides of the pass before and after dredging and the shoaling that had been in existence. Mr. Humiston presented and explained various Charts and graphs along with the different tide ranges for the different locations within the Clam Bay system. At the Registry Hotel the tide range increased from less than one foot to over a foot and one half, which means we have about 50% more water getting in and out of that area as a result of the dredging. We saw similar increases, but not quite as much of an increase in magnitude further to the north because it is further away from the inlet. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference. These are some of the things that we are looking at in the monitoring because as the range begins to decrease that is an indication that shoals in the inlet and system are starting to accumulate to the point that they are obstructing flow. The one closest to the inlet would be more responsive to the changes that occur right at the inlet. That is the most dynamic area where sand enters and is moving constantly day to day, whereas further back up in the system, the creeks are further away from that dynamic sand transport and we don't see very much shoaling in those areas. Ms. Kathy Worley — The Conservancy — Is that statistically significant or not, at the Registry location? Mr. Humiston replied this continuous decrease is something that we are watching very carefully. We have lost about half of the gain that we got right after the dredging. As you can see there is quite a bit of variability in the astronomical tides and is also affected by weather. Each one of these periods of time represents one to three months. Mr. Werner asked if they are planning on dredging again? 73 ii CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 weeks. 16JI Mr. Humiston replied yes. They plan on dredging to start in about approximately two Mr. Humiston continued that he was going to talk a little about the nature of the shoaling that is going on. The lines on the schematic are the cross - sections that we survey every time that we survey to see what changes are occurring. We see little change in the back areas or the areas to the north and indicated on the graph where most of the changes are occurring. There is enough water going in and out of the pass to keep the area clean. You can see that some shoaling is occurring, but it is not nearly accumulated to the extent that it was prior to the dredging two and one -half years ago. What is important here is that this area was actually dredged way beyond what it needs just for the tidal flow that is getting into this small entrance. The tidal velocities in the back are much lower than they are at the entrance and that is why we see this kind of accumulation. Mr. Werner asked how far the dredging was going to occur? Mr. Humiston replied back approximately 1,700 feet. Mr. Humiston presented another graphic which shows how the cross - sectional area changes in response to storms. Subsequent to the shoaling which occurred as a result of the storm, a lot of that sand was scoured back out and the cross - sectional area ended up being greater than it was prior to Hurricane Gordon. Some of the sand goes out into the Gulf of Mexico and some of it goes inside and accumulates in the shoal that was illustrated earlier, which is the material which we are going to be dredging in a couple of weeks. In the case of Tropical Storm Gabrielle we actually had a smaller cross - section prior to the storm. The reason that this storm did not reduce the cross - sectional area, although it did push a lot of sand into the inlet is that there was a very high storm surge associated with this storm and the tides were about five feet higher than normal. That represents a tremendous volume of water being stored in the bay system. When that storm tide subsided, all of that water rushed out of the inlet and had a tremendous scouring effect and it opened the inlet. It did the very same thing as Hurricane Gordon, but in a very short period of time. NI CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 2 8, 00 2 1 16J 1 Mr. Domenie stated that in your report you showed that the 1999 dredging of the pass and interior channels, plus the strong scouring action of Tropical Storm Gabriella have maintained the pass open. The forthcoming dredging should also help in the long run and also the decrease in tidal phase lag is encouraging. On Page 23 you state "It has been recommended that this material dredged to restore the design channel depths in the flood shoal, area, and the material dredged be used to partially restore the beach and dune system south of the inlet'. If the long- term trend is for the pass to move northward, which you mentioned, why would we want to deposit sand to the south of the inlet rather than reinforce the north side of the inlet? Mr. Humiston replied that during this most recent storm the most severe storm damage and erosion of the dune system occurred on the south side of the inlet. From time to time in the future it may be appropriate to take the sand from the dredging and place it to the north, but right now the greatest need appears to be on the south side. It is not a tremendous amount of sand for beach nourishment. Beach nourishment is really kind of a by- product of the dredging to keep the circulation going through the inlet. Mr. Domenie stated that the trend of the currents is northward although it changes during the season. Mr. Humiston replied that if you look at the literature of people who have studied the transport along this coastline, they say it is generally north to south, but there are annual and seasonal reversals. It has been our experience with this inlet, particularly in this area it appears to be south to north. Mr. Domenie replied with anything they deposit to the south will eventually be pushed back into the Clam Pass. Mr. Humiston replied sand coming into the pass really comes from both directions. Mr. Domenie stated that you make one final comment regarding the dunes. "It may be appropriate to establish a storm protection element to the Restoration and Management Plan...." Who would handle such a project? Mr. Humiston replied that would be sponsored by either the Pelican Bay Services Division or the County. I am not attempting to make that call, but in some areas there was a fair 75 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 16J1 amount of flushing of sand from the beach and dune system and when you get that kind of wash over on a very narrow beach dune strand, that sand ends up in the mangrove wetland areas. It was not really severe in this case except immediately south of the inlet, where it was very pronounced. We just thought it was something that could be considered since the overall purpose of this project is to preserve that wetland system. Mr. Domenie stated that we have been discussing the flap gates and the effectiveness of them. Have you had any further thoughts? Apparently you need quite a head of water before these gates become operational. Mr. Humiston replied that is the way it appears to us. We did take some measurements of the water elevation difference across those culverts at different tide stages and it appears as if the flap gates are supposed to open when the water elevation is higher on the south side than the north side. Apparently they don't pop open and there is a little water that leaks through. For all practical purposes those culverts are essentially closed off. Mr. Domenie asked if we should eliminate those flap gates? Mr. Humiston replied that I would defer that question to Mr. Means. We were not involved in the planning and design for that project and took some measurements at Mr. Lukasz's request to see what was going on. I think Mr. Turrell has some concerns about the overall effect in that area because with those culverts closed you essentially have two dead end systems from a water circulation standpoint. Mr. Werner asked who made the call of where the sand from the dredging is going to be deposited on the south beach? Mr. Humiston replied we made the recommendation that it be placed to the south. Mr. Werner asked if the County made the call? Mr. Humiston replied we made the recommendation to Mr. Lukasz and the County and everyone seemed to be in agreement. Mr. Lukas stated that is where it was deposited the last time we did the dredging. Mr. Werner stated that we are not paying for his are we? Mr. Lukasz replied the funding is from TDC Funds. 76 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 Mr. Roellig stated that with Gabriella we did get a lot of over wash and there was very vigorous flow out of Clam Pass. One of the things that we should recognize is that with a more severe storm there is a potential for another pass to be broken out. I think that is something we want to be looking at. I am not sure of the elevations out there, but where ever it is close to the stream, if there was ever overflow during the ebb portion of the storm it could easily cut a new pass and that would not be something we would like to see. This is something we need to consider for the near future. Mr. Roellig continued that the Sea Grass Report is an interest to us but is apparently a high interest to the State also. The sea grass seems to be diminishing somewhat. Mr. Turrell replied that we are a little concerned about that. We have looked at the sea grasses and are a little concerned about Outer Clam Bay. I have heard a lot of comments about how people used to fish there. We are also working on Naples Cay, so we are there a lot and tie our canoe up there to do our research. Without water moving in and out of there, just from an environmental standpoint, it seems like it is not like it used to be with a lot of life. If there is not a hydrographic reason to have the flap gates, my recommendation would be to take them off. Having said that, the original purpose of those flap gates was to store water in Clam Bay. In the before dredging scenario, when Mr. Tackney did his work, that may well have been the case. Conditions have been changed in that when we dug the channels from Clam Bay all the way back out to Outer Clam Bay, that allowed flow more or less unrestricted so that the tidal difference between Venetian Lagoon and Outer Clam Bay was no longer significant. Whereas it used to be one -half foot difference and would drive a lot of water, but that doesn't exist any longer because of our dredging project so the original reasons that the flap gates may have worked are gone. I know Mr. Means was involved in it also, so I am open for any suggestions. I think that maybe we ought to go ahead and take them off. We need to monitor them and keep them and obviously they can go back on if there is something in the monitoring that says that they were doing something to keep Clam Pass open. Mr. Roellig stated that we need to have another discussion on the flap gates after we hear more from Mr. Means. 77 E CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 16J1 Mr. Means stated that his understanding of the reason for the flap gates was that there was a hydrodynamic reason that our consultant, Mr. Tackney, recommended that those flap gates be put in and that was to hold as much water in Clam Bay as possible. When Mr. Tackney ran his hydrodynamic models he ran one with the flap gates and with the flap gates there as more flushing through the pass because it held back more water. The primary focus was flushing the pass with as much water as possible. There was very little focus on the effect of not having the exchange there as before. The gates are very effective in holding water from going from north to south. When it goes from south to north it does take a certain amount of water pressure to open those flaps. The more water pressure, the more water that flows through those gates and that is just the nature of the beast. You cannot have them both ways. You can't have water going south and the same amount going north. The decision that has to be made as to whether to take these off or not is if there is no hydrodynamic reason, like Mr. Turrell said, I would have no concern about removing them and monitoring the situation. Mr. Roellig stated that my interest would be whether or not there would be a different design of flap gate that would work more efficiently. As I recall there was some talk about 3% of the tidal flow coming in Doctor's Pass would come into the Clam Bay system. For that to happen, the flap gates would have to open. I don't know what the head requirement is for the existing flap gates or whether we need to look at other designs of flap gates that would work more effectively than these gates. Mr. Means replied the reason why those flap gates were selected is that it takes one- tenth of a foot of head to make those flap gates open. The more pressure you get on them, the wider they open, but that is the same with other types of gates. There are other types of gates made out of metal that hinge at the top. The reason we did not select those is the flow characteristics were not any better than the rubber flap gates, plus the rubber flap gates are made especially for brackish water. The metal gates are usually made out of aluminum and you can get stainless steel pins and hardware, but they still corrode after time and very quickly in a saltwater environment they have been known to freeze closed or open, depending upon when it decides to stick. That is the reason for the use of the rubber type flap gates. 78 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 Mr. Roellig stated that it doesn't appear that the gates have opened very much. Mr. Means replied that if you would look at a metal flap gate that hinges at the top and you have the same head conditions you will notice that they don't just spring open. The more head the more they open. It is the same concept, just a different mechanism. Mr. Werner stated that it appears to me that these flap gates are doing more of a disservice than servicing anything. In Mr. Turrell's report the water in Venetian Bay is two to four inches higher than in Clam Bay and all we are getting is a trickle of water. We have just cut off the entire connection, in my mind, because we are not letting water get back the other way either. It is more like a dam than an exchange mechanism. Mr. Means stated that they were not designed to be an exchange mechanism. Mr. Werner stated that it was not designed to be a dam, but to let the water come in from Venetian Bay to put more water in Clam Bay so it would help scour the pass when it went out, but to prevent the water from flowing back. Is that right? Mr. Means replied to prevent the water from traveling north to south, but allow as much as physically possible through a flap gate. Mr. Werner replied obviously I think we were getting a much greater input from Venetian Bay before we put on the flap gates than we do now. Mr. Means stated that according to Mr. Tackney's models that was not correct. According to Mr. Tackney's models, by installing the flap gates there was more water held back in Clam Bay because it wasn't allowed to flow into Venetian Bay. Mr. Roellig stated that part of the problem was not just the flap gates. We had failing culverts through there. We spent a lot of money installing new culverts so the situation, if we took the flap gates off there, would be much more flow back and forth now than before they were rehabilitated. Mr. Means replied no doubt. We installed the same size culverts that were there before, but now the flow characteristics are better because the insides are smoother, etc. Mr. Roellig stated that even if we decide to take them off, I don't know whether we would take them all off. 79 H CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 1 Mr. Means replied we could take one off and see if it makes a difference. If it does we could try taking the rest of them off and see if that improves the situation. Mr. Roellig stated that it might be worthwhile spending a little money to come up with a specific recommendation. I am not interested in getting into a trial and error situation on the flap gates. Mr. Means stated that Mr. Humiston may want to address that, but in order to give you a real scientific answer we would have to do some additional modeling and I am not sure you really want to go to that expense when everybody's gut is telling them that the flap gates really aren't necessary any longer to achieve keeping the pass open. Mr. Werner asked what detriment is there if you take them off? Mr. Means replied that the reason Mr. Tackney recommended putting them on there was to keep as much water as possible in Clam Bay. If we don't think that is going to hold back significantly more water in Clam Bay then we can take them off and achieve the same result. Mr. Turrell stated that what would really be pretty easy to do is, if we took the gates off, we could measure the tidal flow over a tidal cycle or two and we will know exactly how much water is going back and forth. Based on that information we can either fortify our recommendation to take the gates off or decide it is different than we thought and put them back on. Mr. Roellig stated that one of my other concerns is that we know what we have now and if we take them off are we going to have a problem if we decide to put them back on again? I don't know if we have to do anything with the permitting authorities or not. Mr. Means replied the flaps are designed to be taken off of the gates. Mr. Domenie asked if there were any problems with Venetian Bay? Mr. Roellig replied that from talking to people who live in that general area they are not getting the benefits they thought they would be getting. They thought that the tidal flow from Venetian Bay would continue through that area and they would get a continual migration of water with each tidal cycle. Apparently that is not the case. I don't have any specific information. It .I CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 16J1 appears that there is not a lot of interflow or a lot of movement of water at the upper end of Venetian Bay either. Mr. Turrell asked how would it be if we come up with a proposal for your next meeting to experiment and take them off, work with Humiston and Moore on the hydrology, coordinate with Mr. Means and come up with a consensus recommendation? Mr. Roellig replied I think that would be good. Mr. Stockel — Save The Bays - I would like to ask one question of the technical experts and also recall one thing the flap gates were meant to help in terms of the people north and south of them. In addition to helping the flap gates scour Clam Pass, it was thought that the water quality immediately north and south would be better for the people of Seagate and the north end of Venetian Bay. You got some data on that and it is a little early to decide, but it does not seem to have made much difference except in the case of phosphate. My technical question is the flap gates that have been discussed here today are what I call self- motivating or self- actuating where pressure is required to operate them, could they be motorized? I am not suggesting they should be motorized, but they can be built at greater expense so that they are completely open when they are open. I am just wondering if there is any comment from your experts in that regard? Mr. Means stated that it is certainly possible to design a system that detects when water wants to go north and the motors open a mechanical flap gate. Mr. Turrell stated that when we take them off and look at that we will consider the option of motorized flap gates if there is a little head that could be eliminated. Mr. Stockel stated please understand that our people don't want to talk you into anything, but we would very much like to know what you are considering. Mr. Roellig stated that it sounds as if we are all on the same page and a little disappointed in what happened. We had hoped there would be water drawn through Venetian Bay into Clam Bay. Mr. Stockel stated that we are still a little short on information and there seems to be more motion north and south of the flaps than there may be real information. Maybe it is too soon. a CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 16J1 Mr. Chuck Walton — I get a feeling with all this dredging and the whole business in the lower bay has only marginal, if any, significance for the drainage, so it is almost irrelevant to those of us who are concerned about the mangroves. Mr. Humiston asked if you are talking about the north end of the system? Mr. Walton replied yes. Mr. Humiston replied that up there you certainly have less of an affect as it would closer to the inlet. Mr. Frank Matthews — My question has to do with the degree of scouring in the channel, especially the creek. Your data indicates that the tidal lag is still only about one and one -half hours at the center boardwalk. I go down there daily and have been checking the reversal of the flow in the creek and it is no where near the one and one -half hour that you are reporting. It is three hours at least. Mr. Humiston replied the time of high water and low water does not necessarily coincide. Mr. Matthews replied exactly, but you are saying one and one -half hours. Mr. Domenie stated the charts do show that. Mr. Matthews replied the one and one -half hours. Mr. Domenie replied no, the chart shows two and one -half hours for high tide and nearly three hours for low tide. At the Registry it is about one hour, at the south pass it is about one hour, but if you go north it goes to about 2 hours and forty -five minutes. lag. Mr. Matthews replied I am talking about the boardwalk to the south beach. Mr. Domenie stated that is very close to the pass and there would not be a three hour Mr. Matthews replied you can doubt my word, but I have checked it day after day. It is much later than the graphs we have seen indicate. If you are going to dredge again that kind of negates the question because that indicates the need for re- dredging. Mr. Bill Appleman — What is the historical primary cause of the mangrove die off? Mr. Turrell replied that we have tried to enlist the world's foremost experts on mangroves to look at that. In my mind after hearing all of the different opinions over time, it is kind of a 82 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 16J1 combination of things. Mainly it is the ponding of the water that occurred in that area that was occurring for a couple of reasons the main one of which was that the natural channels in the system became blocked with mangrove growth. When water got into those areas it could not get out any more. When I started explaining this entire process it became sort of a coronary by -pass operation where we did the heart, which was the pass, we did the carotid artery going up the main cuts and now we are doing the capillaries into this specific die off area to allow it to drain. Because it did not drain before, in the summer there would be about three or four inches of water that remained in there and got so hot I could not see how anything could grow. Let alone drowning, it got steaming hot. This last summer at low tide it all drains and we have things living. Hopefully by this time next year we have some mangroves living. Mr. Appleton asked if the building of the Strand would have caused this problem? Mr. Turrell stated that has been thrown around for a long time. I don't know, it could have. If it was at all, I don't think it was the only cause. If you go back to the original Environmental Impact Study for Pelican Bay thirty years ago, they had already identified stressed mangroves in that area. I also want to point out that I fly back and forth to a lot of jobs I am doing across the State and if you fly over the Everglades, Charlotte Harbor or Sanibel Island you will see areas of dead mangroves far removed from any development. Just because mangroves die in an area does not necessarily it have anything to do with development. I am not saying it is completely unrelated in this area, I just don't know. Mr. Appleton stated that there are some undeveloped lots left in there and would a flow of water in there from the beach make a difference? Mr. Turrell replied, "No I don't think that would make any difference ". Mr. Means explained that there has been water quality sampling in Pelican Bay since 1981. It has shown up in the some of the reports over the last several years. In the report there is a map that shows where the sample points are. Over the past twenty years some points have been added and some deleted, but what is shown are the current sample points. I am glad we had the flap gate discussion early because that kind of sets the stage for two of the sample points that we have recently begun sampling and that is at the Seagate Culverts. One sampling point is 83 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 16JlqN north and one sampling point is south of the culverts. There are certain parameter samples undertaken monthly at each location. What I do want to focus on are four of those parameters of dissolved oxygen, phosphates, nitrates and total dissolved solids. The DO levels look very promising throughout all of the sample points. In January of this year we started samplings on both the north and south side of Seagate culverts. There were three DO samples and they were almost identical, but it is really too early to tell if there are any significant data trends on that sampling. I am setting the stage for next year when hopefully we have a complete year data set to see if there is anything significant that comes out through that sampling. Mr. Means continued that there are two other parameters that we wanted to discuss and that is nitrates and phosphates. I think everyone knows that those are the two primary ingredients within fertilizers. There are fertilizers put down on the lawns and shrubbery in Pelican Bay and that runoff, containing nutrients, runs off into the lakes within Pelican Bay and those lakes are designed to clean up that storm water before it is discharged into Clam Bay. This shows that there has been a fairly steady decline over the past six years in nitrate levels. You can see where we are getting down into the sampling period that the nitrate levels are down significantly. What is significant is that there has been a general decline, which is a good thing. Not only are there fewer nitrates in the waters within Clam Bay, but it appears that there are fewer nitrates within the ponds in Pelican Bay also. You can draw similar conclusions with phosphates. This shows you that the water management system within Pelican Bay is performing as it was intended to. Mr. Roellig asked if the spike was one sample? Mr. Means replied no, that was three samples taken in January, April and May. Ms. Kathy Worley — The Conservancy — Your last measurement was in April. Are you doing this monthly or quarterly? Mr. Lukasz replied quarterly. Mr. Means stated that there was three sample points for some and two for others and that is why you are getting a discrepancy in that particular graph. Ms. Kathy Worley asked if you were planning on continuing doing the sampling quarterly? ME CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 Mr. Lukasz replied in the affirmative. 16J1 Mr. Frank Matthews — Wouldn't it make good scientific technique when you get a suspect data point that you go back and check it? Mr. Means replied we can look at that, but it is going to take somebody looking at the data as soon it comes in the door. There is about a two -month lag time on some samplings. If you sample it in the field and get an instant reading and see that it is off the scale then yes you can, but if it is two months later obviously you cannot go back and recapture it. Mr. Domenie asked where the analysis of this work is done? Mr. Lukasz replied that it is taken to Collier County Pollution Control. They do some of the samples in house and some of them are sent out to a private lab and that is the reason for the delay in results. Mr. Domenie stated that it could then have been a mix up in samples. Mr. Lukasz replied that was possible, but more likely it was a fluke sample in the way it was taken, something was captured in the sample or something in the water that day. Mr. Means stated that the last parameter we looked at was Total Dissolved Solids, which among other things is a measure of salinity. The higher the TDS, the more salty and brackish the water is. The lower the number, the more fresh the water is. What we would look for is if the bottom lines within Pelican Bay start to rise you might suspect some saltwater intrusion, but it has been fairly consistent throughout the whole sampling period, since the beginning. The berm that runs along the majority of Pelican Bay is doing its' job and separating the brackish and fresh water. Mr. Domenie asked how many milligrams per liter is salt water? Mr. Means replied approximately 35,000 is salt water. Mrs. Kaye Potter — Mangrove Action Group. I am confused because what I have been told is that we need is more brackish water in the mangroves. Now your graph shows that it has remained consistent and you more or less indicated that is the way it should be. Mr. Means replied I am not sure I indicated that it needed to remain consistent, but that you expect brackish water readings within Clam Bay. 85 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 1 Mrs. Potter asked if you were satisfied with the salinity in Clam Bay and Pelican Bay? Mr. Means replied that within Pelican Bay, yes I am. I am not really qualified to talk about whether than level of brackish is appropriate for the mangroves. The way the data is presented here, it is consistent with what we would expect within the system. Mrs. Potter stated that if we had a problem we wouldn't know it for two months. You said it would take two months to get your samples read. Mr. Means replied that is how long it takes the County to get some of their data returned. We are asked to report on the data once a year. One of the recommendations of staff might be to monitor this more closely. Mr. Roellig stated that this would not show if you had a significant rainstorm. By the time the samples would have been taken it would have been smoothed out of the upper lines. From day to day I would guess the salinity could very quite a bit. We do not take daily samples. Mr. Werner stated that as I look at the sampling spots that there is nothing close to the west side of the berm that is being taken. That is where we are hoping to get more salinity to help kill the cattails. Mr. Turrell stated that we are seeing some recovery in the original die off area. Some of the areas are additional areas of die off that occurred over the last several years. Before we get alarmed about that, it may have just been a continuation of the original die off and nobody really bothered to map it until this year. We digitized the old aerials and digitized this years aerials and this is the result. The area that was brown and dead three years ago and is now green and has white mangroves growing quite lushly. While there is some bad news as far as continued die off, we have good news in this area and I might venture to say we have good news in a lot of the areas in terms that we are seeing some positive signs for the first time. There is some concern in a few areas where we have noted some additional stress over the past couple of years and we have asked Mr. Marshall and his group to pay some attention to those. The solution to that we feel is making sure that the freshwater is indeed getting out of there. Mr. Mike Marshall explained that there have been five or six areas where cuts have been made over the last five years. Right now the crew is working along the cattail marsh area and CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 1 today they are digging a ditch that will extend into the cattail marsh. We are not interested in draining the marsh as much as getting salt water to come in from the bays into the marshes. That may not happen for a while because the mud levels are so high that there is actually an elevation difference between the cattail marsh and the bay and you cannot get water to go up hill. What we think will happen is that as the mud in this area oxidizes off and plants die, the elevation will drop considerably and eventually salt water will go in there unless there is a big storm which push saltwater in there any way. According to Mr. Lewis and Mr. Turrell, it only takes approximately 7 parts per thousand of salinity to kill cattails. The reason some of the other areas have been so successful with re- growth is that the channels have drained all of the freshwater that was coming into the cattail marsh faster and spread out through the forest. There is a lush growth of white mangroves, but also some black and red mangroves, which are a direct result of the ditches that we have dug. The channels dug along the Strand in August appear to be helping a lot in that Batis has survived the summer and some of the seedlings are doing well. About a month ago there was a meeting and it was determined that it was important to clear the ditches that were originally cleared by explosives to allow water to clear out of those areas. I think there is a problem now where so much water comes into the die off area at high tide and low tide does no last long enough for it to clear out. Mr. Lewis and I walked that area about a month ago and noted stress signs among the mangroves. Stress areas will not go away immediately, you just have to be patient once the channels are dug. Mr. Roellig asked if explosives would be used again to open these channels? Mr. Lukasz replied that you couldn't get equipment in that area and the channel that is being referred to is bigger than can be dug by hand. there. Mr. Roellig stated that I do not want to get the idea out that we are going to be blasting in Mr. Lukasz stated that this is a recommendation that channel be cleared and the last time it was done with dynamite and we have to see if there are any alternatives. Mr. Turrell replied before anyone gets carried away, it was blast cord and not sticks of dynamite. Although it sounds intrusive, the advantage of doing it that way is that it side casts the 87 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 mud that is in there and spreads it even over a wide area and does not create a berm which you do not want. If we do go down that road, obviously all of the seismic monitoring will be professionally done. Mr. Roellig asked for an estimate of the recovery area in acres? Mr. Turrell replied approximately five acres. Mr. Domenie asked if cattails do not live in saltwater, why did we first kill the cattails and just now start to dig the ditches? Why didn't we dig the ditch first and then kill off the cattails all at once, wouldn't that have been cheaper? It seems that we put the cart before the horse. Mr. Turrell replied that if you were to have killed them off first you would have had this massive clog of dead vegetation. Mr. Domenie stated I said we should do it simultaneously rather than us staring to kill them off six months ago and these channels are not two or three feet, they are much larger. Mr. Marshall replied that the channel to the north is about eight feet wide that is being dug this morning. Mr. Domenie asked if the monitoring plots are ten meters by ten meters and are the pipes in there to measure salinity? Mr. Marshall replied that they are. Mr. Domenie asked how are you going to address the question of doing the monitoring work at the same time every year? Are you satisfied with the salinity that is showing up in these pipes? Mr. Marshal replied it is fine with regard to mangrove health. They can tolerate a very wide range of salinity from 0 — 50 or 60 parts per 1,000 or greater than that. It is more an indication of how much flooding is in the forest more than anything else. Mr. Roellig stated that the higher salinity would keep out the freshwater competitors. Mr. Domenie stated that at the last meeting I asked if there was a map that showed all of the cuts and channels and I am glad to see that was Item I on your list of Recommendations and Item 2, was to keep all of the existing channels open. :: CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 ii Mr. Marshall replied that we actually started a maintenance program last year where the same people who dug the channels were going back in and cleaning them out again. That needs to continue. Mr. Domenie asked if you are familiar with re- channeling some of the runoff between Systems III and IV? How will that go and where will it then enter the bay system? Mr. Turrell replied that we are working with Mr. Marshall to create channels to make sure that is directed into the bay and does not saturate another area. Mr. Lukasz indicated on the map the location of System IV and the idea of increasing the elevation of the flashboards and connects System IV into System III further south that would then go through the mangroves and is closer to the pass. Mr. Domenie stated that you would be pushing more freshwater and contaminated water into that mangrove area. Mr. Lukasz replied in turn, there would be the necessity for hand dug creeks to expedite getting that out into the bay system. Mr. Turrell stated that WilsonMiller is working on the mechanics of getting the water there and Mr. Marshall is working on the mechanics to make sure that there is adequate channels to get the freshwater down into the bay where it belongs. Mr. Turrell explained that there are mixed results with the sea grasses. They are doing better around the inlet and a little worse down around Outer Clam Bay. In summary we have gone over the work items that were completed and we are encouraged that some of the experimental plantings have worked. We don't show widespread recovery yet, but we are optimistic in the main die off area. With the dredging that is to start in the next couple of weeks the heart of the system will be taken care of. For next year the recommendations that we are recommending are that we do want to prepare an overall map of the existing channels. A lot of those have been GPS'd. So we actually have been keeping track of where they were. Also to clean up the new flushing channels and make sure we keep what we have done clean. There are some trees that have fallen across the main waterways. If you go out in a canoe there is some blockage and we want to make sure those get removed and once again, the dredging of the pass. : CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 i The starter islands have been addressed and we have positive data and if we decide at some point that we think you should spend money planting more there, we will make that recommendation. At this point I think we should just hold out and see if the seedlings that have planted themselves get through the summer. If they do, I think we are going to be having a very positive report next year. The cattails are already gone and there is some Brazilian Pepper that Mr. Lukasz's people are still working on. Hopefully with the new flushing cuts into those areas, the salinity will start controlling them instead of pesticides. At least that is the goal. Mr. Domenie asked if you are satisfied overall? Mr. Turrell replied yes. If I had to look back and say I would have done anything different, I might have dug more channels faster. Hindsight is 20/20, but I would have done that quicker. I think we have done everything that we could have. Mr. Roellig stated that up until now we have been playing defense trying to keep the deteriorating mangroves at a standstill. I hope we have got them to a standstill and can now go on offense to see if we can get more rejuvenation in other areas. We have spent a lot of money on this and it is hard to imagine what the situation out there would be if we had not spent the money. No one really knows, but we could have had one hundred acres of dead mangroves. In my opinion the money has been well spent. Mr. Chuck Walton — Measuring all of those parameters of the water is very interesting to know, but what is the cost benefit relationship? It is a huge operation in analyzing all of that water and what do you get when you get those numbers? I don't see the point of it. Mr. Roellig replied that it is not that big of a cost. It is required by some of our permits. Up until about three years ago we collected the data and never analyzed it. Mr. Ward stated that we spend about $14,000 per year on all of the water quality data throughout Pelican Bay, which is pretty reasonable for a project of 1,500 developable acres and 7,700 units and includes the report. Mr. Domenie stated that something was mentioned about soil samples, but not mentioned in any of the reports. They were sent to Gainesville at one point. M CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 Mr. Turrell replied we wanted to make sure before there was any planting out there that there wasn't some toxic situation and the results came back that there wasn't. Mr. Domenie asked if that complete analysis was available for anybody who wants to look at it? Mr. Turrell replied that it is available. There were no parameters that came back out of whack, which leads me back to my hypothesis that it was that standing water, boiling in the summer, killing everything and not necessarily the soils being contaminated. Mr. Bill Appleton — As a canoeist the clearing of those branches and trees is important. It is pretty much of a minefield in some sections. I don't know when that clearing is expected, but the sooner the better. Mr. Turrell stated that there was a secondary benefit to the money that was spent in that you can canoe up there. Prior to this you could get up there, but you were pretty banged up by the time you made it. It could have actually been a flooding threat to part of Pelican Bay at one time. Keeping those waterways open is important. Mr. Werner asked Mr. Turrell to let any canoeists know before any blast cords are set off. Mrs. Potter stated that you are going to start dredging at the pass in two weeks. How far will you go in? Mr. Werner replied about 1,750 feet. Mr. Domenie asked Ms. Worley if she had any test plots and how were they doing? Ms. Worley replied that she did. There are twelve scattered throughout the area. I actually have a plot that you cut a channel right through the center of and it has about 2,500 propagules that are growing within a six feet radius. Some of them will not make it because they will out compete each other, but they have done very well and I will concur with Mr. Turrell on that. Toward the north in the dead areas of Bay Colony there has not been any recruitment, but that was as of October and I have not been in those plots since. Towards the south I have a few areas that are showing signs of stress. Mr. Ward explained that the purpose of this report was for you to listen to what the consultants had to report, but to opine one way or the other as to the conclusions and whether or 91 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 4 not you wanted to proceed with all of the recommendations, none of them or modify them. It would be appropriate for you to discuss that issue and make a recommendation on to the full Committee next week. Number 5 indicates moving the storm water south from System IV into System III and you will recall from last year that we ought to do that for Vanderbilt and that connection has been removed from the recommendation section this year. That is fine as far as I am concerned. The other issue is that these are mainly maintenance items that we are talking about moving forward with in 2002 and really there are no major capital issues that we need to deal with. This is good since we are spent out on the $2,000,000 that we originally budgeted for capital. Most of the moneys that we will be utilizing in moving forward will be coming from the County's General Fund or TDC Funds as appropriate. Mr. Domenie asked if we should do anything about the June renourishment? There was a question that was brought up where somebody said there was some governmental agency that might still have control over those dunes. Mr. Ward replied that as a part of this program, obviously the dune restoration ought to be looked at as part of the overall maintenance program for Clam Bay for next year and that should be an added recommendation to pages 50 and 60 of Mr. Turrell's report. Mr. Turrell stated that after Tropical Storm Gabriella there was a short window to get an emergency permit to restore those and we did that for Bay Colony and for the Strand. They at least have the option for minor dune reconstruction and that program could be extended to the south if you were interested in pursuing that. Mr. Werner asked Mr. Turrell to explain how that happens. In the Clam Bay system, how can one neighborhood go in and get permits to do something that affects the whole system? Mr. Turrell replied all they are talking about doing is where the dune blew through and the sea oats washed into their backyards, is to put sand back and plant sea oats. We are not talking beach renourishment. Mr. Werner replied that is fine, I don't care, let them spend the money the way they want. I am just curious how they can do that without going through all of the stuff we have to go through. FA CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 16J 1 Mr. Ward stated I agree with that. Mr. Domenie asked if this is in Pelican Bay and we are not aware of it? Mr. Turrell replied we got an eleventh hour call from Ms. Todd a week before that emergency permit stopped asking for permits to create the option. I am not sure whether they are even going to do it or not. Mr. Werner stated that I am not faulting you. I am just trying to figure out in my mind how this is possible. Mr. Domenie stated that we had places that washed over also. Mr. Turrell stated that over time this happens. There have been storms forever. If a little bit of that sand washed over into mangroves that is a natural progression. Mr. Domenie stated that we are not worrying about sand washing in, but wearing the dune away because those sea grasses were all flattened. Mr. Turrell replied that by the end of summer they will all be back. Mr. Domenie replied if we could get another foot of sand on there that would certainly be desirable. Mr. Turrell stated that once you start maintaining dunes like that, if you want to keep them looking the same it is a constant. I told them if they put sand out there right now that by April it could be gone. Mr. Domenie asked who is paying for that, Bay Colony? Mr. Turrell replied that I would assume that it is all private funding. Mr. Werner asked if the State made the emergency permits available and Bay Colony wanted you to apply for it? Mr. Turrell replied in the affirmative, but the State made no money available. Mr. Roellig asked how long the permit was good for? Mr. Turrell replied until May. Having done that does create the opportunity for you to tag onto it. The emergency permit is not there, but if you wanted to pursue that I don't think the State is going to object to it going on here without a major permit ordeal. 93 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 16J 1 Mr. Werner stated that my problem is that I think it is time that we start getting some partners to pay for this work, other than WCI. I think it is a State and County responsibility. I think that if they go and do this with private money it defeats this entire premise. They can say look at what Bay Colony did, why don't you do it just to the south of that? Mr. Roellig stated that it would be interesting to get a copy of their permit. I am disappointed that we had a proposal come in a few months ago for $95,000 and at the time we thought that was pretty expensive. For $95,000 we were not going to get a permit, just a study. We discussed going this route and somehow or the other we do not seem to be getting a proposal to do something like that. Is there something we can work up on that? Mr. Ward replied yes. Step one was to go through what you did today and if you all agree with the conclusions and recommendations, have the full Committee agree to it or not agree to it. Based on that, we will start to put the work program together for you for the next year, including the proposals and cost estimates to do all of that. You are right on schedule of doing what you need to do for our budget process for this coming year. Mr. Werner stated that I have somewhat of a problem with Item 5 of changing the water from System IV to System III. I know we have talked about it before, but not anything in depth. The other items are mostly maintenance items. Mr. Ward stated that the benefit of including it in the work program is that it will allow you to start the process of allowing WilsonMiller to look at that for you to get the information that you need. It is the same for the dune restoration issue. Mr. Domenie asked if we have something in the budget for moving the water from System IV to System III don't we? Mr. Ward replied that we did, but it included looking at the Vanderbilt Beach connection. This report essentially says let's not look at the Vanderbilt connection because of the political sensitivity of that, but look at moving water from System IV to System III. Mr. Werner stated that the flap gates have me troubled. They are doing the opposite of what we wanted all along. Instead of opening the connection we have in effect put in new culverts and closed the connection. 94 CLAM BAY SUB - COMMITTEE November 28, 2001 Mr. Ward stated that I think we ought to just take them off and be done with it. Let's do what Mr. Turrell suggested and do a tidal range analysis and check it out. Mr. Turrell replied I will work it out with Mr. Lukasz and it should not be expensive and you will still have the flap gates if you need to put them back on. Mr. Roellig asked what kind of a time frame would we be looking at to do that work? Mr. Lukasz replied they could be taken off in the next week. Mr. Werner moved, seconded by Mr. Domenle and approved unanimously to recommend to the full Advisory Committee that the Items recommend In the Biological Monitoring Report be approved for Implementation, along with the removal of the flap gates and dune restoration. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 P.M. Mr. David Roellig, Chairman 95 I/ ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE MEETING Fiala MINUTES - DECEMBER 17, 2001 1 6J 1 'Henning Cane,. �� Naples, Florida Coyle ColettaL , that the Pelican Bay Organization Review Sub - committee of the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee met in Regular Session on this date, December 17, 2001 at 3:00 P.M. at the Foundation Center, 8269 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108 with the following members present: Mr. James Carroll, Chairman Mr. Glen Harrell Mr. Joseph Bawduniak Mr. Christopher Sutphin ALSO PRESENT: Two (2) members of the public; Mr. Jay Cross, Executive Assistant to the Clerk Of Courts; Mr. James P. Ward, Department Director, Pelican Bay Services Division; and Mrs. Barbara Smith, Recording Secretary. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of the November 29, 2001 Sub - committee Meeting 3. Discussion of the Brock Report A) Comparison of Key Differences — Current Ordinance /Proposed Ordinance B) Agenda for Three Pelican Bay Community Resident Forums C) Publication Plans for the Pelican Bay Community Resident Forums Pelican Bay Post Mr. Brock's Website President's Council — January 14 Meeting Channe196 Naples Daily News Other 4. Next Sub - committee Meeting 5. Audience Participation 6. Adjournment ROLL CALL Mr. Carroll called the meeting to order and asked that the record show all members present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 18. 2001 SUB - COMMITTEE MEETING rj, ,c. C;arres. Mr. Sutphin moved, seconded by Mr. Bawduniak and unanimousl approved the Minutes of the November 29, 2001 Meeting.t, j rILA 1 DISCUSSION OF THE BROCK REPORT COMPARISON OF KEY DIFFERENCES - CURRENT ORDINANCE /PROPOSEDfQE1g1N'AKNCE Mr. Carroll explained that everyone has been provided a copy of the comparison that was drafted by Mr. Bawduniak. 150 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 16J 1 Mr. Bawduniak stated that he woud provide the background and a correction which should be made. The task that we have been entertaining and is supported by Mr. Brock is that we are to help get the information out and to help the public be informed so that they can make good decisions. This summary was written in telegram style, as opposed to anything else, so that at least the Summary could be picked up by somebody and in thirty seconds they would have a refresher of the information contained in the old Ordinance and then a comparison to the new Ordinance and it does that pretty well. I basically have resisted paraphrasing, except in one or two spots for simplicity or for shortening it. The third page is a Background lifted directly from Mr. Brock's commentary. It left out one or two items and I made a judgment that the public would not be interested in those details, seeking brevity and trying to maintain a comprehensive approach. The last item is the New Ordinance Considerations and I am just providing you a few words on each page, then we can go back and hammer it out. The last item really has something on it, which is not proper. More than one person pointed this out to me and I appreciated the constructive criticism. It was "Initial costs of the voting process are to be borne by the County Commission ". That is fact. "Subsequent costs are likely to be borne by Pelican Bay residents via MSTBU. Estimate of $15,000 per election, potentially every 2 years. Cost per residential unit about $1.90 per election year'. This is probably going to happen, but it was pointed out that this was conjecture. If that is left in it should be under a special note so that we are informing people, or leave it out altogether and have it covered in the question and answer period which is bound to occur with each of our three major meetings. I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but I agree it definitely should be changed because that is the only piece of conjecture that got by me. Mr. Sutphin asked if it would be fair to say, "It is unclear who will bear the costs of subsequent elections "? Mr. Bawduniak replied, "No ". I have gone down the line further and there is no way the County Commissioners are going to pay for this past the first time. Basically, it is a Pelican Bay MSTBU function. There are other MSTU's and none have an election like this and they are not about to get into supporting an election. Mr. Sutphin stated, then I don't understand why it is not proper to put it in there. 151 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE 16JI December 17, 2001 Mr. Bawduniak replied, "For the simple reason that it is not written anywhere ". Whereas we have been told and it is written that the first cost of election would be borne by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Charlie Dugan — The Pointe — I thought this Summary was done very well, but that is not factual and it is an opinion. Mr. Bawduniak was trying to keep this factual and he did a beautiful job of it. When you say it is likely, if you read the Ordinance it says that they will pay for it. That is factual until they change it. I suggested that instead of saying it is likely, which is opinion, if you could say if they decide not to do this, then the MSTBU will have to pay for it. That is factual. Mr. Carroll stated that might be a good way of doing it. Mr. Bawduniak replied, "I think it should be a special note, separate from the printed words ". Mr. Carroll stated that on Mr. Bawduniak's summary he has placed about six items, which are all the same. We can ask about each one if we wish. Item #3 has bothered me some, but maybe I don't understand it. It says "Annual Estimates of Expenses: Taxation Rate — to administer to the Ordinance the County Commissioners shall annually take money out of the business unit which was raised by taxation for estimated, described purposes ". If it says that in the Ordinance I don't understand what it means. Mr. Bawduniak replied, "It is in both of the Ordinances ". Mr. Carroll stated that I was wondering if we could leave that entire thing out of there? Mr. Ward explained that it should say, "to carry out the business of the Unit for the next fiscal year". Mr. Bawduniak stated that we omitted a line. Mr. Carroll asked, what about leaving that out? Mr. Ward replied, "It is actually an important feature ". Mr. Harrell stated you could leave out the explanation because the annual estimates of expenses and the taxation rate are the same. Whatever it is, it is the same. 152 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 16J I Mr. Bawduniak replied, "I think we need to leave a few words in ". Remember this is an education process. Essentially the community has no idea what "the business unit" does now. Mr. Carroll asked if we should leave it in and that Mr. Bawduniak would polish it up? Mr. Bawduniak stated that obviously something went amiss there, but it will be corrected. Mr. Carroll asked if we all feel that the item should remain? Mr. Ward explained that it is one of the most important sections of the entire Ordinance. Mr. Carroll stated that Item #5 has detail about members being removed if they miss 2 or more consecutive meetings and do we need that detail in there? Mr. Bawduniak stated that one of the first things I think of when I see a structure is how do we get rid of them? My personal feeling is that it would be nice to let them know that no matter how they go through this vote they will still have the same options to get rid of somebody and that their performance and attendance will be judged. Mr. Carroll stated that you could say that the members will be removed as per the Ordinance. Mr. Bawduniak replied, 'That begs a question, which is fine because we are going to have a question and answer session at each of the meetings ". Mr. Sutphin stated that I don't think it matters that much. Mr. Harrell explained that I am agreeable, I am just trying to keep it simple. The interesting thing about this is what is different. Mr. Bawduniak stated we want to educate them, but not overburden them with facts. Mr. Harrell replied, 'The point is what is the difference, not what is the same ". If you can cut back on the "same" business it makes it simpler. The "what is different" should be as detailed as possible. Mr. Carroll continued, "Committee members shall be permanent residents and electors of Collier County". I know that is what was said, but what does electors mean? Mr. Sutphin replied, "Registered to vote ". Mr. Mr. Ward explained registered to vote in Collier County. 153 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE 16J1 December 17, 2001 Mr. Carroll stated that I did not understand that and I had to ask Mr. Brock what that meant and that is what he said. Wouldn't it be clearer to say that? Mr. Harrell stated that is the way it stands now. In the new Ordinance the Committee members must be electors of Pelican Bay, other than the business people who have to be electors of Collier County. There is a difference. Mr. Sutphin stated that the new Ordinance reads that the residential members have to be electors of Pelican Bay and the business members must be electors of Collier County. Mr. Carroll stated this statement is not precise. Mr. Ward explained that what Mr. Bawduniak has is correct. You just need to add a sentence if you want to clarify it, that residential interests need to reside and be qualified electors in Pelican Bay. The commercial interests need to be residents and qualified electors of Collier County and just change the word "Same" to "Different ". Mr. Carroll replied, `That is good, it isn't the same ". I am looking more at form than content. Is there something on the left side, which corresponds to what you have written on the right side? I have written down some words on the old Ordinance `The Commissioners appoint the Committee members using their best judgment and recommendations of current Committee members ". That is the way it is done now and the way this new Ordinance would do it is the way you have written it. Mr. Bawduniak replied, "That is right, but up above we cover the governing body as "ex- officio Board of County Commissioners ". That basically covered the concept that they pick them. It is worth repeating because that is sort of hanging alone in the right hand column. Mr. Carroll stated that is right. You don't have anything in the column. Mr. Sutphin asked if the current Ordinance reads that the sitting Committee will review and make recommendations, or is that just practice? Mr. Bawduniak replied, "No, that has just been a courtesy". Mr. Sutphin asked if that is how it is done, but not what the old Ordinance says? 154 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE 16JI December 17, 2001 Mr. Bawduniak stated that the old Ordinance doesn't say anything like that. It is a courtesy that they say to this body, who do you like? As you have noted in the past, there is less than a 50/50 chance that if you support somebody from this group that they get appointed. Mr. Sutphin explained that the difference is that the old Ordinance says nothing and the new Ordinance is specific in the nominating process. Mr. Ward stated that the old Ordinance says that I shall do that, but I don't like doing that so I pawn that off on you. Mr. Sutphin asked if there were a couple of sentences that would capture what the old Ordinance says? Mr. Ward replied, "Yes we can do that ". Mr. Carroll stated that is what I was trying to do. I said, "Commissioners appoint Committee members using their best judgment ". You can stop there and you can say "and recommendations of the current Committee members which are usually ignored ". Mr. Bawduniak replied, "I don't think I would say that ". That is a good point and was covered by ex- officio Board of County Commissioners and gives them something to compare to. I was trying to create the impression that this is new and there is nothing like it. Mr. Carroll continued Functions, Powers and Duties of the Committee, but you say same "functions, powers and duties except now specified in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement/Letters of Understanding wherein the Board of County Commissioners with the County Manager outline that the intent of the operation of the unit ( MSTBU) is to allow the MSTBU Committee decisions and control of the day -to -day operations of the Services Division to that maximum allowed by law". That is right out of the Ordinance. Mr. Bawduniak replied, `That the key phrase in there, which we have not said before is "to the maximum level of the law." That is something we are putting in and the letters of Memorandum are going to state that. It is a direct lift from the new Ordinance. Mr. Carroll stated that there is also a note that some of the sitting Committee members will have their terms extended for short periods, etc. Mr. Harrell stated that is where your note for election costs should appear. 155 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE 16J1 December 17, 2001 Mr. Bawduniak stated that I was asked to put up pros and cons and I can tell you there are not many, which was a response to a couple of citizens asking us to make it simple. Mr. Harrell stated that the pros and cons are subjective. Mr. Bawduniak replied, "I guess some citizens would say that to get to vote is a con ". Mr. Harrell stated that my point is just the fact that you said "some ". Mr. Bawduniak stated that the Letters of Understanding are clearly a pro because they state something we never said before even though it is reaching and the con is that it could cost us money. I don't think that there is anybody that is going to say that spending $15,000 is a pro. Mr. Harrell replied, "You could say a con of voting is a popularity vote instead of a qualification vote ". The pro and con become subjective and the fact that it may cost us money is not necessarily a con, it is just a comment. Mr. Bawduniak asked if somebody asked us to give them the pros and cons, how would you do it? Mr. Harrell replied that is why there was a town hall meeting at the Registry. Pros and cons of this particular issue are dependent upon your standpoint. We have certainly heard from people who feel like voting is a negative. It doesn't necessarily mean that it is, just that they feel that it is. Mr. Bawduniak replied, "I am not sure I heard the same message as you did ". Mr. Harrell stated that we had Mr. Roellig tell us that he felt voting was not a good thing to do. He was in the audience of our Sub - committee meeting and he said that he didn't feel voting was necessarily the right thing to do and that is a view. It doesn't make it pro or con, but a subjective view. Mr. Bawduniak replied, "Maybe we could change it to "Ordinance Considerations" and take out the pro and cons ". Mr. Carroll stated that the pro and con sort of indicates a preference. Mr. Bawduniak replied, "I made a judgment ". It is probably obvious and probably right, but it is not appropriate for this Committee. Based on Mr. Harrell's suggestion I was going to take 156 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 out Pro and Con and put "Points To Ponder Over the New Ordinance" and leave it the way it is unless rearrangement is important. Mr. Harrell replied, "You could then put the cost of the election in that one ". Actually, I thought it was going to be less than $15,000. Mr. Carroll stated that was Mr. Ward's very detailed estimate. Mr. Harrell stated that I thought he was talking more like $5,000 for post cards and mailings. Mr. Bawduniak replied, `That might be the cost for post cards and mailings, but there are other costs involved ". Mr. Ward stated that printing a post card is pretty simple, but if you start doing a ballot, mailing it out, bringing it back in and counting it, you are going to be at $15,000. There is in the neighborhood of 7,700 units for balloting purposes. Mr. Carroll stated that if you spend $2.00 for each you are already there. Mr. Sutphin stated that the comment that I thought should be in here and I don't know if it is a pro or a con, is that this election is not an election under the Florida Election Laws and will therefore be unregulated and unsupervised unless legislation is passed that does so. It can be an unregulated free - for -all if people choose to make it so. It is not an election. Mr. Bawduniak replied, `That it is not covered in either Ordinance, but is a valuable fact to let the public know as part of our information plan ". Mr. Sutphin replied, "Absolutely, I don't now if it is good or bad, but I think it is important ". Ward stated that it is a method of recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Carroll stated that it is a selection process. Mr. Bawduniak stated that if this is voted in, we want people to step up and one of the first questions asked is, am I subject to the various financial reporting requirements? The answer is no, and Mr. Sutphin's point of making it up front, is for people to say this is not bad and we can do it. We can get people to run because there will not be retarding factors as there are in other political voting schemes. 157 J1 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE 16J1 December 17, 2001 Mr. Dugan stated that it is supervised. Mr. Brock is going to have to count those ballots. Mr. Sutphin replied, "Mr. Brock is going to count the ballots, but no one is going to monitor how the campaigning is conducted ". There is no existing body of law to cover how it is conducted. It was more of the campaign aspect that I was referring to, not the counting of the ballots. Mr. Ward replied, `That is an extremely valid point ". Mr. Carroll stated that the people have to understand that. If they feel they are not going to be covered by the financial disclosures they may run. What about the paragraph as written? Mr. Bawduniak stated that we operate under some unwritten understanding with the County Manager and County Commissioners and can we hope to get something more out of this because there is a Letter? The key words of "to the maximum allowed by law", do we do that now or is that just a fact that we are going to have it in writing? Mr. Ward replied, 'To a great extent we do that now". I don't think the Letter of Understanding strengthens or weakens it any more than it is currently done. It probably gives you a little more direct access to the County Commission than anything else. Clearly whoever sits in this seat will be reporting to the County Manager instead of mid -level of the County, which is a little better. Mr. Carroll stated that I had the impression that Mr. Brock felt it did move along in the direction that we have talked about. I don't know if that was because of our conversations with the Manager or not. Mr. Ward stated that County Manager's are traditionally very independent individuals and my tenure in Collier County has not been any different than anywhere else I work in the State. If that County Manager disagrees with whatever it is you want to do, that is the way it will end up getting presented to the County Commission. I don't think it gives you any more or any less than what you have right now. Mr. Bawduniak stated that it is the first time the words will be captured where it is written, "maximum allowed by law". It may give us some leverage because it is written. 158 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 16J1 Mr. Harrell stated that it appears to me that we are trying to put a square peg in a round hole and this is just one way to achieve it. The County Manager doesn't like this Memorandum, although he is willing to put up with it because he is letting the inmates run the asylum. Mr. Ward agreed. Mr. Harrell continued that if push came to shove, the County Manager would stop whatever he wanted to because he could and he can, but we are trying to operate here as living together and understanding and that is pretty much what the Memorandum does. It makes both parties understand. You just never know, you can get ten years down the road with new County Commissioners and new County Managers, and again I bring up the parking deck at Pelican Bay. They are now going back to sue WCI and get a court to establish what Deed Restrictions are actually enforceable, contrary to what a County Commission said in 1988. None of this changes much and just sets a goal and course, that if we all follow, is great. We could find the rug pulled out from under us, but it could be done now anyway. We are part of the County and the County is the County and the County hasn't changed. They are just going to an understanding that this new type of governance is the way we want it to be and they will put up with it as long as they like what we do. Mr. Bawduniak stated that doesn't change anything. Fundamentally it says and I have always been of the opinion, where is it written? When I have been in different kinds of battles, debates and arguments and it is easy to say to the other person, where is it written? At least we will have committed now, on paper, a document that we will all have to reference "maximum allowed by law ". When persons speak, the words disappear in ether. This can disappear too, but it is a little tougher to get a piece of paper to go away. It is like chicken soup, it can't hurt us and it might help us. Mr. Carroll asked Mr. Ward if he had any comments? Mr. Ward replied, "I want to go back and talk about the election issue ". The Ordinance reads, `The cost of the nomination and balloting process shall be borne by the Board of County Commissioners ". Let me tell you what that doesn't say. That does not say that the County's General Fund is going to pay for it. Because it is a Dependent District, it is an Ordinance of the 159 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 16J 1, Board of County Commissioners and by the adoption of the Ordinance they have to provide a mechanism for payment. It is an immaterial sentence in the Ordinance and it doesn't matter. They have the ability by the adoption of this Ordinance to pay for it out of their General Fund or any other fund, including this Division's Fund for the cost of that election. The language in the Ordinance doesn't say that the Board of County Commissioner's General Fund will pay for it, it says the Board of County Commissioners will pay for it and they have the legislative ability to determine each year or every election process specifically where they are going to take those funds from. You never had the cost before and it is important to tell the people that the cost is there, but it doesn't say that the General Fund pays for it. Mr. Dugan stated that it says that they will pay for it, but does not say they will bill the MSTBU either. Mr. Ward replied, `They pay for everything ". Mr. Carroll stated that what I heard Mr. Ward say was that they could pay for it with our budgeted funds. Mr. Harrell stated that what they are not saying is the General Fund and that is what you are getting at. If they had said the General Fund, that is not ours, that is specific. Mr. Dugan stated that regardless of what it says, they could change their mind anyway. Mr. Bawduniak asked if this suggests that they may not pay for the first one? Mr. Ward replied, "It does not say that they will, unless they have said to somebody, whenever this first election is going to occur that they are going to cover this cost under the General Fund ". This Ordinance does not say that. Mr. Harrell stated that it might be that Mr. Brock wrote that because the homeowners group was going to pay for the election at one point and he may be clearly saying that the County will pay for this. Not necessarily meaning, not the MSTBU. Mr. Ward replied that the MSTBU is the County and it is one and the same organization. Mr. Dugan stated that I would put Mr. Cross on the spot. I think that he will tell you that Mr. Brock is going to pay that out of his budget. 160 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE 16J December 17, 2001 Mr. Cross replied, "Mr. Brock will pay for the first election, but what happens after that is that you cannot tell the Board of County Commissioners what does and does not go into the General Fund ". I can't tell you that the first one will come out of the General Fund, but the County will pay for it. My guess is and the agreement we have with them at this point is that it will come out of the General Fund. They may decide to take it out of some reserve fund. It would be very difficult to take it out of your budget since they have already approved your budget for this year and it is not included. I am telling you that the chances of them taking it out of the MSTBU budget for this coming year will be very difficult to do. For subsequent elections you can't dictate to the County how and where they are going to pay for it. I can tell you from our conversations that you will never get it in the General Funds. General Funds, by law, have to benefit the entire resident population of the County and this election does not do that. Mr. Ward replied, "I guess I am more sensitive to it than anybody else ". The cost of the last election was not in my budget but we paid for it anyway through the Budget Amendment process. It's not in the budget doesn't really mean anything because the Board of County Commissioners can amend my budget any time they choose to amend it and they did without my review or approval when they paid for that past election. The issue is that the cost of the election is an additional cost to the MSTBU for purposes of this process and my opinion is that it ought to be disclosed. Mr. Harrell stated that it has to be put into perspective as to what it really means. It is really very small. To run around and drink coffee with a bunch of guys and say this is going to cost us $15,000 a year becomes a much more weighty issue, when it really isn't. Mr. Carroll stated that we ought to get rid of the phrase "every two years" we don't really know that. Mr. Domenie stated that you ought to say "Pelican Bay Owners" rather than "residents ". Mr. Bawduniak stated that after you talked to Mr. Brock you came back and expressed the sentiment 'The first election, the cost would be borne by the County", then you differentiated that subsequent votes could be the MSTBU, which differentiated it to me as General Fund versus US. 161 161 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE 16J December 17, 2001 Mr. Carroll stated that Mr. Brock never said it was going to come out of the General Fund. He just said the County would pay for it the first time and he didn't say what would happen thereafter. We have clarified that quite a bit now. Mr. Ward replied, "I don't know that and all I am telling you is that personally I don't know that and that is not what the Ordinance says, but as long as somebody has made that representation, that is fine ". issue? Mr. Bawduniak asked Mr. Cross if he thought we were making a fair interpretation of that Mr. Cross replied, "I think so, yes ". Mr. Bawduniak stated that he woud incorporate those suggestions. I thought they were good and they help the cause. Our cause again, is to educate and not overwhelm the community. Mr. Cross stated that I would encourage you that when you are dealing with this not to call it an election. It is a nomination, a popularity contest, etc., but please do not call it an election. It can introduce all different kinds of problems for folks if they think you are holding an election. Mr. Bawduniak asked what was the most appropriate synonym that you would suggest because "popularity contest" doesn't cut it? Mr. Cross replied, "It is a recommendation process ". Mr. Bawduniak stated that wherever it says voting we will change it to read, "recommend" or "recommendation ". Mr. Dugan stated that I would suggest that you get a copy of this to Mr. Cross and Mr. Brock ahead of time. If they are going to come to these meetings you are going to want them to be in agreement. AGENDA FOR THREE PELICAN BAY COMMUNITY RESIDENT FORUMS Mr. Carroll stated that he thought the management of the community meetings should be discussed. We are going to have a meeting on January 7`h at 3:00 P.M. I feel we need to talk 162 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE 1 ( December 17, 2001 about how we conduct this meeting. Are we going to start off by taking the Comparison that Mr. Bawduniak has put together and pass it out and take it from there, or what? Mr. Bawduniak replied, "Hopefully the public would have access to this before the fact and would have plenty available so that they could read them ". Then perhaps Mr. Carroll could Chair the meeting and introduce Mr. Brock and give a few words of background on the fact that this has gone through the approval of the entire MSTBU Committee. Mr. Brock and Mr. Cross could say they had prior review and say that this is our effort to summarize in simple terms what we have now, versus the new Ordinance. There will be a brief Power Point presentation, which Mr. Brock offered to prepare and say we would be open for questions and answers. I have a hunch the presentation will be ten minutes and the questions and answers will be a lot more than that. What we should do along the way is try and premeditate what the typical questions would be so that we can capture the answers and maybe have them along. Mr. Sutphin stated that you might have to be prepared to have what I would call agenda "A" and agenda "B ". If we get five or seven people to show up, it is one kind of a meeting. If for some unlikely occurrence there are a couple of hundred, it is going to be a different kind of meeting. It could be much less structured if it is a very small audience. Mr. Bawduniak stated that you have to plan for success and prepare for disaster. Mr. Sutphin asked which one is success? Mr. Bawduniak replied, "In planning for success the Power Point presentation is going to be the same if it is one person or one hundred ". If there is one person there will be a couple of questions, if there is one hundred there will be more than a couple of questions. I think we have to be ready to have prepared for Mr. Brock, answers to the most expected questions, and then if a tough one comes up he is on his own. Mr. Carroll stated that I am concerned about overkill. I have written about this in the Pelican Bay Post twice and the Concerned Citizens have written about it. We are probably going to write about it again and we tell them to read it on the website, etc. I am just wondering what new information we are going to be bringing to them. 163 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE 1 6 1 , sV December 17 2001 0 Mr. Bawduniak replied, "It is not new information, it is a new format ". After the agreed suggestions here are put together we put this Summary out in the Pelican Bay Post ahead of time and at the meeting. Mr. Harrell stated that the people that go to the January 23rd meeting would have had the material longer than the ones going to the January 71h meeting. Put it out as soon as possible. Mr. Carroll replied, 'That is a problem ". I have to have something to the Pelican Post by Wednesday, if it is going to go in the early January Pelican Post. Mr. Bawduniak stated that I would get something to Mr. Ward tomorrow and he can get it out radially so that you all see it and if we have captured the right words, you have it. Mr. Dugan stated that you want Mr. Brock to see it. Mr. Carroll stated that I could fax it to him and have him comment on it. Mr. Bawduniak stated wait a minute, we are putting something out before our full Committee sees it. Does that have any significance? Mr. Carroll replied, "I don't see it ". The full Committee is going to meet before the January 7th meeting. Mr. Bawduniak asked what if someone there has a bee in their bonnet and a passion for something and they take a vote and change it? Again, just planning for disaster. it. Mr. Domenie stated that you would need to call a special meeting of the full Committee. Mr. Carroll replied, "I don't think we should do that over the holiday'. Mr. Domenie stated that the full Committee, before it gets published, should have a run at Mr. Bawduniak asked if we could do that through radial distribution for comment? Mr. Ward replied that is not an item that will come before you so it could. Mr. Bawduniak stated that it is a judgment of whether we say more words or less. Mr. Carroll asked if we would send this to the full Committee in the next couple of days after it is pounded out for comments and information? Mr. Bawduniak replied, "yes, and if you don't respond within twenty minutes, thank you for your cooperation ". 164 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 16J , Mr. Sutphin stated that there is nothing in your write up that is expressing an endorsement by the full Committee or anything else that would require the entire Committee to act on. It is a summary of facts. Mr. Bawduniak stated that the only thing they could complain about would be that they want more facts or they think there is too much. It would be a matter of presentation form and not content. Is that worth going for, I don't know? Mr. Carroll stated that the way Mr. Vlasho presented this was that this Sub - committee would be doing what we are doing and I am not sure that we need the Committee's endorsement before we go out with information. At the January 20d meeting we could certainly bring it up, but I think the full Committee is looking to us to pursue this. Mr. Bawduniak replied, "You have a point and those were the words that he spoke ". Mr. Ward do you think it would be a good idea as a courtesy to send them a draft? Mr. Ward replied, "Certainly ". Mr. Carroll stated let's not ask for their approval. Let's keep them informed. Mr. Harrell stated that we will committee this to death if we keep it up. Mr. Carroll stated that if there is some loud disagreement with something we have, we will hear it on January 2"d and we can adjust our discussion on the 71h. We are not going to do any more than inform the people, answer their questions and go on to the next meeting. We have talked about three meetings and if we have twelve people at the first meeting and six at the second, we are going to have to decide if this whole thing is worth pursuing further. Mr. Harrell replied, 'We ought to have three any way". We should have three even if nobody shows up. Those three opportunities were for people to pick dates and if they don't come we can still say we were there. Mr. Sutphin agreed. I think we are obligated to be there and follow through. Mr. Harrell stated that it would not surprise me one bit if nobody shows up. Mr. Domenie stated that the Community Affairs Committee is going to have a meeting on January 9th to discuss this issue. 165 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 Mr. Bawduniak stated that they have already asked to have a summary available to them that we are going to be using. Mr. Duggan stated that is part of the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association and they have endorsed it. Mr. Bawduniak stated they only want it for informational purposes. To me, in the proper spirit, they just want to make sure they know the facts. Mr. Dugan stated that I would want to make sure it is part of the Pelican Bay Property Owners and that we aren't running into somebody that is going to dissent on this. Mr. Carroll stated that Mr. O'Connor has stated over and over, that he is in agreement. Mr. Bawduniak replied, `The Community Affairs Committee is not a debating society". My wife was co -chair with Mr. Domenie for a year or so and their main goal in life is to disseminate information. Mr. Domenie stated that we did not tell the Pelican Bay Property Owners what our subjects were. It was just for informational purposes. PUBLICATION PLANS FOR THE PELICAN BAY COMMUNITY RESIDENT FORUMS Mr. Carroll explained that we have been talking about publication in the Pelican Bay Post and right now that is an important document. Mr. Bawduniak will have to get his comparison done and then I have to get it to write it into the paper. Mr. Bawduniak stated that it is a five - minute piece of work and asked Mr. Ward if he was available right after the meeting to go over the words that were changed then it can be taken back and fixed and put right out? Mr. Ward stated that he was available. Mr. Bawduniak replied, 'We will do it today". Mr. Carroll stated that he is having a hard time with this deadline business. The deadline was supposed to be today and I got them to agree to move the deadline until Wednesday, but I don't think I can get any more time. Mr. Bawduniak asked if that was for the first edition in January? 166 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 16J 1, Mr. Carroll replied, "Yes, and that is the vital one ". I have to write for the second issue a couple of weeks later. The second item I have listed is Mr. Brock's website which we volunteered. I am not sure we want to put anything on there other than the notices of the meetings, but that is the question. Do we want to put any more detail on the website such as the comparison, or do we just want to use that as a way of notifying people of the meetings? Mr. Ward stated that our website ought to be operational again by the end of this week. Naples Daily News has somewhat shut it down, but my company can sponsor it, so we are trying to load it onto our servers and hopefully it will be done by the end of this week. Mr. Domenie asked if we could put the comparison on Channel 96 also? Mr. Bawduniak stated that if we can bump some of the information from the Women's League, which takes up about 50% of the time, we might be able to. Mr. Harrell stated that Mr. Bawduniak's comparison should be on the website. Mr. Carroll stated that there is a President's Council Meeting on January 141h at 4:00 P.M. and our meeting being at 7:00 P.M. that evening. Do we want to use that as a forum to encourage people to attend the meeting? I go to those meetings and provide a report for the MSTBU. Mr. Bawduniak stated that if you do this already it would be appropriate to mention these meetings. You would be remiss if you didn't. Mr. Carroll stated that I certainly would, but the question of whether I get into any more detail like working the comparison, I would rather not do that at that meeting. Mr. Bawduniak stated that might appear as if you are pushing something and you should keep it at arms length. Mr. Harrell asked if there are other MSTBU members on the President's Council? Mr. Carroll replied, "Mr. Vlasho is the President ". Mr. Harrell asked if it was appropriate for us to speak at that council about items that come up before the MSTBU? Mr. Ward replied, "No ". 167 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 Mr. Harrell stated that it would be appropriate to inform them of issues, but not to answer questions. Mr. Carroll stated that I just provide a report. Mr. Harrell stated that I would be very careful about sitting up there and talking about this issue, other than informing them of the dates and time. Mr. Carroll stated that is what I wanted to do. Mr. Carroll continued that now is the discussion about Channel 96 and who knows how to handle that? Mr. Bawduniak stated that Sybil would put the information on for us with no problem. Mr. Ward replied, 'We would send the meeting notice to Sybil for her to include on Channel 96 ". Mr. Sutphin asked if you wanted the summary notice on Channel 96 also? Mr. Ward stated that is going to be a little much, but a notice to check our website for details could be included. Mr. Carroll stated that it would be just the notice of the meetings. Mr. Harrell stated that the meeting notice and a note about checking the website might be the answer for the next one, the Naples Daily News. Mr. Ward stated that you ought to call the reporter and let her know. Mr. Bawduniak stated that Ms. Cathy Zoloft should be interested in this because she covered the big meeting and put a lot of energy into it. Mr. Harrell stated that you could put out a Public Service Announcement of the dates, but you are not going to be able to push the agenda. Ms. Zoloft can write anything she wants and you are not going to be in control of what she writes. Mr. Carroll asked do we want that? Mr. Bawduniak stated that I don't think we do. Of all of the reporters I have dealt with, the one I would worry about the least, as of a few months ago, is Kathy Zoloft. Mr. Harrell stated that I worry about all reporters. You might be better off with a Public Service Announcement. .: ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 Mr. Sutphin asked if that would only appear in the Public Notice section? Mr. Bawduniak asked where do you find them? il Mr. Carroll replied, `They are buried ". Do we want to use the Daly News at all we have all of these others? Mr. Harrell stated that you have a better shot at her coming to the meetings to cover them than you do having her write beforehand. Mr. Bawduniak asked about a Letter to the Editor announcing it? Everybody reads the Letters to the Editor because they are so kooky. Mr. Harrell replied, "Yes, that and Police Beat". Mr. Carroll asked if there was any guarantee that they will put it in? Mr. Ward replied, "No ". Mr. Bawduniak stated yes, as long as it is not over 200 words and not personally attacking an individual, they put every Letter to the Editor in. They have the option that if you write a letter within two weeks of a prior one, they can drop the second one. You can only offer a letter at a period greater than two weeks. If you write thirteen letters in thirteen days, you get the first one published and the others will disappear. Mr. Ward stated that if you tell the reporter and they think it is significant and you would get the press. Mr. Harrell stated that you are going to get words like "exclusive enclave ", etc. Mr. Carroll replied, "That is why I am a little uneasy about it ". A Public Notice will go in the paper, but get lost in the fine print some place. Is that good enough or do we want to go the next step, which is a Letter to the Editor? That would only be a letter indicating the dates and encouraging people to attend. Mr. Ward replied, "I think that is a bad idea ". I think you are publishing enough. You have it on Mr. Brock's website, we are going to get it operational on our website, it is on Channel 96 and we could post it at the Foundation facilities. 169 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 Mr. Bawduniak stated that we would need to honor Mr. Harrell's request I&dl � t announcement, even if it is buried. Later people can come back and say you did not legally advertise it. Mr. Sutphin stated that the legal notice does have to appear. Mr. Ward replied, 'There is no requirement under the law that we do that ". Mr. Harrell stated that we could send out a press release as a Public Service Announcement that there are meetings on these days. Mr. Ward replied, '?hat is probably a better idea ". Just send out a press release to do it. I know the County Attorney is going to get into the middle of it if I try to publish a Legal Notice in the Naples Daily News. Mr. Harrell stated that we would have already met the legal requirements of these meetings so we would not have to worry about that. Mr. Bawduniak asked if Mr. Cross had any suggestions or criticisms of this approach? Mr. Cross replied, "None ". Mr. Carroll stated that he had listed all of the things that he could think of and asked if anyone else had any other ideas of how to publicize this? Mr. Ward stated that we would have it posted at all of the Foundation facilities. Mr. Bawduniak stated that it should be made eye- catching and in color. Mr. Sutphin asked that they be placed at the Bay Colony Club also. Mr. Ward replied, "We ask Bay Colony for a lot of things, most of which they say no to, but that is another story". Mr. Sutphin stated that if the Notices were sent to me, I would ask that they be displayed. Mr. Bawduniak asked Mr. Ward to generate some Notices for Mr. Carroll to take to the President's Council so they can be placed on the bulletin boards of their respective condominiums. Mr. Ward agreed. Not that I want Mrs. Smith copying for thirty years, but another thing that we have done is put them on the bulletin board of the association and provide them seventy or eighty non - colored copies for the mailboxes of the residents. 170 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE • December 17, 2001 Mr. Sutphin stated that it could be posted in the mailroom of every condominium. Mr. Carroll stated that all of the condominiums are not represented and we are lucky to have forty people there. If you provide me forty Notices I can pass them out. Mr. Domenie asked about the commercial interests? Mr. Harrell replied, 'We will try to get the word out to our commercial people ". That is a lackadaisical bunch. Mr. Carroll asked if Mr. Harrell thought any commercial interests would attend these meetings? Mr. Harrell replied, "if I could find one that was interested, I wouldn't be sitting here ". Mr. Carroll stated that we are done with our Subcommittee meetings before January 7'h, but we will be meeting with the full Committee on January 2"d. I can give a general report of this meeting at that meeting. Somebody suggested that Mr. Brock be kept up to date, so as soon as I get the summary and write it up for the Post I can send it to Mr. Brock. Mr. Ward stated that Mrs. Smith could provide it to Mr. Brock. Mr. Bawduniak stated that the changes are going to be resolved now, tomorrow Mrs. Smith will fix it and it will start going out to the world. about it. Mr. Carroll asked that it be sent to him and he will fax it to Mr. Brock and then call him Mr. Harrell stated that Commissioner Carter issued a letter that listed all of the things that have to be done before we could take this back to the County Commission. Are you specifically keeping track of those issues that we have to do? It seems like some of them are kind of obscure or some kind of a professional third party group doing public surveys or something to that effect. There were a lot of things that he mentioned that he wanted from each group and he mentioned that specifically. We had the Pelican Bay Property Owners write a letter saying they endorsed it and he wanted a letter from each President saying their group endorsed it. It seemed like there was something about a survey by a third party. If that is the case we need to start contacting somebody to do that kind of stuff. 171 1 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE 6J1 December 17, 2001 Mr. Dugan stated that I have heard this and I think Mr. Brock will confirm that he is going to take this to the County Commission. I am sure this is not the first time he has met the Commissioners and he is not going to take it until he is fairly satisfied that everybody here has voted to recommend it. He is very aware of that letter. Somewhere there is a little quote that he had some input into that letter and I think he will take care of that part. Mr. Carroll stated that I feel Mr. Brock has managed this process. Mr. Cross stated that he felt that was a fair statement. Mr. Harrell stated that I just bring this letter up because it is out there and I would hate to have Commissioner Carter say that this is what I said and you are not living up to it. I just want to make sure we have "crossed all of our T's and dotted all of our I's ". Mr. Dugan stated that Mr. Brock has said publicly that he is not going to take this in there and get himself bloodied and he is not in the game to get bloody. Mr. Harrell replied, "I have also heard Commissioner Carter say, both publicly and privately, I am not going to listen to this again until it is done the way I want it ". We just need to make sure that we are aware that there is this criteria and if we don't need it that is fine. I just want to make sure that if we need it, we have to do it. Mr. Domenie asked if after these meetings there is going to be a straw poll, which is then going to be used as a basis to go to the Commissioners? Mr. Harrell replied, "Right, that is part of it ". That will be one aspect. Mr. Carroll stated that I would just ask Mr. Brock if this process meets Commissioner Carter's requirements, which were sent to us in his letter. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Mr. Dugan stated that at the last MSTBU when you (Mr. Carroll) reported on the November 29'h meeting of this Sub - committee, maybe my opinions are wrong and that is all they are, but I got the distinct idea that there was not much evidence that the Sub - committee wanted to take a stand on this issue. I have since looked at the Minutes and I still feel that is how it reads. I left the November 291h meeting with the idea that you had come around to the idea of taking a stand on this issue. I quote on Page 143, line eleven, "Mr. Burke stated that you might 172 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 16 have someone say you are much closer to this. I am sure that anyone that attends the public hearing would be involved and know something, but the bulk of the citizens are not even too sure what the MSTBU is. Mr. Ward replied, "That is true and I would stick my neck out on this one ". We live in a democracy and you went through this once before where you said what your opinion was and nobody else wanted to do it. So what? You come up with a consensus opinion and if you think it is good you ought to say that you think it is good. Mr. Bawduniak then stated that I think it is good, although I think the Committee should be prepared to say the Sub - committee believes this is the route to go." We said it in our Minutes last month. Mr. Dugan continued that I made some comments following that and said you have to take a stand on this issue. On Page 145, fifth paragraph, "Mr. Bawduniak stated that nevertheless, whatever we say, we say and we have already said in the Minutes last month; we are very comfortable with the new Ordinance. We have to put a caption on it that we are very comfortable with it, but it is up to the citizens to go for it or not. We don't want to look like we are driving them. Mr. Dugan replied, "Absolutely'. All I am saying is that it would be nice if you people said that you were for it. Mr. Carroll replied, "I think we are all heading in that direction." That is not what I got out of that last meeting. Mr. Sutphin asked Mr. Dugan, what are you looking for? Mr. Dugan replied, "I am looking for this Committee to say that they think the Ordinance is good. I have sat at every meeting they have had since this discussion started, back to when Mr. Vlasho wanted to control the issue himself with a letter to Commissioner Carter. I have heard very little and I know of a couple dissenters that might be in the group, but from a Concerned Citizens point of view we want it to pass and we have endorsed it. If it doesn't pass, it doesn't hurt us very much. It would be awfully nice if we could have a monolith of people together on this so that there is some togetherness in Pelican Bay. We can come out and say that the two outfits that were vehemently opposed to each other, the Pelican Bay Property Owners and the Concerned Citizens, are together on this. They have both recommended it in the paper after they had a chance to digest it. If we could get a monolith of people with your group in there, it is just going to let the people feel better. A lot of them do not know what this is about. 173 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE 16JI December 17 2001 You can do Mr. Bawduniak's study and everything else and they still are not going to understand it and they are counting on some of these organizations to give an answer. That is exactly what Commissioner Carter's letter was. He said this was going to be given to each body and I am going to get an answer from them. You have picked this Ordinance apart and made changes in it and that is the greatest thing about a democracy. I would think you would want to take a position on it. Mr. Sutphin stated that you are looking for a committee consensus that we are for this Ordinance. I support the Ordinance because I don't think it can do any damage. Mr. Carroll stated that what many people feel is if it passes fine, if it doesn't so what? How can we loose on this if we take a position or not? I am not against taking a position. Mr. Dugan replied, "Because Mr. Brock, regardless of the Forums that he had which didn't have a lot of people, he has e- mails, phone calls, letters and talked to numerous people. The strongest thing he says in his comments and he said it when he came here, there is really only one big variance. I would like to see that end because that is what the people said they wanted. Mr. Harrell asked what if the straw poll comes back and says we like it the way it is, then would we support that? Our full Committee is looking for us to take to them our recommendation. That is what our job is. We are going to come out and look at all of the information and not present it in a biased way. We are dealing with two issues. We either change the way it is or keep it the way it is. It is really a no lose situation. We may all have different opinions whether we like the new Ordinance or not, but that is not the point. The point is to get a consensus and get a direction from the people. That is what we lacked the last time. The MSTBU voted for the Ordinance the last time and it then got defeated. The MSTBU will ultimately recommend to the Board of County Commissioners along with all of the data that Commissioner Carter said, if it wants to be changed. If the people don't want to change, it won't be. Mr. Carroll stated that this Sub - committee has been struggling with not taking a position until we have heard from the people and got some ideas. Ultimately the full Committee is going 174 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE 16J1 December 17, 2001 y to make the decision. The Sub - committee taking a position at that time probably doesn't matter much; it is the full Committee's position that will matter. Mr. Dugan replied, "I am not going to fight it any more and I just think it is too bad that you can't do it ". Mr. Sutphin stated that it is hard to get passionate about it. Mr. Bawduniak stated that I am not sure this is the forum to bring it up, but something I have been thinking about for a while is a suggestion we heard two meetings ago and that is the full Committee is going to review this and look at our Summary and are probably going to take a vote as to whether they support it or not. I think the vote ought to be taken and there will be a couple of folks that say don't bother, leave it alone as it is, we are happy, which was termed "dissenting opinion ". I think if the full Committee takes a vote, everybody ought to be listed as to how they vote and the minority put together a few words as to why they are dissenting. That is information to the public, which will be available for questions and answers at the three meetings. That puts an intellectual honesty onus on people who are going to run later. They are going to be out front as to what they do believe and what they don't believe and that is never bad. I wasn't going to bring that up today, but why not plant the seed with you folks so that if you like or don't like the idea it can be discussed. Mr. Sutphin stated that should be on the agenda for January 2nd and I agree with that. Mr. Carroll stated that the full Committee has to take a vote and assuming there is a strong supporting majority that wants to change the Ordinance then we have to pass that on to the Commissioner. Mr. Dugan asked if this was going to be a recommendation that you are going to report to the full Committee? Mr. Carroll replied, "I was talking about the full Committee making a recommendation to the Commissioners ". Mr. Dugan replied, "I understand, I am talking about what Mr. Bawduniak is suggesting ". I just want to see how this is going to be reported to the MSTBU. Is this a recommendation that your Sub - committee is going to ask that the MSTBU listen to? 175 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 16JI,4# Mr. Harrell stated that I don't think the full Committee should hear it until we have the public hearings and the straw vote and we have the individual groups sign off on it like Commissioner Carter wanted. We look at all of that data and say it is clear or it isn't clear. I don't see us voting on anything. We just take it to the Committee and either recommend it or don't recommend it. Mr. Bawduniak stated that we are not going to the Committee, we are one step earlier in delivering to the public that they are probably going to question at one of the three meetings about how we feel. We can tell you how we feel. The vote was 7/4 with 7 for and 4 against and by the way this is the reason the four did not support it. That is a piece of information for the public. Mr. Harrell replied, "I disagree, I don't think it is time yet ". I don't think we should individually take a stance at all until we have all of the information. Mr. Bawduniak stated that the meetings are not going to influence us. We are going to say here is what we think, because at the meetings we are probably going to be asked. I know Mr. Levenson is going to get up and ask what do you think? If we have an answer we say here is the way we reviewed it at the MSTBU meeting on January 2"d. Mr. Harrell stated that you have the cart before the horse. The last time the Ordinance came up the MSTBU voted with only one or two dissenting votes for the new Ordinance. The public got involved and it got repealed. Why are we doing it again? Let's let the public get involved first, hear what they have to say, then we will listen to what they are saying and put it together the way it is supposed to be and take it to the full Committee and say this is what we heard. The full Committee will then vote, whether there are dissenting votes or not, who cares. Someone is going to ask how I personally feel about it? You think they are going to ask me? Mr. Carroll replied, "Yes, they could ". Mr. Harrell asked what difference does it make how I feel? They might not vote for me, is that what your saying? 176 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 Mr. Carroll stated that you were not at the meeting when someone said you know a lot more about it than I do, so why don't you tell me how you feel and then maybe I'll be influenced by that? Mr. Harrell stated that is part of the Sub - committees meetings and that is to show both sides and to be neutral. I thought we have done a good job in being very neutral in this and I can understand Mr. Dugan wanting someone to take the flag and go, but I don't want to be so clear that we think we know the way the public is going. People did that the last time thinking they knew where the public was going. I want to be very clear what the public thinks and know what they are saying. To me it is entirely possible that this straw vote will come back saying I don't want to change. So let's not endorse anything until we know what is going on. I wouldn't bring it up to the full Committee, just say we are on -going and have the three meetings, meet with the groups, etc. Mr. Bawduniak asked if that is serving the people we work for? We find out what they want and say yes, here it is. You want a brown suit turn on the brown light, no. I think our job is to give them as much information, as simply as possible, and be prepared to give an opinion. If nobody asks at the meetings about what we think, we don't tell them. If somebody asks and it seems appropriate to ask the question, it is called intellectual honesty. You have to be ready to be honest. Mr. Domenie stated that I was under the impression at the last meeting of the Committee that it was decided that the Committee was not going to take a position until after the straw vote and then we would become the messenger and take it to the Commissioner. Mr. Bawduniak replied, 'We don't need an opinion then ". If the people want it fine, if they don't want it fine, end of issue, why get into a debate? Mr. Harrell replied, 'There is no debate because there is no issue to debate ". Mr. Carroll stated that it is like Mr. Sutphin said; there is nothing to get passionate about. It is not like the last one. Mr. Harrell stated that it is not going to change our government. 177 1 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW UB -COMMITTEE 16J1 S MITTEE December 17, 2001 Mr. Sutphin stated the other Ordinance put people out of jobs and changed the way the District was managed. This one does not do that it doesn't do anything. Mr. Carroll stated that it is my feeling that a lot of this discussion we have had about the Brock Report has really brought the community together to the point where this has become not very important. Mr. Harrell stated that it is easy to fight against something. It is very hard to fight for something. Mr. Domenie asked if the Foundation has taken a position on this issue? They are the largest unit, next to us. Mr. Carroll stated that they voted the last time and one of their Board Members called me and asked me what they voted for? They didn't have a clue about what was going on. We have to make sure everybody knows. We should almost make the President's of those associations say that I have met with our members and all of the members agree. It is the Board thing that got us in trouble the last time. The Board's all got together and we decided this was the best thing. Mr. Dugan stated that all of the Board's did not get together. Mr. Harrell replied, "That's what everyone was led to believe ". Mr. Carroll stated that we would discuss this at the January 2nd meeting, we will have our three meetings and the straw vote and then this Sub - committee will decide whether we want to take a position or not at that time. Mr. Domenie asked who would be conducting the straw vote? Mr. Carroll replied Mr. Brock's office. Mr. Jay Cross, Executive Assistant to the Clerk of Courts, Mr. Brock was unable to be here with you today. To bring you up to date on where we are in the process is that I have prepared the question and answer that is going out to all of the property owners in Pelican Bay. The commercial, residential and other interests and one of the things we are probably going to have to revisit in the Ordinance is that we did not take into the consideration the "others" that are property owners in this. We basically had broken it down into residential and commercial. You do have some strange entities like St. Williams Church. I am not of the opinion that they are a 178 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 commercial interest and yet they occupy space in Pelican Bay and we assume that their vote should be counted somewhere along the line. Mr. Harrell asked if they pay taxes? Mr. Cross replied they do not pay taxes, but they do pay assessments, the same with the Philharmonic. You have several of those that we have to address somehow, so we are in the process of trying to figure out where exactly in the Ordinance these fit. Mr. Cross continued that the second thing that we will be doing is that when you conclude your three community meetings we have already prepared the document to go out to all of the residents that will ask them if they read the Ordinance and if they approve of the Ordinance. That will all be handled through the Clerk's office and the entire cost of that is going to be borne by the Clerk's office. Somewhere shortly after the end of January these questionnaires will all be in the mail to all of the identified property owners. I believe there are approximately 6,640 residents, about 64 commercial interests and approximately 17 "others ". Almost 7,000. Mr. Dugan asked if you are counting the Registry condominiums? Those people are all individual owners. Mr. Cross replied I don't know the answer to that question. When the property Appraiser gave me a list of all of the property ID's in Pelican Bay, that is the number I can remember. Mr. Bawduniak stated that you mentioned that you would send out inquiries to the Pelican Bay residents asking did you read the Ordinance? Can you change that wording to "have you been informed about the Ordinance "? Otherwise we will not get ten voters. Mr. Cross replied, "Okay'. Mr. Bawduniak stated that you have to choose your words very carefully. Mr. Cross stated that it is a response card and what you will do is check it off, sign it, fold it back over, put a stamp on it and send it back to us. Mr. Carroll asked what do you care about the answers to the first question? Mr. Cross stated that it is a mechanism to help us understand how many people are really involved in it. I think you will be surprised at how many people have read it. If you look at 179 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE December 17, 2001 16J what the website hits are, there have been a ton of people looking at the Ordinance on the website. Mr. Ward stated that we are getting a lot of hits on our website also. Mr. Cross stated that the only thing we are waiting on now is the conclusion of these meetings, which will be the straw poll on what you are looking for. I believe we are going to use a twenty -day turnaround where they have to be back to our office. It doesn't take that long to fill out that card, it takes about three seconds. Mr. Harrell stated that it takes twenty -days to lose it. You were asking earlier about what the agenda would be at these meetings. It is going to be interesting to be able to control this discussion just to the issue of what we are trying to talk about. That is going to be the biggest issue we face and not whether a street pole works or doesn't work, or the landscaping, or what happened to all of that turf? You are going to have to control the meeting to the point where we are going to talk about do you understand this Ordinance or would you like to keep it the way it is, and not that I think we should be a City. It can get crazy. That is the part that is out there that is going to be interested. Mr. Carroll replied, "I will try hard on that ". ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 P.M. Mr. James Carroll, Chairman 180 Coletta - F ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE REVIEW SUB - COMMITTEE MEETING 6J1 SUMMARY MINUTES —DECEMBER 17, 2001 Naples, Florida 16-J' LET IT BE KNOWN, that the Pelican Bay Organization Review Sub - committee of the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee met in Regular Session on this date, December 17, 2001 at 3:00 P.M. at the Foundation Center, 8269 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108 with the following members present: Mr. James Carroll, Chairman Mr. Glen Harrell Mr. Joseph Bawduniak Mr. Christopher Sutphin ALSO PRESENT: Two (2) members of the public; Mr. Jay Cross, Executive Assistant to the Clerk of Courts; Mr. James P. Ward, Department Director, Pelican Bay Services Division; and Mrs. Barbara Smith, Recording Secretary. A lengthy discussion was held with regard to the Comparison Summary that was prepared by Mr. Bawduniak. The consensus of the group was that Mr. Bawduniak and Mr. Ward would incorporate the few changes that were made and it would be faxed to the entire Advisory Committee and Mr. Brock for his review. The Sub - committee determined that the format for the three community forums would be that Mr. Carroll would introduce Mr. Brock and give a few words of the background on the fact that this has gone through the approval of the entire MSTBU Committee. There will be a Power Point presentation of the Summary Comparison and then a question and answer period will follow. It was also felt that all three meetings would be held regardless of the number of people in attendance. It was the Sub - committee's consensus that the three community forums would be noticed on the websites of Mr. Brock and the Pelican Bay Services Division, along with the Summary Comparison. Meeting Notices will also be posted at all of the Foundation facilities, as well as on Channel 96 and a Press Release prepared by Mr. Ward and provided to the Naples Daily News. Mr. Carroll indicated that he would be informing the President's Council of these meetings when he does his report on the MSTBU to that group and would also be encouraging their attendance. Mr. Carroll was to prepare the article for the early January issue of the Pelican Bay Post. Mrs. Smith would prepare the Meeting Notices for distribution. 1 Organization Structure Review Sub - committee Summa Minutes . 9 � 6J1 December 17, 2001 Mr. Jay Cross reported that the straw poll would be going out to all Pelican Bay property owners, including the commercial interests, shortly after the three meetings have been concluded. The mailing that will go out will ask the property owner if they have been informed of the Ordinance and if they approve of the Ordinance. At that time the residents will have twenty days to respond by mailing the card back to Mr. Brock's office at which time he will tabulate the poll. Mr. Harrell called Mr. Carroll's attention to the fact that the meeting will have to be controlled so that only the issue of the Ordinance is discussed. There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 P.M. KI 0 16J1'T COLLIER COUNTY PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ORDINANCE REVISIONS HOSTED BY: Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts and the Pelican Bay Services Division JANUARY 7 HAMMOCK OAK CENTER 2nd JANUARY 14 7:00 P.M. HAMMOCK OAK CENTER 3rd JANUARY 23 1:00 P.M. HAMMOCK OAK CENTER THERE ARE THREE MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR THE PELICAN BAY COMMUNITY TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED REVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE FOR THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION. ALL RESIDENTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN THIS DISCUSSION. For a complete copy of the Proposed Ordinance and Summary of the Ordinance Revisions please check our website at Pelicanbaycommunities.com or stop by our offices at 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605, Naples Fla. 34108 >lk% fu m ru U H s w E O C. E m co ch C ._ am iw O x VNIMIN Q CO E m `i ■ C E 0 E C '0 fp =3 C N ��O 0 O C fV cu m C N ry V b 3 °- o C- C f° N E ate-.+ aO-+ C� N c m V L c O� �,•V C � a� -0 '> W O V Cl- V) O E OTC V ■ 0 0 L- 0 L- O M fu V ate-+ — � C .� Q tj V -5) O V ~ (!I d) O N .0 4-J fu •� F— M cn O cn D. 4-J C C � O V 0 C i O O L O• E C O N O M- O .O V cu .+.j >► O V 0 V E •E a i O � O Q o a.m�� E � C QV•� OV cn .a L 0 U) a E m A L_� F1 0 -6J o� ofo � p1 J :P fo a- N L O C) NO O C� m�U O .� cn � fu O fo =3 -0-0 n Via-+ O O .� 4-J C If fu Q N N X. v E� �� mm. ou � � N O � v > �0.± ate-J o V •� a..r- � .3 c O C > a..+ cn _ ' _ N o O1 O L— m CO 'O O- C V V iJ he E o .1 0 �Q m a :3 0 C/) V �O a cu cu U C O m N Gf O 'i O Los N H W Q a ME Lm m ow fo a _ c� fo a� a c -a Lo = o. W E s ° V � � C O ��� .� CL o E mM 'F moo C .9 M a co a i6J1 N NO E E 0 U 16JI40 C "0 c113 N te -N •C C m cv L O f( on O m +.c w f C 2V C &-1 13- 13- -0 m M.0 N =3 JS fu 4-1 N O a •rp •L N OV '�' d O N> L 0 40- ca u �(0 -0m �•�� ao o a�-v�,_�r��ora a✓ c cc�l -�� o -v•3� •� cn ra a� -a W i o CD . vi cn a) v L- &-j �p 3 ��� m C cu :3 0 f,C• -� L = V p �m 3acu °3 O O M p a O LL- 7 p cn 40 0_ C -p C!1 O c y N • t 4-- O U) aJ C fu O O 'U N = •�- i c� a ov� c c O �v VU� � N Ma. LO (nom V� N p 3 N In O p C 47 CU N'LO fl.3 aQ1j 16J1" � a, C: o c:oo O -� O O O N O a--+ Q '� .� V ate-•+ _ C 45 L fa C 131 O U o 0 , ,�-`np p 3 a a✓ s= ,Ch L C (a'ate O - a L � �O,p O'.O IN 6j O O O' O N m a-J O IL I!, '13 O O %- E Lo Q kn fp N p V f aL.+ N O C4-, ASH- (� O F— O cn u m p CO 0 ,v p E .� a•+ V) v N "a a.., cv 'X O cv 131 60010 L fo co 0 L- j 0- = cn O O fu fa n _ '� MOMMIN a", O a--+ .0 C Z'i �• •� . 'D aj omE -tm � -� _ o �- � fa -� _.. .. z Q ffa 0-0 � v u = c o c ca m wl o 21 A O s ¢ ofw � � Zm s ul N O m IW d m N T N O C O v, c o Z Z o w c iW g 3 0 CIS 7 Q _ m ac, U w t a C C �lL cc N 5 N c m c a 5 E awl c a v '_, r cm S' a m r �Iml r W _ $�$ ca Q w' CI C2 00 S WI CO v, ` a� a 0 o 2'' a o[ ,o = `� �$ 0 'c -i E c U) w cc 0 $ WI d <n w 0 O o2 p g C7 U a LL ml Z I$ w� o'er C -W''mI w' 8 8$ 5 8 8 8 8 8$ 8 8 8 8 8 LL g g g m N g g g g N L N5 .G O N N _m E E W w 21 0 E E E, E o w a m CL u a Y . H � 0 c- or �a LL a0 O d m N T N O C O v, c o Z Z o w c g 3 0 o ac, U t a C C �lL cc N 5 N c m c a 5 E ro c a v '_, r S' a m r r _ $�$ Q S CO v, ` a� a 0 E a o[ ,o = `� �$ 0 'c E c U) w cc 0 $ m a d <n w 0 O (a p g C7 U a Z I$ C m V 9— IN !v) a ',u) t0 P co 0 IO T N iV ej '(O 'f� 'OD OI ,N N N ''.N ,N 'N 'N N iN T r 9 L N5 .G O N N _m E E W w 21 0 E E E, E o w a m CL u a Y . H � 0 c- or �a LL a0 m 8 0 N g m <u w Rim $i LL: m 8 8 a h 44:w N C � � m _ 019L �m w _. .. $$8 .__ 8 _ 8 p. 8 8 p... 8 p.. _p. 8 8 8 8 8 $ 8 8 8 g g $$ p 0 p 0 p 0 p 0 p 0 p 0 0 0 p 0 p8 0 �,vp33' I{ V MiMp21 A � IL N N N N > LV CL I a a m O �� N �� Fyn Alamo ri ��niro n lao ',ao w cy �N I v iN �N iN N �N iN r. h Ea w w w w r N U3 C U3 a tl u a LL a PELICAN BAY SERVICES DMSION CLAM NOVEMBER 30 2001 FUND 16J1 Page 1 F.Y.'s 97 -99 F.Y. 2000 F.Y. 2001 F.Y. 2002 Total Exp. Nov. 2001 Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget To Date Balance Expenses EXPENDITURES Environmental Consult. Engineering Fees $0 $0 $58,040 $174,653 $232,693 $58,040 $174,653 $0 Akerman, Senterfitt, et. al. $207,683 $0 $0 $0 $207,683 $207,683 $0 $0 Lewis Environmental Serv. $78,732 $0 $0 $0 $78,732 $78,732 $0 $0 Tackney & Associates $86,500 $0 $0 $0 $86,500 $86,500 $0 $0 Wilson, Miller, et. al. $67,675 $1,522 $7,245 $0 $76,442 $76,442 $0 $0 Dr. Samuel Snedeker $9,997 $0 $0 $0 $9,997 $9,997 $0 $0 Hilburn Hilstad $10,550 $0 $0 $0 $10,550 $10,550 $0 $0 Turrell $49,238 $12,701 $4,562 $0 $66,500 $66.500 $0 $0 Other Expenditures $41,009 $39,472 $146,324 $188,700 $415,505 $227,824 $187,680 $997 Sub -Total $551,384 $53,695 $216,170 $363,353 $1,184,603 $822,268 $362,334 $997 Tidal Creeks 1,2 & 3 Engineering Construction Tackney $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Turrell $57,101 $1,899 $0 $0 $59,000 $59,000 $0 $0 Agnoli, Barber & Brundage $2,796 $0 $0 $0 $2,796 $2,796 $0 $0 Engineering Design Tackney $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Turrell $26.790 $0 $0 $0 $26,790 $26,790 $0 $0 Agnoli, Barber& Brundage $11.596 $0 $0 $0 $11,596 $11,596 $0 $0 Capital Improvements $134,830 $51,183 $0 $0 $186,013 $186,013 $0 $0 Sub -Total $233,113 $53,082 $0 $0 $286,195 $286,195 $0 $0 Clam Pass Main Channel Engineering Construction Tackney $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Turrell $74,291 $4,709 $0 $0 $79.000 $79.000 $0 $0 Agnoli, Barber & Brundage $5,900 $0 $0 $0 $5.900 $5,900 $0 $0 Engineering Design Tackney $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Turrell $24.980 $0 $0 $0 $24,980 $24.980 $0 $0 Agnoli, Barber& Brundage $10.000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $10.000 $0 $0 Snedaker $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital improvements $251,530 $0 $0 $0 $251.530 $251.530 $0 $0 Sub -Total $366,701 $4,709 $0 $0 $371,410 $371,410 $0 $0 Interior Tidal Creeks Engineering Construction WMB &P $0 $10,990 $0 $0 $10.990 $10.990 $0 $0 Turrell $1,503 $1,497 $0 $0 $3.000 $3,000 $0 $0 Interior Tidal Creeks Engineering Design Lewis Environmental $17.450 $14,350 $0 $0 $31,800 $31.800 $0 $0 WMB &P $5,804 $6,816 $0 $0 $12.620 $12.620 $0 $0 Engineering Consultants Lewis Environmental $27,409 $59,110 $27,692 $0 $114,211 $114,211 $0 $0 Capital Improvements $25.500 $47.478 $47.398 $0 $120,376 $120,376 $0 $0 Sub -Total $77,666 $140,241 $75,090 $0 $292,997 $292,997 $0 SO Page 1 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION CLAM BAY RESTORATION FUND NOVEMBER 30, 2001 16JI x :'- il?4 Ecosystem Enhancements Environmental Consultants F.Y.'s 97 -99 F.Y. 2000 F.Y. 2001 F.Y. 2002 Total Exp. $110,700 Nov. 2001 Other Contractual Serv. Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget To Date Balance Expenses EXPENDITURES $0 $0 $8,250 $0 $8,250 $8,250 $0 $0 Environmental Consult. $0 $3, 750 $33, 448 $ 373 ,300 $410,498 $37,198 $373,300 $0 Seagate Culverts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Engineering Construction $0 $0 $38,817 $6,624 $45,441 $38,817 $6,624 $0 WMB&P $0 $8,071 $0 $0 $8,071 $8,071 $0 $0 Engineering Design 10 -22 -01 $15,122.04 Floraquatics 12/04/01 WMB &P $9,108 $3,277 $0 $0 $12,385 $12,385 $0 $0 Capital Improvements $0 $88,240 $0 $0 $88,240 $88,240 $0 $0 Sub -Total $9,108 $99,588 $Il $0 $108,696 $108,696 $0 $0 Ecosystem Enhancements Environmental Consultants $0 $3,750 $0 $110,700 $114,450 $3,750 $110,700 $0 Other Contractual Serv. $0 $0 $25,198 $262,600 $287,798 $25,198 $262,600 $0 Capital Improvements $0 $0 $8,250 $0 $8,250 $8,250 $0 $0 Sub -Total $0 $3, 750 $33, 448 $ 373 ,300 $410,498 $37,198 $373,300 $0 Fresh/Stormwater Analysis Engineering Fees $0 $0 $16,980 $3,020 $20,000 $16,980 $3,020 $0 Environmental Consult. Fees $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Turrell & Associates $26,455 $56,045 $0 $0 $82,500 $82,500 $0 $0 Other Contractual Serv. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Operating Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Improvements $0 $0 $38,817 $6,624 $45,441 $38,817 $6,624 $0 Sub -Total $26,455 $56,045 $55,797 $9,644 $147,941 $138,297 $9,644 $0 Capital Outlay 10 -22 -01 $15,122.04 Floraquatics 12/04/01 Improvements General $15,459 $0 $950 $0 $16,409 $16,409 $0 $0 Other Machinery & Equip. $4,727 $13,986 $0 $0 $18,713 $18,713 $0 $0 Sub -Total $20,186 $13,986 $950 $0 $35,122 $35,122 $0 $0 Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector $23,041 $0 $0 $1,300 $24,341 $23,041 $1,300 $0 Property Appraiser $8,637 $0 $0 $1,900 $10,537 $8,637 $1,900 $0 Revenue Reserve $0 $0 $0 $3,400 $3,400 $0 $3,400 $0 Sub -Total $31,678 $0 $ll $6,600 $38,278 $31,678 $6,600 $0 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $1,316,291 $425,096 $381,454 $752,897 $2,875,739 $2,123,862 $751,877 $997 Rolled Encumbrances which are included in Total Approp. $95,797 ACCOUNTSPAYABLE DATE INV. NO. AMOUNT Turrell & Associates 10/22/01 10 -22 -01 $15,122.04 Floraquatics 12/04/01 100297 $13,749.75 TOTAL INVOICES $28,871.79 NOTE: WCI THRU 11130101 WCI: BILLED TO DATE WCI: PAID TO DATE $955,425.40 $948,550.53 Page 2 COLLIER COUNTY PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR TWO (2) MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2001 GENERAL FUNDS Water Community Street nagemenl Beautification Lights Revenue $60,400 Interest Income $1,589 Plan Review Fee Income $100 Interfund Transfers $0 Miscellaneous Income $0 Assessment or Ad- Valorem Tax Levy $171,618 Unappropriated Fund Balance $0 Total Revenue $173,307 Other Fees & Charges $14,288 $2,129 $2,376 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $433,914 $161,905 $291,102 $0 $0 $0 $448,203 $164,034 $293,478 Prorated Total Rev/Exp F.Y. 2002 Nov -01 Favorable Thru Nov. Budget Budget Unfavorable $20,382 $60,400 $10,067 $100 $5,000 $833 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,058,539 $2,536,900 $1,040,129 $0 $264,351 $0 $1,079,021 $2,866,651 $1,051,029 $10.316 ($733) $0 $0 $18,410 $0 $27,992 Property Appraiser $0 $0 $736 $1,322 $2,058 $50,700 $2,058 $0 Tax Collector $3,366 $8,745 $3,268 $5,891 $21,270 $74,600 $21,270 $0 Revenue Reserve $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $144,200 $0 $0 Total Other Fees & Charges $3,366 $8,745 $4,004 $7,213 $23,328 $269,500 $23,328 $0 NET REVENUE $169,942 $439,458 $160,030 $286,265 ' $1,055,694 $2,597,151 $1,027,701 $27,992 Appropriations - Personal Services Personal Services - Admin. $6,606 $6,681 $6,290 n/a $19,578 $120,000 $20.000 $422 Personal Services - Field $20.590 $100.643 $4,574 n/a $125,808 $954,000 $159.000 $33.192 Total Personal Services $27,197 $107,324 $10,865 $0 $145,385 $1,074,000 $179,000 $33,615 Appropriations - Operations Administration Indirect Cost Reimbursements $143.000 $0 $10,500 n/a $153,500 $153,500 $153,500 $0 Other Contractual Services $4.769 $5,894 $2,640 n/a $13,303 $69,000 $11,500 ($1.803) Telephone - Service Contracts $90 $90 $72 n/a $252 $2,000 $333 $81 Telephone - Direct Line $664 $664 $449 n/a : $1,776 $7,000 $1,167 ($609) Postage, Freight& Ups $153 $152 $80 n/a $385 $13.000 $2,167 $1,782 Rent - Buildings $1.288 $1,327 $1,288 n/a $3,903 $23,900 $3,983 $81 Rent - Equipment $85 $85 $85 n/a $254 $3,900 $650 $396 Lease Purchase Dell Computers $186 $0 $0 n/a $186 $1.100 $183 ($2) Insurance - General $4,000 $600 $500 n/a $5.100 $5,100 $850 ($4,250) Data Processing - R &M $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $900 $150 $150 Printing or Binding - Outside Vendors $0 $0 $0 n/a is $0 $4,000 $667 $667 Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. SIM $0 $0 n/a $100 $4.000 $667 $567 Legal Advertising $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $6,000 $1,000 $1,000 Office Supplies - General $0 $0 $0 n/a q- $0 $3,500 $583 $583 Copying Charges $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $1.400 $233 $233 Minor Office Equipment $81 $81 $0 n/a $162 $600 $100 ($62) Computer Software $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $300 $50 $50 Other Training & Educational Exp. $0 $0 $0 n/a s $0 $400 $67 $67 Other Operating Supplies $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $400 $67 $67 Total Administration $154,414 $8,892 $15,613 $0.2 $178,919 $300,000 $177,917 ($1,003) Field Services Engineering & Consultants $2.894 $0 $0 n/a $2,894 $15,651 $2.608 ($285) Berm & Swale Maintenance $0 $0 $0 n/a!, $0 $5,000 $833 $833 Water Quality Testing $2.322 $0 $0 n/a $2,322 $13,900 $2,317 ($5) Plan Review Services $0 $0 $0 n/a $0 $5,000 $833 $833 Water Use Charges $0 $2,848 $0 n/a ' $2,848 $35.500 $5.917 $3.068 Replanting Program $0 $5,584 $0 n/a' $5,584 $42,300 $7,050 $1,466 Other Contractual Services $7.680 $39.324 $4,440 n/a : $51,444 $198,900 $33,150 ($18,294) Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR TWO (2) MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2001 GENERAL FUNDS Water Community Street Management Beautification Lights Motor Pool Rental $0 $0 $0 Cellular Telephone ($58) $65 $41 Postage, Freight & Ups $0 $13 $0 Electricity $0 $198 $1,519 Trash & Dumpster Fees $380 $778 $0 Rent Equipment $0 $2,541 $0 Insurance General $2,000 $9,500 $800 Auto Insurance $2,800 $5,500 $1,800 Sprinkler System Maintenance $0 $615 $0 Maintenance - Landscaping $0 $2,399 $0 Autos & Trucks R&M Outside Vendor $0 $0 $0 Fleet Maintenance - Labor $0 $687 $0 Fleet Maintenance - Parts $112 $667 $0 Fleet Maint. Non ISF $0 $0 $0 Boat R &M $0 $0 $0 Other Equipment R &M $0 $1,198 $320 Printing - Outside Vendors $0 $137 $0 Photo Processing $0 $0 $0 Licenses & Permits $0 $0 $0 Uniform Rental $213 $217 $0 Chemicals $6,470 $5,439 $0 Fuel & Lubricants - Outside $0 $0 $0 Fuel & Lubricants - Inside $81 $949 $0 Minor Operating Equipment $0 $552 $0 Other Training & Educational $0 $170 $0 Other Operating Supplies $84 $7,404 $6,095 Total Field Services $24,977 $86,788 $15,015 Capital Outlay Capital Expenditures $0 $0 $0 Total Capital Outlay SO $0 $0 Security Personal Services $0 $0 $0 Other Contractual Services $0 $0 $0 Total Security Operations $0 $0 $0 TOTAL APPROPRIA' Seem n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SO Total Rev/Exp F.Y. 2002 Thru Nov. Budget $0 $300 $48 $2,000 $13 $200 $1,717 $26,600 $1,158 $15,100 $2,541 $9,400 $12,300 $12,300 $10,100 $10,100 $615 $17,600 $2,399 $44,200 $0 $1,100 $687 $7,900 $780 $12,300 $0 $2,400 $0 $500 $1,518 $2,700 $137 $0 $0 $200 $0 $700 $430 $9,200 $11,909 $112,100 $0 $700 $1,030 $13,800 $552 $3,200 $170 $1,200 $13,583 $46,400 $126,780 $668,451 $0 $1 16J1 Prorated Nov -01 Favorable Budget Unfavorable $50 $333 $33 $4,433 $2,517 $1,567 $2,050 $1,683 $2,933 $7,367 $183 $1.317 $2,050 $400 $83 $450 $0 $33 $117 $1,533 $18,683 $117 $2,300 $533 $200 $7,733 $111,{08 $0 $152,200 $25,367 $0 $0 $0 $22.700 $22,700 $402.500 $22,700 $22,700 $402,500 $25.367 $25,367 $0 $0 $67,083 $44,383 $67,083 $44,383 Net Income from Operations ($36,647) $236,453 $118,538 $263,565 $581,909 $0 $466.926 Fund Balance @ 10/1/01 $445,059 $744,545 $139,120 $153.540 $1,482,264 $1,349.400 Fund Balance @ November 30, 2001 $408,413 $980,998 $257,657 $417,104 $2,064,173 $1,349,400 Fund Balance Allocations Reserved for Operations $344,013 $829,498 $254,257 $413.104 $1,840,873 $368,000 Reserved for Capital Outlay $64,400 $151,500 $3,400 $4,000. $223,300 $223,300 Notes: Fund Balance at 10 /1 /O1 (actual) includes Reserve for Encumbrances of $15.050.50 FY 2002 Unappropriated Fund Balance Budget includes $15,050.50 of Rolled Encumbrances and a $39,500 Budget Amendment in Security Page 2 $114,983 COLLIER COUNTY 16J 1 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR TWO (2) MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2001 Revenue Developer Contributions - WCI Interest Income Miscellaneous Income Interfund Transfers Assessment or Ad- Valorem Tax Levy Unappropriated Fund Balance Total Revenue Other Fees & Charges Property Appraiser Tax Collector Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charge! NET REVENUE Appropriations: Engineering & Consultants Other Services Capital Outlay TOTAL APPROPRIA CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Prorated Clam Bay Uninsured Irr. & Land. Total Rev/Exp F.Y. 2002 Nov -01 Favorable Svstem Assets Analvsls Thru Nnv. Rndoet Rndont Unfavnrahla $0 $0 $0 $0 41,600 $6,933 ($6,933) $5,784 $11,483 $9,840 $27,107 84,700 $14,117 $12,990 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $70,725 $0 $137,500 $208,225 832,900 $208,225 $0 $0 $0 $93,269 $93,269 360,700 $90,175 $3,094 $0 $0 $0 $0 1,056,832 $0 $0 $76,509 $11,483 $240,608 $328,601 $2,376,732 $319,450 $9,151 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,865 $1,865 $10,500 $1,865 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,865 $1,865 $36,700 $1,865 $0 FF 76,509 $11,483 $238,743 $326,735 $2,340,032 $317,585 $9,151 $0 n/a $0 $0 $348,013 $58,002 $58,002 $1,019 n/a $195,883 $196,903 $1,747,904 $291,317 $94,415 $0 $0 $0 $0 $244,114 $40,686 $40,686 $1,019 $0 $195,883 $196,903 $2,340,032 $390,005 $193,103 Net Income from Operations $75,490 $11,483 $42,860 Fund Balance @ 10/1/01 (Actual) $441,465 $1,079,967 $626,457 Fund Balance @, November 30, 2001 $516,954 $1,091,451 $669,316 Fund Balance Allocations Reserved for Operations $516,954 $0 $669,316 Reserved for Capital Outlay $0 $1,091,451 $0 $129,833 $0 $2,147,888 $1,725,400 $2,277,721 $1,725,400 $1,186,270 $0 $1,091,451 $1,108,100 Notes: Fund Balance At 10/1/01 (Actual) includes Reserve for Encumbrances of $439,531.66 F.Y. 2002 Budget for Unappropriated Fund Balance Includes $439,531.66 in Rolled Encumbrances. Page 3 ($72,421) $202,253 Fiala Carter , Hennin _ AGENDA , . . 16J Coyle 1 Colette y Soared of County COWSsioner°s COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2001, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 1, 2001 MINUTES 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES- Russell Budd will be out December 6, 2001. 6. BCC REPORT- Recaps of November 15, 2001. 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BD- 2001 -AR -961, Jerry Neal, representing Mark V. Casper, requesting a 45 -foot boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock protruding 65 feet into the waterway for property located at 115 Bayshore Way, further described as Goodland, Parcel 7, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. Coordinator: (Ross Gochenaur) B. VA- 2001 -AR -1207, Doug Schroeder, representing Cocohatchee Nature Center, requesting a 30 -foot variance from the required rear yard setback of 30 -feet to 0 feet and a 5 -foot variance ` irl -the width of the La_ndscape"Buffef,'a:cijacent to Tamiami Trail North from the required 15 -feet to 10 -feet, further described as Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Coordinator: (Fred Reischl) &%'isc. Corres: Date: -] L( Ds� ci-L j Copies To: 16J1 C. VA- 2001 -AR -1380, Christopher J. Thornton, Esquire, of Treiser, Lieberfarb, Collins & Vernon, Chtd., representing Raymond F. Erickson, requesting an after - the -fact variance of 1.3 feet from the required 10 feet to 8.7 feet for pX�Qperty located at 231 Pebble Beach Circle, in Section 20, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Coordinator: (Fred Reischl) D. PUDA- 2001 -AR -1404, Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, Inc., representing Conquest Development U.S.A., L.C., requesting an amendment to the Silver Lakes PUD for the purpose of reducing the Park/Travel Trailer area from 26 to 24 acres, the buffer area from 5 to 3 acres, the commons /recreation area from 97 to 78 acres and increasing the conservation area from 3 to 26 acres, for property located at (Chahram Badamtchian) E. PUDA- 2001 -AR -1573, George L. Vamadoe, Esq., of Young, van Assenderp, Vamadoe & Anderson, P.A., representing Antaramian Capital Partners, LLC, requesting an amendment to the Sandpiper Village PUD for the purpose of reducing the number of dwelling units from 180 units to 170 units increasing the commercial floor area from 45,000 square feet to 52,500 square feet and revising the Master Plan to reflect the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay for property located on Tamiami Trail East, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Coordinator: (Ray Bellows) F. RZ- 2001 -AR -1165, Michael and Tammy McEndree, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to RSF -3 to allow for two residential lots located on 6025 Everett Street on the corner of Polly Avenue and Everett Street (off of Rattlesnake - Hammock Road), in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.55± acres. Coordinator: (Ray Bellows) 9. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. 4DJOURN 12/06/0 1 /CCPC AGENDA /SM /sp 2 J 166 F p OR I D 16J 1 Memorandum Fiala Carter Henning Mac'Kie ;---- TO: Clerk to the Board/Minutes & Records Colette FROM: Linda Bedtelyon, Planning Technician II DATE: November 9, 2001 RE: Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee I am submitting the following item to be filed by your office: 1. Tape recorded minutes of the September 26, October 10, October 12, October 24, and November 7, 2001 meetings and 2. Hard copies of the above If you have any questions, please call me at 659 -5737. lb Community Development & Environmental Services Division Planning Services Misc. Corres: Date: Item# s Copies To: *Draft RURAL FRINGE AREA ASSESSMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MINUTES November 7, 2001 16J1 Members Present Members Absent Ty Agoston David Bryant (exc.) David Ellis, Chairman Gary Hayes (exc.) Dawn Jantsch Kathy Prosser (exc.) Patrick Miller Chuck Mohlke Ray Pelletier County Staff Present Others Present Linda Bedtelyon, Planning Services Bruce Anderson Mac Hatcher, Natural Resources Wayne Arnold Stan Litsinger, Comp. Planning Manager Andy Barienbrock Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Maureen Bonness Bob Mulhere, County Staff Consultant Brad Cornell Anne Marie Saylor, Public Utilities Tim Hancock Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Nancy A. Payton Nicole Ryan Kathleen Slebodinik Chester Soling CALL TO ORDER (Item I.) The meeting was held at Development Services Center, Conference Room "C ", 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida. Chairman Ellis called the meeting to order at 4:50 PM with a quorum present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Item II.) Patrick Miller moves the approval of October 24, 2001 meeting minutes be deferred until next meeting (11- 14 -01); David Ellis asks Ray Pelletier to submit language for "Item 2. Old Business" relative to the construction of the motion on minimum buffers technical language; Chuck Mohlke seconds, and the motion passes unanimously. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Item III.) Patrick Miller moves to approve the draft agenda, seconded by Chuck Mohlke, and the committee passes the motion, 6:0. David Ellis introduces Mr. Chester Soling, member of the Environmental Advisory Committee who comments on the proposed Sending and Receiving Areas; relative to 16J1 the TDR program; Mr. Soling said, " I think it's a travesty that local government is creating a speculative industry"; Bob Mulhere responds that it will be an advantage to property owners as it will offer them just compensation; (Item IV.) Wildlife Protection Policies -Staff working draft # 1: Discussion led by Bill Lorenz; Bill comments that staff draft recommendations are such as to "make our case to DCA, with data and analysis being, "measurable and specific "; several different portions of language were agreed upon to be changed; Bill says Mac Hatcher is currently working on a new set of maps to be included in the policy issue; Chuck Mohlke and David Ellis ask Bill to provide SIC codes to the committee; Bill concurs; the discussion ended without formal action taken by committee; Patrick Miller excused himself from the meeting at 5:05 PM, at which point the quorum was lost. Marjorie Student advises that it is "not preferred" for the committee to continue discussion without a quorum; Ray Pelletier asks Dawn Jantsch if the Chamber of Commerce has had any comment on the "Rural Villages" concept proposed policies; Dawn to inquire; David Ellis asks calls for general public comment; Maureen Bonness asks about a possible public workshop with the residents of Big Corkscrew Island; Bob Mulhere responds that a public forum is scheduled for January, 2002; Nancy Payton asks if the time allowed for general public comment can be moved up on the agenda, citing the Final Order's call for public input; David responds that he will ask for public comment at beginning of meetings and reminds those present that they are encouraged to be recognized at any time during the meeting's progress; The meeting concluded without formal adjournment at 5:20 PM A taped and hard copy of these minutes are available at the Clerk of Courts, Minutes and Records Office, Building F, Collier County Government Complex and can also be viewed at www.nasites.com /collier on the Rural Assessments page *Draft 16J1 RURAL FRINGE AREA ASSESSMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MINUTES October 24, 2001 Members Present Members Absent Ty Agoston David Bryant David Ellis, Chairman Gary Hayes Dawn Jantsch Patrick Miller Chuck Mohlke Ray Pelletier Kathy Prosser County Staff Present Others Present Linda Bedtelyon, Planning Services Bruce Anderson Mac Hatcher, Natural Resources Wayne Arnold Stan Litsinger, Comp. Planning Manager Maureen Bonness Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Robert Duane Bob Mulhere, Co. Staff Consultant Tim Hancock Anne Marie Saylor, Public Utilities Joe Howard Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney John Jassy Rod Robinson Nicole Ryan CALL TO ORDER (Item I.) The meeting was held at Development Services Center, Conference room "E ", 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida. Chairman, David Ellis called to order at 3:35 PM with a quorum present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Item II.) The October 10, 2001 meeting minutes are amended as follows: "Old Business, Item IV.B "- David Bryant motions amendment reflecting discussion that took place relative to "Buffer Issue "; "the committee discussed whether or not it should be a 300 foot natural rough area or to allow golf courses, with the understanding that does not include the hard construction of the golf course, being the club house, maintenance buildings; the issue of golf course buffering versus 300 foot rough only in natural state is an issue; the committee considered the issue of 300 foot buffering that only includes rough in its natural state or does it include a golf course ? "; the committee discussed buffering and the appropriateness of golf courses versus rough in its natural state as part of the issue "; Kathy Prosser seconds, the motion passes, 6:0. APPROVAL OF AGENDA .16J1 (Item 111.) Ty Agoston moves to approve, Pat Miller seconds; the motion passes unanimously; David Ellis discusses "future meeting dates ", saying he has a business commitment on 10/31/01 and will not be able to attend the meeting; discussion followed and the committee agrees unanimously to meet as scheduled; (Chuck Mohlke arrives at 3:45 PM, Dawn Jantsch at 3:47 PM and Gary Hayes at 4:00 PM respectively) Dawn Jantsch discusses the e-mail she sent staff and committee in regard to the Evaluation Matrix, saying she was asking staff to review the materials (definitions) from the past when creating the draft GOPs; David Ellis responds that he had a significant conversation with staff (Bob Mulhere) and thanks Dawn for her comments; Bob says that he spoke with Dawn as well, and said the issue is that "we (staff) do go back and do complete research and provide the committee with all of the actions and information that you've taken in the past, in particular, since some people weren't here two years ago...we are committed to doing that ... and apologize for any oversight... and what I wanted to say in general terms is, we only have seven meetings left before we're supposed to have a workshop; we may need to double up or find some time for additional meetings; I would really ask, as strongly as I can that we try to remember that we're talking about issues at a policy level here, that we try to look at the big picture ... we spent an hour and a half on the phone yesterday with the outside consul for the county, her direction to us was, you have no choice, you must meet the time -frame whether you finish at the committee level or not, we must bring forward the amendments "; Stan Litsinger comments that the committee has fourteen hours of meeting time left before the public forum scheduled the week of January 16, 2002, to present the final GOPs and language that will be carried forth to the Board for transmittal public hearing; OLD BUSINESS (Item IV.) Discussion of Buffers: staff has submitted additional response to buffer policies list of issues today, namely: 1) Clarify definition of the term "adjacent'; the term "contiguous" will be used; 2) Specify minimum buffer width, 3) Specify types of "Open Space" suitable for a buffer, 4) Reserve certain amount of open space as buffer to roadways and 5) Exclude Eastern Lands from the Buffer policies; discussion followed all issues, whereupon the committee voted as follows: 1): Committee supports the use of the term "contiguous" in place of the term "adjacent" to be used in the "Buffer" policy, which will be re- issued with changes; Pelletier motio , Chuck Mohlke seconds, and the committee passes motion, 9:0 3) Chuck Mohlke moves to adopt language suggested under Item 3 of the preliminary staff response which reads as follows:" Staff should have distinguished between the Open Space that lies between the intensive land uses and the Open Space tha 16JI r located directly on the boundary of the natural reservation... The Committee's open space definition is acceptable for the open space between these areas, but not necessarily for uses directly on the boundary. If the current staff approach is acceptable, then language is needed to reflect that the limited list of open spaces proposed is only applicable to uses that "adjoin or are contiguous" with the actual reserve boundary. Existing agricultural operations should be allowed within the open space requirements. Additional agricultural clearing should be allowed subject to best management practices, consistent with the provisions of the Right to Farm Act." Pat Miller seconds, and the motion passes, 9:0. 4) Reserve a certain amount of open space as buffer to roadways: "Staff will work on the appropriate amount and language as a percentage of the total open space requirement to accomplish this objective ": Discussion, including a comment by Bruce Anderson, who said, "in trying to avoid minutia, I'd like to suggest that this open space, this buffer next to roadways, is the kind of minutia that belongs in the Land Development Code, not in the Comprehensive Plan; there is no requirement in the Final Order that the county address the visual aspects of maintaining a rural vista;" David Bryant comments, "if we all agree it's not required by the Final Order, I agree with Bruce, let's move on; let's put it in the Land Development Code, where it should be; Dawn Jantsch and Kathy Prosser second, and the motion passes, 8:1. 5) Exclude Eastern Lands from the Buffer policies: "This needs to be done for all policies. Staff will propose consistent language ". The committee took no formal action. Bill Lorenz continued with "Buffer" policy not yet discussed, beginning with Policy 6.8.2 of the CCME, #3: Storm water management systems; after discussion, David Bryant motions to maintain current policy that is in effect at this time which meets the requirements by the outside agencies, and not increase the requirement; Ty Agoston and Ray Pelletier second; more discussion by the committee preceded the passing of the motion, 7:2. "Buffer item #4 (CCME) "Proposed development shall demonstrate that ground water table ..." Bill references the South Florida Water Management District's policy and says the intent is to "simply adopt the water management district's requirements "; Bill to provide the backup data and analysis for "lake separation" as well; Next Bill discusses V. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) language (pg. 6 of draft) saying that it provides consistency in cross - referencing; (internal consistency); Bill to provide new, final draft of "Buffers" for committee's review by November 7, 2001 meeting; NEW BUSINESS (Item V.A.) Discussion and Approval of TDR Study Phase 1: Chuck Mohlke motions committee adopt the concepts articulated under "Keys To A Successful TDR Program" (document: A Transferable Development Rights Program for Land Preservation. Prepared for Collier County, Florida) Item V, pages 31 -34; Kathy Prosser seconds the motion; some committee members object to motion and want to have point -by -point 16J1 discussion; Bob Mulhere says, "to me, this motion is very appropriate because ... the committee accepts that these are keys to a successful program... doesn't have anything to do with the fact that we still have to go and try to develop and write and discuss, as a committee and as staff, how that program will work; you have an expert that has said that these are the keys to a successful program, as I saw the motion, it was to accept that recommendation; it doesn't mean accepting the TDR program, it doesn't mean that it has any detail as to how it's going to work; we've still got to go back and write that, and by the way, we're working on that right now and in a few weeks you're going to get some draft language on the TDR program and Sending and Receiving Areas and the time to discuss it, is then... "; More discussion followed and Ty Agoston says, "I make a recommendation that we table this motion "; Bob says, "We're not proposing to down - zone the land, we're not proposing to take any rights away, Nicholas knows that, he looked at it, and still feels there's a viable market that economically viable... it's not a (regulatory) taking, because we are providing the TDR process, which provides a viable economic benefit under Bert J. Harris; it's the very first issue that is listed as a means to address these issues "; Stan Litsinger responds to Chuck Mohlke's motion, saying, "we asked Dr. Nicholas to perform a study and the Scope was approved by this committee, and what we're really being asked to do here is to accept his work product as the skeletal formation of a basis for which we will develop purposed policies, objectives and goals and outline the receiving and sending areas and the keys that have been identified, other than the fact that he clearly demonstrated by accepted analytical techniques that a TDR program will be extremely successful in Collier county, is that in order for that to take place, that it be moved forward and developed (these policies), we need to do so based on pages 31 through 34, V., because lacking any of those particular qualities, the TDR program would not be successful "; More discussion followed and Bob Mulhere reiterates, " Let me just make it clear, I know I've said this a lot, but I've got to say it again, we are not in any way, in any way, purposing, in any way, on any piece of property, purposing to down -zone the property; we are not purposing to down -zone anyone's property; what we are doing is increasing the allowable density on some people's property so that they can transfer units from the sending to the receiving, which is a greater benefit to them and an exchange to the guy that can't develop his property because he's got higher natural resource protection standards, he can send units out and get an economic benefit "; More discussion followed and Chuck Mohlke says, "As the maker of the motion, the purpose of the motion was to provide a framework for additional staff review and recommendations and analysis, and only that purpose, in terms of advancing this particular issue, and I would hope that the committee would give consideration to reviewing their views on this specific motion, and acting..." Kathy Prosser comments, "from my perspective, this TDR program is a fabulous way to deal with it (protecting the environment) now that the only expert that I know of in the country, Dr. Nicholas, has looked at our information and has come back and said, if you do these things, this will work ... to me, it is a win -win; it is good for the land owner and it is good for the environment "; Maureen Bonness says, "I'd like to add another component to that; I don't think it's a win -win situation; you have a third entity there, you've got the environment, you've got the developing, what about the people who are currently land- owners in the receiving areas? And the sending too; to me it's a win - win -lose situation, in my perspective as a property owner in Big Corkscrew Island, I would be losing if my area becomes a 16J1 receiving area, because that would increase the density of the area and decrease the quality of life for me and the people that moved out there to be in an area that is somewhat rural with only one dwelling per five acres, so you're increasing the density of my neighborhood; to me it's a win - win -lose; there's three parties there, not just two "; Bob Mulhere comments, "the program is purely voluntary; we're not forcing anybody to participate in the process "; Bill Lorenz comments, "Staff has been developing, recalculating the preservation requirements based upon the sending and receiving areas; by doing that, we're going to be able to come up with a set of preservation requirements that are going to be less restrictive in the receiving areas and we're getting closer to the numbers that the committee had originally purposed; we're protecting the sending areas and we're going to give a lot more slack to the receiving areas to ensure that the density can go in..." David Elllis re- phases the motion, "for this committee to endorse the staff moving ahead with developing the language for a TDR program that would follow the perimeters as outlined in Dr. Nicholas' presentation, pages 31 through 34 "; more discussion follows and David re- states the motion, "to direct staff to move ahead with the development of the language for a TDR program as the concepts outlined on pages 31 through 34 of Dr. Nicholas' recommendation "; David calls the question, and the motion passes, 8:1. David asks Ray to explain his two TDR proposal submissions of today to the committee; Ray comments that he's submitted two options to the TDR program and says, "I think that we should give TDRs as compensation for imposed county regulations and still leave one unit on the property; so if you've got one for five now, you've got three for five later, if you decide you can transfer those three off, you still have your one; so you can still remain on the property and you can still development your property, subject to county standards and the three units are giving you as compensation for the, what I consider the regulatory taking of land "; David Ellis leaves at 5:00 PM and Vice Chairman, Patrick Miller leads the committee down the agenda; (V.B.) Wildlife Policies -Staff Working Draft #1: Bill Lorenz begins discussion by presenting supporting data and analysis overview on page 19 (of draft), which shows requirements of listed species to be protected; "Landscape" and "site" scale protection concepts were discussed as being the two components to the strategy being developed to meet the Final Order; Looking at the sending and receiving area maps, Bob Mulhere says, "when you look at the sending areas, we have protected the majority of the highly valuable habitat and wetland systems, looking at the three or four data methodologies "; Bill explains the structuring of the Growth Management Plan policies as "establishing the framework to direct incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats" (policy 7.1.1.); For lack of time, Patrick Miller directs committee to read entire policy and it will be discussed as agenda item 1.at the 10/31/01 meeting; Patrick calls for general public comment and Bob Mulhere comments that the committee will also have Golf Course Policies, Central Water & Sewer Policies to work through in addition to Wildlife Policies, at the next meeting; Patrick asks members to contact the county if they will be absent well in advance of the next scheduled meeting; Chuck Mohlke motions for adjournment, is seconded, and committee unanimously agrees; meeting adjourns at 5:50 PM. A taped and hard copy of these minutes are available at the Clerk of Courts, Minutes and Records Office, Building F, Collier County Government Complex and can also be viewed at www.nasites.com /collier on the Rural Assessments page *Draft RURAL FRINGE AREA ASSESSMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MINUTES October 10, 2001 16J1 Members Present Members Absent Ty Agoston Kathy Prosser David Bryant David Ellis Gary Hayes Dawn Jantsch Patrick Miller Chuck Mohlke Ray Pelletier County Staff Present Others Present Linda Bedtelyon, Planning Services Bruce Anderson Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Ping. Mngr. Wayne Arnold Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Maureen Bonness Ann Marie Saylor, Public Utilities Robert Duane Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Tim Hancock Tom Tomerlin, Comprehensive Planning Mitch Hutchcraft Bob Mulhere, Co. staff contracted liaison Chris Johnson Nancy Payton Nicole Ryan Kathleen Slebodnik Eric Staats Richard Woodruff CALL TO ORDER (Item I.) The meeting was held at Development Services Center, Conference Room "E ", 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida. Chairman, David Ellis called to order at 3:40 PM with a quorum present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Item II.) The September 26, 2001 meeting minutes were amended as follows: under "New Business, Item V. "- "Ray Pelletier and Ty Agoston, I'll let Ty speak for himself, opposed the fire buffer and drive access area allocations as they were insufficient to provide adequate safety and protection to the residents moving into the area;" Chuck Mohlke motions to approve the change, Pat Miller seconds; more discussion ensued and Ray also requests adding to comments of 9 -26 -01 meeting minutes in which he submitted a brochure to the committee on mosquito -borne encephalitis in humans and horses, "I've also submitted an article, from, I believe it was a Fort Myers newspaper that 6J1 1 got off the Internet; I'd like that reflected in the minutes, an article that states that these are present here in the area now "; the motion to add both amended changes passes, 7:0. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Item III.) Recognizing that the agenda is long, the committee discusses amounts of time to spend on listed items; Chuck Mohlke moves to approve agenda, Patrick Miller seconds, and the motion passes unanimously. OLD BUSINESS (Item W.A.) Discussion of Draft GOP - Clearing Allowances for Smaller Parcels: Bob Mulhere reviews committee /staff changes; Following comments, Chuck Mohlke motions to accept the draft, as presented; Patrick Miller seconds, and the committee passes the motion, 7:0. (Item IV.B) Discussion of Draft GOP - Buffers: Bill Lorenz reviews RFAC /Staff Draft #2: After discussion, changes were suggested; no formal action taken by committee; David Ellis says he'll work with staff (Bill) to come up with a list of outstanding issues /questions that have been raised today for distribution to committee to be covered at next meeting; he also asks committee to contact staff with any written comments /questions they may have for revisions; David Ellis comments on committee member Kathy Prosser's absence and letter of resignation to the BCC and says he will contact Sue Filson for clarification; He also apologizes for abrupt end of last meeting's Public Comment time at close of meeting and calls for public comment; there are no additional comments made; David asks committee to "pencil in" October 31, 2001 on their calendars for an additional meeting; Committee adjourns at 5:35 PM. A taped and hard copy of these minutes in final form are available at the Clerk of Courts, Minutes and Records Office, Building F, Collier County Government Complex and can also be viewed at www.nasites.com /collier on the Rural Assessments page 16J 1 Draft RURAL FRINGE AREA ASSESSMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MINUTES September 26, 2001 Members Present Members Absent Ty Agoston Dawn Jantsch (exc.) David Bryant Patrick Miller (exc.) David Ellis Kathy Prosser(exc.) Gary Hayes Chuck Mohlke Ray Pelletier County Staff Present Others Present Linda Bedtelyon, Planning Services Bruce Anderson Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Mike Bauer Ann Marie Saylor, Public Utilities Brad Cornell Marjorie Student, Assistant Co. Attorney Shannon Cromwell Robert Duane Chris Johnson Robert Mulhere Nancy A. Payton Eric Staats Richard Woodruff CALL TO ORDER (Item I.) The meeting was held at Development Services Center, Conference Room "E ", 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida. Chairman, David Ellis called to order at 3:45 PM with a quorum present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Item II.) The September 12, 2001 meeting minutes were unanimously approved. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Item III.) Chuck Mohlke motions to add discussion of amended language of "Density Blending" to "Old Business ", Item IV. The committee approves the amended agenda unanimously. OLD BUSINESS (Item IV.) Chuck Mohlke begins discussion by requesting that revisions to the draft GOPs, (title headings, etc.) reflect changes approved by committee, noting that it will be helpful to everyone in the future; Committee and staff agree to note changes; NEW BUSINESS 16J1 (Item V.) Discussion of draft GOP language - "Minimum Clearing Standards ": Bob Mulhere begins review of current draft proposal; (revised per 10 -10 -01 meeting motion, 7:0) "Ray Pelletier and Ty Agoston I'll let Ty speak for himself, opposed the fire buffer and drive access area allocations as they were insufficient to provide adequate safety and protection to the residents moving into the area "; Gary Hayes and Richard Woodruff also comment on the items, with Richard suggesting different standards for different sizes and locations of property (such as NRPA's, etc.); Bob agrees to recalculate the fire buffer and drive access example to include a greater buffer area for fire, the driveway can be wider and longer, the ancillary uses can incorporate more area; he also says he will revise the language and send the revised draft to the committee before the next meeting; Bob says, "...the bottom line is anything five acres or less, this provides you with a minimum clearing allowance "; David Ellis advises committee to take extra time to review revisions in preparation for next meeting and provide in writing any additional comments; Discussion continued with "Buffers ", led by Bill Lorenz: "these amendments are operating on objective 6.8 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME); secondly the amendments would be also operating in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), under the Conservation Designation section "; Bill informs the committee members that they are receiving copies of the complete Growth Management Plan so that they can look at everything in context; "so remember, we're only showing the amendments in the, for example, Future Land Use Element here relating to "Buffers ", not everything else; thirdly, the data and information gathered in this packet are shown to try to justify the numbers and provide for the findings and I'll show you where some of it is relevant with regard to the policies "; Chuck Mohlke suggests making reference to specific recommendation(s) to data and analysis, as a support document; Policy 6.8.1 with proposed changes states: "All requests for development within 1000 feet of natural reservations shall be reviewed as part of the County's development review process." Several comments were made as this being a "pivotal" point of understanding; Bill says, "the intent is simply for a review distance "; Gary Hayes asks if the proposed amendment applies to all parcel sizes (such as single family); Bill Lorenz replies that, "the existing language doesn't address single family at all, but the amended language under 6.8.1 tries to make that distinction "; Bob Mulhere says, "that doesn't in any way obviate that landowner, homeowner's need to comply with any state or federal regulations "; Bill goes on to say, "Part of why we're here, in terms of our Growth Management Plan, is we still have to have the policies that provide specific, measurable criteria to guide development to protect natural resources in our plan "; The committee went on to discuss Policy 6.8.2.d. in regard to "wildlife corridors "; it was agreed that the language should be revised to be more specific; Ray Pelletier comments that he has submitted a brochure to the committee, provided by the Department of Agriculture on mosquito -borne encephalitis in humans and horses; "I've also submitted an article, from, I believe it was a Fort Myers newspaper that I got off the Internet; I'd like that reflected in the minutes, an article that states that these are present here in the area now "; (Amended language motion passed, 7:0 at 10 -10 -01 meeting) he also asks the committee 16J1 16J to look at the proposed language for minimum clearing standards plan that he's submitted (copies provided); David Ellis asks for summary comments on "Buffers "; Bill Lorenz says that individual's who have concerns about language proposed need to have an opportunity to provide input; the committee agrees; Bob Mulhere says he will try to have drafts of "Sub- districts" and "Clustering" to committee by Monday, at the latest; Brad Cornell comments that page 4, number 4 (Buffers draft), language implies boundary of reservation is also boundary of wetland; Bill says, "we can just take wetland functions out "; Chuck Mohlke asks about an October 3rd meeting date for Dr. Nicholas' TDR presentation; Bob tells committee staff will find out and let them know; Bob also explains that the committee has received a preliminary map (submitted by Stan Litsinger) of the proposed extension of the water & sewer boundaries; policy language is forthcoming; Committee will lose its quorum at 5:45 when David Bryant leaves GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (Item VII.) David Ellis calls for general public comment and Nancy Payton asks about Ms. Prosser's absence; staff was called prior to today's meeting by her office saying she had an emergency meeting to attend to. AJOURNMENT (Item VIII.) A motion to adjourn was made by Ty Agoston, seconded by Gary Hayes; meeting concluded at 5:45 PM A taped and hard copy of these minutes in final form are available at the Clerk of Courts, Minutes and Records Office, Building F, Collier County Government Complex and can also be viewed at www.nasites.com /collier on the Rural Assessments page 6 <,.� V .. "1 Oj Board of '-ounty Com�,iaal;;ers Fiala Carter Henning Coyle Coletta 16J Memorandum TO: Clerk to the Board /Minutes & Records FROM: Linda Bedtelyon, Planning Technician II DATE: November 28, 2001 RE: Rural Lands Area Assessment Oversight Committee Recorded Meeting Minutes I am submitting the following Minutes to be filed by your office: Summary Minutes of: October 15, 2001 and October 22, 2001 Cassette Tape of October 22, 2001 If you have any questions, please call me at 659 -5737 lb Community Development & Environmental ervices li� v a �evorres: Planning Services ,� 1 Date:�� Item# &p� Codes To: 1 16J1 *Final- Approved 11 -13 -01 RURAL LANDS ASSESSMENT AREA OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MINUTES October 15, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Joseph Boggs Floyd Crews (exc.) Ron Hamel, Chairman Rodney Harvey (exc.) James Howard Grady Miars (exc.) James T. Horner David Santee Dawn Jantsch Fred Thomas (exc.) Andrew Mackie Ann Olesky Kathy Prosser Neno Spagna Sonya Tuten COUNTY STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Linda Bedtelyon, Planning Services Brad Cornell Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Terry Flora Margie Student, Assistant Co. Attorney Tom Jones Bob Mulhere, Co. staff contracted liaison Mark Morton Nancy A. Payton Jeff Perry Al Reynolds Nicole Ryan Mike Taylor Richard Woodruff CALL TO ORDER (Item I.) The meeting was held at Corkscrew Middle School, 1165 Oil Well Road (C.R. 858), Naples, Florida. Chairman, Ron Hamel called to order at 5:40 PM with a quorum present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Item II.) James Horner motions to approve the September 17, 2001 meeting minutes, Sonya Tuten seconds, and the motion passes, 8:0. 16J1 APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Item III.) James Horner motions to approve the agenda, seconded by Kathy Prosser; motion carries, 8:0. OLD BUSINESS (Item IV.) Discussion of September 26, 2001 BCC Workshop Presentation: Chairman Hamel thanked all involved for participation and successful presentation; Bob Mulhere agreed, saying feedback from the Board of County Commissioners was "that they were very impressed "; at this time the committee viewed the WilsonMiller videotape that was presented at the 9/26/01 workshop that gave an overview of the Study; (Ann Olesky and Dawn Jantsch arrive at 6:00 and 6:15 PM respectively) NEW BUSINESS (Item V.) Review Scenarios: Al Reynolds distributes copies of "Scenario One: Immokalee Area Rural Stewardship Overlay "; Al advises committee to keep presentation in context of the "2025 Horizon Framework ", relating the scenario looking out over the next 25 years, in which the Study Area is projected to have growth; Through a series of flip- charts, Al demonstrates the overlay's 19 Guiding Principles, including a "credit system" for Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) and Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs); A formula has been arrived at which provides a "base credit" for Land Use multiplied by an "index" of Resource Characteristics to equal a Stewardship Credit; he reiterates to the committee that the program would be "incentive- based" on land use entitlements; Discussion followed; the question of economic feasibility was raised by committee, and Al said as soon as the committee came up with numbers (data), they will be tested by WilsonMiller economist; The committee asked for a copy of the percentages that he used in the presentation and he said they would be provided; Nancy Payton comments on the "Index Factor" and the pros and cons of land use viabilities; Al says the Area of Critical State Concern in the Study Area would be treated as a "stewardship sending area "; The committee, led by Jim Horner, motions to pursue the concept of "Scenario One ", seconded by Ann Olesky; motion carries, 10:0. Committee discussed using a sub -area as presented at this meeting with Credit System numbers applied to it for review; Al said he would get enough data back to the committee by next weeks' meeting (10- 22 -01) to make meeting worthwhile; Ann Olesky motions to use the sub -area and apply the numbers to the Credit System for next meeting; Kathy Prosser seconds, motion carries, 10:0. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (Item VI.) Andrew Mackie submitted Naples Daily News article entitled, "Florida panther managers look at tenfold expansion for refuge boundary', dated 9/23/01 as general information to the committee; Brad Cornell comments on the Rural Fringe TDR Study's 16J1 "simplicity in design" and comments that the Community Character & Design Study density components be discussed with the Rural Lands Committee; Bob Mulhere says he will check with staff to schedule presentation; some committee members express desire for presentation, others, including, Chairman Hamel, feel as though it would be best to move forward at this time with Scenario Reviews; FUTURE MEETING DATES (Item VII.) Tuesday, November 13, 2001 Monday, November 19, 2001 ADJOURNMENT (Item VIII.) The meeting concluded at 7:55 PM A taped and hard copy of these minutes in final form are available at the Clerk of Courts, Minutes and Records Office, Building F, Collier County Government Complex, minutes may also be viewed on the website: www.nasites.com /collier, Rural Assessments page 16J1 *Final- Approved 11 -13 -01 RURAL LANDS ASSESSMENT AREA OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MINUTES October 22, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Ron Hamel, Chairman Joseph Boggs (exc.) Rodney Harvey Floyd Crews James T. Horner Dawn Jantsch (exc.) James Howard Andrew Mackie (exc.) Kathy Prosser Grady Miars (exc.) Neno Spagna Ann Olesky (exc.) Fred Thomas David Santee Sonya Tuten COUNTY STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Linda Bedtelyon, Planning Services Terry Flora Bob Mulhere, Staff Consultant Liaison Bruce Johnson Marjorie Student, Assistant Co. Attorney Tom Jones Bernie Lester Mark Morton Jeff Perry Al Reynolds Eugene Roberts Nicole Ryan Amber Sundsted Mike Taylor George Varnadoe The meeting was held at Corkscrew Middle School, 1165 Oil Well Road (C.R. 858), Naples, Florida. There was not a quorum, therefore no formal action was taken; The following is a brief synopsis of the meeting: Bob Mulhere comments on the spreadsheet he's drafting for reference that will include the Final Order and 9J5 requirements and factors from the evaluation matrix, using the pre -Final Order Comprehensive Plan as the base -line; also to be included are the tools from the "Toolbox" to compare and apply to each of the Scenarios being presented; Bob says he'll probably have a rough draft ready at the next meeting; Ron Hamel asks about the extension of the deadline for the committee's work and Marjorie Student responds that she has received a draft motion (for extension) from the county's outside attorney, Nancy Linnan; Marjorie says she's approved it and it's been filed and we should be hearing something in the near future; 16J1 Al Reynolds begins presentation by re- capping Scenario One of last week's meeting (10/15/01), to which the committee voted unanimously in favor of "in concept'; he then presents the sub -area (approximately 20,000 acres) and takes the committee through the Scenario using graphs submitted this evening; by working through hypothetical calculations, the committee arrived at an amount of Stewardship Credits a property owner would be eligible to receive; Discussion centered around explanations for working the calculations and how values were arrived at; the question was raised about how "Receiving Areas" will fit into the equation; Al says that receiving areas will have different values based on "suitability factors "; Fred Thomas suggests incorporating some public comment input into the process; Neno Spagna comments on density issues; Al says the Immokalee Area Rural Stewardship Overlay, acting as an incentive, will take the place of re- zonings and Comprehensive Plan Amendments; Bob Mulhere comments that the use of the metric system in the overlay is not consistent with the Comp. Plan and the committee discusses amending the metric language; Bob suggests the committee meet an hour early at their next meeting, Tuesday, November 13th (4:30 PM) for a remedial presentation for the benefit of those absent today. Staff will inquire as to member's availability; Meeting concludes at approximately 7:00 PM. A taped recording and hard copy of these meeting minutes are available at the Clerk of Courts, Minutes and Records Office, Building F, Collier County Government Complex, minutes may also be viewed on the website: www.nasites.com /collier, Rural Assessments page 16JI � ,,unite Memorandum TO: Clerk to the Board/Minutes & Records FROM: Linda Bedtelyon, Planning Technician II DATE: December 20, 2001 RE: Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee I am submitting the following item to be filed by your office: 1. Tape recorded minutes of the December 5, 2001 and December 12, 2001 meetings and 2. Hard copies of the above If you have any questions, please call me at 659 -5737. VASC. Corres: lb date: 9LLMLL Fiala ✓ �nn Carter_�.c i:C;li# I� C�,Sj Henning L/ Coyle Coletta Copies To: Community Development & Environmental Services Division Planning Services i 16J1 *Final- approved 12.92.09 RURAL FRINGE AREA ASESSMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MINUTES December 5, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Ty Agoston David Bryant David Ellis, Chairman Gary Hayes Dawn Jantsch Patrick Miller Chuck Mohlke Ray Pelletier Kathy Prosser COUNTY STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Linda Bedtelyon, Planning Services Bruce Anderson Mac Hatcher, Natural Resources Andy Barienbrock Glenn Heath, Comprehensive Ping. Maureen Bonness Stan Litsinger, Comp. Planning Manager Brad Cornell Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Tim Hancock Bob Mulhere, Staff Consultant Bob Robinson Ann Marie Saylor, Public Utilities Eric Staats Margie Student, Assistant Co. Atty. Mike Taylor Richard Woodruff *And others, names unknown CALL TO ORDER (Item I.) The meeting was held at Development Services Center, Conference Room "C ", 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida. Chairman, David Ellis called to order at 3:30 PM with a quorum present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Item II.) Patrick Miller motions to approve the minutes of November 28, 2001 meeting, and the committee passes the motion unanimously APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Item III.) Several committee members express interest in receiving comments from Bob Mulhere /Bill Lorenz, relative to their meeting with DCA representatives in Tallahassee and move to add item to agenda, "Old Business, Item A "; Patrick Miller motions to approve amended agenda; committee passes motion unanimously; OLD BUSINESS (Item W.A.) Report from Tallahassee: Bob Mulhere says he and Bill met with DCA's Shaw Stiller, Charlie Gauthier, Mike McDaniel, and Rodger Wilburn, as well as, Nancy Linnan, Esq., county's outside legal counsel with CarltonFields, Marti Chumbler and Jack Sullivan; Bob expresses that " over -all, (it was) an extremely positive meeting; they 16J1 were very supportive of almost all of the concepts we're proposing as part of the Rural Fringe amendments; they had a couple of concerns with 1: (they) unilaterally would not be supportive of golf courses in any way, shape, or form, in Sending Lands ", and 2: given the market in Collier County, concerns were raised about the TDR program relative to golf course development; Bob says it was suggested that there be a "requirement in association with golf courses for a minimum density and we think that's a pretty good suggestion "; thirdly, in regard to proposed wetland policies, they were open to a policy that provides for more flexibility in the Urban Area, while complying with policies of other jurisdictional agencies; based on those suggestions, Bill is working on re- writing some of the original draft language; David Ellis asks committee if they can meet on December 19th; no consensus was reached; (David leaves due to illness at 3:50 PM, vice -chair Patrick Miller to lead committee) (Item W.B.) Vegetation Preservation Policies Draft GOPs -Staff Working Draft #1: Bill Lorenz comments that he's received Tim Hancock's memorandum relative to vegetation preservation today (submitted to committee as well); Chuck Mohlke suggests Bill devise a spreadsheet with a formula equation to demonstrate preservation standards; Bill concurs; Dawn Jantsch motions to revise language to include Tim Hancock's recommendations concerning exotic vegetation relative to minimum preservation percentage standards, NRPA minimum preservation standards to allow for flexibility based on site conditions, and Dr. Woodruff's suggestions on language specificity; after further discussion, Bob Mulhere says staff will come back with some alternative language; Bob also comments that staff is working on draft GOPs for Transfer of Development Rights policies and will hopefully be ready for presentation at Dec. 12th meeting; (Ty Agoston leaves at 4:45 PM; quorum still present) A discussion of conservation land maintenance and the state's role in that management was followed by vote for consensus from the committee to give direction to staff to bring back language to submit to DCA as part of the policy; the committee agreed unanimously; FUTURE MEETING DATES (Item VI.) Patrick Miller advises committee to be prepared to stay late if necessary, at the December 12th meeting GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (Item VII.) Maureen Bonness advises committee of the informational workshop with Big Corkscrew Island neighbors and county staff being conducted at Corkscrew Middle School on December 10, 2001 and distributes advertisement; Stan Litsinger advises that only one committee member may attend, according to Sunshine Law; Bill Lorenz comments that staff, at the request of Big Corkscrew Island, will present information relative to the TDR program and the Sending and Receiving draft GMP proposals, and take questions, as part of the public process; he advises that a Big Corkscrew Island member then report back to the Rural Fringe Committee and that it is not intended to be a "Rural Fringe Committee" meeting; 16J1 Richard Woodruff asks the committee to plan to work until 6:30 -7:00 PM at the December 12th meeting, to try to get through unfinished business; Patrick agrees and Stan Litsinger also comments that the next meeting is officially the last scheduled meeting, after which, staff will be assembling material to put into Comprehensive Plan format documents to go to the various groups required: Technical Advisory Committee, Environmental Advisory Committee, a public workshop in January, transmittal hearing February 27, 2002 with the BCC, etc. Tim Hancock comments, "unfortunately, Mr. Staats left before the final public comment; I wish he could have heard this; tonight I heard, on three separate occasions, in reference to Dr. Woodruff and others as "developers "; I want to be very, very clear; I'm here, and have been here at these committee meetings representing landowners, that are affected by this, not developers... that's a very important distinction "; Since there was no further public comment, the committee unanimously agreed to adjourn at approximately, 5:35 PM A taped and hard copy of these minutes are available at the Clerk of Courts, Minutes and Records Office, Building F, Collier County Government Complex and can also be viewed at www.nasites.com /collier on the Rural Assessments page 16J1 *Final- Approved 12.19.01 RURAL FRINGE ASSESSMENT AREA OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MINUTES December 12, 2001 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT David Bryant Ty Agoston (exc.) David Ellis, Chairman Gary Hayes Dawn Jantsch Patrick Miller Chuck Mohlke Ray Pelletier Kathy Prosser COUNTY STAFF PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Linda Bedtelyon, Planning Services Bruce Anderson Mac Hatcher, Natural Resources Andy Barienbrock Glenn Heath, Comprehensive Planning Maureen Bonness Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Ping. Manager Brad Cornell Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Robert Duane Bob Mulhere, Staff Consultant Tim Hancock Margie Student, Assistant County Attorney Chris Johnson Marilyn Levin Nancy Linnan Bill N. Moore Mike McDaniel Nancy A. Payton Jack Sullivan Mike Taylor Richard Woodruff CALL TO ORDER (Item I.) The meeting was held at Development Services Center, Conference Room "E ", 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida. Chairman, David Ellis called to order at 3:43 PM with a quorum present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Item II.) Patrick Miller moves to approve the December 5, 2001 meeting minutes, followed by a second from Kathy Prosser and David Bryant; the motion passes unanimously, 6:0. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Item III.) Bob Mulhere requests amending agenda to include introduction and Q. and A. of Mike McDaniel of Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Nancy Linnan, Esq. and Jack Sullivan of CarltonFields; Ray Pelletier also requests addition to "New Business ", 16J1 his item, "Green -space Policies "; Patrick Miller motions to approve agenda as amended, David Bryant seconds, and motion passes unanimously; Chuck Mohlke asks staff for "Wetlands" draft GOPs policy and Bill Lorenz commits to having it available at the first of the year; OLD BUSINESS (Item W.A.) Nancy Linnan and Mike McDaniel address committee as to their role regarding the draft GOP amendments and commend committee members for their hard work; (Item IV.B.) Approval of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Final Report: Bob Mulhere comments on the most important aspects of the document, namely, the summation and principles necessary for a successful program; after further discussion, Chuck Mohlke moves "that the committee accept the TDR final report and that further committee action is contingent upon the presentation of the implementing program, now in draft form, to be the basis of future committee discussion on this issue "; Ray Pelletier seconds, and more discussion follows; (Dawn Jantsch arrives at 4:28 PM) Bob Mulhere distributes staff draft #1 GOPs for Transfer of Development Rights; he comments on informational workshop with Big Corkscrew Island Neighbors on Monday, 12.10.01, saying, "there was unanimous opposition by property owners for being designated a Receiving Area "; Bob says, "we indicated that we would explore some options, made no commitments, would explore options, and I feel those options would require some further discussion with Dr. Nicholas "; David Ellis reminds committee there is a motion on the floor and Chuck Mohlke restates his motion as, "to accept the final report and to make further discussion of the issues discussed in the report and those matters of importance to the committee and to the staff deserving of inclusion in an implementation report be provided to the committee before further discussion and action takes place "; Kathy Prosser seconds and the motion passes, 5:2; (Item W.C.) Proposed Revisions to Sending and Receiving Areas -Draft #1: Bob Mulhere points out changes in Comp. Plan language to committee and notes suggestions for revisions; Ray Pelletier motions to change Item 2. on page 14 of 35 that reads, "Detached single - family dwelling units.... "from "a maximum density of one dwelling unit per lot or parcel, which existed on or before June 22, 1999..." to: "Detached single - family dwelling units, including mobile homes where the Mobile Home Zoning Overlay exists, at a maximum density of one unit per five acres and completely eliminate everything under 2. after that'; David Bryant seconds the motion; discussion followed; Ray amends motion to "require clustering when over five acres are developed( in Sending Area) "; David Bryant seconds, and the vote is 5:2 against passing motion; David Ellis asks Bob Mulhere to identify remaining issues that committee may consider possible "hot button" discussion items; Bob points out proposed language amendments on pages 14 and 15 and pages 25 through 28 of the Sending and Receiving Areas draft #1 proposal; 16J1 NEW BUSINESS (Item V.A.) Central Water & Sewer Policies -RFAC Draft #1: David Bryant motions to accept the draft policies, Patrick Miller seconds the motion and the motion passes, 6:1. (Chuck Mohlke leaves at 5:55 PM); a quorum is still present Ray Pelletier presents his "Green -space policy" that was distributed to the committee prior to this meeting; FUTURE MEETING DATES (Item VI.) Stan Litsinger reviews remaining schedule with committee, saying transmittal date for draft amendments is 02- 23 -02; January 16, 2002 committee meeting after public forum to review; January 23, 2002, final amendments review; February 13, 2001 committee meeting to review CCPC hearing; The committee agreed to meet again on Wednesday, December 19, 2001, same time, same location; GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (Item VII.) Mike Taylor comments on Sending Areas language restrictions and asks when and how that will be addressed; Bob Mulhere suggests he attend the EAC hearing, Planning Commission hearing, and/or BCC presentation meeting to voice concerns; David Ellis says that if anyone brought back a good recommendation, he'd be willing to have the committee entertain a new recommendation; ADJOURNMENT (Item VIII.) The committee unanimously agreed to adjourn at 6:05 PM A taped and hard copy of these minutes are available at the Clerk of Courts, Minutes and Records Office, Building F, Collier County Government Complex, minutes may also be viewed on the website: www.nasites.com /collier, Rural Assessments page IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. 6J 1 ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA Mel• December 19, 2001 Carter Henning I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Coyle Colette II. ATTENDANCE III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (10/17/2001) IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT A. BUDGET V. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT VI. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS REPORT A. COST OF OAK TREE PLANTINGS B. BANNER PROCUREMENT g{ C. TRIANGLE UPDATE VII: OLD BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS X. ADJOURNMENT This meeting is scheduled for 3:30 PM, Wednesday, December 19, 2001 at the Immokalee Community Park 321 First Street South Immokalee FL Il�rn l o Coes 'o: Collier County Government Center • 3301 Tamiami Trail East • Naples, Florida 34112 IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE October 17, 2001 I. The meeting was called to order by Denise Smith at 3:43 PM. II. ATTENDANCE: A. Members: Denise Smith; Dorcas Howard; Cherryle Thomas; Sharon Timms. Rita Avalos had an excused absence. B. Collier County: Val Prince and Bob Petersen, DOT Landscape Operations; Dora Vidaurri, Housing Urban Improvement. C. Other: Michael McGee, McGee and Associates; Robert Kindelan, Commercial Land Management; Allen Jost, Manpower Secretarial Services. IIL APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Dorcas Howard moved to accept the minutes of September 19, 2001 as presented. Sharon Timms seconded. Motion carried. IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT A. BUDGET: Val Prince presented the Fund 156 Budget in the new format and went on to explain the changes and how to read it. He stated that he would bring the back up paperwork to support some of the entries next month. The committee agreed the new format was easier to read. B. STATUS OF UNRECOGNIZED CARRY FORWARD: In the new Budget format the Carry Forward is automatically recognized and no longer requires any additional action. C. REPAIR OF BRICK PLANTERS: The purchase order was made to Ernest Freeman to be included in last years budget however because the time was too short it had to be resubmitted for this year. The contractor has not yet finished qualifying with his requirements such as furnishing proof of insurance, etc for this fiscal year so it cannot be completed until he qualifies. The bricks are ready to be picked up with Ruck Brothers. D. STRIPING: Val Prince stated he has not been successful in getting Joe Troutwin to do the job. He will be contacting Commercial Land Management to see if they can work out something to get the job done. E. BRICK PAVERS: A quote has been received for the installation of the brick paving from Hannula Landscaping who did the original work in the medians. It came in at $62,000 and included all of 846 and 29 repairs. It must be requoted and will probably be 90 to 120 days before it can be started. V. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT: Robert Kindelan reported that normal problems are being encountered and taken care of. All but two of the medians will be converted over to pop up sprinklers by next week. Before mulching takes place, fill in planting will be done. Because of a wiring problem many of the lights were out and reported to DOT who contacted Bernie Simmons who is working to get all of the lights back up. Collier County Government Center • 3301 Tamiami Trail East • Naples, Florida 34112 16J' 16J1 VI. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS REPORT: A. STATUS OF OAK TREE PLANTINGS: Drawings of the plantings were given to DOT and after consulting with Bryan Dennis there was not a problem seen in planting the Oaks as desired. Val Prince said new paperwork has been submitted to FDOT and as soon as the approval comes back. Cost estimates will be given next meeting. B. BANNER DRAWING: Mike McGee showed a brochure with various types of banners. He gave prices that are pretty standard with most companies. He showed the design for the seven color banner that he had drawn up. He had contacted one company and found the one time setup charge to be $650. Each banner after that would cost $84. There are 42 banners so that would bring the cost to $4178. There would be no sales tax since it would be a county purchase but after adding on shipping it would bring the cost per banner to approximately $100 each. Denise Smith moved to accept Mike McGee's design and to spend not to exceed $4500 for procuring the banners. It was seconded by Dorcas Howard. Motion carried unanimously. Mike asked the committee if they desired to lengthen the banners that were made too short. Denise said that he didn't need a motion to go ahead and do it. C. TRIANGLE UPDATE: Mike McGee said that he contacted the FDOT and that the 55 mph zone was posted by mistake. The signs have been changed to 45 mph and there is no problem with the plans for the setbacks and he will have the plans submitted by November 1, 2001. It will be approximately 90 to 120 days after that before we can go out for bids. VII: OLD BUSINESS: A. IMMOKALEE MSTU ORDNANCE CHANGE: Denise Smith handed out letters pertaining to changing the ordnance to allow one member of the committee to be appointed by a local business. The letters are made a part of the minutes and attached herewith. Bob Petersen stated that he had drafted an executive summary to the Collier County Board. B. TRAFFIC LIGHT AT WESTCLOX, STR 29 & NEWMARKET: Bob Petersen stated that the warrants did not show a need for a traffic control at this time. There was some concern for the safety at this intersection and they have authorized a flashing yellow light that will be installed by the end of this fiscal year. This yellow light will be of the type that can be converted to a traffic control at a later date. VIII. NEW BUSINESS: A. FLOWER BASKETS: A letter was received from the Seminole Indian Casino asking permission to hang flower baskets from the light standards. Denise Smith moved that no baskets be allowed to be hung in the right away on any light poles. It was seconded by Dorcas Howard. Discussion brought out that baskets could become missiles during storms and cause liabilities. There was also the matter of maintenance that would be 01 16J1 involved. Motion was carried unanimously. Bob Petersen will draft a letter of reply to the Seminole Casino apprising them of this action. B. IMMOKALEE WORKSHOP: Dora Vidaurri invited a member of the committee to make a presentation on the Triangle Beautification as an example of how Immokalee organizations are working together to make Immokalee a better place to live. It will be held on Wednesday, November 6, 2001 from 9AM to 12 Noon at the Agricultural Office. Mike McGee will prepare a color rendering of the proposed triangle and make the presentation after being introduced by a member of the committee. C. SUPPLY OF LIGHTS AND POLES: Ron Stedman of Lumac Lighting briefed the committee on methods of shipping of light poles in the future. Up to now poles in shipments of 4 or less were just shipped openly via freight. The new method will crate poles of 4 or less avoiding the damage that has happened in the past. IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None X. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:01 PM. The next meeting is scheduled for 3:30 PM, Wednesday, December 19, 2001 at the Immokalee Community Park 321 First Street South Immokalee FL 3 ( 1--1' 200' 16JI 1. Meeting called to order RECEIVED 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of November 9, 2001 4. Landscape Maintenance Report A. Mulch on median tips? 5. Landscape Architect's Report - Mike McGee A. Condition of project D. Plantings for median tips C. Progress of Median #5 re- design ,ird �)f AUIty Commissioners Fiala Carter Henning Coyle Coletta 6. Transportation Landscape Services Report — Val Prince, Robert Petersen A. Current budget D. Recouperation for accident damages C. Ditch clean out D. Lights at Doral 7. Committee Members' Reports A. George Pearson — speed bumps /Lely Civic Association 8.0161 Business A. Restoration of curbing to 6" 9. New Business .. -- 10. Public Comments A�isc Corres: _._. m 11. Adjournment -,s To: IeCy Goff Estates Beautification Advisory Committee Minutes - Meeting of November g, 2001 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND MOTIONS 16J 1 4. Minutes of October 12" — Bob Cole made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted; seconded by Bob Slebodnik and carried unanimously. 3. TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS REPORT A. Copies of the annual budget were provided and reviewed. With regard to last month's motion, Val Prince noted that a new motion. would be needed to move the reserves to the appropriate line item since the upcoming project is refurbishment not new construction. Bob Cole made a motion to move $20,000 from Reserves to Other Contractual Services; seconded by Bob Weyers and carried unanimously. 7. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S REPORT B. Mr. McGee made several recommendations for the median tip plantings. After some discussion, Bob Cole moved to plant copperleaf pink and red begonias and embellish the soil, not to exceed $650; seconded by Bob Slebodnik and carried unanimously. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. An estimate of $11,874 ($3316 for irrigation and $8558 for landscaping) for the median 5 re- design was reviewed. By phasing out the sod and utilizing above ground irrigation, it is anticipated that there will be fewer irrigation problems and less water usage. George Pearson made a motion authorizing the expenditure; seconded by Bob Cole and carried unanimously. Depending on the availability of trees, the project should begin after Thanksgiving. IeCy GOT Estates Beautification Advisory Committee Minutes - .Meeting of November g, 2001 1 6J 1 Meeting called to order at 4:00 p.m. 2. Location — Transportation Operations Department Conference Room. 3. Attendance Taken: Present — George Pearson, Robert Cole, Bob Slebodnik, Robert Weyers, members; Bob Petersen and Val Prince, Transportation Services; Robert Kindelan (4:15), Commercial Land Maintenance; Mike McGee, McGee & Associates; Jacqueline Silano, recording secretary. Excused Absence: Bill Erickson, member. 4. Minutes of October 12' — Bob Cole made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted; seconded by Bob Slebodnik and carried unanimously. 5. TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS REPORT A. Copies of the annual budget were provided and reviewed. With regard to last month's motion, Val Prince noted that a new motion would be needed to move the reserves to the appropriate line item since the upcoming project is refurbishment not new construction. Bob Cole made a motion to move $20,000 from Reserves to Other Contractual Services; seconded by Bob Weyers and carried unanimously. B. Val Prince advised that George Pearson and Bob Cole were reappointed for four year terms to the committee at the October 9' Board of County Commissioners' meeting. Their appointments will expire in the year 2005. C. Mr. Prince said that the potholes have been repaired. D. Val Prince also noted that he e- mailed Harry Acres regarding cleaning of the ditch. Mr. Slebodnik had a call from Mr. Acres who advised him that he would check with Road and Bridge. Mr. Slebodnik told him that there should be no problems gaining access. Mr. Prince will continue to follow up. E. Mr. Prince advised that the Carry Forward in last year's budget was shown as a separate item but this year is adopted into the current budget. F. Risk Management was e- mailed by Mr. Prince regarding the estimates of the auto accident damages in the medians. They will advise him of the current procedure to follow in order to recoup the loses in an upcoming meeting. G. Mr. Prince advised that two trees have been moved from Pine Ridge Road and two others will be forthcoming. H. As there was another accident on Forest Hills that caused damage to the trees in the median, there was a brief discussion regarding measures to decrease the speed of the traffic. George Pearson will get in touch with the Lely Civic Association. It was noted that the curbing should be restored to 6 "; Val Prince will e-mail Ed Kant. I. Several spotlights are not working at Doral and at the flagpole at the St. Andrews entrance. �x 6. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT 16J.1 '• ;.: , A. Mr. Kindelan reported that basic maintenance was performed on the medians. Fertilization, pest control and weed spraying were done during October. Mulching will be done within the next couple of weeks; the palms on Doral and the tips of the shore juniper will be trimmed. B. Robert Kindelan will meet with Jon Pratt at the wastewater plant next week. 7. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S REPORT A. Mike McGee provided copies of his quarterly report. A discussion followed. He noted that the contractor was performing as per the contract specifications. B. Mr. McGee made several recommendations for the median tip plantings. After some discussion, Bob Cole moved to plant copperleaf pink and red begonias and embellish the soil, not to exceed $650; seconded by Bob Slebodnik and carried unanimously. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. An estimate of $11,874 ($3316 for irrigation and $8558 for landscaping) for the median 5 re- design was reviewed. By phasing out the sod and utilizing above ground irrigation, it is anticipated that there will be fewer irrigation problems and less water usage. George Pearson made a motion authorizing the expenditure; seconded by Bob Cole and carried unanimously. Depending on the availability of trees, the project should begin after Thanksgiving. B. There was some discussion regarding improvements to the U.S. 41 entrance. Mike McGee will work up a plan and bids will be obtained. Then the owners of the shopping center will be contacted to solicit contributions. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. The next scheduled meeting will be held on December 14th @ 4:00 p.m. at the Transportation Operations conference room on South Horseshoe Drive. November g, 2001 Lely Golf" Estates Beautification .Advisory Committee Page 2 of 2 TH FC Carter _ a®nninp Coyle Roadway arM*fti�j e Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 November 16, 2001 �16J1 P' berg The meeting was called to order at the Forest Lakes Clubhouse by Robert Jones at 10:03 AM. II. ATTENDANCE: A. Members: Robert H. Jones, Bill Seabury, Bob Cunningham, Roger Somerville, and Tom Watts. B. Collier County: Bob Petersen, Department of Transportation. C. Other: Nineteen residents of the community; Allen Jost, Manpower Secretarial Services. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved by Bill Seabury to approve the minutes of September 21, 2001 as presented. Seconded by Bob Cunningham. Motion carried. IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: Bob Petersen handed out the Fund 155 Budget dated this date and explained the new format and answered questions on the amounts indicated. Pursuant to a request from the attendees the committee requested that a copy of the budget be included in the minutes that is being sent to each Condominium Association. V. COMMITTEE MEMBERS REPORTS: Bob Jones introduced himself to the audience and told where he lived. He then asked each of the other members of the committee to do the same. At the end of the introductions he explained the purpose and history of the committee and what goals are being sought as well as several that have been accomplished. VI. OLD BUSINESS: A. Cost of Preparing Roads for County Takeover: Most of the work has been done. This item will be carried forward to the next meeting when Ed Kant will address the subject. B. Speed Bumps (Number and Cost): Prior to proceeding with the speed bumps, the committee will study other methods of calming the traffic without damaging emergency vehicles. It was also noted that the County will not accept the roads with speed bumps unless they are the approved ones which are very expensive. The committee is investigating to see what speed enforcement powers they are vested with by the County. This item will remain on the Agenda A ffl. §orres: method is selected and then it will be put up to the community forj a vote. 0<- �1 1D2� td ) C. Woodshire Lane Problem: Because of the way the road was '( constructed there cannot be any lasting solution until the road is 6 J 1 corrected. It is the only road that is not built even close to the County standard. It does however have a decent sub -base that will allow the road to be widened and by adding a 2 inch list to the roadbed tapering to a 3 inch lift at the center crown, it will then shed water to the new gutters on each side of the road. Force Main Pumps should be considered as a solution to carry the storm water away. This item will remain on the agenda. A commitment will be sought from the county to see if they will take the road over after these conditions are met. VII. NEW BUSINESS: Roger Somerville proposed that Butler Engineering who engineered Forest Lakes Drainage Plan be brought in to use their drawings to assist in determining where the existing drainage pipes are and whether a force pump will assist in getting water to the canal from the swale along Woodshire Lane. Bob Petersen said he will invite Jerry Kurtz, Engineer for Collier County Storm Water Management to the next meeting. Bob Cunningham brought up the problem of draining the water from the parking lot on Emerald Green. The committee will go to the site to view the problem and it will be added to the agenda for the next meeting when Jerry Kurtz will be here. Bob Jones suggested that the committee look into the cost of borrowing funds to speed up the process of doing all of the projected projects instead of waiting until the money is received from the present taxing level. Bob Petersen said he would check the ordnance that established the committee to see what things are mandated and whether a change would be necessary to increase the millage rate. Bob Jones asked the audience if in principle they would be willing to double their millage rate to fix the problems they have suffered for the last ten years. The general concensus was that they would be willing if their conditions could be solved. Bob Petersen said he would bring in the Five Year Plan that was developed by Jerry Kurtz based on the present availability of funds. This then could be studied to determine where it could be sped up if additional money was available by increasing the millage rate. After a revised plan is decided upon then it will be presented to the residents. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Several instances of flooding problems in this past year were brought up. It was generally agreed that the problem has improved from past years. The committee explained that plans will be forthcoming this year to alleviate those things that are still occurring. Bob Jones proposed that each association appoint persons who will be responsible to see that the drop inlets are kept unplugged and that the outflow of storm water is maintained to carry it away after each rain to the canals. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Roger Somerville moved to adjourn. It was seconded by Bill Seabury. Meeting adjourned at 12:20PM. Next Meeting is Scheduled for 10:OOAM, Friday, December 21, 2001 At Forest Lakes Clubhouse Fiafa Carter ' Henning _J� 3050 North HorsQr%Prh, -, St�e}�45►.._ Naples FL 34104 L phone: 941/403-2398 fax: 941/403-2331 RECEIVED ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1 to :'€ b MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 hoard of County Commissioners EZDA MEETING The Enterprise Zone Development Agency meeting was held on Thursday, September 20, 2001, at the Immokalee Community Center, Immokalee, FL Officio and Ex- Officio members in attendance: Fred Thomas, Jr., Chair Denise Blanton Floyd Crews Raymond Holland Jerry Hubbart John Kirchner Ira Malamut Herman Spooner Dora Vidaurri not in attendance: Lucy Ortiz, Vice Chair Robert Asbel Bill Dillon Al Neuman Tony Sanchez Casey Wolff Guests attending Jill Greenfield, EDC staff attending: Marlene Foord, Planning Helene Caseltine, HUI 1. Roll Call - Ms. Caseltine called the meeting to order at 3:20 p.m.; a quorum was present. Note: Ms. Caseltine served as Chair to open the meeting until a new chairman could be elected. 2. Membership Activity - Ms. Caseltine announced that Raymond Holland, Fred Thomas and Bill Dillon were all re- appointed by the Board of County Commissioners on September 11th and are officially members of EZDA again. ". y - Mr. Thomas made a motion to elect Raymond Holland as Chair; seconded by Mr. Kirchner, approved unanimously. Mr. Kirchner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Crews to elect Mr. Thomas as Vice Chair, approved unanimously. 3. Approval of Minutes from August 16, 2001 Misc. Corres: Motion made to approve, seconded by Mr. Hubbart, approved unanimously. Date: Item# 103 1 Copies To: EZDA Meeting Minutes of 9/20/01 Page two 16J1 4. Zone Activity • Ms. Caseltine stated that El Ranchito Ice Cream store has applied for a sales tax refund for the new equipment they've purchased. Mr. Thomas mentioned that the other ice cream store off New Market Road has recently opened as well in the 2 -story office building. • Wally Wash will not have the employees to qualify for the job tax credit, but will be submitting a request for sales tax refunds on building material and equipment purchases. • Ms. Caseltine spoke to Florida Specialties about the EZ program, at Mr. Hubbart's suggestion; the company may relocate to the State Farmers Market. • Ms. Caseltine mentioned that homeowners can qualify as well and will look into whether new construction can qualify. • Chairman Holland mentioned that Wendy's restaurant is trying to come into the area. • Dr. Blanton mentioned that Suncoast Credit Union is opening up a satellite office, possibly with an ATM as well. • Chairman Holland asked Ms. Caseltine to give an overview of the Fast Track permit process. She described the application process and explained that Naples has certain criteria for companies to qualify for the program, but that in Immokalee, it's available for any project and only dependent on job creation (not high wage or industry specific). • Effective October 1 st, the County will no longer do simultaneous plan and permit review, however, this will still be provided to EDC Fast Track projects. • Everyone was asked to make note of any new projects to make sure the new owners are aware of the Fast Track permitting and review program. 5. Committee Updates Mr. Thomas made a motion to re- evaluate the need for the committees, seconded by Mr. Kirchner. Mr. Thomas continued to explain that the committees were originally established to fill an existing gap because there was no executive director for the Chamber. However, now that the Chamber is fully staffed and tax credits are a routine function, and that perhaps the committees are no longer necessary and could be dissolved entirely. Chairman Holland said if no one objects, that the committees will be dissolved. With no objections voiced, the Chairman dissolved the committees by decree. • Strategic Plan Monitoring — no report, committee dissolved • Tax Credits — no report, committee dissolved • Marketing — no report, committee dissolved • Touring — no report, committee dissolved 6. Old Business Mr. Thomas provided background on the dormitory housing project, stating that dirt will be moved by January 1, 2002, and completed by August 1, 2002, and that the facility will be managed by Friendship House. Funding and support is coming from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, The Empowerment Alliance, and Collier County government. The total project funding is $5.4 million. He also mentioned that the dormitory will be up to Red Cross standards and will therefore be able to serve as a hurricane shelter during hurricane season. It will be the only such structure available as a hurricane shelter in southwest Florida. EZDA Meeting Minutes of 9/20/01 t Page three 16J1 7. New Business Ira Malamut and Ms. Caseltine provided an overview of the grant received to provide computers and computer training to 95 RCMA families in Immokalee. Part of the grant is available for the Microloan program. Ms. Caseltine mentioned there hasn't been much participation in Immokalee, but that RCMA is helping to advertise the existing Microloan program through its involvement in the community. Chairman Holland mentioned that the important part of the program is the education aspect, which provides information on how to start and manage a business, through the Small Business Development Center at FGCU. Chairman Holland also mentioned that is sometimes a turnoff since most people just want to get started in business and do not necessarily want to bother with the education. The classes as SBDC are free. Ms. Caseltine mentioned that 15 -18 people have applied and there are 12 active loans, with 3 of them defaulting. Chairman Holland mentioned that this is one more program to advertise to the community so they are aware of it and can take advantage of it. Dr. Blanton mentioned that Julio Estremera (the SBDC counselor) is only able to spend a small portion of his time in the Zone and that more focus needs to be provided in this area. Jill Greenfield mentioned that EDC is doing an Enterprise Zone brochure and reminded everyone about the re- districting workshops; and about the 3rd Workforce Summit in Estero in November. Mr. Thomas encouraged everyone to go to the re- districting meetings because there is a move from a representative to change the districts to do away with the southwest district for the congressional seat. The meeting dates are listed in the Naples Daily News. 8. Adjourn With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Helene Caseltine, CED Economic Development Manager Field ���...�..... _ Carter Hennin _ Coyle Coletta 3050 North Horseshoe Drive, Suite 145 Naples FL 34104 phone: 941/403 -2398 fax: 941/403 -2331 V � ei v ED ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Soar , t Cqrent r,)Mpi ss ii►. 4FT MINUTES OF NOVEMVBER 29, 2001 EZDA MEETING 16J1 The Enterprise Zone Development Agency meeting was held on Thursday, November 29, 2001, at the Habitat for Humanity Office on N. Ninth Street, Immokalee, FL Officio and Ex- Officio members in attendance: Raymond Holland, Chair Denise Blanton Floyd Crews Jerry Hubbart Ira Malamut Dora Vidaurri Al Neuman Fred Thomas not in attendance: Lucy Ortiz, Vice Chair Robert Asbel Bill Dillon Tony Sanchez Casey Wolff Guests attending - none staff attending: Marlene Foord, Planning Helene Caseltine, HUI Tom Tomerlin, Planning 1. Roll Call — Mr. Holland called the meeting to order at 10:20 p.m.; a quorum was present. 2. Approval of Minutes from September 20, 2001 Motion made to approve by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Crews, approved unanimously. 3. Zone Activity • Ms. Caseltine stated that the Empowerment Alliance would like to participate in the Community Contribution Tax Credit program. A recommendation was made to support this request along with a recommendation that the BCC support their request. She stated that this will come before the BCC at their 12/11/01 regular meeting. • Ms. Caseltine also referenced the EZDA Annual report, which was included in the _Bovcw1A _ packets, stating it will be sent to the Governor's Office on Friday, Novem 33 r eS: • Ms. Caseltine then gave a summary of EZDA Coordinators' workshop, held nrfando, saying that it was very informative; a draft of the workshop summary was ovi e the Board members' packet. One change that became effective on July increasing the minimum purchase price on new equipment to $5,000 which has h negative effect on small businesses. She added that legislation is being 4 to c Codes To: EZDA Meeting Minutes of 11/29/01 Page two 16JI this threshold to $500. Mr. Thomas made motion to have staff write a letter to support this adjustment, Mr. Crews seconded, passed unanimously. 4. Old Business BCC Special Workshop held on November 6, 2001, Ms. Caseltine passed out copies of the presentation, stating that it was taped and aired by School Board on their channel 78 for Immokalee viewers. Fifteen tapes were made and are being distributed to speakers. Leadership Florida tour —Ms. Caseltine provided narration through Immokalee for this group, talking about projects in Immokalee, provided Future of Immokalee booklets, 60 people were on the bus from all over Florida. 5. New Business Discussion ensued about scheduling a local EZ workshop. EDC wants to be involved. Ms. Caseltine suggested it be done the same day as the Jan. 15 Everglades City workshop, which will be at 4:OOpm. If a noon workshop is held, lunch could be provided. Advertising will be done in newspapers, on the local television channels, plus fliers could be distributed through local organizations like Rotary. It was agreed that the workshop will be held on Tuesday, January 15, 2002, around the lunch hour. A local sponsor will be sought. Chairman Holland mentioned the possibility of coordinating with other agencies and programs such as Main Street, and possibly setting up a committee to provide updates and coordination. The next meeting will be held on January 24, 2002, immediately following the CRA Advisory Board meeting. 6. Adjourn With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Helene Caseltine, CED Economic Development Manager a v� Fiale Carter Henning Mac'Kle Colette Memorandum To: Sue Filson Executive Assistant, BCC From: Ron Hovell, P.E. Public Utilities Eng n eying artment, Coastal Projects Manager Date: November 13, 2001 Subject: Coastal Advisory Committee Minutes c 16J1 The subject meeting minutes and public notices are forwarded for submission to the Board of County Commissioners for the October 4, 2001 meeting. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at 530 -5342. l 7�l Attachments _41 Sr ifBSe pate: item CopEes To� , . Public Utilities Engineering Department Coastal Advisory Committee 16J.1 October 4, 2001 Reconvened at the Clam Pass Park Beach with Ms. Lupo, Mr. Galleberg and Mr. Snediker not present. The destroyed dunes and Clam Pass were pointed out along with the project plans to dredge the pass. Reconvened at Vanderbilt Beach Road access. Pointed out loss of sand and only public access. October 4, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE 16J1 COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OCTOBER 4, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 in REGULAR SESSION at The Foundation Center, 8962 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dave Roellig Robert Gray John Strapponi William Kroeschell Anthony Pires Robert Stakich ABSENT: Ashley Lupo Gary Galleberg ALSO PRESENT: Ron Hovell, Public Utilities Roy Anderson, Public Utilities Jim Mudd, Public Utilities CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: It's 3:30. We've completed the field trip portion of our meeting today. I'll just give you a brief recap. We went down to Seagate, planned county park. Went to county's Clam Pass, saw the park facilities down there. It's obvious from looking at it there had been during Gabrielle -- presumably there had been a great deal of overwash, and a lot of sand had been pushed off the beach and across the berm and is somewhere back in the mangroves which is pretty typical of what's happened here. And then after that we took a trip down to the end of Sanibel Beach Road and took a look at the shoreline there, and we didn't have too much time to get back here by 3:30. So we'll start the meeting now with the roll call. MR. GRAY: Bob Gray, City of Naples. MR. STRAPPONI: John Strapponi, county. MR. STAKICH: Bob Stakich, Marco Island. MR. ROELLIG: David Roellig, county. MR. KROESCHELL: Bill Kroeschell, City of Naples. MR. PIRES: Tony Pires from the county. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Sitting as vice chairman, of course -- and Gary Galleberg was unable to make this meeting, so I'll be chairing it. Page 1 October 4, 2001 16J1 Next item is any additions to the agenda. Any members have any additions? MR. KROESCHELL: I'd like to talk about the cleaning up after Gabrielle. I'd like to talk about the minutes. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Okay. We've got the minutes. We'll make that 4 -D, Gabrielle cleanup. MR. KROESCHELL: This is not a correction to the minutes. This is just a presentation. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Okay. Any other conditions? Staff have any additions you want to add to this? No. Okay. Well, we'll move on. Go to the approval of minutes then. Any comments on the minutes? MR. PIERS: Just one, page 7 in the third full paragraph in the fourth line. I think that's Ken Humisten or Bob Devlin discussing this. The fifth word is geodetic. I don't -- I believe that's what it should be as opposed to geoditic. I believe it's the National Geodetic. COURT REPORTER: Could you spell that, please. MR. KROESCHELL: G- e- o- d- e- t -i -c, and the engineers can correct me if I'm wrong. That's all I had, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Did you want to make a comment on the minutes before we approve them? MR. KROESCHELL: No. That's a presentation at issue. Nothing. MR. PIRES: I move to approve the minutes. MR. STRAPPONI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: No sign. Pass. We go on to the next item on the agenda was the FEMA storm surge maps. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I can give a report on that, Mr. Chairman. Roy Anderson, engineering director, Collier County Utilities. We -- at the last meeting it was agreed to that staff would prepare a draft letter for Chairman Galleberg to send to FEMA concerning some discrepancies and problems in the FEMA flood maps. That has been done. Last week I drafted that and sent it to Mr. Galleberg, and I expect to get his comments momentarily, so as soon as I get those back, we'll finalize it, and it will be sent to FEMA and give you -all the copies. Basically, it just indicates that there have been some discrepancies found, and we're questioning some of the assumptions of the FEMA flood maps. There have also -- when I investigated this, I found that there had been some previous correspondence by the City of Naples and also by Collier County along the same -- these same lines. So this is really just re- enforcing those same comments. So we Page 2 October 4, 2001 16J l can -- by the time -- by the next meeting we'll give you the final copy of that letter. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Okay. Thank you. We didn't add it to the agenda, but I think anyone who is reading the Naples Daily News has a little information today as far as what the FEMA is doing as far as the storm damage from Gabrielle. If you can give us just a couple minutes on that. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, Ron. MR. HAVELL: Ron Hovell, public utilities. On the last BCC meeting, we went to the board for approval of $20,000 to use an existing contract we have with Lightner Contracting to go do some -- some of the heavier cleanup. They were given their purchase order. They started on Naples Beach. I believe they finished that last Friday. As a matter of fact, if you noticed when we were out at the end of Vanderbilt Beach Road just a few minutes ago, you could see their heavy equipment on the beach down about as far south as you can see when we were out there. I believe they're due to finish up that section today or tomorrow, and I think that will probably be the end of Lightner Contracting's efforts. Part of what they had to do for us was to clear some of the bigger items to make way for the beach rakes to be able to drive all sections of the beach, because the beach rake can pick up anything up to about a eight or ten pound, you know, rocks, so most of the littler stuff the beach rakes can handle. They picked up such things as -- I know we had a day marker down with, you know, the orange triangular sign on it, that type of thing. There was some pilings. There was big piles of sea grass that needed to be moved, and in some cases we'd lost enough sand that it had gotten down to the level where the rock groins or some other structure that had been previously buried was no longer passable for the beach rakes to get through. So that's the type of efforts that they have been going through, and you probably also noticed some amount of the sand has started to return to the beaches. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: As I understand there is a program underway that since there has been a declaration that FEMA is looking at reimbursing the county government for storm damage as far as some -- probably some of the cleanup and the additional sand that may be required to bring the cross - section back the way it was. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. As a matter of fact, FEMA was here a couple of weeks ago and went out, and Harry Huber went out with them and walked the entire beach, and it turned out that there was about 243,000 cubic yards that would be eligible for reimbursement by FEMA. So they reimburse us at the rate of 75 percent, and the state picks up 12 1/2 percent, so it turns out to about $4 million reimbursement we should -- will be able to have. MR. STAKICH: Is there -- is the amount that they reimburse us based on their estimate or on our replacement costs? MR. HOVELL: Our replacement costs, the percentage, and that's the reason they determined a quantity of sand because they'll want to see our bills for that quantity of sand. Page 3 October 4, 2001 16J I MR. STAKICH: So if we're using inland source, it's costing us $18 to $20 a cubic yard, they will pay -- MR. HOVELL: They are aware of that. That's correct. They will pay on that basis. MR. ANDERSON: We have to pay it first and then we get it back from them, so it's all strictly a reimbursable program. MR. HOVELL: And if I could add, this is on the agenda. It might not appear that way, but under "New Business," Project 10507, when we talk about the major renourishment, this will all be part of that. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Next item on the agenda is the Tigertail /Sand Dollar Island. Are we looking for a presentation on that? MR. HOVELL: This was raised at the last meeting. We had the discussion, and the question was asked, could we go back and research if any previous reports had been done. After talking to some folks and looking to some various reports, the only thing I was able to find was -- and I included it in here in your agenda packets -- the selected pages from the Big Marco and Capri Pass Inland Management Study dated July 1997. And so you have about four pages in your package that has a few paragraphs on the subject. I don't know that any of it was really on target as far as what's the long -range plan for it, but really that's -- that's all I have to report back at this time. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any comments from any board members on this? MR. STAKICH: I think at the last meeting we discussed the idea that perhaps you would be giving the questions to look into what -- what we can if there is no report or if there is nothing old that you can find if you can look into what we could do to solve that problem of the lagoon there. I think that was the question. If I read the minutes right, that's what you were asked to do the last time and not necessarily at this meeting but either at this meeting or the next meeting. MR. PIRES: If I recall the discussion, Bob, I know some people may characterize it and some people have characterized it as a problem, and I guess some people would characterize it as an abundantly rich area for wildlife. That's why what's down there is down there. And so I guess that's where some of the disagreement or opinion occurs, and I think you're correct. I think there was discussion about at least having some further discussion or presentation of what is the feasibility of getting exploration of filling that in. Quite frankly, I'm not in favor of that, but I think there was sort of -- the consensus was let's at least have a discussion with some good analysis as to feasibility. MR. ANDERSON: I think as of last month we didn't know what was out there in terms of previous studies, so I had indicated, as I recall, to Chairman Galleberg that we want 60 days, you know, to come back with something. So now that we know what's out there, you know, we found out the studies that are there, and now we can look at that or by the next meeting we can make a suggestion as far as what the next step might be, whether it be a study or whatever. So we'll have something back for you next month. Page 4 October 4, 2001 16J 1 CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: That will be on the agenda then. Okay. We'll go on to the next item. The backup of this is the potential TDC land purchase. MR: HOVELL: I know we had discussed it at the last meeting. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: The Barefoot Beach area? MR. HOVELL: Right. That parcel on Barefoot, and the question seemed to be hanging, can or should the Coastal Advisory Committee be making a recommendation on any potential TDC land purchase. There's really -- I wasn't able to find any new news on the subject. I think, you know, in the background there probably is still some discussions going on, but I don't think anything's changed, that the owner is not really interested in selling, and so I'm not sure there is any real direction on where that might head, and I think the only implication for this committee is the potential impact to the -- to the budget. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Uh -huh. Right. I would guess that the -- this would be handled by the county's parks and recreation or at least whatever the line of acquisition would come out of. MR. HOVELL: From the standpoint of if the county acquires it, yes, but I think -- I think the negotiations at this point are between either the county attorney and /or the real estate office. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Okay. Any other questions on that? MR. STRAPPONI: I think the concern of this board was the suggestion was made in the newspaper that it would be funded with TDC funds, and we wanted to have an understanding how that was going to impact on our budget for renourishment. MR. HOVELL: I think we all would, but unless and until they come up with a dollar figure to even banty about, it's kind of hard to tell you what the impact's going to be to the budget when we have no idea what we might be paying for it. And I don't know that they've even finished the appraisal yet either. We don't even have a target amount to talk about, if you will. But, yes, you're right. At some point if we know a number we can take a look at the ten -year plan and tell you how that might impact the rest of the program. MR. STAKICH: In other words, it could affect our budget as a committee insofar as beach renourishment is concerned. I don't know who decides that, but is that just a given? MR. HOVELL: The ultimate decision is the Board of County Commissioners. MR. STAKICH: As to where the money comes from. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any other comments on that? MR. KROESCHELL: I wonder if we should go on record in some way of saying that we are concerned about this, that the amount of money might affect the things that we want to do on the beach renourishment, and let the county commission know that we are concerned about this. MR. STAKICH: I agree. Page 5 October 4, 2001 16J1 MR. STRAPPONI: I support the purchase if that is a viable option, but I'm really concerned about the ten -year plan to maintain the beach that we have, and I think other sources of funds are going to have to be looked into and I agree with you. I think this committee should go on record with a position in that regard. MR. KROESCHELL: Well, I'll make a motion to that affect, then, that we inform the county commission that we are concerned about the -- the amount of money allocated for this purchase, and we would want to be kept abreast of the deliberations as far as the quantity is concerned and that we are concerned about that. MR. STAKICH: I'll second that. MR. PIRES: And as part of the discussion, I think it's also possible for the next budget cycle that -- this issue has come up about realizing the funds for this type of acquisition may be part of the budgetary process. To ensure that this isn't taking away from the other capital projects that are contemplated at the beach facility, put an item in there, put a category in for beach, park, or park facility acquisitions and maintenance facilities. And then if it's not utilized, once again, just roll that over to the next -- forward to the following year. I think that's a more forward- looking approach also. Maybe that could be communicated to the county commission. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: All right. We have a motion and a second. There's been some discussion. Any additional discussion on that? MR. STRAPPONI: Who will -- who will draft that -- the position -- this board's position? MR. ANDERSON: We can draft that for you, and then we can send it to the vice - chairman and chairman for review and signature. MR. PIRES: Plus I think the -- all the minutes of these committee meetings are filed with the board, direct to the board along with the agenda packet for the county commission. MR. HOVELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I guess the only question I have is if this -- we want to have a final vote on it now or whether we want to have -- kind of a see what the draft is, and then have a vote at the next meeting? MR. PIRES: I'm comfortable taking a vote now. I think it's general and generic enough. We're not saying don't use it, just saying we're concerned, and look at the impact it has on the projects. MR. STRAPPONI: I agree with Anthony. I think that this particular motion is to request of staff to assist us in preparing something to take that position. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Right. MR. STRAPPONI: You know, we're talking about ten -year plan where several million dollars earmarked for the maintenance of the beaches here in Naples and Collier County, and if that money is used for this purchase, we're exposed to a -- disband this committee, actually, because we won't have the funds to do it otherwise. Page 6 October 4, 2001 6J1 MR. STAKICH: And I would like to add that rather than us take a chance on the commission picking that up from the minutes, that we have a definite memo sent so that they are clear as to what our feeling is and our interest. And I call for the question. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Okay. All those in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Passes. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if there's just one -- as we finish up old business, there's one point of information I just wanted to bring up. There was the issue of the rocks on the beach, and I just wanted to give you a brief update on that. We do have a final signed consent order from DEP, and it's got a date of September 24th, and we are obligated to have a plan into the state by October 24th, so we -- we anticipate that we have a draft almost ready now, so we're going to suggest that we would send it out to the members next week and give you maybe three or four days to give us your comments back, and then we'll send it in. So I just wanted to give you that information, so we'll be giving you a package very shortly. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Well, you know, I think with the cover letter you will send to members who weren't able to be here today because -- excuse me, I think it will be very important for us to take a look at it, and if you have any comments to provide it as quickly as possible. We do have one item under old business, Gabrielle cleanup. MR. KROESCHELL: Yes. I noticed -- Bill Kroeschell -- I noticed that you mentioned that the county cleaned up the beach. I just wanted you to be aware that whoever did that drove off the beach through the Moorings property owners beach which is a private beach. We have no objections to this kind of access, but we need -- we need - - we need you to let us know because that driving off can ruin sprinkler systems. MR. HOVELL: We, at the county, did not have anybody do that, but the state emergency order sort of opened the door for anybody to clean up anything, and there were all kinds of private owners, hotels doing their own cleaning activities. I know we had an issue where a lot of sand went up into people's yards or hotel's yards or whatever. I forget the exact location but, you know, somebody went in there and scooped up not only the sand but whatever vegetation and what was mixed in with it and dumped it all back out on the beach and made it our problem, but that was not us. We know where public access is. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any other comments? That concludes the old business. We'll go on to the new business. Item A, public status report and report of the -- MR. HOVELL: At the last meeting, we discussed getting a status report, and I have mailed you one. I would just ask you to read -- take this update. I think most of the Page 7 October 4, 2001 i 1 information is the same with the exception of the page for the City o f Naples. 16J 1„ MR. STRAPPONI: Does that replace this? MR. HOVELL: Yes. If you would, please, maybe take your old one and fold it in half so you know which one's which. The idea was to try and give you an idea of any open projects and what the status is, how much money has been expended and whatnot, as well as on the cover page in a summary form to give you an idea of where we are with the budget and the reserves and whatnot. The county's fiscal year ended on 30 September, and these figures are meant to capture the end of the past fiscal year as opposed to starting the new fiscal year. And if it's agreeable to everybody we can provide a similar report at our monthly meetings that would then have the new fiscal year's information on how we're tracking on the new budget. I think the only things I really wanted to point out were on the first page -- on the first page under the -- about the 5th column over it's total current -year budget, and the second row from the bottom it talks about reserves for capital outlay. In the budget as the end of the last fiscal year, we were carrying about $6.7 million in reserves. I'm told that over the next couple days as they finalize and close out last fiscal year -- I think their deadline is October 10th -- the carry forward number and the new reserve number will be about $7 1/2 million. So I guess there's some differences in maybe some increased revenue or lowered expenses, whatever caused that. Anyway, you get the idea that there is about $7 million to $7 1/2 million in reserves, and each year we tend to budget in the neighborhood of anywhere from six to eight million dollars of new TDC Category A proj ects. The following pages are just a list of all the projects, and a lot of these will -- will come off because they were finished in the last fiscal year, and then they will be deleted. But the first two pages are all projects that public utilities engineering department manages. The following page is the grant applications that have been approved for the City of Naples, and then the last page are grant -- grant applications approved for execution by other entities, for instance, the Clam Pass dredging which we were just out looking at and discussing. That one gets managed by Pelican Bay Services Division. We've got the Lake Trafford restoration, which our agreement -- the county agreement is with or will be with South Florida Water Management District, and then I think just about all those other projects on that page are with parks and recreation department. MR. PIKES: For those -- how do we determine encumbered? Can you explain what that means and how it affects fiscal and budgetary standpoint? MR. HOVELL: Okay. Now that we're in a new year, we're given a budget, and this new year's budget, I think, is in the neighborhood of about $8 million. As we develop new projects and issue contracts and purchase orders against those budgets -- once we have something signed in the form of a purchase order and/or contract, then the money is encumbered. So encumbered just means we have an obligation to execute October 4, 2001 6J1 something and ultimately pay for it. There is another column further over that talks about expended; that's once we've actually paid the bill against that encumbrance. MR. PIKES: And money to encumber in one fiscal year, say there's a contract issued in the fiscal year that ends September 30, 2001, but the contract was entered into, say, in July 1 st, 2001, the funds for that project would be encumbered and carried forward to the following year? MR. HOVELL: That's correct. And that's the very first column, encumbered but unexpended roll -over from the previous fiscal year, and they almost treat that like a budget amendment. You'll see those figures, you know, change with the new fiscal year, but all the projects that carry forward will windup with an amount in that column. MR. PIRES : Thank you. MR. STAKICH: You say we can get that each month when we meet? MR. HOVELL: I would think so because I think the timing works out more or less where I have to provide this on a monthly basis anyway to my management chain, so I think it would be available to distribute to you -all on the same frequency. MR. STAKICH: That would be good. MR. STRAPPONI: Ron, I have a question. In the projected revenue for the next fiscal year that the TDC will receive, I know that we have plenty of history to determine that projection, but with what's happened recently and the impact it's had on tourism -- and I'm just looking at the chart, and it appears that the lion's share of that revenue is from hotels and motels -- has anyone adjusted or made any attempt to adjust what impact that may have? MR. HOVELL: Not for the most recent events, but I think over the summer -- and just as a matter of comparison, in the fiscal year that just ended, the revenue budget for Fund 195, which is the TDC Category A the budget projection, I guess back when the year started, was about $7 million. We, in fact, got a total of 8.8 million, but 1.3 of that was settlement funds from the lawsuit against Coastal Engineering and T.L. James, but that still means we collected 7.5 million against a 7 million projection. The budget for this fiscal year that we're now into is only $6.4 million, and you'll see when we talk about some of the new projects here in a couple more agenda items that when we start talking about reserves and being able to afford things, there is a concern that the $6.4 million may now be too high even though it's lower than last year's figure. MR. MUDD: For the record, I'm Jim Mudd. Can you hear me? Tom 011iff has asked his office of management and budget to monitor the income because he has the same concerns that you do, sir, about -- about the revenues that are going to come in, and they might not be as high as we had expected because of the 11 th of September incident. He's going to keep that monitored on a monthly basis and report that back to the Board of County Commissioners because it impacts several people that budget was based on, a planned revenue, okay, and if that revenue doesn't come in, it's going to be -- it's going to be quite tight. And there is an item on your addenda that you're about to get to that's Page 9 October 4, 2001 6J1 going to talk about moving $7.5 million in reserves to replace the 400,000 cubic yards of sand that was lost because of Gabrielle and the storm prior to that in July which will leave $700 in reserve in the whole entire TDC budget. There's another issue that you've got to worry about. You have to have the expenditures -- expenditures, not obligations -- expenditures back to FEMA 18 months after the incident was declared. So you got to have your bills to them in order to get those dollars back. So if we -- if this committee decides to postpone that fix, then you will give up the opportunity to get the federal dollars in that process. And you asked the question, sir, about the damage in total. The damage in total to the county estimate was $4.8 million of which 4.6 was beach related, that 87 percent which is 75 fed, 12 1/2 state, and the other 12 1/2 comes from the county equates to about $4 million payback from FEMA which equates to 234,000 in cubic yards. That leaves us shy another 150,000 close to that 400,000, and the way they -- they push that off is they basically said, "Well, that would be three years worth of renourishment that you'd have to make into that process," and that's how they want you to calculate for that estimate. So that gets really specific at your concerns, but the real key is it's going to be a month -by- month kind of thing that we're going to have to monitor because it's not only going to impact beach renourishment and contracts because of this emergency condition that we're in to try to get the beach halfway back to what it used to be as far as cross - section is concerned. But it's going to impact the Alliance. It's going to impact the new Botanical Garden. We've already talked to parks and rec to postpone the Vanderbilt Beach garage, so they will go into design, but they won't go into construction, and they'll do it on a separate contract, and they'll push that off a year in order to get at those reserves so that we can make this a possibility. So there are some things there -- some things are going to get postponed a year or so if you decide to do this, and we've got to clear it with you and the TDC and then go to the Board of County Commissioners with that process. But short answer, yes, on a monthly basis you'll be brought up to speed with a report. When that report's available, I'll make sure this committee gets it. MR. STRAPPONI: Thank you, Jim. And is staff going to make a recommendation? MR. MUDD: Yes. The item is coming. MR. HOVELL: We just went over the general budget, and then the next agenda item is to go over the grant applications which will be moving forward. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I'm very pleased with this. I think this has been a real problem in the past because we had no idea. I mean, there was a lot of money encumbered or at least even if the contract hadn't been signed yet, for instance, like the Parker Sand Web, that's been around for a couple, three years, and we knew it was more than a million dollars, and it's always been kind of floating out there. But this way we can look at it and see what's -- what time frame, what's coming down the pike. This is very valuable, and I think this will be very helpful in our understanding of how this Page 10 October 4, 2001 16JI program is going forward. Any other questions on this? I think it's something we need to -- I think it's something you need to get used to a little bit. It's kind of a different kind of tabulation, but after you've done this for a couple months, I think you'll pick up which projects we might be having a problem falling behind on and so forth and seeing if there's any additional emphasis that needs to be placed, what the reason is. Money is kind of tight for years without being spent. Going on to the next item, discuss the amendments to the approved TDC grants, and I will turn this over to staff. MR. HOVELL: Okay. The first one on the list is for beach maintenance activities, and that has a Project No. 10266. It's a -- it's not a new project, and had it not been the end of the fiscal year perhaps there would still be some money left where we would not have had to go forward with an additional amount, but being only two weeks before the end of the fiscal year, it basically was already spent and so; therefore, at the last BCC meeting we went forward and requested and received approval to spend the $20,000, but per the requirements we're now coming back to the Coastal Advisory Committee and next week to the Tourist Development Council to apprise them of what we did. And that was the contract with Lightner Contracting I mentioned earlier. So the grant application in here we're adding $20,000 to it previously approved $145,000 project, and once this purchase order gets closed out, which will be within the next few weeks that we process the paperwork, then that whole project will be closed out as well. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: The way I would like to handle this, we have four of them here. I would prefer to have a specific motion on each one, so if someone would like to make a motion on this first one. MR. PIRES: I would like to ask a question first. So I understand, this is a FY 2000/2001 activity that we're talking about adjusting the number and then closing it out? MR. HOVELL: Yes, that's correct. Because we went to the board last week -- when it was still last year, we received the $20,000 amendment from the board. We encumbered the money like a purchase order. We'll receive the bills in the new year, so the money will roll forward to pay those bills, but it is a last fiscal year project. MR. PIRES: Thank you. MR. STAKICH: I move we approve this. MR. STRAPPONI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Motion. Second. Anv other discussion? All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Passes. Okay. We'll go on to the next one. MR. HOVELL: The next one on the list -- the next one on the list is Incremental Page 11 October 4, 2001 16J 1 Beach Maintenance, Project No. 10507. This project was originally approved for $1 million and has been included in the new year's budget. This is typically the project that places 50,000 cubic yards of sand on the beach each year, and we usually choose where that goes based on the annual monitoring reports that we hire engineering firms to go out and do the surveys on. However, this year with a combination of the July storm which seemed to take away some sand as well as Tropical Storm Gabrielle, we are asking to amend that project to go up to 400,000 cubic yards which, in essence, was the amount that we estimate we lost due to Tropical Storm Gabrielle, and the amount of the amendment would be $7.5 million. So on top of the 1 million budgeted, it would be for a total of $8 1/2 million. We have to request the budget amendment for the full amount even though we now, I believe, have something in writing from FEMA that indicates we would get reimbursement, because it is a reimbursment program and we cannot guarantee that we would get that money back in the same fiscal year that we are trying to spend it, so we need the budget amendment to cover the full amount of work we're going to do, and then at some point in time we should get some money back from FEMA and the state based on the quantities that we discussed. And I think it was pointed out before, they came down for a visit. They asked some questions. They looked at our figures. I mean, when we say 400,000, we rounded it up a little bit, but they had agreed to reimburse us for the cost to restore 234,200 cubic yards, and so from a budget point of view, we just kind of threw around a figure of $20 per cubic yard and use that number and the 234,000, we figure right around $4 million is what FEMA would reimburse out of the total of $8 1/2 million that we're proposing. MR. PIRES: Ron, I'd like to ask you a question on that. Since Gabrielle -- since the storm has passed that 234,000 cubic yards and a number of feet whatever obviously is less -- significantly less than the 400,000 cubic yards. Is there an estimate that's kind of incurred by the county consultants that would be significantly less than 400,000 cubic yards to restore the beaches? MR. HOVELL: Well, again, we did the damage assessment right after the storm, and the numbers that we showed FEMA was what was lost the day of the storm. Now, if you're asking me is there a natural process that restores some of it, the answer is yes, there is. If you're asking, do we have a better estimate than the initial damage estimate, the answer is no. What we hope to do -- regardless of the quantity and dollar figure that's ultimately approved, what we hope to do is get engineering services going within about the next week or so to do surveys, and then we'll know exactly where the beach profiles are as compared to perhaps, you know, a desired level, and we can adjust how much fill would be put in to try and stay within whatever budget is ultimately approved. MR. PIRES: I guess what I'm leading to here is that if it's less than the 400,000, as opposed to taking the reserves down, I think, $700 is what was indicated -- MR. HOVELL: Well, actually I could amplify on that some too. The package we Page 12 October 4, 2001 16J , are presenting you today is in the format that goes to the Tourist Development Council, but as you're probably aware if you follow the Board of County Commissioners, we have to present them with an executive summary that explains in detail what we're going to do. And I don't recall if I had that done in time to include in your package, but the gist of it as I think it got approved and is now copied and available for public consumption is to do a $7.5 million budget amendment for this project but to also take four other projects and do budget amendments and, in essence, take money away from them so that the reserves go back up to about $4 1/2 million. So the net result would not be that we have only $700 in reserves. And those specific projects, I know one of them everybody will recognize is the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage. That is in the budget for this year at $3.8 million, but in reality they have not yet awarded an engineering contract to even design it. So the likelihood that they would be in a position to sign a contract for the construction portion prior to September 30th of 2002 was pretty shaky anyway. So it's just a way of recognizing that in this fiscal year we will not encumber that money under this plan. And we have a number of other smaller projects in the beach program that are in the same position, because we don't even have a coastal engineer hired. We anticipate getting one later this month. We have a number of projects that we're saying it's not very likely we could have the engineering work done and actually do the construction work before turtle season starts on the first of May. So it's just as easy to defer that money to a future year, and make it available to say that we have a reserve cushion. MR. PIRES: Would it from a budgetary standpoint -- not being a buget kind of person, would it be easier to have a lesser amount, than, as oppossed to taking it down so far and then having to transfer it back later on back reserves or shifting it around again? MR. HOVELL: I think from an executability standpoint we are looking to get contracts in place before your next meeting, and without the budgetary authority to do that, it makes it very cumbersome to try and manage. I think we're in a much better position to say, yes, perhaps we've done what I call a conservative estimate. If we use $20 a cubic yard and it's really only going to cost 17 or 18, we hope not to spend the whole amount and ultimately we hope to return some back to the reserves. But rather than having to fast track everything, but then having to stop and say, oops, well, wait, now I have to go to the TDC and the Board of County Commissioners again, we wanted to do a conservative estimate so that we have the flexibility to do what we need to do. MR. STAKICH: When is it proposed or shall we say scheduled for this sand -- for the renourishment to take place? MR. HOVELL: What we're hoping to do is get the engineering services contractor going on the surveys, as I say, in about the next week or so. Because of our existing permits we are precluded from starting work before the first of November. Even though we can use the state's emergency order to justify a quick review of our construction application, we don't see a way of actually putting sand on the beach prior to the 1 st of Page 13 October 4, 2001 16J1 November. So I think the short answer to your question is probably in November - December time frame is the bulk of what we would like to do. MR. STAKICH: I think that's great because as I thought about the beaches and the timing of things, I would hope that we would always be set up to act in this time frame. The turtle season is over at the end of this month. Of course, it's been pretty well wiped out anyway, but if we were always in a position to react to the storms that we have in the summers, in the months of November and December have our beaches in good shape for the balance of the year or the season. Let's say, through the season and then knowing that turtle season is then coming up on May the 1 st and then we've got another storm season to look at, so we have the same thing over and over again. It sounds like that's what you're set up to do. And if the money is there and the sand source is there, we can take care of this. Now, the sand source I'm not quite sure about except for the source that we used last spring. MR. HOVELL: Well, part of the package that's going before the board -- you know, again, from a procedural point of view, to try and make all this happen, part of what we were asking the board to do is waive the normal county competition rules and allow us to go to three to five sources and get quotes rather than actually bidding it out and going through a selection process and the normal thing because then it would take a number of weeks. We hope to have the contracts in place -- well, assuming the board approves it next week, we hope to have the contracts in place within about a week or so after that. And the second piece of that is, you know, you mention do we have a sand source lined up. You know, how are we going to do it? I think pretty much everything is executable. The one concern -- out of all the pieces that we have to -- I think the biggest concern is when you do the math and you say 400,000 cubic yards, most dump trucks are 20 cubic yards. That's 20,000 truckloads, and when you start divvying it up between all the places it has to go and the number of days that ideally, I'm sure, the community would like to see us do it in, we're thinking that we're going to have to have four simultaneous operations going seven days a week for the entire months of November and December, and we just might make it. And so that's a big challenge, not only to coordinate all that, but to even find that many trucks in Southwest Florida to come do the job. MR. MUDD: You know, as a fallback -- if I can add -- I'm Jim Mudd, again -- as a fallback you can basically say 20,000 dump trucks, if you figure you have a hundred days to do it, you can get about 60 days November, December if you go to about the 10th of January. Once you get after the 10th of January then you start getting into the really high season. You kind of want to be gone, then you get to ramp back up again after Easter. Easter falls on the 31st of March this --this -- in '02. So you've got exactly 30 days before 1 May shows backup again. It basically gives you that 100 days. So you're looking on the average of about 200 trips, 200 truckloads of whatever you like to equate Page 14 October 4, 2001 16J1 it to. I call it 200 trips of 20 -ton dump trucks per day during that 100 -day period of time. The sand sources, I think you've seen the samples of sand that we got from our requests for proposals. We got them from Big Island and got them from John, and Ron has been talking to those folks to make sure they could make it fast enough, and it seems like we've got that part under control. We just need to get the samples back for that from Big Island. That was the sugar sand that we saw before that everybody likes better than the other one. So I think that's there. It's the dump -truck issue now. Can you actually contract out and have those folks on station staged and ready to go during that 60 -day window November - December, and then I talked to -- to Leo Ochs the public services administrator and talked to him about a staging area for the sand during the winter months where we could have trucks that they had to go to John and to pick up sand if there was a way to cut down on the -- on the transit time, because it's 90 miles away. If we could stage the sand and stockpile it during January, February, and March closer in -- and there is a regional park that's going in off of Immokalee Road right there by the ramp at 75 -- and he said he could make that available to us. I just told Leo, I said, "Isn't there a sandbox part of that park ?" He said, "Yeah, I'll find it." I said, "When you do I'll make sure I leave a little for you." And so maybe that could work out, too, 'cause you can never get it down to the base grade when you're putting it on a dirt surface, so if I can help then a little bit he can help us. If we can stockpile and cut down on that trip. And then that last 30 -day window that we have we can really go at it with great guns because you can -- even if you can't get that many dump trucks they can make more trips in a day because the sources are closer. MR. STAKICH: There is double handling there which adds to the cost, but everything else taken into consideration probably makes sense to go ahead and spend that money if we want to keep our beaches good. MR. MUDD: The good news on this whole process, sir, is the fact that, yeah, we lost 400,000 cubic yards, okay, but we're going to get 75 percent back. Ed, help me here. What's the percentage back when we finally get back on from the natural process? UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's hard to say. MR. MUDD: Okay. Let's say 75 percent. Maybe I'm over, maybe I'm below, but if you get that back, you're getting about 300,000 cubic yards back, but it's coming back to you on width. It's not coming back to you on cross - section on the backside. It's giving you a width issue and, sir, we get back to the issues during the '95 dredge event. We got gypped in certain areas on the width that was supposed to be -- I think mother nature is going to help us a little bit this time. So if you're working the cross - sectional area in the back that got washed away, I think you're going to come out this year with a relatively nice beach -- CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Excuse me. Go ahead. Page 15 MR. MUDD: -- all things considered. October 4, 2001 16JI CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: My only comment -- and we have this estimate from FEMA -- in our prior life sometimes they've -- we have been able to -- they put out an estimate with, and you come in with an actual. Sometimes you can get them to revise their estimate. I don't know what -- I don't want to sell any false hopes. That might be a possibility that you may be able to help us out when we get down to cases here. MR. HOVELL: As I understand the process, I believe it's in the next couple weeks once the presidential declaration is signed they will actually come back in and receive initial applications from everybody and then maintain a relationship and receive the bills that they come in. And you're right, their initial visit, I would hazard to say they probably only spent an hour or two on the subject of beaches. They looked at some other issues in the area and then went on to the next county, so I don't know how firm they are on that estimate. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I think typically they first come in and get a ballpark and then go from there. MR. MUDD: I think when you get your cross - sectional areas -- when you go in this next week or so, and we start looking at exactly -- and we fine -tune our pencils as far as the exact amounts that we're missing because of the storm, and with that information I think you're -- I think our chances of getting more if that's the case are quite good. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Right. MR. STRAPPONI: Ron, I understand the concept of asking for $7 1/2 million on top of the million that you have as a blanket. We expect to recover a good portion of that from FEMA. We may not need all of it. Nature may help us out along the way, and I don't have a problem with that concept, but we are talking about a blanket so that you don't have to piecemeal and come running back to us saying, you know, "We need a little more. We need a little more." And I think based on that, unless anyone has any more questions, I'm prepared to make a motion that we go ahead and pass this. MR. GRAY: Second. MR. KROESCHELL: I second. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I think Mr. Gray beat you this time. MR. STAKICH: You can have it. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any other discussion on that item? If not, I will call the question. All those in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Passes. MR. HOVELL: The next project on the list is repair of Hideaway Beach T- Groins, Project No. 10257. This project is for all intents and purposes completed but for the Page 16 October 4, 2001 6 -%� J 1 contractual documents. There are some areas that are based on estimated quantities, and as the surveys get done and we figure out the exact quantity of sand to put in and whatnot, you know, we are in essense obligated to go back and pay the contractor. So this is for $53,125 on top of an original split out -- I guess it started at 137,100. There had been previous changes of $110,076. This additional $53,000 will bring the total to $300,301, and once we process the change order and go back and pay them, this project, too, will be closed out. MR. PIRES: Move to prepare this for the Board of County Commissioners. MR. STAKICH: Second. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any other discussion on the item? All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Passes. Go to the final one. MR. HOVELL: The last project on the list is for the Clam Pass Dredging, Project No. 10268. There is a grant application for $50,000 that was filed based on the anticipated additional dredging that might be needed in Clam Pass. However, as we just discussed, when we went out there to visit there, it looks like some final surveys after Tropical Storm Gabrielle might tend to indicate that we don't need to dredge this year. However, I believe there was some public comment out on the beach that perhaps that didn't include what they considered the navigable channels. I don't know if you want to discuss it. I know Kyle Lucas from Pelican Bay Services Division administers this project that indicated he would like me to pull it from the agenda and not present it to the county nor the TDC. MR. PIRES: PBSD staff is requesting that we not consider this? MR. HOVELL: That's correct. MR. PIRES: They don't believe -- it is no longer needed? MR. HOVELL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Talking about the addition; right? MR. HOVELL: Well, actually the original project was approved for a total of about $205,000. They have done all the engineering work, prepared the plans and specifications and, I believe, even went so far as to receive bids, but they are now going to purchasing and asking if they can either not award those bids or hold them for a year under contract to do the dredging a year later. I believe perhaps Ken Humiston from Humiston and Moore, the engineer on the contract, could answer any more detailed questions because he is working for Pelican Bay Services Division. MR. PIRES: For the record, could you articulate the reason why it is no longer necessary to have this work performed? MR. HUMISTON: Ken Humiston. Page 17 October 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Can you hear him all right? You can use the 16J 1 microphone. MR. HUMISTON: As I was explaining on the beach, two and a half years ago there was a pretty extensive dredging project that was done to improve the tidal flow in the inlet. That improved tidal flow has successfully been keeping the inlet open. Higher current velocity scoured the sand out that's put into the inlet by the waves moving the sand along the beach. The storm that we just had really showed that that system is working very well, and it actually cleaned some of the sand out of the inlet that has accumulated there that we were looking at dredging this fall. And based on the surveys and the tidal studies that have been done there, it doesn't appear that the dredging is necessary at this time. The purpose of the maintenance dredging is, of course, to prevent the inlet from closing. It does not appear that the inlet is in danger of closing in the near future, so the Pelican Bay Services District staff has apparently decided to wait a year to do the dredging. MR. STAKICH: And I guess there's nothing to say that if things change we can revisit this? MR. STRAPPONI: Absolutely. MR. PIRES: Is Kyle formally asking it be withdrawn? CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: There's no motion one way or the other. There is no need for a motion one way or the other. MR. HOVELL: I don't think we need to vote on it because I don't believe it's going to be presented to the TDC. He told me, literally, just before this meeting that come Monday I don't think it will be on the TDC agenda. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Right. That was one of the questions I was going to ask later. When is the TDC; it's on Monday? MR. HOVELL: It's on Monday the 8th. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: At 5 p.m. Again? MR. HOVELL: I believe it's 5 p.m. MS. DYKEMAN: Do you allow public speaking at this hearing? CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Yes, we have -- MR. HOVELL: I think that's next on the agenda. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: It's next on the agenda. MS. DYKEMAN: I was going to speak on this item. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Well, since it's the next item, why don't we hear your views. And since we're not going to take any action on the Clam Pass dredging at this time, we can skip down to Item 6, which is Audience Participation, and we will recognize anyone that has any comments and request that you come to the microphone and identify yourself and I guess some indication of your location. MS. DYKEMAN: I'm Martha Dykeman, president of Seagate Properties Owners Association. I want to speak on the Clam Pass dredging project. I have a small boat and Page 18 October 4, 2001 16J 1 use the pass probably more than most people in this room. The main thing is the bar in front of the pass out in the gulf, and that's the biggest problem is it shifts all the time, and it leaves very little room, and people constantly walk across that, but if that could be dredged and used on the beach I think, you know, when you think about trucking all this sand in, and there's plenty of sand right there you could be using. I don't say you need to dredge the whole system and spend two hundred and some thousand dollars on that one area which, you know, maybe you could speak to. There is always that bar out there that's blocking the pass, and I don't know if you can just use a part of the money to do that and make sure that happens so that that will -- because that keeps washing in and filling in and filling in -- the bar, it shifts around and moves over to the other side, but it's constantly bringing sand in, and that's our concern. We realize it's not supposed to be dredged for navigation. We still use it as navigable waterway, though. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, is it possible for, I guess, Ken to address that issue with regards to if there's no need to maintain that pass or the inlet as per the request by PBSD withdrawing the request, do we have any beach renourishment projects planned in that area that we could use that as a sand source? MR. HUMISTON: The sand is good beach - quality sand, and the plan -- the dredging plan does include putting it on the beach, but the purpose of the project is maintenance of the inlet for tidal flushing. The purpose is not beach restoration or navigation, and from a tidal flushing standpoint, it doesn't appear to be necessary to do that dredging right now. MR. PIRES: Would that require a separate permit application, then, in order to do that dredging activity solely for navigational purposes? MR. HUMISTON: No. Under the existing permit, a portion could be dredged. I think the problem is -- is in the justification because the entrance to the inlet is the smallest cross - section. That's really what controls the overall hydraulics of the inlet. That is actually got a larger cross - section now than what we would have dredged it to, although it's at a slightly different location than where we were going to dredge. The plans show removal of about 2,500 cubic yards from that area. The actual channel is adjacent to where we would have dredged, and its got a larger cross - section than what we were going to create, so from a tidal flushing standpoint it's really not necessary. MR. PIKES: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Can I put my two cents in now? That particular -- that particular sandbar is adjacent to an area that's hard to get to from upland sources, so as we do the cross - sectional loss areas to what's going on and the City of Naples finally figures out what they're going to do with their dredger down there at -- what is it, Doctor's Pass? CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Doctor's. MR. MUDD: Okay. And figure out what they're going to do there, and if they ever get that person on station, there might be an opportunity while that dredger is Page 19 October 4, 2001 16JI mobilized to -- and you find a good one this time. I'm not picking on you, but there is some controversy behind that dredger. Some of them are fly by night. I have -- I have sympathy for you because I had to deal with them on the Mississippi River, but if we can -- if there's a way to piggyback on that contract and go find the sand source, we might be able to use that as -- I'm not trying to build an expectation, but if it is an alternative that we can take a look at to see if there is a ready source there and sample it, the permits are easier to get this year because of the emergency, there might be an opportunity to use that sandbar as a source to replenish that part of the beach that's been damaged. MR. HOVELL: If I could add, you know, I didn't go into all the ins and outs of where we had permits and where we don't. You know, we had not -- prior to Tropical Storm Gabrielle, we had not been anticipating being able to start any beach renourishment on 1 November, and it's only because of the state emergency order that both the state and the Army Corps have agreed to fast track any construction permits -- I don't think is even the right word -- construction notice -- notice to proceed under an existing permit. The only existing permits we have to renourish our beaches this year are for certain sections of beach, and adjacent to Clam Pass or immediately adjacent to Clam Pass is not under an upland trucking permit, but it's under the dredging of Clam Pass permit. The only way we can restore that section of beach, including the dunes, is to do some amount of dredging out of Clam Pass and I -- from what I understand of the state emergency order and the existing permits and perhaps some of the rationale, I think there would be an opportunity to at least further explore getting a fast -track notice to proceed or perhaps a smaller amount of dredging to do what was suggested by public comment to both accomplish the water part of the dredging, but also to help renourish the beach which probably could use it. Otherwise, what you will see happen in that section of beach is under the section of beach where we have the upland trucking permit, we will be adding whatever it is, two, three feet of sand, and we'll have to taper it down to the existing level for that last bit that goes all the way up to Clam Pass. There may be an opportunity to try and do something. I'll be happy to work with Kyle and Ken and the state folks to try and figure out if they can get the authority, and I think the other piece is as Mr. Mudd mentioned, is making sure dredging contractors are mobilized. If we are only going to do a small quantity, we'd be spending an awful lot of money on mobilization. MR. STRAPPONI: We have any equipment already at Doctor's Pass, is that what I'm understanding? MR. STAKICH: Shaky. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: There was an article in the paper a day or so ago about they have not completed the hydraulic dredging at Doctor's Pass, and there was another contractor that was going to come down from Tampa to start it. There was some kind of hangups because they are in the bonding companies -- Page 20 October 4, 2001 MR. STAKICH: It's a mess. 16J 1 CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: You know what, we don't want to go into the details, but from the bottom line if the hydraulic dredge comes down to Doctor's Pass, it's probably worthwhile looking into whether or not we should get them to go up there and do a little cleanup, because as Ron indicated, just to bring a dredge in to do that, the mobilization cost will kill you, but if he's down at Doctor's Pass, I think it would be good if staff could look into this and talk to Mr. Lucas, Pelican Bay Service Division, and see if whether or not that could be accomplished as a modification to whatever contract they may come up with. I guess it's with the City of Naples. MR. PIRES: What I think is compelling, though, is the fact that PBSD staff is asking it be withdrawn. It appears that the justification outlined in paragraph 12 of the application it describes how the project enhances existing county tourist development programs to improve tidal flow by the dredging doesn't seem to exist any longer because the tidal flows are sufficient based upon what Ken Humiston has indicated to us, so I just feel that we need to -- out of the request by PBSD at the present time as things occur in the future where there might be some other possibilities like Colonel Mudd has indicated. I think that there's some flexibility in the future, but I think we ought to honor that request. MR. STAKICH: I would suggest that we not even try to act upon this grant application because of what's been said, but I think this committee should endorse the idea of possibly using the dredger at Doctor's Pass to move this sand onto the beach, if we can do it at some reasonable cost. MR. KROESCHELL: I agree. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: That could be part of a -- rather than -- you know, not to worsen it at this particular -- it's not exactly to cleanup the pass; it's more of a borrow for beach renourishment. Yes, sir. MR. HOVELL: If I could add, Mr. Chairman, on the last page of that project status report, I gave you that first project is the Clam Pass dredging. They already have in the last fiscal year they spent the money to do the engineering and getting the plan and specifications. In the new fiscal year in which we're in, they already have almost $169,000 in the budget, and so I think Mr. Pires is right. We don't need to act on the grant application, because that's just increasing the budget, but within the budget I think there is some room to discuss doing a smaller amount of dredging to accomplish some amount of beach restoration in that area. And I believe if there was a dredger in the area we may be able to do something and stay well within that budget and make a compromise there. I might also add, though, I'm not overly familiar with the original grant application, but perhaps all that would need to be done is both this committee and the TDC recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that the grant application scope, if Page 21 October 4, 2001 1611 you will, be allowed to include the different reason for doing it. As you pointed out, the original reason for doing the dredging was to open up the tidal flow, whereas, now we're still wanting to do the work and use the same budget, but the reason we want to do it is to renourish the adjacent beach. MR. STRAPPONI: I have a question for Ken. Ken, you're saying the width of the opening right now is greater than what you would have dredged to? MR. HUMISTON: That's correct. MR. STRAPPONI: And this young lady's concern is the sandbar that exists out off the pass. If we do get into this dredging with the opportunity of having that equipment in the area, would we be taking that sandbar, which you say is quality sand? I mean, does the permit allow us to do that? MR. HUMISTON: Yeah. In fact, I wanted to add that under the existing permit I don't believe there would be any problem at all in doing that. It is good quality sand. Even from the standpoint of the tidal hydraulics, if that maintenance was done right now, that would just mean that we would be doing some maintenance now, and it would -- the next maintenance event would be put off for several years. MR. STRAPPONI: And the cost of that sand would be about half of the upland sand? MR. HUMISTON: Based on the bid that they just received, the cost of the sand, I believe the bid was $157,000 for 10,000 yards of sand. So it's comparable to the cost of upland because it's such a small project and the mobilization of the dredge is a big part of a small job like this. If there was a dredge working at Doctor's Pass and it was already mobilized to the area, that could be very economical providing the dredge working at Doctor's Pass could work in Clam Pass which is a much shallower depth than at Doctor's Pass. MR. STRAPPONI: Ken, the dynamics of that inlet, I don't know how much history we have on it, but apparently it moves around quite a bit. How long could you expect that bar to be gone if we did move it? MR. HUMISTON: The -- MR. STRAPPONI: Do we have enough history to make a determination? Apparently it shifts constantly. MR. HUMISTON: The offshore bar -- the in -tidal bar that's out in the gulf in front of the inlet is -- reforms very quickly after it's dredged. That's the most -- MR. STRAPPONI: Where does that sand come from? MR. HUMISTON: It comes from the beach. MR. STAKICH: That might be a continual source of sand then forever and ever. MR. STRAPPONI: Should we be looking at the possibility of maybe -- and I would suspect would be on the north side of that inlet -- of putting in a groin? MR. HUMISTON: That's a possibility. MR. STRAPPONI: Would that prevent the bar and also keep the sand on the Page 22 October 4, 2001 16JI beach? MR. HUMISTON: It would help keep the sand on the beach, and it would probably reduce the maintenance dredging requirement. MR. STRAPPONI: Is that a project that staff maybe ought to have a look at? CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I think that's something that you want to -- we can have staff take a look at it. I think that's -- it's a road that once you go down an inlet and put structures on you never come back. You have to be very careful before you head down that road. I don't think there's any -- MR. STRAPPONI: I meant a feasibility study. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Yeah. I don't know if there's even much interest in a feasibility study. MR. HOVELL: If I may, I believe -- I believe all the passes in the county have an inlet management plan and -- although Clam Pass might be a little different, Ken, do you know? MR. HUMISTON: There was a plan prepared. I believe it's still in the draft form. I don't believe it was ever finalized for Clam Pass. MR. HOVELL: Was that under Pelican Bay Services Division or for -- MR. HUMISTON: It was done for the county. MR. HOVELL: Okay. Well, maybe that's something that we could complete, then, is taking a look at what the inlet management plan is, because I think that was meant to address all the forces acting on an inlet, the sand bypass issues, sort of the whole picture including, I believe, any recreational uses and trying to incorporate so what is the best plan given all those factors; am I right? MR. HUMISTON: That's right. MR. KROESCHELL: I don't want to throw a monkey wrench into the machinery. I apologize for not being up to date on this whole thing. I was out of town for the last two weeks and just got back, and Dr. Staiger is not here today, but I'm a member of the Moorings Bay Taxing District Advisory Board, and I'm well aware of what the problems were with the previous contractor. If they have to go in there to dredge it, I'm not sure because all that was left to be done was to get a crane in there and lift the rocks up and the dredging was completed. Now, maybe with this delay and the storms and so forth, they are going to have to go in there and dredge again in order to get at the rocks. That may be true, but right now as of the conclusion of the contract in August -- or not the conclusion of the contract. That contract was concluded way back in December, but the work done and the last meeting of the advisory board there was only to be the crane in there to remove the rocks, and there was no dredging scheduled. MR. PIRES: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, maybe for the next meeting or the meeting thereafter, further update from staff on the draft inlet and see where that stands for as far as -- CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Sounds like a good idea. _- October 4, 2001 16JI MR. PIRES: -- Clam Pass and get further direction and request direction from staff on that. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Well, I think the other thing is we don't want to be making decisions and -- even though we know how accurate the Naples Daily News is based on their articles. Any other audience participation. Go ahead. MR. CARLSON: John Carlson, Pelican Bay. And it seems to me that with that big sandbar out in front of the pass it's sort of like trying to breathe with a ping -pong ball in your mouth. As that tide washes in any sand, sand can then be forced back into the -- back into Clam Pass, and unless we remove that sandbar we will begin filling in Clam Pass again. The other part of it is if you -- if you have that sandbar there, your ability to exchange with the tide is diminished. I don't think there is any doubt about that. If you take the sandbar out, you'll have greater tide exchange. You'll have higher tides in Pelican Bay. I happen to disagree with Kyle. I would not have taken removal or remediation, I guess, of the pass out of the plan. I would have gone forward with it. The reason is that you don't want that washing back in. A lot of that sand which formed there this time came out of Gabrielle -- Gabrielle washing sand out of the pass and dropping it as soon as it hits calm water. You've got to keep removing it or put in some sort of block of some sort to keep it from coming down and creating this sandbar there. I personally would like to see that sandbar removed because it makes navigation to and from my house a whole lot easier, but it also has a big impact, I believe, on the Pelican Bay mangrove system. And if you -- in order for the Pelican Bay mangrove system and these new areas where you've cut the cattails to get a full exchange of tidal water of saltwater, you need as much water coming in as possible, and anything which slows that down will have an impact on the farthest reaches, not the near part, but the far reaches of Clam Bay and the Pelican Bay mangroves. You've got to get it out of there. I don't know how to do it, but you've got to get it out of there. MR. PIKES: Mr. Chairman, I guess what I heard from Ken Humiston -- Ken, correct me if I'm wrong, you did not indicate, quite the contrary, the ability to exchange would be diminished by not funding this project or not engaging this project? MR. HUMISTON: What Mr. Carlson said is correct, that the sandbar out there does to some extent slow down the flow. It's one of many factors that control the flow in there. That sandbar by itself and the size that it has grown since the last dredging has not significantly diminished the flow in and out of the bay. We increased -- the dredging from two and a half years ago increased the tidal range in the bay by about 50 percent, and we've still got somewhere in the neighborhood of a 40 percent increase over the predredging conditions. So the system hydraulically is still functioning very well, even with sandbar there. MR. PIKES: Will the additional dredging as proposed under this project assist in Page 24 October 4, 200 1 6 J 1 l, keeping Clam Pass open? MR. HUMISTON: Yes. It would certainly. I think from an engineering approach what we're trying to do is figure out what is the most economical interval that we can dredge that inlet to prevent it from closing and to maintain good flow in the bay. Prior to doing restoration two and a half years ago, the inlet had been closing on an annual basis. The county was reopening it just by taking sand out of the entrance including that bar but not taking the sand out of the shoals that accumulated in the interior waterways that was choking the interior part of the system. All that was taken out two and a half years ago, and since that was taken out the inlet has been much more stable. There is enough flow going through there to scour sand out. Over time some of the sand, as Mr. Carlson indicated, will be carried into the inlet and be deposited on shoals inside the inlet. It has been going on. The amount that's accumulated in there two and a half years is about 7,500 yards, but that area or that 7,500 yards has accumulated -- was dredged to a much larger cross - section than is necessary to carry the flow in and out of the inlet. So there's actually advance dredging that was completed. That's kind of a storage area that's beginning to accumulate sand, and it has not accumulated to the point where it's adversely affecting the flow of system. MR. PIRES: Pardon me for asking these questions. Those are two of the criteria for the grant application, one was No. 9, the goal and objective was additional dredging will assist in keeping Clam Pass open. You indicated, yes, you could still do that. MR. HUMISTON: I think it would be one way to look at it is if it were dredged now then it may not have to be dredged again for three to four years. We're just in the process of -- we are in the third year of monitoring the performance of the dredging that was done two and a half years ago in trying to determine what is the optimum interval for doing maintenance dredging. Obviously, if it could be dredged once every five years instead of once every three years, then it would be a much more economical way to maintain the inlet. MR. PIRES: I guess a question for Ron -- I don't mean to hog the floor. You mention there is a budgetary number already for dredging that pass. This is just an additional amount of dredging? MR. HOVELL: The original intent of this request was based on the Pretropical Storm Gabrielle survey results and /or maybe even bids. I'm not sure which or both. MR. LUCAS: Kyle Lucas with Pelican Bay Services. The original application was based on the prestorm survey, and the estimate and the engineers estimate and the increase was to go in from the station zero. Originally the application was from station zero to about 750 feet in, and then the additional increase that's being submitted was from 750 to 1750. And now with the new survey information it was recommended that that wasn't necessary. MR. PIRES: The original application have gone into that shoaled area? MR. LUCAS: No. That's why we sent in the amended application. Page 25 October 4, 2001 16J 1 CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: So, basically, to kind of summarize I think the situation is what we're looking at dredging X amount. When Gabrielle came through, it performed some of that work for us so we have less to dredge regardless, and if we want to take a little out of that offshore shoald, I guess that would be a possibility. But, basically, the dredging that we -- the surveys that were done in July, August, or whatever indicated there was more material there at that time than there is now. So that's why and, of course, this extra 50,000 was predicated on the old surveys, and this other information is just basically 48 hours old or something like that. So I think there's plenty of money here if we decided to use some of this, or possibly money could be used from the other source of -- the source could be used for the actual beach renourishment. It wouldn't have to come out of Clam Pass, you know, Pelican Bay Services Division number necessarily. MR. PIRES: I guess it's appropriate to have staff explore the possibility that when the dredging activity occurred under the previous budgetory number -- budgeted number that went out for bid -- to look at -- and talk about that briefly -- MR. MUDD: I would. If I can ask staff -- Jim Mudd again. I think Ken brought up a point that said, "Hey, the purpose of the grant was for the tidal flow." Very different than navigation. I think this committee has to expand -- if you want to get at that 167 or 50, whatever it is on that sheet of paper, you'll have to expand the purpose of project and get it so the grant says, "Tidal flow and/or navigation" in that process. That gives you some flexibility to get at that 167. 1 don't think you can get at that 167 based on what I just heard Ken say, unless you have navigation in there to improve it. The other avenue that you have is one that you just already passed where you've moved 700 -- or $7.5 million into beach restoration because of Hurricane Gabrielle, and if you're going to use that as a source of sand, you can get at it that way too. So you can have two methods. If you want two methods, you're going to have to increase the project definition for that 176 or that $176,000. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Otherwise, we'll settle for the $8 1/2 million, which I think -- MR. HOVELL: Well, my concern with that approach is that our damage estimate was only for those sections of beach -- you know, that total $8 1/2 million is only for those sections of beach that fall under the permit for upland sand. We had always counted on this additional quantity of sand being covered under this separate project just as we're counting on a section of Barefoot Beach to be covered under the Wiggins Pass dredging. Those are not included in the 400,000 cubic yards. So, I mean, not that there's not some flexibility to move things around, but that additional quantity is not anticipated in the 400,000 cubic yards. MR. PIKES: Is it appropriate then for us to ask staff about the possibility of re- evaluating the application and expanding the application scope within the confines of the expenditure possibilities under the tourist development tax and then come back with a revised grant application to include the issue that was raised? I'm not sure. October 4, 2001 16J I CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I don't think we should wordsmith their application. If you want to go back and look at it from that standpoint in my point of view. MR. STAKICH: The original application, as I see it, is pretty much null and void based on what I've heard. And if staff feels like after all this discussion we have had it is appropriate to come back with another application on a different basis and has an avenue that will satisfy what we're trying to get done, then bring it forward. I don't really see too much sense about talking about it any more. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I agree. MR. HOVELL: I would -- I would just point out that just because of the timing of the TDC -- they are meeting on Monday, and then the next opportunity to take something to the TDC won't be for three months after that. MR. STRAPPONI: But they've already tabled it, haven't they? MR. LUCAS: I put a call into Jane Eichhorn asking her to -- I hadn't spoken to her yet. I just left her a message. MR. STRAPPONI: Is that your recommendation, Kyle? MR. LUCAS: Yeah. Based on the consultant's recommendation because it doesn't have an adverse effect on the tidal flow. MR. STAKICH: Why does this -- why is it three months before TDC is meeting? MR. HOVELL: The TDC meets four times a year. MR. STAKICH: Really? I thought they met monthly too. Well, we could revisit it in three months. MR. STRAPPONI: Well, I think time is of the essence in terms of this upcoming meeting. MR. STAKICH: Well, yes, but if they're not going to consider it, why should we? What I've heard is that they're not even looking at it. MR. KROESCHELL: We're not going to know whether we're going to have a dredge there or not. MR. GRAY: There are a lot of things we don't know. MR. KROESCHELL: I don't see any reason to visit it any further. MR. PIRES: I think the chairman indicated I don't think it's our prerogative to amend the application. Our role is to review the applications and make recommendations. I think the sense is we might be favorably inclined towards revised application and address the vote issue, but that's not in front of us right now. MR. STAKICH: I would like to think we could do something today, but I don't think we're going to have enough information, and I don't think we have support and just a lot of things in our way. MR. CARLSON: If you don't take it out -- if you don't take that sand out of there, where is it going to go? Some of it will wash on the beach, and a majority of it or a lot of it is going to wash back into the pass. That's where sand in the pass comes from. It doesn't come from inside from the mangroves. It comes off of the beach. You have all Page 27 October 4, 2001 16J 1 of this sand out there dust waiting to go somewhere. MR. STAKICH: I sympathize with you, and I understand what you're saying, and I'm in agreement with you, but I think our hands are tied based on what I've heard here today. We have to do things in concert with TDC, and if they're not going to be looking at this project, there's not much reason for us to look at it, though. Am I wrong? CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: The sand that comes in out of the pass basically it's an -- we're talking quite a ways offshore for navigability purposes, the sand is basically a vast majority of it is moving along the shoreline, and then that sand is flushed out there during the ebb tide and deposits out in the shoal, so I would take some issue with Mr. Carlson of how much of that would actually come in. I think a lot would stay out there and maybe move along the contour offshore a distance. Do we have any other public comments? MS. DYKEMAN: Martha Dykeman again, president of the Seagate Property Owners Association. You know, we have -- our -- our neighborhood was designed in 1956 and developed in 1956 before Pelican Bay existed, and we've always been a boating community. And we have a problem that Pelican Bay Service District can decide when our pass needs to be dredged for our use, and the whole south part like the Registry beach that's now devastated, you know, can't be dredged unless Pelican Bay Service District says it can be. And, you know, I know that Pelican Bay Service District paid money and the county didn't and that's why the ten -year application is because the people in Pelican Bay and WCI paid the $2 million for the ten -year permit; however, being a Collier County resident and a taxpayer too, I don't like all the decisions being made without our input as property owners and people that use the system and have used the system as navigation for 55 years. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Well, my understanding -- and staff can correct me. Maybe I should pass this. There's nothing that would preclude Collier County from picking up something like this. I mean, it's not -- as I understand it. I might be wrong -- I don't think this is at the sole discretion of Pelican Bay Services. Collier County can make a recommendation if they want. Do you have any comments on that? MR. PIKES: No. Nothing more. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I don't think Pelican Bay Services has recommended certain things and basic -- what they recommend typically is what they fund. So that's, you know -- but if somebody else wanted to recommend and fund something, that would be another matter. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, recognizing that I think PBSD is asking that be withdrawn, and at least I'll try, a motion made and get a second that we ask the staff to explore the possibility of expanding -- submitting a new grant application with expanded scope or modified scope to address the navigability issue. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: That's fine. MR. STAKICH: I will second that. OEM October 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Just to have them look at it. Any other comment . JZ those in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Passes. Okay. Any other -- yes, sir. MR. KELLY: My name is Colin Kelly with Parker Beach Restoration, and I appreciate the efforts that this committee makes on behalf of the citizens of Collier County and this area. It's unfortunate that events that's happened that we're pushed in a situation of pressed into -- into service with trucking the sand, and once you take 400,000 cubic yards and divide by 18 come up with about 22,000 round trips, about 44,000 round trips with an 18 -yard dump trucks. You do have a sand problem of being pulled off the beach. That's what Gabrielle did, and we know -- we've had the good fortune of having a helicopter at our service. We see a sandbar forming off of -- which used to be sitting around where the concession stands are on Naples pier now. There's another bar forming even farther out. That's the original beach. We feel like that once we do our experiment we can show this county that we can put -- bring that beach back. That's original beach, and I look forward to coming back before this committee again. Like I say, it's unfortunate we're pressed into service that you have to do what you have to do, but bear in mind down the road we're looking at helping you put compatible sand back on your beach at around $8 a cubic yard. That would solve a lot of problems that you're in right now as far as vegetary problems. I appreciate this committee's indulgence in letting me speak. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Any other comments from the audience? Yes, sir. MR. HOVELL: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I know we are pretty much done. I believe it was an additional agenda item to talk about the minutes. I realize there was one or two things here in my piles that somehow didn't pop out with the various minutes. Bear with me and back up a second. When we had talked about the potential TDC land purchase, the only additional thing I had done and included in your packet was Florida Attorney General's opinion is in there, if you get a chance to read it. It explains the background of why the TDC can pay for it. And the second thing is, I believe -- I don't even remember why I got this request, but I brought copies for everybody of the -- what used to be -- used to be the closed meeting last November concerning the beach rock litigation, now that those are public record. Here's a copy of the meeting minutes for everybody. I believe that's all I had, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Okay. Anything else? I guess we can entertain a motion. Page 29 October 4, 2001 MR. STRAPPONI: Mr. Chairman I have a q ueshon for Ron. 16JI CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Okay. MR. STRAPPONI: Ron, based on the actions of the -- of the committee today and recommendation that's made to the TDC on the $7 1/2 million along with the very real possibility there may be a reduction in the projected revenues at least for this season, it's going to take our ten year -- when can we expect a revised one? MR. HOVELL: I think it's -- assuming that this public meeting and the next two I have to go to all go in a positive direction and we're actually going to try to do this quantity of sand by truck, I think I will find myself very busy between now and Christmas, and then perhaps something like revising the ten -year plan will be a December or January project. MR. STRAPPONI: I will make a note. MR. STAKICH: Pretty good answer. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: It's a good answer and a reasonable answer. MR. ANDERSON: Plus we'll have three or four more months of information, revenue information so we will have a better fix on how things are shaping up. MR. STAKICH: Right. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. PIRES: One more discussion about the minutes. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Oh, is that right. I'm sorry. MR. KROESCHELL: I just -- I just got a hangup about the minutes. I wonder why the minutes have to be printed in such large print and take up so much paper. I don't know. Somebody says that that's the deal back at the county. MR. STRAPPONI: I think that's for the benefit of some of us older members on the committee. MR. KROESCHELL: This is better, though, than the lower type. MR. ANDERSON: See, they listened to you last month. MR. HOVELL: I won't bore you with too many details, other than to say the way I get the minutes printed out to you I have to look them up on various web sites -- there is two possible web sites that I draw these from. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: Please step outside for your conversations. MR. HOVELL: There is two possible web sites, and so this last time I got them from a different one with a little less paper intensive format. Beyond that I'm not too good at trying to change how it looks. MR. KROESCHELL: Okay. MR. STRAPPONI: Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn I would like to make a comment to the audience. This committee is not insensitive to your concerns about that sandbar. I don't think any attempt to remove it right now would be anything but a very, very short term. I think that the long -term solution to that sandbar lies in considering where the source of that sand is which apparently is coming not off the beaches and the Page 30 October 4, 2001 16J1 possibility of maybe getting an L- shaped groin in there or something to prevent that sandbar -- that's something that's going to have to be looked at. It's going to take more than just us making a decision today to go ahead and try to remove it, because if we did we'd be back again in no time. The solution is not in removing it. The solution is trying to remove it and doing something to prevent it from reoccurring. I just want to make a comment that we're not insensitive to your concerns of the navigation. MR. STAKICH: I will second that. MR. STRAPPONI: I make a motion to adjourn. MR. STAKICH: Second. CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: ON I guess we should have -- my fault. Our next meeting will be at the City of Naples City Council at 1:30 in the afternoon. MR. HOVELL: Would you prefer to do the field trip first like we did today? CHAIRMAN ROELLIG: I think so. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:07 p.m. COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DAVID ROELLIG, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD Page 31 $4y240re &anti f icatiom M.3JAL Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 AGENDA FOR JANUARY 9, 2002 I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. ATTENDANCE: III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of December 5, 2001 IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: V. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT: VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Trash Containers VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS IX. ADJOURNMENT 16JI J Fiats V/�� Carter _ Henning Coyle �. oletta Z/ t. *,sc. Corms: D;te:..- The next meeting is scheduled for 4:00 PM, Wednesday, February 6, 2002 At the Collier County Department of Transportation Operation Office 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL $aysRore &aatilieatioN JVt.S.TA _1 6J l Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 December 5, 2001 Chairman Bill Neal called meeting to order at 4:02 PM. II. ATTENDANCE: A. Members: Bill Neal, Dave Benson, Maurice Gutierrez, and Jean Carpenter & Tom Welstead B. Collier County: Bob Petersen, Val Prince, Pam Lulich, Len Wood (Collier County Purchasing) C. Others: Charles Buckley (Commercial Land Maintenance), III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Several items were clarified: 1) ad valorem tax 2) to replace 30 Royal Palms ($1,200 @ $35K Total). 3) Committee Members Report — A. Right turn on red: Bill Neal will follow up with Bob Tipton (correct name). Minutes were approved, seconded, passed unanimously. IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: Bob Petersen passed out sheet on flowering trees of which some were highlighted. Royal Poinciana's & other trees can be included — this is a basic list. It was noted that modifications are needed to the median on Bayshore with some trimming, replace dying palms, & possibly more plants. Committee needs to take a close look at the situation. Pam Lulich addressed the subject on Designs for the Bridge. She felt a Landscape Architect should be hired to update the drawings. Landscape on the Bridge should be minimal, but drawings need to be brought up to speed, work orders & correct site line problems addressed. It was noted that the County, as authorized, has put in all plants. Was also noted that there is enough money in the Budget to replace the Royal Palms and that the Committee will have to make some suggestions to Commercial Land Maintenance on whether they need to just replace the Palms or also have a mixture of flowering trees &/or plants. This can be coordinated at a future meeting to set some plans & take 1 median at a time — so as not to have a hodge podge, throw out ideas, & come up with a plan using the Maintenance & Horticulture knowledge provided to the Committee on an as needed basis. It was discussed to take the medians where the trees are dying first. The Committee may want to drive around & take a look at some of the different trees & plants in the medians in Naples. A Contract has been issued to the low bidder, which was approved by the board on 11/27/01 for the P.O. amount of $122,182 for all the lights. It was explained to the new members that 4 of the lights cannot be used for the bridge, were not charged to Committee, and so consequently donated to the Botanical Gardens. It was brought up that Mr.Botner /Consultant- Project Manager did not complete the project & the engineer drawings do not reflect 2 phases. Further discussion followed on the FDOT standards not being met, not enough money this year to do all bridge work, & waiting for work orders & costs. The subject of Mr. Botner not fulfilling his duties was discussed at length. It was felt that with all the delays & that costs 16J1 exceeded what the committee authorized, the subject of Mr. Botner & all the problems should be put behind us, and get the Bridge project finished. Pam Lulich reported that Kris Jain - Engineer /Consultant would be present at the next meeting to give a proposal on a correct set of drawings. She noted that his Contract is up on Jan 315t & that work orders need to reach him by mid - January. Pam reported that the lights should be delivered approx, 12 weeks from 11/27/01, but may be a Holiday delay. Simmons Electrical contractor has the installation scheduled and will coordinate the dates. Lyn Wood stated that Mr. Botners insurance would cover the cost of making any deficiencies in the design whole. Which include parts, lighting, & any additional design work that is needed. Tom Welstead mentioned that when you file a claim the insurance company would have someone come back to the County & Committee to revisit all the checks & balances. It was moved by Bill Neal to approve any costs not to exceed $25,000 for Kris Jain to change the work order to redesign the Bridge with existing parts. Seconded Dave Benson. Approved unanimously. The lights will be moved to the Botanical Gardens. Lyn Wood left at 4:55 PM. V. BUDGET REPORT: Val Prince handed out a Budget Review sheet to all members. He explained the different categories & how the Purchasing Orders worked. Bob mentioned if anyone wants to see budgets Wor purchasing orders that they can be E- mailed as they have in the past. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT: Chuck (Commercial Land Maintenance) reported on: Irrigation Costs- Dec. mulch is put down & fertilized and he noticed a lot of Trash on roadways —also spotty brown patches in some medians (which is probably not a watering problem even though it is being watered 4x/wk since no water restrictions at this time. Could be a fungus, which will be checked & tested). It was also mentioned that if anyone is looking at medians to check for visibility problems to contact Bob or Val & they will contact Commercial Land Maintenance to take care of it. Was also noted that there is a trash problem with the Waste Mgt. & Landscape trucks along roadways — sheriffs office does use Community Service for pick up. Will be looking at trash containers & benches after the lights & bridge is done. Four trash containers are in the design contract for the bridge and can be increased when the time comes if needed. Trash Containers will be put under "Old Business" for the next meeting. VII. OLD BUSINESS: Bob talked about easements for the pavilions & will report more at the next meeting. Considerable discussion took place on the orange cones. It was noted that Simmons Electric put light bases in & was worried about liability for themselves & the county, so the only places the cones were put were in the paved areas. If there were other cones, they were not the County's. VIII. NEW BUSINESS: 2 16J1 Bob will ask Mike to mail ordinances to the 2 new members along with Jean, also a meeting should to be set -up in Feb /March or before -- maybe around 3:00 to have the County Attorneys office come in & speak on the Sunshine Law, & to also include Maurice. Bill mentioned they have talked about having Festivals in Bayshore & wondered if banners could be put on the existing overhead lights. Logos & prices will be needed depending upon colors, size, & time frame. The January 2nd meeting will be moved to January qh at 4:OOPM. IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE X. ADJOURNMENT: Bill Neal adjourned the meeting at 5:30PM. Next meeting is scheduled for 4:00 PM, Wednesday, January 9th, 2002 Collier County Department of Transportation Office 3 S'«- Fiala Carter Henning Coyle Colette BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U. �. Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South t - Naples, Florida 34104 November 7, 2001 Bill Neal called this meeting to order. 16J1 Il. ATTENDANCE: A. Members: Bill Neal, Tom Briscoe, Maurice Gutierrez and Jean Carpenter. B. Collier County: Bob Petersen, Mike Levy, Pam Lulich, DOT Landscape Operations C. Others: Robert Kindelan, President of Commercial Land Maintenance III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There were several areas of question for the past month's minutes. First, last names were spelled wrong on several pages. Second, Bob Petersen said you had asked Val to word the motion you wanted made, but the motion was never made or voted. Bill Neal said it was at the last meeting, but the decision was unclear. This motion was concerning Kris Jain and the bridge issue. He was to bring three alternatives, based on the dropping the pavilions, and the cost difference to go to the board and the public. Kris was asked to treat the bridge issue and also check that if dropping the pavilions would increase the cost of putting back in, if needed, and not have to undo his work. The board decided to make a decision to cut a purchasing order (P.O.), as referred in the November 14th minutes. Motion was made (page 12) and although some were unclear of the motion, most remember the unanimous vote. Third, was the item on the easements and if they had been granted (page 13). The board said they would back up issue and not fight the easement problems. Kris Jain and his ideas need to be discussed and Bob recommended a new motion. In a vote motioned by Maurice and seconded by Jean, the P.O. for Kris was granted in a unanimous vote. (page 14 edit). In addition, discussions on the fabrication drawings were dealt with. It seems that the originals were flawed and yet they made it through the purchasing department undetected, states Pam Lulich. She says the design was made by Bottner. Petersen believes a list of points approved, allowed Bottner to go through with the design. Neal says the purchasing department has to explain how they could issue such a design and Pam agrees that they need to find some answers to this approval. Pam closes by saying purchasing is looking for refunds for all designs by Bottner, but he has relocated to West Palm Beach. And lastly, the board summed up that they need to evaluate the bridge parts, recommend the cost `rn n'D-. and evaluate the pavilion status with or without the struMW.Dd e: Date: Item# r. 16J1 discussion about the transfer of rough draft minutes to a hard copy was briefly discussed and from now on someone needs to proofread the rough before the transcriber can send out the official document.) The motion to approve the corrected minutes was motioned by Jean and seconded by Pam for a unanimous vote. IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report: Mike Levy spoke about the budget sheets for the new fiscal year. At the top, Mike reports that for engineering figure 66069, Kris Jain has $840 that was rolled over for the new fiscal year. He had started with $3300 and spent $2400 last fiscal year. Mike then received a bill from Jain for $840, so he paid it and now the P.O. has been closed. As for contractual services, the $220K that is for maintenance is encumbered to commercial and maintenance that includes grounds and incidentals. (That $220K is $161K for ground maintenance and $58 +K for incidentals.) Electricity, water, sewer, trash, mulch, etc is all encumbered because it will be spent and then the board will not be surprised at end of year when the money is all gone for those expenditures. As of this moment the operating budget is $23K to use for many things that have been encumbered. The transfer summary for the bridge received is an advance of $70K that will be paid back (encumbered not extra budget) the capital outlay summary has one major change. Last month the sheet read $204, 500 with an encumbered $58, 500 (for Simmons). The mistake is that it was encumbered for the last fiscal year, but the P.O. is actually rolled over to this year. It does not however affect the $204K. The board asked Mike if money still left for Simmons? Mike replies that no, not from the light installation because he does not pay until the work begins. On the reserve summary says he emailed Mr. Smikowsky asking when the funds (Carry Forward and Reserve for Contingency) could be moved. Mike was told that the funds for all MSTUs became revenue for this fiscal year. He continued to say that the board does not have $167K, which is included in the revenues instead. Asked by Peterson for Levy to check on $24,500, -5% on page 2 and then on the $24,500 encumbered on page 1— shouldn't the money be removed so it is not subtracted from both pages. ? Levy says it is left there because it shows as negative encumbered funds and that no money in available funds. Levy then checks some numbers and points out that at the bottom line (of the sheet) figure, that there is money to spend. That $24,200 does not affect that number whatsoever. Levy changed the formula on Excel for that line item because if he used the same formula that the $24,200 would come out but because of the change, it is not just going to available funds. If there are any further questions on the spreadsheet Mike said he would send a copy via email to all those interested. Lastly, on the revenue page, there is the ad valorem tax and the interest ($.03) gained. He estimates the revenue for this fiscal year now is balanced to the penny of the adopted budget for this fiscal year. :Z) 1u: 16J1 ! B. Mike has two more issues he would like to briefly discuss. He sent a - ^ - morandum to Sue Filson about the two vacancies on the board. One is for certain and the other is the dismissal of Mr. Bruet. According to ordinance if a member misses two meetings with unexcused absences then they can be removed. Therefore he will not be on the committee any longer. The two people to fill the positions was motioned, seconded, and then unanimously approved by the board. Levy is to email Sue Filson on the decision and information regarding the meetings missed will be sent to the newcomers as well. The other issue has to do with Manpower and its services to the county and board. A large invoice was received and the county wants to know what is expected of the transcriber. Should the Manpower employee be lighter on the words or should a court reporter be hired? It seems the board will keep the Manpower person, and ask for nonverbatim minutes. C. As for the rest of the transportation report, there are four easements that need to be purchased and confirmed. More will be finalized when Kris Jain reports with his ideas. V. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT: A. Robert Kindelan gives a brief summary of what his company offers and what he foresees on Bayshore. First, some pavers needed repair and all, but one was repaired. Also some board members noticed orange bolted - down cones are gone between Thomason and some street, and wondered where they had gone. Robert says that Bayshore has vandalism including litter, traffic and damage on medians, and sides of roadways torn due to u- turns. One of the main problems is that a lot more people walk around so more litter on road than other beautification areas. Asked if the committee can collect money from damage property, and the answer seemed positive. Robert said he would have to collect info such as photos and accident reports and then have MSTU reimbursed through risk management. As for the work that is going to be needed, Robert suggests the following: 1. The biggest problem: the Royal Palm trees are dying. Out of a 32 or so, 17 are impossible to save, 12 are on there way to dying and 3 or 4 have be hit by cars and damaged. To replace 30 of those trees would cost about $36K. An alternative to the palms could be a flowering tree which would cost about $1200 each, and will be discussed at the next meeting. 2. Irrigation repairs could cost $600 a month. This includes sprinklers run over by cars on medians and u -turns should have cement on sides instead of flat land to ease damages. Also need better support systems to the other smaller trees. Instead of stakes and rope, need to retable in the crowd, which can in turn make the maintenance harder. 3. As for other ground maintenance, such as fertilization, spraying pesticides, weed control and turf, weekly trash, mowing, curb and gutter cleaning, mulching, tree trimming, irrigation checks, 16J1 vehicle and weather damage, etc., will be done monthly. Robert says that on some days there will be blue spots on the grass and that is to kill excess weeds and track certain areas. (The spots should disappear within 7 -10 days) Also with certain jobs, they company may have to shut down a lane to complete work. 4. When making left and right hand turns on Bayshore, the fountain grass is too high and is causing visibility and other pedestrian safety aspects. More to be discussed to see if is real problem. The contract is at $160K and $58 in incidentals. Robert will determine what is happening and what is most important. He suggests on not reducing incidentals. In conclusion his next step is to mulching toward the end of November or the beginning of December. VI. COMMITTEE MEMBERS REPORT: A.Right turn on red: Bill Neal will follow up with Bob Tipton B. Visability: ?? C. Update on bridge: work order for Kris needed, and fixing what state attorneys did not like. As for funds, they will be tight this fiscal year. The light installation bids arrived. Out of 33, 11 okayed, and only 2 replied. The prices are as follows: Lumec Kim Lighting Single Pole $1134 $1195 Double Pole $1912 $ 2395 A total of 105 poles needed. Pam will be doing the executive summary and delivery date is anticipated February or March. Will check with Botanic Gardens to see if they need extra lights D. As a recommendation/ possibility of moving bridge parts from marina to County Barn Road. E. Taxpayers will be notified of tax reduction and included will be the progress reports of the lights, bridge and other aspects of beautification. VI. OLD BUSINESS: NONE VII. NEW BUSINESS: NONE VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE IX. ADJOURNMENT: Bill Neal adjourned the meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for 4: 00pm, Wednesday, December 5, 2001 at the Collier County Department of Transportation Office (Will discuss January 2, 2002 meeting) FiS181 _r-/..�. Carter Henning Kie Mac' Colefta 16J 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL 1, WORKSHOP AGENDA November 21, 2001 - "° 9:00 A.M. -11:00 PM Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building`T' -Third Floor I. Roll Call II. Introduction of Speaker, Mike Duever, Senior Environmental Scientist of the South Florida Water Management District. III. Presentation on Wetland Hydrology IV. Council Member Comments V. Adjournment Council Members: Please notify the Current Planning Secretary no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 19, 2001 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition (659 - 5741). ,.q Misc. Corres: Date: Item# j j9 J J Cowes To: 1- 75/Golden Gate interchange Advisory Committee Transportation Operadma Deputment 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 November 14, 2001 Fiala Carter Henning Coyle Colette it I. Al Moore called the meeting to order at 10 :06 AM, II. ATTENDANCE 1 �S A. City of Naples: Honorable Gary Galleberg, B. Golden Gate Civic Oqp nization: Glenn Wrik Bill Poteet, Jr. C, unincorporated Collier County: Al Moore, Thomas A. Collins II Mark B. Morton D. Collier County: Edward J. Kam - Transportation Operators Director, Pam Lulich -ASLA Landscape Operations Manager, Bob Petersen- Landscape Operations; Nancy Siernion -ASIA Landscape Architect; E. FDOT: Brian Dennis-Dist. 1 Landscape Liaison, Nicole lolls- Project Coordinator, F. Other: Sarah Clarke, FDOT Project Manager Michael McGee-McGee & Associates, FDOT Landscape Architecture Consultant, Manpower Seacretafial Services ABSENT: Honorable Mayor Bonnie R, Mac Kenzie, Bryan Dennis, Nancy Siesnion, Gary Galled & Bob Petersen Letter of Resignation from Gary Galled was accepted with City of Naples in process of getting a replacement. Al Moore mentioned he would not be at neat meeting due to medical reasons. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved to approve the minutes by Glenn Wilt with the correction noted under Section III., par. B should read "The "D" curbing on a frontage road is in order to landscape between the frontage road & Golden Gate Road." The motion was seconded to approve the minutes with corrections. IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: Pam Lulich passed out an informational packet along with photographs of the interchange inhSarasota/St. Petersburg at the request of Mark Morton at the last meeting. Pictuires A&W— _. Palms, along with w isting plantings that interface well with the existing 4*1NORMS: Mr. Wilt had concerns on the compatibility of the palms & other, native vegetation o winch Ms. Lulich commented that there are several opportunities for plan a — Item# ) L0,1 Copies To: 16J1 variety of trees & must be concerned with the fact that FDOT regulations in regard to sightlines and clearance zones must be followed. Another concern expressed by Bill Poteet was the type of trees for the most effective way of buffering noise with a berm that has angled sides, sound waves travel and are reflected off at a 90 degree angle. There is always background noise, which is unavoidable. Discussion continued on the Canopy trees versus Palm trees on the frontage roads as to which one provided an effective way of buffering noise. Further investigation will continue. One type of foliage brought up was Oleander that has a tendency to attract caterpillars and could be a problem because of spraying on a continual basis. Another suggestion was the Dwarf Bougainvillea. Mike McGee mentioned certain varieties could be used but to caution everyone to the colder temperatures & frost damage. Golden Gate Interchange is referred to as a colder Zone. But a little extra pruning could be done to have the beauty of the flowering bush but is not recommended. Al Moore commented that we do have several alternatives to satisfy the requirements needed. IV. OLD BUSINESS: FDOT REPORT: Sarah Clarke, FDOT gave a report on the different mounting heights for the Luminaries. She stated they looked at using the standard FDOT aluminum poles mounted (painted black) with the decorative arm similar to what Bonita Bay used at Mediterra , and the different mounting heights along mainline Golden Gate Parkway. Discussion followed on the 25', 30', & 40' with 30' & 40' on the ramps. The spacing of 200' was discussed along with the number of lights at the various heights. Sarah said after getting back with the manufacturer they found using the decorative arm & Luminaries would increase the price of the light by approx. $600 or $800/ per light. Al Moore commented he would like to see some kind of consistency. He is also concerned about there being appropriate shields to redirect the lighting away from residential areas. Norman Trebilcock/RWA stated that he has done other lighting projects for Collier County and cut -off visors can be put on the light fixtures themselves. It has been done on Rattlesnake Hammock Road trying to direct the light on the roadway. He stated the section of Golden Gate Parkway west of Airport Road has the standard Cobra heads at 45' but that adjusting down to 40' would not be a problem in terms of design. Discussion followed concerning the Cobra head fixture. Mr. Morton moved to adopt the 40' height light poles. Seconded -Mr. Wilt. Questions were asked about the fixtures blocking the light. More discussion on the Cobra & Mediterra head fixtures, with Mr. Wilt stating that the county standard has always been spun aluminum with the Cobra fixture. Motion was carried. Bill Poteet wanted it noted that if a decision on standardizing a pole within Collier County & upgrading from the standard Cobra head fixture is made that the committee supports it. Al Moore: So noted. 16J1 VI. FDOT : Reported that Bryan Dennis came up with some concepts for treatment on the median across the bridge. Since the continuous planter similar to the Gordon River Bridge couldn't be done because the structural designers were afraid it would not take the extra load structurally Bryan came up with separate tree planters spaced along the median. The curb area is raised 19' — the planter is 8' — then ground cover & a tree planted in the planter. Decorative type fencing was also discussed. An estimate cost was given for columns spaced 50' apart with decorative aluminum fencing in between. 12 columns at $300 @ & 552' of fencing at $65 per linear foot which totals $39,480. Glenn Wilt summed it up that the costs are roughly $20,000 for a tree type line up & about $40,000 for fencing. Discussion followed on planters, & color schemes. A cost estimate was submitted by Carter - Burgess to the Transportation Operations Department for the Committee to review. An Activity Description and a breakdown chart of "Burdened Cost by Activity" was analyzed by the Committee. The breakdown was as follows: Burdened Cost by Activity A. Revised Roadway Plans (Curvilinear Sidewalk alignment provided) Total Estimated Fee: $70,634.17 On Item "A ", by changing the plans for the sidewalks from a straight to a meandering sidewalk would include changing the cross sections and other related documents. There is a considerable amount of plan changes if you are going to change the sidewalk. FDOT would absorb the cost for concrete banding, color additives and colored non -skid pavement on the pavement. This would only be for the bridge. In the previous meeting, Mayor Bonnie MacKenzie had mentioned that a white color could be added to the sidewalk as it crossed the bridge. FDOT offered to pay for integral colors for the bridge. It was decided that the only options to look at are A, D & E. Mr. Wilt reminded everyone that a motion had been made previously to except the concrete sidewalks with the decision on color to be deferred until Committee adopts color scheme for whole project. Discussion as to the budget of $300,000 & the three items left on this proposal of $16,037.34 followed. The three items left are: The Curb or linear sidewalk, the Island Planter, & the Outside Texture. All these items will be discussed at the Nov. 29`" meeting. There is concerns that if additional funding will be needed $6,153.87 B. Lighting Plans $15,850.85 C. Brick Paver /Sidewalk Plans $5,780.90 D. Island Planter Plans $7,459.22 E. Jersey Barrier Texture Details $2,424.25 F. Terracing Plans $34,965.09 Total Estimated Fee: $70,634.17 On Item "A ", by changing the plans for the sidewalks from a straight to a meandering sidewalk would include changing the cross sections and other related documents. There is a considerable amount of plan changes if you are going to change the sidewalk. FDOT would absorb the cost for concrete banding, color additives and colored non -skid pavement on the pavement. This would only be for the bridge. In the previous meeting, Mayor Bonnie MacKenzie had mentioned that a white color could be added to the sidewalk as it crossed the bridge. FDOT offered to pay for integral colors for the bridge. It was decided that the only options to look at are A, D & E. Mr. Wilt reminded everyone that a motion had been made previously to except the concrete sidewalks with the decision on color to be deferred until Committee adopts color scheme for whole project. Discussion as to the budget of $300,000 & the three items left on this proposal of $16,037.34 followed. The three items left are: The Curb or linear sidewalk, the Island Planter, & the Outside Texture. All these items will be discussed at the Nov. 29`" meeting. There is concerns that if additional funding will be needed 16J1 what source or sources will it come from. Mr. Wilt asked if it would be possible for the FDOT to give them more definitive costs on the items in discussion then they would have a good estimate of the final results. Mr. Wilt moved that they move forward on the engineering & approve the items discussed today & follow up on the funding for the landscaping budget, which are A, D & E & have the design done. Mark Morton seconded, approved. Mr. Wilt commented that the Nov. 29a` meeting should start out with a short business meeting, covering any outstanding items, make a short presentation giving a brief history of committee, & the various types of items the committee chose to deal with. Would like to involve members of committee in making presentation. We want to focus on making this the most attractive interchange for Collier County, which is our mission. Then it would be opened up for public discussion. Connie Dean, Community Liaison Transportation Services was introduced. Next Public Meeting is Nov 29h at Bethel Church. Discussion followed on publicity for the meeting — it will be in the newspapers, public announcements & Connie will prepare a "message board ". They will be near the site about a week before the meeting. Flyers will be taken to several Park & Recreation facilities. No Court Reporter needed at this meeting. VII. NEW BUSINESS: There was no new business. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. IX. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m. Fiala Carter Henning '—�"- Coyle Colette v � Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. � Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 November 19, 2001 I. The meeting was called to order at 4:28 PM by Crystal Kinzel. 16.1 II. ATTENDANCE: A. Members: Crystal Kinzel, Wilfred Jaeger, Dale Lewis, Susan Saum and Wolfgang Schulz. B. Collier County: Val Prince and Bob Petersen, DOT Landscape Operations. C. Other: Robert Kindelan, Commercial Land Management; Allen Jost, Manpower Secretarial Services. IIL APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Bill Jaeger moved to accept the minutes as presented. It was seconded by Susan Saum. Motion Carried unanimously. IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: Val Prince handed out the Fund 150 Budget, dated this date, a copy of which is made a part of the minutes and attached herewith. V. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT: Robert Kindelan reported that the mulching was completed. There is some problems with the irrigation where the lines were cut which has been repaired. VI. COMMITTEE MEMBERS REPORT: None VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. STANDING WATER — MEDIAN 9: The work is completed. It took a little longer than anticipated due to the lack of parts. B. COMMERCIAL INTERSECTION — RADIO ROAD JOINT VENTURE: Bob Petersen stated that he had attempted to make contact with Jim Vickery to attend this meeting but has been unable to. This item will carry over to the next meeting. C. CONSOLIDATED MSTU'S: Bob Petersen had no new information. Crystal Kinzel asked that he secure a draft of the proposed ordnance and bring it to the next meeting. D. YELLOW POLES: Crystal Kinzel brought up that lie- unsightly yellow poles are still in the intersection. She will follow through by Emailing Ed -- Kant to determine when the curbing work will be completecMiSC. Corres: Date: Item# Copies To: VIII. NEW BUSINESS: Bill Jaeger asked how we will go about using some of the excess money to fill in with additional plantings where it is sparse. Robert Kindelan was asked to number the medians and the committee members are to bring in their suggestions to the next meeting. Bob Petersen will bring the old plans in and planning for additional plantings that will not violate t ig t requirements will take place. 1 IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None j X. ADJOURNMENT: Sue Saum moved to adjourn. Wolfgang seconded. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM. The next meeting will be Monday, December 17,. 2001 at 4:30 PM. �N O N .O y.1 � � O O � O � � O 0 N. v O D CS 16J] W F o o 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 y i o Q p O C 00 o O 2 N (0 Q N 0080 1n N M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O o M N 0 o 0 0 0 00 00 0 O Y o O O O 1-- 0 0 0 W N 0f O n a0 O N V V Q p U F ? Q U FLl Q a Q ml N p 0 0 0 0 O w r - 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 "0.0.0.0. W Fn0 N M M O O O O N O w o rn1 W 0000DiOOO m b 0 0 000 O 0 00 00 0 0 0 000 O o Om vi p a Z 000 N 1 N O Q) fD .-n 117 O N '- N 1n < 000 0 Vi N O VO O (7 O (+l 1n V W Z (D O .- M V M In 1. t0 co w m Fy LL o v rr LU o W N o 0 0 oo o 0 o oo o o o o o o o o o, o c o o 000 o O o 0 o0 c o o 0 o p W N o o(no 0 0000 o 0 0 o 66666666666 O O O o c o o o o o 000 coo O o O o M 0) G O M o o O 0 o 0 O y V N o0 N O O to O O! c o o (0 v N O a O M O M O 10 M p N M (o .�_. M tD f` M N O M 1!1 h 10 00 00 •7' Z 1n N N r 10 N LL o U ZI N W O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 9 1n 1n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O c o o O O O O O 0 0 O O o o o O O O O O O O p N o O o o o m o o o o o o o o o o c o o o o o O o o o o W O F_ W O O o 0 o m o o O O o o o o O c (0 n It V7 CO N O 0 0) O In o O! 0 0 0 a0 ? N o 't O t0 O O O n M (o rO oM N to M1n� t0 NF O Nl M p ^ .- N u7 m .- ` m ti M � O N V' Q m N F- o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O o Z" F- o 0 0 0 O o O o O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O o o o O O o o O O O c o o coo O o o 0 o 0 9 9 9 0 0 0 O o W �i o w o m N Q O c c 0 O o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O WF- oo O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o O O o m o o o 0 000 o 0- moo 0000000 O o o O O O coo coo o o O O o 0 O O 1 oo O o o O o 0 w00000 U F- () N O (o n T In O N O O W O In �- O! oc ? N O v tD O t+F a p M Qp O w V V M Io 1. O (D M N r r N (D w M 1n r O N n O l+J m C � N Q N Z w O Z) % No w w } w LL Q o U W } W Z Z. d D W _j W F y m ZpW N Q F- W ILL W W w> W jUW ma0 F3 -j W W ptn� F- m46J LL0 N W Q O wF aU7N�rwn ? u) (n dH w o m ZWF- W o. LL'zZmJ JQ Z) w� — F- F (L LL ..99 F_ Cr > p =�2¢'?� K� W �m OIxx z °gp_m w Z hw w 7 FX1F p OLL ~F' d'ZI QmZ_ O G. ULL LL 6' p c0 D O W LL W LLJ wc9> _j W O Qom F- �m xx -. M c z��OZUvFwW-Z U �¢¢ LLLLw I1w (nWa Ir �� (n(n> �W W O.. cUmUWa u7 (nVU `0— ENO LLF-F- �0 w »Q IW �"+1ZJU ZZZwm m �U w�Z�UW C7 Cn W W F W ZC7 FN..� W Z0Z0E- o o�¢�O_Q DF-W �- W?ODU 2OLLO ��� mm w �' o W WZ of t: W Q w�?w -j F- F' W U M 0 o m o o o v m 0 0 o o o o o o 0 o o W p o(nlnl�m 000 rn rn V M M T Q) .- v M M M m M m o0 O w I o0 N N coo O W m M V V v V M M o w w w m N N — O O N v M M U O M Cl) Cl) Cl) M t I v V R R R In In O (o o ID to (o ID W W (D (O (o (o (D M M O O m 1. I Co c0 O) O O 01 O a H W N E- V of V' Lo t Lo Ln O N W tv o In Nln In tnN u71n N o o 0OO O o coo O Z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O) m O o O n m U w m D m n 0 m m m D m m m D m M m rn m m M m M 0I m N G m N N m C m O C C m m IM m 7 m 0' N v m m m 0 h i m 2 F N O 4� O � N C1 C1 U � O Ln H O d W O % t ,0 0 tt o U Q p M �P d' O O O N r— V Iq 0 0 0 V O W Q Ln O fI- O O O CN N T W p N � N � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N y 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 W p 0 0 0 0 0 0 N CD OM O (D O Q O O fD 00 W _ M � N v n i ill 16J I U) w (A� J= W ui < 0 uj O w � 0 J O > O > LU > Q Qm 0 of - U)PED Qz Or-LO i- LLJ o w z:DcncnLL > wUWw> - F= jr- z = = w Q Z) w Q W U 0 z z 0 z W LU O 0 0 0 0 0 Cl O 1- N O O n 0 T 04 T (M N O T T T - 0) 0) M U 0 T T (D (D 00 00 M Cl) ce7 (M ct V I- W V% H Ln LO V) Ln o 0 ;T IT 14T Iq 0 z V) Ui LO LO O 0 N N N N 0 0 1 W U (D (D W (D T T T T T T 0) 16J I 16J1 .'A Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17, 2001 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND MOTIONS III. Approval of the minutes of the November 19, 2001 meeting. Crystal Kinzel moved to approve the minutes with an amendment to include that Wolfgang Schulz had been appointed to secure a breakdown of the MSTU Taxing on the Tax Bill. VII. OLD BUSINESS: B. CONSOLIDATED MSTU'S: The Committee expressed their displeasure that the County Board considered the County Wide MSTU after having been assured that they would have time to submit their views on it. Crystal Kinzel moved that the Committee opposes the County wide assessment as written. It was seconded by Wolfgang Schulz. Motion carried unanimously. Fiala _✓ Carter � Coy er Colette Coves a 16J1 ''� Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 December 17, 2001 The Meeting was called to order at 4:30 by Crystal Kinzel. H. ATTENDANCE: A. Members: Crystal Kinzel, Wilfred Jaeger, Dale Lewis, Susan Saum and Wolfgang Schulz. B. Collier County: Val Prince and Bob Petersen, DOT Landscape Operations. C. Other: Charles B. Buckley, Commercial Land Maintenance; Allen Jost, Manpower Secretarial Services. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Wolfgang Schulz asked that the minutes of November 19, 2001 be amended to include in Section VI that he had been appointed by the chair to go to the appropriate county office and secure a breakdown of the MSTU Taxing on the Tax Bill. Crystal Kinzel moved that the minutes be corrected to include that. Wolfgang Schulz seconded. Motion carried unanimously. IV. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: Val Prince handed out the Fund 150 Budget, dated this date, a copy of which is made a part of the minutes and attached herewith. The major change on the budget was approval of $80,000 from Reserves to pay debt service. V. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT: Charles Buckley reported on the activities performed by Commercial Land Maintenance during the last month. One of the biggest problems was a break in a one inch water line that occurred when the contractors were resurfacing. This repair will be pursued under warranty. VI. COMMITTEE MEMBERS REPORT: VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. COMMERCIAL INTERSECTION — Radio Road Joint Venture: Bob Petersen stated that he was still playing phone tag with the person responsible. He said that they do return the calls. Bill Jaeger stated that he would be able to pursue it and would make some calls this month. B. CONSOLIDATED MSTU'S: Wolfgang Schulz and Crystal Kinzel reported dismay that the committee did not have a chance to give its input prior to an Executive Summary being submitted to the County 16J1 Commissioners. A copy of the Executive Summary is made a part of the minutes and attached herewith. The committee had been assured by Staff that this would probably not be submitted until well into 2002 and then found that it appeared on Tuesdays' Agenda. Fortunately the BCC Chair tabled it because of the concerns of other MSTU's. Bob Petersen stated that neither he nor Val Prince had any prior knowledge of this going forward or they would have fulfilled their responsibility to the Radio Road Committee by notifying them of such. After much debate it was determined that the Executive Summary needs some revision. It was moved by Crystal Kinzel and seconded by Wolfgang Schulz that the Radio Road Committee opposes the County Wide Assessment and that a copy of these minutes go to each commissioner for their notice of their opposition. Motion carried unanimously. C. BREAKDOWN OF MSTU TAXING ON TAX BILL: Wolfgang Schulz reported that we were still being assessed a half mill which is the correct amount. He stated that it was very difficult to obtain this information since the Tax Collector said he only collected what he is told to collect and didn't have any details. After being shuffled from one office to another he finally was able to get the Budget Office to provide the info. D. ADDITIONAL PLANTING OF MEDIANS: Prints of the original plantings were handed out minus page 8 with additional modifications that occurred since the landscaping took place. It was noted that the medians were not yet numbered physically although they did show on the prints. Bob Petersen asked that the members indicate on the prints where they believe additional plantings should be made and bring them back to the next meeting so that a determination could be made as to what can be done and still stay within the sightline requirements. VIII. NEW BUSINESS: A. WEST PUMP: Bob Petersen reported that the West Pump died and resulted in a lot of dead plant material. Hoover Pump Company who installed and services the pumps was called and it is replaced. When the pump was removed it was noted that parts were missing from the bottom of it. Because of this he has placed a hold on any payments for repairs until it can be determined if this was their error in the original installation. B. SUNSHINE LAW CLASSES: The County Attorney is scheduling a presentation about Sunshine Law, Public Records and Ethics. This will be held at 9:30 AM, January 10, 2002 in the County Commissioners Board Room. This will be held for the benefit of all the County MSTU's rather than having them visit each committee separately where it would take up an hour and a half of meeting time. Bob also suggested to the County Attorney that a second session be held during off duty hours at a future date for the benefit of all of those members who work during the day. IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 2 16J1 X. ADJOURNMENT: Crystal Kinzel move that the meeting be adjourned at 5:19PM. Seconded by Wolfgang Schulz. The next meeting will be Monday, January 14, 2002 at 4:30 PM due to Martin Luther King Holiday on the 21ST 3 � N O O 0 pp 000 0 0 0 O W poop 0 o O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 N 00 00 oW0 N _ ° C �- OD E N N N p C O T V (n W Of N W O P:14 O W A A O (D "00 O A N? O fD 8 N O W O O N w O A V O A O O m-1 o O 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D o m o 0 0 o o N -i m O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O p o 0 0 0 0 0 1D O p o P o o p 0 c O coo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O i n U N 0 0 0 0 0 00 O 0 0 0 O 00000000000 O O O O O �zN Z n N O C C co W (Tf N z M O 01 J (P W V N W V J -0 O W O N p W O A N A O N O O O O N O (]1 A A O O m O O 000 w 000 O O O O co J O W 0�.� 00 O 000 000OOOOoo(DO pogo ° 0 ^' m 00 0 000 -4 000000 omw o p 00 O c o o -J 0000000, 000 0 0° v 0 m x o m O Ol J O W A N W O A A O O� C m O A N A O A A N J (O V O W N Z z O O c o o O O (D O O N A 0 0 0 O p O O O O O O N O N O m o N O O W O J O O O . O Vl m 00 O 0 0 0 N O W O N O W O O� O J o 0 0 J 0 N 00 O 0 o 0 N 00000=00 N 0 O O O O V O o D 74 SIC -i N z z C N W A O N N (� 0 D N w o o O co A N m r 09 O O O o p O V O P.O.--4.0.0 O W N O O O O O O° C 0 0 0 N 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 W M� 00000 00 O 0 0 0 N o o 0 0 o N 0 0 m o 0 00000 D I (Dm A A ro(D(D O (D N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O m0 6J1 (D tD (D Z N D 0 0 A A 0 0 0 N °OD N N N N N(� N ( N(77�� N N N(� N(� N N N N ? A A A A p A A A A Z Q 1 N 0 0 0 00 N W m Ln - - 0 N m A L A A .NP O O O N fT N O - N O O O O m T7 A (D (D O (D (D O O J� (D (D (D W W O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 004 A A P. W W W w� O O� (D A (D N O N N N O O J O O N N (D O O O W W A A A A j A (D W W W A A - W w W� j m c o o 0 o o 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 w O w 0 0 (D V C2 N O O O O + m 0 A O (D O O W W :mX 20 maw -i O'nO�rcnZ�mc)C)OZmDmrn ZcnEn m W 00D 2,Zm72 > �pZOZZ mmm ;� rC-z.Z�l��'m> m- 1mc�p —cmMO o� m�G)3G)G) D i x m m G)G)Z m m T P a x a x m A m z Z m m 4 m m -4 < ��m Oom� OmZ� CAS° n�mmmm m�T O� X�� min Z�mm''cnZC)��zz >m� G7�Om �m a°AM A;' 1 civZiD O DOmmOG) 0 n00 p oo D mm(Zn m �mD mm� u -m��00 1-1Z mC: mg Z xxo (nmm � Om 3 c- =i -0 m IMO W -i o m D 1 co Dmm D� rcZZ�A x 'D 1�Z of ' o m -1v-0 z �mC cn (n cn U D -4 m ynm C ° A (n D X00 �7 'n raw. MU)Opmm , z mmc) 3 3 m o m C 0 rn O>0 N c --i m() < m Gmmmmrn v omm �x� zD r0 m=1 c �� mm AAai X 3 -ate 3 K m cnz m <n o m M m z� N < m t D mO Z cp c O) N O W 0 v N O G V CA W 001 N W ON/ O J - O W A A O O O p a n N Q n O A 00 O O O o O N A O c o o o 00 w o O O O (D O O N O cm A -480) O .0 0 0 0 o O o D o m o o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(OO O O P O o m-4 0 ^ 0 o o coo C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 O (p O ° O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 O A `� y N O D a p o m c o z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Z o O O O 0 0 o O 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 "'( Q` � N O O 0 pp 000 0 0 0 O W poop 0 o O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 N 00 00 oW0 N _ ° C �- OD E N N N p C O T V (n W Of N W O P:14 O W A A O (D "00 O A N? O fD 8 N O W O O N w O A V O A O O m-1 o O 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D o m o 0 0 o o N -i m O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O p o 0 0 0 0 0 1D O p o P o o p 0 c O coo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O i n U N 0 0 0 0 0 00 O 0 0 0 O 00000000000 O O O O O �zN Z n N O C C co W (Tf N z M O 01 J (P W V N W V J -0 O W O N p W O A N A O N O O O O N O (]1 A A O O m O O 000 w 000 O O O O co J O W 0�.� 00 O 000 000OOOOoo(DO pogo ° 0 ^' m 00 0 000 -4 000000 omw o p 00 O c o o -J 0000000, 000 0 0° v 0 m x o m O Ol J O W A N W O A A O O� C m O A N A O A A N J (O V O W N Z z O O c o o O O (D O O N A 0 0 0 O p O O O O O O N O N O m o N O O W O J O O O . O Vl m 00 O 0 0 0 N O W O N O W O O� O J o 0 0 J 0 N 00 O 0 o 0 N 00000=00 N 0 O O O O V O o D 74 SIC -i N z z C N W A O N N (� 0 D N w o o O co A N m r 09 O O O o p O V O P.O.--4.0.0 O W N O O O O O O° C 0 0 0 N 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 W M� 00000 00 O 0 0 0 N o o 0 0 o N 0 0 m o 0 00000 D Z N D °OD O o o O pffn W N W O O O N O O O O W O N m m m m r- 0 0 N 4 W N N It. J�- w w w w 03 00 (3) 1 0 0 W (o co -�_�� (O N W -y N m0 �"rnrnrnrn (O (O N N N N Z 0 O O (P U1 UAi it Y+ Yr � Y+ T J , ,1 �l O O Ul (71 (T7 cn /Tr It. J�- w w w w 03 00 (3) 1 0 0 W (o co -�_�� (O N W -y N 0` 0 m O O N �I O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 mDzZMmc D��MZM � <MMOM �+-�-im� m00- cn� ZD a m —yy1 cn —I 0 :XDD< m O T ;o < rr— < Cl) O r— ;o Z m �GIm ;m m M � m0 o ;o �� �Cl) rn U) m z c m jN om CO) ao c 1 (3) o ° °o o 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K° < °o < w -� o OOO w� CDn 0°°O� °° 0 O A 16J1 C) o � 0 ro y o � N � co co N A O � O N 16J1 EXECUTIVE SUIN-IMARY AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE URBAN AREA BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; PROVIDING THE AUTHORITY; PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF THE UNIT EXCLUDING THE INCORPORATED AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY AND EXISTING ROADWAY BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNITS; PROVIDING A PURPOSE AND GOVERNING BODY; PROVIDING FUNDING AND THE LEVY OF NOT TO EXCEED ONE -HALF (.5) MIL OF AD VALOREM TAXES PER YEAR; PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF TAXES; PROVIDING FOR DUTIES OF THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. OBJECTIVE: To enact an ordinance to fund the maintenance and landscaping of public roadways in the urban area of Collier County. CONSIDERATIONS: The County Manager directed staff to establish a Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) within the urban service area of Collier County for the purpose of landscape maintenance and improvements within the County urban service area. After evaluating the scope of the Countywide MSTU, it was determined that the County roadway corridors would best be handled by creating one landscaping MSTU. The governing body of the MSTU shall be the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. The MSTU would provide curbing, watering facilities, plantings and maintenance of the median strips and edges of roadways within the MSTU, and provide beautification and maintenance of other public areas within the MSTU. The incorporated municipalities of Collier County and existing roadway beautification MSTU's are excluded from the boundaries of the MSTU. FISCAL IlVIPACT: Annual costs for landscaping maintenance average almost S50,000 per centerline mile of roadway. Each roadway segment cost is unique due to the varying width of the medians and roadway edges, and due to the differences in plantings along each segment. The total value of the MSTU as of December 3, 2001, per the Property Appraiser's Office, is about 517,533,615,894. A tax levy of 0.5 mils will raise about $8,766,800. This millage cap should be sufficient to fund maintenance for a number of years into the future. The estimated maintenance cost for FY 2003 is 52,546,000. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None AGENDA ITrM No._g /_ �E t. t; ii . Collier County Beautification MSTU Page 2 of 2 16J1 RECOMMENDATION: That the Board, who has determined it appropriate to create a Beautification MSTU for Collier County urban service area based on perceived need in Collier County, review the attached Ordinance as outlined above and approve enactment for creation of the Collier County Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit. SUBMITTED BY: DATE;/-2'"��'�� amela J. I,ulich dscape Operations Manager REVIEWED BY: _ /. - /.,. DATE: Edv d J ant, PK Transportation Operations Director APPROVED BY: ^1�//''/� DATE: Norman E. Feder, AICP, Transportation Administrator AGENDA!TEM DEC 1 1 2001 ORDINANCE NO. 2001- This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.01 and Chapter 200, 16J 1 AN .ORDINANCE CREATING THE URBAN AREA BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; PROVIDING THE AUTHORITY; PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF THE UNIT EXCLUDING THE INCORPORATED AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY AND EXISTING ROADWAY BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNITS; PROVIDING A PURPOSE AND GOVERNING BODY; PROVIDING FUNDING AND THE LEVY OF NOT TO EXCEED ONE -HALF (S) MIL OF AD VALOREM TAXES PER YEAR; PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF TAXES; PROVIDING FOR DUTIES OF THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR AN CL' L i G,JU i EFFECTIVE DATE. o, WHEREAS, the County has a lack of funding for the maintenance and landscaping of public roadways in the unincorporated urban area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that the best method for funding the maintenance and landscaping of public roadways in the urban area of Collier County is by the creation of the Urban Area Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE. Authority This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.01 and Chapter 200, Florida Statutes, and other applicable provisions of law. SECTION TWO. Creation of the Municipal Service Taxing Unit There is hereby created and established the Urban Area Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit, hereinafter referred to as "MSTU". The boundaries of the MSTU are as described on the attached Exhibit "A" that is incorporated herein by reference. The incorporated areas of Collier County and existing roadway beautification municipal service taxing units are excluded from the boundaries of the MSTU. Existing roadway beautification municipal taxing service units include Radio Road Beautification Municipal Servicing Taxing Unit created by Ordinance No. 96 -84, the Bayshore Avalon Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit created by Ordinance No. 97 -82, as amended, the Golden Gate Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit created by Ordinance No. 83 -55, as amended, Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit created by Ordinance No. 2001 -43, and Livingston Road -Phase II Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit created by Ordinance No. 2001- CL' L i G,JU i Page 1 of 3 o, SECTION THREE. Purpose and Governing Body The MSTU is created for the purpose of: (1) Providing curbing, watering facilities, plantings and maintenance of the median strips and edges of roadways within the MSTU; and (2) Beautification and maintenance of other public areas within the MSTU. The governing body of the MSTU shall be the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. SECTION FOUR. Funding and Levy of Taxes For the purpose of implementing this Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners shall annually, at the time required by general budgetary law, make an itemized estimate of the amount of money required to carry out the business of the MSTU for the next fiscal year, which shall be from October 1 to and including September 30 following. The estimate shall describe the purpose for which the moneys are required and the amount necessary to be raised by taxation within the MSTU. At the time and place for fixing the annual rate of taxation for County purposes, the Board of County Commissioners shall fix and cause to be levied on all properties within the MSTU, subject to taxation, a millage rate not to exceed one -half (.5) mil per year. SECTION FIVE. Tax Assessment and Collection Taxes herein provided for shall be assessed and collected in the same manner and form as provided for the assessment and collection of general County taxes and subject to the same fees for assessing and collecting as general County taxes. SECTION SIX. Duties of the County Manager or his Designee The duties of the County Manager or his designee shall be: A. To administer the activities of the MSTU in accordance with established policies of the Board of County Commissioners. B. To prepare the annual budget in accordance with standard County guidelines regarding the preparation of budgets. C. To provide periodic written reports to the Board of County Commissioners of the activities of the MSTU and its finances in accordance with established guidelines of the Board of County Commissioners. SECTION SEVEN. Conflict and Severability In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any court of competent jurisdiction holds any phrase or portion of this Ordinance invalid or unconstitutional, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. Page 2 of 3 16J1 LP _9 SECTION EIGHT. Inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws 16J 1 and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or re- lettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. SECTION NINE. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of 2001. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Approved as to form and legal sufficiency t� Heidi F. Ashton r Assistant County Attorney h:HFA \Or(WrbanAr MSTU Page 3 of 3 By: JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., Chairman Pg.�� TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 3301 EAST TAIv1IAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 (941) 774 -8192 SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION NOT A SURVEY COUNTY WIDE LANDSCAPE MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT COMMENCE AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF THE GULF OF MEXICO AND THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 6 TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF BONITA BEACH ROAD; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF BONITA BEACH TO THE CENTERLINE OF E NDERBILT BEACH ROAD; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE NORTH LINE OF COLLIER COUNTY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF COLLIER COUNTY TO THE THE EAST LINE INEOOF SECTIONS 91AND SECTION 116 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION H21, THENCE G EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 21 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 22, TORE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 23 TO THE NO TH EST CORNER OF SECTION 24, TOW NSHEP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 24 AND THE WEST LINES OF TOWNSHIP 249 SOUTH, TOWNSHIP 216 EAST THENCE SOUTHERLY ALOONG THEW ST LINE OF SECTION I AND OD 1 THE NORTHWEST CORNER THE WEST LINES OF SECTION 1,12,13,2 TO AND SECTION 36 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 5 ND 36TOWNSHIP I 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST TOTHE LNNORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 1,12 TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST TO A POINT LYING 1 MILE NORTHEASTERLY, AS MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO, EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, (U.S. 41); THENCE SCUTHEASTERLY ALONG A LINE LYING 1 MILE NORTHEASTERLY, AS MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO, THE SAID FAST TAMIAMI TRAIL TO THE WEST TH, RANG 27 EAST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE SECTIONS SECTION 7, TO 0 NSHIP 51 SOU IP 51 SO 51 GE 27 EAST TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OFLINE SECTIONS 36,305 AND 34 TOWNSHIP P RANGE SOUTH RANGE 26NEAST, TO THE CENTTERLINE OFF THE MARCO D SOUTHWESTERLY O H WATER RiNE IVER: THE E NORTHWEST ;RLY. CE MEANDER ALONG SAID MEAN HIGH WATER LINE NORTHWESTERLY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND BAYSHORE DRIVETGOLD OFGATE NAPLES RADIO ROAD, ANDEIRBILT BNEACH AND LIVINGS TON ROAD PHASE 11. U.'S) GENERAL NOTES P.O.C. = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT 2) P.O.B. = POINT OF BEGINNING 3) SEC. = SECTION 4) TWP. = TOWNSHIP 5) RGE. = RANGE 6) R/W = RIGHT OF WAY 7) ALL DISTANCES ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF 8) NOT VALID UNLESS SIGNED AND SEALED WITH THE EMBOSSED SEAL OF A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR BY NOT TO SCALE PREPARED BY: RICHMOND P.L.S. 2406 ORGE R. UUUCOLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS 3301 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 FILE NO. SHEET 1 OF 1 16J1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 (941) 774 -8192 SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION NOT A SURVEY cot MUNIc. 6 26 E R 26 E 16J1 16J1�'. n�o C/38 (fin o� A oy m0 <o sF o0 o� I I 1'I Tc3 I ^ A vO n 88 T. 7 10 O0 me Ec m i m o ~ rc� T D m O D�7 U�JO r y p V ^ or "' I fill m D O Y . w . O I O z g 0 A .r n > O � r Z N o n O Z rn now —,qqq (C.R. AIRPD ) 1 3 D (C.R. 31) O 0 �7 A T V � Y �$ °-c° 20 • SANTA BARBARA � o y � g Z CD 0 z m m co ®D =O tl d V A N I� 4 N + O tl d V P U ♦ U N 2 �go 'o 2z N W s g rn O ? Z x O 10 M p "� 09 H 9 O —I g _ m M O z D A F Cl) W e g y R OD IE s I m pz , O Z i F X k 3 16J1 0 �m `5 2 5 � -o � 0 0 =A m i , 21;g I Ip I ;T 80 nrn m r �� m� pa ICD sr D= m LUC c Ell E CO D m mo c o 'p ao a7 m 10 Q z /m� CO p 0 g _. p Z� n D�J m u'i p Z Z ►� g C7 _ C i A._ Y - . 0 � R(CT�. - RR P. � U3L1L ) IN ,. � > n � 0 Z r s IN lY D a) � T{ '�•• a r — 0 w U MD CO o Z m c� 1®lp>lpl O m r q N ♦ W N r O b q V P eA ♦ w N .. gigT �go m c — �w�Z 0 y N CA tg m o0 m IQ p CD z X m x Ta k rn 3: O c D A �� C) (J) �CD a to CD z F S P 5 �R F , I W e MAT k Pr. 221 + IN 'I A i rn r � x I i uI i I 1 I W I � I a a g s S f� N 0� a �V v V r VI I I n I i I p i I i BTA PT. W I I i � I i i I I or 6J. 1 r I j y f I I ' �Iry II I II I I I.I I I i � I I I iI w ij it Ij I � I ' I I W IN 'I A i rn r II uI N o g o o MN00 ROM z a W LANDSCAPE PLAN * T Ni{iis . faf A11�2 •9��0 • 6�d�16n • Tiryr o s ! PREPARED FOR COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Rm'o 041404m: AN 014%WM 1 ®I g i fl, y \P pXW O ! AIATcn ISU r D I I i I 0. P1'. 2W x � v t 0 Lnl o m °+ EE o oDi x i 0 W Im Ib IS INISI Im NISI 16J1" " IMaD00 NMIM LANDSCAPE PLAN MA a Wilsomiller un*m ps Cal NA" W11eavMiUer, Inc. Mo. • rwAda• • Srn* • akw" • T." 3287 µ_ 1. o &.b W wp.c nWdo 3r 0M=7 ° ✓! z m _ i i BLVD. A .152+90 � women vq MATCMtL9E ; I .104 t . \ q �I vii I �I s - - - -- s ° I I I - I� I P z va g /I 4 I -4 Z N Iiilt I ' O I >� I' <E I' 1• I I it • t . � III, t I I_ I I 6H 8 i +{II I I' 4. " €p1il;ii'11 i I N�N4N: � Vs $ ci ir, F ��� � I; ���� II If!IIIIiII I •'��� �. I?X� I p�:A �y � �I II I� i, �`iII I •. I � >� � I I� _ C '. II � � ' I X = £ $} II MI! i It r. Z w o 0 G I II 1 II To �i- o> o+ Ic w= m 'I 1 I IIml, 11 y Ig > azo m 1. I � �• � II i I= � I fl "' a II I I III Tf oI O, li' I II z P i I M. I I III i i ro ;I I I I II N! 1 lit r4I t i MAT T A. PT. 1S4 MATCF1l.t' :0T � .162 + 90 I f • I- i.. -N..N----�•, --- -- -..r. ....I. ...... ..Le ..... .......... t � iI I I I I 1^ x MATCFLN� a Pr. sae + 89 n I . '; n �3: N :�i1N I No o ...... A o z O q f' I wils6nmiller N m4Ta Erm Pi. 2o4 + w O eo D y =p N � a Pls • Eng ines . Ecolaafs a m o O E Landwsp eArchkeds • TansportsUo Consuli al s WdsonMiller, Inc. Napka , Fod Myms • S—fa . Bradenton . Tamps N m m PREPARED FORS COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 31OOBe&5 +°5 ���°' � ao" 943- ° �1 a E i Napk.QWifs.W#.,— . WebSife — .ifsonnnyleroom 3 p $ I I W � X I _. � � z m Am bu� 6 1 �1 YMT n I . n �3: N :�i1N I No o ...... A o z O q f' I wils6nmiller m4Ta Erm Pi. 2o4 + w 6 1 �1 YMT s Z N n I . O ,� n a a W A lag O q f' I wils6nmiller gm O eo D y =p N � a Pls • Eng ines . Ecolaafs a o s Z N n V O ,� n a a N wils6nmiller O Pls • Eng ines . Ecolaafs a o E Landwsp eArchkeds • TansportsUo Consuli al s WdsonMiller, Inc. Napka , Fod Myms • S—fa . Bradenton . Tamps N m PREPARED FORS COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 31OOBe&5 +°5 ���°' � ao" 943- ° �1 a E i Napk.QWifs.W#.,— . WebSife — .ifsonnnyleroom $ Ali N "• mNom "= s � � o SbN g m a m. N O f'D 0 m U _ 1 a � o m � w mom., •7� w -(7 1 i m l 3 m v E, 10 u I i F i 3 0 a -o v � D rM N 0 O O v I O m rn s I m O � O) O W O (A rn I � O C-) I OZ N m I rn a 1 P Pill yt � 9Q g� 7 I r O rm'^ vi i� �5 A V � D � DZQ D •� "o L O A n z � Rzl D D� O z f6T1 o� or n m� �o �z D rr-- 1 -4 N 0 t ' 5> rn0 -oc CO 8a 0m E � m � nA omp � o r Op KX >C �C K� AI_ C Qa rn m z0 m 00 z mA A -gyp !� o o 0 -n Q �' A o z z N ? b O V q V � 4 N � O b q V q (/ ♦ G [EQN m 1 • • ca Rio r r m m n O c ca 0 OWN 0 -n �v D O p� C n 0 0 Z m CD m n m I z O m n m 0 z z 0 X O V, m m rb � r1 • . r V� � Z �n O 3y�yj_�555���ttt�atata�'��� AY H AIRPORT- PULLING ROAD (C.R. 31) �n •m�o 'Z+ r im• m "' a ....__ ......... _ _........._.... E......._ ................ m _............... .......... z r v a +io a SANTA BARBARA I a � b O V q V � 4 N � O b q V q (/ ♦ G [EQN m 1 • • ca Rio r r m m n O c ca 0 OWN 0 -n �v D O p� C n 0 0 Z m CD m n m I z O m n m 0 z z 0 X O V, m m rb � r1 • . r ,';§7 ta'ob IA MIND IMMIM MASTER LANDSCAPE KEY SHEET o i. C 1 Flo. m 7 <� -, A to 0" o- o ,, PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT $61 W Plsn Engine - EcaWlsfs • Surveyors Landscape Architects - TmnspaitRfion ConsLiliants Wdsonmiller, Inc. NpW FW#,— , S --- W - &.Wd�,t - Tempe 3200 RW.y Lwtc Suft. 200 - Ns#W4 FkWs 341054507 Ph— 9416084040 • F. 941-M-5716 E-mg Ng*ti@Wd.WN— Wab-Sb ex .OsmWW- iq A � �i i6 - -DRIVE ,';§7 ta'ob IA MIND IMMIM MASTER LANDSCAPE KEY SHEET o i. C 1 Flo. m 7 <� -, A to 0" o- o ,, PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT $61 W Plsn Engine - EcaWlsfs • Surveyors Landscape Architects - TmnspaitRfion ConsLiliants Wdsonmiller, Inc. NpW FW#,— , S --- W - &.Wd�,t - Tempe 3200 RW.y Lwtc Suft. 200 - Ns#W4 FkWs 341054507 Ph— 9416084040 • F. 941-M-5716 E-mg Ng*ti@Wd.WN— Wab-Sb ex .OsmWW- nyN ° r m 0 o° AAATq v 0 n g� K T pr E D A f 87 PT. 112 + m o � � O A o a t 0 1 p N O O N O OBI NO � O 1 O t N D r D m MtM LM ST 106 +SS X YR0 IMIM LANDSCAPE PLAN PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT i wilsonmiller Rs—, Engi-- . Ewlo M • Surveyors LandsakoeA2hkects • Transpona0an Cmubnts WilsonMiller, Inc. Napes •- Fat My" Smeob • Bradenkn -Tampa 3100 Bohy tarts, &A. 210 , Nepbs, Flnida 311058507 A— 8114184040 • Far 811413.5718 E—d Napl.QWilsarMAlercan We6Sib •ww.x8earmdlaaun n_ ','..;. D r r z m A c 3 m m O A MtM LM ST 106 +SS X YR0 IMIM LANDSCAPE PLAN PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT i wilsonmiller Rs—, Engi-- . Ewlo M • Surveyors LandsakoeA2hkects • Transpona0an Cmubnts WilsonMiller, Inc. Napes •- Fat My" Smeob • Bradenkn -Tampa 3100 Bohy tarts, &A. 210 , Nepbs, Flnida 311058507 A— 8114184040 • Far 811413.5718 E—d Napl.QWilsarMAlercan We6Sib •ww.x8earmdlaaun T. 123 +8¢ rn rrl rn Is ril rn idmi?I*Fj m. m .. ... ... .... ... F-- :2 MR0 ROM u 0 LANDSCAPE PLAN o PREPARED FOR: COWER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Wilsonmiller Planneis - Engumn • Ecok&ts - Surveyors Landscape Ard*eds • TransportRdan Considlants WdsonMiller, Inc T,.p. 3MB.hyLaft SA200 , K@pW,Fbd634105450 Phos 941-NO4040 • Fat 941,643 -57 16 Hneil XWea@W6.Magr= W"t. MATCHLM C�' cooc . Cb O m ID OP r O O n r. 123 + DONNA ST. ( I .. D. MoRm ROM a WiIsoatMiller g -P' a LANDSCAPE PLAN PW— • Eng4— - EcoWisls - S�yors Lmdsc4m ATMects - TmupwWw ConcLftals WilsonMiller, Inc. FtMy— SMIb - Md&*� - Aq. 0 w 0 PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 3MB.OyL", SdW200 , Napi", FWW341068507 Ph— 941-&94010 - Fa 9418135718 E-9 Npk4WdWnM#W.— - Web-&. —.1sxmb- MATcHLm a*A PI: i N z r m D 3 r r O N - MATCH) 8T PT. u n ° n 0 LANDSCAPE PLAN 0 o a a g Ao m PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT O S O m m e N � S J• Oe J• 16J 1 D� �O DA AD m� m Wiloomillor Poa— + EnBbeera • E-Whas - Surveyors Landscape Archkeds - iransp rtudon Con&ftnts WilsonMiller, Inc. Naples .: FMMy- •Saresda • Bmbnbe •Tampa 3200BelbyLs -K Sulb200 NapAm,Fbdda 311058507 Ph.. 911_081000• Far 8118135718 E-m.# Nspfw@WdscnMi9erc- WebSke xrw.WbarnBeuom 'I M 0 N oQ 0 no =0 C t., A, PT. =.+38 MIND IMMIM LANDSCAPE PLAN �I x E m LE (1) C-: nl Zl ul. ... ... . .... MAM-LMiOT. A52+! 0 3 'I M 0 N oQ 0 no =0 C t., A, PT. =.+38 MIND IMMIM LANDSCAPE PLAN �I x E m LE (1) C-: nl Zl ul. ... ... . .... MAM-LMiOT. A52+! II 11 II fl / : I Wil."Hmiller R—m - Eng— • EODWi& . Surwym Landscap&ArcWWb - TranspodahbnCa suftants WilsonMillar,inc. 0 II 11 II fl / : I Wil."Hmiller R—m - Eng— • EODWi& . Surwym Landscap&ArcWWb - TranspodahbnCa suftants WilsonMillar,inc. MATCKO A Pr. 184 +.58 V1 �1 2 N O C g 9 O n 0 n � n O 5 } 0 g g � V O O� O N N � O O 0o ♦ N m eo ! rrr. T 0 x m M000 OOQD LANDSCAPE PLAN PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 0 a E IC C Wilsollmiller Pis—rs Engineers • Ecdogisla . Su ym LandacapeArchdocts • Tlanspo*dm Consdlanls WilsonMifler, Inc. NapW •: Forl My- ; Sarsada • Brsdeebn • Tampe 3100 6a9ey Lane, &A* 200 • Napes. Fbdde 341058507 Phone 041-6494040 • Fax 901-&35716 E l NepWQW2awW7br.com W bW x»w.aileom6— 0> 'z 16J 1 [Ulmon HMO r rn WilsonMiller ro 0 rn LANDSCAPE PLAN Plan • Engkwm - EoDlogists - Suvoyam 0 g m o o ox la Lands we AThbcw . TranspwWm Cm&Aents WdsonMiller, Inc. N.Pl. - Fd My- S—W • ftd-f. • Tampa o 0. 0 00 . ....... ....... 0 W. 0 cis PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 3M BWy L.1% &W X0 - NOW, FWW� 34 10"507 P�— 941-&"040 Fa 90-M-5716 W, T r Email N9pW#WbnMft,— WebSb rp. rp 3 to CAPE': v,ABAL .. ........ . .. DONE ...... 7- fz.w+ 'z 16J 1 [Ulmon HMO rn WilsonMiller 0 rn LANDSCAPE PLAN Plan • Engkwm - EoDlogists - Suvoyam 0 g m o o ox r- ril li Lands we AThbcw . TranspwWm Cm&Aents WdsonMiller, Inc. 7- fz.w+ 'z 16J 1 [Ulmon HMO WilsonMiller 0 LANDSCAPE PLAN Plan • Engkwm - EoDlogists - Suvoyam 0 g m ox r- ril li Lands we AThbcw . TranspwWm Cm&Aents WdsonMiller, Inc. N.Pl. - Fd My- S—W • ftd-f. • Tampa o 0. 0 00 0 W. 0 cis PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 3M BWy L.1% &W X0 - NOW, FWW� 34 10"507 P�— 941-&"040 Fa 90-M-5716 W, T r Email N9pW#WbnMft,— WebSb . .. ..... ...... 2-7 7- fz.w+ 'z [Ulmon HMO WilsonMiller 0 LANDSCAPE PLAN Plan • Engkwm - EoDlogists - Suvoyam 0 g ox Lands we AThbcw . TranspwWm Cm&Aents WdsonMiller, Inc. N.Pl. - Fd My- S—W • ftd-f. • Tampa o 0. 0 00 0 W. 0 PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 3M BWy L.1% &W X0 - NOW, FWW� 34 10"507 P�— 941-&"040 Fa 90-M-5716 W, T Email N9pW#WbnMft,— WebSb fCFi._ A Pr. * +-2 4. n� mz z A a . I� I; z I I • J _ . ly i 3 )> C 3 " 0 0 m D a;l �z.: 1 m v D �y I p� s y D Y MAjT A Pf. 2N + W .......... ..... _. ...,.. D , 1JjS W 2 n,. X& s �' _ p pY� 3 Lo Yi�.yl III '� :ROAD Pr.W +02 _ ^— J i w c. "0 7^ 0 E� A�o O P Em I $n 16J1 On n MHO IMOM n a a a n 0 g g LANDSCAPE PLAN 0 0 ' 8 O " " PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT N N J 001 N � O m Vm A W Plalners Engkmm • Ecologists • Surveyors Landscape ArMheas • Transporta6on Consullanls WdsonMiller, Inc. NOW FaaMy— Sarnate . B2denam •Tampa 3200 Balay Lane, Su6e 200 , Naplae, Fhdds 34105-8507 Pram 841-04&4040 Far 841-043.5716 ElW *pb,@WdaaMelra. .awn + ftb-&b wxw.aW°vMNaawn I' a, � I� I; z I I m _ . ly i :ROAD Pr.W +02 _ ^— J i w c. "0 7^ 0 E� A�o O P Em I $n 16J1 On n MHO IMOM n a a a n 0 g g LANDSCAPE PLAN 0 0 ' 8 O " " PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT N N J 001 N � O m Vm A W Plalners Engkmm • Ecologists • Surveyors Landscape ArMheas • Transporta6on Consullanls WdsonMiller, Inc. NOW FaaMy— Sarnate . B2denam •Tampa 3200 Balay Lane, Su6e 200 , Naplae, Fhdds 34105-8507 Pram 841-04&4040 Far 841-043.5716 ElW *pb,@WdaaMelra. .awn + ftb-&b wxw.aW°vMNaawn I' a, � I� I; z m _ . 3 )> C 3 " 0 D a;l �z.: 1 m D 0 o s MAjT A Pf. 2N + W :ROAD Pr.W +02 _ ^— J i w c. "0 7^ 0 E� A�o O P Em I $n 16J1 On n MHO IMOM n a a a n 0 g g LANDSCAPE PLAN 0 0 ' 8 O " " PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT N N J 001 N � O m Vm A W Plalners Engkmm • Ecologists • Surveyors Landscape ArMheas • Transporta6on Consullanls WdsonMiller, Inc. NOW FaaMy— Sarnate . B2denam •Tampa 3200 Balay Lane, Su6e 200 , Naplae, Fhdds 34105-8507 Pram 841-04&4040 Far 841-043.5716 ElW *pb,@WdaaMelra. .awn + ftb-&b wxw.aW°vMNaawn I uj m Ll m I> T 4L 0 LANDSCAPE PLAN j I PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 0 r, - mD 6J1 WilsonMiller Planner: Engin— - Ecolvsis - Swmyom landscape AdmW-fs - Tmmpo&Uon ConsLdaajs WilsonMiller, Inc. W- S—t. • amd.-dw � T.W. 3200atMeyLm, Sucre 100 • &0". Fbdd,341054W7 Pbw 9044"040 • F. 0414434716 E-0 N*WfiW,6mMA— Web-S* —6..Ak- STA. PT. 216 Ln 1 N V ROOM] IN OWD c wilsojiMiller ° c LANDSCAPE PLAN Planners • Engineers • EmOosfs • Surveyors Landscape MdJfecls . Trensportaem ConsulfanGs c � WdsonMiller, Inc. o m N O N PREPARED FOR COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT =8lh7Lne,SA" Negri, Fbd& 941054507 941- FW s o ; m ; y 041-643-5716 E ,, wade , s x»ww ecam am F U$ 9 2 F ul A. Pr. 238 9 _ 0 0 0 uj yiJ MATO-C ul ROAD RM0 LANDSCAPE PLAN PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Wils"nMiller Pb— - Engkv- • E-kpsts • S-mym LaWscapokch6cts • Tmnsp"UmCmsultants WilsonMiller, Inc. Napbe FM MY- = S—f. • &.WM. - Tv� 3200fthyUm, Sub Xo + f6pWFbddm34)0&W7 Ph" 0414404010• F. 941-&3-5716 &.a ApWawd..Ww— W"I. —.b..74w- NOW 0 0 0 HIMPIM Im Im & [m LANDSCAPE PLAN PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Wiloamiller Planners - Engineers • Ecakgnts - Surveyors Landscape ArdAmft • Tmnspattadon CawaWls WdsonMiller, Inc NAPA. • F.1 My- , S-1. • &.Wft - T." B.&Y Lam, su& " , K*W, FbW 34105"7 Poem 9414 464040. F. 941-&3-5716 E� W NspW*M—MW r— - ftb-Sd. —d-4— .-W nx O m 0 0 0 HIMPIM Im Im & [m LANDSCAPE PLAN PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Wiloamiller Planners - Engineers • Ecakgnts - Surveyors Landscape ArdAmft • Tmnspattadon CawaWls WdsonMiller, Inc NAPA. • F.1 My- , S-1. • &.Wft - T." B.&Y Lam, su& " , K*W, FbW 34105"7 Poem 9414 464040. F. 941-&3-5716 E� W NspW*M—MW r— - ftb-Sd. —d-4— II (p r J1 U3 r X M bl rn m C) M m O �:SANTA BARBARA BLVD. ... ... ... . E z z x )a m n n I>. z m rA. PT. 250 + 41 mE Z�� iz K RrZl% A. PT 256 + 2 1000 ImMo LANDSCAPE PLAN PREPARED FOR: COWER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT J1 U3 r X M bl rn C) M m M n ON E z z x )a m n n I>. z m rA. PT. 250 + 41 mE Z�� iz K RrZl% A. PT 256 + 2 1000 ImMo LANDSCAPE PLAN PREPARED FOR: COWER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Wilsomiller 9-- - Engkw- - ECOWsts : SuNeym Landsups Amhbcls . Tmspoagow Consultants WilsonMiller, Inc. Ngpl. -, F My- S.." • BW.0m • T—, 3200 BAft L—, S-6 200 - N-PA", Fb-kW 34105,M7 Ph— 941-64"040 • F. 9414434716 Emil A4.pl.@W-AW— Wob-ft J1 U3 r X M bl rn C) M m M n Wilsomiller 9-- - Engkw- - ECOWsts : SuNeym Landsups Amhbcls . Tmspoagow Consultants WilsonMiller, Inc. Ngpl. -, F My- S.." • BW.0m • T—, 3200 BAft L—, S-6 200 - N-PA", Fb-kW 34105,M7 Ph— 941-64"040 • F. 9414434716 Emil A4.pl.@W-AW— Wob-ft 8 F �m Ej m v r F a c v 0 O O D M D m m 3 m z n4 m m 0 m D r � W O v a A C W W Im v c� m v m D r A o I� g 4 e �i I 0 0 �011, q� �8 N r(��t D� _ 0, Z A m =i � r �m ti Lb g D L y D �_ m AAA b D m A 3 11m A AM jr na �` A Y 8 ;• j0",— _ x II — I -1 f• MN 0.HAR TgfK NHI6MT 161 &QD °0 HOQD Wilsoolmiller T p PLANTING DETAILS flamers Engineers Ec Ie 55rve ore °Wa LeMecepe MchNecfe Treneporlelion Corleldtenfa g R on Wils°nAAiUer, Inc. ✓'� J 0 N N o m TION DEPARTMENT 9ito 200rW*04 rd. 3/0560) 0-60 "F E m/ Np eNaMk. 9 wkarNercan n o x o 0 o rn u o 0 \ A \ o + m MIND MIME LANDSCAPE DETAILS AND PLANT LIST PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT W Planners Engineers . Ecabgists . Surveyors Landscape Arch#eds • iransporfagon ConsubnLs WdsonMiller, Inc. NVW .. faf Mym Sarsaola . Brodnbn • ramp. 3200 Belay L&A Suite 200 ., Napiso, quid. 31IOSB507 PMne 941-0&1010 • Far 811-013 -5716 F rew NspwQwdsonAlWaroom WebS11e —.4— ow- T� V n D r C D z m ❑ z m n O D m D Z n D m N Z m F 0 N 0 c T� V n D r O 8u ❑ n m C Z7 z m �s s D -s z z N P VJ N t .m f \ � s C7 �1 e• m � O /! 1 x x_ a m m c �ou! N ID zx � m N _ A � � m vm J z D S F, 31 D m x T Q O D N i � aT zA N 7' a �T o is N � 1 D la II 0 III > IW � T T m Z t 0p Z D o ',� Z�SDOD ,-4 zv°m A C1 3 m�-' IND fail ODA m -n mb oz0 mmoOm mZ(, „ zym0 Nci N C ZD�o m�D� mDZz om . , N (ry DSO” p0"{m o�m� ��D() 0mm ;a0 Om IK z N lu n D c: N z K z G iN N 'i�vX X N � �O m �k z -? DQ m z� s w -+ m X a S Z O D N m T S ri 3 ° a0 i m R � N .Zi P O r Ip —� Z i o i a Miller z $ n Plarurers Enginsors Ecobgisn Surveyors ' p m D L iD- s c C x n � X u s o I D z z G wraaa°oa Eav sa7.1d, WI- 649 -Z E,W" UaV.9amAliee1.mn • Web,%u w»w.wW -1w mm l m A s � np N D -� _ z c 6" m N 0 z T m Z t 0p Z D o ',� Z�SDOD ,-4 zv°m A C1 3 m�-' IND fail ODA m -n mb oz0 mmoOm mZ(, „ zym0 Nci N C ZD�o m�D� mDZz om . , N (ry DSO” p0"{m o�m� ��D() 0mm ;a0 Om IK z N lu n D c: N z K z G iN N 'i�vX X N � �O m �k z -? DQ m z� s w -+ m X a S Z O D N m T S ri 3 ° a0 i m R � N .Zi P O r Ip —� Z i o A S a Miller z $ LANDSCAF DETAILS Plarurers Enginsors Ecobgisn Surveyors ' p m D L g s c x n Kfi/sonMiller Inc. s o I I PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY �NSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Fmuyers . s�.,ala . enaara„ i °mpa PWL W 'x"a°— "°"`�""p"°"�d507 wraaa°oa Eav sa7.1d, WI- 649 -Z E,W" UaV.9amAliee1.mn • Web,%u w»w.wW -1w mm � D Z. c -4o np N 6 N T m Z t 0p Z D o ',� Z�SDOD ,-4 zv°m A C1 3 m�-' IND fail ODA m -n mb oz0 mmoOm mZ(, „ zym0 Nci N C ZD�o m�D� mDZz om . , N (ry DSO” p0"{m o�m� ��D() 0mm ;a0 Om IK z N lu n D c: N z K z G iN N 'i�vX X N � �O m �k z -? DQ m z� s w -+ m X a S Z O D N m T S ri 3 ° a0 i m R � N .Zi P O r Ip —� Z i o � a Miller � LANDSCAF DETAILS Plarurers Enginsors Ecobgisn Surveyors ' g s c j x 0 o o m W N T 1 D0a1A 0 O <o go m , 9=mO�"U ©m ,. mZ -ipm:D-z Oi5.D.-ni pm -% --R O xx5oo_yoom A. c O.q .. (7�mm XXODV ZQOX O =m D Z Z� z -Aivm 3 oD z o ? —I. T. z D. m m D ovo om =o zcoc a =;u -n Z O morn 2 5m c�p O mp m m co 'D y (n ow- co r 'N - 1 m i m r -P D Or —I 16J1 i Miller LANDSCAF DETAILS Plarurers Enginsors Ecobgisn Surveyors ' Landscape MJWlaar . T�p°(a on CmsWwn j Kfi/sonMiller Inc. s o I I PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY �NSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Fmuyers . s�.,ala . enaara„ i °mpa PWL W 'x"a°— "°"`�""p"°"�d507 wraaa°oa Eav sa7.1d, WI- 649 -Z E,W" UaV.9amAliee1.mn • Web,%u w»w.wW -1w mm m mI -le oml VI rrl Ln 'I IIS �11 SAN MARCOS rr rr rmej o, _I= NkbLJGTRIAL ESLVD INE : 1 Fiala _ Carter Henning 16JI Coyle _ Qeletta COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD Wednesday, December 12, 2001 Headquarters Library AGENDA Call to order Approval of Minutes Literacy Program Report Reports of Officers Communications a: Written b: Personal Unfinished Business: 1. Regional Library Construction update 2. Employee of the Month 3. Marco Historical Society /Reading Park 4. Budget Concerns New Business General Considerations Director's Report Report of the Friends Adjournment Mise Corres: i Date:��� item# CQ Copies To: Naples, Florida, October 24, 2001 16J1 LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular session at 2:00 p.m. in the Main Library with the following members present: VICE - CHAIR: Doris Lewis Jaculyn Dering Diane Williams ABSENT: Syd Mellinger Sabina Musci ALSO PRESENT: John W. Jones, Library Director Marilyn Matthes, Assistant Director Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator Luz Pietri, Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Lewis, Vice - Chair, asked for comments or corrections to the minutes of October 3, 2001. There being none, Mrs. Dering moved, seconded by Mrs. Lewis and carried unanimously, that the minutes be approved as submitted. The Board reviewed the nominations submitted for selection of the Library's Employee of the Month. Mrs. Dering moved, seconded by Mrs. Williams and carried unanimously, to select Linda Fasulo as Employee of the Month for November 2001. LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT Mrs. Reiss updated the Board on all program activities. A computer lab has been set up at the Marco Island Branch for this program. Membership continues to grow in both volunteers and in patrons needing the service. REPORTS OF OFFICERS — None COMMUNICATIONS — None UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Jones reported that everything is on schedule. One change to the original plan involves the main entrance to the Library, which will be shared with the County's future offices that will be built to the west of the Library. He also stated that the Library had received a gift of $100,000 from Mr. & Mrs. H. Sugden for the theater at the new Library, which will be named after them. Mr. Jones also reported that the firm of Barany, Schmitt, Summers & Weaver has been selected to do the Immokalee Library Renovation. 16J1 Marilyn Matthes submitted two proposed changes to the Library Policies for the Board's approval. One had to do with changing the wording concerning gifts to the Library in Section II. The second one dealt with a proposed `Collection Development Policy for the Genealogy Special Collection.' Mrs. Dering moved, seconded by Mrs. Williams and carried unanimously, to approve the above - mentioned changes to the Library Policies. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS — None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Jones announced the upcoming Library Job Fair, which will be held at the Main Library on October 26, 2001, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. REPORT OF THE FRIENDS — None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Dering moved, seconded by Mrs. Williams and carried unanimously, that the meeting be adjourned. Time: 2:30 p.m. Fiala %.,/ ✓ Carter Henning Mac'Kle '"M77 Coletta PARKS AND RECREA TIONAD VISOR Y BOARD AGENDA November 20, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER 11. PLEDGE, OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 111. INVOCATION IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES V. AWARDS — KAY HUMAN, CHRIS OBERG, GAIL WILVER I.A.71S GARCIA, GARY KESSLER V1. NEW B1JSINFSS A.. PRESENTATIONS — IN-LINE SKATING RINK B. APPLICANTS FOR PARAB VACANCIES C. NEIGHBORHOOD PARK APPLICATIONS — Rattlesnake Hammock/County Barn; North Naples VII. SPECIFIC UPDATES VIII. REPORTS/UPDATES A. MONTHLY REPORT B. BCC RECAP C. SPECIAL EVENT CALENDAR D. PARKS UPDATE E. RECREATION UPDATE F. ADOPT A PARK IX MEETING SCHEDULE X. MEMBER/ADDRESS LIST Misc. Corres*- Date: 12,jx� item# Copies To: MINUTES 16J 1 PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING Max Hasse Community Park October 24,2001 PRESENT: Ski Olesky John Ribes Mary Ellen Rand Linda D'Amico Sam Welborn ABSENT: Lisa Barnett, Vice - Chairperson John Grice, Chairperson STAFF PRESENT: Marla Ramsey, Director James Fitzek, Operations Manager Murdo Smith, Beach and Water Superintendent Joe Delate, Project Manager Steve Whittier, Recreation Superintendent John Veit, Parks Superintendent Debbie Roberts, Operations Coordinator Barbara Johnson, Clerical Supervisor I. CALL TO ORDER — 2:00 pm. Ski Olesky took role of Chairperson II. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG III. INVOCATION IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 19, 2001 meeting V. AWARDS — Jim Milletta (not present) VI. NEW BUSINESS A. ACCREDITATION The accreditation is national recognition for park and recreation agencies throughout the country. There are 38 Park and Recreation Departments in the United States which have already received this award with 30 more waiting for approval. Seven of these accreditations are in the State of Florida. Collier County probably has most of the information and met most of the standards required, although research and 16J1 paperwork will still need to be completed. There are various levels and 36 standards with many substandards to be met for qualification, the cost is approximately $7,000 and the entire process usually takes 17 months from beginning to end with an annual fee of $1,000. National accreditations, a high honor, are awarded twice a year in the months of March and October. The cost of obtaining an application and check list is $100. PARAB WAS IN FA VOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS APPLICATION. Motion was made by Sam Welborn and seconded by John Ribes. Approved 5 -0. B. USTA/IMMOKALEE A meeting was held yesterday in Immokalee with representatives from USTA who, in conjunction with the governor of State of Florida, want to provide youth a safe place after school for kids, access to computers and educational resources, plus supplying tennis lessons. We already have 70 kids — K — 5th grade - in our after school program, which is a safe place, and have 3 computers available. Their charge is to supply 4 -5 additional computers and some mentors so the kids will receive 1 on 1 experience. The department will provide snacks, which is already being done. The program should be implemented by November — USTA will pay for the tennis instructor and assistant, will supply rackets, hopper and balls. The tennis lessons will be held two days a week 3:30 — 5:30, participants who wish may have tennis lessons and then come inside for their snack and mentoring. Thirteen sites in the State of Florida have been selected for this pilot program. If we do need matching grant money, the department may use the Library grant for this purpose. The library is also putting in a bank of computers and will supply computer training for Immokalee residents. Mary Ellen suggested gearing more programs for middle school age children. C. FOUNDATION A foundation would be another tool for receiving monetary donations for the Parks and Recreation Department. There are foundations within foundations existing in the community. This procedure would allow one to designate money for a specific item or location instead of donating to a general fund as well as being a tax benefit to the donor. The foundation would also insure that money would be there for any future repairs necessary that might be connected with the donated item/facility. At the present time any donation money comes in one year and goes out the next, so there is no reserve for any maintenance or repairs. If the foundation were set up and it grew very large, a separate board could be set up to monitor the funds. Looking to the future, this type of fund would be a benefit to the parks as funding from impact fees will be reduced as growth slows. APPROVED ASA CONCEPT. Motion made by Lindy D'Amico and seconded by John Ribes. Approved 5 -0. 2 16J1 D. REUNION The suggestion was made that PARAB host a reunion and brainstorming session for former members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. This would enable previous members to stay in touch, they would not lose interest in the park system, and in turn would act as ambassadors for our agency. MOTION OFAPPROVAL by Mary Ellen. Passed 5 -0. E. TOUR OF LOUISE HASSE COMMUNITY CENTER A walk - through of the new building was conducted. VII SPECIFIC UPDATES A. GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER Site development plans are being submitted incorporating suggestions made by the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board. WICK will no longer occupy space in the building and the Department will attempt to absorb the cost of the extra square footage that had been added for this agency. B. NORTH NAPLES REGIONAL PARK This park is still in the design process and not a lot of progress is taking place. The firm is asking for a fee increase and the Department will need to evaluate this request. The current contract, based on square footage x cost x %, seems to work for the designer and not the County. C. LOUISE HASSE COMMUNITY CENTER Open house will be November 16th although the actual dedication, by request of the Hasse family, will take place on December 7th' D. ISLES OF CAPRI Diagrams of the few available lots on the Isles of Capri were discussed. Motion by John Ribes: RECOMMEND PARKS AND RECREATION HAVE REAL PROPERTY PURSUE PURCHASING SITE ,E,, FOR ISLE OF CAPRI NEIGHBORHOOD PARK WITH THE ALTERNATIVE SITE BEING "I ". Seconded by Lindy D'Amico. Approved 5 -0. Mr. Rogers has withdrawn his donation offer for the construction of a tennis court on existing County property on the Isle of Capri and is requesting this item tabled for a while. The Utility Department will be making a decision within the next several weeks whether or not the existing water tank will be moved. If this were done, possibly two courts could be constructed; however, the Department has no funds for this project. 3 16J1 E. NAPLES PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Real Property is pursuing the purchase of the two recommended lots. If the residents of Naples Park wish to apply for additional lots for next year's funding, a new application will need to be submitted for consideration. Mention by the public for other locations have been made but as of this date no applications have been received. VII. REPORTS/UPDATES A. MONTHLY REPORT — this does not include all revenues collected by the Department. The Department's share of parking fines, concessionaire revenues and some specialevent dollars are not included. The previous year figures used for comparison are based on the same criteria as this fiscal year. The computer chips in the collection meters sometimes are a challenge but the Department keeps an inventory of parts and does minor work in- house. B. BCC RECAPS - Petition CCSL- 2001 -3 — Recreational Facilities of America Inc.. This is for the Barefoot Beach concessionaire — the concessionaire area will be jutting off the boardwalk instead of being directly on the beach. The Department is working on a conceptual site plan required by the State before issuing a license for the County use of the SR951 Boat Ramp. Once the license has been issued, the concessionaire may begin his operations at the site. This license is required as the Department desires to expand the parking lot 800 feet to the north and 800 feet to the south. C. SPECIAL EVENTS On November 10" there will be a patriotic concert set to a background of fireworks at Sugden Regional Park— probably 6:30 to 8:00 pm. A choir will perform as well as a brass band. Details are still being worked on. Viva Naples had a fairly good turnout considering the current Country affairs. Approximately 1,800 tickets were sold, there was plenty of police support, and beer sales were light which was no doubt a disappointment for the Fairgrounds people. Code Enforcement took many sound readings at various times and locations. The Department has since learned that a noise exemption can be granted for special events. D. PARKS UPDATE * Golden Gate Community Park pathway. The Department is working with the School Board for a land swap of approximately 10 acres along the canal. * Sugden Regional Park — pictures of new pedestrian gates on the side streets were distributed. The pathway is still under construction as well as a fishing spot with a bike rack and trash cans. Once this is fully completed, grant money will be forwarded to the Department. n 16J1 * Tigertail Concession Building — bonds or insurance have not been received yet from the contractor. * Exotic Removal — Tigertail is 50% done, with Golden Gate Community Park next in line. The contractor will finish the removal of exotics at Max Hasse Park. * South Marco Restrooms were designed and permitted. Negotiations with the contractor will take place tomorrow as the bid came in over budget. * Vineyards Parking lot — lights should be completed this week. * Immokalee Picnic Shelter — ChrisTel has the permit and project has been started; project completion date the end of the year. * Gulfshore Access — the work order has been issued for the design which will be submitted to the City of Naples and homeowners for consideration. This site is located within City limits and used heavily by City residents. E. RECREATION UPDATE A very successful 5`h grade dance was held with 434 participants. A dance for 300 middle school children was held at Max Hasse under the pavilion. All indications are that this park will be extremely busy. A flea market attracting 200 -300 people was held last week. Future plans include vendors from Immokalee selling vegetables and produce at these flea markets.. Various Halloween events at the centers may be spooky but will not terrorize. A Spanish Fiesta is scheduled Sunday at East Naples Community Park. Musicians will be strolling around the lake and vendors will supply food. An attempt is being made to reach this ethnic group in the area and Sunday is traditionally a family day for these people. Cricket is being played on the soccer field — both players and spectators are welcome. Special Populations — This program is progressing real well. A planned Kids Night Out program is filled as well as an "off school" program for next week. There will be an Aquatic event for special children at Immokalee on the 27`h. F. ADOPT A PARK - by Sam Welborn Tigertail Beach had 30 cars in the parking lot, umbrellas were up on the beach but no one was in the water. The park looked clean and neat, restrooms were clean and although there was no one at the concession area it was very neat. I drove through to the back parking lot where previously existing potholes had been filled. The attendant at the gate said attendance was down due to the condition of the lagoon. The directional Tigertail sign on the main road is not there and needs to be replaced. 16J1 Eagle Lakes is a very wide open space with not much going on that afternoon except a Lely High soccer team practicing. Thirty to forty new trees have been planted and mulched. Boat Ramp — 9 trailers in the lot and one boat in the water — this was on a Monday afternoon. Aaron Lutz — clay has been brought in for the infield, there was a volleyball net up, kids were playing basketball, and children were using the playground. Ski: In Immokalee there is a 1,000 home PUD, 50 acres with another 800 homes, and another site with 78 homes planned. If there were some land available it would be an ideal place for a park. Land right across from Tony Rosbaugh park could be checked; grants may be available due to the location. Motion made and seconded. to investigate. IX. MEETING SCHEDULE - Next meeting is scheduled for November 21 "'the day before Thanksgiving. MOTION - have the 20`h as an alternate date if necessary, seconded and approved. Meeting adjourned. n 16J1 PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA Fiala v/ December 19,2001 Carter Henri ft Coyle Calatta y! 1. CALL TO ORDER 11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 111. INVOCATION IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES V. AWARDS ­ V1. NEW BUSINESS A. PRESENTATIONS B. APPLICANTS FOR PARAB VACANCIES (Chuck McMahon, Ellen Christian- Myers) C. VII. SPECIFIC UPDATES V111. REPORTS /UPDATES A. MONTHLY REPORT B. BCC RECAP C. SPECIAL EVENT CALENDAR D. PARKS UPDATE E. RECREATION UPDATE F. ADOPT A PARK X. MEMBER /ADDRESS LIST 16J' 16J1 MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY PARK November 20, 2001 PRESENT: John Grice, Chairperson Lisa Barnett, Vice - Chairperson Ski Olesky John Ribes Linda D'Amico Sam Welborn ABSENT: Mary Ellen Rand GUESTS: Lloyd Perlman, Naples Roller Hockey David Stewart, Naples Roller Hockey Jeff Meyerson, Naples Roller Hockey Dale Krout, Naples Roller Hockey AWARDS: Kay Human, Gail Wilver, Chris Oberg, Gary Kessler Luis Garcia (not present) STAFF PRESENT: Marla Ramsey, Director James Fitzek, Operations Manager Murdo Smith, Beach and Water Superintendent Steve Whittier, Recreation Superintendent John Veit, Parks Superintendent Debbie Roberts, Operations Coordinator Barbara Johnson, Clerical Supervisor I. CALL TO ORDER — 2:15 pm II. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG III. INVOCATION IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 24, 2001 meeting V. AWARDS - Kay Human, Gail Wilver, Chris Oberg, all Fiscal Staff members Gary Kessler, Athletics ADDITION TO AGENDA: Food Grant — Hand Out Fee Policy 1 VI. NEW BUSINESS 1, " Food Grant — hand -out showed how the numbers have increased over a period of time. This year food was served at 24 sites, and 8 vehicles were used for transporting the food. The reimbursement from the State will be in the amount of $365,735. At the national level there were no cuts in the lunch program, which will mean no change in the program next summer. Breakfasts served increased and snacks were eliminated; grant reimbursement is greater for the breakfasts and the children benefit more. A. PRESENTATION — Roller Hockey League Dale Krout, coach of in -line roller hockey, gave a brief history of the sport in Collier County. The program has grown since it's inception in 1995, starting with the use of a portable rink and has progressed to the use of two permanent facilities. The league's concern is that with the anticipated future growth, the program will outgrow the available rinks and are requesting that another be constructed. Rinks may be divided for the younger groups practices, but not for the older children and adults. A proposal is being made to remove the existing volleyball court at Veterans Community Park and construct another rink adjacent to the existing one, which would eliminate any short term overcrowding problems. For a long term alternative, it is being suggested that the soccer field at Veterans be eliminated when the North Naples Regional Park opens and at that point additional parking could also be added. The majority of the hockey participants come from the North Naples area. The rink at Veterans is covered, reducing the loss of time available due to inclement weather and is utilized practically 100% of the time. East Naples rink is not covered and not used as heavily for practices. The League feels that Veterans is the only park that has room for another rink and is also the area where most players live. The Naples Daily News does not publish schedules or print results of most of the league games. The hockey program has developed some nationally recognized players and the program should receive more publicity. Most publicity in the Naples Daily News is geared to high school leagues. Staff feels that parking is currently a problem at Veterans — no additional parking spaces were added at the time the rink (multi - purpose facility) was constructed. The concrete pad, plus dasher boards will cost approximately $180,000 to $200,000, which is probably a low estimate. The cover on the existing facility was put up in January at a cost of $350,000. In April, staff was approached by members of the hockey association and a response from the Department was then given. Veterans is the only park with natural vegetation on it. According to code 25% of native vegetation must be retained on the property and that is the current threshold. When the park was originally constructed drainage was not taken into consideration and every plot that has trees on it floods when it rains. It is a heavily utilized park with insufficient parking. Adding anything else would cause an even larger problem. Staff is of the opinion that this park is built out. 2 16J1 There are two parcels outside the park which could be purchased and something placed on them. Staff recommended at that time the Roller Hockey League and the County work together for funding. Use of these parcels for extending the park is not financially practical and is not being considered by the Department. One lot is selling at the commercial rate and the other lot is really an extension of Veterans retention area. Purchase of these two lots did not make the Five Year Plan. A new rink would require the new surface, retention area, and additional parking. If any improvements were made to this park, the Department could face a full Master Plan due to a site change and water storage will become an issue. The suggestion was also made to the Roller Hockey League that something could possibly be worked out with the school system. There is both a middle and elementary school to the north, and also 20 acres the School Board has asked if the County is interested in purchasing. Mr. Ochs requested a written response to pros and cons for a new rink at Veterans Park; at that time the school system was not listed as an option. In -Line Hockey Association Response: The reason Veterans Park was requested was it is the location of the main facility and the League was told that all other parks were built out. There is a soccer field that could be moved and that area used, and the group is working on other ideas. The Association would like to work with the County — there may be some trees lost but that could be mitigated. Ms. Barnett asked whether the League would be willing to provide a portion of the half million dollars required for the project if it were decided that drainage could be worked out at Veterans. None of this $500,000 has been budgeted. The League stated they would have fund raisers if the project developed. Staff clarified that there were no parks on the north side that could accommodate a rink, but there are two areas south of Veterans that could be utilized instead. There are 15 acres at East Naples that are cleared and currently under permit to fill, as well as 60 acres available at Manatee. Back in March when the suggestion was made that the program may need to grow to the south, the In -Line Hockey Association stated the drawback was the traveling distance was too great. At the same time TECO in Estero was being used, and until presently one -half of the program had gone in that direction, which is of equal distance. It is County standard practice to have two teams on one facility at the same time — there has been a short supply of some types of facilities in the County for a period of time. Currently East Naples rink is not being utilized 100 %, there is still free time available, while many other existing programs do not have any free time for practice and games. The Department tries to be fair when building new facilities to satisfy all demands. Instead of building a new facility, it would be more feasible to cover this rink and see it used to capacity before building another rink in North Naples. The adult hockey league is sponsored by the County, but the "kids" come first for scheduling purposes. The two main issues seem to be whether Veterans can accommodate another rink and the source of funding. One of the main disagreeing factors is mitigation of the vegetation. 3 16J1 1 Jim Thomas, Athletic Supervisor, stated Veterans is completely built out. Any given night there are four softball fields being used, soccer field, basketball courts, tennis courts, hockey rink, and meetings /programs at the Community Center. There is not sufficient parking for the existing facilities and people park on the sides of the entrance road. For safety reasons speed bumps have been installed in the roads and a gate was installed at the rink site to keep the kids from skating directly into the street. The Department is concerned that someone will get hurt due to the lack of parking and amount of traffic if more facilities were built at Veterans. MOTION by LISA BARNETT: Deny this at Veterans because it is built out and in the future as we are considering the five year plan and as we are looking at uses for additional land and acres that we have, we consider it at that time — look at the usage and see if it is viable at that time and go from there. Seconded by Sam Welborn. Passed 6 -0. The PARAB Chairman recommended that when coming before the Board to use numbers — players on team and the number of teams — not percentages. He also suggested the Association go before School Board if high school and middle school pupils were to be using the rink. An on -site location may be better. B. APPLICANTS FOR PARAB VACANCIES Mary Ellen Rand's application was received, requesting to serve another term. It was the lone application received. It is the Department's understanding that another application was received after the posting deadline and will be forthcoming for the other vacancy — John Grice's position. MOTION by Sam Welborn — RECOMMEND MARY ELLEN RAND FOR ANOTHER TERM. Seconded by Lisa Barnett. Passed 6 -0. John Grice will not be reapplying for his position as he is moving to Lee County. He has enjoyed working with the group and the diversity that has been experienced. Keep in mind we are one as a Board, would like to see the five year plan and the Dover Khol plan come to pass. He asked Lisa and Ski, who both have tenure and experience, to consider taking the chairperson next year. C. NEIGHBORHOOD PARK APPLICATION — An application was received for a neighborhood park in the Rattlesnake Hammock/ County Barn area. (Lot is commercial.) This application, along with the one from North Naples for additional lots, will be voted on at the January meeting. D. FEE POLICY Changes include the following: rd 16J 1 a. Adds a no fee policy for one meeting per month for a civic association in each commission district. b. Adds a new boat launch fee for residential and commercial use in addition to the already existing commercial use permits. c. Increases lifeguard hourly fee for lifeguard/instructors for after -hours school use. d. Amends the format for the Collier County Fitness Center Membership. e. Increases fees for summer camps and after school programs and transportation costs in Immokalee will be based on the then current transportation bid cost. f. Establishes a fee for Park Ranger camps. MOTION by Lindy D'Amico to approve the proposed policy. Seconded by Lisa. Approved 6 to 0. VII. SPECIFIC UPDATES A. North Naples Regional Park The Department is still experiencing permitting problems with South Florida Water Management and is now going into the third submittal. Fifty per cent of wet lands on site must be preserved; facilities have been moved, parking changed, picnic shelters moved, and the size of the lake has been reduced to meet these qualifications. This equates to 90 acres of the 212 acre parcel that cannot be developed. No credit will be given for existing trees in the wet areas so mitigation will be necessary, probably off - site. The price tag is approximately $40,000,000, still climbing, and some amenities may have to be eliminated. The County does not have a lobbyist for SFWMD, so the Department will look at other options. Normally SFWMD is not as stringent in their requirements as the Corps, who have the plan out for comment and will be contacting the Department soon. Redesign of Park: Currently the extra fee from the architect has been reduced from $350,000 to $150,000, although the Department has not committed to this figure. About 6,000 square feet of facilities have been added to the scope of the original project and 8,000 square feet of new facilities, which are directly related to the pool pump house, locker rooms and another small restroom. When a decision has been made, the architect will submit five or six designs for consideration. This is a sub- contract, the Department's contract is actually with the landscape architect. One option, which has been discussed, is to hire a different architect, but the Department wishes to avoid this if possible. With a change in one member of the team, the working relationship would improve. At this point all plans are only schematic. School System: A meeting was held with the School District regarding the proposed elementary school "C" . The school system had upgraded their standard for the ballfields so the Department's cost will not be as much as originally anticipated. Louise Hasse Community Center is now open. The grand opening was held last Saturday and the dedication is scheduled for December 7`h at 10:00 am Members of the Hasse family from California will be in attendance. The fitness center had 50 people using the equipment on the first day of operation. 5 Sugden Regional Park: The .9 mile pathway has been paved; the entire loop is approximately 1.5 miles. 16J 1 VIII. REPORTS/UPDATES A. MONTHLY REPORT - does the summary sheet form meet PARAB's requirements? A new measure for budgetary purposes has been added this fiscal year — the number of room hours available and the number of hours actually used. B. BCC RECAP The Department was not successful in acquiring a Florida Communities Trust Grant for the purpose of purchasing the outparcel in Barefoot Beach Preserve. As one may apply up to 24 months after the purchase date, the Department will submit another application after the land purchase is complete. Grant Gelhardt from Tallahassee is going to make a site visit to actually see the impact that a commercial facility would have on the Preserve area. He will also help with some verbiage in the application. Mr. and Mrs. Sugden made a donation of stocks earmarked for seat backs at the Gulf Coast Skimmers amphitheater. There was a little extra money left from this project and the Sugden's desired it be used for planting at the entrance of the park. C. SPECIAL EVENT CALENDAR The Snowfest flyer was enclosed in the packet with a list of upcoming events; however, Immokalee's "Christmas Around the World" was inadvertently omitted. Naples Snowfest will have a sled mountain this year for the first time. This attraction has been used successfully in Immokalee for several years. Christmas Around the World will be December 8th, 6:00 — 10:00 pm, preceded by a parade. The suggestion was made to change the word "Christmas" in special event titles to "Holiday ". (The tree in Immokalee is called " Immokalee Friendship Tree ".) D. PARKS UPDATE Several items were previously addressed under "Specific Updates ". BCBE had ordered items for another client which turned out to be an incorrect size. They donated them to Parks and Recreation and will be used as small shelter roofs at Aaron Lutz Park. Vineyards Park — the cabal palms were planted in the parking area near the school as a result of required mitigation. E. RECREATION REPORT n Written report was in packet. The latest Recreation Guide should be ready for distribution the first week in December. 16J1 F. ADOPT A PARK John Grice had toured Bayview and was concerned that half of the vehicles were not displaying a paid receipt in the window; however, he forgot to look for stickers on these vehicles. East Naples Community Park is in good shape. Exotic removal has been completed on 15 acres of land located behind the tennis courts. The development of this land has been permitted until next fall. As the baseball field originally planned for this location was moved to Eagle Lakes, there will be space for a much needed soccer field and something else. Approximately two feet of fill will be required to bring the land to the proper level. FYI — The %2 penny sales tab did not pass so the County is looking at ways to reduce the existing budget for fiscal year 01/02. It is not sure whether this is a result of the referendum being defeated or the reduction in sales tax monies received from the State. The Parks and Recreation Department was asked to do a exercise for 5% and one for 10% reduction of the total operating budget. Staff reduction would not be necessary if 5% were required, but would be necessary using the 10% figures. If impact fees instead of bond monies were used for the purchase of the property in Goodland and the Barefoot parcel (approximately $10,000,000), the Department's planned capital projects would be pushed back approximately two years. One option for raising additional revenue would be to charge for beach parking stickers. If $2.00 were charged, approximately $100,000 annually would be realized. Another option is raising the parking fee from $3, in existence since 1995, to $5 per day for vehicles without stickers. The County has already saved money by combining all outstanding loans under one bond. This saving offset the State's first projection of County's shortfall in sales taxes. Something everyone can do to help with the situation is to let people know that the parks and libraries are important to all people in Collier County. The next meeting will be held at Golden Gate Community Center on December 19, 2001. 7 bJ 1 , b ti j T /I M I A J Y ti 11/111/01 16D2 Request to approve a Budget Amendment for South Marco Beach Access Restroorn Facility. 16D3 Request to amend the contract with Recreational Facilities or America. at Tigertall Beach 12% of the total gross revenues for each month, or $500 whichever is In 16D4 Approve a Lease Agreement between Collier County and Copeland Baptist Mission flor the continued use of property for a neighborhood park. 11/27/01 10A Recommendation to authorize implementation of the proposed FY 2002 budget reduction and expenditure control plan. Approved with exception of indigent I - health care — 4/0. (Commissioner Fiala out) 16A I Carnival Permit 2001-08 for Carnival Around the World 12/8/01 at Immokalee Sports Complex 16A2 Carnival Permit 2001-09 for Snowtest 12/1/01 16D2 Award WO PBS-01-03 to Professional Building Systems for the construction Of South Marco Beach Access Restroom Facility in the anIOLInt of $85,939. 16J1 ADOPT A PARK NAME LOCA,r[ON REPORT DUI: Lisa Barnett Golden Gate Community Park February September Veterans Community Park February September Lindy D'Amico Fagle Lakes CoimnUnitl Park Jane Vinccards Conrrmudi.N Part: Jurnc John Grice East Naples Community Park March November Sugden Regional Park March November Bayview Park March November John Ribes Clam Pass April Decetnber Golden Gate Communitv Center April December Edward "Ski" Olesky Immokalee Community Park January August Immokalee Sports Complex January August Mary Ellen Rand Barefoot Beach Preserve /Access MaN Cocohatclhee River Park May Samuel Welborn Tigertail Beach October Eagle Lakes Community Park October January Edward "Ski' Oesky Juh7 No meeting February Lisa Barnett August Edward "Ski" Olesky March John Grice September Lisa Barnett April John Ribes October Sam Welborn Mav Mary Ellen Rand November John Grice June Uldy D'Amico December John Ribes 12/11/2001 12:24 7748301 / PUB INFO PAGE 01/01 Fiala ✓ Carter Henning ,: Coyle �--- Colette Collier County -Government Department of Public Information Contact; Lavah Hetzel 3301 East Tamiami Trail Public Information Naples, FL 34112 774,8373 (941) 7743999 a „, <;:1 16JI Dec.11, 2001 > f ,i7,,,jnty FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BAYSRORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING Thursday, Dec. 13, 6 p.m. � Community Development & Environmental Services 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Conference Room E I. loll Call 2. Adoptions of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from Nov. 8, 2001 4. Communications 5. Old Business a. Update on Projects in the Bayshore and Gateway areas i. Report on results of Collier County budget reduction, process as related to CRA protects ii. Storinwater Management Infrastructure Projects in process and planned i.ii. Update on progress of Land Development Code Amendments iv. Mini- Triangle Questionnaire Property Owner's meeting scheduled ,for 12/17 b. Incentives Subcommittee Report and Recommendations c. .Approval of 2002 Work Program — requires quorum for vote d. Approval of Final CRA Marketing Materials — requires quorum for vote 6. New Business a. Ideas from members about annual festival event b. Discussion concerning changing the rcgulaz meeting to the 1” Thursday of each month. — requires quorum for vote c. Handouts 1, ; i d. Other 7. Citizen Comments 8. Adjoumment Di'te: % St.;:l ri None., All meetz'z s are publicly noticed in the W. Harmon TYuzxier Building (Adr�zinistration. lding F) and on the CRA website. Please call Marl.en.e Foord, ,Principal Planner, at 213 -2903 ifyou.have any quest atS the meeting. In accordance with the Americans with .Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Marlene Foord at least 48 hours prior to the meeting, tv Each come ;,.:'d Copy 16J1 " COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIN7T' NAPLES, FL 341" " MEMORANDUM 5e ''Co TO: Mr. Mark Benfield M r. Bill Neal Mr. Ronald Fowle Ms. Alicia Poole Mr. Mike Hoy Ms. Deborah Russell Ms. Sharon King FROM: Marlene Foord, Principal Planner ou^ bma'I,,, J;r, DATE: December 26, 2001 RE: Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Meeting This is to inform you that the next meeting of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board is scheduled as follows: Date: Thursday, January 3, 2002 Time: 6:00 p.m. Place: Community Development & Environmental Services 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Conference Room E PLEASE NOTE NEW MEETING DATE — Is` THURSDAY OF THE MONTH Enclosures: January 3, 2002 Meeting Agenda December 6, 2001 Incentives Subcommittee adopted minutes Executive Summary for Review and Approval of Site Improvement and Impact Fee Assistance Grant Programs cc: Community Redevelopment Agency (5) John Dunnuck, Interim CDES Administrator Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning Manager Aaron Blair, Senior Planner Tom Tomerlin, Senior Planner Susan See, Administrative Secretary � County Cor*01 mis�rte-r` l o- M ning Misc. Corres: Date:.1�. I PHONE (941) 403 -2400 FAX (941) 643 -6968 www.co.collier.fl.us 16JI COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING Thursday, January 3, 2002, 6:00 p.m. Community Development & Environmental Services 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Conference Room E 1. Roll Call 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Communications 4. Old Business a. Update on Projects in the Bayshore and Gateway areas i. Stormwater Management — Haldeman Creek Dredging ii. Update on progress of Land Development Code Amendments iii. Update on CDBG Grant application iv. Update on potential of bonding b. Incentives Subcommittee Report and Recommendations c. Approval of 2002 Site Improvement and Impact Fee Assistance Grant Application Packages — requires quorum for vote 5. New Business a. Ideas from members about annual festival event b. Handouts c. Other 6. Citizen Comments 7. Adjournment Note: All meetings are publicly noticed in the Harmon Turner Building (Administration Building) and on the CRA website. Please call Marlene Foord, Principal Planner, at 213 -2903 if you have any questions about the meeting. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Marlene Foord at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. PHONE (941) 403 -2400 FAX (941) 643 -6968 www.co.collier.fl.us Bayshore /Gateway Triangle 6J1 Local Redevelopment Advisory Board INCENTIVES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Minutes — Meeting of December 6, 2001 The meeting of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board INCENTIVES SUBCOMMITTEE was called to order at 5:05 p.m. at the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Building, Conference Room E. Members in attendance: Ron Fowle Sharon D. King Deborah Russell Elected Officials in Attendance: Commissioner Donna Fiala Staff in attendance: Aaron Blair, Planning Services Marlene Foord, Planning Services Tom Tomerlin, Planning Services Public in Attendance: Tammie McElroy, EDC Richard Treiser 1. Roll Call. All subcommittee members, except Bill Neal were present. 2. Adoption of Minutes from November 20, 2001 Incentives Subcommittee Meeting Deborah made a motion to adopt the minutes of November 20, 2001, seconded by Sharon King and approved unanimously. 3. Review of Alternative Work Programs Marlene reviewed the purpose of the meeting, mentioning that the members will be asked to come to consensus on the relative importance of each incentive program, the allocation of funds for the incentives, and the eligibility and review criteria for each incentive program. The goal is to then present the incentives to the full advisory board so they can recommend the final work program to the CRA. Marlene also mentioned that staff had talked to the Budget Director about bonding and will be arranging a meeting with the county's financial advisor and Finance Committee to determine the bonding feasibility and process. Therefore, for now, the goal is to determine the incentives based on the funding currently available. Tom distributed a table (attached) that identifies the guesstimated projections for the tax increments over the next 10 years. This data, once finalized, will serve as the basis for determining bonding capacity. The estimates were based on the average growth rate in the overall taxable value as determined over the last two years. The countywide millage rate from this year was also inserted for purposes of creating conservative estimates. A cumulative tax increment of about $11 million is therefore estimated by 2010. Marlene mentioned that the redevelopment plan had estimated a lower rate of growth so these figures appear higher due to the higher than expected rate of growth experienced over the last two years. Deborah suggested that we kick off the incentive program with the funding currently available and continue to pursue the bonding idea. Marlene mentioned the incentive program and work program could be adjusted from year to year as the CRA determines is necessary. For example, if the fagade grant program is not used at all, it can be eliminated from the work program altogether or changed as appropriate. December 6, 2001 Bayshore /Gateway Incentives Subcommittee Page I of 3 16J� The process for review and approval of the grants was briefly discussed. At some point, there will need to be a determination made about whether the CRA will need to approve each and every grant or if they can approve the overall grant program and leave the final approval of each grant up to the advisory boards. Marlene will check into whether the CRA legally has to be the one to approve each and every expense. Tammie McElroy of the EDC reviewed some of the incentives available through the Economic Development Council and Enterprise Florida, Inc. She mentioned that these incentives are available throughout Florida now so there is not much competitive edge for Collier County, but they can be used to entice companies from outside Florida or to keep companies from moving out of Florida. The Qualified Target Industry (QTI) program provides tax refunds to companies for state taxes as well as ad valorem taxes. The QTI program is based on the number of new jobs that are created, using $2,000 per job, but this figure increases depending on the average wage. If the jobs are created, the total tax refund is made starting the following fiscal year using equal increments over a four year time period. This way there is a guarantee that the company is doing what they said they would do and there is not a large drain out of the revenue at any one time. Tammie also distributed information on the training programs that are available. The EDC uses these programs to focus on their target industries, however, the CRA would need to create it's own set of criteria for determine who qualifies for the funds for a similar program in the area. The EDC would certainly like to coordinate with the CRA if it's determined that their target industries are appropriate in certain areas of the CRA. These programs can also be used to encourage redevelopment of parcels, including demolition of older buildings and creation of newer buildings. It was mentioned that there had been an earlier effort to create a convention center in the Mini - Triangle area, but at the time, it was suggested by EDC that the type of use belonged in the North Naples area. It is hoped that now with the CRA in place, that such a use could be encouraged in the Bayshore /Gateway area again. Marlene mentioned that with a tax refund in place, that the CRA would not be spending funds immediately, but would need to budget for the eventual expenditure when the refund is made years later. Deborah mentioned that the work program should reflect this incentive program to attract new quality businesses into the area and that these businesses may not benefit from the fagade grants or small impact fee assistance. She suggested that a Qualified Business Tax Refund Program be established with definitions for the qualified businesses for the Gateway area and the Bayshore area. Sharon agreed that this is a good approach. Tammie suggested that it be tied into job creation as well, especially if the jobs pay at least or higher than the average wage. Marlene recommended that if the tax refund program is added to the work program, that funds not be shifted from infrastructure or administrative costs. Tammie recommended that the line item be added to the work program, but that the budget not be reduced until 2003 right before the funds would need to be made available for the tax refunds. Since impact fees are expensive, that column should not be reduced much. A discussion took place about offering tax incentives up front rather than as refunds because of the immediate enticement to businesses to relocate. It was reiterated, however, that such a program would effectively reduce the funds immediately available as tax increment to be deposited in the tax increment fund, thereby reducing the amount of funding available for infrastructure, land acquisition and grant programs early in the work program. The immediate benefits, however, to the business or new project are important as well. Deborah mentioned that it would need to be budgeted for because that would reduce the amount of tax increment available. Richard Treiser indicated that up front tax relief would encourage new quality development in the area immediately, which would provide more "bang for the buck." He also mentioned that a refund and fagade grants would not be much of an incentive for a large project such as his, however, these programs are also important because they show that the CRA supports them and that is also important. Rather than create a separate column for tax incentives, it was determined that criteria would be needed, based on things like size and types of jobs created. These criteria would need to be presented to the advisory board to consider as well. December 6, 2001 Bayshore /Gateway Incentives Subcommittee Page 2 of 3 16J1 A motion was made by Sharon and seconded by Deborah to change the work program to increase facade grants to 15 17o, reduce code compliance grants to 5 %, and leave impact fee assistance at 10 01o, "other" at 60% and administrative costs at 10 0/c, the non - budgetary incentives: tax relief and fast track permitting are also included; carried unanimously. This would allow plenty for impact fees, which are expensive. This would leave 70% for infrastructure, land acquisition, relocations and administrative costs. The overall work program that will be presented to the overall advisory board will allocate this 70% as 60% to "other" which includes infrastructure, land acquisition and relocations and 10% to administrative costs. The members then began review of the draft application packages for fagade grants, code compliance grants and impact fee assistance. Ron mentioned that FPL can also assist with window and door replacements so we should encourage applicants to look to FPL for assistance as well. Tom suggested that staff could review the options and recommend the grant amounts to the subcommittee. In the meantime, the subcommittee could at least recommend the work program for the advisory board to approve. Awarding points to a first time applicant was discussed as was awarding more points to an applicant that provides a greater match. Equal treatment of Bayshore and Gateway was discussed. Ron suggested that each applicant only be awarded one grant per year. Deborah suggested that this will be handled by the point system which awards extra points for a first time applicant. Marketing the incentive programs was discussed. Using the newspaper, posting information on the website were both mentioned as options. Ron also suggested that the CRA have its own letterhead, with the caption, "We're making a difference." 4. Initial Drafting of Recommendations to Bayshore/Gateway Advisory Board and Community Redevelopment Agency The subcommittee will recommend a work program that includes 15% for fagade grants, 5% for code compliance grants, 10% for impact fee assistance, 60 % for "other" and 10% for administrative costs. Fast track permitting and tax relief will also be recommended. 5. Citizen Comments Richard Treiser provided comment and advice as appropriate throughout the meeting. Richard also related his frustration with his pursuit of the fast track permitting assistance available through the EDC. He indicated that he was told that because the business did not fit in with the target industries, that he would not be able to take advantage of the EDC's program. 6. Adjournment. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. The next meeting of the Incentives Subcommittee is scheduled for December 20, 2001 at 5 p.m. Adopted by unanimous vote on December 20, 2001 December 6, 2001 Bayshore /Gateway Incentives Subcommittee Page 3 of 3 BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD 16J 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD APPROVE THE ATTACHED SITE IMPROVEMENT AND IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE GRANT APPLICATION PACKAGES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE BAYSHORE /GATEWAY INCENTIVES SUBCOMMITTEE OBJECTIVE: To receive approval of the attached Site Improvement and Impact Fee Assistance Grant application packages as recommended by the Incentives Subcommittee and staff. CONSIDERATIONS: Tasked with the responsibility of creating a workable incentives program, the Incentives Subcommittee has identified four incentive programs for the Advisory Board to consider for implementation during 2002. Two of the four incentive programs require funding to be allocated from the tax increment funds for the area. These are site improvement grants and impact fee assistance grants. The other two incentive programs are fast track permitting and tax abatements. Tax abatement must still be researched further to make sure that the CRA can legally provide such an incentive and if so, how to formalize the process. On December 13, 2000, the Advisory Board approved a work program for use of the 2000 -2001 TIF funds ($121,000) to allocate 20% ($24,000) to Site Improvement Grants and 10% ($12,000) to Impact Fee Assistance Grants. The Incentives Subcommittee now recommends that matching grants in the "not to exceed" amount of $4,000 be offered for the Site Improvement Grants and $5,000 for Impact Fee Assistance Grants. This will permit at least six (6) matching Site Improvement Grants and two (2) Matching Impact Fee Assistance Grants. Staff recommended and the Incentives Subcommittee agreed that the grants be eligible initially only for commercial projects in the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Zoning Overlay and for any residential projects through the redevelopment area. The CRA will next review the recommendation from the Advisory Board and adopt the two incentive programs. The recommendation to the CRA will include a provision that the Advisory Board be granted the authority to evaluate each application, determine the grant awards and award the funding. It may be necessary, however, for the CRA to at least review the Advisory Board's recommendation for grant awards as a consent agenda item during a regular meeting. The other incentive programs are being worked on by staff. Additional revisions may be necessary as determined during internal staff and county attorney review. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed grants for 2002 will only make sure of the 2000 -2001 TIF funds. Future grant cycles may use TIF from subsequent years depending on other infrastructure, land acquisition and potential debt service commitments as a result of bonding. CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: The above - mentioned incentive programs generally support the objectives of the redevelopment plan. INCENTIVES SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Site Improvement and Impact Fee Assistance Grant application packages as recommended by the Incentives Subcommittee and staff. Submitted for January 3, 2002 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board meeting. COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM General Provisions 16J1 The Collier County CRA has created the Impact Fee Assistance Program to provide financial assistance to residential and commercial redevelopment projects in the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle redevelopment area. The program has been established to encourage rehabilitation and replacement of degraded structures and the installation of new structures that support the objectives of the adopted redevelopment plan. Improvements to existing structures may be funded through the Site Improvement Grant Program (see separate application and grant deadlines). The CRA is partially funded by Tax Increment Financing (TIF). TIF is a unique tool that CRA's can use to leverage public funds and to promote private sector activity. For each project, the CRA may provide up to 50% of the total impact fees for each project. There is a maximum amount of funding allocated each year for impact fee assistance, so the program is managed on a "first come, first served" basis. Impact fee waivers or deferrals may also be available through the Collier County Housing and Urban Improvement SHIP program for low and very low income first time homebuyers. All applications must be reviewed by the Collier County Impact Fee Coordinator and adhere to Collier County Ordinance #2001 -13, the "Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Regulations ". CRA staff and the Bayshore /Gateway Local Redevelopment Advisory Board will also review applications. Recommendations for assistance will be forwarded to the Community Redevelopment Agency for final approval. This is not a refund program; all funding must be approved prior to payment of impact fees to Collier County. All work must be completed within one year of approval by CRA. Applicants are required to request a meeting with staff prior to submittal of application. Eligibility Grant funds are eligible for residential and commercial structures (owners only) within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Component Redevelopment Area. Grants funds may be used for: • Payment of up to 50% of the total of impact fees related to a single project • Commercial rehabilitation or renovation projects that increase the square footage of the project and therefore require payment of additional impact fees, i.e. change from 50,000 to 100,000 square feet • Commercial rehabilitation or renovation projects that change the use of the structure and therefore require payment of additional impact fees, i.e. change from retail to office • Residential projects that increase the square footage of the home and therefore increase the impact fees, i.e. from 1,000 to 2,000 square feet • Larger residential projects that involve construction of new homes • All work must be completed within one year of approval by CRA Grant funds may not be used for: • Working capital or administrative costs (payroll, rent, utilities, etc.) • Renovations or code compliance (other grants are available for these costs) • Demolition • Loans or other capital support IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM • Work that will extend beyond one year of approval by CRA Project Evaluation : 16J1 All projects will be evaluated based upon the following: • Applicant's financial contribution • Ability to begin work immediately • Ability to complete project within one year • Remedy of code enforcement problems • Compliance with objectives of adopted redevelopment plan and any applicable development standards and/or zoning overlays A point system will be used to evaluate projects, using the following table (application must clearly 1: - L —. -, 4L.........:o..* n 1A,_oo PC in nr�ler to aP.t the nnintc associated with that item): POINTS FORM Review Criteria Points Awarded Applicant has funding and is prepared to begin permitting process and hiring of qualified 5 contractors immediately following CRA approval and complete all work within one year of approval by CRA (completed form attached) financial contribution 5 -Applicant's Remedy of code enforcement problems (for renovations or restoration); new projects will have an 5 automatic 5 point handicap Compliance with objectives of adopted redevelopment plan and any applicable development 10 standards and/or zoning overlays Design consistent with the "Old Florida" style 5 I" time Impact Fee Assistance Grant applicant (repeat applicants qualify for points if grant not 5 awarded previously) Requires CRA contribution of less than 25% of total impact fees 10 TOTAL a= Any alterations in the project must be approved by the CRA to avoid revocation of funding. IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 2 Process 16J1 Step 1: Applicant Meets with Staff • Applicant must request a meeting with staff prior to submittal of application. Step 2: Applicant Submittal • Impact Fee Assistance Application • Site Development Plan or Application for Building Permit and Proof of Total Impact Fees Required for project • Project Initiation and Completion Form • Two 8X10 color photos of the existing structure or parcel ( "before" photos) • Sketch of proposed improvements (for commercial projects, sketch must be prepared by a licensed architect) Step 3: Impact Fee Coordinator, CRA Staff and Advisory Board Review • CRA staff and Impact Fee Coordinator reviews application and completes the Points Form, then places the application on agenda of next Advisory Board meeting • Advisory board checks project to make sure it meets all grant criteria and Redevelopment Plan criteria • Applicant is required to be present at the Advisory Board meeting to answer any questions that may arise during the review or to provide additional material if requested • If project meets all criteria, the Advisory Board makes a recommendation to CRA to approve the application with a reimbursement of up to 50% of the total impact fees. Step 4: CRA Review and Approval • CRA staff prepares Impact Fee Assistance Agreement for the CRA to review and approve • Applicant signs Impact Fee Assistance Agreement • Application with Advisory Board recommendation and agreement both placed on CRA agenda for review and approval; CRA reviews Advisory Board recommendation and agreement during regular meeting and approves or denies project Step 5: Permitting and Site Plan Improvement Process • If CRA approves project, applicant obtains all necessary permits and/or submits county site improvement plan to Community Development & Environmental Services Division Step 6: Project Work • Applicant applies for and receives permits, then begins work Step 7. Project Completion and Submittal of Project Summary Report • Upon completion of work and after all inspections have been completed to insure work conforms to the work that was proposed, applicant submits: • Project Summary Report and as built specifications, including description of completed improvements, two 8X 10 "after" photos, list of materials and construction techniques used, list of architects and/or contractors and any additional information specific to the project. IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 3 COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE APPLICATION ,. 6 1 Section 1: Applicant Information Owner Name: Owner Address: Site Address (if different from owner address): Legal Description of Site: Daytime Phone: Alternate Phone: How long have you owned this property ?: Is this a renovation of an existing structure (s) Yes ❑ No ❑ or a new structure (s) Yes ❑ No ❑ First Time Impact Fee Assistance Applicant? Yes ❑ No ❑ If no, how many applications submitted? Assistance awarded? Yes ❑ No ❑ IMPACT FEEASSISTANCE PROGRAM Section 2: Project Information 6J1 Existing Condition of Property or Structure (attach additional sheets if necessary);_ Existing Use of Property or Structure (attach additional sheets if necessary): ATTACH "BEFORE" PHOTOS OR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (INCLUDING AT LEAST TWO 8X10S, OTHERS MAYBE ADDED TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE SITE). Outline Proposed Project in Detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): ATTACH PHOTOCOPIES OF EXISTING CONDITIONS PHOTOS IDENTIFYING AREAS TO BE IMPROVED. ATTACH DRAWINGS OR SKETCH OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS (FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS, SKETCH MUST BE PREPARED BY A LICENSED ARCHITECT). ATTACH COLOR SAMPLES FOR EACH IMPROVEMENT. IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 5 Section 3: Project Cost Information 16J1 Estimated Impact Fees (see Impact Fee Calculator and Schedule, available online at: http: / /collier og� v.net/ or at 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104): Estimated Request from CRA (up to 50% of the total project cost IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 6 Section 4: Project Forms 16J 1 All applicable forms must be completed. Forms to include with application: 1. Project Initiation and Completion Form 2. Building permit and/or approved Site Development Plan Form to complete and have approved by CRA prior to start of project: 1. Impact Fee Assistance Agreement (provided by staff after Advisory Board recommendation and prior to CRA review and approval of grant application) Forms to submit following project completion: 1. Project Summary Report Form 2. As built specificications IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Project Initiation and Completion Form (to be submitted with Impact Fee Assistance Application) 16JJ I , owner of the property located at have the funding and capability necessary to begin the projects listed under Section 2 of the completed impact fee assistance application and have the ability to complete all improvements within one year of the approval of the impact fee assistance grant by the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency. Signature of Owner Signature of Owner (if jointly owned) Signature of Owner (if jointly owned) IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Date Date Date Project Summary Report Form (submit after project completion) attach additional sheets if necessary) Y) 6 l Describe Condition of Project: ATTACH "AFTER" PHOTOS (INCLUDING AT LEAST TWO 8XI0S, OTHERS MAYBE ADDED TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS). List Materials and Construction Methods Used, especially if f unique methods were necessary to preserve or enhance some aspects of the improved facade (attach additional sheets if necessary): List Names and Contact Information for Architects and Contractors Involved to Provide Proper Credit Provide any other important information specific to the project. All projects will be listed in the annual project report of the CRA so details and noteworthy information about the project is very critical. IMPACT FEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 9 COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM 16J 1 General Provisions The Collier County CRA has created the Site Improvement Grant Program to provide financial assistance to residential and commercial establishments that want to redevelop in the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle redevelopment area. The program has been established to encourage rehabilitation and preservation of significant commercial buildings in the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Zoning Overlay by offering financial and technical assistance for fagade improvements. In addition, single and multi - family dwellings are eligible throughout the entire Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. Improvements must be exterior improvements to the structure or surrounding site or improvements to windows /showcase areas if visible from the outside of the building. All improvements must meet the criteria listed below as well as the current requirements of the land development code, building code and any applicable zoning overlays. Improvements that remedy existing code enforcement problems also qualify if combined with other site improvements. The CRA is partially funded by Tax Increment Financing (TIF). TIF is a unique tool that CRA's can use to leverage public funds and to promote private sector activity. The CRA has allocated approximately $24,000 for Site Improvement Grants for the 2002 grant cycle, using 2000 -2001 TIF funds. The CRA will provide 50% of the cost of improvements, up to a maximum grant amount of $4,000. For example, a project that will cost $10,000 total may receive a grant for up to $4,000, however a project that will cost a total of $7,000 will only receive a grant for up to $3,500. Funding award will be evaluated based on the contribution made by each applicant as well as extent of improvements. Projects must include a minimum of five (5) improvements. For example, a project that consists of only one type of improvement (new sign only) will not qualify. All work must be approved by the CRA Advisory Board, the CRA and any applicable county departments that would normally review such improvements. All proposed work must be approved before beginning any work. Grant funding is not retroactive. All work must be completed within one year of approval by CRA. Grant applications must be submitted by April 1, 2002 at 5:00 pm. Applicants are required to request a meeting with staff prior to submittal of application. All meetings must be requested prior to March 22 "d to ensure availability of staff time. Eligibility Grant funds are eligible to commercial structures (owner or tenant with a minimum lease term of 3 years) within the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Zoning Overlay. Tenants must have a current occupational license and owner authorization. Authorization form must be submitted with application. Residential structures are also eligible throughout the entire Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. Grants funds may be used for: • Removal of false fagade, awnings, canopies, porches, signs or old entryway • Porches, awnings, canopies • Construction of new public entrances • Signs (commercial structures or approved conditional use bed and breakfast establishments) • Painting (all colors must be approved) • Window or door replacements or repairs • Window boxes or showcase areas visible from outside of the building • Repointing of mortar joints for brick or stone fronts • Woodwork repair, replacement or new installation SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM • Stucco work • Landscaping installation and improvement (commercial projects only) • All work must be completed within one year of approval by CRA Grant funds may not be used for: 16J1 • Working capital or administrative costs (payroll, rent, utilities, etc.) • Interior renovations (except for window boxes or showcase areas visible from outside building) • Demolition only • Loans or other capital support • Work that will extend beyond one year of approval by CRA Project Evaluation All projects will be evaluated based upon the following: • Applicant's financial contribution • Number of improvements (minimum 5 improvements required) • Extent of improvements • Ability to begin work immediately • Ability to complete project within one year • Remedy of code enforcement problems • Residential and commercial projects will be considered separately A point system will be used to evaluate projects, using the following table (application must clearly .�A:....to ..,1 —+ r„ —;nnt nrn %Ar1Pc to QPt th,- nnintQ nccnrintPrl with that item): POINTS FORM Project Provides Points Awarded Removal of false fa ade, awnings, canopies, porches, signs or old entryway I New porch, awning, and /or canopy I Construction of new public entrance I New signs I New paint only I Paint complements the "Old Florida" style I Design consistent with the "Old Florida" style I Replacement or repaired windows or doors I Window boxes or showcase areas visible from outside of the building 1 Re pointing of mortar joints for brick or stone fronts I Woodwork repair, replacement or new installation I Stucco work I Parking improvements 2 Landscaping improvements 2 Hurricane protection (storm shutters) 2 Subtotal " Other Criteria Applicant has funding and is prepared to begin permitting process and hiring of qualified contractors immediately following CRA approval and complete all work within one year of approval by CRA 5 Improvements will allow applicant to remedy existing code enforcement problems 5 I" time Site Improvement Grant applicant (repeat applicants qualify for points if grant not awarded previously) 5 Requires CRA contribution of 25% or less of the total project cost 10 Requires CRA contribution of 50% or less of the total project cost 5 SubtotalF t. TOTAL Any alterations in the project must be approved by the uKA to avoia revocation or Iunaing. in the evCnt that the total funding request from all applicants exceeds the amount available for this grant cycle, funds will be awarded at the final discretion of the CRA based on the merits provided to the redevelopment area. SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM 2 Process t Meets with Staff 16J1, Step 1: Applacan • Applicant must request a meeting with staff prior to submittal of application; meeting must be scheduled prior to March 22, 2002. Step 2: Applicant Submittal • Site Improvement Grant Application • Project Initiation and Completion Form • Owner Authorization Form (if tenant is applicant) — requires notarization • Two 8X10 color photos of the existing building fagade ( "before" photos) • Sketch of proposed improvements (for commercial projects, sketch must be prepared by a licensed architect) • Budget estimates for the improvements Step 3: CRA Staff and Advisory Board Review • CRA staff reviews application and completes the Points Form, then places the application on agenda of next Advisory Board meeting • Advisory board checks project to make sure it meets all grant criteria and Redevelopment Plan criteria • Applicant is required to be present at the Advisory Board meeting to answer any questions that may arise during the review or to provide additional material if requested • If project meets all criteria, the Advisory Board makes a recommendation to CRA to approve the application with a reimbursement of 50% of the total project costs, not to exceed $4,000. • Grant funding is limited with first priority given to projects with higher points. Step 4: CRA Review and Approval • CRA staff prepares Site Improvement Grant Agreement for the CRA to review and approve • Applicant signs Site Improvement Grant Agreement • Application with Advisory Board recommendation and agreement both placed on CRA agenda for review and approval; CRA reviews Advisory Board recommendation and agreement during regular meeting and approves or denies project Step 5: Permitting and Site Plan Improvement Process • If CRA approves project, applicant obtains all necessary permits and/or submits county site improvement plan to Community Development & Environmental Services Division. Step 6: Project Work • Applicant applies for and receives permits, then begins work Step 7. Project Completion and Submittal of Project Summary Report • Upon completion of work and after all inspections have been completed to insure work conforms to the work that was proposed, applicant submits: • Project Summary Report, including description of completed improvements, two 8X10 "after" photos, list of materials and construction techniques used, list of architects and/or contractors and any additional information specific to the project. • Payment Request Form and all receipts and/or canceled checks as proof that all materials and contracted improvements have been paid SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM 3 COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT APPLICATION 16J1 Section 1: Applicant Information Owner Name: Owner Address: Site Address (if different from owner address): Legal Description of Site: Daytime Phone: Alternate Phone: How long have you owned this property ?: How long is lease term if leased?: (attach copy of lease) Tenant Name: Tenant Daytime Phone: Tenant Alternate Phone: Number of Years in Business at Site Address: Occupational License Number: Other Tenant Names, if any First Time Site Improvement Grant Applicant? Yes ❑ No ❑ If no, how many applications submitted? Grant(s) awarded? Yes ❑ No ❑ SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM • Information Section 2. Project 16J1 , Existing Condition of Project (attach additional sheets if necess ATTACH "BEFORE" PHOTOS (INCLUDING AT LEAST TWO 8XJ0S, OTHERS MAY BE ADDED TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE SITE). Outline Proposed Improvements in Detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): List Materials to be Used and Construction Methods to be Utilized (i.e. red bricks, wood panels etc) (attach additional sheets if necessary): ATTACH PHOTOCOPIES OF EXISTING CONDITIONS PHOTOS IDENTIFYING AREAS TO BE IMPROVED. ATTACH DRAWINGS OR SKETCH OF IMPROVEMENTS (FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS, SKETCH MUST BE PREPARED BY A LICENSED ARCHITECT). ATTACH COLOR SAMPLES FOR EACH IMPROVEMENT. SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM 5 Section 3: Project Cost Information Estimated Project Cost: Estimated Request from CRA (up to 50% of the total project cost, up to, but not exceeding $4,000.) _ 16J.1 COPIES OF ALL RECEIPTS AND /OR CANCELED CHECKS WILL REQUIRED UPON PROJECT COMPLETION AS PROOF THAT ALL MATERIALS AND CONTRACTED IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN PAID. NO REIMBURSEMENT WILL BE MADE BY THE CRA UNTIL ALL RECEIPTS AND /OR CANCELLED CHECKS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND VERIFIED. Note: The CRA will reimburse only 50% of the total project cost, up to, but not exceeding a maximum amount of $4,000 upon completion of the project and submittal of the Payment Request Form. SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM 6 Section 4: Project Forms All applicable forms must be completed. 'j PP td 16J 1 Forms to include with application: 1. Project Initiation and Completion Form 2. Owner Authorization Form (if tenant is applicant) — requires notarization Form to complete and have approved by CRA prior to start of project: 1. Site Improvement Grant Agreement (provided by staff after Advisory Board recommendation and prior to CRA review and approval of grant application) Forms to submit following project completion: 1. Project Summary Report Form 2. Payment Request Form - — requires notarization SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM 7 Project Initiation and Completion Form (to be submitted with Site Improvement Grant Application) 6J1 : A4 owner /tenant of the property located at , have the funding and capability necessary to begin the site improvements listed under Section 2 of the completed site improvement grant application and have the ability to complete all improvements within one year of the approval of the site improvement grant by the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency. Signature of Owner/Tenant Signature of Owner/Tenant (if jointly owned or leased) Signature of Owner/Tenant (if jointly owned or leased) Date Date Date SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM 8 Owner Authorization Form 16J 1 (to be submitted with Site Improvment Grant Application, if tenant is applicant) I , owner of the property located at understand that who has a valid lease for the above listed property, and authorize said tenant to complete the site improvements listed under Section 2 of the completed site improvement grant application and to request matching funds from the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency. Signature of Owner Signature of Owner (if jointly owned) Signature of Owner (if jointly owned) STATE OF: COUNTY OF: Date Date Date The foregoing Owner Authorization Form was executed before me this day of located at OR is personally known by me who has produced Affix notarial seal as proof of identity. Notary Public (Signature) Print Name of Notary Public Commission No: My Commission expires: 200— by— owner of the property who: SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM 9 Project Summary Report Form (submit after project completion) (attach additional sheets if necessary) 16J 1 Describe Condition of Project: ATTACH "AFTER" PHOTOS (INCLUDING AT LEAST TWO 8XIOS, OTHERS MAY BE ADDED TO ACCURA TEL Y DESCRIBE THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS). List Materials and Construction Methods used, especially if unique methods were necessary to preserve or enhance some aspects of the improved site (attach additional sheets if necessary): List Names and Contact Information for Architects and Contractors Involved to Provide Proper Credit Provide any other important information specific to the project. All projects will be listed in the annual project report of the CRA so details and noteworthy information about the project is very critical SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM 10 Payment Request Form (project costs) �, 1A- (attach Y 9 �� cancelled checks all receipts and/or ) On , the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency approved a portion of the following improvements (50% of the total up to $4,000) to be funded through the Site vement (grant Improvement I Cost Total I hereby confirm that all items listed above have been completed as per the Site Improvement Grant application submitted to the CRA and authorized by the CRA. Therefore, I am requesting the approved funding in the total amount of $ as approved by the CRA. The foregoing Payment Request Form was executed before me this located at OR is personally known by me who has produced Affix notarial seal as proof of identity. Notary Public (Signature) Print Name of Notary Public Commission No: My Commission expires: day of , 200_ by_ owner of the property who: SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM I I Nov -15 -01 01:18P 1 1 44 P_Ol COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITV �- AGENDA P , JC� DATE: November 19, 2001 PLACE: Marco Island Executive Airport, 2003 Mainsail Drive, Conference Room, Naples, FL TIME: 1:00prn Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Airport Authority will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto send will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record will include all testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 1. Call meeting to Order and Quorum Check II. Approval of Agenda 111. Consent Agenda A. Approval of October 22, 2001 Meeting Minutes 13. Holiday Celebration Luncheon C. Immokalee Regional Raceway Lease Extension D. Incubator Support Facility F. Professional Engineer Liaison IV, Administrative A. The Operation of Ultra- lights from County Airports B. AirWorks Enterprise, Inc. Lease C. 1,RP Update D. Productivity Committee Report E. Student Work Program V. Old Business VI. New Business VII. Adjournment Item# I W 1 Copies To: Fiala v •--��� Carter Henni Coyle Colette Nov -15 -01 01 :1BP COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2001 16J1 MEMBERS Monte Lazarus Gene Schmidt Robin Doyle Karl Gedg PRESENT: Ernest Spinelli Steve Price A13SENT: Raymond Rewis STAFF: John Drury Thomas Palmer Gary Vincent (Tail Hamhright PUBLIC: Ross Prio Richard Pagans Mike Taylor Scan Emst I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AND QUORUM CHECK Meeting called to order at 1:08 p.m. and quorurn was present. IL APPROVAL, OF AGENDA Items 111 -C and D be moved to V- A and R Add Item 1V -F Hole Montes Work Order Amendment for the Immokalee Industrial Park Mr. Price moved to approve the Agenda with changes. Mr. Lazarus seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 5 - 0. Mr. I)oyle and Mr. Rewis were absent. III. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Price moved for approval of recommendation. Mr. Lazarus seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 5 - 0. Mr. Doyle and Mr. Rewis were absent. IV. ADMINISTRATIVE A. New Board Members The two (2) new Board members (Mr. West and Mr. Vasty) were introduced and welcomed. 3. Elect New Officers Mr. Lazarus dominated Mr. Price for President. Nominations were closed. Mr. Lazarus moved for approval of the nomination. Mr. Schmidt seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 5 - 0. P.02 Nov -15 -01 01:18P Collier County Airport Authority Minutes October 22, 2001 Page 2 16J1 Mr. Doyle was nominated by Mr. Lazarus for Vice President. Nominations were closed_ Mr. Lazarus moved for approval of nomination. Mr. Price seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 5 - 0. Mr. Lazarus was nominated by Mr. Schmidt fi }r Secretary. Nominations were closed. Mr. Schmidt moved for approval of nomination. Mr. Price seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 5 - 0. Mr. Lazarus recommended that the Minutes reflect the excellent work done by Mr. Schmidt this past year as President. Mr. Lazarus moved for approval of recommendation. Mr. Price seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously .i - 0. C. 2001 — 2002 Rate s and Charges Mr. 1:)oy1e arrived during the discussion of this item. Mr. Drury advised that previously at the August 13, 2001 Board meeting staff' presented to the Board a recommended rate schedule I"or each airport. The Authority voted to table the issue and requested than staff conduct at more thorough survey of t- hangar rates_ Surveys were presented at the Boards September 10, 2001 meeting. The Beard then requested that staff perform a return on investment calculation and present it at the next Board meeting. Mr. Drury presented the return on investment calculation and recommended 1) That the Authority increase existing t- hangar rents by 3% a year plus tax liar all hangars excluding the new Marco t- hangars with bi -fold doors. This equates to a $4.80 monthly increase plus tax for Immokalee and Fverglades and $7.20 monthly increase for Marco. 2) That the Authority adopt the previously proposed rates fin• the new Marco t- hangars with bi -fold doors. 3) That the Authority Set a 3% annual increase rate for all hangars to be applied in future years. This wary tenants are aware of rent increase and there are no surprises. In addition, the Authority can place that calculation into the Business Plan to help forecast future financial trends. 4) That the Authority adopt the proposed rate schedule: for all other fees. Mr. Price moved for approval of recommendation. Mr. Lazarus seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 6 - 0. P_03 Nov -15 -01 01:19P "Collier County Airport Authority Minutes October 22, 2001 Page 3 16J D. Crash Management Policy Mr. Drury reported that previously the Authority requested that staff obtain support from the Clerk, County Manager and hoard of County Commissioners on establishing a cash flow policy with no interest and no caps. Staff presented this to the Clerk and County Manager, The County Manager has revised the policy to include interest and cap of $50,000. Discussion was held, during which Mr. Price recommended that staff work with the County Manager to increase the cap from $50,000 to $100,000. Mr. Price further recommended that the Board approve the negotiated LXCCUtive Summary for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners with a cap of $100,000 and no interest for the 850 Road Widening Project because this project is a. benefit to the County's road system. Mr. Lazarus moved for approval of recommendation. Mr. Vasey seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 6 - 0. E. Minimum Standards. Leasing Policy. Rules & Regulation Administrative Cade Mr. Drury advised that the Collier County Airport Authority previously developed Airport Minimum Standards for Commercial Operators, a Leasing Policy, Rules and Regulations and an Administrative Code and that these documents all need to be updated. Mr. Drury recommended that the Chairman appoint a committee to update all of these policies. Mr. Lazarus, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Vasey were appointed to this Committee with Mr. Price as ex- officio. F. .Bole Mantes Work Order Amendment for Industrial Park Improvements Mr. Drury recommended that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute Work Order Amendment No. I in the amount of $6,000 from $153,705 to $159,705. Mr. Price moved for approval of recommendation. Mr. Vasey seconded the motion. Mr. Doyle abstained from voting. Motion passed. V. OLD BUSINESS A. T- hangar Waiting List Policy "General Aircraft T -han Tar Units" P.04 Nov -15 -01 01 :19P Collier County Airport Authority Minutes October 22, 2001 Page 4 P -05 16J1 Mr. Drury recommended that the Board adopt the presented policy for staff to implement and follow, Mr- Price moved for approval of recommendation. Mr. VA'sey seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 6 - 0. B, 'T -Ilan Tar W;7iiin List Polic "S ecialt Aircraft Hangars" Mr. Drury recommended that the Board adopt the presented policy for staff to implement and follow. Mr. Price moved for approval of recommendation. Mr. Vasey seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 6 - 0. IX. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Lazarus recommended that the Collier County Airport Authority express their deep appreciation to Mr. Spinelli and Mr. Geng for their outstanding service to the Authority and conununity and present a plaque recognizing their work, Mr. Lazarus moved for approval of recommendation. Mr. Price seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously 6 - 0. X. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 2:25 p,tn. Fiala Carter Henning Coyle Colette 16J1 IER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHOR4V2,4 AGENDA DATE: December 10, 2001 PLACE: Marco Island Executive Airport, 2003 Mainsail Drive, Conference Room, Naples, FL TIME: 1:00pm Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Airport Authority will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record will include all testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. I. Call meeting to Order and Quorum Check II. Approval of Agenda III. Consent Agenda A. Approval of November 19, 2001 Meeting Minutes B. Ten Thousand Island Aero -Tours Lease C. Marco Rotating Beacon Update D. Policy Committee Report E. Incubator Support Facility F. Financial Reports G. Change Order to West Wind Contract IV. Administrative A. Terry Farnsworth Certificate B. U.S.D.A. Grant C. BCC /Authority Work Shop D. Authority Productivity Committee Report V. Old Business VI. New Business VII. Adjournment Misc. Corres: Date: Item# I W I Copies To: COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2001 MEMBERS Monte Lazarus PRESENT: Raymond Rewis ABSENT: Dennis Vasey STAFF: John Drury PUBLIC: Jeff Head Tara Mucha Ken Passarella 16J1 Gene Schmidt Robin Doyle Steve Price Bill West Thomas Palmer Robert Titus Maria Devis Luc Carriere Ken Rutter Bob Kimble Walt Harrison Mike Taylor Bill Griffith Jerad Brown I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AND QUORUM CHECK Meeting called to order at 1:00 p.m. and quorum was present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Drury added 2 items to the Agenda: Administrative II -A Introduce new finance manager Robert Titus IV -D Update of the Construction Projects Mr. Doyle Requested that Item III -E be moved from the consent agenda to the regular agenda for discussion. The Chairman put this item under New Business VI -A. Mr. Lazarus moved to approve the Agenda with changes. Mr. Schmidt seconded the emotion. Motion passed unanimously. III. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Items III -A through III -D with correction to Minutes deleting Karl Geng and Ernest Spinelli and adding Bill West and Dennis Vasey to members present. Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the minutes of October 22, 2001. Mr. Doyle seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. IV. ADMINISTRATIVE A. Introduction of Robert Titus as New Financial Manager Mr. Drury reported that over 150 applicants applied for the Financial Manager position. The top six (6) were interviewed and Mr. Titus was the most qualified for Collier County Airport Authority Minutes November 19, 2001 Page 2 16J1 what the Authority was looking for and therefore Mr. Drury hired Mr. Titus as the new Finance Manager. The Board members welcomed Mr. Titus aboard. B. The Operation of Ultra- Lights from Cou= Airports Mr. Drury reported that the Collier 'County Airport Authority has rules and regulations that does not allow ultra - lights to operate from the airports. From time -to -time ultra -light owners will request to operate at the Airports. Mr. Drury reported that if an ultra -light pilot agrees to have an aeronautical radio, follow the traffic pattern, communicate and follow all the rules he did not have a problem with ultra - lights operating from the airports. Mr. Walt Harrison an ultra -light owner addressed the Board. Discussion was held. Mr. Schmidt asked if this would affect our insurance. Mr. Drury reported that he did not think it would but he would check into it. Recommendation: Mr. Drury recommended that if ultra -light pilots get an approval from airport management, show they have a pilot license or training in ulta- lights and have a radio then they should be permitted to operate from the airports. This recommendation would be implemented for all three (3) airports. Mr. Schmidt moved for approval of recommendation. Mr. Lazarus seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. C. Airworks Mr. Drury reported that AirWorks Enterprise has requested that the clause be removed from their proposed lease that which requires AirWorks pay for the relocation cost in the event the Authority needs the land that AirWorks currently occupies. The clause reads as follows: "The Authority shall attempt to obtain a grant to assist with the cost of relocation: however, if the Authority is unable to obtain funding then sublicensee shall be responsible for the total cost to relocate." Mr. Ken Rutter, President of AirWorks, addressed the Board. Discussion was held. Mr. Schmidt moved for approval of to accept Mr. Rutter's request. Mr. Lazarus seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Collier County Airport Authority Minutes November 19, 2001 Page 3 D. Environmental Resource Permit Update 16J1 Mr. Luc Carriere from Hole Montes & Associates and staff addressed the Board on the Status of the Environmental Resource Permit. E. Productivity Committee Report Mr. Price recommended that he appoint a small committee to review this report and come back to the Authority with recommended response. Mr. Schmidt moved for approval of recommendation. Mr. Lazarus seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Price recommended Mr. Doyle chair this group with Mr. Lazarus and Mr. Schmidt as members due to their historical knowledge. Mr. Drury clarified his intent of his written response to the productivity committee report by reading into the record what he wrote in the introductory paragraph of his response as follows: "These comments are internal and for use by the Collier County Airport Authority. The Collier County Airport Authority will develop formal comments on the Productivity Committee's Report after receiving the Director's comments." Mr. Drury reported that he tried to make it as clear as possible that his response was intended to give the Board information so that the Board could make an informed decision when formulating a response to the report. Mr. Price advised that it is Mr. Drury's job to provide the Airport Authority with as much information as he can so the Board can make informed decisions and that the report Mr. Drury wrote fulfilled that job requirements. F. Student Work Program Mr. Drury reported that this item was for informational purposes to let the Board know that staff is very involved with the High School and various work programs in Immokalee. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Professional Engineer Liaison Mr. Drury reported that Mr. Spinelli, past Airport Authority Board member and professional engineer, has requested that the Board consider appointing him as a liaison to the Authority to review with the staff the Authority's engineer plans and specifications at no cost to the Authority. Collier County Airport Authority Minutes November 19, 2001 Page 4 16J1 Mr. Doyle requested that Mr. Spinelli be appointed but instead of "liaison" be an "advisor to the Board ". Mr. Doyle moved for approval of recommendation. Mr. Lazarus seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. B. Mr. Drury reported that Mr. Vasey was on vacation and that Mr. Vasey requested that Mr. Drury read Mr. Vasey's response to the Productivity Committee's Report. Mr. Palmer had notified Mr. Drury that Mr. Vasey should disclose his relationship to Janet Vasey to the Board prior to reading his response into the record. Mr. Drury read Mr. Vasey's disclosure as follows: "Please disclose for the record that Janet H. Vasey, one of the report writers, and I are husband and wife. I was not involved with data collection, discussion nor report preparation. I did not participate in any discussion regarding the report nor was I aware of its content until you provided a copy of the consolidated report I was unaware of the report in focus." Mr. Drury then read Mr. Vasey's comments on the Productivity Committee's Report as follows: "I have the impression that our Administrative Code should incorporate all recommended actions in the Productivity Committee's Report. They are sound and not withstanding the Executive Director's comments, the Airport Authority can benefit and airports in Collier County will ultimately benefit from their findings and recommendations. I recommend that we provide a tentative reply to the Productivity Committee as follows: "We have reviewed the Collier County Productivity Committee Report and concur with your findings and recommendations. Appropriate changes will be made to the Administrative Code within the next sixty (60) days and submitted for legal sufficiency ". Mr. Price requested that this information and any other information Mr. Vasey has transmitted to Mr. Drury should be given to Mr. Doyle for his committee to review and consider. Mr. Drury advised that all correspondence would be forwarded to Mr. Doyle and each committee member. i' ._ 1 81ijR►`lui&I" Meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m. 16J1 AGENDA SUMMARY DECEMBER 10, 2001 AGENDA ITEM NO. III -C MARCO ROTATING BEACON UPDATE CONSENT AGENDA Summary: Mr. Vasey requested an update to the status of the rotating beacon at Marco Island Executive Airport . The rotating beacon was hit by lightning and decommissioned February 2001. A notum was issued on February 2, 2001. The cost to replace the beacon was estimated to be $5,175. Staff obtained an 80% FDOT Aviation Grant with 20% coming from Authority reserves to pay for the replacement of the beacon. The beacon has been ordered and will be installed by December 31,. 2001. 16J1 AGENDA SUMMARY DECEMBER 10, 2001 AGENDA ITEM NO. III -D POLICY COMMITTEE REPORT CONSENT AGENDA Summary: The Policy Committee met on December 3, 2001. In attendance were Mr. Lazarus, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Vasey as members. Mr. Drury and Mr. Doyle were also in attendance. It was suggested by Mr. Vasey that the Administrative Code be the core document that reflects the policies on how the Authority will operate with the following documents becoming appendixes to the Administrative Code: 1. Minimum Standards for Commercial Operations 2. Airport Rules and Regulations 3. Declaration of Development Standards 4. Leasing Policy 5. Emergency Response Manual It was suggested by the Committee that all documents be updated to reflect current Board policies and actions and that the Minimum Standards for commercial cargo operations require more detailed minimum facilities. All suggestions were voted on and unanimously passed. Staff was instructed to update all documents and implement the suggestions via "strike throughs" and "underlines ". AGENDA SUMMARY 6J1 DECEMBER 10, 2001 AGENDA ITEM NO. III -E INCUBATOR SUPPORT FACILITY CONSENT AGENDA Summary: The attached photographs identify the construction and progress that is underway on the Incubator Support Facility in Immokalee. �r', N1 0 E —X s ,p, r 7 �y - + 0 7 �y - + ,, �-sss vv �'°rrs 7 i 6 I r y � � 0 0 16JIAGENDA SUMMARY DECEMBER 10, 2001 AGENDA ITEM NO. III -F FINANCIAL REPORTS CONSENT AGENDA Summary: Robert Titus, our new Finance Manager, is developing financial reports for the 1" quarter that will compare current year actual to current year budget and to prior year 1" quarter. The financial reports will be presented at the January 14, 2002 Board meeting. AGENDA SUMMARY DECEMBER 10, 2001 6J1 AGENDA ITEM NO. III -G CHANGE ORDER TO WEST WIND CONTRACT CONSENT AGENDA Summary: Previously the Authority entered into a $170,789.50 contract with West Wind Construction to fill in Industrial Park Lease Plots with fill to make them slab ready and more marketable to potential tenants. The contract also included a water line extension to the proposed bulk hangar facility. The engineering firm underestimated the number of cubic yards needed to fill in all three (3) sites due to many variations in the surface of each site (dips and swells). It will take approximately 3,000 more cubic yards to complete site #3 (note: site one (1) and two (2) are complete). Immokalee water and Sewer District are requiring the installation of an 8" gate valve on the water line. The cost of fill is $8.06 per cubic yard, which equates to $24,180 at 3,000 cubic yards. The gate valve is $1,200. The project is funded by a $1,078,500 EDA grant. There are sufficient funds in the grant to cover this cost. Recommendation: Authorize a change order and all necessary budget amendments in the amount of $25,380 with West Wind to complete site #3 and complete the gate valve. 4 AGENDA SUMMARY 16J 1 DECEMBER 10, 2001 AGENDA ITEM NO. IV -A TERRY FARNSWORTH CERTIFICATE ADMINISTRATIVE Summary: Terry Farnsworth is currently a Maintenance Worker at the Immokalee Airport. During the past several months Mr. Farnsworth has displayed outstanding service to the public and the Airport in several ways the following are a few: • Headed up the airport centerline project repainting centerlines on the Immokalee Regional Airport to the latest FAA Regulations. • Completed picnic table slab by framing and finishing it off. • Insured that the fuel farm meets all FAA Regulations. Recommendation: Authorize the Chairman to sign and present the attached Mr. Farnsworth with Certificate of Appreciation for a job well done. i n LA I � . ,4 w n LA I � . AGENDA SUMMARY DECEMBER 10, 2001 AGENDA ITEM NO. IV -B U.S.D.A. GRANT ADMINISTRATIVE 16J1 Summary: Previously the Authority developed a $1,329,000.00 project to construct a manufacturing incubator support facility that would consist of a manufacturing powder coating area, manufacturing assembly area and bonded warehouse area. Where there are sufficient funds to construct the overall building there are not sufficient funds to outfit the powder - coating area with the primary and secondary equipment necessary to conduct powder- coating operations. The primary equipment includes a powder coating fired batch oven, conveyer belts /overhead electric hoist gantry system and rinse /dip tanks, transfer booms, hand push conveyor system, powder cartridge booth and powder guns with hopper. The secondary equipment includes outside propane storage tanks, and holding tanks and evaporator system. The estimated cost for the primary equipment is $250,000. The estimated cost for the secondary equipment is $100,000. Staff is in the process of securing a $250,000 grant from USDA to pay for the primary equipment. Staff is negotiating a lease agreement for the entire facility with Global Technologies, Inc. in which Global will be responsible for providing the secondary equipment. Recommendation: 1. Authorize the Chairman to execute all USDA closing documents on the grant. 2. Authorize a budget amendment to increase the project by $250,000. 3. Authorize a change order with Quality Control Builders in the amount of $250,000 to design, procure and install the primary powder coating equipment system. 16J1 AGENDA SUMMARY DECEMBER 10, 2001 AGENDA ITEM NO. IV -C BCC /AUTHORITY WORK SHOP ADMINISTRATIVE Summary: The Executive Director, Authority Chairman and County Manager have discussed holding an Airport Authority/BCC Work Shop in Immokalee sometime in February 2002. Enclosed is a proposed agenda. The County Manager has requested that the MotorSports Park concept be added to the Agenda. Recommendation: That the Authority discuss the proposed Agenda, modify it as deemed appropriate and instruct staff to coordinate the work shop with all parties including the BCC, Airport Authority, EDC and Immokalee community leaders. 16J1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY WORKSHOP Date: February Location: Immokalee Regional Airport Manufacturing Incubator Conference Room I. Introduce County Commissioners and Authority Board members II. Tour of Incubator Facility III. History/Creation of Authority a. Ordinance b. Loan Agreement c. Business Plan IV. Work Completed from 1994 to Today a. Everglades Airpark 1994 Everglades Airport Today Everglades Airpark's Future b. Marco Airport 1994 Marco Airport Today Marco Airport's Future c. Immokalee Airport 1994 Immokalee Airport Today Immokalee Airports Future Immokalee Race Track V. Updating the Business Plan a. Social Impacts b. Economic Impacts c. Financial Impacts VI. A discussion between the Board of County Commissioners, County Manager and Airport Authority on the future of the Airports VII. Adjournment H:11.26.01 BCC. Workshop 16J1 AGENDA SUMMARY DECEMBER 10, 2001 AGENDA ITEM NO. IV -D COMMITTEE DESIGNATED TO RESPOND TO PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE Summary: Robin Doyle chaired this Committee on December 7, 2001 at the Marco Island Executive Airport to develop a response to the Productivity Report. The County Manager plans to place the report on the Board of County Commissioners January 22, 2001 Agenda and has requested that the Authority have a representative attend to discuss the Authority's response. Mr. Doyle will discuss the Committees recommendations. 16J1 t1u. cou', ier Cw iraort Authori General Correspondence 16J1 TWA down 13.6% Delta down 10.2% Southwest down 2.4% • Transcontinental Service has declined nearly one -third • Non stop service from the US to Europe has been hit the hardest with 24 markets no longer served • Across the board service reductions have been accomplished by cutting frequencies and early morning and late evening flights • 46 international markets from the US are -no longer served Florida points of interest: • Miami is now the largest international Gateway in the US surpassing Los Angeles, JFK, Chicago O'Hare, San Francisco, Newark Atlanta and every other US Airport. • Florida had the least reduction in service at 9.2% compared to all other regions of the US with the northeast at 20% reduction in service. • Not one Florida airport made the top 10 list as the most affected in terms of reduction of service in any class (Large Hub Airports, Medium Hub Airport, Small Hub Airport) Federal Legislation: The House and Senate Appropriations Committee reached an agreement on $28 million for additional Customs inspectors (we will need some of them at Immokalee Regional Airport) and $33 million for "non- intrusive" inspection technologies. The Treasury — Postal Service appropriations bill includes •$427 million for Customs Automation, anti - terrorism, and canine detection program for chemical/biological agents (we will need that too at Immokalee Regional Airport) The Senate and House bill funds 3.3 billion for Airport improvements next year A new House and Senate Bill allows reimbursements to airports for law enforcement costs (we will be applying for that grant with Don Hunter). State Wide: Too many to list. Locally: Lee County Airport Authority receives its "A" rating by Fitch for its $327.3 million revenue bond issue to construct the mid field terminal. The FBI and INS arrested three student pilots from Tunisia at the Charlotte County Airport. 16J1 The above reflects just a few of the results and activities related to Aviation that is present today. Here at the Collier County Airport Authority we are working very hard to stay on top of all of these changes. Our number one mission is to provide a safe, secure and efficient air transportation system here in Collier County. Corporate jet activity is making its way back. Just today we had our busiest day since 9/11 and sold thousands of gallons of fuel and serviced dozens of aircraft. We are working with federal and state grant agencies to make up the lost revenue during the airspace shut down period and sluggish come back of corporate aviation. We are working with Federa, State and local law enforcement to implement all the new security programs and assessing the source of funding programs for that and we continue to push forward our economic development initiatives at the Immokalee Regional Airport with the construction of our bonded wearhouse, manufacturing assembly facility, powder coating facility, Cargo processing facility, industrial park expansion program, road widening project and U.S. Customs building. Our 14 employees remain very busy keeping the three Collier County Airports in business and operating while responding to this very dynamic and changing industry of ours. In closing it is appropriate to note that where the State of Aviation will never be the same as it was pre- 9/11, all indications are that it will be safer and more secure then it ever has been in the history of Air Transportation and at every level! Plain Henning L.I/ and af uF3litlt!1 COLLIER COUNTY A] RPORT AUTHORITY MINUTES OF NOVEMBER I9, 2001 MEMBERS Monte Lazarus PRESENT: Raymond Rewis ABSENT: Dennis Vasey STAFF: Johri Drury PUBLIC: Jeff Head Tara Mucha Ken Passarclla ✓16JT Gene Schmidt Robin Doyle Steve Price Bill West Thomas Palmer Robert Titus Maria Devis Luc C:arriere Ken Rutter Bob Kimble Walt Harrison Mike Taylor Rill Griffith Jerad Brown I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AND QUORUM CHECK Meeting called to order at 1:00 p.m. and quorum was present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Drury added 2 items to the Agenda: Administrative II -A Introduce new finance manager Robert'I'itus IV -D Update of the Construction Projects Mr. Doyle Requested that Item III -E be moved from the consent agenda to the regular agenda for discussion. The Chairman put this item under New Business VI -A, Mr. Lazarus moved to approve the Agenda with changes. Mr. Schmidt seconded the potion. Motion passed unanimously. III. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Items III -A through III -D with correction to Minutes deleting Karl Geng and Ernest Spinelli and adding Bill West and Dennis Vasey to members present. Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the minutes of October 22, 2001. Mr. Doyle seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. IV. ADMINISTRATIVE A. Introduction cif -Robert Titus as New Financial Manager Mise. Corremr. Drury reported that over 150 applicants applied for the Financial Manager siti - The top six (6) were interviewed and Mr. 'Titus was the most qualified for Data 02— Item# I� i Copies To: d6t =to to -Lo -tea❑ Collier County Airport Authority Minutes November 19, 2001 Page 2 16J 1 what the Authority was looking for and therefore Mr. Drury hired Mr. Titus as the new Finance Manager. The Board members welcomed Mr. "Titus aboard. B. The Operation of Ultra- Lights from County Airports Mr. Drury reported that the Collier" County Airport Authority has rules and regulations that does not allow ultra - lights to operate from the airports. From tithe -to -time ultra -light owners will request to operate at the Airports. Mr. Drury reported that if an ultra -light pilot agrees to have an aeronautical radio, follow the traffic pattern, communicate and follow all the rules he did not have a problem with ultra - lights operating from the airports_ Mr. Walt Harrison an ultra -light owner addressed the Board. Discussion was held. Mr. Schmidt asked if this would affect our insurance. Mr. Drury reported that he did not think it would but he would check into it. Recommendation: Mr. Drury recommended that if ultra -light pilots get an approval from airport management, show they have a pilot license or training in ulta- lights and have a radio then they should be permitted to operate from the airports. This recommendation would be implemented for all three (3) airports. Mr. Schmidt moved for approval of recommendation. Mr. Lazarus seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. C. Airworks Mr. Drury reported that AirWorks Enterprise has requested that the clause be removed from their proposed lease that which requires AirWorks pay for the relocation cost in the event the Authority needs the land that AirWorks currently occupies. The clause reads as follows: "The Authority shall attempt to obtain a grant to assist with the cost of relocation: however, if the Authority is unable to obtain funding then sublicensce shall be responsible for the total cost to relocate." Mr. Ken Rutter, President of AirWarks, addressed the Board. Discussion was held. Mr. Schmidt moved for approval of to accept Mr. Rutter's request. Mr. Lazarus seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. ZO -d dOZ =iO ZO- LO -ZDa❑ Collier County Airport Authority Minutes November 19, 2001 Page 3 D. Environmental Resource Permit Update 16J1 Mr. Luc Czuriere from Hole Montes & Associates and staff addressed the Board on the Status of the Environmental Resource Permit. E. Productivity Committee Report Mr. Price reconunernded that he appoint a small committee to review this report and come back to the Authority with recommended response. Mr. Schmidt moved for approval of recommendation, Mr. Lazarus seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Price recommended Mr. Doyle chair this group with Mr. Lazarus and Mr. Schmidt as members due to their historical knowledge. Mr. Drury clarified his intent of his written response to the productivity committee report by reading into the record what he wrote in the introductory paragraph of his response as follows: "These comments are internal and for use by the Collier County Airport Authority. The Collier County Airport Authority will develop formal comments on the Productivity Committee's 'Report after receiving the Director's comments." Mr. Drury reported that he tried to make it as clear as possible that his response was intended to give the Board information so that the Board could make an informed decision when formulating a response to the report. Mr. Price advised that it is Mr. Drury's job to provide the Airport Authority with as much information as he can so the Board can make informed decisions and that the report Mr. Drury wrote fulfilled that job requirements. F. Student Work Prop-ram Mr. Drury reported that this item was for informational purposes to let the Board know that staff is very involved with the High School and various work programs in Tmmokalee_ V. NEW BUSINESS A. Professional Eneineer Liaison Mr. Drury reported that Mr. Spinelli, past Airport Authority Board member and Professional engineer, has requested that the Board consider appointing; him as a liaison to the Authority to review with the staff the Authority's engineer plans and specifications at no cost to the Authority. EO - d dOZ =io 10- 40-z3a0 Collier County Airport Authority Minutes November 19, 2001 Page 4 16J1 Mr. Doyle requested that Mr. Spinelli be appointed but instead of "liaison" be an "advisor to the Board ". Mr. Doyle moved for approval of recommendation. Mr. Lazarus seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. B. Mr. Drury reported that Mr. Vasey was on vacation and that Mr. Vascy requested that Mr. Drury read Mr. Vasey's response to the Productivity Committee's Report_ Mr. Palmer had notified Mr. Drury that Mr. Vasey should disclose his relationship to Janet Vasey to the Board prior to reading his response into the record. Mr. Drury read Mr_ Vasey's disclosure as follows: "Please disclose fur the record that Janet H. Vasey, one of the report writers, and I are husband and wife. I was not involved with data collection, discussion nor report preparation. I did not participate in any discussion regarding the report nor was i aware of its content until you provided a copy of the consolidated report I was unaware of the report in focus." Mr. Drury then read Mr. Vasey's comments on the Productivity Committee's Report as follows: "I have the impression that our Administrative Code should incorporate all recommended actions in the Productivity Committee's Report. They are sound and not withstanding the Executive Director's comments, the Airport Authority can benefit and airports in Collier County will ultimately benefit from their findings and recommendations. I recommend that we provide a tentative reply to the Productivity Committee as follows: "We have reviewed the Collier County Productivity Committee Report and concur with your findings and recommendations. Appropriate changes will be made to the Administrative Code within the next sixty (60) days and submitted for legal sufficiency ". Mr. Price requested that this information and any other information Mr. Vasey has tnuismitted to Mr. Drury should be given to Mr. Doyle for his committee to review and consider. Mr. Drury advised that all correspondence would be forwarded to Mr. Doyle and each committee member. 1X. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 2,55 p.m. VO'd a0z ;TO TO -LO -tea❑ � ,ar /ice hECIEVVED 80ard of County compiss;%:r�kers.. Memorandum TO: Clerk to the Board/Minutes & Records FROM: Marlene Foordncipal Planner DATE: December 3, 2001 Fiala V,_ Carley Henning __ Coyle Colette RE: Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Recorded Meeting Minutes 16J1 I am submitting the following Minutes of the Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board to be filed by your office: Adopted Summary Minutes of: August 16, 2001, September 20, 2001, and October 25, 2001 Cassette Tapes of: August 16, 2001, September 20, 2001, and October 25, 2001 (mini -tape, other standard size tape recorders in use at same time) If you have any questions, please call me at 213 -2903 �� -K< � V, Misc. Corres: Date: L item# (,Q Community Development & Environmental Services 1"W O: Planning Services 16,11 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Minutes — Meeting of August 16, 2001 The meeting of the Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order at 3:10 p.m. at the Immokalee Manufacturing Incubator Conference Room, 160 Airpark Boulevard, Immokalee. Members in attendance: Lucy Ortiz Robert Asbel Denise Blanton Floyd Crews Jerry Hubb art John Kirchner Phillip Keyes, for Al Neuman Members not in attendance: Ira Malamut Tony Sanchez Herman Spooner Casey Wolff Guests in attendance Fred Thomas, Jr. Raymond Holland Barb Cacchione, Empowerment Alliance Threasa Miller, PACE Center for Girls Staff in attendance: Dora Vidaurri, Immokalee Initiative Housing Project Maria Benavides, Immokalee Initiative Housing Project Marlene Foord, Planning Services Aaron Blair, Planning Services Helene Caseltine, Housing and Urban Improvement 1. Welcome and Introductions. Marlene Foord introduced herself and Aaron Blair as the staff from the County Planning Services Department that will be working with the Advisory Board. 2. Brief Background of Community Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Foord provided a brief background of the Community Redevelopment Agency, including its creation and purpose, the assignment of the Board of County Commissioners as the CRA, the adoption of the redevelopment plan and the establishment of advisory boards. She reminded them that during their August 2000 meeting, the same membership serving as the Enterprise Zone Development Agency voted to recommend that the CRA appoint the EZDA as the Immokalee Advisory Board. Fred Thomas also provided some insight into the importance of the CRA and the role of the advisory board. 3. Review of Advisory Board Reference Notebook. Ms. Foord asked the members to refer to the reference notebooks provided to each member as she briefly reviewed each section. She requested that the members use the notebooks as they need them and bring them to the meetings for reference. She also requested that members notify her of additional information that should be provided within the notebooks. Fred Thomas suggested that the other relevant sections of the Redevelopment Plan be August 16, 2001 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Page 1 of 2 16J1 provided. These sections will be copied and distributed at the next meeting of the advisory board. Ms. Foord pointed to the section of the bylaws that discusses meeting notice requirements and asked if there were any other locations or agencies that should receive meeting notices. The following locations /agencies were suggested by the members: Immokalee Library, Empowerment Alliance, Enterprise Zone Development Agency, Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, Superintendent of Schools, County Annex, Channel 11 Time Warner, Immokalee Bulletin. There was a brief discussion about the advisory board being governed by the Florida in the Sunshine Law and the members were invited to attend the September 13`h meeting of the Bayshore /Gateway Local Redevelopment Advisory Board meeting which will include a Sunshine Law workshop provided by the County Attorney's office. Invitations will be mailed to each member of the Immokalee Advisory Board prior to the workshop date. 4. Discussion and Determination of Regular Advisory Board Meetings. Ms. Foord reminded the members that at the August 2000 meeting of the EZDA, it was determined that the advisory board meetings would be held immediately following the EZDA meetings. She also mentioned that the bylaws indicate that meetings of the advisory boards are to be held monthly, at a minimum. A brief discussion followed concerning the EZDA meeting schedule and it was determined that the advisory board meetings should be held first with the EZDA meetings following because the EZDA may not need to meet as often as the advisory board. A motion was made by Floyd and seconded by Jerry to hold the advisory board meetings on the third Thursday of each month at 2:00 p.m., with the EZDA meetings immediately afterwards, when necessary. Ms. Foord will provide a list of the scheduled meetings for the next several months. Several options for meeting locations were discussed, including the airport, Habitat for Humanity, Chamber of Commerce, and the Community Center. Staff will research the availability and inform the members in the next agenda package. 5. Adjournment. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. The next meeting will be held on September 20, 2001, at 2:00 p.m., location to be determined. Adopted by unanimous vote on September 20, 2001. August 16, 2001 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Page 2 of 2 16J1 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Minutes — Meeting of September 20, 2001 The meeting of the Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order at 2:05 p.m. at the Immokalee Community Park, Immokalee. Members in attendance: Denise Blanton Floyd Crews Raymond Holland Jerry Hubbart John Kirchner Fred Thomas, Jr. Ira Malamut Herman Spooner Dora Vidaurri Staff in attendance: Marlene Foord, Planning Services Helene Caseltine, Housing and Urban Improvement Members not in attendance: Robert Asbel Bill Dillon Al Neuman Lucy Ortiz Tony Sanchez Casey Wolff Guests in attendance Jill Greenfield, EDC 1. Roll Call. Marlene Foord introduced herself, asked the members to introduce themselves for the record and passed around a sign -in sheet and mailing list so members could make sure their contact information is accurate. Marlene provided a brief overview of the reference notebooks to the members who were not able to attend the organizational meeting in August and suggested that members bring their notebooks to each meeting. 2. Election of Officers: Chairman and Vice Chairman. Marlene indicated that two members had expressed an interest in the officer positions: Raymond Holland and Fred Thomas. Lucy Ortiz stated she was not interested in an officer position this time. Marlene asked if there were any other members interested. Herman Spooner nominated Fred Thomas chair, seconded by John Kirchner and approved unanimously. John Kirchner then nominated Raymond Holland as vice - chair, seconded by Herman Spooner and approved unanimously. 3. Adoption of Minutes from August 16, 2001. John Kirchner moved to accept the minutes as submitted, seconded by Dora Vidaurri and approved unanimously. 4. Communications. Marlene explained the reason for this item and indicated she had no communications to mention. Fred provided an update on the SE Immokalee Revitalization Project, indicated that they had received an additional $450,000 for the infrastructure. The land is currently being platted. September 20, 2001 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Page 1 of 2 6J 1 r 5. Old Business. a. Marlene distributed revised bylaws and member list and the additional sections of the County Redevelopment Plan that were requested by the members at the last meeting. 6. New Business. a. Marlene explained the contents of the additional sections of the redevelopment plan. b. The advisory board responsibilities were outlined, including: providing suggestions on plan implementation, developing an annual work program (current budget is $33,000, plus next year's increment for a total of $156,000), how to put the money to use; serving as community liaison to the CRA and reviewing potentially significant redevelopment projects. c. Marlene distributed an outline of options for redevelopment incentives, such as financial incentives (fagade improvements, assistance w /code compliance, impact fee waivers /reductions), and discussed a few examples from other CRAB. The possibility of enhancing the Main Street program by providing funds for projects Main Street cannot fund was discussed. Jill Greenfield cautioned that some business might move into the area just to receive the incentives and then leave. She indicated that it might be better to focus funding on infrastructure improvements to attract and keep the businesses. Denise mentioned that funding for home improvements is also important. Funds for providing the incentives will come out of the CRA tax increment fund for Immokalee. Fred reminded the board that incentives can be provided for both commercial and residential projects. d. Floyd Crews moved to change the regular meeting dates to the 4th Thursday of every month at 9:00 a.m.; seconded by John Kirchner and approved unanimously. Helene and Marlene checked the Habitat for Humanity office to see if it would work for the meetings and will check to make sure the room is available for the future meetings. e. The Tall Pines subdivision was diseussed as a possible leeatien to effer- ineentives and the need-fef improved reads area behind Sebeel -Dr-'ve was mentioned. Several areas of Immokalee were discussed that could possibly benefit from redevelopment efforts, including the Tall Pines area which was an effort to try pscale housing that did not fair well due to absentee ownership. Fred suggested that the CRA might be able to provide incentives to the owners of the property. Floyd also mentioned that the streets behind School Drive are almost impassable by fire trucks and that the landowners should have to pay for the improvement. Fred suggested that CDBG miaht be a possible source of funds. Marlene mentioned that a municipal services taxing unit is another option which this advisory board can encourage by communicating with the property owners. Fred mentioned that an MSTU could be created to pay back a CDBG grant over time. 7. Citizen Comments. None 8. Adjournment. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 3:14 p.m. The next meeting will be held on October 25, 2001 at 9:00 a.m., Habitat for Humanity office on N. Ninth Street. Adopted by unanimous vote on November 29, 2001. September 20, 2001 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Page 2 of 2 16J1 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Minutes — Meeting of October 25, 2001 The meeting of the Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order at 9:05 p.m. at the Habitat for Humanity Office, Immokalee. 1. Roll Call. A quorum was obtained. Members in attendance: Denise Blanton Floyd Crews Raymond Holland Jerry Hubbart Ira Malamut Al Neuman Fred Thomas, Jr. Dora Vidaurri Staff in attendance: Helene Caseltine, Housing & Urban Improvement Marlene Foord, Planning Services Tom Tomerlin, Planning Services Members not in attendance: Robert Asbel Bill Dillon John Kirchner Lucy Ortiz Tony Sanchez Herman Spooner Casey Wolff Guests in attendance Dottie Cook, Empowerment Alliance 2. Adoption of Agenda. Raymond Holland indicated that there were a few changes to the order of the agenda and the addition of a brief overview of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. 3. Adoption of Minutes from September 20, 2001. Denise Blanton indicated that the mention about Tall Pines as possible location to offer incentives did not make sense. She recalled that Tall Pines was an effort to provide upscale rental housing that had not faired well due to absentee ownership and that maybe it was Arrowhead Reserve that had been discussed for possible incentives. In the area off School Drive the fire trucks have a problem getting through due to road conditions. This discussion will be included in the September 201h minutes for the members to review at the November meeting. 4. Communications. Marlene mentioned that the only communications to relay to the members was an email from Ernest Freeman of Freeman and Freeman Construction, Inc. asking about the redevelopment program. Mr. explained that he had read over the information on the website and was October 25, 2001 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Page 1 of 5 16J1 specifically interested in affordable housing and how we do financing with the banks. Marlene provided a brief overview of the CRA program to help clarify the difference between the CRA and other programs that Mr. Freeman might be referring to. Raymond also described how the tax increment funds are collected that the committee will be able use in the future. Revised order of agenda: 5. New Business Presentation on Immokalee Housing Initiative — Dora Vidaurri Dora introduced herself as the Supervisor for the Immokalee Housing Initiative and provided an overview of the Immokalee Housing Initiative, which is a project to eliminate substandard housing in Immokalee. The first phase is mobile home parks and community education. Dora mentioned that they are currently working on seven parks and five site improvement plans and providing incentives for property owners to bring the property up to the current code. The incentives are tipping fees financial incentives, which are described in a flier in both English and Spanish, and if improvements are part of a site improvement plan, property owners may be able to maintain their density. She also mentioned that demolition permits are needed to remove the units and they must have a site improvement plan in order to replace the units. The Board of County Commissioners is in the process of incorporating the program requirements into the Land Development Code. Some of the minimum standards have been reduced as an incentive as well, however there are still some state standards that cannot be varied from. In addition to allowing the property owner to remove a unit, they can also remove up to a ton of debris. Dora mentioned that most of the problems have been illegal land use, housing conditions below standard, and many properties do not have county approved access. They look at minimum housing standards, structural standards, building maintenance, etc. to initiate most of the cases. They are now working up an on -going four - session community education program. The workshops will include: "understanding a structural inspection ", "understanding common housing violations ", "enforcement procedure and process ", and "understanding the difference between state and local permits ". Options provided to the property owner to correct the violations include rezoning of the property, replatting of the property, or obtaining a site improvement plan to remove, repair, or replace the units. As far as the penalty process, a notice of violation is provided first, then a citation or court appearance, or appearance before the code enforcement board. Dora provided statistics to demonstrate the success of the program so far. As of last month, there had ben 211 inspections, 64% were found to be unsound (134 units), and 27% (36 units) have been removed. A discussion ensued about the change in ad valorem tax as a result of the program. Dora mentioned that they would most likely go up as the improvements are properly recorded. A question was raised about whether or not taxes are paid on mobile homes and it was thought October 25, 2001 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Page 2 of 5 16J1 that you have to pay if the home is permanently affixed. Dora mentioned that the program is not for repairs, but that they sometimes refer people to Housing and Urban Improvement's rehabilitation program. Marlene mentioned that one of the reasons Dora was asked to do the presentation was because there may be ways that the CRA program can supplement the Housing Initiative. Dora presented the information brochure that they are going to be printing for distribution to the public. Raymond asked about the expected timetable for the program and Dora mentioned that they have been getting a lot of compliance, but they are not sure how long it will last because eventually they hope to go into single units and then into single - family homes. There was some discussion concerning the length of time it takes for reviewing a project and Dora mentioned that they usually try to do a pre - application meeting to iron out some of the potential issues before the site improvement plan is even submitted. She said it has taken an average of five months, but that is a pretty quick turnaround. Jill Greenfield mentioned that the fast track permitting helps businesses to get through the program faster. Dora also mentioned a code case that had been open for quite a while and the property had accrued a huge fine. She is trying to close the case today to be able to finalize it and work on a plan of action. Dora was thanked for her presentation and then she had to leave the meeting. A QUORUM WAS NO LONGER PRESENT AFTER HER DEPARTURE. Observations and Recommendations related to the 2001 Florida Redevelopment Association Conference — Marlene Foord Marlene distributed copies of her Observations and Recommendations based on the 2001 FRA Conference and reviewed some of the highlights (attached). She mentioned that staff is already working on a marketing program for the CRA to emphasize some of the incentives that are already provided that encourage redevelopment. Drafts will be provided to the advisory board for review and then the CRA will review and approve. The marketing materials will be linked to the CRA website as well. Incentives that other CRAB provide include fast track permitting, infrastructure assistance, code compliance grants, facade grants, rehabilitation grants, interior renovation grants, all for residential structures as well as commercial. Some grants are provided on a reimbursement basis. Other incentives include impact fee assistance where the CRA pays a portion of the impact fees. The county already offers impact fee assistance for low- income homeowners, but not for businesses or large - scale developments. Marlene recommended that the advisory board consider fast track permitting, fagade grants, code compliance grants and impact fee assistance. The Impact Fee Coordinator has indicated a willingness to work with staff on amending the impact fee ordinance to allow the CRA to pay a portion of impact fees for certain projects that meet certain criteria. Using Mr. Freeman's projects as an example, the members discussed how the CRA could buy property for Mr. Freeman to develop and pay the CRA back over time as the project is developed. This way the CRA would get money back to pay for future projects, rather than October 25, 2001 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Page 3 of 5 16J1 - � - grant the money directly. Methods for providing technical assistance for project development were also discussed, including having the CRA hire architect and/or design firms to provide for the applicants. Mr. Freeman mentioned that he is aware of a property owner that is in need of assistance in addition to that available through the Housing and Urban Improvement Rehabilitation program. It was suggested that she consider a small mortgage to help pay for the improvements, but Mr. Freeman indicated that the property owner does not really have an interest in a mortgage and is concerned that her credit might not be sufficient. It was further suggested that she might need to seek a package of assistance that includes rehab funding from HUI, help from Habitat for the structure and a mortgage. Marlene mentioned that even after the CRA incentives are created, the CRA will most likely be looking for a commitment in the form of a financial match from the applicant. It was also mentioned that all the grant programs created by the CRA could actually be converted to loan programs. Raymond recommended that the members review the Observations and Recommendations and begin thinking about priorities and then discuss the priorities and possibly break up into committees at the next meeting to work on the incentives. He also commented that although impact fees are certainly an issue in Immokalee, he is concerned about taking CRA money to pay impact fees and wondered if waivers were more appropriate. Marlene mentioned that impact fees still need to be paid to pay for the roads and parks and by having the CRA pay the impact fees rather than the developer, redevelopment is encouraged. Raymond suggested that maybe paying for the infrastructure is more needed. Denise suggested that staff begin working on an outline of an application form as well as a marketing brochure that the members can review at the next meeting. She further suggested that the application be two - steps, first a concept/pre- application form that requests brief information on the project, followed by a more detailed application. Tom Tomerlin mentioned that he will begin working on the marketing materials for the Immokalee Advisory Board and will have a draft for the members to review. Marlene finalized the conference observations and recommendations by mentioning that some CRAB have used bonds and loans to have more money up front, which can then be paid back over time by the tax increment. This would require reliance upon and coordination with the county as well since the CRA has no bonding or loaning history. Many of the CRAB are structured differently, but in every case, the CRA meets on a regular basis. Marlene mentioned that one of the recommendations is for the CRA to meet on a quarterly basis with the advisory boards. "Immokalee in Motion — Working Together" Workshop Marlene reviewed the draft agenda for the November 6`" workshop and mentioned that she has five minutes to provide an overview of the CRA program for Immokalee. Once the agenda is finalized, it will be sent to each of the members. October 25, 2001 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Page 4 of 5 16J1' ": Overview of Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) — Gerald Morris, Transportation Operations Gerald discussed how traffic calming can create a community environment in an area where community and neighborhood watch is lacking. He indicated that speed limits, striping and sidewalks do not affect the design speed of a roadway because people will drive at their comfort level on the roadway, which is primarily established by site distance. Speed bumps and cushions, although ugly and annoying, are an effective tool, as are lateral movement devices such as curb extensions and median islands because with those devices the speed that the vehicle moves is controlled and the driver is forced to pay attention to the driving. Herman Spooner mentioned an area in Immokalee in need of traffic calming because drivers are avoiding a road with stop signs and diverting to the adjacent roadway. The roads that intersect with Newmarket were also mentioned as roadways in need of traffic calming because the truck traffic comes down these roads. Gerald provided an overview of the NTMP petition process and mentioned that some of the traffic calming tools might be useful in that area. The petition process typically starts with a call from a resident who requests the petition and identifies the problem area. The county then does traffic counts to determine if the roadway qualifies and then a comprehensive neighborhood process occurs to identify the appropriate traffic calming devices and the appropriate locations for the devices. The neighborhood has a lot of say in determining the location of the devices since they are the ones who will be affected by the installation. Distribution of Immokalee Overlay Districts Section 2.2.28. of the Land Development Code Marlene distributed copies of the most recent Immokalee Overlays, which include amendments adopted in June by the Board of County Commissioners. These should replace the materials in Tab 10 of the Reference Notebook. 6. Citizen Comments. Mr. Ernest Freeman was present and provided comments throughout. 7. Adjournment. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m. Due to the Thanksgiving Holiday coinciding with the regular meeting date, the next meeting will be on the 5th Thursday, November 29, 2001 at 9:00 a.m., Habitat for Humanity office on N. Ninth Street. Adopted by unanimous vote on November 29, 2001. October 25, 2001 Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Page 5 of 5 Fiala Carter Henning L:j'- Coyle Ciaielt ft HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA MEETING DATE: December 20, 2001 16JI MEETING TIME: 3:30 p.m. LOCATION: Board Of Elections Training Room Building B - Martin Luther King Bldg. Collier County Government Complex 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of November 29, 2001 Ill. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. OLD BUSINESS a) Nomination and election of Officers 1. Chairman 2. Vice - Chairman 3. Secretary V. NEW BUSINESS a) Discussion of: V 1. Assessment from the County regarding what social services and public health departments do and the amount of money allocated for each, supplied by Leo Ochs. 2. Discuss final report of Health Care Study, Recommendation and Business Plan provided by Tom Schneider. 3. Discuss and review the services that the county provides, supplied by Leo Ochs. VI. FUTURE MEETING DATES a) Recommending the third Thursday of Every Month in the Martin Luther King Bldg. — Elections Training Room, Building B on the Collier County Government Campus. January 17, 2002; February 21, 2002; March 21, 2002; April 18, 2002; May 16, 2002 and June 20, 2002 IV. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT V. ADJOURNMENT misc. Corres: Date: 1. Item# Copies To: Fiala Carter 1. Meeting called to order Henning Coyle 2. Poll Call Colette 3. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of November 13, 2001 4. Guest's Comments — Jim O'Gara 5. Landscape Maintenance Report - Robert Kinclelarl 6. Landscape Architect's Report - Mike McGee 16J1lif 9, ,2009 �i--(;t AV E 0 A )f —,,unty C'Mri 5 S rs 7. Transportation Landocape, Services Report; — Val Prince, Robert Petersen A. Tropicana blvd. School bus otopo B. budget Report; C. Pathways representative P. Copies of BCC minutes re: wavier of per diem charge 8. Committee Members' Reports A. 175 exchange update — Glenn Wilt 9. Old buoincoo 10. New buoincoo 11. Public Comments 12. Adjournment 8 000,0 (g) -,x- Misr.. �(.,rrps- Ntf, • SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND MOTIONS 3. Approval of the minutes to the October 9' meeting: Sabina Musci moved to approve the minutes as submitted; seconded by Glenn Wilt and carried unanimously. 5. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S REPORT B. Mr. McGee recommended using eucalyptus mulch instead of pine straw in the newer sections this time. The traffic on CR 951 causes the pine straw to blow away. 6. TRANSPORATION OPERATIONS REPORT D. Copies of the landscape maintenance bids were distributed and reviewed. Val Prince noted that 56 notices were sent out, and only two of the five packages provided to interested bidders were returned. $113,000 has been budgeted. Glenn Wilt moved to award the contract to Commercial Land Maintenance as the landscape contractor for the Golden Gate MSTU; seconded by Bonner Bacon and carried unanimously. 16J1 Soamz, 19 raoen� 13, 200 1. Meeting called to order at 4:03 p.m. at the Golden Gate Community Center. 2. Roll Call - Present: Cheryle Newman, Sabina Musci, Bonner Bacon, Glenn Wilt and Phil Mudrak, members. Gerald Morris, Robert Petersen and Val Prince, Landscape Operations; Robert Kindelan, Commercial Land Maintenance; Mike McGee, McGee & Associates; Jacqueline Silano, recording secretary. 3. Approval of the minutes to the October 9' meeting: Sabina Musci moved to approve the minutes as submitted; seconded by Glenn Wilt and carried unanimously. 4. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT A. Robert Kindelan reported normal maintenance was performed during the month of October including tuff weed control. A control panel on the east CR 951 pump was replaced. Mulching will start within the next two weeks and be done by Christmas. B. On Part A, there was some traffic damage and the areas were refurbished. A dead sabal palm will be cut down; some dead pines will be removed. 5. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS REPORT A. Mike McGee reviewed the quarterly report. He said there were no major problems. He noted that a Tabebuia on Green Boulevard is missing. He felt that the soil and water pH were causing the yellowing in the pine trees. B. Mr. McGee recommended using eucalyptus mulch instead of pine straw in the newer sections this time. The traffic on CR 951 causes the pine straw to blow away. 6. TRANSPORATION OPERATIONS REPORT A. Phil Mudrak provided everyone with copies of his notes reviewing the landscape maintenance contract. A review ensued. Val Prince said he would provide copies of the maintenance reports if the committee wished so. Mike McGee noted that he developed a spreadsheet based on the contract specifications. B. Copies of the monthly financial statements were distributed and reviewed. C. Bob Petersen said he hopes to have some information on the bus stops along Tropicana Boulevard from the School Board for next month's meeting. ,1 6J 1 D. Copies of the landscape maintenance bids were distributed and reviewed. Val Prince noted that 56 notices were sent out, and only two of the five packages provided to interested bidders were returned. $113,000 has been budgeted. Glenn Wilt moved to award the contract to Commercial Land Maintenance as the landscape contractor for the Golden Gate MSTU; seconded by Bonner Bacon and carried unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Mike McGee informed the group of the FDOT standards as mentioned at last month's meeting. B. Gerald Moms, traffic engineer, advised the committee of recent installation of speed bump on 32nd Street. The measure has apparently reduced traffic. He then explained various traffic controls and proposed changes to 18th Avenue. Val Prince will check to see when a Pathways representative will attend a meeting to discuss sidewalks. Mr. Prince also noted that some landscaping might be needed at the 18' Avenue location. Cheryle requested a cost estimate based on Mr. Morris' ideas. (Mr. Morris left at 5:35 p.m.) 8. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Cheryle Newman advised that she attended a BCC meeting recently. Although the permit fee will have to be paid, they have agreed to waive the $50 per day charge. Val Prince will provide this committee with copies of the minutes for the record. B. Glenn Wilt advised that a public meeting regarding the 175 exchange will be held on November 29, 2001 at 7 p.m. at the Bethel Church on Golden Gate Parkway. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. The next scheduled meeting will be held on December 11th at 4:00 p.m. at the Golden Gate Community Center. ` AGENDA GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT 4741 Golden Gate Parkway 16J1 DATE: January 9, 2002 TIME: 6:30 P.M. - 10:00 P.M. Recess If Not Completed 1. Pledge of Allegiance /Invocation 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes, Date(s): 12/12/01 4. Old Business: A. Discussion on Sta. 71 Construction Changes & Updates 1. Approval to Pay 6th Construction Draw Request B. Forest Glen Station Site (Sta. 72) 1. Discussion on Forest Glen Station Construction C. Discussion on Land Exchange D. Discussion on Workshop for Five Year Plan 5. New Business: A. Request to Purchase Equipment for New Tanker 6. Reports: A. Operations B. Commissioners Comments C. Expenditures D. Union 7. Adjourn 0 WORKFORCE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 13, 2001— 3:30 p.m. Board of County Commissioners' Conference Room I. Define "workforce" housing. 16J1 II. Encourage workforce housing to be located throughout the County, closer to employment. a. Smart Growth. b. Community Character. III. Maps that identify affordable housing developments and areas. Include areas like Naples Manor, Linwood or Triangle, etc. IV. How much is charged in an affordable unit to qualify for a density bonus? V. Discuss median income vs. median wage and its impact on rent rates. Fiala V/ RECEIVED Carter Henning �`' . 01 Coyle o letta hoard of County COWS$ #OWS Misc. Corres: DF/kmm Date: L2�L Item# / LpR 1 Copies To: �yGC � . eat&0" C.F.C. -� COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR COURTHOUSE - BLDG. C -1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 -4997 (941) 774 -8171 December 31, 2001 Honorable James D. Carter, Ph.D., Chairman Board of County Commissioners Collier County Courthouse - Admin. Bldg. /3 Naples, Florida 34112 Dear Mr. Carter: 16J: 16,11. For your information, this date we have made a distribution of Current Ad Valorem Tax and Non -Ad Valorem Assessment to the Board of County Commissioners, after Tax Collector's commissions, as follows: County Wide Dependent District Solid Waste Grand Total $ 4,702,013.18 958,641.60 305,660.36 $ 5,966,315.14 Attached you will find a distribution recap showing year to date totals of taxes collected net of discount for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. Yours res ectfully s fitted, Guy L. 7ounty on, Collier Tax Collector GLC /sk encl. cc: Hon. Fred Coyle klisc. Corres: Hon. Jim Coletta Hon. Donna Fiala Date: 2 Hon. Tom Henning Mr. Thomas W. 011iff, County Manager 1� 1 Hon. Guy L. Carlton, Tax Collector It4;�'# Mr. Claude A. Haynes, Deputy Tax Collector Mrs. Marilyn Lewis, Property Tax Dept. Director topes To: I r9t 16J1 D r A co w A A N W J Cn W 0) co •J v Co N v V ao 1 O A w 0 v cn W to A 0 00 0 w cn 00 II00 oc C z. X1..1 W CO -' N o " W o A N D 000 < o O o m < 0 0 0 0 0 A A A A A OD 00 00 00 00 A A A A P 4 -4 -4 �� m � -N -N� -NmM m m m m m W CO W W W v v -.] ^J -J Cn Cn U7 c3t Cn -� D -� -1 Cn N D 9 00 CO lj N x O W G) N (n z �! O - -I z , CY) CF) _� 00 W A a)� C O O(m ulm m T Can - � 00 0 OO W W O wrnN).po r D OD w cn in fv r X v v CO -I /m/n� O O O O O Vl 0 Cn O W 00 (n Cn ,I Co O w O C7 rn 7-4 N 00 O C O cocno -4 w m C N Co 00 w Co D z oo-4wo N W Cn 00 -J O CA w Cfl -• 0 W W A A Cn O CO O O N 4 � O (5 v 0 0 0 0 0 W N w N 00 A 4�- nn W ° O io o M io � cn cn co - r) wo CF) oo4�, w m O 4N, w j — W 00 OD 00 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 o0 00 0 oo A A CO N A W Cn W O 00 O -n 7' -'4 �1 CO W - v CO 00 Cn - Cn 00 CA Cfl W O A O - A 00 W A W (Y) 00 CO --I --I A -P A O COO a C W CP 00 O a n m, = m D z D m m o Cl) m m D r O m m n T = m D m > C/) G7 m 0 o =O D m m 0 � 0 cn z --q M --j Q cn O C r < Oz n m R U) 7 16J1 A cQ cD fl N"-' W L AL NCy a n N N� � DZZOW �O A T- � 0 Do°°p D m 0) r CO (D CD (D cD 0 0 0 CD C.0 0 CD 0 CD 0 0 (0 (0 0o . V V V V mmww0Dw0o00 0owww C7 O zDD c � o m D m Tl N cn IvcDOOCDCn A cnrniww m pD -IN, 00 N V wCpCpCpw V N mm�> (n w Cl) V w A s i Cn s V w s V (D V W V COA U1 O V w wA i w CO i Cn O W Cn 0 i co i V Co N V N CO w V (n Cn CA N CO Ui -� (D s CD O 0 V i -A V N (T N N W N M (00 N Cn C0 'NJ (Wn .A w N CMn OD co COn co O W Cn l� (:7) -I w co iv in oD a) .A w � in (D o :A a) cn 0) O s Co w w V w 4L1 (D 0 N V o Cn N V (0 JAL O A p. O O s Cn V O w w Co (il w O W V w w O W i i W O i w w -A W O V (D 0 cn N w m o O W w i 0 i O N s W s i N s V CD w W W N V O as O N (O Oo U1 O D DD`LL�y�� 'i�- � -DDZZp D C C C C N C3 (D N (D 0 W CD (D O O n -i -, - 6 7 7 C) n << m CD co w(DcowwODto (Dww W W W W W 0 o ZD c i w w o V (n Cn -N o CO Cn o Cn Co M Co D rn CD Cn s V ((0 o ((D Cn V F W CD CO v C) w MI ;U D Cn s s i w O (0 co V Cl) Cl) V w O w l� O s 0 A V (n i C i co i c -A Cn N D L 000 V V O s z s (o Cn w " m W W w (wn A OOO OOO 1 J W WW -A N Cn N Cn CD (D N V CO J�, o N w Cn s W? Cn O Cn V V .A w V CD 0 CD V W co N V O O O -co (n N_ V n O Cn W M Cn O Cn W w 0) w Cn w i V -A N N (A O w CO 0 (0 .A N V (D JN V w 0) W O i V N N (D w V w N N s 0 w 0 Cn i w s i-gh. .A O N N N s w" i N i N O N --' O w s CD O N V ;� �I Cb Cp .A i' (b Cwt 0 N D LL�D�� m L L D�ZZZ D C L C C N a Cy O (D N O fD (D 0 0 0 OOOOOOOOOOOO(DCDcoww N - 0 O0 000 000 OOOw(.0co(0 (D 0 m - o C D n N m c w O s s W i U1Nww�lw ?W-�A V oN m W 7 0 wVCn.AWCn�rvwCOCOCD0(D rn�DjD`< CwD O A w O Co Coo W N co o W N s -+ V Cn w O i x s s s r\3 0) n-' D �C0D0 -� V N CA w O w w V Cn 0 w N i Z N — V V O Cn W N Cl i OO i s w i cn O CD Cn M w W w V V 0 CO Cn O 0) -A s Co rn O W W N CD -' N Cn V V W CO V W CP Cn V Cn o s .A N Cn O N w 0 Cn w Cn s W CO J� w V -A w s w (.0 A Cn w (D A m w N 0) Co w w w CD -{ O CD W w W N W A W -A V W W (D V Co p p 0 Cn N W V 0 0 N N s V w CW 0 4�, W w -A A W M s N V (n w w -A m N N Cn N w W N N s N" O --' N s N i N s O N W NCDCn ?wNwOCOCON0MT(� D i LL LLB ;,Lbozzz D L c c w : a u�i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s s s s i s i s s .� 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn O Z D y C X i C) CnNw V M Wwrn4CDwN m Wmm w V V (D w Cn CD N V Cn M V C) . mo w K m D i 1 Co -4. V CD V w N (n W CO -? Cn W O Cn O O A 0 0 s V V V w w o N Cn CD N N O N O o O O W i w I s i s N -i CD W N D O W W O Cn Cn N -co N w P. 1 Z o w N CO V N s A s m w w Cn m O O N O .A O N (D w 0) Ca (o n .A N cn ;o V W CG V CO w :q :N W W O .A N Cn .A Cn N _ o (D w V (n N 0 s w O W V CD CA w W C� O N N V w CO Co -4 -N O 0) W W i W N w--1 0 p O N N (D Cn O w V s O W w (Jr, w Z, " Cn N Cn O O N w co N w i W N V Co O w V w w N W s (n Cn (n V O (D w O W -1 w W s W '' N i W O N D b Z Z 6 D m m o o O < m —. m 0 0 0 0 0 i i i i i D O z >X °) °) m CD M o o � rn Cn P.- 0(000 cn �J,ZDj N W Cn w 0 a) N N O O s i o NW s D O N i V w w O Z Op w .A -A CD N m O V .A W Cn W O N A w O Cn i V_ p V CD W i V C7 O v 0OD W N W O cn �p ? O s Z. .A Co -0. W w 001 �. 16K 1 DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO BOARD OFFICE AS OF MAY 1, 2002 16L 1 DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO BOARD OFFICE AS OF MAY 1, 2002 16L 2 DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO BOARD OFFICE AS OF MAY 1, 2002 16L 3 DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO BOARD OFFICE AS OF MAY 1, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REQUEST FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING OF PUBLIC HEARINGS "ORO " To: Clerk to the Board: Please place the following as a: ✓ ✓ ✓ Normal legal Advertisement C1 Other: (Display Adv., location, etc.) 17B * *r,tw «,r* *+, r.*..:,►, r*... w*, rr.., rr•. t•, rrr..• r* wwrt•• tr•, t•• r., rr.*, r, r+ r..•, rr+ r. *w•w.•.,r•,t,trf,r•+r *.rw•r,► Originating Dept/ Div: Comm.Dev.Serv./Planning Person: Rick Grigg Date: December 11, 2001 6P 5cl Petition No. (If none, give brief description): AVPLAT2001- AR1559 (STONEBRIDGE UNIT 5) Petitioner: (Name & Address): Taylor Woodrow Communities 2950 Airport Road #2 Naples, Florida 34110 Name & Address of any person(s) to be notified by Clerk's Office: (If more space is needed, attach separate sheet) 1) Lance Miller, PSM c/o WilsonMiller, Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, Fl 34105 (Agent) 2) See list of abutting owners. Hearing before ✓ ✓ ✓ BCC BZA Other Requested Hearing date: JANUARY 22, 2002 Newspaper(s) to be used: (Complete only if important): ✓ ✓ ✓ Naples Daily News Other ✓ ✓ ✓Legally Required Proposed Text: (Include legal description & common location & Size: PETITION AVPLAT2001- AR1559 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 10' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOTS 218 AND 219, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "STONEBRIDGE UNIT 5" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 30, PAGE 76 THROUGH 77, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LOCATED IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST. Companion petition(s), if any & proposed hearing date: Does Petition Fee include advertising cost? ✓ ✓ ✓ Yes ❑ No If Yes, what account should be charged for advertising costs: For Advertising costs, charge to: P.O. 912501 i For Recording costs, charge to: 113 - 138312- 649030 + Reviewed by: Approved by: -140W-I'L I . �Le Department Director Date County Administrator Date List Attachments: 1) RESOLUTION WITH EXHIBIT ,A,, 2) LIST OF ABUTTING OWNERS DISTRIBUTION INSTRUCTIONS A. For hearings before BCC or BZA: Initiating person to complete one copy and obtain Division Head approval before submitting to County Manager. Note: If legal document is involved, be sure that any necessary legal review, or request for same, is submitted to County Attorney before submitting to County Manager. The Manager's office will distribute copies: ✓ ✓ ✓ County Manager agenda file: ✓ ✓ ✓ Requesting Division ✓ ✓ ✓ Original to Clerk's Office B. Other hearings: Initiating Division head to approve and submit original to Clerk's Office, retaining a copy for file. * w,► �* s*•+ r.+.: rw♦♦* rtr*♦** ttww• rrrr f* r***• wwr, r•+ kr* r♦* t*•* rr#, w, t*, rt,► *rtrw,►er * *,erwwr *w * *ir�srt,ttt FOR CLERK'S OFFICE USE ON40-j— Date Received: Date of Public hearing: 1 ~ 04 –0 X Date Advertised: StAlij r'� 1p' C! °E 5 "N I -13-oa 17B RESOLUTION NO. 2002- RESOLUTION FOR PETITION AVPLAT2001- AR1559 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE 10' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOTS 218 AND 219, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "STONEBRIDGE UNIT 5" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 30, PAGE 76 THROUGH 77, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LOCATED IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 177.101, Florida Statutes, Lance T. Miller of WilsonMiller, Inc., as agent for the petitioner, Taylor Woodrow Communities, does hereby request the vacation of a the 10' wide Drainage Easement located along the west line of Lots 218 and 219, according to the plat of "Stonebridge Unit 5" as recorded in Plat Book 30, pages 76 through 77, Public Records of Collier County, Florida; and WHEREAS, the Board has this day held a public hearing to consider vacating said 10' wide Drainage Easement located along the west line of Lots 218 and 219, according to the plat of "Stonebridge Unit 5 ", as more fully described below, and notice of said public hearing to vacate was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, the granting of the vacation will not adversely affect the ownership or right of convenient access of other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following described Drainage Easement be and is hereby vacated: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk to the Board is hereby directed to record a certified copy of this Resolution in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, and to make proper notation of this vacation on the recorded plat as referenced above. This Resolution is adopted this majority vote favoring same. DATED: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal u iency: Patrick G. White, Esq., Assistant County Attorney day of , 2002, after motion, second and BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA I Wo James D. Carter, Ph.D., Chairman 176 I EXHIBIT "A" SHEET 1 OF 3 AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Legal Description For Vacation of 10' Drainage Easement over Lots 218 and 219 of Stonebridge Unit Five, as recorded in Plat Book 30, Pages 76 -77, Collier County, Floirida. The Westerly 10 feet of LOT 218 of Said Stonebridge Unit Five And The Westerly 10 feet of LOT 219 of Said Stonebridge Unit Five. Subject to easements and restrictions of record. Certificate of authorization #LB -43. WilsonMiller, Inc. Registered Engineers and Land Surveyors Date September 10, 2001 Ref. 1 L -315A and 1 L -320A Not valid unless embossed with the Professional's seal. 7W -Y 70 f0l -Z S3OVd *61 V006 IV7d N01 3NO mino5 -OJ. 13YML S\ 3 3 h =� 1 I h 1 O gi'0Naa °1a� "coolo =YUOCt V 1 AUU U I W N R v gx a v 0 � m O a v q N E ri o W 0 u D� OE"' a C, 0 E �[ [O CVbOC �oxu3 hc�EQ� In �° IN a x a a V OC is 00000 n n I to n a a O ni O CL'- �C C �U �D U u [ s to N O J 0 n M u n ;N n m m 1 I ►tee , .tQS F� Wv�i4 rn f; °z N i s n 0 0 N z a o � Y a b W u o W a C O O n y S °u Y a � yi o O uc O m CO u 0 � c a W 1 C u Y cc 0>`a r o or u o o2 app e u 0 "o�1 O or W x O .S _ 41 N� LO4?'" cW 0 1mO y y C" E° Mft O nm?U c`O m [ c v u E p (n a Lu Q a m ew u .O u o E..o�vcQ O O oyoxuu' ; °Ne. 'oi C y 0 G 0 Y O "V�dy S y a c$ V ,� O Y y.� V Y ai yN Om 1R[ ;G 3� Y O ` O a m° c� W u o 3` 3 mc�3 ~W+ F- Ina °a° `° N o°6 Ce C>'.t C(jt p�Vy"p1y�M vl `i u d °0 00 Vu Cw pn u 0 aaY uU�W�4'°'p•`r W Ona: _ 11 1 V I 1 1 1 [a"C C) ;�OU< $moo or h i. 000N Z MO c, ' ���� O�U In0 N < cc ° N VMjHOVa Oo< I^ am < O u o 3 ` tuuo� W O O oU Q .. a e_ uy O 2 Z>>C �u�� u O W W w W O u 0 W =emu : Y u u'ooW ~ Qlo'o�E a W m o oc Ld 7W -Y 70 f0l -Z S3OVd *61 V006 IV7d N01 3NO mino5 -OJ. 13YML S\ 3 3 h =� 1 I h 1 O gi'0Naa °1a� "coolo =YUOCt V 1 AUU U I W N R v gx a v 0 � m O a v q N E ri o W 0 u D� OE"' a C, 0 E �[ [O CVbOC �oxu3 hc�EQ� In �° IN a x a a V OC is 00000 n n I to n a a O ni O CL'- �C C �U �D U u [ s to N O J 0 n M u n ;N n m m 1 I ►tee , .tQS F� Wv�i4 rn f; °z N i s n 0 0 N a o � Y � b W u W a C O O n y S °u Y a � yi o O uc O m CO u 0 � c a W 1 C u Y cc 0>`a r o or o2 app e u 0 "o�1 O or W x O .S _ 41 N� LO4?'" cW 0 1mO y y C" E° Mft o u 0 otia!'EO 8 Y ° cc �� oUp anyy ew E..o�vcQ O O oyoxuu' ; °Ne. 'oi C G 0 Y O "V�dy S y a c$ V ,� O Y y.� V Y ai yN Om 1R[ ;G 3� Y O ` O a m° c� W u o 3` o e o c °3 aa° „w ;:4 160Eo.� cc rOF °e $ =�y Oe Oe[3h o°6 Ce C>'.t C(jt p�Vy"p1y�M °0 00 Vu Cw pn u 0 aaY uU�W�4'°'p•`r W Y o .5 [ o Z D e e *z a P' u 11 1 V I 1 1 1 �[ o° 0 E d�a oac° x vi 1 u Wm�ti� x L.:o Ia.ImigvSl'�./.c',e$cmQ:a: U:ida �aaaci��u <I..:laao: Z 7W -Y 70 f0l -Z S3OVd *61 V006 IV7d N01 3NO mino5 -OJ. 13YML S\ 3 3 h =� 1 I h 1 O gi'0Naa °1a� "coolo =YUOCt V 1 AUU U I W N R v gx a v 0 � m O a v q N E ri o W 0 u D� OE"' a C, 0 E �[ [O CVbOC �oxu3 hc�EQ� In �° IN a x a a V OC is 00000 n n I to n a a O ni O CL'- �C C �U �D U u [ s to N O J 0 n M u n ;N n m m 1 I ►tee , .tQS F� Wv�i4 rn f; °z N i s n 0 0 N a c c p � E a �°+ o Z C y e G d b LJ oNi o O o o O• V1 I N -6 O .. c 3 m C W C 10 01 N V1 O O C 1 c v1 VI N n. N V.N. c i c c m° O .°. C u C5 E UU I1 n nnpu ail "I Uoo;N lo`W "po cin ° S V'14.V 7O n �! �- ^a Lyau PN C l.i p`Nm O pW 33 tea° 1D I a` ac o �cl ao c >_ n, m �t.a ° : °ppu°j °'" E ..+oJp�rebcE a°` 4 ac OO �Q C N b J G��. G r N °CSaN V O G O• GV O ��6 �.0 00 onli �r tn a+ oo�O ° E a ° °a.'' N. Eo O O ON oo ' "doC OOC of O1uaoLN go O OO GY 01 O CE uC Ct O O i O� 1•: w{' ,U Om ° o $ e L n 00 o tn0 J < °cZo. y 3 °0 o =c ;cu °� �nm�_aN �o oo�YAc Dou -6 Q c wtn-OC4+ u ao°oaoa oit c ;�•1,r pU = oe>.�cc W °�Zno C� U omENPI °cso ;� Q�' I o Ep•o ..�0 yoOpa SS ec`c Ng-'.0 `c `c3 O o•?U a O C]�EW N$a'c-$m000 Cc1 as ON ` W c u C g ] Q; S'C Y O �. O a O �u W d C° O O - .O t- °-o ocn = W 0 �� 00 0 o�Oy E,u 4uo4 a c ^- of tY W 4- U O O �- V Y 1%16 ap ° O C jdo `VLO -.=pcu O au C-O. N G N G `� O Z`U O W a E N 3 CDOaa.M.1 -�U �i-i� C.$a g W N WOW i0� y �� ;�'V O p z ONUe,co ctuQcF 1a �UUd N Ima O b 0 ` 0 0 G G 1. 20� ugONC p�O M 1 m L Oyu _1� a 07- U CIO �2 ;,`p� 3Wmui ° >4�cv� °oc'_"Euc�c�amDtai�\$ mui�o \a47FtiUK,xI Zm�aOW� ��' -�QILR C,1�UUeW1 =mlia W0: OpL MCn00. zO 1L.2 z 3�hz° m C 0 n oinn� N � -w ♦ '" • 2 . OI�ilO •91 WA .10;p p � , Qp) + ', ggvc Vi , V p2F W Q iyt� 3 ,y •Og i W r., 7 // c �a .O /� S,3 0 �!•r 3�vyj 1JVd,1 W R cv 3 r 0 a 01 m o -+ u w O. N E r.j W m G ~3 O a c N uE1- a E'�2 u � ?7 n CI Z on °uu�QQ 8 oylotntL 2 aa�� Ih ovit.:Lia m, o0Os❑ 0 IZ OC O C _�� � 3• n , bIN n� Y O m W g h h O x; 17B E 3 ti s I Folio Number 0000074937008509 Page 1 of 1 Collier County Property Appraiser 17B Tax Roll Inquiry System Folio Number 74937008509 F-7Arod7pdress rty 1683 MANCHESTER CT Owner NamelIBUTTS, JACK L =& ANNE E Addresses 1550 N LAKE SHORE D APT 20B City CHICAGO State IL Zip 60610 -6603 Legal ISTONEBRIDGE UNIT FIVE Description ILOT Section 26 Township 48 Range Acres 0'22 a ge 133 E�:] Are trap # 643905 2203A26 Use o e 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) Market Value S14 7,2 0. Land Value 5147,200.00 Improved Value $0. 0 Assessed Value $147,20 . Exempt Value i . Taxable Value 1 $147,200.001 Sales History Date Book -Page Amount 04 0 1 J 28G- 71 0 Back to Search Last Updated: 08/23/2001 http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000074937008509 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000074937008525 Page 1 of 1 Collier County Property Appraiser 17B Tax Roll Inquiry System 2001 Preliminary i ax xou (subject to change) Sales History ate oo - age E — Amount F-90-2 178 6 Back to Search Last Updated: 08/23/2001 - 11;Prn -nnrn; ,(-r rim /RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000074937008525 9/26/01 'Folio Number 0000074937008541 Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 176 Tota Section 26 Township 48 Range 25 Acres D�:]Arella ge 133 trap # 643905 22 3A26 Use Code !F — 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) Sales History Date Book - Page Amount 07/2001 2861-U 00.0U. Back to Search Last Updated: 08/23/2001 http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000074937008541 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000074937008567 Page 1 of 1 w Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Section 26 Township 48 Range 25 TRfal Acres 0'23 Arelge a 133 Strap # 1643905 2233A26 1JUse Code 1 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) Market Value $ 1 ,411.00 Land Value $152,720-R Improved Value 1 $259,6 91.00 Assessed Valu $412,4 11. 0 Exempt Value 0.0 Taxable Valued $412,411.00 Sales History Date Book -Page F Amount 11 0 0 744 -14 1 $615,600.09 Back to Search Last Updated: 08/23/2001 http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000074937008567 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000074937009100 Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 176 Folio Number 74 37009100 Property 1686 MANCHESTER CT F Address ___ Owner Name LSEN, ARTHUR L =& KATHLEEN D Addresses 1686 MANCHESTER CT City NAPLES State FL Zip 34109 -0429 Legal Description TONEBRID E UNIT FIVE "T 25 Section 26 Township 48 Range 25 Acres 0'22 FM- Area ge 133 ��� trap # 16439 05 25 3A26 Use Code 1 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) Market Value 1 $409,140.Oq Land Valuell $147,200.001 Improved Value $261,940.001 Assessed Value $409,!40. Exempt alue 5, , Taxable Value 1 $384,140. Sales History Date Book -Page Amount [04/2 J 2663-53 $5 1, Back to Search Last Updated: 08/23/2001 http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail .asp ?FolioID = 0000074937009100 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000074937009126 Page 1 of 1 17B Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Section 11 26 IlTownshipll 48 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) arket Va axa se cone 25 0.33 IlArea �� 11 133 Sales History Date J Book - Page Amount 1 /200 1 2756 -1757 $539,700.09 B'arch Last Updated: 08/23/2001 http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000074937009126 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000074937007746 Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 17B �' I Folio Number 74937 07746 Property 1713 WINDING OAKS WAY Address Owner Name WI HART III, LEONARD P WI HART, SANDRA F Addresses 10602 D N VANS HILL DR City FAIRFAX STATION State VA Zip 22039 -1867 Legal T NEBRIDGE UNIT FOUR Description "T 186 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll Sales History (subject to change) Market Value $274,592.001 Date ook -Page Amount Land Value 110, 00.0 1 2 2635 -3151 $. 5,100.00 Improved Value $164,592.001 Assessed Value �— 74,501 Exempt Value 0. Taxable Value 74,5 0 Back to Search Last Updated: 08/23/2001 http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000074937007746 9/26/01 Page 1 of 1 Folio Number 0000074937007762 Collier County Property Appraiser 176 Tax Roll Inquiry System eW� 709 WINDING OAKS WAY ress — Stat Zip 34109 -1456 Description 2001 Preliminary i ax null (subject to change) baies nistu, Y ate oo 75� Amount Back to Search Last Updated: 08/23/2001 .. .. /D ornrriTiPtA;� nen ?FoliolD= 0000074937007762 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000074937007788 Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 178 Folio Number 749370 778 Property 1705 WINDING OAKS WAY Address Owner Name MITCHELL JR, DONALD MITC ELL, DENISE D Addresses 1705 WINDING OAKS WAY City NAPLES StateL Zip 4-1456 Legal ST NEBRIDGE NIT FOUR Description LOT 1—W- 26 IlTownshipll 48 11 Range 11 25 I1Acres II 0 IlArea s� II 133 se 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) Sales History Date I Book -Page F Amount 2 0 J 2635- 42 1 3 ,800.0 Back to Search Last Updated: 08/23/2001 http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000074937007788 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000074937008363 Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 17B Folio Number 74937008363 Property 1704 WINDING OAKS WAY Address Owner Name LAU TSEN, JANE R KELLY, STAFF RD T Addresses LAUST EN, ELAINE M 1107 SADDLEBROOK RD 7C1ity]IMOUNTAINSIDE State NJ Zip 07092 -1510 Legal ST NEBRIDGE UNIT FOUR Descrip ILOT 217 Section 26 Township 48 Range 25 rr6t-a7l[::�] Mi Acres Area age 133 trap # 643900 2173A26 Use Code Ill 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) n axa a Sales History Date Book - Pi-g-e7l Amount 03/20 0 J 2646 -477 $331, 00.00 Last Updated: 08/23/2001 http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000074937008363 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000074937008347 Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 178 Section 26 Township 48 Range 25 Acres � Arela ge 133 �� Strap # 643900 21 A2 Use Coe 1 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) Sales History Date Book - Page I Amount / O1 1 2784-1 H 3 5, OS 2 2669-3107]l $339, 0. Last Updated: 08/23/2001 http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000074937008347 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000074937008321 Page 1 of 1 Collier County Property Appraiser l76 Tax Roll Inquiry System Section 26 Township 48 Range 25 Acres Area IMillage 133 ��� trap # 643 00 15 se o e 1 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) Sales History ate I Book - Pa ge [ Amount T!�[ -26 -1(_ $36- ,2. Back to Search Last Updated: 08/23/2001 httu: / /wivw. collierappraiser .com /RecordDetail .asp ?FolioID = 0000074937008321 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000024705500027 Page 1 of 1 178 Is _ Collier County Property Appraiser `� Tax Roll Inquiry System 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) ar et Value 1 �— mprove a ue 5190,300.00 Assesse i Value Exempt a ue axab a aloe 1 cPrev Record Sales History Date a - age Amount -1. 1 Bads to List Last Updated: 08/23/2001 httn:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail. asp ?FolioID = 0000024705500027 Next Rwxrd> 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000024705500043 Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 178 -= olio umber 24705 3 roperty 1680 WINDING OAKS WAY Address ame BAS IN, R B = Addresses 1 0 WINDING A KS WAY APT 1 City N tate APLES S FL Zip 34109 -0428 —� Legal D escription B EBU AP RIDGE L "- 2 A ND M 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) Mar {et Valu el F $17 ,1 Land alue F — � Improved Value S-177,100. Assesse a ue Exempt a ue axa le a ue , •� Sales History ate Book - age Amount 1 1 2467-2=1 $180,400.00 Back to U Last Updated: 08/23/2001 httn:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetaii.asp ?FolioID= 0000024705 500043 9/26/01 1. Folio Number 0000024705500069 <Prev Read Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 178 Folio Number P47-05500069 F—Property Address 11680 WINDING OAKS WAY Owner IMORR I , WALTER T =& DIANE Addresses 93 CAROLE CT APT 4B MASSAPEQUA State NY Zip 11758 -5608 1. City Legal Description BRAEBURN AT STONEBRIDGE A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 1-103 Total M-01 Section 26 Township 48 Range 25 Acres Arela ge E33 trap #:]T9665-0 1 1033 Use o e 4 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) p axa <Prev Record Sales History Date I Book - Page Amount 0 /19 8 4 2 -935 1 3,9 .0 Last Updated: 08/23/2001 http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000024705500069 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000024705500085 Prev Record Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 17B Folio Number 247055000 5 Property Address 1680 WINDING OAKS WAY caner NamellFROHMAN, DANIEL A =& SHEPP E S Addresses 1680 WINDIN OAK WAY APT 201 City NAPLES State FL Zip 34109 -0428 Legal Descrip BRAEBURN AT ST NEBRID E JA CONDOMINIUM BLDG 1-201 iection 26 Township 48 Range 25 Total Acres � Area ge E33 ►trap # 196650 1 2013A26 1JUse Code 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) axa <Prev Record Sales History Date Book - Page I Amount =1 2470 -17 4, AO Last Updated: 08/23/2001 Next Record> http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetaii.asp ?FolioID= 0000024705500085 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000024705500108 F<Prev Reccxd Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 17B Folio Number 2470550010 Property Address 1680 WINDING OAKS WAY Owner Name BRANDON, RITA BLAIR Addresses 317 SAINT IVES DR City SEVERNA PARK State MD Zip 21146 -1013 Legal Description BRAEBURN AT ST NEBRID E A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 1-202 Section 26 Township 48 Range 25 Total Acres [:::�:] Area ge 133 strap # 1196650 1 2023A26 Use Code 4 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) Market Value 1 $206,800.001 Land Valuell $0.001 Improved Valuql $206,800.001 Assessed Valugi $206,800.001 Exempt Valuell $0.00 Taxable Valuell $206,800.0 <Prevfecaad Sales History Date Book - Page I Amount 11 /1 1 2479-56=J $217,7 Last Updated: 08/23/2001 Next Rmord> http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000024705500108 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000024705500124 m-MCollier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 178 4- Folio Number 24705500124 Property Address 1680 WINDING OAKS WAY Fner Name WHEAT, CHRISTOPHER J Addresses REBECCA A WHEAT 10723 SEASCAPE CT City INDIANAPOLIS State IN Zip 46256 -9529 Legal EBURN AT STONEBRID E Description JA CONDOMINIUM BLDG 1 -203 Section 26 Township 48 Range 25 Total M Acres Area age 133 Strap # 196650 1 2033A2 Use Code =14 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) Market Value $215,600.00 Land Value 1 $0.00 Improved Value $215,60 U 0 Assessed Valuell $215,6 00. Exempt Value Taxable Value $215,600.001 <Prev Tec -0 Sales History Date F Book - Pa I Amount 10/19 -53 F7] $224,900.001 Back to Usf Last Updated: 08/23/2001 http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000024705500124 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000024705502546 .. Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 17B ��,� _. Folio Number 2470550254 Property Address 11685 WINDING OAKS WAY Owner Name GILL, CAROL V Addresses 1685 WINDING OAKS WAY APT 101 City NAPLES State FL Zip 34109 -0426 Legal BRAEBURN AT STONEBRID E Description A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 2 -101 ection 26 Township 48 Range 25 Acres Area ge 133 trap # 196650 22 1013A26 Use ode 114 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) mp axa [—<P rev Record Sales History Date Book - Page Amount [=I 2494-2830 1 $184,900.00, Last Updated: 08/23/2001 http:// www. collierappraiser .com /RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000024705502546 NO-Xt �2 ord> 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000024705502562 Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 170 Total Acres Area ge 133 DEh�d strap 11 19665 22 102 A2 Use Code 4 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) <Prev Record Sales History Date Book - Page Amount 101 2474 -331 1 5-166,800.0 Back to list Last Updated: 08/23/2001 t� Re co http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000024705502562 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000024705502588 Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 176 Folio Number 2470550258 Propertyl Address 1685 WINDING OAKS WAY Owner Name MCWILLIAM, NI EL J =& SUSAN M Addresses 111 WHITNEY PL NE City "BURG State VA Zip 20176 -4833 Legal Description 1BRAEBURN AT STONEBRID E A COND MINIUM BLDG 2 -10 Section 26 Township 48 Range 25 Acres Area age 133 trap # 196650 22 1033A26 Use ode 4 m 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) essea v a empt Va <pnev Record Sales History Date Book - Page 11 Amount =1 2475 -15 $ 19 3,1 T .00 Back to Ust Last Updated: 08/23/2001 Next Record> http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000024705502588 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000024705502601 Collier County Property Appraiser MaMIZ a »1 Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 17B Folio Number 24705502601 Property 1685 WINDING OAKS WAY Address F­Ow-ner Name TRAN ER, GREGORY A CORALIE K STRANGER Addresses 166 HILLSIDE AVE City MILL VALLEY State CA Zip 94941 -1156 Legal EBURN AT ST NEBRID E Description JA COND MINIUM BLDG 22 -201 Section 26 Township 48 Range 25 Acres Area ge 133 Strap # 196650 22 1 A 6 Use Code 4 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) <prev t cord Sales History ate Hook - Page Amount =1 2 21 -770 21 ,000. Back to East Last Updated: 08/23/2001 http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000024705502601 9/26/01 F61io Number 0000024705502627 Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 17B Folio Number V470-5502627 Propertyl Address F WINDING OAKS WAY Owner Name DINATALE, KATHERINE ANN Addresses 1685 WINDING OAKS WAY APT 202 City NAPLES State FL Zip 34109 -0426 Legal Description IBRAEBURN AT ST NEBRID E A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 22-202 Section 26 Township 48 Range 25 Tota Acres Area ge 133 trap # 196650 22 2023A26 1JUse Code 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) Sales History Market Value 1 $186,800.001 Land Value 1 $0. Improved Valuell $186,800.00 Assessed Valuell $186,800.001 Exempt Value $25,000.00 Taxable Value $161,800.0011 Date I Book - Pi–g-e-11 Amount 12/20 1 2752 -1334 $229,000.00 0 /19 9 2586-85--]l 1 , 00.0 Next Re cord> Last Updated: 08/23/2001 http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000024705502627 9/26/01 Folio Number 0000024705502643 Collier County Property Appraiser Tax Roll Inquiry System Page 1 of 1 17B EM=.. . Folio Number 24705502643 Property Addressil 1685 WINDING OAKS WAY Owner Name KESSLER, RONALD T =& NANCY V Addresses 1685 WINDING OAKS WAY APT 203 City NAPLES State FL Zip 34109 -0426 Legal Description 1BRAEBURN AT STONEBRID E A CONDOMINIUM BLDG 22 -2 Section 26 Township 48 Range 25 Acres Area 133 Strap # 196650 22 2033A2 Use ode 2001 Preliminary Tax Roll (subject to change) Land Value $0.00 Improved Value 195,600.00 Assessed Valuell $195,600.001 <Prev Reef Sales History Date I Book - Page Amount 200 1 2712 -2304 $240,0 0.0 11/1998 1 2482-39U--]l $216,100.0 Last Updated: 08/23/2001 http:// www. collierappraiser .com/RecordDetail.asp ?FolioID= 0000024705502643 9/26/01 176 December 18, 2001 Ms. Pam Perrell Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 34102 Re: AVPLAT2001- AR1559 (STONEBRIDGE UNIT 5) Dear Pam: Please advertise the above referenced notice on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002, and kindly send the Affidavit of Publications, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Thank you. Sincerely, Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk P.O. /Account # 912501 17B NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, January 22, 2002, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. The meeting will begin at 9:00 A.M. The Board will consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 LANCE T. MILLER OF WILSONMILLER, INC., AS AGENT FOR THE PETITIONER, TAYLOR WOODROW COMMUNITIES, DOES HEREBY REQUEST TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE 10 ' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOTS 218 AND 219, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF °STONEBRIDGE UNIT 5" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 30, PAGE 76 THROUGH 77, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LOCATED IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST. NOTE: All Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County Administrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. The selection of an individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chair, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISISONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: /s /Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) o4.tviE ClIgCG�r U y COUN"� Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101.3044 Lance T. Miller, PSM WilsonMiller, Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Dear Agent: 17b CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002, as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK js� Teri Michaels, Enclosure Deputy Clerk o� NHS Cl COUN� Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLDER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Taylor Woodrow Communities 2950 Airport Road ##2 Naples, Florida 34110 Re: Notice of Public Hearing to consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Dear Petitioner: CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002, as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure V o� E ClIpCG'� A U y Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Ronald & Nancy Kessler 1685 Winding Oaks Way - ##203 Naples, FL 34109 -0426 Dear Property Owner: 17B W1 CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure o�.��E C11pcGfr w J y couwm Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COWER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. SOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Katherine Ann Dinatale 1685 Winding Oaks Way - ##202 Naples, FL 34109 -0426 Dear Property Owner: 178 CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, D,(WIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure I o�.�1c1E CIRCGl� v 70 cowrill Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101.3044 Gregory & Coralie Stranger 166 Hillside Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 -1156 Dear Property Owner: 176 CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT ,E'.,� B�ROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure o4.�tlE CIRcG� COW", Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Nigel & Susan McWilliam 111 Whitney Place NE Leesburg, VA 20176 -4833 Dear Property Owner: X178 CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BR�O�C�K, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure ����HE crRCG�rG U y COUNe Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Greg & Jane Shawber 1685 Winding Oaks Way - #102 Naples, FL 34109 -0426 Dear Property Owner: CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK IIV 7� Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure O� �tlE CUt�.G'r U y coupn4 Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES. FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Carol Gill 1685 Winding Oaks Way - #101 Naples, FL 34109 -0426 Dear Property Owner: 17B CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure �qHE C1gcGf�c U y Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Christopher & Rebecca Wheat 10723 Seascape Court Indianapolis, IN 46256 -9529 Dear Property Owner: CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. B'�RO(�1CK, CLERK 49' 1 lw'Q4- TJ Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure 0�.�11E CIIICG'T w U y Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Rita Blair Brandon 317 Saint Ives Drive Severna Park, MD 21146 -1013 Dear Property Owner: "Willi CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, �DWwIGHTT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure 7 � qHE ClR�.G'T �o U y C� Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Daniel & Sheppie Frohman 1680 Winding Oaks Way - ##201 Naples, FL 34109 -0428 Dear Property Owner: 178 CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK 14rjjL 1011�-� Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure Q o� �t1E ClRCG� U y Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101.3044 Walter & Diane Morris 93 Carole Court - #4B Massapequa, NY 11758 -5608 Dear Property Owner: 17B CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure o� �t►E CllZ�G'� a V y CO< Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 341013044 Robert & Shirley Bassin 1680 Winding Oaks Way - #102 Naples, FL 34109 -0428 Dear Property Owner: 17B CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure r, O� qHE C(RCG'T a V y Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 341013044 James & Karen Stark 644 County Highway 126 Amsterdam, NY 12010 -6279 Dear Property Owner: CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure o�.��E crRcG�r U y couW141. Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 341013044 Eugene & Marie McCague 18 Temple Gardens Dublin 6, Ireland Dear Property Owner: 17B CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure 04 qt1£ CJIpCUlr J C v � COe Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Co11Ier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 341013044 Eugene & Lieselotte Mainini 1708 Winding Oaks Way Naples, FL 34109 -0411 Dear Property Owner: 17B CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure G o� �hE crRCG�r U y COUN14 Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Jane Laustsen, Stafford Kelly & Elaine Laustsen 1107 Saddlebrook Road Mountainside, NJ 07092 -1510 Dear Property Owner: 17B CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK y Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure 4 gt1E C11gCGl� c U y Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLDER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Donald & Denise Mitchell 1705 Winding Oaks Way Naples, FL 34109 -1456 Dear Property Owner: 17B CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Yv,r Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure V y Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Norman & Bonnie Williams, Jr. 1709 Winding Oaks Way Naples, FL 34109 -1456 Dear Property Owner: 17B CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure �o ot U y Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLDER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST PO. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Leonard & Sandra Wishart 10602 Donovans Hill Drive Fairfax Station, VA 22039 -1867 Dear Property Owner: 17B CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure w� E ClRCG� a COMM A Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101.3044 Christopher Lauren, LLC 417 Bates Drive Bay Village, OH 44140 -1422 Dear Property Owner: 176 CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK !v \, Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure n SC V y Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Arthur & Kathleen Olsen 1686 Manchester Court Naples, FL 34109 -0429 Dear Property Owner: 176 CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK J _ r Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure o�.�t1E CIgCGI� U y Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101-3044 Samuel & Jean Jones 1176 US RT 40 PO Box 169 Woodstown, NJ 08098 -0169 Dear Property Owner: 17B CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK,^ nCLERK r '�J Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure � gt1E CUpCG� �o V y Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101-3044 Richard & Phyllis Tobey 1675 Manchester Court Naples, FL 34109 -0430 Dear Property Owner: 176 CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure o� EKE CIRCG'T v y COUNe Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Michael & Elsie Ryals 1679 Manchester Court Naples, FL 34109 -0430 Dear Property Owner: 178 CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure SC c U y COWe Dwight E. Brock Clerk December 18, 2001 County of Collier CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COLDER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST P.O. BOX 413044 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34101 -3044 Jack and Anne Butts 1550 N. Lake Shore Dr. -##20B Chicago, IL 60610 -6603 Dear Property Owner: 17B CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY COURT COUNTY RECORDER CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Re: Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Petition AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Please be advised that the above referenced petition will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 as indicated on the enclosed notice. The legal notice pertaining to this petition will be published in the Naples Daily News on Sunday, January 6, 2002, and again on Sunday, January 13, 2002. You are invited to attend this public hearing. Sincerely, DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Teri Michaels, Deputy Clerk Enclosure Teri Michaels To: Subject: paperrell @naplesnews.com AVPLAT2001 -AR1 559 ■ Thanks Pam! AVPLAT2001 -AR15 AVPLAT2001 -AR15 59. DOC 59. DOC Teri Michaels From: System Administrator [postmaster @naplesnews.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 2:39 PM To: Teri Michaels Subject: Delivered: AVPLAT2001 -AR 1559 AVPLAT2001 -AR15 59 «AVPLAT2001- AR1559» Your message To: ' paperrelI @naplesnews.com' Subject: AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Sent: Tue, 18 Dec 200114:44:13 -0500 was delivered to the following recipient(s): Perrell, Pamela on Tue, 18 Dec 200114:39:12 -0500 176 Napes Daily News Raptes FL 34102 Affidavit of Publication Naples Daily News _-------- _.-- _- -_._ -- BOARD OF COUNTY CCYMISSTONERS CF:RIS r,1RTON PO BOY 4'39'6 NA?I.ES FL 341u1-3(`i6 REFEF 7N( -'E: 00123U 91r501 583'78:,68 AR,559 NO '3CE OF PUB State of Flor':.a County of Cvltier Before m: and =rsigned e,j0vrity, personaLly appeared 4ncela Bryant, whu on oath says that she serves as Assistant secretary of the Naples Daily Flews, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier Ccmty; Florida: that the attached copy of the advertising was pu')W hed in said nei4spape on dates Listed. Affiant firther says that the said Naples Daily Yews is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Crlli3r County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore oeea continuously published is. said Collier County, Florida, aach c.:.y and has been entered as second class mail mattir Q* +h, pest office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period o•f 1 veer next preceding 4he fist publication of the -ttacheu <.opy of advertisement; and affiart further says that she has naither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission nr refund for tha pu.aost of securing this advertisement for publiction it the said newspaper. PUBLliSHED CN: L1;06 01`13 AD SPACE: 108.000 N :'i FILED ON: 111114/02 Signatur4 cf Affiant - - - - - -- Swor. and wL ,scribe�i M'� o a me this d oPersor,,1,Ly known by m— — — Donna Chesney My Commission DD056M IV Expim S6P*nbW 11, 2005 PU NOIN�CE�,qO RLNG 4+s ter eb ven ` fFiat esalon�ers, &,C: Colli�er ' will hold a pubik hear . E.. on , Tuesd y, * Jon ut ' 22,2g2 M Boardroom 3rd Floor, .- Administration Bullding, Colder County Govern mej Center, 3301 East Tam ami Trail, Naples " Florido. The meeting wl, beaI .M n at 4:00 A. The Board will consid- er Petition AVPLAT2oo1- AR1559. LLB CE WIILL.SOONMILLER RINCEy Ag AGENT FOIL TH PETITIONER, TAY- LOR WOODROW COMMUNITIES, DOES HEREBY RttQUEST TO DISCLAIM RE• I NOU,NCT[E ANU VA•', ANDETHE PUBL CAS IN TEREST M THE 10' EApSEMENT ALOCAT Eiu.. OF OTS 21e IN SECTION 26 TOW RANG 25 EAS . U T H , NOTE: All Persons r wishing to speak on any ° -, agenda Item must regis- ter with the County Ad- ministrator to pre- _ Ltd be � seed. Ian dlv�dual speakers will be `r Ihntied to 5 minutes on �5 a,yI� m. The selection of an Individual 1a speak on beho of an organization or group is encouraged tf poo�rIIalespne�r by for o you w doped iprm Ito speak a a e a *-- f of Any person who decld- ��ss to appeal a decision of tits Board will need a re- cord of theLLlxoceedings and the Retn: 2921393 OR; 2968 PG; 2093 CLERK TO THE BOARD RECORDED in the OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL ROC EBB 14.50 INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR 01/24/2002 at 4 :04AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COPIES 4.00 E %T 1240 imam, RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 4 3 RESOLUTION FOR PETITION AVPLAT2001- AR1559 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE 10' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOTS 218 AND 219, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "STONEBRIDGE UNIT 5" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 30, PAGE 76 THROUGH 77, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LOCATED IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 177.101, Florida Statutes, Lance T. Miller of WilsonMiller, Inc., as agent for the petitioner, Taylor Woodrow Communities, does hereby request the vacation of a the 10' wide Drainage Easement located along the west line of Lots 218 and 219, according to the plat of "Stonebridge Unit 5" as recorded in Plat Book 30, pages 76 through 77, Public Records of Collier County, Florida; and WHEREAS, the Board has this day held a public hearing to consider vacating said 10' wide Drainage Easement located along the west line of Lots 218 and 219, according to the plat of "Stonebridge Unit 5 ", as more fully described below, and notice of said public hearing to vacate was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, the granting of the vacation will not adversely affect the ownership or right of convenient access of other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following described Drainage Easement be and is hereby vacated: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk to the Board is hereby directed to record a certified copy of this Resolution in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, and to make proper notation of this vacation on the recorded plat as reference above. 14 This Resolution is adopted this day of , 2002, after motion, second and majority vote favoring same. DATED: All 71, ST DWIGIITE. BRQGI4 Clerk Deppty.Clerk S"1yw4t*j` May. ka oved Patrick G. White, Esq., Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMM SSIONERS COLLIER COUN FLO A BY: Jam s C o l e t t a, Chairman OR; 2968 PG; 2094 17 B *" EXHIBIT "A" SHEET 1 OF 3 AVPLAT2001- AR1559 Legal Description For Vacation of 10' Drainage Easement over Lots 218 and 219 of Stonebridge Unit Five, as recorded in Plat Book 30, Pages 76 -77, Collier County, Floirida. The Westerly 10 feet of LOT 218 of Said Stonebridge Unit Five And The Westerly 10 feet of LOT 219 of Said Stonebridge Unit Five. Subject to easements and restrictions of record. Certificate of authorization #LB -43. WilsonMiller, Inc. Registered Engineers and Land Surveyors By: Date. September 10 2001 I- M. #56 27 Ref. 1 L -315A and 1 L -320A Not valid unless embossed with the Professional's seal. L -) �l Q C'V CIO t=� Q1 N M N 0 0 i 0 N A s a i c i 0 F N D A 9z� $Oy i W �O 0 H y A c m c0 r 1.. V V V 00006 a� II p A Il pz2 �Vfo n 'ly�'4U W i 1 -0 o on v ran_ 003o s r3 a° ?� CIO � y ci ^ T 3 ZR + C Lx Q O O r.. ADC i � m N_ + D 4 � N ^ + a r o w 0 z p: a + u U 0 Ln2 n ^ n O a n z )lr oar r I y � Lh S Aug r m z �oN 0 OD 0 w o° Win' O w {{�� nc0 w^�c' O � N O. o � O �o 1 V V ....................... °°,F.1oo O Sj z "i a 0 A O Ca C) m C 2 ..1 0 �a ®r Xy--=� E>- - - - - - - R �Ky �0), "C<l �J �;D��C�rm04 c MA �n imr �n A 'r•cj,nA N N N A 1� �o�w 0V., �. AN I A 11 nCA Aa jN S�an��5•�w1w+p o °awno ^ °33 oo_oc vw_naS yy� _ yNy q OAC xO Wes"•' 4N, a ]n a g w2 x•on� wo;c '30. (X n.. and poa� no a�o9,o = °- o Pirz �o oz `g cA ^5 '' ogono3 a -0 ^o 2 $o oc �3,p�clo c 4 0 0) 4 > Wbjq *CA, Q^ S N v10 o .� m, S I Dom x m�n H > c� a ^'w b C ^ ®n 24 w Z w ° <o 3 ^ b A ii G o °]. o n nt0�1li ^� i 0 g n in A " 3 c w p rb a_' SR n e u a m N e o o ip g c F3 w N cb .b !� H < O D w Cl Cl ......................................... D Cc ...............p............... IS, a, OO�� '.1 ' I ; 4`Cy c �O 0CG w' 1 n N n 0 N °c N a CCA n I l b p aA i 11 A I I p .1� 1 b C Qpo D A ~ 11 � p 3 ' O v 1 3 1 b ao�q o• 1�V 41 5z, 2pq °4.Gi; w y1�0 ao G G U I At U a:N N U U 1 I lei I O � V I N ; °�•m FTRACiJ6c B SOUTHAMPTON UNIT ONE w PLAT BOOK 19. PAGES 92- IOJ b D. f. Qt M. f. E: m O �v �ti I , I i , r y i (n ,� m m r m , ' = v r v r D -10_2 cl O m zGA� ap p �1^�O Jo O A A In ^gib N p >�DO�� -' r R > Noy A w `�F°m m m ni 3O- °a °�•m nc? o =pQq y o,^� ^: owoQJ m O nr� S D n a cm z 1; z t� O A '� n 3iiZ n c co C. °w3� O A Q24 Cc, n 2 m0 Q �,� C1p A N lA i n p a 1- Amp D O N C) •.o c �� for -1 C3 Z", r O A Cc VI Z a 00 aDA2O Cc) 7l CL N V 0, ::o O 'p w Oi 7 107 a' ON 1 4 1] f!I p O c ^ r Z 01p 0 n�y�Or O p'b w c �" q L. 1 � '^ `c ar~cl0r cl m 0 In n O Ch i 0x R k 0 i j H o' o; coo C ck cb lb 0 a N VN nzt�Il� fin c N a 2 K v c 2 H W rn � � b� •c- 1'n � L5 W W N^ N O N U x u g .2 3 �� Zc U. �`c `c °u° � ° Ck: a W 3i o`O ao c of aN u c xEa`v ro b �+ ^ o a E �o :� ' oVt u c k$ L E W 00 yN e ' o�L °� o�° uZ JW=W�° or a u'.u••. u b; N N w ox c- la- o .i W a v In O O VI Il ° 'O v 0 G b d u p,.N m ° _ 4 O V N ^ 1 n U ^'a aUt cL b c -+ °41- 0V CE 00 a�4 av h is °a. ° o E -a i° c oO •u {U� N„�O,q�.c 33 jo;: m b °~ O°ccc°p.0 c� 1Nft IYtr moc Z O �o �,.' _E a°cno`o au `Wja� 0 0 Ib O 0 O -' �- o W C. i. u a O V 0° Ip O .`OQeoa 'n.^ Uzi: v Il b E 33 WO O�?U a^ j - L•�° W °°•- "��aabc° �c c ��o u 3 1r Q °i°c mcU c°om EN, ".0 2 o '- � W o c u Q c O NNa o-•o cc cc 1 _'^ -%a I'- u o °cam _ ��vf'`u� $'c "b c o= 000�'u°o:oo3o_.o.c v a` W o._ c r, °bow N -o..EE l u cuoa a c+� of o IY W u N °o o t� 2 u b vimao ocOantn.._.ca')Er a0— 02 VOA �-'v O �+oE H ; cvz Vucorbo .4oc� ,� N 3 .1�Wm O V O � du0 FW., ;,v °v °OO Z ~ONUVCer°0 Cu, k2 ec�(4F -�i a0a 5�W I- C C I- 2a Cu b Obc prO N M N UN N N M N o Q� 3L �Wm vi p V. Oti C EO ° °inEuc .� NVIN II CV..i qjN IIU X .24%0 mtiClDU+� Q:R.US x 7°1iN au Avll 30 U O � O �N Z ~ N t 4i -+ In 4 Z) 'oy0 �V wf r ' •�Q� Y fir' H 0O _ , __3� .ol y •ci. W ; u m 4 f 11 Cy3 b v_ 3 10 1. o° \ q hh z tr1 v �� QL LU N W r ra o' '►rvn " z y %' Q� w m o 43 0 Wj OV .OjP 08 ; W u c o> 3 E Eo w N c " a - Y In O pU O_ C2 x Apo VAN .�ix u W = W >h O� v W VI a 0) Jv;�0, S �d D II II N II JON � W O .r",,, 1oi,&Z 11 G� i Ua O W O S =:�UIY k co vi L.: It 00000 z 7B � 8 F � x �E• 9 • • T l �E°