Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/14/2003 ROctober 14, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 14, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:08 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning Jim Coletta Fred Coyle Donna Fiala (Telephonically) Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA October 14, 2003 9:00 a.m. Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3 Donna Fiala, Vice-Chair, District 1 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 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. 1 October 14, 2003 ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED 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 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 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. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Pastor Steve Wigdahl, Emanuel Lutheran Church AGENDA AND MINUTES Ae Be Ce me Ge Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.) September 9, 2003 - BCC Regular Meeting September 10, 2003 - BCC Regular Meeting September 10, 2003 - BCC/LDC Meeting September 16, 2003 - BCC/Emergency Meeting September 16, 2003 - BCC/Legislative Initiative Workshop September 30, 2003 - BCC/Franchise Fees and TDR Workshop SERVICE AWARDS Twen .ty Year Attendees: 2 October 14, 2003 1) Joanne Soprano, Library 2) Wanda Warren, Building Review and Permitting 4. PROCLAMATIONS Ae Proclamation to designate the month of October as National Alliance for the Mentally ill. To be accepted by Kathryn Leib Hunter, Executive Director of NAM! of Collier County. Be Proclamation to pledge support towards the efforts of Sheriff Hunter and the Collier County Sheriff Office for 2004 to be Year of Safe Roads. To be accepted by Sheriff Don Hunter. Ce Proclamation to designate the week of October 24 through October 31, 2003 as Red Ribbon Week. To be accepted by Angela Hignite and several others on behalf of the Substance Abuse Coalition. 5. PRESENTATIONS 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS Ao Public Petition request by Mr. Robert Hartman to discuss Tax Certificate 97- 213, Stokes Avenue, Immokalee, FL. Be Public Petition request by Mr. Thomas Sansbury to discuss a resolution supporting creation by Special Act of the Ave Maria Stewardship Community District. Co Public Petition request by Mr. Thomas E. Conrecode to discuss a Resolution regarding establishment of a Chapter 189 Special District, Big Cypress Stewardship District. 7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Ae This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2003-AR-3954, Jerry C. Neal, P.E. representing R. H. of Naples requests Conditional Use #1 of the Rural Agricultural Zoning District for the purpose of earthmining. The property to be considered for the conditional use is located north of U.S. 3 October 14, 2003 41 and east of Greenway Road, in Section 7, Township 51 south, Range 27 east, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 42.33 acres. Be This item continued from the September 23, 2003 BCC Meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition CCSL-2001-5/AR-1922, Brett Moore of Humiston and Moore Engineering, representing the Vanderbilt Beach Motel; requesting a variance from the Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSL) to allow construction of a multi-story residential building, a parking structure, two swimming pools with extensive paver decking, and a wooden boardwalk connecting to a handicapped beach access ramp all of which are located on property known as the Vanderbilt Beach Motel with a street address of 9225 Gulfshore Drive North in an area generally known as Vanderbilt Beach and more particularly described as Lot 4, Block A, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit No. 1, located in Section 32, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Ae This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. RZ-2003-AR-4041 J. Gary Butler, of Butler Engineering Inc., representing Spinelli Land Holdings LLC, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "RSF-4 (3)" for a single-family development. Property is located on the south side of Golden Gate Canal ½ mile east of Livingston Road and 1 mile north of Radio Road, Section 3 l, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 40+ acres. 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Appointment of member to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board. Be Appointment of member to the County Government Productivity Committee. C. Confirmation of member to the Collier County Planning Commission. De Item continued from the September 23, 2003 BCC Meeting. Discussion regarding FL Statute 193.703, Reduction in assessment for living quarters of 4 October 14, 2003 parents or grandparents. (Commissioner Henning) Appointment of member to the Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board. F. Confirmation of member to the Collier County Citizens Corps. G. Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee. He Appointment of member to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency and the Immokalee CRA Advisory Board. 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT Ae Adopt resolution to approve transfer of Florida Water Services Corporation's Marco Island and Marco Shores Utility Systems to the City of Marco Island and to waive the transfer application fee of $2400 as recommended by the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development) Be Approve developer agreement with Collier Land Development Inc., for proportionate fair share of costs associated with the future Lely Canal Storm Water Improvements Project and other storm water projects. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services) Consider a Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Renourishment/Maintenance Funding Policy as recommended by the Coastal Advisory Committee and the Tourist Development Council. DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities) (Jim De Report to the Board regarding the management of County contracts. (Steve Carnell, Director, Purchasing Department) Seek Board approval to install permanent median opening improvements at Palm Drive and Harrison Road and Teryl Road at an estimated cost of $67,000. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services) Fe Report and ratify staff-approved change orders and changes to work orders to Board approved contracts. (Steve Carnell, Director, Purchasing 5 October 14, 2003 11. Department) PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 13. Ae Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners waive trial court costs in the amount of $1,433.31 in the case of Vanderbilt Shores Condominium Association Inc., et al, v. Collier County, Case No. 01-5080- CA, now pending in the Second District Court of Appeal (otherwise known as the "Bellagio Grande" Case). Be To inform the Board of the action taken by the County Attorney and staff regarding Friends of Gummi Inc.'s petition in Collier Court for approval to appoint investigator. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS 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. A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1) Petition AVESMT2003-AR3920 to vacate, renounce and disclaim the County's and the Public's interest in easements recorded by separate instruments in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Located in Section 30, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. 2) Approval of agreement between Collier County and the Collier County Housing Authority (CCHA) for the administration of the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program for the purposes of 6 October 14, 2003 providing individual households with assistance for the payment of rent, security deposits, and utility deposits. 3) Request to grant a conditional final approval of the roadway (private), drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of "Bridgewater Bay Unit One" the roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained, the water and sewer improvements will be maintained by Collier County. 4) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Arrowhead Reserve at Lake Trafford- Phase Two", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 5) Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No. 59.868 "Stewart Earth Mining", located in Section 18 and 19, Township 46 south, Range 29 east; bounded on the north and west by existing citrus groves, on the south by vacant land and existing citrus groves, and on the east by vacant land and a farm building. 6) Approve an increase in expenditure authorization in the amount of $400,000 in the FY04 Tourism Advertising and Promotion Fund (194) with a corresponding decrease in reserves for contingencies to further promote tourism in Collier County and approve a related budget amendment. 7) Approval of agreement between Collier County and the Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation for affordable housing activities and operating expenses. 8) Approval of Tourism Agreements for grants and sponsorships for FY2003-04, to find that the projects are in the public interest by promoting tourism in Collier County and to authorize payment of all expenses related to those projects. 9) Board of County Commissioners acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency. Obtain direction to implement a program that utilizes a portion of the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds allocated to the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Area as a 7 October 14, 2003 designated funding source for the Immokalee Residential Deferral Program, Property Tax Stimulus Program and Fee Payment Assistance Program, and directing staff to draft all required ordinances and/or amendments necessary for implementation of the program for future consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. 10) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements for "Livingston Road, Phase Two (Mediterra entrance to Lee County Line)". 11) Proposed amendment to Resolution 2003-335 which established a fee schedule of development related review and processing fees as provided for in Division 1.10 of the Collier County Land Development Code. B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1) Approve the purchase of 3.55 acres of land required for a stormwater retention and treatment pond for the Santa Barbara Boulevard Expansion Project. (Fiscal impact: $321,837) 2) Approve the purchase of 2.96 acres of land required for a stormwater retention and treatment pond for the Santa Barbara Boulevard Expansion Project. (Fiscal impact: $268,365) 3) Approve selection committee ranking of firms for contract negotiations for RFP #03-3553, "Engineering and Permitting Services for Capacity Improvements to Collier Boulevard from US 41 to Davis Boulevard", County Project No. 60001. 4) Board approval of quotes under Contract #03-3495 concrete/pavement contractors for "Countywide Sidewalk Projects" and the issuance of a purchase order in the not to exceed amount of $592,400 to Cougar Contracting Specialties Inc. 5) Status report regarding Collier County Landscape Beautification Master Plan and to approve implementation and funding. 8 October 14, 2003 6) Board approval to sign and execute an agreement between Collier County and the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. 7) To obtain Board approval to award RFP #03-3505 "Transportation Roadway Asset Inventory Database" and authorize staff to commence negotiations. Estimated fiscal impact to be $250,000. C. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1) Recommendation to award Bid No. 03-3513 - Purchase and Delivery of Wallace and Tiernan Lime Slaker to LOC Pump and Equipment Inc., in the amount of $85,474. 2) Recommendation to award Bid No. 03-3541 - Purchase of one (1) carbon dioxide system to TOMCO2 Equipment Company in the amount of $73,650. 3) 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. Fiscal impact is $36.00 to record the liens. 4) Adoption of a resolution approving special assessment hardship deferrals for certain sewer special assessments for the 2003 tax year. The fiscal impact is $16.00 to record the resolution. Approve Work Order CDM-FT-03-03 for engineering services to seek modification to the South Florida Water Management District Water Use Permit for withdrawal of water from the Golden Gate Tamiami Wellfield in the amount of $87,500 Project 70158. 6) This item has been deleted. 7) Approve a resolution authorizing the submission of a loan application to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for the wastewater capital projects pre-construction in the amount of $7,556,000; authorizing the loan agreement; establishing pledged revenues; designating authorized representatives; providing assurance; and providing for conflicts, severability, and effective date. 9 October 14, 2003 8) Authorization to execute and record satisfactions for certain water and/or sewer impact fee payment agreements. Fiscal impact is $31.50 to record the satisfactions. 9) Adopt a resolution approving the satisfaction of lien for a Solid Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received payment and said lien is satisfied in full for the 1993 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $12.00 to record the lien. 10) Adopt a resolution approving the satisfaction of lien for a Solid Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received payment and said lien is satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $12.00 to record the lien. 11) Adopt a resolution approving the satisfaction of lien for a Solid Waste Residential Account wherein the County has received payment and said lien is satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $16.50 to record the lien. 13) Approve submission of a request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to initiate a Collier County Shore Protection Project, and approve coordination with Congressman Goss' Office to pursue a Congressional Resolution in support of initiating the project. Approve an assignment of reimbursement to developer agreement for the costs of constTuction of a wastewater force main to serve the M & E Trailer Park. 14) 15) Approve submission of a grant application for and resolution in support of a Florida Department of Environmental Protection Grant to contribute to the renourishment of Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay, Park Shore and Naples beaches. Approve a work order under Contract #01-3271, Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone Management Projects, with Coastal Planning and Engineering for developing a public information program for the County/City of Naples major 10 October 14, 2003 beach renourishment, Project 90527, in the amount of $8,491. 16) Approve a joint coastal permit application for the renourishment of Vanderbilt, Pelican Bay, Park Shore and Naples beaches, Project 90527, and payment of fees not to exceed $30,000. 17) Approve submission of a grant application for and resolution in support of a Florida Department of Environmental Protection Grant to contribute to the renourishment of Marco Island South Beach. 18) Approve a purchase order, under Contract #02-3360, with Lightner Contracting Inc., for grading Marco Island from Tigertail Park to Residents' Beach, in the amount of $15,000. 19) Approve a work order and purchase order for the project to renourish Hideaway Beach with Upland Sand, Project 90541; a work order with STD Enterprises of Naples Inc., under contract #02-3305, transport, placement and grading of beach sand, in the amount of $387,250; and a purchase order with E. R. Jahna Industries Inc., under Contract #01- 3272, production of beach compatible sand, in the amount of $183,400. 20) Approve a work order, under Contract #01-3271, Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone Management Projects, with Humiston and Moore Engineers for Hideaway Beach renourishment with Upland Sand Construction Monitoring Services, Project 90541, in the amount of $20,450. Approve a joint coastal permit application for the renourishment of and replacement of temporary t-groins on Hideaway Beach, Project 90502, and payment of fees not to exceed $36,000. 22) Approve a work order, under Contract #01-3271, Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone Management Projects, with Humiston and Moore Engineers for Hideaway Beach Renourishment Design Magnetic Anomalies Investigation, Project 90502, in the amount of $15,829. 11 October 14, 2003 D. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Approve an agreement with the District School Board of Collier County for transporting school-age recreation program participants at an estimated cost of $70,000. 2) Approval to dedicate Capri Park to the memory of Doc Loach. 3) Approve and fund a short-term maintenance schedule for Shell Island Road, in an amount not to exceed $30,000. 4) Reject proposals received under RFP 01-3228 "Design of the Vanderbilt Beach Parking Facility". E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1) Request Board approval for a first amendment to lease agreement between Collier County and Crown Castle GT Company at an annual cost of $6,300. 2) Approve amendments to Coastal Zone Management Engineering Contracts to adjust fee schedules for Consumer Pricing Index. 3) That the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve the Collier County Driver Education Grant Program to fund the direct education expenses of driver education programs in both public and non-public high schools. 4) Request Board approval of a lease agreement between Collier County and South Seas Northwest Condominiums at an annual coast of $600. 5) Approval to award Bid No. 03-3554 for the purchase of paint and related items used in county repairs, maintenance and beautification, estimated at $55,000. 6) Approve contract amendment involving Contract #03-3493 "Grey Oaks Public Safety Facility". 12 October 14, 2003 7) Approval of a Risk Sharing Agreement between the Naples Physician Hospital Organization d/b/a Community Health Partners, Inc., and Collier County Government. F. COUNTY MANAGER 1) To adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Adopted Budget. 2) Approval of budget amendment report - BA #04-005 in the amount of $24,850 to pay for study of emergency management and preparedness fees compared to other Florida counties; and to recommend potential revenue streams. G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Commissioner Halas request for approval for payment to attend Public Water Access Conference. I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed. J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) Authorize the Supervisor of Elections to enter into an agreement with the City of Everglades for the use of services and voting and tabulation equipment for their election November 25, 2003. 2) That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said purchases. A copy of the Detailed Report from September 20 to October 3, 2003 is on display in the County Manager's Office, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building. 13 October 14, 2003 K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) 2) Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Fee Simple Acquisition of Parcel 184 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Lazaro Herrera, et al, Immokalee Road, Project No. 60018. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve settlement of certain payment issues that have arisen between and among Collier County, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, and Kraft Construction Company, Inc., in connection with Contract No. 98-2829 and Contract No. 00-3064. 3) Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the acquisition of Parcels 807, 907A and 907B in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Michael A. McCumber, et al, Golden Gate Parkway Project No. 60027. 4) 6) 7) Approve the mediated settlement agreement and a stipulated final judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms and conditions as the mediated settlement agreement relative to the acquisition of Parcel 170 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Ismael Gonzales, et al, Case No. 02-2159-CA (Immokalee Road, Project No. 60018). Approve the mediated settlement agreement and a stipulated final judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms and conditions as the mediated settlement agreement relative to the acquisition of Parcel 172 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Ismael Gonzales, et al, Case No. 02-2159-CA (Immokalee Road, Project No. 60018). Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the fee taking of Parcel No. 152 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Tech Foundation Inc., et al, for the Golden Gate Parkway Project (Project No. 60027). Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the acquisition of road right of way and drainage easements designated as Parcels 157A, 857, 157B in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Joseph J. Guidish, Jr., et al, Case No. 03-2549-CA (Golden Gate Parkway) (Project No. 14 October 14, 2003 60027). 8) Item continued from the September 9~ 2003 BCC Meeting. That the Board of County Commissioners, as the Governing Body of Collier County and as Ex-Officio Governing Board of the Isles of Capri Municipal Rescue and Fire Services Taxing District and the Ochopee Fire District enter into interlocal agreements with independent fire districts for the purpose of implementing the duties and obligations of the various dependent and independent fire districts with respect to fire plan review and fire code inspections for new construction, construction projects and existing structures within the various districts. 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. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. SV-2003-AR-4207, Gil Strelec, of Kemp Signs Inc., representing Mobil/Exxon Oil Corporation, requesting a sign variance of 10 feet from the minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet to 0 feet for a ground sign for an automotive service station located at 4577 Executive Drive, further described as Quail Creek Plaza Phase 1, Lot 9, in Section 20, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. Bo To adopt a resolution approving amendments to the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Adopted Budget. 15 October 14, 2003 Co De This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2003-AR-4243, Melanie Bcebe requesting a variance of 11.9 feet from the minimum side yard setback of 30 feet to 18.1 feet for the existing single family residence and 12 feet from the minimum side yard setback of 30 feet to 18 feet for thc existing utility shed on property located at 245 22"d Avenue NE, further described as Golden Gate Estates, Unit 23, east 180 feet Tract 50, in Section 27, Township 48 south, Range 27 cast, Collier County, Florida. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2003-AR-4426, Andrew Solis, Esquire, of Siket and Solis, LLP, representing John J. Slaugh, Owner, requesting a 7.4 foot after-the-fact front yard setback variance from the required 15 feet leaving a 7.6 foot front yard for 1.46 acres of property located in the "E" Estates Zoning District. The property is located at the southwest comer of the intersection of 1 Et Street SW and Golden Gate Boulevard, in Golden Gate Estates, specifically in Section 9, Township 49 S, Range 27 E, Collier County, Florida. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CUE-2003-AR-4544, Homere Hyppolite, representing First Haitian Alliance Church, requesting a one-year extension of Conditional Use CU 2000-08 for a church in the "E" Estates Zoning District located on the west side of County Barn Road in the 2300 Block, described in Section 8, Township 50, Range 26, Collier County, Florida. Fe This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CUE-2003-AR-4257, Jcrcmy Stcrk of Hoover Planning and Development representing Iglesia Hcrederos Dc Dios, requesting a one-year extension of Conditional Usc CU 2000-07 for a church, private school and a church run child care facility of thc A-MHO Zoning District located on the south side of Lake Trafford Road, approximately 2 ½ miles west of SR 29, for property hereinafter described in Section 36, Township 46 south, Range 28 east, Collier County, Florida. Go This item has been continued from the September 23~ 2003 BCC meeting and is further continued indefinitely. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by 16 October 14, 2003 Commission members. SNR-2003-AR-4058 Peter Goodin, Oaks Estates Advisory Inc., and Rich Lidgard, requesting a street name change from ! 0th Avenue NW to English Oaks Lane for property located in Golden Gate Estates, Unit 96, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. An ordinance amending Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, to correct a Scrivener's Error due to inaccurate language in an intended revision to Section 2.6.4.2.1. and by providing for an effective date. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 17 October 14, 2003 October 14, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the meeting of the Board of Commissioners to order. Everybody take their seats, please. Today's invocation will be delivered by Pastor Steve Wigdahl from Emmanuel Lutheran Church. Are we on? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Today's invocation will be delivered by Pastor Steven Wigdahl, Emmanuel Lutheran Church. Follow that would be the pledge of allegiance, led by David Weigel. Would you all rise, please. MR. WIGDAHL: Let us ask God's blessing upon this day and upon this gathering. Most gracious God, you have indeed given us this good land as our heritage. Make us always remember your generosity and constantly work according to your goodness. We ask that you might bless our land with honest industry, truthful education, and an honorable way of life. Save us, we pray, from violence, discord and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil course of action. Make us, who came from many nations with many different languages, a united people. Defend our liberties and give to those whom we have entrusted with the authority of government the spirit of wisdom. We pray especially today for the Board of County Commissioners, that you might go before them to show them the way, that you might go behind them to encourage them, and alongside them to befriend them, that you might go above them to watch over them, and that you might indeed go within them to grant them the wisdom needed for this day, that there might be justice and peace in our land. And we ask too that when times are prosperous that our hearts might indeed be thankful, and in troubled times, do not let our trust Page 2 October 14, 2003 in you fail. We ask this in your Almighty Name this day, most gracious God, Amen. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2A REGULAR, SUMMARY, AND CONSENT AGENDA- APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Mr. Weigel, any changes from today's agenda? MR. WEIGEL: No, sir, none from the County Attorney office. I'll note for the record that any continuances listed on the agenda change are continuances to be adopted by the Board. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager Jim Mudd? MR. MUDD: Commissioners, good morning, Mr. Chairman. The agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners' meeting October 14th, 2003. Continue indefinitely Item 9(D). This item was continued from the September 23rd, 2003 BCC meeting, and it was a discussion regarding Florida Statute 193.703, which is a reduction in the assessment for living quarters of parents and grandparents. And that's at staff's request. Add Item 10(G), and that's to approve a proposed partnership with the Children's Museum of Naples, Inc. for the development of a children's museum at North Naples Regional Park. And that's at staff's request. And you received the executive summary last night. It was a last minute change that came up yesterday afternoon. Next item is continue Item 16(A)(5) to October 28th, 2003. And that's a recommendation to approve commercial excavation Permit No. 59.868, Stewart Earth Mining, located in Section 18 and 19, Township 46 south, Range 26 east, bounded on the north and Page 3 October 14, 2003 west by existing citrus groves, on the south by vacant land and existing citrus groves, and on the east by vacant land and a farm building. And that's at petitioner's request. Next item is to withdraw Item 16(B)(6). That's a Board approval to sign and execute an agreement between Collier County and the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. And that's at staffs request. That item was tabled in Tallahassee and that's why the staff is withdrawing it. Next item is to withdraw Item 16(B)(7), to obtain Board approval to award RFP 03-3505, Transportation Roadway Asset Inventory Database, and authorize staff to commence negotiations. Estimated fiscal impact to be $250,000. And that's at staffs request. The two items of note: Item 3(1), and Joanne Soprano will be accepting her service award on October 28th, 2003, and she won't be with us this morning. And Item 10(C) to be heard, a time certain at 1:00 p.m., and that's to consider a Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Renourishment/Maintenance Funding Policy as recommended by the Coastal Advisory Committee and the Tourist Development Council. Again, Item 10(C), time certain, 1:00 p.m. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta, do you have any changes? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No changes. And as far as declarations on the summary agenda, Item D, I met with the petitioner, had some correspondence, and it's all in my file for anyone to see. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no disclosures. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any changes to-- Page 4 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: No changes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- today's agenda? I have no changes to today's agenda and I have no ex parte communication on today's summary agenda. Commissioner Coletta -- or Coyle -- Halas? Well, we're all here, I just took a roll call. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Except Commissioner Fiala, and we sure miss her today. I don't have any changes on the agenda, but I do have two items of ex parte. One being 7(B) that's on today's agenda. That's the Vanderbilt Beach Motel. I have had meetings with the petitioner and I also had an item on 8(A), which is the rezoning or the -- yeah, rezoning of some land from Agricultural to RSF-4. And that's it for my ex parte. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala is with us today. Commissioner Fiala had surgery a few days -- well, a few weeks ago, and she's doing well. And Commissioner Fiala, do you have any changes to today's agenda or any ex parte communication?Commissioner Fiala? Okay, should we pray? Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. In regard to Commissioner Fiala's participation by telephone today, I'll add for the record that in light of recent Attorney General opinion, it would be appropriate for this Board, at her participation today or any other participation in the future, for this Board to indicate that it is appropriate under the circumstance for her to be participating, that this is an extraordinary circumstance. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to that effect. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we need a motion on that? MR. WEIGEL: I would appreciate it if you would make a Page 5 October 14, 2003 motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Commissioner Fiala, are you with us today? We've got some communications problems. That motion carried and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you hear me now? CHAIRMAN HENNING: We can just barely hear you. Do you have any changes to today's agenda? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No changes and no ex parte. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Got it loud and clear. Entertain a motion today to accept today's regular consent and summary agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0 Page 6 AGENDA CHANG'ES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING October 14, 2003 Continue indefinitely Item 9D: This item was continued from the September 23, 2003 BCC meetinq. Discussion regarding FL Statute 193.703, reduction in assessment for living quarters of parents or grandparents. (Staff) Add Item 10G: Approve a proposed partnership with the Children's Museum of Naples, Inc., for the development of a children's museum at North Naples Regional Park. (Staff request.) Continue Item 16(A)5 to October 28, 2003: Recommendation to approve Commercial Excavation Permit No. 59.868 "Stewart Earth Mining", located in Section 18 and 19, Township 46 south, Range 29 east; bounded on the north and west by existing citrus groves, on the south by vacant land and existing citrus groves, and on the east by vacant land and a farm building. (Petitioner request.) Withdraw Item 16(B)6: Board approval to sign and execute an agreement between Collier County and the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. (Staff request.) Withdraw Item 16(B)7: To obtain Board approval to award RFP #03-3505 "Transportation Roadway Asset Inventory Database" and authorize staff to commence negotiations. Estimated fiscal impact to be $250,000. (Staff request.) NOTE: Item 3(1) Joanne Soprano will be accepting her service award at the October 28, 2003 BCC meeting. Item 10C to be heard at 1:00 p.m. Consider a Tourist Development Category "A" Beach RenourishmentJMaintenance Funding Policy as recommended by the Coastal Advisory Committee and the Tourist Development Council. October 14, 2003 Item #2A, Item #2B, Item #2C, Item #2D, Item #2E, Item #2F, and Item #2G MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 REGULAR MEETING, MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 BCC REGULAR MEETING, MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 BCC LDC MEETING, MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 BCC EMERGENCY MEETING, MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 BCC LEGISLATION INCENTIVE WORKSHOPS, AND MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 BCC FRANCHISE FEES AND TDR WORKSHOP- APPROVFD Entertain a motion to accept the September 9th, '03 regular meeting, the September 10th, '03 BCC regular meeting, September 10th, '03 BCC LDC meeting, September 16th, '03 BCC emergency meeting, September 16th, '03, BCC legislation incentive workshops, and September 30th, '03 BCC franchise fees and TDR workshop. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Page 7 October 14, 2003 Item #3 SERVICE AWARDS: TWENTY-YEAR TO WANDA WARREN OF BI IIT.D1NG REVIEW AND PERMITTING- PRESENTED And today we have the honor to have Wanda Warren from Building Review and Permitting with us. We're going to do this at the dais? MR. MUDD: Yeah, I think so, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wanda? Ms. Warren, I want to thank you for your years of service with Collier County with a county pin and a plaque, and a small token of our appreciation for your service for Collier County. Thank you. And I don't think I mentioned, that's at 20 years Wanda's been with us, and a real dedicated employee, so thank you. Item # 4A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER AS NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR THE MENTALLY ILL - ADOPTED First proclamation will be delivered by Commissioner Coletta. This proclamation is to designate the month of October as National Alliance for Mentally Ill. To accept this proclamation will be Catherine Lieb Hunter, the Executive Director of NAMI. Would you please join us up front, please. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning. WHEREAS, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill has proclaimed the month of October, 2003 as mental illness awareness Page 8 October 14, 2003 month; and, WHEREAS, Collier County has a local affiliate named National Alliance For the Mentally Ill of Collier County, commonly known as NAMI CC; and, WHEREAS, the local affiliate is a member in good standing; and, WHEREAS, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Collier County is dedicated to improving life for our family members and friends with mental illness through support, education, advocacy and research; and, WHEREAS, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Collier County wishes to proclaim the month of October, 2003 as Mental Illness Awareness Month; and, WHEREAS, the Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Collier County wishes to proclaim this day, Tuesday, October 7th, 2003 as Mental Awareness Illness Day; and, WHEREAS, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill hopes that by passing this proclamation we will raise awareness about all mental illnesses and reduce the stigma that currently exists about mental illness; and, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the month of October, 2003 will be designated as Mental Illness Awareness Month, and Tuesday, October 7th, 2003 be designated as Mental Illness Awareness Day. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 14th day of October, 2003, Tom Henning, Chairman. And I make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Page 9 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. You're welcome to say a few words, if you'd like. MS. HUNTER: This past week the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, in partnership with the Mental Health Association, did hold several events. We just want everyone here to be aware that one in four families are affected by mental illness and take medication. All of our programs and services are free of charge. The packets we gave you, we also hope that each one of you will be a team captain in our NAMI Walks for the Mind of America to be held in May. And we appreciate your doing this. I'm going to introduce you now to Petra Jones, who is the Executive Director of the Mental Health Association. MS. JONES: Good morning. My name is Petra Jones. I'm the Executive Director for the Mental Health Association of Collier County. I would like to thank the Collier County Commission for declaring October Mental Illness Awareness Month. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Item #4B PROCLAMATION PLEDGING SUPPORT TOWARDS THE EFFORTS OF SHERIFF HUNTER AND THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE FOR 2004 TO BE THE YEAR OF SAFE Page 10 October 14, 2003 ROADS- ADOPTED Next proclamation will be delivered by Commissioner Halas. This proclamation is to pledge support towards the efforts of Sheriff Hunter and Collier County Sheriff's Office for 2004 to be the Year of Safe Roads. To accept this award is the Honorable Sheriff Don Hunter. Sheriff, would you please join us? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, Commissioner Henning. Good morning, Sheriff. SHERIFF HUNTER: Good Morning, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How are you? This proclamation is: WHEREAS, the World Health Organization has declared the theme for 2004 World Health Day as Safe Roads Day; and, WHEREAS, the Collier County Sheriff's Office recognizes that the issue of traffic safety is of great concern to the citizens of Collier County. And the human and economic losses that result from traffic crashes are horrific and of great detriment to the -- to Collier County community; and, WHEREAS, the Collier County Sheriff's Office is dedicated to making Collier County a safe place to live, work and drive; and, WHEREAS, Collier County Sheriff's Office has pledged to lead Collier County community on its path to safe roads; and, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners pledges its support towards the efforts of Sheriff Don Hunter and Collier County Sheriffs Office. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that 2004 is declared the Page 11 October 14, 2003 Year of Safe Roads. DONE AND ORDERED THIS day-- 14th day of October, 2003, by the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning, Chairperson. And I make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. yOU. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank Would you like to say a few words? SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. I'm hobbling around on my bad knee. Don Hunter, Collier County Sheriff. I thank the Board for their support. The Year of Safe Roads, long in coming for Collier County and this nation. We are asking the public to assist us in their motoring habits to make this a safe place. And as you already know, we have placed a great emphasis on and have already had some successful operations pertaining to traffic enforcement and traffic control and the prevention of crashes. Because we don't believe that we need to see yet one more family affected by unsafe driving habits, even this morning. And there was mention -- made mention in the resolution that we have direct and indirect costs attached to improper driving habits. Page 12 October 14, 2003 Just this morning we had 1-75 shut down. That commerce that we rely upon, the surface traffic, our transporters, were not using 1-75 between Broward County and Collier County this morning because of a very serious crash. Once again, families affected, three fatalities that we've been informed of. We know through the World Health Organization that traffic accidents are the ninth leading cause of death internationally in the industrialized countries and that the United States of America is not unique in this. But we hope to make Collier County a safe place and we want to get on the front edge of this before we hit peak season so that our visitors and our part-time residents are well informed and well aware and we have a reasonable enforcement effort. I thank you again, Commissioners. Sorry to take up so much time, but I appreciate the resolution and your commitment to this project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Item #4C PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF OCTOBET 24 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2003 AS RED RIBBON WEEK- ADOPTFD Next proclamation will be read by Commissioner Coyle. This proclamation designate (sic) the week of October 24th through October 31st, 2003 as Red Ribbon Week. To accept this is Angela Hignite and several others on behalf of the Substance Abuse Coalition. Please join us up here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: WHEREAS, prevention resources have been dramatically cut, programs and community based efforts are asked to do more with less and community services compete with remaining limited support; and, Page 13 October 14, 2003 WHEREAS, substance abuse is the most common risk factor impacting our behavioral health, particularly for our young people, furthering delinquency, teen pregnancy, HIV, AIDS, child abuse and violence and so forth; and, WHEREAS, families face unprecedented pressures and stress imposed upon them by the overwhelming nature of today's society; and, WHEREAS, prevention and intervention efforts continue to influence non-use of alcohol, tobacco and other drug abuse, it still remains prevalent in every Florida community; and, WHEREAS, Floridians must recommit to strengthening families, neighborhoods and communities and educating our citizens about prevention in every Florida community; and, WHEREAS, research and data reflect unquestionably that prevention works and that our commitment to education, prevention and positive lifestyles is imperative; and, WHEREAS, the red ribbon represents the nation's united effort to support prevention and build healthy and safe communities and to remember the brutal murder of federal agent Enrique Camarena; and, WHEREAS, the 2003 Florida Red Ribbon celebration-focuses on the importance of supporting our young people and creating an environment in which our youth may flourish; and, WHEREAS, the Florida Prevention Association, Incorporated coordinates year round prevention programs throughout the state; and, WHEREAS, the 2003 Florida Red Ribbon celebration asks that the citizens of Florida become motivated and involved in alcohol and other drug abuse prevention. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of October 24th through the 31st, 2003 be designated as Red Ribbon Week and encourage all Collier County citizens to wear a red ribbon to Page 14 October 14, 2003 symbolize our commitment to healthy and safe environments for each citizen and to participate in events throughout the week and throughout the year that support positive lifestyles. DONE AND ORDERED THIS 14th day of October, 2003, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning, Chairman. And before I ask to move acceptance of this petition, for those people who do not knoTM who Enrique Camarena was, he was a federal drug enforcement agent who was captured, tortured over a sustained period of time and ultimately murdered by a drug cartel in Mexico, one of the evils Commissioners, I'd COMMISSIONER spawned by drug addiction. like to move that we accept -- COLETTA: Second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- this proclamation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. yOU. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Thank If you'd like to say a few words on behalf of the organization, we would appreciate it. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'd like to take this time to thank the entire Commission and Collier County for the Substance Abuse Coalition of Collier County. We represent a new program that's been working for the last three or four years, looking at to prevention for Page 15 October 14, 2003 our children, all the way through seniors through our coalition. And one note to really address, that 59 percent of our middle schoolers are using alcohol. And we need to address this on a basis that we need to get out and really help these people, and this is what the coalition's all about. In saying that, October 29th, the evening of October 29th and the 30th, at the Unity Church, we will be having what we call reality journey. It will take place by all professionals: The Sheriff's Department, judges, lawyers, EMS, hospitals, fire department will be putting on a program which will take 25 minutes, which you're all invited to come out, if you'd like to walk through this. We will take 500 middle schoolers through this program. Last year we took approximately 100. This year we are getting tremendous support by the school system. They will go through actual party time, rec, ER, courtroom, funeral, and a spokesman that will be addressing the issues on what DUI's have done to their daughters and children in the process of killing. And I'd like to invite and extend an invitation all of you to that. Red Ribbon Week is a busy week. During the school time every school will be honoring Enrique Camarena by wearing red ribbons. And we encourage everyone, again. And we thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Anybody wishing to speak on any item today, there's a speaker slip out in the hall, just fill it out and give it to the County Attorney, David Weigel, and we'll call your name up when that item comes up. Item #6A PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY ROBERT HARTMAN TO DISCUSS TAX CERTIFICATE 97-213 STOKES AVENUE, IMMOKAIJEE- PRFJSENTF. D Page 16 October 14, 2003 Next item is public presentation, which we don't take public comment on, but first one is public petition request by Robert Hartman to discuss this tax certificate 97-213 Stokes Avenue, in Immokalee. Mr. Hartman? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, can you hear me? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. I just wanted to make sure I was connected to you. Thanks. MR. HARTMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. HARTMAN: By name is Bob Hartman, 520 Tigertail Court, Marco Island. As holder of tax certificates 97-213 on property on Stokes Avenue, Immokalee, I filed for a tax application. At the tax sale, there were no bids higher than the minimum of $2,747; therefore, I proceeded with the fees for the tax deed. Later I found that there were $5,143 of(sic)unpaid to the county for lot clearing. That started in '91, continued in '92, '94 and '95. That adds up to $2,305 still owed to the county for this tax clearing. The interest on that amounts to $2,838, for a total of $5,143. I am asking that consideration be given to the elimination of the $2,838 interest accrued from '91 through '95. This would allow the lot to be sold at a reasonable market price of $5,000. The county would receive their principal of $2,305, and I would recover the $2,700 1 paid for six years of back taxes and fees. The lot is currently overgrown and appears to be almost impassable. I am more than willing to reduce my part of the sales price on the lot to interest a contractor to build a low cost home for someone on this land. Thank you. Page 17 October 14, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Any questions, comments from the Board of Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, thank you, sir. MR. HARTMAN: Thank you. Item #6B PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR.. THOMAS SANSBURY TO DISCUSS A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CREATION BY SPECIAL ACT OF THE AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT - TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT A FI~TI~RE lqCC MEETING AGENDA - APPROVED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next public petition is request by Mr. Tom Sansbury to discuss a resolution supporting the creation of a Special District Act for Ave Maria Stewardship Community District. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a speaker for this item. CHAIRMAN HENNING: If the Board of Commissioners takes action to forward this, it will be heard at a later date, and that is the time that we want public speakers. Mr. Sansbury? MR. SANSBURY: We are here -- and thank you very much for agending us today -- with a request for a resolution of support for the Ave Maria Stewardship Community District. I would like to introduce to you Mr. Ken van Assenderp, who is our Tallahassee attorney, who has authored the proposed act. And Ken is prepared to answer any questions you may have regarding the act. Ken? MR. van ASSENDERP: Thank you, Mr. Sansbury, and good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. I am here to respond to any questions. We have submitted drafts to you and met Page 18 October 14, 2003 with Colonel Mudd and the staff and the County Attorney's Office and environmental organizations and others and with the legislative delegation in order to learn some of your concerns and questions, and we have incorporated them in the drafts. I'm happy to answer any questions. We urge your support. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Fiala, do you have any questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No comments, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to emphasize, for the benefit of the public, that this is just a request to have this heard. This is not-- MR. van ASSENDERP: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the point where we make a decision to approve or disapprove it. And I would presume if we approve it, we will have a full hearing at that point in time. One point of clarification. Does the person who has requested to speak-- MS. FILSON: He's speaking. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, that is the person. Okay, in that case, I would like to make a motion that we schedule this for a formal hearing at the next earliest date. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 19 October 14, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. I think everybody knows I have concerns. Working with the county attorney and petitioner for Barron Collier and Collier Enterprises, the next one, to resolve some of those issues. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question: Would this go to the planning commission before it comes to us? MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Our county attorney says no. MR. MUDD: They're seeking a resolution by the Board of County Commissioners that basically says they're in favor of this independent special district. It would not go to the planning commission, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. van ASSENDERP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. Item #6C PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. THOMAS E. CONRECODE TO DISCUSS A RESOLUTION REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF A CHAPTER 189 SPECIAL DISTRICT, BIG CYPRESS STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT- DISCI ISSED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next petition -- public petition is a request by Mr. Tom Conrecode to discuss a resolution regarding Page 20 October 14, 2003 establishment of a Chapter 189 Special District, Big Cypress Stewardship District. Mr. Conrecode? MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning and request a time on an agenda in the future for you to hear a presentation about the Big Cypress Stewardship District and our request of the legislature to establish that district by special act. We'll also be requesting a resolution of the County Commission in support of that special district. I know I've met with each of you individually to brief you on what's -- what the district encompasses and what the purpose of the district is. We'll cover that in much more detail in two weeks when we're here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion that we have this scheduled for a future agenda. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas. Commissioner Fiala, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any more discussion on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of this motion, signify by.saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Page 21 October !4, 2003 MR. CONRECODE: Thank you. Item #7A RESOLUTION 2003-354 REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE #1 OF THE RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE Pl IRPOSF. OF F. ARTHMINING- ADOPTED W/CHANGES MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 7(A). This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. This is Conditional Use 2003-AR-3954. Jerry C. Neal, P.E., representing R.H. of Naples requesting Conditional Use No. 1 of the Rural Agricultural Zoning District for the purpose of earth mining. The property to be considered for the conditional use is located north of U.S. 41 and east of Greenway Road in Section 7, Township 51 south, Range 27 east, Collier County, Florida. The property consists of 42.33 acres. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody wishing to participate in this discussion of this item, please rise, raise your right hand and you'll be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now we'll go to ex parte communication. Commissioner Fiala, do you have any ex parte communication on this item? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yesl I spoke to the county manager and also to Mr. Norm Feder about this particular -- those are the only people. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I also spoke to county staff, and on 10/8 1 met with Dr. Francis Husky, the owner of the property. Page 22 October 14, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no disclosures, but I would like to clarify one thing with the county attorney. Must we disclose conversations we have with county staff each time when we discuss any items? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, then I have discussed it with county staff. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I also have discussed this item with our county staff. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have also discussed this with county staff as of yesterday. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I guess I'll ask Mr. Jerry Neal to please come forward and explain the item that we're about to take action on. Shall we continue this item, or are you ready to do it today? MR. NEAL: I'm ready to do it today. I'm Jerry Neal, representing the petitioner. I want to orient you to where the site is. It is about three miles east of County Road 951. That's County Road 951. The site is here. It is about a quarter mile north of 41, and it is to the east of Greenway Road, which is this one. And that is Marquis, and it's at the end of Marquis. The site is 42.3 acres. And it was an old cleared farm field before the operation started. The proposed earth mining operation is consistent with the future land use element of the growth management plan. The mining is allowed in the agricultural rural district. A little bit of history on this site. The Board of County Commissioners approved the earth mining operation for this site in Page 23 October 14, 2003 August, 1997. The operation continued from '97 to 2003. During the county's internal audit in February, 2003 of excavation permits, it was found that the 1997 conditional use and excavation permit had expired. The earth mining operation was stopped and the county asked the owners to dress up the side slopes and stop hauling material off-site. During the neighborhood meetings this summer it was discovered that the excavation was too close to the property lines. The Land Development Code requires setback of 50 feet. The site was excavated up to about 15 feet in some spots. Since there is rock about four feet below natural grade, blasting took place for 13 days in May, '99, 10 days in June, '99 and additional blasting was required in 2001, six days in November. Today's request is to complete the mining project. The site is about 80 percent complete, and there is only one proposed receiver for the remaining material, and that is Habitat for Humanity. One second, please. The site needs to be regraded to meet the 50-foot setback requirement along the property lines. After shaping the side slopes of the lake, a littoral shelf will be planted on the eastern side of the lake. This is the project site. This is going to be the littoral shelf. This triangle area, excluding the church, is Habitat for Humanity. That is a receiving point of the material. And when completed, the lake or excavation site will meet the Collier County Land Development Code requirements. One of the questions in some of the public hearings with the neighbors and also at the planning commission, there may need to be some additional blasting. It may be necessary if, when they started digging they find that an area has not been appropriately blasted and the rock is still solid. And this white area is a photo in the beginning -- January, Page 24 October 14, 2003 February, of 2003. And that we think is blasted but it may not be blasted, so we may have to go back in and do minor blasting. The old stipulations under the 1997 permit was to take Marquis Road, which is this one right here, it was 18 feet wide gravel, and to convert it over to a 24-foot paved roadway. And that was done under the old permit. The second old stipulation under the '97 permit was to add a left turn lane on U.S. 41 onto Greenway Road. Turn lane right here. That left turn was also constructed. Under my understandings of the new stipulation and conversations with county staff, first, repair the damaged spot on Greenway Road at the U.S. 41 edge of pavement at the turning radius, where they turned off here and go that way. Number two, repair the damaged drainage pipe under Marquis Road at the intersection of Greenway. That's right there. Third, limit the operations of truck traffic, starting hauling off-site at 8:00 a.m. and end off-site hauling at 3:00 p.m. And this was a stipulation from the Department of Transportation of Collier County. Fourth, if it is found that the additional blasting is necessary, notification letters will be sent to all property owners within a 1,000 foot radius of the site. Fifth, the operation and dress-up to be completed within 12 months. And sixth, the lake setback be corrected to maintain the required 50-foot from the property line at the edge of the water, measured at the control elevation. I attempted to be brief but give you the information. If you have any questions? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, do you have any questions of the petitioner today? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a few questions, actually. Page 25 October 14, 2003 Because the neighborhood is so much more populated than when they first began, I have a problem with start at 8:00 a.m. when children are still trying to go to school. I would prefer to see us not start until 9:30 -- excuse me. The second thing is they're talking about permission -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you hold on just a minute? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. MR. MUDD: She needs to talk a little bit slower, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, a little bit slower and right into the receiver on the telephone. We would appreciate it if you'd start over, please. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. Yes, is this any better? Hello? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. Okay, slower it is. My first concern is the neighborhood has become quite built out already, is going to continue to do so. I'm concerned about the starting time of the trucks, being that the children will still be going to school. I would prefer to see it from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. to make sure that the children are out of harm's way. The second concern I have is the developer is saying that they have -- they will let the people know in the area if and when they're going to blast, but he didn't mention anything about repairing damages to their homes or additional structures, if indeed there are cracks or whatever caused from the blasting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else? COMMISSIONER FIALA: One last thing is, which Habitat are they -- there are three Habitat developments going in in that particular area. I want to know which one that one is. Page 26 October 14, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I'm sure Dr. Durso would address that -- that issue when he comes up. Mr. Neal, Commissioner Fiala has questions about the operation. MR. NEAL: Yes. Number one, the build-out of the area. That is sort of why I gave you the large map to see where it's located, and also this aerial, which zooms in. There is some housing in here, but it's in my opinion nowhere close to build-out condition. We had talked to Transportation. Collier County Transportation staff will address this, if you so choose. But it is my understanding they prefer to have the traffic start at 8:00 and end at 3:00, rather than have something go to 4:00. So the last conversation I had with Transportation, they were still recommending the 8:00 to 3:00. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I think we have something in our agenda packet that says 9:00 a.m. But we'll address that with our staff. MR. NEAL: Okay. Number two, any damage from blasting. We have held two neighborhood meetings, and at the meeting there was a concern that -- a possibility that blasting had or possibly could have done some kind of a cracking to a house. We informed them that -- who the blasting contractor is and that they need to identify them and we'll have an insurance adjuster go out and look and see, which is standard procedure, if there is any call for damage. Also, as you know, Collier County has their regulations that when you blast, the county will go out and register the effect of it, and if it is past the regulated amount of shaking, then it will terminate the blasting. So we -- from the records, we have met the standards of the blasting. Number three, which Habitat. Since you could not see. the aerial that's on the wall, it's the triangle shaped piece that's adjoining to Page 27 October 14, 2003 Paradise Point RV. And for those who are here, there's Paradise Point RV. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you mean South Place? MR. NEAL: It is the one that has a chunk out of the middle of it, which is the Haitian Baptist Church. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you must mean Charlie's place. There's one on Greenway, there's one in the Henderson Creek PUD, and there's Charlie's place. You must be referring to Charlie's place. MR. NEAL: Yes, Charlie's place. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Also, too -- and I know we're going to get into it with staff, but I'm very supportive of Commissioner Fiala on the 9:00 to 3:00 because of the school situation. On the blasting itself, would you agree to a pre-survey to be able to make -- a pre-assessment to make sure that -- what the conditions are of each home that's in that area to be able to assess it later if they come back with a complaint about the blasting? There can't be that many of them within 1,000 feet. MR. NEAL: Yes, there's not that many houses. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you agree to that? MR. NEAL: We could agree to that, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Also, too, I'm very concerned about the language that's in here about it's the Habitat project. There's a very big plus in the fact that you're coming from a direction not too far, you're repairing the stability of 41 just for a short distance, rather than having the fill brought in from some distant point and impacting the highways greatly. There is concern, though, that you may not limit yourself to this Habitat project. And that's a very big concern, because all of a Page 28 October 14, 2003 sudden we may find you carrying fill the whole length of 41, which is a two-lane highway that's well past the point of repair and widening, and it would impact traffic greatly. Is there something you can give me, assurance as far as definite language that your permit that you have will be specifically tied into this Habitat project, and if there's any change to that, you'll come back to us for further clarification and additions to your permit? MR. NEAL: Okay, you want me to answer question one and two, or you have more? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can answer it any way you like, sir. MR. NEAL: Okay. Yes, we will check the conditions of the houses before blasting so it will be on record. Video is the normal practice. Number two, the amount of material that is left on-site here is about 100,000 yards, and Habitat needs that, maybe a little more. There is a contract that they will receive the material and they're the only ones to receive the material. As I was told a couple months ago, that they needed more than what we have on-site. So right now our material, all of it that's in here, that's still in that, will go to there and no further. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That still has not said the words I'm looking for, that you will limit it just to that Habitat site, your deliveries. MR. NEAL: Yes, that's our contract with Habitat, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean your contract with this Collier County Commission will also -- MR. NEAL: And the contract -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- be stated in the permit? MR. NEAL: -- agreement with you, stipulation, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. The turn lanes are something I'm going to have to talk to staff Page 29 October 14, 2003 about to be able to get a better feel for. I'm also concerned about average of 52 haul trucks accessing the site daily. Not the numbers so much but how 52 is arrived at. Did you divide seven into the total for a five-day work week or did you divide five into the total -- your days of operations are going to be Monday through Friday, correct? MR. NEAL: What-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Monday through Saturday -- what is it? MR. NEAL: Yes. What we did is we took the historical loading information and we came up with an average of 52 from 7:00 to 5:00. That was the very initial application to continue the operation as it was approved in '97. Since then, it has gone down to 8:00 to 3:00 and possible 9:00 to 3:00, so the 52 is going to get smaller and smaller as the time gets shorter and shorter. We have one loading facility to load material. I think I read in the staff report that they are going to limit, as a stipulation, that we only have that one loading capability and not stick another loader in there to fill the trucks up faster. So to answer your question, the 52 started from 7:00 to 5:00 and now it's getting smaller, so we're going to have less trucks. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just to give me assurance that we're talking the same thing, could we have the language read that they won't exceed -- even because, I mean, they could put extra capacity in there for loading the trucks, they could have the fill ready to go -- that they won't exceed 55 trucks in any given work day? MR. NEAL: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: problem. I appreciate that. MR. NEAL: No problem. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then that shouldn't be a And also, too, I'm not too sure Page 30 October 14, 2003 what the planning commission's recommendations were. I don't think I seen them listed in there. Did anyone else see them in there? It refers them, but I didn't see them mentioned in our summary. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Planning Commission recommendations, blah, blah, blah -- okay, we're going to get an oral report on that from our staff. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I appreciate that. That's all I have, and thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir, I have a couple -- some questions here. In regards to your blasting, you said you did some blasting six days in November. Can you tell me what year that blasting took place? MR. NEAL: In November, it was 2001. COMMISSIONER HALAS: November, 2001. And is it also fair to say that the permit that you had for this commercial excavation also expired, I believe, March 27th, 2001 ? MR. NEAL: That's what the report says from staff. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, do you have a certificate that would say that that's the time frame that -- that the termination of the permit was -- do you have that permit that says the date that it was -- to be terminated and that you had to get a renewal? MR. NEAL: I do not have a copy in my file. I got involved in this about in February, so I don't have a copy of that. What I'm doing is going for after-the-fact permits. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I have a very strong concern here who's watching the store, since this is a county permit, and why this wasn't discovered until this year, while this mining operation continued; is that correct? MR. NEAL: That is correct. It's my understanding that the staff was doing an internal audit through everything -- and there are stacks Page 31 October 14, 2003 and stacks of permits -- and they had found this one. And when they entered it on the computer summary, it was noticed that it had expired. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Don't you think that that's your responsibility, or the person that's mining this operation, that's his responsibility to keep up to date in regards to when his permit would expire? MR. NEAL: Normally it is, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And was there any fines imposed on this period of time when you were mining outside of the permit? MR. NEAL: That I do not know; that's not an area I'm in. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That I could ask staff, maybe direct that question to staff, if there's been any fines imposed with regards to this operation that's been running illegally on this strip part of time (phonetic). The other concerns that I have, since you were operating this mine and the mine was not in compliance as far as a permit, what other areas of concern should we be worried about as far as what damages did you do to the environment, not being under permit? Because obviously nobody was watching what was going on. And so I have some real concerns about how much more gravel was extracted from this area above and beyond what was permitted. And what this has to do with the surrounding environment. MR. NEAL: I think I understand your questions, so I'll see if I can respond to it. There is a natural berm because of the elevation of the water and the pit itself, or the lake or the excavation site, and the surrounding ground. And when stormwater runs and falls directly on top of it, then there's enough capacity that it won't overflow. The sheet flow that comes through here is minor that it is not significant enough to add to having a larger capacity to receive off-site waters, so there was no -- to my knowledge, any water that is Page 32 October 14, 2003 -- as you can see there is the clean water around the outside, and there's the dirty water where they're digging inside -- that the water went over the banks and onto the adjoining property owner on the adjoining property. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you made mention of the fact that you were not in compliance as far as your setbacks. So what other items did you -- are you -- should you bring forward at this point in time? I understand what you're going to do with this gravel, it's going to a very good cause. But it seems -- what concerns me is that when you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, that all of a sudden I'd like to start opening up this mine again and I'd like to take care of Habitat for Humanity, but the problem is that you've been out of compliance all this time. And what we need, I think, on the Board of Commissioners is to make sure that you're going to be in compliance, that if we do let you go on with this permit, that the mining operation is only going to serve the Habitat of Humanity (sic) and nobody else in regards to the material coming out of that particular mine. MR. NEAL: Yes, we have agreed to staff that we will go back and fill in the perimeter areas where it's less than the 50 feet, and that we will address it to the county standard. Also, it's my understanding that they had a bond for $100,000 that also sort of puts us in a compliance mood because they can pull that bond at any time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess the last question I have, and this would be to staff: How are we going to make sure that this particular mining operation and any other type of mining operations in Collier County are being set up for the particular standards that we set forth, and that we're going to make sure that all the -- this mine, along with other mines are going to be held in compliance? I guess what I'm asking is what type of follow-up are we going to have on Page 33 October 14, 2003 this? MR. KUCK: For the record, Tom Kuck, Engineering Director. I think I can address most of those questions you ask. Yes, we did make a mistake. I guess -- you know, I'm not making excuses, we did not pick up that this -- the conditional use had expired, or the blasting -- I shouldn't say the blasting -- the excavation permit had expired. Whether it was shorthanded in our office, whatever caused them, I'm not really sure. One thing it did do, it precipitated a procedure that we worked out a software computer program for all excavations and blasting, so 60 days in advance of a conditional use or a blasting or an excavation permit expiring, that alerts us. We worked with the county attorney's office and formulated a letter at that time that goes out advising the petitioner that in 60 days their permit is going to expire. And then we get another reminder and send out another letter within 30 days. And then if they don't respond, we take positive action. We also set up a procedure so all excavations in Collier County will be inspected once per month. We've got a regular form, and that gets entered into it also. For each time that they do a blast, they have to call and make arrangements with us, and we do have an inspector out observing each blast that occurs. We do have -- I think something was mentioned on the security. We have $100,000 cash security posted by the petitioner on this particular project. I'm not sure what other questions you may have with staff, but I'll try and answer them. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess my final question, before I turn this over to my fellow Commissioners, when did you put this new process into operation, so that we have follow up? Because obviously this was going on for about two to three years prior to your staff catching on what was going on here. Page 34 October 14, 2003 MR. KUCK: We started in February, and it's taken like three months to write this -- you know, the right type of software program. One of the people from my staff has worked with IT, and it's working out real well. And it will correct this so hopefully it won't happen in the future. But I'll have to admit that we probably should have picked it up sooner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it sounds like big brother is doing his job. MR. KUCK: Well, we're trying. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You don't have to comment on that. I know you do a great job, Tom, and I appreciate it. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm concerned about these excavations from the standpoint of depth of excavation. And we have another one we're considering. This one says that the average bottom elevation will be 20 feet below the average original grade. Now, of course you can get to an average bottom elevation by digging some areas really deep and some areas really shallow. My concern really is with the confining layer of the aquifer. And I wonder if we should not also establish a condition concerning the maximum depth, not just the average depth for the excavation. MR. KUCK: Yeah, we can look into that. One thing we do is, for an annual report we require the excavator or the owner to submit an aerial photograph to scale, along with soundings of what they've excavated. And then if it's a long-term excavation, like some of the commercial mines, every three years they have to provide us certified cross sections on what's occurring so we can monitor and make sure that they're not exceeding the permitted depth. When I say that, we give them-- usually on the ones like at 20-foot, you know, 10 percent tolerance is okay, but -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: One of problems I have is that a Page 35 October 14, 2003 lot can happen in a year or in three years, and all it takes is the perforation of the confining layer and we're likely to have some problems with the aquifers. Do we know where that confining layer is in this particular area? MR. KUCK: In this particular area, I'm not sure. And Jerry may be able to answer that. And it may be we need to look at our excavation ordinance and identify what type of borings we need in advance from a, you know, regular soils testing laboratory, so they would be able to identify if there is a confining layer and at what depth it is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We do not have those borings at the present time? MR. KUCK: I'm not sure -- Jerry says yes, they're in the file. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, are these borings sufficient for us to determine what would be an acceptable maximum depth of excavation in that area? MR. KUCK: I believe with the soil borings we also, when they're provided, get a certification from the -- you know, the soils lab on what the recommendations would be. But -- and I know what the concern is, is to say we've got one excavation permit that was scheduled for today, and it was continued till the next meeting. And I want to make sure that we can address everything. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it's the same problem. I would like to see us address that before we make final decision on this. Or otherwise, put some condition here that will protect the county from the eventuality of someone perforating the confining layer. I think we can do that perhaps today, as an additional condition. But we also have to follow up with inspections on this because. Quite frankly, once it's perforated, what do you do about it? I don't know. We have to safeguard that from happening rather than trying Page 36 October 14, 2003 to deal with it on an after-the-fact basis. MR. KUCK: And again, on the particular one today that's for the conditional use, if that does get approved, we'll be back before you in two weeks, I would imagine, or whatever, for the excavation permit. And some of the questions that have been brought up today can be answered at that time and made conditions of the permit. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two things. Tom, we need a report of what the recommendations of the Planning Commission from our staff. And I don't know if you have that. MR. KUCK: Yes, we do. And we can make that available either with the excavation, or if you would like to have that submitted between now and two weeks from now or at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think the Board needs to know what the planning commission recommendation on the conditional use. Sir? MR. BOSI: Chairman Henning, Mike Bosi with planning services. In Page 3 of the executive summary, under the Collier County Planning Commission recommendation, the planning commission heard the petition at the September 18th planning commission meeting, and they recommended unanimous approval, subject to the conditions that were contained -- or attached to the resolution. And the clarification, the hours of operations that were approved by the planning commission was 8:00 to 4:00. It's been subsequently noted by staff that the -- that the conditions could be changed by a motion of the Board. And just maybe to give the Board of County Commissioners a little more comfort, we understood that this area has changed in transition from its character from the original conditional use that was granted in '97. It still retains its agricultural zoning district, but Page 37 October 14, 2003 you're starting to see more residents populate the general area. We felt that the conditions that we had imposed, associated with the conditional use, would grant assurances that this operation will be done within one year, and that excavation pit would be placed into the requirements that the LDC has for excavation pits and how they're supposed to be left. If we were to walk away today, that area does not benefit that neighborhood as it transitions to a residential district. And eventually the agricultural zoning district is probably going to transition more to a residential character. And we felt this one year, one year from the time of approval by this Board, that they have to be done and they have to have it back within the requirements of the Land Development Code. And just to clar -- just so I can make sure that I'm fully understanding the conditions that the Board would like to place upon the conditional use, Commissioner Fiala had suggested 9:00 to 3:00. An additional condition recommended by Commissioner Coletta, stating that a survey of the existing housing before any blasting was to be done would be taken by the applicant to ensure that if any damage that was done related to the blasting activities that would be associated with the excavation permit could be documented, as well as another commission -- another condition to limit the haul activity strictly to the Charlie Estates Habitat for Humanity site on 41, based upon the concerns that we did not want to populate that 41 segment any more than that half mile distance that separates Greenway Road between the Charlie Estates interest. And a fourth condition that would -- I believe it was suggested by Commissioner Coletta as well, that a 55-day haul trip cap would be placed per any given day upon the site, just upon the same concerns about accessing 41. And I think that the -- Tom Kuck had indicated that the condition in terms of the perforation of the aquifer would maybe be a Page 38 October 14, 2003 condition that should be -- or better addressed at the actual commercial excavation permit that would be back before you in two weeks. And staff realized that, in summary, that this operation -- the ball has been dropped by the county, the ball has been dropped by the applicant. There's no denying that. As a planner, I just do not see the benefit of putting a halt to this operation based upon the zoning designation of the land and based upon the number of residents. There are a number of houses there, and they've expressed their concerns, but they've also expressed that they want assurances that the county is going to be on the ball in monitoring anything that happens in the future, and that they're going to suffer no more damages from that. We believe, and we've got engineering services who have stated that they will be at any blasting that occurs in the future. And we feel that this one-year window that's going to allow them to get in there, clean up their site, get the rest of their haul material out of there and then have a 32-acre lake that can be considered an amenity to the area and can be considered more attractive to the residents. Any other questions, I'd be happy to answer. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I have some -- a question for Mr. Neal. Sir, you stated during the public neighborhood meeting that (sic) was one resident complaining about damage to his property; is that correct? MR. NEAL: That's what I understand. It's third hand, but that's what I understand, that-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was (sic) you at the neighborhood meeting? MR. NEAL: Yes, there were two neighborhood meetings, and I was at both of them. And I did the presentation, along with the staff. And at the last one, the statement was to notify us or the blaster and Page 39 October 14, 2003 we would get them in contact with the adjustor, adjuster for the insurance to go out and look at the house. It was my understanding that the adjuster may have gone out and looked at the house. That part of it, I'm not involved in. So it's third hand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's get back. Was the owner of the house or residence there complaining about possible damage from your operation? MR. NEAL: The blasting went on in '99 and it was in 2001, and the first that anyone, even the county has heard of it was at the neighborhood meeting a few months ago. The person said they more or less assumed that since we were close to them and we were doing blasting, it probably was us. However, there was no record of time that she put on to the county or to us or any notification that when she thought this had happened and so therefore, to correlate one to the other at this time, you would just have to guess that it either occurred from the blasting or it was -- it occurred naturally, which sometimes you do when you have -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess you answered my question. MR. NEAL: -- houses in -- material. I don't know how to answer your answer, because I know when we blasted but I don't know when she's claiming it happened. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. I didn't ask that. The question was, was the resident there at the neighborhood meeting complaining about possible damage? And I think you said yes, the resident was there. That was the question. MR. NEAL: I don't know if that particular one, because I don't know who you're referring to, but there was someone there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: complained about damage. MR. NEAL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: MR. BOSI: Well, you referred to it, a person that Okay. Just for clarification, I was present at both of the Page 40 October 14, 2003 meetings and there was a resident-- there were a number of residents complaining about a number of things, but one resident specifically stated that they felt that their house was structurally damaged because of the activities at the site. I'm not making a claim as to whether there was, but she did make that statement. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I appreciate a direct answer to my question. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: One question that I asked that hasn't been answered and that is, why hasn't there been any finings imposed on this person who's been running this mine out of compliance? MR. BOSI: Commissioner Halas, I had it on my notes to address your question. I'm sorry I didn't get to it. In terms of the planning services, we aren't in the business of fining. What we do -- what we do when we receive an application that is after the fact, we assess an after-the-fact fee, just two times the -- two times the regular application fee for conditional use. But other than that, the planning services department doesn't get into any sort of-- any sort of fining or any sort of action such as that. But they were charged twice the amount that a normal application would come in, based upon the after-the-fact fees. They were issued a notice of violation to have -- brought (sic) their conditional use and their excavation permit up to date, which they're in the process of doing. I believe if they did not act upon that, that was when the Code Enforcement Board would take action upon it, and then that would be the avenue and opportunity for fines and monetary damages imposed upon the applicant. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So do we have something in place now so that there is a sequence of events that will take place that will make sure that all these mines are in compliance? Page 41 October 14, 2003 As Commissioner Coyle stated, I'm in the same boat as he is that I'm concerned that if you have mining operations that are not adhering to the rules, especially on the permit -- and I think that that would be something that they should be able to know, when their permit is going to expire, and I have concerns that maybe they could also be involved in disturbing the confining layer that would keep the mine segregated from the aquifer. And so that's why I'm very concerned about not only this mining operation, but other mining operations that we have going on in Collier County. MR. BOSI: Commissioner Halas, I believe Tom Kuck started to address that about the monitoring process that has been established and the indication that maybe they will need to look at the mining ordinance in terms of the regards to the depth and-- maximum depth and protecting the aquifers. As far as notifying the applicant as to when their conditional use would expire, we have this -- we have the system being developed and being in place now, and we will continue to remind the applicants, once they receive approval from the BCC, that it is their responsibility to act upon the conditions that are stipulated to any approval granted by this Board. And I'm sure the Board of County Commissioners will do so as well. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're starting to repeat ourselves. Appreciate the information. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, bottom line, there's a system in place, 60-day notice when you're stuffs getting close to being time up on conditional use and permitting. Tom Kuck inspects the mines every month and has a check sheet to make sure that they're in compliance with their permit. He also takes a look at the depths in the -- that they're doing. He's going to go back and take a look at the ordinance to make sure if there needs to be something added as far as the depth piece of-- and Commissioner Coyle brought it up as average depth versus, you know, one's shallow, one's deep, did they, Page 42 October 14, 2003 did they bust the confining layer. We'll take a look at that a little bit more in detail, and hopefully in two weeks when we come back with the permit he'll be able to tell you what he's found. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one other question. One more time, what are you going to do with this when it's all mined out? What is the intentions to use the land for? MR. NEAL: The land use -- well, on the western side, you can see some green grass area. That will be building pad areas and -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you take your light there and shine it on there? MR. NEAL: This area right here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That area right -- with the white line over to the left to the lake is what you own as property, right? Is that what I'm looking at? MR. NEAL: Right. Yes, we own to that white line. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. What are your intentions once this is mined out? MR. NEAL: Our intentions is to subdivide it into five-acre tracts, and that's the reason why the wide area is left there, is so they have a home site and then they'll back up to the lake. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be real nice if you could sell it to the county for a dollar for a park, but that's a -- MR. NEAL: And if you would, I would answer Mr. Coyle's question. On this particular application before you, the area that's in white will have a depth of 12 feet. So the original may have been 20 feet, but what we're planning on excavating, the rest of it is only down to 12 feet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Did we beat this up enough? Page 43 October 14, 2003 Shall we go to public speakers? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I had enough fun with it. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one public speaker. Sam Durso. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, can you hear me? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had a couple more things that after our speaker I would like to mention them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. DURSO: Good morning. I'll be very brief. My name is Dr. Sam Durso, I'm here as president of Habitat for Humanity for Collier County, one of your partners for providing affordable housing in the county. The subdivision Charlie Estates will provide for 120 families. The way we got involved in this, we went out to bid this summer and because of regulations that are coming to pass, three people bid on the project and two people bid the fill at 9.50 a yard and these people bid the fill at $5.00 a yard. We're only going to use 130,000 yards of fill here, so you do the math. You know, we're saving four or $500,000 by having these folks do it. Obviously when I did it, I didn't know they didn't have a permit, and you can imagine my surprise in August when I saw it before the planning Board. I said, what's going on, you know. But the project is in place. They've already started with fill from the lakes on Charlie Estates. We need this 100,000 yards today. We need it right away. So I can assure you, number one, that all the fill there will be ours. Number two, it's going to save us four or $500,000, which is going to save you, because that's more affordable housing we can build. Obviously it will save the roads, because it's right across the Page 44 October 14, 2003 street from us, it's only a half a mile. So, we just strongly support it and we hope it happens. And I think the end result, this piece of land will be better, and, you know, maybe there will be another use for this land later on. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. DURSO: But flips very expensive. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Boy, is it. MR. DURSO: I was hoping -- when I thought they had three or 400,000 yards of fill here, and I thought we were going to be able to use this on all our projects -- because we've got two other projects in the area. But they only -- apparently they don't even have enough fill for us. So we will get all the fill. And we want it right away, so it will be soon. I am a little unhappy with the restrictions, but I suppose 9:00 to 3:00 they can do it. And they won't be trucking more than 30 or 40 loads a day. I don't see how they can. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we left them the leeway so they may find a way to do more to be able to end the project sooner. MR. DURSO: That's okay. We're ready for the fill. We can use it today. So the sooner they do it the sooner we'll be building houses. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. DURSO: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you very much. We're happy they're going to have trucks going such a short distance, as Commissioner Coletta previously stated, and not traveling a long distance and all on our roads. The things are still bothering me. Number one, the people in the area have had damage to their homes, but they of course thought that Page 45 October 14, 2003 these people were mining, excavating legally. They had no idea that they should be reporting this. Secondly, for two years the company has been mining, taking in off the mining. Never had to pay for a permit, never had to pay for anything. So that's two years free and clear that they've had this money coming in, which to me is just appalling. And second -- and thirdly, our -- Tom Kuck was apologizing for staff blaming themselves actually for not being after this. But, you know, how do they know the people are mining illegally? They think that once the contract is completed that people will be responsible enough to come back if they want to continue it. That has to take place. I'm very, very disappointed. The only good thing about this entire situation is that there will be lots of trucks off the road, it will also be a short distance, it will be 9:00 to 3:00, and that they'll make sure that they repair these people's homes, and it's going to go to Habitat. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. That was kind of the same stuff we've been talking about, what Commissioner Fiala was talking about. So I guess there's enough concern that staff is going to fix it. And it sounds like we're going in the right direction to fix that. So if there's no further questions, I'm going to close the public hearing. Commissioner Fiala, anymore questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. Entertain a motion. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioners, I think there are two issues here that probably have to be dealt with separately. One is our failure to enforce the process. And I think we probably do have some kind of procedure for handling illegal mining Page 46 October 14, 2003 activities. The other issue is one of using the remaining fill and getting this mine cleaned up so it is a community amenity rather than a hazard, and allowing Habitat for Humanity to get that fill at a reasonable price. So what I would suggest is that we approve the mining permit, direct staff to pursue whatever measures seem appropriate under the enforcement provisions of our Land Development Code, and to make the necessary changes with respect to the current conditions that are contained in our-- and the recommendations from staff for the hours of operation from -- it varies from 9:00 to 4:00 or from 8:00 to 4:00, depending upon what sheet of paper I'm looking at. But I think we've agreed on 9:00 to 3:00. And that we also direct staff to add a condition concerning maximum depth. And the petitioner has indicated that 12 feet is where they intend to go. Perhaps that would be -- it would be easy to determine if that causes any danger to the confining layer of the aquifer and proceed with something less than the 20 feet that's currently stated as a condition. So what I would like to do is to make a motion to approve with those changes to the conditions that are attached to the resolution, and again, to emphasize that we -- the staff describe a maximum depth which is realistic and is the least depth that is necessary for successfully accomplishing this excavation without placing the confining layer of the aquifer in danger. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if I could make one correction to the motion. This is for conditional use, not the permit. You said permit, and I just want to make sure for the record it's conditional use. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Conditional use. The permit comes next. MR. MUDD: And staff will come forward with restrictions on Page 47 October 14, 2003 the depth in the permit. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you. Then I make that motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was wondering if you'd also include in your motion the fact that this would be limited to this Habitat project, to keep them from all of a sudden deciding to carry the fill farther. And also that it's capped to a maximum of 55 trucks a day, so if they do find another way to be able to move the fill faster we don't find 150 trucks out there tying up 41. And that -- let's just see, what's the other one. And also the planning commission's recommendations be also added. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, they were. I had referenced those in my original motion, but I will modify the motion to include the items you have described. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I modify my second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's an amended -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, that's too late, you already had your mm. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can only amend the motion -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Come on, it's my birthday, I get another try. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's sing happy birthday -- no, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Also, too, about the pre-assessment of the homes within 1,000 feet, as far as blasting goes. Page 48 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: What does that mean? CHAIRMAN HENNING: That means the petitioner has agreed to assess the surrounding homes for structural, so that's recorded, if there's any complaints on any structural damages, that will be taken care of. MR. MUDD: The only way that these people are going to get any kind of reimbursement for any structural damage is to have a pre-inspection that's video taped and on record so that if a crack shows up that wasn't there, then they can -- then they can blame it on the blasting at such and such a time. If you don't have that pre-video or those snapshots, you might as well -- you forget about it, it's a waste of time. So you've got to have the pre-assessment. MR. KUCK: I would just like to add that we did revise our blasting ordinance several years ago, and we require pre-blast surveys on a certain radius. It's all tied into how many pounds you're using per charge. And then in addition to that you go 50 percent beyond that distance and have to notify the neighbors. But we do have that in -- where they have to go in and video -- or give -- the property owners can say no, we don't want it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would that include at least 1,000 feet? MR. KUCK: It really depends. It's like 200 -- I don't want to get technical. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, I -- what I would say is that it be 1,000 feet minimum or to the extent of our -- MR. KUCK: In most cases it is, and we can make it -- and we can make it 1,000 foot. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a part of the motion maker? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a part of second? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, Page 49 October 14, 2003 there's one issue that you raised about mm lanes, I believe, and you wanted to get our transportation staffs input on that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, input. But I think what would be very simple to do is just have it that the turn lanes have to be -- Mr. Scott, would you like to comment on that? Or else we can include it in the motion that the necessary turn lanes be so designed as to make this all functional and safe. What do you have to say about that, Mr. Scott? MR. SCOTT: Well, the -- as he mentioned earlier, the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record, please. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, sorry, transportation planning. The left turn lane at Greenway was put in as part of the previous development in this area. The left turn into the Habitat doesn't meet -- because of the size, it doesn't meet the requirements for a left turn at that location. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the way the road's designed, or will be designed, will be more than adequate to meet the needs of the public? MR. SCOTT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Is there anymore discussion? Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing no more discussion, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0. Page 50 October 14, 2003 We're going to take a seven-minute break so our county manager can fix the communication problem that we have with Commissioner Fiala. (Brief recess.) MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic. Item #7B RESOLUTION 2003-355 REGARDING PETITION CCSL-2001- 5/AR-1922 RFiQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE (CCSL) TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION AT 9225 GULFSHORE DRIVE NORTH- ADOPTED W/CHANGES CHAIRMAN HENNING: Board of Commissioners are back in session. We are on Item 7(B). This is item-- MR. MUDD: This item is continued from September 23rd, 2003 BCC meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. It's Petition CCSL-2001-5/AR-1922. Brett Moore of Humiston and Moore Engineering, representing the Vanderbilt Beach Motel, requesting a variance from the Coastal Construction Setback Line, the CCSL, to allow construction of a multi-story residential building, a parking structure, two swimming pools with extensive paver decking, and a wooden boardwalk connecting to a handicapped beach access ramp, all of which are located on property known as the Vanderbilt Beach Motel, with a street address of 9225 Gulfshore Drive North, in an area generally known as Vanderbilt Beach, and more particularly described as Lot 4, Block A, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit Number 1, located in Section 32, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All wishing to participate in this Page 51 October 14, 2003 item, discussion today, please rise, raise your right hand to be worn in by the court reporter. Hang on before we swear them in. We have some public speakers on this item. How many? We have three, okay, that wish to speak, and I guess we're all standing. Please. (All parties were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communication by the Board of Commissioners. 7(B), Commissioner Fiala, do you have anything to declare? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. I talked to staff on this item and also received an e-mail, or e-mails from William Boggus. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I have also talked with staff and I met with Mr. Rich Yovanovich who is petitioner -- who is agent for the petitioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have talked with staff and I have met with Karen Bishop on this item some time back. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I have no disclosures to make. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, Commissioner Henning, I forgot to mention, I have spoken to staff. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich, representing the petitioner. I also have with me Brett Moore who I believe is one of the registered speakers, who is the engineer on the project and Van Miller, who is the architect on the project. So I think that's the other public speaker. We three put slips in so I don't know if there's Page 52 October 14, 2003 anybody else. And also a representative of the property owner, if you need to talk to them. I do need to correct for the record, Commissioner Fiala, we did meet on this petition, so I just wanted to add that to the record. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm glad you mentioned that. I'm sorry, I didn't remember that. I don't have it written down, but thank you for keeping me honest. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I have put on the visualizer an aerial of the existing project, as well as the proposed redevelopment of the property. And Mr. Moore will take you through in greater detail. But essentially what we are doing is we are removing -- we are removing these two existing structures and replacing them with a residential 100-foot building. What we will be doing, we will actually be bringing the structure more landward of the water than currently exists. The variance we're requesting is for a portion of the building -- and this dotted line is the coastal construction setback line that's established. What we're asking for is this portion of the building, the swimming pool and this is the handicap ramp. That's what we're asking for. As you can see, it is more landward than the existing structures, so it's an improvement, we believe, over the existing situation out there. We are in line with the established construction out there. And that's the process we're following with the petition. You're allowed a variance if there's an established construction line seaward of the coastal construction setback line. And our proposed construction is consistent with that established construction line. This property has an existing seawall on it and the beach is obviously seaward of the existing seawall. We do need to make one revision to the resolution, and it's in Page 53 October 14, 2003 the third whereas paragraph. We believe the following revision would be more consistent with the ordinance language that pertains to coastal construction setback variances. And that third paragraph -- whereas paragraph should be revised in its entirety to read as follows: The buildings shall be located consistent with the line of authorized construction. And that's what's been established is the line of authorized construction, and that is consistent with the site plan attached to the resolution. With that, we have met with your staff. We have incorporated all of their requested revisions. I believe Barbara Burgeson is going to make one more requested revision to the amount of pavers that we can have with this project, and we can agree to those, so if you want to put them on the record, Barbara, you can do that. But with that being said, we are in agreement with all the staff conditions. We request that one revision to the resolution. And Mr. Moore can take you through briefly what we're doing and get into any technical engineering questions, if you have any. Unless you have any legal questions, I will sit down. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't have any legal questions, no. I don't see anybody jumping up. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, I heard that language that you added, shall be adjusted to construction -- to agree with -- constant with the construction line? MR. YOVANOVICH: The buildings shall be located consistent with the line of authorized construction. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only thing I'm going to add is when staff gets up -- and maybe they'll comment on that particular statement. It seems like that's a little more general than what was specifically there before. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it is. It was intended to be more -- see, the exhibit is consistent with the ordinance. The exhibit -- that's Page 54 October 14, 2003 why we wanted that clarification, so that there was no ambiguity. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibly I might be able to right now just get this behind us. Mr. Weigel, any comments on that? MR. WEIGEL: No. Ms. Student may have something additional to add to clarify the question. But Rich is -- Mr. Yovanovich's indication is to revise the third whereas to be consistent with the language of our ordinance. Marjorie, do you have anything further? MS. STUDENT: I have just -- this had just come up. I just want an opportunity to see if staff had a problem with it and then compare it with the actual language here in the code, which I'm going to do right now. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if we're changing it based on the exhibit, shouldn't we base it on the exhibit and not the site plan? MR. YOVANOVICH: That would be my preference, that there be no reference whatsoever and that you're approving it based on the exhibit. But I was concerned that it was inconsistencies between the exhibit and the whereas paragraph. And if there was going to be a question about it, I wanted to make sure we were tracking the exhibit. And if you take -- frankly, in my opinion is, if you take the whereas paragraph out, we're all better off. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: By the improved, if you will, request that Mr. Yovanovich has, will that also say that anybody who has buildings out to the old CCSL, not the new one, is now allowed to build out that far? What is practical here is to correct some of the errors from the past. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, this is -- this is -- Commissioner Page 55 October 14, 2003 Fiala, this is -- and I'm assuming you can see it on TV? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is actually to pull the building back closer to where the existing buildings are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you're number three. What does that really mean? Lots of times it's sounds very -- well, to me it sounds very ambiguous. What are you really trying to say there? MR. YOVANOVICH: What we're trying to say is -- basically what I'm trying to say is the exhibit attached to the resolution, which is the picture you see on the visualizer-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is where we're authorized to construct. We can't go any further seaward than that. And that lines up with the buildings to the right and the left, which is north and south, if you're looking at a direction. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll-- as Commissioner Henning said, I'll wait to hear what staff says. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Environmental Services. We used the current Collier County Land Development Code language to create that third whereas, so it was using that Land Development Code language to determine that it was appropriate that the buildings would not extend further seaward than the building on the parcel immediately adjacent to the north of this property. So it would be appropriate to use that language, but I don't believe that it would be appropriate to take out the whereas that staff has in the resolution. So if we want to add the recommended language and clarify that by keeping this whereas in as a part of that, that would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm confused. You're referring to a whereas that states that the buildings will not extend further Page 56 October 14, 2003 seaward than the building on the parcel immediately adjacent to the north of the property. MS. BURGESON: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's talking about removing the next whereas, where he's talking about -- MS. BURGESON: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You said the third whereas. MS. BURGESON: Yes, the first one is that large paragraph. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I got it. I got it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know that you have somebody to explain the details on that. And Commissioner Halas, I don't know if your question pertains to what we're discussing now or what is going to be presented. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, there's a number of questions I have here. I'd like to also eliminate the fourth whereas, where you have extensive pavers, terrace that will extend seaward over the pools. I think that we don't need to extend pavers out past the west of the pool there. I think decking would be more appropriate. MS. BURGESON: Again, for the record, Barbara Burgeson. I do agree that decking would be more appropriate out in front of the CCSL. We had come to an agreement to allow pavers, but staff had requested that it been in a minimal dimension in front of the CCSL. I do have one item I wanted to show on the visualizer. I'm not sure how clearly you can see. Around the pool there's an area that I've highlighted in green. That's the pavers that, in accordance with the language of the CCSL resolution, would be permitted, which would not exceed an average of 15 feet around the pool. The areas that I've highlighted in red are additional areas of pavers that, in accordance with the resolution language, would not be permitted. It Page 57 October 14, 2003 would be permitted to put in a minimal walkway from the building to each of those pools. We'd accept concrete walkway or a wooden pathway from the building to the pool. So that this diagram shows a change that I'd like to put on the record to what our resolution requires. Though it would be staffs -- staff would support a recommendation to remove the pavers as well. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner? You want to wait or-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll -- well, the other question is, the seawall that's presently there, is that going to be removed? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why not? MR. MOORE: For the record, my name is Brett Moore with Humiston & Moore Engineers. If you note on the site plan in the exhibit, there's an existing seawall which goes across the entire property. Two buildings are to be removed which are nonconforming from coastal development standards. But there still is building to the south which includes the Turtle Club restaurant, which is not designed for certain storm events, and the wall will remain to provide protection for that existing structure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is that dotted line on the -- CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: That's the CCSL. MR. MUDD: The dotted line is the CCSL, sir. The dotted line on the beach. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, the dotted line on the beach. The dark dotted line on the beach; what is that? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the property boundary. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Are you proposing building anything seaward of the seawall? Page 58 October 14, 2003 MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Other than -- well, I take that back. The handicap actually ramp will be seaward -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of the seawall. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- of the seawall. But the building obviously would not and the pool would not. MR. MUDD: And the handicap ramp is this yellow? MR. YOVANOVICH: Is the yellow Mr. Mudd is pointing to. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Moore, you want to give us a short presentation? MR. MOORE: Sure. And I'll try not to repeat what you've already heard. Really, some of the highlights are that we are removing two non-conforming buildings. The new building will have a habitable -- a seaward habitable limit, which will be approximately 65 feet landward of the motel -- the seaward limit of the motels that are there now on-site. The new building also will be elevated to meet the Florida Building Code. And other than that, this project also will require a permit from the State Department of Environmental Protection. We have met with them throughout the project and they are -- they're very comfortable with what's being proposed. There are two pools, by the way. There's also a pool on the south side of the project. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, a quick question back about the seawall, if I may. And I understand what Commissioner Halas's reservations are on this. The properties to the south and the north, do they have seawalls anywheres near you, or are you the only property that has a seawall down through there? MR. MOORE: I believe there's also a seawall on the adjacent property to the north. Page 59 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My concern is, is that seawalls are notorious for causing the beachage (phonetic) to wash away at times of storm events and the fact that they act as a buffer and usually are cause for beach erosion, future beach erosion. Has that been addressed in any way, or is this entered into the equations? Is .this something that we should be, from our own environmental department, be very concerned about as far as long term? I mean, if we allow this to happen now, we're locked in for another 20, 30 years with the seawall still in place. I need advice on this. MS. BURGESON: Again for the record, Barbara Burgeson. We did not address the seawall during this review. This was something that we had looked at in previous CCSL variances and had requested petitioners to remove seawalls previously. We did not get support from staff supervisors to continue to pursue that removal of the seawall language in that old CCSL variance. I guess I'm probably still taking direction from that management which goes back quite a ways to not request the seawall be removed. But we had determined at that time it would be more appropriate and better for the beach for that seawall to be removed. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So seawalls do cause beach erosion at the erosion at the time of storm events? MS. BURGESON: Yes, they do, typically. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what percentage of beach can we expect -- what would be the magnitude in comparison to be without a seawall? I'm just trying to put this together in my mind. MS. BURGESON: I couldn't tell you what the difference in the erosion would be, but it does cause an uneven erosion. It actually creates a difference in how that -- the shoreline waves come in during a storm event. They would come in normal to the beach and consistently along that entire shoreline, if that seawall were not there. When it encounters a seawall then it changes that, and that's not a Page 60 October 14, 2003 consistent wave action along that stretch. In some cases it causes additional sand to be placed one end of the seawall and scour at the other. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm very uncomfortable about putting a burden on this particular petitioner at this point in time if staff has not been following this procedure about the importance of seawalls or the existence of seawalls and the impact they have on our beach restoration efforts. And generally once you put a seawall up, normally you have to start, continue the seawall down and protect other properties, unless you've got beach restoration taking place at an accelerated rate; is that correct? MS. BURGESON: Yes. And we took a look at the other parcel, which is the old Twin Eagles Beach Club which had the seawall. We had -- our original request was to take that out. We did look at a lot of the properties along Vanderbilt Beach and I believe that there are only four parcels that have seawalls on the entire stretch of Vanderbilt Beach. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have some concerns about this. And I'll be honest with you, I don't know how to address it. It's come to us at this point without staff interceding in some way, and I'll be looking for my fellow Commissioners to give me guidance in this. MR. MOORE: May I also comment about some of your questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please. MR. MOORE: With regard to the seawall, I mean, it has been pretty well documented in the past that when waves interact with seawalls, the wave energy reflects off the wall and causes additional scour. This particular seawall does have toe scour rock in place to help reduce that and dissipate that energy, so there's not a great amount of accelerated erosion when storms hit this particular wall. Page 61 October 14, 2003 There is a wall that is on the north -- to the property to the north, per the survey. With regard to setting a precedent that other people will come in and build more and more walls, there's a fairly stringent statutory provision dealing with coastal armoring that allows you to come in and fill some gaps -- this is from the state perspective -- but in order to be able to come in and build additional walls takes a great deal of justification, and it's a pretty long road. And it would have to go certainly before the County Commissioners to gain that approval first. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate that answer. And maybe staff could comment again on the rocks that will act to prevent the -- dissipate the energy from the waves in such a way that it will -- is there any comments on that? Is this going to achieve the desired purpose, or have we still got a major problem? And if you don't know the answer, it's all right to say that, too. MS. BURGESON: Well, I don't know the answer to this particular project, whether those stones are permitted in front of the seawall. But I do know that state has not permitted that on other properties. It's in the permit? Okay, then what Rich Yovanovich is saying is that it is required on this particular project. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MS. BURGESON: I would rely on the state permit. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas has a number of questions, and Commissioner Coyle wants to have some input. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: To start with, when we -- if we decide to approve this variance, will this project go before the planning commission for review of this whole structure that's going Page 62 October 14, 2003 to be placed on this property? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. What this is, is this is a site development plan and building permit. So that's the process we follow on this particular project. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And there's no review whatsoever by the planning commission? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, because we're developing under the existing zoning for the property. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I have some concerns about the seawall. I'd like to see the seawall taken out. Have you made some provisions also for beach access for the public? MR. YOVANOVICH: The Turtle Club will remain in existence, and they're accessing the beach right now through the Turtle Club. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So there is provisions there for people to use the beach? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Other than just the people that live at this club? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, the Turtle Club is -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That will be put in the resolution also that we'll make sure that that beach access remains open for those people? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we would need to address where -- right now the Turtle Club will stay. The Turtle Club is planned to stay as a public eating establishment, which would get people access to the water. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it will be at the restaurant. But does that give them the opportunity also to use that beach? MR. YOVANOVICH: We've never had an issue with the people who come to our restaurant going and walking on through and getting to the beach. Page 63 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. want on the beach. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And swimming? Yes, sir. Or doing whatever they How many stories is this building going to be, since it's not going before the building -- the planning commission? MR. YOVANOVICH: It is 10 stories over parking. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how many stories of parking do we have? MR. YOVANOVICH: One. COMMISSIONER HALAS: One story. And that's what, at FEMA level, 13 feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: It is -- I'll bring the architect up. MR. MILLER: For the record, I'm Van Miller with My Architect, Inc. The elevation is -- in this case is required at the underside of the beam that supports the roof of the parking structures. That required elevation's 19.25 feet NGVD, and then the deck above it is -- the first habitable floor is at 25 feet NGVD, because of the beams that we need to hold the structure up. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the parking structure's going to be 19 feet, almost 20 feet; is that correct, from -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the existing grade, the finished floor is nine, so you take the 19 -- it's 10 feet to the underside of the beam and another five feet of beam depth and slab to hold the building above. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what are we talking total height of this building? MR. YOVANOVICH: From grade? COMMISSIONER HALAS: From grade, yeah, all the way to the top. Very top of the -- MR. MILLER: It's about 135 feet. Page 64 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: 135 foot. MR. MILLER: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we're going to build this, the other side of this CCSL line, westward of the CCSL line. MR. MILLER: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not all of it. MR. MILLER: A portion of it-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, a good portion of it, half of it, 50 percent of it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it's a little less than 50 percent -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: 49.8 percent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you measure it? MR. MUDD: Bear with me, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm starting to get dizzy. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it's a little sensitive, that button. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So if you take me to the top of the parking garage, this little decking you have up there, what did we say -- what was the height at that point, to the top of the decking? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct, from grade. MR. MILLER: 16 feet above grade. COMMISSIONER HALAS: 16 feet above grade. And you've got six foot of grade; is that correct? Nine foot -- MR. MILLER: Yeah, at nine. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So have we addressed what we're going to do with the pavers? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. And that was when I earlier said we were in agreement with what staffs revisions to the pavers -- we're in agreement with staffs -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we're going to end up putting Page 65 October 14, 2003 decking there instead -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I want to revisit this issue about the seawall. It's my understanding, based upon what staff just told us, that the current code doesn't require the removal of these, but yet there is evidence which suggests that it causes additional erosion. I think we need to get some additional information from staff concerning that for a future, perhaps, LDC revision as to how we deal with these. Although I'll tell you quite personally, after watching seawalls over a period of 50 years or so, I haven't seen many seawalls wash out if they've been properly protected. And I know from personal experience that there are a lot of beaches that wouldn't exist if there were not seawalls there. And certainly it interferes with the natural erosion, but I don't think our objective is to make sure that all of these beaches erode naturally; otherwise, we wouldn't be replenishing them every year. So I think we need to take a close look at that. And what I'm suggesting is that if it is a problem, and I'm willing to be convinced of that, we should deal with that at an LDC workshop of some kind and see if we can't address it in our code. The other thing I'd like to make sure of is that -- is that we are not locking ourselves into a situation at this point in time where we are approving a 135 or 40 foot tall building. What we are dealing with only is a CCSL variance, as I understand it-- MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you will have to come back to at least us, if not the planning commission. Page 66 October 14, 2003 MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You will not? MR. YOVANOVICH: I will not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no. The -- remember, this is at the RT zoning district that addresses the heights. We have to comply with the RT zoning district height requirements when the site development plan and building permits are reviewed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is a permitted use. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is a permitted use. The height is a permitted use in the existing zoning district. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want to deal with the seawall. I don't see the Board of Commissioners not going to renourish the beach in this area. I think it's important that we protect property. And if we have a slight storm where wave action is going to get up to the seawall, we are doing our job by protecting property, or allowing the landowner to protect his property. Under a major storm event, I don't know what would happen to that piece of property, but I think we ought to allow as much as we can to allow people to protect their property. So I don't have a problem with the seawall, and I'm-- and I know this meets the requirements and future proposed requirements for beach renourishment. So -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, do you have anything? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I agree with you on that, by the way. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions? Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: May I? I just have more -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'm sorry, I did have one Page 67 October 14, 2003 more. Before Commissioner Halas was asking about access. And I -- I was listening very carefully to the answers, and I felt that he was kind of hedging as far as the answer, something about the restaurant. What I want to know is will there be permanent beach access for local residents, whether they use the restaurant or not. MR. YOVANOVICH: There is not now formal access. And we-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't care about now. What I'm talking about is from now forward. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I was going to answer the question, Commissioner Fiala, that we're not -- we do not plan on creating a formal beach access point. We continue to plan to keep the Turtle Club open and operating and allowing people access to the beach like we have now-- like we do now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Yovanovich, if I can help out Commissioner Fiala. Do you want to put that in a form of the condition of the CCSL line that the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That as long as the Turtle Club is operating, we provide access? Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That the Turtle Club will remain in existence, dealing with this CCSL line. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, I don't really much care whether the restaurant stays in existence. What I care about is the access, which is something that we've all -- all five of us have been very concerned about is access to the beach. And right now we're hinging it all on whether the restaurant stays open. Well, we don't know that that's going to stay open. I want to make sure that we have permanent beach access for residents who do not live in that particular structure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, if I could help you. Immediately to the south, about 250 feet away is Vanderbilt Beach Page 68 October 14, 2003 Road. That already has public access and parking in that area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I would like Commissioner Halas's comment on that. Does he feel that that's sufficient or does he feel that-- from what I understand, every 100 feet is really encouraged. COMMISSIONER HALAS: At this point in time, that's not adequate enough beach access down there at the foot of Vanderbilt Beach Road. We've already got a high amount of impact there. And if you -- as everybody knows, we're also trying to work with other identities in regards to a parking garage. And I feel that yes, this is 300 feet down the road, but it's also necessary that I think that we have permanent beach access so that we can spread the crowd out even farther. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we would propose then, if-- on the north side of the property we will create a five-foot wide -- which is a typical sidewalk-- walkway for the beach access. On the north side. COMMISSIONER HALAS: North side. MR. YOVANOVICH: North side. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Thank you. Any more -- further questions? Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thanks. In regard to Mr. Yovanovich's statement that he just placed on record about the five-foot wide access way, I wanted to just see for the record if in fact you mentioned that the Turtle Club restaurant will continue to be in existence at least for the foreseeable future, and that it itself has served and will continue to serve as a public access way to the beach as well. I wanted to just check with you, Rich, if that will continue to be the case, as well as the other stipulation you agreed to of the five-foot separate access. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to let the owner of the Turtle Page 69 October 14, 2003 Club address that issue. MR. MOORE: Good morning, Commissioners, Attorney Weigel. I just want to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name? MR. MOORE: I'm sorry, Mick Moore for the Vanderbilt Beach Motel. It's my family's business. We've been in business there since 1968 when my grandfather first purchased the hotel. My father is the one operating it on a day-to-day basis now, but he couldn't be here so he asked me to be here in his stead. One thing that's getting lost here in the discussion is that we are operating as a hotel, along with the restaurant, the Turtle Club, as an accessory use. After this property is developed we're going to continue operating as a hotel. We'll be smaller. Anybody who wants .to come to the Turtle Club can come. They can sit out on the beach. They can walk out onto the beach. In that sense they have beach access. But we're still trying to operate our business as a hotel. And as a hotel, most hotel guests don't want everybody storming through the hotel property. So I think the -- I hope the Commission understands that the reluctance to say that it's beach access is because while we do provide beach access to the public, we're not asking Collier County to come through our hotel property and come onto the beach unless they're coming to the Turtle Club. I hope that's clear. There is beach access about 250 feet away down at the end of the road, and it's a very short walk out to the front of our property. In fact, many of the people who come to the Turtle Club come up off the beach. So I hope that clarifies on the beach access thing. We don't mean to be elusive in our answer, but we are running a hotel, and so we have to have some concern for our hotel guests as well. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you are going to provide the five-foot walkway to the beach from Page 70 October 14, 2003 the road? MR. MOORE: Mr. Yovanovich can answer that, but that's going to be on the north side of the property, it won't be in the area where the Turtle Club is. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand. That's actually better. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have -- those comments raise some questions for myself. What I'm seeing is a request -- is a variance from the coastal construction setback to allow construction of a multi-story residential building and parking structure, two swimming pools and extended paver, blah, blah blah. I don't see where the hotel or motel is going to continue with the restaurant. MR. YOVANOVICH: That -- if you look at the exhibit, Commissioner, attached to the resolution, you will see we're only dealing with the portion of the property that has the yellow highlighted over it. The remaining portion of the property, right here, is going to remain in existence. We're not asking for any changes to that property. It will stay status quo. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Okay. All right. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Close the public hearing. MS. FILSON: We have speakers. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have speakers. Please call up the speakers. MS. FILSON: I have Rich Yovanovich and Brett Moore, and I believe they already spoke. Next speaker is Van Miller. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was the architect. MS. FILSON: And your final speaker is Brad Cornell. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh. I'm sorry, Mr. Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society. Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in on this Page 71 October 14, 2003 particular issue of a variance on the coastal construction setback line. I would like to just comment that this whole area along Gulfshore is -- and Vanderbilt Beach area -- is a redeveloping area. Witness this project. And I think that really in reflecting what Commissioner Fiala had said earlier in her comment about this is an opportunity for the county to bring some out-of-compliance, you know, based on old development, bring them into compliance with that coastal construction setback line, and all the benefits that that line does bring to the public. And, you know, among those are the -- we would support considering removing the seawalls and -- but I would make a note on that. One strategy you could have would be in the case where you've got intermittent seawalls, like this case where you've got one Property that's using the seawall for protection, allow it to temporarily stay there until redevelopment happens and when that property is redeveloped, move the building back landward and then you can remove the seawall. It seems to me that all such updates where you're moving buildings back behind the coastal construction setback line is going to be complimentary to efforts to provide beach access, to also renourish the beach, notwithstanding whatever allowances DEP has for seawalls and out-of-compliance or grandfathered construction. Moving behind that setback line is going to -- it's going to be much better for our renourishment results. We're going to have more of a beach and it's going to be better protected in the long run, and you're going to have more opportunities for public access, and it's also going to be a benefit for beach habitat. I think that the county has an opportunity -- if you look down the road for the entire stretch of that beach, which has notoriously not had a lot of access and has had a lot of beach erosion problems, and in fact I think you've got some proposals to renourish this beach through various funding mechanisms in your agenda today, I would Page 72 October 14, 2003 support looking at ways to make these new projects comply with that setback line and not do variances. Thanks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none -- Ms. Burgeson? MS. BURGESON: I just had one thing I wanted to clarify, a question for Commissioner Halas. Earlier you discussed the proposal to remove all of the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Pavers. MS. BURGESON: -- the pavers and replace it with decking? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. MS. BURGESON: When you questioned the petitioner about that, I think the petitioner was referring to the drawing where some of them would be removed and not all of them. And I just am not sure what the recommendation is on your part, or whether that discussion was understood back and forth. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to see all of those pavers removed and -- other than maybe a perimeter of three feet around the pool. And then that rest of it be decking, since this is on the CCSL line, on the other side of it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The meeting of the minds. Does the petitioner agree with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Is decking wood and concrete, things like that; is that what you had in mind, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Decking would be wood or something that would benefit the -- be more compatible with the environment than pavers. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which I understand staff is fine with concrete as well. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And that's what I heard, too. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, how much concrete are we Page 73 October 14, 2003 going to pour here? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know. I think pavers are more -- I mean-- MR. YOVANOVICH: We frankly think the pavers are a lot better for the environment and a lot more aesthetic with the 15 foot that staff is pulling us back to and eliminating the red areas. I don't know if you can see the red, Commission Halas, but it takes a lot of the red area out. MR. MILLER: Yes, Commissioner, Van Miller again for the record. The pavers are small -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I know what they are. But what happens is when water gets involved, since we're right close to the other side of the CCSL line, when you have wave action, even though you may have a break wall there, you end up where the sand gets washed out under those pavers and then of course we have a problem then where pavers are. MR. MILLER: Okay, I was just going to -- thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anymore discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Close the public hearing. Somebody want to formulate a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know, I'd like to mention first, I'm still having a real problem with adhering to the CCSL. I feel we should be diligent in trying to correct some of these areas in the past that have been sought for them. And I'm wondering if there's a -- we cannot indeed pull this back somewhat with eliminating the pool or something about the pavers. I just don't think we ought to feel free with extending the CCSL out. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner, your communication is very weak. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it's not your problem. You're Page 74 October 14, 2003 breaking up. I understand that your concern is is that you want to pull it back so there's not a variance on the CCSL. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. I can tell you what I see is this is less intrusive to the CCSL than what's there presently. Just a clarification what I see. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have -- Rich, if you want to help me out, where the yellow line is of the footprint to the existing, how many feet would that be? MR. YOVANOVICH: About -- it's approximately 70 feet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So it's 70 feet further-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Away from the wall. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- away from the CCSL. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then aren't they going -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Closer to it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Closer to it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to be filling that 70 feet? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aren't they going to be filling in that 70 feet with other ancillary -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Swimming pool. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Okay. Just so we have a clarification what is being presented here today. But I hear your concerns. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some real concerns with the CCSL line, not only here up in Vanderbilt, but all through Collier County. And we have in the past allowed building to be the other side of the CCSL line. In fact, a lot of these buildings were built Page 75 October 14, 2003 prior to the CCSL line being established. I think, as Commissioner Fiala said, that we should be adhering more to the CCSL line and not allowing any type of variances to go beyond that line. And I have a difficult time with this whole process here. That's just my feeling. Because I know there's other issues up in District 2 in regards to CCSL lines. And I have a very difficult time giving a variance on this. What we're doing is we're building -- we're encouraging pools to be built here, we're encouraging pavers to be put in here, and I feel that the reason that CCSL line was there was basically to protect the people in the county, realizing that this could be potential for flooding. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner, this is your district, and I've got to question where we're going to go with this in the future if we have any other requests. I'm looking at the left and the right side of the motel, and I'm seeing two buildings that are -- exceed, far exceed the CCSL line. If we have a major hurricane where those buildings are damaged or even, I hate to say, removed from their existence, they're going to have to come in for a variance through the CCSL line. Where are you going to take us in case that event happens? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think what we need to do is maybe address this in future Land Development Code amendments. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I just want to be fair to all the property owners in this area so that -- you know, I mean, I want to support what you want to do. And if we're going to address it at a future Land Development Code, then that's fine, but if we have a hurricane tomorrow, what are we going to do with these buildings? So-- MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and Environmental Services division. Page 76 October 14, 2003 Mr. Chairman, we are coming back with an amendment to the Land Development Code which will prohibit any more construction forward of the CCSL. Now, when you're asking about a hurricane, we do have a hurricane provision in our code right now that allows rebuilding within the current footprint. That's a hurricane. Now, other acts of God, fire or some other type of activity, then they have to comply with the Land Development Code as amended. But we do have a hurricane build-back policy that does allow within the current footprint. But to answer your question specifically -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. So we'll deal with it at that time. MR. SCHMITT: -- we have an LDC change coming forward that basically will implement that throughout the county. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Great. So we'll have further discussion on that. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion to approve, with the conditions that have been attached by staff. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And in that motion, Commissioner, the issue was addressed about a five-foot pathway from Gulf Drive to the beach. Is that part of your motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: On the north side, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: On the north side. Is there anything else that we need to address? MR. WEIGEL: While you're questioning, Ms. Student is checking with Rich Yovanovich in regard to the five-foot pathway, if it will be in the form of an easement to the county or how it will be -- MR. YAVONOVICH: We'll give you a five-foot easement. Page 77 October 14, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: And additionally, in the motion, you may wish to reference whether there will be a change in the third whereas clause or not. There was some discussion both with Ms. Burgeson and with Mr. Yovanovich. Mr. Yovanovich had offered replacement language where the language reflected -- correct me, Rich, if need be -- reflected the exhibit which shows the reality on both sides of the site in question. MS. STUDENT: If I may, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. I have looked at the criterion that we're addressing here, and the language of the statute -- or of the code says, either immediately contiguous, which is right -- in my mind, right next door or adjacent. And I think that Ms. Burgeson looked at a building to the north which would meet the immediate contiguous criterion. And I don't know why we would need to add the extra, unless somebody can give me some additional information. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. As long as we all are talking about Exhibit A -- MS. STUDENT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- being -- as long as the record's clear it's Exhibit A, we can leave the whereas paragraph as it is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's leave it the way it is. MR. WEIGEL: Fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm going to second the motion. And I'm a little disappointed that -- we have some residents in the Vanderbilt Beach area looking for some criteria for the Vanderbilt Beach area. I'm disappointed that they're not here to help give us direction on this item. But that's their right whether they want to be here or not. And I hope it doesn't come up later when we go through the Land Development Code that what we should have done on this particular item. Because I have no Page 78 October 14, 2003 direction or communications on this what they wish to do. So be it that it may, I'm seconding the motion. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, could I just make a comment? I think it's -- I think the issues relating to the CCSL that have been raised by Commissioners are valid issues. The problem is that we're dealing with what's on the books today and with a law that's on the books today. If we want to change the law, I'm strongly in favor of that so that we can solve some of these problems. But there are some long-range implications that people may not appreciate with respect to a strict adherence to this CCSL under the current circumstances, and it could have a long-range disastrous impact upon their property values. But that's for a different discussion sometime in the future. But what we will get out of this is the elimination of two buildings that extend far beyond the coastal construction setback line. We will get a newer building which is moved further away from the beach. We will get a dedicated easement for public access to the beach, which we have always been interested in doing. And we have not in any way violated the existing zoning allowances. Whatever the owner is going to do has to be done within the existing zoning. And therein lies the issue. We cannot begin to impose different requirements on existing zoning, because the laws don't permit that. If we want to impose the requirements, additional requirements, then what we have to do is go through and revise the Land Development Code and apply it equally and fairly to all property owners. So I would suggest we go through that process. But in this particular case, I think the public is benefitting under the existing law. And that's the only thing we have to work with. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion? Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just briefly. I just wanted to Page 79 October 14, 2003 commend Commissioner Coyle for breaking this down to the logic to the whole thing so it becomes more understandable the reason why this is doable the way it is. You know, we can't rewrite the rules up here on the dais hour by hour, day by day. I also want to commend Commissioner Fiala for moving it forward for the beach access. That's a very important item and that's a major concession to get for the general public in that area. And I totally agree with Commissioner Henning that the lack of participation by the residents in that area indicates non-concern over this particular issue. We try to use these people, the residents in that area as a gauge to how to react to some of these things. In this case here we -- I received nothing on the chart that gave me any indication of which way they are interested. So I am going to vote in favor of this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: MR. WEIGEL: 3-2. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of the The motion carries, passes 3-0. 3-2. Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Fiala descending (sic) from the motion. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Page 80 October 14, 2003 Item #8A ORDINANCE 2003-57 GRANTING THE REZONING FROM "A"RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO "RSF-4 (3) FOR A SINGLE- FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GOI.DF, N GATF. CANAI,-ADOPTFD W/CHANGF. S CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is 8(A). This item requires that all participants be sworn in, by ex parte communication by the Board of County Commissioners. This rezone is 2003-AR-4041, Gary Butler of Butler Engineering representing Spinelli Land Holdings LLC, requesting a rezone from Agricultural to RSF-4; three units for a single-family development. The property is located on the south side of Golden Gate canal, one half mile from Livingston Road and one mile north of Radio Road. Section 31, Township 49, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 40 acres. Mr. Anderson, are you here to present this? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right, we're going to swear at everybody right now. Anybody wishing to participate in this discussion, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All parties were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Disclosure by the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Fiala, any public -- or disclosures on this item? Commissioner Fiala(No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm on mute. And that's 8(A), is that what you're saying? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have disclosure. I have Page 81 October 14, 2003 received e-mail, I talked to staff, and I have it all in my package here, actually, that I will submit to the court reporter. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I had a meeting on 10/13 with Bruce Anderson, who represents the petitioner. I received correspondence on 10/8 from John Alcott, (phonetic), an e-mail on 9/14, 6:10, from David Clemmens (phonetic), and nine-- 3/19 from an unknown person, sirem2~aol.com. And my file is here for anyone who wishes to see it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Spinelli concerning their petition. I have met with residents of Briarwood about their concerns. I have talked with Mr. Alcott on several occasions. I have corresponded with residents. I have received e-mail. I have talked with the staff concerning this and with the legal department concerning the ability to attach conditions to the approvals. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I met with Mr. Anderson and have had correspondence, both mail and e-mail, and everything is provided here in my folder. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have -- thank you. I have not met with the petitioner. I did receive a phone call from Mr. Alcott, received numerous of correspondence from Mr. Clemmens and other residents in the Briarwood area. And I did speak to a resident, that's in my ex parte communication, just to the south of the proposed project. That's it. Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson, on behalf of Spinelli Land Holdings, the applicant. Page 82 October 14, 2003 A little bit of history is in order. This petition, although with a far greater number of dwelling units proposed, was heard by the planning commission and the County Commission in 1999. At that time the County Commission directed the then property owner to try to arrange for an interconnection and access through the existing Briarwood PUD rather than utilizing access on San Marcos Boulevard and a connecting private road which abuts the subject property. After several years of discussion and negotiation, my client, the current developer, Briarwood, acquired the subject property, and in accordance with the County Commission's directive has proposed an interconnection through the Briarwood PUD. This rezone request is for Residential Single-Family-Four development standards. The actual density would be limited to three units per acre. The development standards of the RSF-4 zoning district are closest to the development standards which exist for single-family in the Briarwood PUD, although the lot sizes are larger in the RSF-4 zoning district than in the current Briarwood PUD. The development on this 40 acres that is the subject of this petition would be limited to only detached single-family residences. The planning commission unanimously recommended approval. All infrastructure, roads, water and sewer are sized to accommodate this additional land, and the water management would be standalone on this 40-acre parcel, and it would be retained -- water management would be retained on the 40 acres with eventual discharge into the abutting Golden Gate Canal. My client is in agreement with all staff stipulations, including specifically that all of the lots within the additional 40 acres will be incorporated into the Briarwood Homeowners Association and will pay their proportionate share of all associations fees and costs. And they've also agreed to amend the Briarwood declaration of restrictions and covenants to eliminate a potential for internal Page 83 October 14, 2003 inconsistency by adding a reference to the 40-acre parcel in those places where the declaration refers only to a PUD. Lastly, I want to reiterate on the record the commitment made at the planning commission hearing by my client that a second pool will be constructed before any building permits are issued for homes on the 40 acres that are the subject of this hearing. I want to note that Mr. Alcott, who did communicate, it sounds like, with each of you, did speak at the planning commission hearing, and the minutes from that hearing reflect that once that commitment was made on the record to construction of the second pool before any building permits are issued for this 40-acre parcel, he then changed his position to support this request. This morning we received revised staff stipulations, and we have discussed those with the staff and have come to an agreement. I'll wait for Ms. Deselem or Mr. White to distribute those to you. They're primarily to do with paragraph number five, I believe it is. We also reached agreement this morning with the three eastern abutting property owners for provision of a six-foot high wall on top of a 1 O-foot berm. That is reflected in Stipulation No. 7 that's being distributed. We believe that -- my client believes that we have resolved all issues and reached agreement with all interested parties, and we would respectfully request your approval of this petition and be glad to answer any questions that you or members of the public might have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to make sure that your stipulation about the swimming pool is legally enforceable, since it is not included as a condition for this particular rezone. Mr. Weigel, what is your position concerning that? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I really think that the question is if they agree -- the petitioner agrees to put that in there and create conditions Page 84 October 14, 2003 that have enforceability by private residents, private property owners, that's fine for the record. The question I have -- maybe Patrick White may be here -- but the question is do we want the county to be in a position of enforceability? If the answer is yes, can we -- can we be there, and if the answer is yes, that we want to be there, additionally the question is does the petitioner agree to that effect? And that may be a clarification to be made. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could just clarify my concern here. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The petitioner has stated that they are willing to have the completion of that swimming pool tied to the approval of the site development plan -- MR. ANDERSON: Building permit. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Building permits, I'm sorry. MR. ANDERSON: For the 40 acres. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right. And can that become a legal obligation without it being included in the conditions applied to the approval of this rezone? MR. WEIGEL: It can. And if I understand correctly, what Mr. Anderson was indicating was that no building permits will issue until the pool is built and completed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: And the answer is yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. MR. WEIGEL: This is consensual and it can be done. We have the parties here that can agree to that and enforce it upon each other. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, with respect to the other issues, I understand and appreciate the fact that we cannot and should not get involved in the process of enforcing provisions of an agreement which existed between the homeowners and the developer Page 85 October 14, 2003 at some time in the past for a PUD which is not the subject of this hearing. MR. WEIGEL: I would certainly concur. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. But I think we've solved the problem with the pool. Good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have none. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We have a number of public speakers today. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have five public speakers. Scott Keller. He will be followed by Christine -- and I don't know how to pronounce this. It looks like, K-E-U-E-R. CHAIRMAN HENNING: They're related. Mr. Keller. MR. ANDERSON: One clarification. Mr. Butler indicated I might have slurred my words. I said a two-foot berm, not a 1 O-foot berm. Just want to make that clear. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understood 10 foot. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understood 10 foot. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's on the record. MR. KFJLLER: My name is Scott Keller. I'm actually just going to be speaking on behalf of a few of the other speakers, because we've already came to an agreement at the beginning. So I just wanted to put it on record verbally that we agree to everything as stated in that document, that two-foot berm, six-foot wall. The wall to be precast, nothing that's going to be metal fencing or anything like that. And that it should be done prior to any permitting of any construction on the property. And that would be about that. And I do have one question. You were mentioning contacts. All of us had faxed documentation to the County Commissioners Page 86 October 14, 2003 through a certain fax number, but you didn't list any of our names. Did you guys receive -- for future communications of anything, did you receive any faxes from myself, Scott Keller, or Steve Payne? COMMISSIONER COYLE: They're all in -- everything we've received are in these folders. MS. KELLER: Okay. I just want to make sure we -- for future, anything that I deal with in business, or wherever, I'm communicating properly. And that's about that. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Christine Keller. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can waive, if you wish to. MS. KELLER: I wish to waive. CHAIRMAN HENNING: MS. FILSON: Tim Allen. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker. Mr. Allen? MS. FILSON: He will be followed by Steve Payne. MR. ALLEN: Hello. I've lived in Briarwood since 1995. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name, sir? MR. ALLEN: My name is Tim Allen. I'm a Briarwood resident, okay? I've lived in Briarwood since 1995 and I've seen many improvements in Briarwood since Mr. Spinelli took over the development from Mr. Mitchell some time ago. Mr. Spinelli has made Briarwood a wonderful, safe place for my children. He has added play areas for basketball, volleyball and soccer. He has significantly upgraded the clubhouse and the playground and has added a beautiful entrance to Livingston Road. There is a great variety of home styles and elevations in Briarwood and our property values have greatly increased. Based on Mr. Spinelli's past performance in Briarwood and as a Briarwood homeowner, I recommend that you allow Spinelli Land Holdings this rezone of the existing agricultural area on the south Page 87 October 14, 2003 side of Golden Gate Canal to single-family residence for additional homes in Briarwood. I didn't send an e-mail so I thought I'd show up here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tim Allen. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Allen? MS. FILSON: I'm sorry, the final speaker is Steve Payne. MR. PAYNE: I'll waive, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: And Dan Payne. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Deselem? MS. FILSON: I'm sorry, one more. Dan Payne. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Payne? MR. PAYNE: Yeah, my name's Dan Payne, for the record. Only one I wanted to clarify, they didn't say anything about a setback on that berm that we had agreed to -- the wall and the berm. That wasn't -- MR. ANDERSON: That's in the written text that the -- let me read it. Stipulation No. 7: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the developer must provide a six-foot high structural, parentheses, concrete or precast, end of paren, wall, instead of a type A buffer. The wall must be placed on top of a two-foot high -- two-foot high berm -- along the east property from the FPL easement north to the canal easement. The wall must be no closer than four feet from the eastern property line. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a question for the residents there. You're more in favor of a concrete wall than some type of a buffer with landscaping, tight landscaping like a hedge or something? Okay. Page 88 October 14, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the residents who have been meeting for a long time in an effort to resolve these problems, and the developer, for their willingness to sit down and work out these things prior to bringing them to the County Commission. I think that's the kind of cooperation that results in having good neighbors. So I'm -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You did. Okay. And consequently, I would like to make a motion to approve because I think all of the neighbors have gotten what they wanted. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion for a second, and I'd also like to add my comments, if I may -- MS. DESELEM: Could I put something on the record? I need to, before you close the hearing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's all right, I'll ask you after Commissioner Coletta is done. MS. DESELEM: Okay. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll just be just a second. I just wanted to say it's a lot different than it was in 2000 when we first started. There was knock-down battles in here and no one was happy. And a lot of credit goes to, I've got to say, Mr. Anderson. He's done this a number of times now working very closely with the neighbors. Very often -- it's not often we give credit to an attorney that's worked with developers. In this case I'm going to. Bruce Anderson has done a remarkable job and has helped to set the pace for a number of other people that are working with residents. And we're seeing this more and more. And Commissioner Coyle is truly to be recognized for the fact Page 89 October 14, 2003 that he has been involved with this in working with the residents and with the attorneys and landowners for a long time to bring this to resolution. This is the kind of thing that makes me feel good about being a commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. In the motion, Commissioner Coyle, does it include the Exhibit A revised on October 14th, '03? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, these new conditions. Yes, exactly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that included in the second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Deselem, I have a question for yOU. MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You wanted to say something? MS. DESELEM: Yes, thank you. And I do apologize for interrupting -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. MS. DESELEM: -- I just wanted to make sure that the staff recommendation was on the record, that we did recommend that this be found consistent with the Comp. Plan and we are recommending approval. And thank you, Commissioner for the clarification. We did want to make sure that you understood it was the conditions that are revised on 10/14/03. And yes, you had a question? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll send you an e-mail on a different issue. MS. DESELEM: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. DESELEM: Thank you. My name is Kay Deselem. Page 90 October 14, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that was included into the motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: By the motion makers, and the second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: anything? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion? Commissioner Fiala, do you have Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. All in favor of the motion, And we are going to take a lunch break for one hour. back at 1:00. (A recess was taken.) We'll be Item # 10C CONSIDER A TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A" BEACH RENOURISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING POLICY- DENIED - STAFF TO BRING BACK AT FUTURE MF, ETING Page 91 October 14, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please. Board of Commissioners back in recess. The next item is 10(C), consider a Tourist Development Category A Beach Renourishment and Maintenance Funding Policy, as recommended by the Coastal Advisory Committee and the Tourist Development Council. Mr. Wort is going to present this -- Mr. Wert, not Wort, Wert. MR. WERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Jack Wert, Tourist Development Director for Collier County. And as you indicated, the reason we're here today is to bring to you a Category A Beach Renourishment and Maintenance Funding Policy. Back on May 27th and again on June the 10th, the County Commission directed the Tourist Development Council and the Coastal Advisory Committee to come up with a policy. And part of that direction was to look at beach access as part of the -- of that policy. A little bit of history. The Coastal Advisory Committee met on August 12th -- excuse me, they first met, yes, on August 12th, and our sub-committee for the Tourist Development Council reviewed what the Coastal Advisory Committee had put together in terms of a policy. They made a few changes, and the CAC met again September the 1 lth, and they adopted the changes that that TDC sub-committee had indicated. And then on September 23rd the TDC recommended adoption of that revised, revised policy, and we are bringing that policy to you today. The staff has done an analysis of the policy and -- but there is certainly a lot of detail to it, although you have it there. We thought it might be appropriate to have a Coastal Advisory Committee representative come and give you kind of a breakdown of what that is. And we've asked Vice Mayor Gary Galleberg, who is Chairman of the Coastal Advisory Committee, also happens Page 92 October 14, 2003 to be Vice Chair of the TDC, to give us a kind of a walk-through of that policy. Mayor Galleberg? MR. GALLEBERG: Vice Mayor Galleberg. MR. WERT: Correction, vice Mayor. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Congratulations on your promotion. MR. GALLEBERG: And I'm here today, as Mr. Wert said, as chairman of your Coastal Advisory Committee. First off, I want to thank the Board and City Manager (sic) Mudd for scheduling this at 1:00. It's very much appreciated. You have both the policy and the report backing the policy before you. And I won't -- I'll of course answer any question -- I don't want to go through every step of that. But I do want to put this whole debate that we've been having into context. Some months ago the Board asked Coastal Advisory Committee to put together a policy for beach renourishment and maintenance, which we spent several months doing, and to have it approved by the TDC. After much debate we managed to get a unanimous vote out of the Coastal Advisory Committee. And I assure you it didn't start that way. And we got a 7-1 vote out of the TDC. So collectively, 15-1. That one dissent was a very important dissent, that being Chairman Henning. Into this topic has intruded another topic, which is very important but not what we were charged with doing, and that is how do we increase public access in Collier County. That sounds the same, but it's not. It's different than saying how do you use Category A funds for beach renourishment. And this is only about Category A, it is not about the desire or the laudable goals of access. Surely that is laudable, but that doesn't mean it has to be from Category A: I'd just like to take you back for a moment to the ballot Page 93 October 14, 2003 referendum that was approved by the voters a little over 10 years ago. And the purpose for instituting this tax, the TDC tax was, I'm quoting the whole use, financing beach renourishment and maintenance and promoting and advertising tourism. While access is a laudable goal, ! think we're in the wrong source here. Before the policy was generated, there was no policy whatsoever. In essence, everything was eligible, if only by default, because we had no policy. The hierarchy or the method that has been established here is to first establish what is an eligible beach and what is not an eligible beach. That is the first step. Not eligible presently are Hideaway, most of, not all, of Pelican Bay, the part by the Ritz is eligible, and an undeveloped area like Keewaydin. That is the first step in this process. Hideaway -- and I think you'll hear from speakers later, perhaps -- Hideaway does want to become eligible, but as of now status quo it's not. Once a beach is eligible, then we set up a criteria for high use and low use, which is based -- it's the measurement from adequate public access. If a beach area is high use it's eligible for full renourishment funding. If it's low use, which again, you have to have public access to even be in this conversation. If it's low use, you get the minimum amount, which is basically defined as shoreline protection. Private monies can come in to augment that, if they want, but the important point is it will be private money, not governmental money. In the beginning there was much discussion about referring to or adopting the state framework, which is a very formula-based policy. If you do this, it's 80 percent, if you do that, it's 50 percent, if you do that it's 20 percent or whatever. We determined that that wasn't the right way to go here because, for one thing, we have very specific knowledge of our beaches, whereas in a statewide program there's very little money. From a statewide perspective, it's about -- I think Page 94 October 14, 2003 it's about 20 million. But anyway, it's not much money to be allocated around. So we preferred to set up this hierarchy system rather than you're so many feet from a bathroom or something like that. You have before you a staff report -- and it's staff's job, I understand, to give you their points of view. Quite honestly I think that's kind of an emotional report and doesn't give you a good picture. This idea of the panacea of federal or state funding just appearing just -- if we get state funding, that's great. But let's just stop and think, you know, we do have some parts of beaches -- some parts of our beaches eligible now for state or federal funding, and if that's such an easy solution, where is it? What's staff been doing? I'll answer any questions you have. I do think this is a very positive step forward to our funding. It does discriminate among beaches as to the level and even their eligibility for funding, and it also emphasizes that once we address our beach renourishment needs, any monies that might be available for increased acquisition of access, that's a laudable goal but it cannot take precedence over the fundamental purpose of this fund. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question by the Board members? Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No questions at this time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Under your proposal, what kind of funding do we have in reserve in case of a disaster such as a storm? MR. GALLEBERG: Well, our reserves presently, and this is a -- you'll appreciate, I'm sure, this is a budgetary presentation, as we must behave in government. Budgetarily on paper there's zero money. In fact there is, because these projects take a lot of time and there's a lot of money in the bank. Under the proposed CAC budget for this year, based on projected revenues, there would be $3 million left over as a reserve Page 95 October 14, 2003 for emergencies, and hopefully in time of course that number would increase. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what is the proposed budget that you presently have if we go along with the plan that is instituted today or that we're going to discuss today? MR. GALLEBERG: Pardon me? I didn't understand. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What is the proposed budget for beach renourishment under the plan that's proposed today? MR. GALLEBERG: Well, the budget is by definition the amount of funds available, and right now the total -- I don't have the figures specifically in front of me, but the total renourishment projected which will -- we're starting in the permit sense, we're trying to start now and it will take probably two years to completion is -- and I'm going to be close here, but as I said, I don't have it in front of me -- is I believe about 12 to 15 million. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what is our income roughly a year? MR. GALLEBERG: Well, it's -- the income, it's roughly that. However, out of our total income, we do have funds set aside, for example, the parking facility in Vanderbilt. We have funds set aside for dredging inlet and pass maintenance. And staff can give you the total TDC number, I'm sure. I came here, as you'll appreciate, today with the policy circumstances rather than the budgetary matters. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Galleberg, Item No. 7, the way I read this grant application, that all grants or applications for Category A funds would have to come to the Coastal Advisory Committee, including the Parks and Rec Advisory Board would have to come to CAC. MR. GALLEBERG: That is part of the proposal. I meant to mention that. That of course is up to the Board to determine. We put this in for two reasons: One is the authority delegated to the advisory committees by the Board. The Coastal Advisory Page 96 October 14, 2003 Committee ordinance says that we shall review all capital improvement projects for Category A funds, and that's meant to reflect that. Obviously that can be changed. There is some discussion about what was really meant by that phrase. So one reason is the authority granted to the committees by the Board. The second thing is if-- you have to make a 10-year plan, and these are long-term projects, they're not something that you just do in a day or a week. You have to have a complete comprehensive view of the monies you have and where they should be spent, and we believe that should be settled in one place. We thought given the authority you've granted in the ordinances, Coastal Advisory would probably be the appropriate place for that. It may be another place. But wherever that ends up I do think the function of having a holistic view of the maintenance-related needs and the other needs such as access should be determined in one place. Otherwise, you know, how do you make a budget if you don't know what the sum of the parts is? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, there's other venues to do that, but I -- you know, I understand where we're going with No. 7. But I just want the Board to be aware of one advisory board would have to get approval of another advisory board for it to proceed. MR. GALLEBERG: And I'd like to be very clear, I sit on your side of the table, so to speak, sometimes, and I'm here only not advising you where you should end up necessarily or that -- but just to say that there's a need to have one spot for this. And we felt given the authorities you granted, that could be CAC. We honestly didn't see it as one advisory board overseeing the other, rather that Parks in their ordinance doesn't -- it doesn't mention this Category A area, whereas that's why we exist. So I'm not trying to lobby, so to speak, for that, just to point out an issue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. I just want to point that out to the Board. Appreciate that. Page 97 October 14, 2003 The next one -- and I appreciate your giving the what the question on the ballot was when tourist development taxes was initiated by the voters and subsequently the Board of Commissioners approved it. I didn't hear in the question whether -- about inlet passes was a part of the voters' approval. MR. GALLEBERG: Those words are not in the statute, but I should note that when we do inlet pass maintenance, the only way you can do it is if you're recovering sand to put on the beach. So it really is renourishment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I don't know if that's true or not, in all cases of inlet pass maintenance that has been expended by Category A funds. MR. GALLEBERG: Again, not necessary to debate, but I think it is true, and certainly as a statement of policy that's true. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Please stay. My question's going to be directed to Jack Wert. I'm a little bit concerned in the fact that in this summary, when it comes to staff recommendations, the word is none. It's in there. And I think that leaves us a little bit short. What's the reason for that? MR. WERT: Commissioner, the direction from the Board was to bring back a policy that has been recommended by the TDC and the CAC, so we felt that we were fulfilling that without an actual recommendation yea or nay. We're really saying you asked us to bring a policy back and that's what we are presenting to you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: From the original directions we gave you -- and I don't see anything that gives me anything to be able to find the where we -- the directions that we had, after they went -- the directions we gave you and after they went through the different -- the two committees and they came back to us, tell me what the difference is here than what it was in the beginning when we Page 98 October 14, 2003 discussed it earlier what our objections and goals were. MR. WERT: I think the primary difference is that part of your charge to the CAC and the TDC was -- included something about beach access. And we feel as a staff looking at this policy that there may not be enough emphasis on that side. The Growth Management Plan is very specific in terms of when you have a beach renourishment project, that there needs to be -- you need to look at beach access and if there's not, you need to buy land to give you adequate access. And so if that -- if we want to follow the Growth Management Plan, probably we need something in the policy to guide us in that direction, and we just didn't feel it was there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What we have here doesn't quite measure up to what our own Growth Management Plan currently is; is that correct? MR. WERT: Yes, sir, that-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would do with the beach access part of the whole thing and access every so far, as far as access every quarter of a mile, half mile was required, we're still falling short. That's the way this is coming down, right? MR. WERT: It would appear that way, that we're keeping the emphasis on beach renourishment projects. And as you can see -- I meant to give you those, the figures that Commissioner Halas asked, too. Our revenue is six and a half million dollars from the tourist tax going to Category A projects. Yet we have $19.1 million worth of request for funds, which would include the major beach renourishment. And that doesn't-- that's how, as Vice Mayor Galleberg indicated, we are in fact spending the reserves on this next beach renourishment, and it's of concern that -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I guess my question would be Page 99 October 14, 2003 to Vice Mayor Galleberg. You don't think we could be able to reach the goals of our Comprehensive Plan within this document if we tried to revise it slightly, or is that something that's unattainable? MR. GALLEBERG: Well, I would say respectfully that the goals in the Comprehensive Plan stand on their own. But this is a document for TDC category funds. The Comp. Plan firstly is a goal, a laudable goal, but it's not law in the sense of an ordinance or the state law on TDC. So I think they're two different things. This again is a discussion on category A funds and where they should be devoted first. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I commend your committee for all the work they have done on this and I know they considered a lot of different factors. However, with that said, I still have reservations on where we're going with this. I don't think there's enough strength in this to encourage CAC. MR. GALLEBERG: Well, again, respectfully, I would say -- I would say there is. Because without access, nobody's eligible. The present policy is that 100 percent of the beaches are eligible. So this most clearly is a trimming back. And all we'd have to point to is Exhibit A. We all know that in this process Hideaway Beach has garnered a lot of attention. And one of the -- and the fundamental ideas when this started and shared by your advisory committees and staff, is the number for Hideaway Beach, that is the beach renourishment number kept climbing and climbing and climbing. It got up to be over five million. And people were kind of saying, is that really -- is that really where we should be putting the five million. And this is not -- I don't want to in my presentation make this about Hideaway in the least. But this policy deals with that. I would argue this policy deals with that. Hideaway is not eligible. We already know, and I don't know the details, that'll come Page 100 October 14, 2003 before the Board, but Hideaway is crafting -- in the process of crafting an arrangement whereby access will be provided. They want to be eligible. They're going to step up and provide access. So I do think the incentives are in place here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I commend you for all the work you have done on this. And by the way, the City of Naples has taken on an over part of their share as far as beach access goes. If it wasn't for the City of Naples coming forward with what they have come forward over the years, our situation for beach access would be much worse than it is today. MR. GALLEBERG: I thank you for that. And we do our best. Some of that, of course, is historical happenstance, but what we do have try to be very open about making it truly available to anyone who wants to come. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I commend you for it, and I'll always support the City of Naples in their endeavors to improve upon that. The other question is what about Barefoot Williams Beach, that part of it going into the park? There's a section there that's well over a quarter of a mile away from the nearest beach access away from the park. Are we going to have to -- by this rules will we be renourishing their beaches too, where the condominiums and the homes are? MR. GALLEBERG: If you posit that it's more than a half mile away from a public access point, the answer would be no. Except there is a minor exception -- I consider it a minor exception -- that we don't want gaps in the beaches and zig-zags in the beaches and all that. So if a stretch is 80 -- and it has to be not at the end of 80 percent but in between. If a beach is 80 percent eligible, we'll -- this proposal says we'll deal with the last 20 percent. But if you're talking about a stretch which is more than a half mile away, the answer would be no. Page 101 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may one more time lean upon your background and experience in this particular subject matter. Do you think that a half a mile might be an exorbitant reach of this particular direction, to expect the person to travel a half a mile across sand to be able to gain beach -- have access to the beach? In other words, you have to walk a half a mile through the sand to be able to utilize it? MR. GALLEBERG: That-- you know, anyone can concede and I would concede that that -- setting that figure is something of a judgment call. But we discussed it as a committee and it went through the TDC also. And we felt, not that every person would walk half a mile, but it would be reasonable to say if, you know, a person could or would be willing to walk half a mile -- in a typical pace that's under 10 minutes -- we thought that was an appropriate measurement. But just as with the state formulas, you know, you have to draw a line somewhere and we thought that was -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the state formula is based on a quarter of a mile, right? MR. GALLEBERG: State formula has a whole bunch of different rubrics. I think there are measurements -- and I'm not absolutely certain -- but I think there are both half mile and quarter mile measurements. But the state, you know, goes to parking and bathroom availability and that type of thing. And I believe the state formulation, as I said, doesn't take into enough detail the situation in Collier, and we're familiar with Collier. And the state formula and the federal formulas really don't address the type of situation we have here. I mean, let's not forget, we have over 60 ways to access our beaches in Collier County. Duval County, where Jacksonville is, I believe has just two. We have a lot of access. Now, at any given point can you get to a number of people, be it 10,000 or 1,000 or 50,000, whatever -- can you get to a point where a Page 102 October 14, 2003 given access is overloaded? Of course. But there's a huge choice of access in Collier County. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it's not adequate during the peak of season. There's many times that every one of these access points are right to capacity. And our future needs are going to only increase the demands for access, not diminishing it. What I'm concerned about is the half mile rule, for one thing. I think that's a -- should be shortened. I don't know if a quarter of a mile is realistic, but I'm sure that a half a mile is not realistic to be able to credit somebody for a half a mile of beach away from the access. The average family, the average person is not going to carry all their beach umbrellas, baskets, or whatever a half a mile away from that exit to be able to access it. And then you've got the problem, too, of a limited amount of parking. I could see some day where we might come up with something in the way of a tram to be able to take people to numerous access points, but I don't want to do anything to jeopardize that future movement. Because what we're doing now is planning not for one year away, but for five, 10, 20 years from now. And we're trying to undo the mistakes that were made by past commissioners where they gave up these rights at a point in time that they thought that the abundance would never end. Guess what? Beach property doesn't increase every year. It's the same amount to begin with and end with. And if you -- every part of it that turns into private domains of a certain select few, that's less of an inventory for the rest of the world to draw on. That's my comments. I do think you've done an excellent job of coming up with this document and I do have some reservations about certain points in it, though. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Vice Mayor Galleberg, I'm happy to have you here today. I think you have done a lot to allay our Page 103 October 14, 2003 concerns, at least my concerns about this policy. But I think there are some fundamental conflicts here that we as a board have to resolve. And one is the conflict between beach access and beach renourishment. That's a lot like getting into the argument about which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Is there any need to have beach access if you don't have a beach that people can use, that has been renourished after a storm? I would say no, people aren't going to go there. If the beach isn't acceptable for their enjoyment, then they're not going to make the effort to go there, even if you have a path leading them there. So I think we as a commission have to deal with that issue. The beach access issue in my opinion should not take precedence over maintaining beaches that people want to have access to. If you have good beaches, people will go there. And there's some realities about beach behavior. Yes, there are a lot of people who will go to a beach access point and they won't walk very far. And that point gets very, very crowded. And people who don't want to be near the crowds will walk beyond that. And then every time you go to the beach there are dozens, some would say hundreds of people who walk the beaches for miles either way and jog up and down the beach. So this concept that a quarter of a mile from a beach access point is as far as people go to enjoy a beach is simply not true. The most crowded times that I have seen in the beaches in Naples are probably during the fireworks display, sometime during the wintertime when there's some big event. People will come to those beaches. There's always capacity for people at those beaches. I have never, ever, ever seen the beaches in Naples as crowded as the beaches in Fort Lauderdale or Miami where there's access everywhere. So I do not believe we need to get into this conflict about taking money that should be used for beach renourishment and using it to Page 104 October 14, 2003 try to get beach access. There are places people can get to the beaches. And I'll tell you, every weekend there are places where there's nobody there and it will take you 10 minutes to get there. So CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you tell us where they are? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I can. I'll tell you after the meeting's over. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't give away the secret. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But this policy I think is a big step forward from where we have been. We don't have a policy. The last policy that we got I think was a beach acquisition policy, a beach access policy. It wasn't really a beach renourishment policy. And I think that I prefer this policy over the others. It clearly provides guidelines for us to make decisions about what we do with beach renourishment. And I do have a couple of questions I just need some clarification on. With respect to level of service, we talk about an eligible low use beach would qualify for minimum maintenance for a protected period -- or for a project that might go for five years. My question is, and it's a question the staff has raised to me: What's then to stop someone who would otherwise be ineligible from having a series of five-year projects and thereby get permanent beach renourishment? The other question is, it's not clear to me how we allocate percentages of funds for these particular uses. An eligible low beach area that qualifies for minimum maintenance, what percentage of funds should go to that low use beach area, and what percentage should have to be paid perhaps by local residents? And those are the kinds of questions I have with respect to the policy as I see it. But overall, I think the policy is a big step forward. MR. GALLEBERG: Did you want me to -- Page 105 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you wouldn't mind. If you can deal with those two issues for me, it would be helpful. MR. GALLEBERG: On the idea of a low use beach, I -- you may be -- if I heard you correctly, you're talking -- the staff has raised concerns about a beach which is otherwise ineligible in effect getting permanent renourishment. The first step in this process is whether a beach is eligible or not eligible. If the beach is eligible, then it goes into the low use, high use. So there is no scenario under which an ineligible beach -- which is a technical phrase for no public access -- qualifies for funds. The rolling five-year renourishment, I think perhaps theoretically could happen. I don't think it would in reality, because it goes into the next point that I understood you to ask; that is, that this sets forth a framework for making renourishment decisions. The advisory committees didn't feel it advisable or even doable, frankly, to set forth very stringent criteria. If this policy --just to use fictional numbers, if this policy results in ineligibility, which if fully funded would be $10 million, and there's $5 million in the pot, you have to make some policy decisions. We think it's more advisable to set up the framework of where our given structure beach fits within this funding system and then to establish priorities when you're dealing with real world facts. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want to thank you also for the study that the CAC put together on this and along with the TDC, but I have some strong reservations in regards to we're not looking at the possibility of obtaining state and federal funding. Now, this is tax dollars that all of us here in Collier County spend, and why not try to bring the bacon home where it belongs? And since we have a $19 million -- possibly $19 million price tag on renourishing the beaches and we're only bringing in about $6 million, that concerns me quite Page 106 October 14, 2003 drastically. And we look at the reserves, we're only looking at, I think you said, around $3 million for any type of reserve for storm damage. And if any of our past experience holds true, the storm damage would be quite a bit more than $6 million. Also addressing beach access and the possibility that there's -- we have more than an adequate beach access, I can assure you that in my neck of the woods, we find that on a particular weekend, when everybody's off, that there is a traffic jam all the way past the east side of Bluebill Bridge waiting to get into Delnor-Wiggins Park, which has a load capacity rating of how many people they'll let there. Also, the Vanderbilt Beach Inn has a parking lot there, and that thing is completely jammed. We also have a parking lot that was built by The Dunes, and at season that's anywheres from seven -- three-quarters to seven-eighths full and that's about a half a mile walk to get into Delnor-Wiggins Park. Then we also have up there, we have Barefoot Beach, and they have limited amount of parking on how much parking they can put into Barefoot Beach Preserve up there. So there's times when there's inadequate beach area for people, and then of course there's areas where there's a lot of beaches, but of course it's very difficult to get to. And I go along with one of my other fellow Commissioners who brought up the fact -- and I think it was Commissioner Coletta -- I think a half a mile is way too far, especially if there's no facilities there. I would look at something closer to more like a quarter of a mile, because if you need to use facilities, then at least you've got a total round trip of a half a mile; a quarter a mile to where you're at and then a quarter mile back to your car, and hopefully you can find some facilities close by. So these are some of the points that I think are very -- that concern me immensely in regards to parking. Page 107 October 14, 2003 And the other thing is that there are beach accesses, but there's no parking. And there's a lot of cases where you'd have to walk a half a mile to get to an opening where there would be a beach opening so that you could walk to that point. But first of all, you've got to find parking, and it could be as far as a half a mile away. So I really think that we need to look at this and that we need to look at not only beach renourishment but we also need to look at ways of increasing beach access, not only for now but in the future, as 20 to 30 years was brought up. But I also really think that we need to look at making sure that we can be eligible for state and federal funding to also enhance what we have coming in from the tourist development tax. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know if you need to comment on that. MR. GALLEBERG: Your pleasure whether you want me to or not. I don't know. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to know what your thoughts are on this. MR. GALLEBERG: Well, on the state and federal grants, first of all, I agree with a lot of what you said, and a lot of it gets back to what's the purpose of this fund. You know, there's that broad discussion and then there's how do we use the beach renourishment funds? State and federal grants, the policy says that they're desirable and should be diligently pursued. And clearly to the extent one can get federal or state grants, that leaves more money available for access. But taking the money away from renourishment in order to do that is a separate discussion, and I would say not advisable. And as I mentioned earlier, while we want the state and federal funds, if that's easy to do, we should be getting some now. We have areas that are eligible, and we're not. When you meet those qualifications, you get on a long list from the state and a certain Page 108 October 14, 2003 portion are funded. It's desirable to try for but it's not there for the taking. I wanted -- and I agree with you on the reserves point as well. I just wanted to point out that the reserve number is pretty low right now, and the reason is that we're doing, or planning to do, obviously, the big renourishment now, so you would expect that to be the low point. And clearly, reserves should be built up over the years. But while we're doing the major renourishment, that is the ultimate goal, if you need a reserve, is to protect against storms. And finally, the half mile/quarter mile argument. It's up to the Commissioners. I and the committees feel that a half mile is reasonable and logical. If one were to reduce that to, say, the quarter mile rubric, I do think as part of the consideration -- one of the elements of your consideration should be that if you reduce it to the quarter mile, do you get that zig-zag effect that you restore it here and not here, you restore it here and not there. Because that's tantamount to gutting renourishment, I belive, if we start going to condo owners and say your condo doesn't qualify by the guys next door do, I don't know that the funding would be coming. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We have some public speakers and I hope that we get a chance for them to speak, but let me go to Commissioner Fiala and see if she has anything. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, can you hear me? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, ma'am, it's great. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm glad this is working out better. I changed phones and changed speakers. Yes, I wanted to remind myself as well as all of us that we have to remember that right now we're talking about Category A funding policy. And I think one of you stated that we have to make sure that that's where we stay focused. Absolutely we want to -- oh, I hear some noises. Absolutely we want to have state and federal funding Page 109 October 14, 2003 and we should be pursuing those. But we -- and we haven't done that to date, but we're basing a lot on something we haven't even applied for, and it should be our policy also -- are you getting this okay? Hello? Are you getting this okay? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is your TV on, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it's not. It's muted. But I hear that noise now, and I don't know why I'm getting that noise. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, do you have your headphones on? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do. MR. MUDD: You don't have the speaker on your phone on too, do you? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I think I do. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can you hear me now? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that solved the problem. Good work, Mr. Mudd. Sorry, Donna. Just kidding. MR. MUDD: Commissioner Fiala, can you hear us? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Can you hear me? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I didn't hear what he said, but birthday boy, I would like to hear what you were just saying. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please continue, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. Yes, I think we have to stay focused on this policy. I think it's an excellent policy. We as Commissioners have always weighed very heavily on the advice of our advisory boards, and I think what Vice Mayor Galleberg is telling us is this is what we are addressing today is this policy and they have labored over it, they, along with the TDC, and have come up with a policy that is much better than the one we have in place right now. The one that we have in place right now is far too liberal. Page 110 October 14, 2003 Yes, we need to pursue state and federal funding, but that doesn't enter into this particular policy. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you so much for allowing me this minute. I'd like to point out some real facts. Some of them aren't so nice either. One of the facts is that in certain areas of our county at the beaches we have suffered from high bacterial counts in the water. Generally these are beaches that are a little isolated and they have the lack of restroom facilities. And I hate to tell you what people are doing without the lack of them or the fact that they have to travel a distance back to reach the restroom facilities. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How do you know that? Do you know that for a fact? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not firsthand. I think you told it to me years ago. But in any case, that's always a concern. And it's not going to get any better, it's only going to get worse. But also, too, this proposed policy does not enhance the county's ability to leverage state and federal funds. And that is a reality. We're here to try to maximize our taxpayers dollars, and these funds are taxpayers dollars, in one form or not. They come through this Commission to be dispensed by us in an orderly and fair fashion. And I'll point out to you, when the voters voted years ago, they weren't voting so much for sand, they were voting for a beach to be able to go to and have access to. So it all comes down to the very basics. It's access. And the access issue is not solved by this current set of suggestions. I think it's gone a long ways towards where we need to be, but I think we're still short for the most part. And a couple other points I wanted to mention: Commissioner Page 111 October 14, 2003 Coyle correctly pointed out that the Naples beaches can hold tremendous numbers of people, and he proved that with the 4th of July. However, I think if we went back to the City of Naples and told them that we were going to use their beaches every weekend during the season like they were used for the 4th of July, there would be an outcrying of grief that would be unbelievable, due to the fact that the place does not have enough parking, that people would park blocks away in people's driveways in the swales. There was all sorts of pandemonium, and it took like two hours for everybody to empty out from that point in time. They're not built to be able to do it. And the City of Naples has had their just share of accepting the beach access, and we need to be able to spread this across the rest of the county to make it fair for everyone. And if we don't have the guidelines for it now, we never will. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, can we go to public speakers now? MR. GALLEBERG: Thank you for your time and consideration. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have six speakers. The first one is John Arceri. He will be followed by John MacDougall. MR. ARCERI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. John Arceri from Marco Island, for the record. I too want to thank you for your patience over the last couple of months as we try to work through these details. I think there's been a lot of progress since May. If you sat here in May, the CAC had a policy. TDC disagreed with the policy. Staff had a completely separate policy. Most of us were looking at back agreements of the past. And where we are today, it is a step forward. You have a CAC and TDC agreement, as Gary mentioned; you have a policy that does result in more access requirements and a policy that requires cost sharing. And also, I think there's an understanding here that you really shouldn't have this all-out competition between Page 112 October 14, 2003 renourishment and buying access property. I mean, your initial Parks and Recreation request is for $17 million for access. Put that in perspective, the beach renourishment total budget is 15 million. So you really should have this competition at that level. You wouldn't sense that we've had this kind of progress when you look at the executive summary that you got. And I'm really concerned that -- how hard it is to understand how nothing positive can be said about the work we've done by your staff in that executive summary. And I want to make sure that you're getting the proper fair and balanced information. I just -- Gary mentioned it was an emotional report. I'd like to put a little specificity on some of those items without making this a defensive approach. The executive summary concludes that this policy expands eligibility to certain beaches that weren't funded before. It doesn't mention that the required funding for these extra beaches may be minimal; doesn't mention the fairness of the expansion. For example, is it fair to say that a half a mile away each way of the Ritz-Carlton should not be funded? I don't think so. It doesn't mention at all that other traditional funded areas like Hideaway Beach will now require more access and cost sharing. Doesn't even mention it. And it says in there there's no incentive in this plan to improve access, quote. That's totally wrong. This does require access, more access, from some areas and cost sharing. That is incentive itself to provide access. And it's really not accurate at all and it doesn't mention the fact that staff itself in February of 2002 suggested a policy that identifies low-use beaches like Pelican Bay and Hideaway Beach for some cost-sharing policy, which we now present before you. Second, it has been continually mentioned the policy statement about we should be worried about state and federal leverage is unrealistic. We expand on that in the report. The reason we became Page 113 October 14, 2003 and had TDC funding was because the state and federal just have not worked for Collier County in the past and probably won't work in the future, especially with all the budget cuts they've taken at the state level. It talks about emergency reserves in the executive summary saying there's a big problem here. It doesn't mention, as Gary stated, that there's a $3 million reserve that builds to 6 million in the third year of our plan. It mentions this $19 million of expense and $6 million of revenue as if we got a shortfall of 13 million the first year. That's totally untrue. The budget plan put together by CAC is not only balanced but provides surpluses right from the first year, building up to 6 million the third year. So that's a distortion. And my concern is why there wasn't anything positive said about all the work that was done, and not a balanced presentation at all. For the next two minutes that I've got left, I'd like to just focus on Hideaway, because that is a lightening rod. First of all, as Gary mentioned, it does require new access to get any funding at all, so it is not eligible right now at all. It requires access. It probably will become eligible, once it does put the access path in, under the criteria of a vital area, subject to abnormal erosion. There have been a number of reports. The state in 2002 defined basically Hideaway Beach as a beach that should be renourished for the purpose that it affects other areas, such as Tigertail. The erosion of the Hideaway sands has created Sand Dollar Island, which is shutting off Tigertail. The county, in 1997, had an inlet management study done that concluded that the Hideaway Beach is part, quote, of a complicated system with significant influence over adjacent areas, and that the loss of Hideaway Beach and the possibility of the installation of seawalls will have a loss of beach and seawall formation that will Page 114 October 14, 2003 have increasing sand transport rates and exasperates the erosion along all other beaches. And that's why they recommended a T-groin installation back in 1997, because the clear technical realization that the loss of Hideaway Beach will affect many adjacent beaches to Hideaway, and not just Hideaway itself. The Hideaway proposal, originally staff was saying was difficult to come up with a cost sharing. While we've got preliminary estimates from staff that will be reviewed by CAC, if this policy gets approved, it says Hideaway has to pay $1.3 million. First of all, they've got to build a pathway; otherwise, there's nothing. And once they do, they'll be designated as a low-use beach, one of the few, and will have to pay for at least 55 percent of the sand placement at Hideaway, $1.3 million. I think we've got to work with Hideaway to assure that this beach isn't lost. The county has spent millions on Hideaway already, trying to save it. There was a big boat access issue. I think the policy's fair. I just want to answer a question Commissioner Coletta had, if I may, about the half mile. The half mile, it's not a half mile to get to the point of the beach, it's a half mile from the access points that you're renourishing, a half mile each way. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand that. My understanding there is perfect on that. MR. ARCERI: Okay, you don't have to walk a half a mile to get to the beach. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no, no. But when you get to the beach, if that section of the beach is filled, then you have to go on down farther and farther. There's a point that you're not going to go any further. MR. ARCERI: That's correct. That's exactly right. And the other issue -- I mentioned the issue about the funding, but, you know-- Page 115 October 14, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wrap it up, please. MR. ARCERI: -- I think it's an issue -- yes. I think it's just a step forward. I don't think it's perfect, but I think it's a step forward, and I think we ought to adopt it, get on. The CAC's prepared -- put a budget together based on a new policy. Going back again and trying to come up with another one when I think staff is not necessarily going to be supportive of anything is going to be, I think, a fruitless effort. But, you know, we'll do what you do, but I would recommend that we move forward with a policy, let the CAC put together a budget reflecting that policy. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John MacDougall. He will be followed by Kyle Kinney. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. MacDougall? MR. MACDOUGALL: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is John MacDougall. I'm a member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. As a member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, I feel strongly that the beach access needs to be a primary consideration in the use of Category A tourist development tax dollars for several reasons. First, state and federal beach funding are geared for public access beaches and, therefore, Collier County needs to make sure that its beaches maximize public access in the future to be eligible for state and federal funding. Secondly, Florida Statute states that the tourist development tax funds for category A projects can be used for more than just maintenance and erosion control. They can also be earmarked for beach park facility improvements and beach access point acquisition. Third, the Collier County Growth Management Plan states that if existing access is not sufficient, then the county shall acquire additional access points as part of the renourishment project. Page 116 October 14, 2003 Fourth, Collier County is approaching a crisis in beach access. In North Naples where I live, parking spaces are full by 10:00 a.m. at Vanderbilt Beach in season. The tourists and the citizens are really frustrated. Currently there's no alternatives to driving in and parking for most citizens. We're looking at building a parking garage, which may meet some of our short-term needs, but in the long term it's not going to be sufficient. We're going to have to look at Park and Ride or beach shuttles. And for an effective shuttle system to operate at Vanderbilt Beach, people need to be ferried up and down Vanderbilt Drive to other access points. The county has many rights-of-way between high-rises and private homes, and the beach between Vanderbilt Beach and the state park up the road is fairly unpopulated. And unfortunately people can't get to those spots. And the county likely will have to purchase one or two lots to have sheltered dropoff points if we ever go the route of developing a shuttle system. Those will cost upwards of $4 million each. Where is that money going to come from? Beach renourishment is a worthy goal. However, what good is this for the average citizen and his family who has no access to the beach during the season? The Coastal Advisory Committee I believe is a little nearsighted in its vision. They seem to be operating under the assumption that everyone is already at the beach, now all we have to do is make sure there's plenty of sand for everybody to lay on. It's the idea of build it and they will come. Well, you can build it and have the sand there, but they won't come because they can't get there in season. We need to have better access. Our beaches and our quality of life are the bread and butter of Collier County. Regarding the Coastal Advisory Committee, they propose to become the final review source for all requests for TDC Category A funding. This will likely place park improvements and beach access on the back burner. Page 117 October 14, 2003 Furthermore, this advisory board is primarily mandated with the role of beach erosion control programs, and they will be responsible for review and requests that deal with beach parks improvement funding, which has traditionally been handled by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. We believe that reviewing those projects will be more out of the scope of what the Coastal Advisory Committee is geared for doing. So in summary, I think it's really important for us to leave no stone unturned in finding state funding for these projects and to make sure that the citizens of Collier County can get to their beaches. And that's all I had to say. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kyle Kinney. He will be followed by Ron Pennington. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Kinney? MR. KINNEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Kyle Kinney. I serve as the president of the Pelican Bay Foundation, which is the master homeowners association for the Pelican Bay community. I just have a few comments for the Board as relates to today's policy. I think it's important for the Board to keep in mind that the proposed policy is not a guarantee for funding for any community, but it is an opportunity for a community to seek out and justify funding. Us in the Pelican Bay community realize that we would be deemed, in most instances, a low use beach, but it at least allows the Pelican Bay community to approach the various committees and finally the TDC to work jointly on beach renourishment issues. This policy allows that to occur. Secondly, the Category A funding which was voted by the residents was for beach renourishment. It would be our feeling that if beach access was to be used for the TDC dollars that come in from the bed tax, then allow the residents to make that change and let us Page 118 October 14, 2003 all be a part of that process as that stands for. Thirdly, the Pelican Bay community certainly understands that beach access is a complicated issue, but it's not the issue that was asked by staff or the Coastal Advisory Committee or the TDC. It was a policy to go forward for beach renourishment, and that beach access might be a separate issues but one that walks together hand in hand. But that's not certainly what was on the table during that process. We talked about federal and state money. It would be our assumption that federal and state money is years, years and years away and that process has not begin. So voting down the policy as it is proposed today basically puts our community back into square one on what is currently the beach renourishment project. I encourage, as we do the county, to start that process going forward to see where that might be. But that is years away from the first check ever being written that comes in. Finally, in closing, the policy is certainly not perfect, but it is certainly a step forward so that we can all work together on county issues. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ron Pennington, he will be followed by Jim Snediker. MR. PENNINGTON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. As a prelude to my prepared remarks, I feel compelled to make a comment that over the years I have read many executive summaries, but I have never seen one with so much erroneous information as the one you received today. It's really sad. Also, I would point out, we have applied for state funding. We were on the state list for $90,000 for Marco Island for this year; however, we were on the unfunded list. We have applied again, and you have a resolution coming before you today for funding for our full beach renourishment. We have been working on the state. It has not been productive. Page 119 October 14, 2003 But good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Ron Pennington, a resident of the City of Naples and a member of the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, although I'm not here specifically in that capacity, nor do I necessarily speak for the committee. In January, 1992, 11 plus, almost 12 years ago, as chairman of the City of Naples Beach Renourishment and Maintenance Committee, I appeared here before the County Commission with a report and a visual presentation on the deplorable state of our beaches. At Lowdermilk Park, palm trees had washed away. Naples Beach Hotel had erosion threatening to undermine their seawall. The beach was impassable at high tide. Edgewater Beach Hotel had no beach at high tide, as was the case along most of our beaches. At Vanderbilt Beach on the south end, there was no beach at high tide, with exposed tree trunks all along the beach at low tide. La Playa Hotel had to remove lounges from the beach before each high tide. Many long-term visitors refused to return because the beaches, which had been our prime attraction, had now deteriorated. I presented to the Commission our plan to correct the problem by nourishment of seven miles of beaches and provided funding options. These were: A sales tax, a tourist development tax, or a combination of the two. The sales tax option had been previously rejected by the voters, so the Commission ultimately chose to present the tourist tax options to the voters at two percent of short term rentals, in accordance with Florida statutes, with the proceeds to be split 60/40 between beach maintenance and tourism promotion. Many others and I worked to inform the public of the advantages of this tax. Most were favorable to the beach nourishment part, but didn't think we needed to attract more visitors, even though we emphasized it was to be for the shoulder season. At the election of November, 1992, the tax was overwhelmingly approved by over a 2-1 margin. However, if it were not for the Page 120 October 14, 2003 voters' concern for our beach, Collier CountY would have no tourist tax today. Because of the size of the beach project, the 1.2 percent portion of the tax for the beach was not adequate to provide total funding. We proposed the Commission add an additional one percent to the tax for the beach, which they were empowered to do with the super majority vote. Initially the hoteliers were opposed, but ultimately Joe Frenny (phonetic), then Vice President of Ritz-Carlton International, advised they would go along with it. The Commission then acted to increase the tax to three percent, with two percent to be allocated for the beaches. After four years of dedicated effort by many people, in 1995 and '96, we restored our beaches to be among the finest in the nation, affording additional protection for beach front property and providing our primary tourist attraction. Trying to obtain federal and state funds to maintain our beaches is not a viable alternative. We've been that route, and depending on the vagaries and politics of annual legislative appropriations does not enable well maintained beaches. However, we continue to try. And I will say for this year, the legislature cut a $30 million allocation to 22 and a half million for the entire state. We, Collier County, maintain a 1 O-year plan, update it annually to assure our beaches are well maintained and to be prepared for any major disaster, such as a hurricane, to assure ability of a speedy recovery. There's been a push from some quarters to divert tourist tax Category A beach maintenance funding to be used for acquiring additional beach public access. Although there are approximately 60 public beach access points in Collier County, probably more than any other urban county in the state, obtaining additional public access points to our beaches is highly desirable. And for those of us in the city, in particular, we'd like to see more of them out in north county. Page 121 October 14, 2003 If I may have about 30 seconds. Category A tourist tax funds are not adequate to both maintain our beaches and buy high value waterfront property for additional access. A scheduled major renourishment of Vanderbilt and Naples beaches has been initiated for next year. Any diversion of funds would be disastrous to the program. I urge the Commission to continue to maintain the sanctity of Category A funds to ensure a continuation of the high quality of Collier County beaches. I thank you, Commissioners, and will be happy to respond to any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, thank you. MR. PENNINGTON: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Jim Snediker. You're waiving, sir? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, he's waiving. MS. FILSON: John Ribes? And he is your final speaker. MR. RIBES: Chairman and Commissioners, thank you for having me here today. I'll try to be brief. I am John Ribes, chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. And I'm here on their behalf. If I can -- The one thing -- the first thing that I would like to do is to commend the CAC and the TDC for the efforts that they have done. I read the reports and the policies. I think they're outstanding. I think they continue to do an excellent job. And I again commend them for a great job. The third thing I'd like to touch on is the executive summary, since I've been sitting back here listening. I have read the executive summary. I did not read any emotional things in it, nor did I think it non-positive. But maybe I've missed a few points. But the policy, as it sits today, represents a step forward for our beaches. And we all know that our beaches are very important to our economy and the quality of our life. Page 122 October 14, 2003 There's two points I'd like to make regarding our beaches: One, we must have beach access. And to get beach access and our-- the state and federal funds for beach access, we need to start developing and going forward for state and federal funds. Maybe we have done it in the past and have not been successful, but it's time to start again and begin to get our share, because it's my belief that we will not have the funds within our counties and our private sources to do what we need to do for our beaches in the future. A key to access, as I see it, has to do with dispersal. Many -- we do have access to our beaches, but they're like getting to the beach through a funnel. And that does not work. We need to find many ways to get to the beaches. I don't know whether it's a half a mile or a quarter of a mile. I just know that the concept has to be built around dispersal. And the beach access is tied to renourishment funds. Another item that I'd like to touch on is the grant -- the TDC grant applications in the past have been reviewed by the PARAB, which historically has been doing an outstanding job. And I believe this policy, as I read it, does not have any representation for the Parks and Recreation Board as part of the review process, and ! think that would be a mistake. And in closing, I think Vice Chair Galleberg had mentioned something about a holistic view. And from my perspective, the Parks and Recreation Board participation in the review of these funds in our beaches is the only way to get a holistic view for the entire Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. That was the last speaker? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I have staff's perspective on, just for the viewing audience, of managing this policy, on what it would Page 123 October 14, 2003 do to the categories and how you read this proposed policy? MR. WERT: Again, Mr. Chairman, for the record, Jack Wert, Tourism Director. The proposed policy does give us some framework to look at the various projects that come before the CAC and the Tourist Development Council. We do, however, see that it's subject to a great deal of interpretation, and that was one of the things we were hoping we would have some pretty clear direction on being able to prioritize projects. As we've seen, the number of projects and the dollar amount has gone quite high now, and we're seeing in the future there will probably always be enough projects and dollars requested to spend all of the money that's available. And we certainly see this in the coming year. So we are looking for a policy that will give us a better way to prioritize these projects so that -- and I think Vice Mayor Galleberg even said there are '-- if we have requests for more money, we really do need a way to prioritize them, and we're just not going to be able to do all the projects. And pretty much we've done everything that has come before the CAC and the TDC in the past. And it's going to get more difficult as it goes. So as we look at this policy, we think it could be stronger in a number of those areas. The other thing that if I might, Mr. Chairman, I think our other concern is -- and several of the Commissioners have pointed out, the state and federal funds -- to be able to leverage our money against those funds is going to be very important. That's why the half mile is important, because that's built into the state requirements. Within a half mile of a major beach access point, that qualifies. Actually, they also have the quarter mile, but that is from minor beach access. So that's the reason that quarter mile is there, so that it does certainly help us define what is eligible. Page 124 October 14, 2003 I think that, finally, our concern overall is that we aren't really addressing the criteria that's stated in the Growth Management Plan that we need to allow for beach access. And every project that we look at, we need to look at beach access, and according to that plan we ought to be looking for additional access, if it's needed. So overall, I think those are our three areas of concern related to this policy. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, then -- ah, County Manager. MR. MUDD: We're still talking to staff for a second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How are you? MR. MUDD: Doing fine, just fine. I want to make sure we put this in context, okay? Where this all started -- and I don't think we got a full -- I don't think we got a full piece of where it all started. We came forward with a master plan, okay, that talked about beach and boat access, okay? And the Board approved that, all right, and said go forth and conquer, staff. And the staff came back and said one way to try to leverage and increase access is to make it desirable, when you do beach renourishment, to make sure that you have the access points, to give some incentive to have people have access than not to have. Access. And today was one of those points when we did the Vanderbilt Beach -- or the Vanderbilt Inn Motel, or whatever -- the Vanderbilt Beach Motel -- I know I'll them get them right -- where you basically asked for an access point so that people could either walk off the beach or walk on the beach, so it was more convenient than going all the way down to the end of the street and finding a parking space. So that's how this all started, okay? We came forward with a staff opinion that basic -- or a policy that basically devised a way to make it and to incentivise the beach renourishment program with some kind of a cost share, depending on where you were and how far you were from that access. Page 125 October 14, 2003 The Board basically on a 2-3 vote, three disapproval, basically said to send the policy back down to the CAC and the TDC to come forward. And I think you've seen today in the public comment, and even in your own comments today, that you see the beach renourishment access thing on two different sides and the scales trying to be balanced. Another thing I want to make sure for the record that we do talk about is we have received some state funding. We have a $1.7 million contract, of which we've got $600,000 based on that contract. And that basically talks about trucking the sand that we've done in previous years plus a FEMA contract of about $400,000 where we're getting $300,000 back from them, with the hope of about 2.5 more million coming because of Hurricane Gabriel. So those things -- those things are out there, and in those instances when we can go about and get them, we will. You have an Item 16(C)(12) today that you approved on the consent agenda whereby you're instituting the authorization process with Congressman Goss to get a major renourishment program some 10 years from now in the federal side of the House in order to leverage those dollars. Last, but not least, there was a conversation about reserve monies, and there is $3 million in the reserve today. But I promise you, when I come forward with the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage in six months, there will be no reserve left. Because the plan is to bond TDC dollars in order to pay for that particular parking garage. That parking garage was approved by this Board two years ago, and money was set aside. We were in a court case and so that money was set aside and stayed there. In this particular case, those monies would be bonded in order to pay for that parking garage, in order to get the major renourishment program done. So I will say to you, there's a lot to the pot when you start talking about reserve dollars and what they're laid aside for in that Page 126 October 14, 2003 1 O-year plan. So I just want to make sure that you know that, because in six months I'm going to come forward to the Board of County Commissioners, because there was another item on your agenda today to basically kill the contract for the RFP for the design of that parking garage so that next meeting we can award an RFP to go out for the design. And we're in the middle of a successful negotiation with WCI whereby I think the court case will be thrown out, we'll have an agreement and we'll be able to build a two-level parking on the roof type terrace garage in that particular location. And I think in this FY we'll be ready to go forward with those dollars that you set aside some two years ago. So for the record, I'll just set those particular cases straight. There is some concern on the staff about how do you set priorities for these particular projects. But Mr. Galleberg in his testimony said today that the CAC will set that priority. And as far as staff is concerned, that's great. Get us out of that mode -- and so that the CAC is telling us, well, instead of what do you think, they're going to set that priority about which projects are going to get funded or not or not. And I commented them for that, because it definitely takes staff out of it. Because, I will tell you, I've asked these gentleman, and I said, how do you set this thing? And they said, we're not too sure. And so that is a dilemma. But nobody said this isn't a step in the right direction. Because it is a step in the right direction. So that's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'd like to touch upon a couple of points. Earlier today we saw a situation where a developer and the residents of the area had a disagreement about what should or should not be done in that area. And they worked these things out and they solved them and they reached a compromise that made everybody Page 127 October 14, 2003 happy. What happened the last time we got a policy from the staff was that the policy was developed without any input at all from our advisory boards. Completely bypassed them. And that upset a number of us. That's something that should never have happened. And that set a tone that essentially pitted staff against our advisory boards. And that's not a healthy position for any of us to be in. And I am disappointed that the staff really hasn't worked closer with the advisory committees and worked these problems out. Now, beyond that, let's go to the real crux of the issue. The staff seems to have the position that beach acquisition or beach access is the most important thing for these beach Category A funds. Yet we see time and time again beach access doesn't mean a place to get to the beach. Beach access means a place to park. It means transportation. How do you get there? A lot of those beach access points can in fact handle more people on the beach. What happens is they don't have enough parking there. How do we deal with that? We're going to build a parking garage, as County Manager has just pointed out. Maybe more than one. How about rearranging our bus schedules a little bit to make sure we can shuttle people to and from the beach, make runs up and down the beach to the beach access points? We've talked in the past about creating boat shuttles to take people to beaches that are otherwise inaccessible. We own beaches that nobody's using because they can't get there except by boat. I believe the staff is working on those kinds of things. Now, those are relatively, relatively low cost solutions to beach access. Yet it appears that we have chosen to allocate 17, $19 million to the purchase ofbeachfront property somewhere to get beach access. And I would say to you that that's not necessary as a first step to get more beach access. I think transportation and parking is the most important thing to getting beach access now. So I would Page 128 October 14, 2003 like to see us reassess those priorities, go after the things that can be done more quickly and at lower cost and long range, of course, plan for purchasing property that will give our residents more beach access. But I think this policy is a good policy, I'd like to support it and I'll make a motion that it be approved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I'd like to ask staff what their interpretation of this -- basically either John or else Jim, if they would give us input into how they felt this recommendation that's come forward here by CAC. MR. DUNNUCK: For the record, my name's John Dunnuck, Public Services Administrator. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. We're doing what Commissioner Coyle just brought up. We're pitting our staff against the advisory boards. And Commissioner Coyle, I being the chairman of the TDC and on the subcommittee on this policy, I've got to say the staff has been very amenable to the needs of the TDC and the subcommittee. There wasn't any kind of a prodding or trying to trying to direct like we get in some of these focus groups where you have planning staff trying to direct people where they want to be. They were there to support with information. So I want to clarify that. Please be careful with your comments. MR. DUNNUCK: I'll do the best I can. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now that he's got you off the hook. MR. DUNNUCK: I just want to take you back, and the County Manager kind of outlined it a little bit previously. Back in May we brought you the master plan for boat and beach access. And the Page 129 October 14, 2003 Board unanimously adopted 5-0. And there were a couple of parameters that we had put in there. We said from a Parks and Rec. Department standpoint, we believe in spreading out the access as much as possible. We said putting everybody in one location is not good from our perspective because when people are on top of each other it's not the type of environment we are recommending. And the Board supported that. They said go out and look at other places where you can find additional access points. And we even outlined in a five-year plan where we would go about doing those. And we've been pursuing those with all vigor. We're also looking at the boat access issues and we're looking at the park and ride. We mentioned during that plan too that park and ride from our perspective may be a last ditch thing because it's the gift that keeps on giving, from an operational standpoint. What this issue comes down to from my perspective is really a matter of funding. You know, we're trying to put a 200-pound gorilla into a 20-pound bag, so to speak, from the standpoint of you have all the renourishment projects and then you have all the acquisition projects we'd like to do. Because what we pointed out to you back in May was there's no dedicated funding source for acquisition. And frankly, for maintenance, from the standpoint of our concession buildings that we currently have our parks, we have traditionally used TDC money to help look at some of those, those fix-it projects. Under this plan we're concerned that it seems to broaden the scope of where the Board has, without having a policy, has approved funding of projects. It does seem to broaden that to some degree from our perspective and the -- the utility staff can outline that specifically. And from my perspective, from a Parks and Rec standpoint, it does put our priority of public access at what I would consider the back step. You know, we have provided -- I think initially we provided about $17 million of additional acquisition projects to the Page 130 October 14, 2003 TDC for consideration. And they've put a lot of those projects on hold, pending the outcome of this policy. Recognizing where we are with renourishment, the only project we currently have in that 1 O-year plan is the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage, and as the County Manager pointed out, it's in a bonding scenario. It doesn't even have -- in order to balance that budget it doesn't have it as a full acquisition price, so we would be bonding it. So I just want to outline factually where we are from our standpoint of getting additional acquisition. A prime example would be we have five access points on Vanderbilt Beach, and now thanks to the Board it looks like we're going to have six. One of the things we looked at doing was purchasing a lot -- that was outlined by the Parks and Rec. advisory board -- within that middle portion. That would allow us to be federally eligible for that beach. And while we recognize it may be seven to 10 years down the road, it does get us our foot in the door, and we think that's a good thing. So, you know, from our perspective, you know, certainly we will carry out the Board's policy direction in every aspect as upon directed, but we did have some concerns about that, and we did work with the advisory boards throughout this process as well and we expressed our concerns based upon that master plan that was adopted by the Board. COMMISSIONER HALAS: John, I appreciate the back-up on this. But one thing, and it's not just because I live in that particular area, but Vanderbilt Beach right now is 1.1 miles long, and as you said, we've got about six beach accesses. And so really the load is being put up there. We got -- at the north end we got Delnor-Wiggins State Park. At the south end we've got the Vanderbilt Beach area. Plus in between, we've got areas where people can go to the beach. Page 131 October 14, 2003 The problem is is that Vanderbilt Beach cannot keep continually taking the load. It's just like the same problem that the City of Naples has. So what we have to do is make sure that we spread this thing out. And I think that's where this whole scenario about who is going to get the funding for beach renourishment is going to really take hold. And I hope that the -- I'm sure that the CAC group will make sure that the areas that have the highest concentration are first on the agenda to get that taken care of. They're going to be number one on the priority list. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. First off, John, I wanted to say that my personal observation is that staff has worked excellent with every committee out there and they've been going way out of their way. Obviously there's been some harassment that's taken place from some direction for staff to have no comments. I'll tell you, I appreciate different sources to be able to come forward and give me the outlook of what we're up against. I like to have the special interest groups come in, I like to have citizens. I especially expect my staff to be able to comment, and I hate to beat them up for these comments. Obviously, you were beat up not to make comments and to try to remain so neutral that you couldn't bring out the facts until it was drug out of you. I kind of hope we can avoid this in future meetings. I don't like it. I don't like it one bit. None. I don't want to ever see recommendations, none. That's an insult. You know, I need those recommendations to be able to make my -- base my decisions on. As far as the issue goes, I'm going to vote against this recommendation, not because I think it's a terrible recommendation. This outline of the proposal for the funding policy has a lot of very good points in it. It's something to build on. However, it does fall short. And because of that very reason that it falls short I can't Page 132 October 14, 2003 support it as it is now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think it's not a perfect policy either, but it's better than what we have. And I think we need some experience with it to refine it. I think to wait until it's perfect is a big mistake. But explain to me, John, why we would be ineligible to apply for federal or state funding for the renourishment of beaches within one-half mile of any of our beach access points if we adopt this policy. MR. DUNNUCK: Mr. Hovell may be able to better answer that question for you, but I believe when they look at a project's length they look at not just the access but the access and use. And that's defined by a number of how many -- you know, from a standpoint of -- and I'll use Vanderbilt Beach as an example. You've got significant parking at the Vanderbilt Beach location. You go a half mile out, you have no parking in the middle of what will be considered a full project. And then you have the Wiggins Pass side on the north end, which would be eligible as well. I think what you're asking, the question is, could you apply for bits and pieces of that federal funding. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Actually, let's take one of the most convenient beach accesses you can identify. Pick one. I don't know, Fifth Avenue beach? MR. DUNNUCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And using the state criteria, one quarter mile either way, it meets all the requirements. It's got restrooms, has everything you need. One quarter mile each way. Why can't we apply for federal and state funding to support beach renourishment for that area? MR. DUNNUCK: It's not to say we can't. I think we're looking at a full stretch. But Mr. Hovell can probably better answer that Page 133 October 14, 2003 question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my point. This policy does not keep you from applying for federal or state grants for those beaches that meet the requirements for the federal and state grants. So it is my opinion, and I'm not an expert in this area, it is my opinion that to say that this policy doesn't leverage our ability to get federal and state funds is in fact misleading, because it -- in my opinion, it doesn't impact your ability one way or the other. Because you can still go after federal and state funds for those beaches that meet the federal and state requirements, leaving then the remaining beaches up to us to fund with our TDC dollars. So I don't see that as an accurate portrayal of the effect of this particular policy. So I think this is -- I think we're going to be able to do both. And I would like to proceed, see if we can't-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would like -- let me tell you what I see, is -- you're absolutely right, we can apply for state grants on that. But what I see with this policy is you're going to see more applications for beach renourishment in areas that the general public can't get to. That's what we're going to do. Then we're going to make it a political issue, where it should be a policy driven issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to be next when you're finished. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So I'm very concerned about that. But, you know, that's my perspective. Mr. DeLony? MR. DeLONY: Sir, for the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator. I just wanted to clarify one point that Mr. Coyle made, if I could. Page 134 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Go ahead. MR. DeLONY: Sir, I think that the -- it's not staff to say that we're not going to leverage those funds. I think the point that's made in the executive summary in front of you says it doesn't make it any easier for us to do that in terms of enhancing our current ability to do that. You know, the ticket home with regard to state and federal funding is, you said it before, it's going to be access. Any policy that we have that does not get us more access will not get us more state and federal funds. And that's what's pointed out in the executive summary. Not that we're not going to go after it. Mr. Mudd reminded you again, 16(C)(12) today is a strong attempt on behalf of County Commissioners to go after those federal funds for the areas where we have adequate access today. Yes, we'll have to get in line, but Collier County is going to be here for at least a couple hundred more years at least, I'd say. So now is the time to start is essentially what this Board has made a commitment to do. The comments from staff were is that this policy doesn't leverage those additional funds beyond what we have currently in terms of access because it doesn't prescribe a policy with regard to access to the degree that those funds are not fully eligible -- or fully leveraged. That's a fine point, but I did want to at least point that out to you, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. I wanted to mention a cause and effect. We're talking here about beach access and purchasing of it and so forth. I want to mention about a beach access that might not be accessing a beach shortly. And I'm going to specifically talk about Tigertail and Hideaway Beach. We have Hideaway Beach is asking for funds and people are resisting that. And, of course, we understand from Ron Hovell how badly eroded, it's the worst eroded beach in the entire State of Page 135 October 14, 2003 Florida. And what's happening is the effect of that is it is now mining or taking away Tigertail Beach, which was a county beach. We've poured millions of dollars into the 350 parking spaces, as well as the beach and park atmosphere that's in that area to now be creating a bird sanctuary because the beach is leaving us because of the erosion on Hideaway. So now we're going to have a beach access for 3 50 cars, but we don't have a beach there. And of course the environmentalists and bird lovers are asking us to please stay away from Sand Dollar Island because it's becoming a bird haven. Well, this is a cause and effect also that I don't think we've even addressed here, and I feel it's another important access of this. I think this is a giant step forward, this new policy. And Commissioners, we must make a step forward in order to correct some of the imbalances that we now have. I urge you, please to vote in favor of this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, nobody's going to change my mind. I've got my mind made up, and I think the rest of the Commissioners have their mind made up. Commissioner Halas, do you have your mind made up on this issue? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we just take the vote. Because all we're going to be doing is discussing this issue on and on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I at least offer an opinion? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I want to add a comment, and Mr. Halas, and then Commissioner Fiala -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Everybody has a right. I just want to recognize something, so Commissioner Coyle -- Page 136 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll waive my right if he'll be quiet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a doable deal. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, please. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I think there's an important point here. We don't have a policy now. And everything -- every decision we make tums out to be a political issue. If we refuse to accept this policy, it's going to continue. How long are we going to sit here then and continue to do the same thing we've been doing and other Commissioners have been doing for years and years and years without a policy? And we'll be fighting over this based upon political issues or whose district it's in, and we're not going to get anywhere. This policy does not in any way diminish the ability to get federal and state funds. It does provide us guidelines, although they're not perfect and not complete, but it gives us guidelines upon which we can base -- make reasonable decisions. So I would ask the Commissioners to please consider whether you want to do nothing and continue the status quo, or do you want to take a step forward and improve this process with the understanding that we will continue to improve it as we work with it? So I would ask that you give consideration to that. If this proposal is not acceptable, then we have gotten nowhere, and what will be the result? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I disagree with that. Because if it fails, I'm going to make a motion to bring back staffs recommendation at our next meeting. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you just answered that. And I don't think this is a lost cause in any means. I think the committee's working and everyone's work up to this point in time has given us an avenue to go with. Just because we don't vote on Page 13 7 October 14, 2003 acceptance of it today doesn't mean it's over with. All we're going to do is embellish upon it to something that's going to serve the uses of everybody in the future. Has nothing to do with the district. It has nothing to do with political. This is just one of those things the public's been telling us and we've been in agreement with for a long time. We're just trying to get to that end results. CHAIRMAN HENNING: anything else? Commissioner Halas? I wish it was quicker. All right. Do we want to throw out COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say, I would like -- also feel that I would like to have some of staff's input into this and blend it with what CAC came up with. I think these people did a wonderful job. I just wish that the two would have worked together, and I think we would have come up with a good blending and we wouldn't be in the area we're at. I don't really think this is an issue where it's district against district. I think what we're looking at is making it fair and equitable for everybody in Collier County. And at that, I'll end my comments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've stated how I feel. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We beat this up enough, Sheriff. I think if we beat it up anymore, you'd arrest us all for abuse. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about you, you want to have a say? CHAIRMAN HENNING: saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: COMMISSIONER COYLE: All in favor of the motion, signify by Aye. Aye. Page 138 October 14, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll count it. Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coyle voted for the motion. Commission Halas, Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coletta voted against the motion. Okay. Make a motion to bring -- direct staff to bring back recommendations on Category A beach funding policy. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you sure? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I don't care who you give credit to. I was just going to make -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You sounded hesitant. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, not that way. I just wanted to -- direction to staff, I thought we might be able to direct them to use the previous discussions and discussions today to guide them in that endeavor. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine as part of my motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I get a clarification of the motion? CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you suggesting they bring back the proposal they presented to us the first time, or are you suggesting that they work with the CAC -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to get-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. I'm suggesting what Commissioner Coletta said, is the comments today and their previous Page 139 October 14, 2003 recommendations, bring back a recommendation. Now, not to work with the CAC or the TDC on that. We've asked the CAC and the TDC to give us a policy. The majority of the Commissioners could not pass that policy. Okay? Any other -- Commissioner Fiala, do you have anything? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coletta was in favor of the motion. Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Fiala was opposed to the motion. Okay, great. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you okay? We -- five minutes? We're going to take five minutes. Before we take a break, we've got some public in here. I would like to know which item that you're here for, so I'm just going to step down and address that. We're going to take a five-minute break. (A recess was taken.) MR. MUDD: Commissioner you have a hot mic. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Board is back in session. Item #10G APPROVE A PROPOSED PARTNERSHIP WITH THE Page 140 October 14, 2003 CHILDREN'S MUSEUM OF NAPLES, INC. FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A CHILDREN'S MUSEUM AT NORTH NAPI,ES RF, GIONAI, PARK- APPROVED I'm going to move around so we can move some residents out. We are going to the add-on, Item 10(G) and then 10(E). 10(G) is an add-on approving partnership between the Children's Museum of Naples for development of a children's museum at North Naples Regional Park. Marla, I'm going to make a motion to approve, because I'm so excited about this, I just can't contain myself. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle grabbed the second. Please, let's tell everybody what we're doing. MS. RAMSEY: Okay, just briefly, the Children's Museum of Naples, Inc. is a private nonprofit institute. They came to Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on September 27th with a request to put together a partnership which would in essence allow them to lease two acres within the North Naples Regional Park for a children's museum about the size of-- about 20,000 square foot. We're here today based upon the recommendation of Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to ask you to approve the staff to work with the Children's Museum of Naples, Inc. to develop a lease agreement. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if you step aside, we've got two lovely ladies that maybe could shed a little bit of light of what this park is all about. MS. BARNETT: I'm Lisa Barnett. I am the Treasurer and Director of the Children's Museum of Naples. This is Julie Kester (phonetic), our President and also a director. Page 141 October 14, 2003 I first want to say thank you so much for allowing us to even present this to you. It's a project that we are very excited about. We incorporated about a year ago as a nonprofit. We are a 501(c)(3). And in that year we've been working very hard to put together a mission and a vision for this museum. We've gone out into the community. We've conducted focus groups and a needs assessment. And the community response has been overwhelmingly positive. So much so that people are saying to us, you know, can you get it open tomorrow, when can we start coming, what can we do to help. So we think that this is going to be a wonderful, wonderful benefit to the community. For those of you that have not been in a children's museum, it's a little bit of a misnomer. It's not a hands-at-your-side, look-at-the-things-on-the-wall type of museum. It's a touch everything, play with everything. It's an interactive learning space. We're hoping to make it accessible county-wide. We'd like to, as Marla said, lease the land from the county for a nominal fee and in return we intend to pay for a portion of the infrastructure, our pro-rata share of the infrastructure for the park. So we're actually going to be putting money back into the park budget. We're not going to ask the county for any additional funds to build this. It will be all privately funded, so it's not going to be a burden on the taxpayers. And again, we're hoping that this is going to be a community-wide playspace, for lack of a better word. Julie, if you want to add to that. The basic terms of the lease that we would like to see would, again, be a long-term land lease, something like 30 years or longer, with continuous options to renew for a nominal fee. We would be required to pay for-- when I say infrastructure, I mean the roads into the park, the entranceways, our pro-rata share, because we understand that we would be using those interior roadways, entranceways in the park facilities to get to our facility, Page 142 October 14, 2003 but we would be completely autonomous. I don't know if anyone has any questions or if you want to add to that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry the press is not here to really pick this up, because this is an exciting moment in Collier County. And I want to be involved in, you know, your aspects of fundraising, putting the shovel to the ground, whatever I can do. MS. BARNETT: Well, we appreciate that, and we would love to have your assistance, so thank you very much. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a positive kind of thing. Why would the press want to report on that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't push your luck. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't see any further discussion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one quick word, if I may. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there going to be an admission charge? MS. BARNETT: There will be an admission charge. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm a grandparent, can I get a season pass? MS. BARNETT: We are -- we're working on what those charges are. We don't know yet. But we -- it is our intention to have some sort of annual passes. We are hoping that we can raise enough money to have an endowment so that we can also subsidize entrance fees, as necessary. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you please, for the benefit of our listening audience, give us the telephone number they can call for more information? MS. BARNETT: Sure-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Your home number will be just fine. Call after nine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think they're going to do a press Page 143 October 14, 2003 release -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That sounds fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and hopefully get it out to everybody. MS. BARNETT: And we have a P.O. box at the moment where we're receiving all of our mail. We don't have a formal office set up yet with one phone number. So if people want to contact any of us, we'll give you the P.O. box information and be happy to -- MS. KESTER: We do have the e-mail addresses that are in the packet that we've provided you. I don't know if you have a website that you could link the public to or not. But we would be happy to receive any questions that way. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What we could do in the short order is they can call the Commission's office and we'll make sure that the receptionist has this information up front, so she can give them the e-mail address of how to get in touch with you. So I assure you, you're going to find a lot of support out there for this. MS. BARNETT: And if you want, for the record, the Post Office box, if anyone wants to contact us that way, is Post Office Box 2423, and it's Naples, Florida, 34106. And we check it regularly, and we do respond to whatever inquiries we get that way. But as this moves forward, too, and as we finalize our lease with the county, we will be going very public with this and providing all kinds of forms for people to contact us and to get involved. Up until now, we've been looking for a site, and so we've been hesitant to open it up too much until that happened. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 144 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: MS. BARNETT: Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Thank you very much. Item # 10E SEEK BOARD APPROVAL TO INSTALL PERMANENT MEDIAN OPENING IMPROVEMENTS AT PALM DRIVE AND HARRISON ROAD AND TF, RYI, ROAD- APPROVED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is 10(E). That's seeking Board's approval to install permanent median opening improvements at Palm Drive and Harrison Road and Teryl Road, at an estimated of 67,000. Mr. Scott, I can tell you my concerns. This was on the consent agenda -- MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- is the cost. And my perspective, I'd just rather leave the improvements up there instead of spending this type of money for this improvement. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. The -- one of the things -- previously, last year, December, the Board approved putting the flex stakes up. And then in April at the government services workshop, the direction was to make the entry treatment at that location more permanent, and that's why we brought this forward at this time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any public speakers? MS. FILSON: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, we do, we do have two. Lindy Adelstein, and he will be followed by John Cassio. MR. ADELSTEIN: Good afternoon. My name is Lindy Page 145 October 14, 2003 Adelstein. I'm a member of the County Commission -- county planning commission and an owner and director in the Glades. Before I proceed, we had 15 members here from the Glades. We're left with about five now, but obviously the length of time was unable to stay for this. I personally have a great deal of faith in our county government system, and I'm hoping today will reinforce that faith. This is our third appearance regarding the needed road and changes on Palm Drive. The first is when the county wanted to build an addition to the present jail and a new parking garage, and both of them would substantially exceed the present 75-foot height zoning requirement. Before the close of the County Commissioners meeting, it was stated they understood the sacrifices the Glades would be making and those that would be necessary in the future because of additional expansions. We were promised that they would correct the problem on Palm Drive in order to protect the Glades way of life. The second meeting was a workshop to discuss the proposed road work that would be necessary to keep Palm Drive from becoming overburdened, as it is the only entrance and exit to the Glades Country Club, which is made up of 1,253 units. This need was very detailed, and a great deal of time was spent in the discussions. One of the items concluded that the construction trucks for the government complex would not be allowed to drive through Palm Drive. The County Commissioners, with one dissenting vote, approved this. Now today it is time to find -- to fund the project and start the work that will in fact bring the Glades back to the way they were or the way they can make their own way of life. I hope that I can thank you in advance for keeping the promise you made to us so many months ago. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Page 146 October 14, 2003 MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is John Cassio. MR. CASSIO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is John Cassio, I'm the General Manager of the Glades Country Club. I took over this position on August 4th of this year. I would like to take this opportunity to make this comment regarding the median improvements on Palm Drive. I represent 1,253 unit owners. The Glades is one of the largest single condominium associations in the county. We have a large amount of traffic on Palm Drive and it is increasing each year. In the morning we have a steady stream of traffic going into the complex, this complex, and in the evenings a steady stream going out. As you may know, the golf cart paths run across Palm Drive. I've had numerous complaints about the amount of traffic in this area. Many motorists do not stop for golf carts. There are also many senior bikers and walkers that utilize this path. In looking over the proposed plan to alter the median, I see that it will work and that -- the plan that's in front of you will work at a cost of $67,000. As an alternative, if it becomes too costly to modify Palm Drive, I would like to suggest changing Harrison Road that accesses the government center to one way entrance going in. We would have the incoming traffic, which is in the area of 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. each morning, but in the afternoon, when our residents are out and about on the golf course, it would limit the traffic substantially. Also, I am asking the board not to allow any construction traffic on Palm Drive, in anticipation of any expansion projects at the government center. In closing, on behalf of the Glades, I would like to thank you all for your support throughout the years, as well as in future projects. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Cassio? MR. CASSIO: Yes, sir. Page 147 October 14, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: MR. CASSIO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: lobbyist. MR. CASSIO: Oh. Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: to you how to do that. MR. CASSIO: Okay, yes, sir. Are you paid for your position? I believe you need to register as a And I'm sure Mr. Oakes will explain CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER FIALA: CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Opposed? I am going to oppose this item for the reasons I stated earlier. Item # 10A RESOLUTION 2003-356 TO APPROVE TRANSFER OF FLORIDA WATER SERVICES CORPORATION'S MARCO ISLAND AND MARCO SHORES UTILITY SYSTEMS TO THE CITY OF MARCO ISIJAND- ADOPTF, D Page 148 October 14, 2003 Next item is 10(A), adopt a resolution approving of the transfer of Florida Water Services, Incorporated-- MR. MUDD: Marco Island and Marco Shores Utility Systems. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Utility System to the City of Marco Island and to waive the transfer application of $2,400 in the -- recommended by the Collier County Wastewater -- Water and Wastewater Authority. Mr. Wallace. MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Bleu Wallace, Director of Community Development Operations. I'm also the Executive Director of the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority that has already heard the application and taken testimony from the public, representatives from Florida Water and representatives from the City of Marco Island. The application was considered and there's five issues that was considered by the fact finder in this case, which was the Authority. You have those presented to you in their preliminary order, which contains their recommendation for approval of the transfer. I would like to place on the record the fact that there is a Florida statute that when a municipality serves outside of its corporate boundaries, they may impose a 25 percent surcharge on those customers when serving outside of their corporate boundaries. However, I have discussed this issue with the City Manager as late as yesterday and he has advised me that the City of Marco Island has no intent to impose such surcharge on those folks outside of their corporate limits. Also, the Marco Shores area provides sewer to the Isle of Capri. And those folks down there, most of them are on septic tanks. I wanted the Board to be aware of the fact of another state statute that may require mandatory connection to sewage that the City of Marco Island may impose on folks in Goodland or anywhere down there that is served by this Florida water system that they're Page 149 October 14, 2003 purchasing. And with that, staff would recommend that the Board follow the recommendation made by the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority and approve the transfer and also approve the waiver of the application fee. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. I'd also like to ask one question, if I may. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me get the motion. Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. I also seconded it. Sorry I didn't get in there in time. Mr. Wallace, you stated about the five years and not to increase the fees, and I appreciated that. You also mentioned the mandatory hookup fee within 90 days? If it's a state statute? I just wanted to know -- I didn't see anywhere in all of this paperwork any mention of that, and I was wondering if Bill Moss could comment on that and tell us if this is something that they are going to pursue or if it's something that they don't need to pursue? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Moss? MR. WALLACE: Well, I can respond to it. MR. MUDD: Bill, you want to take that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Might as well get up there, because I have some questions. MR. WALLACE: The Florida Statute is Chapter 381.00655, and it has to do with municipalities establishing a policy requiring mandatory hookup. I think Collier County has something very similar. I just wanted to get that on the record and let you know that the areas in unincorporated Collier County that are your constituents now may be subject to this mandatory hookup policy. And that's the Page 150 October 14, 2003 only point I was trying to make. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to know if indeed that is what Marco Island is going to be doing. MR. MOSS: Commissioner, Bill Moss, I'm the City Manager of Marco Island. Good afternoon. The policy that Mr. Wallace is stating is consistent with the policy that will be developed by the City for the city residents. Frankly the sewage issue is more of a problem on Marco Island than anyplace else that I'm aware of. And any policies that will be applicable to Marco Island will be applicable to the area that we call the urban service area. Typically we would expect connections to a sewer system, if sewer is available within 200 feet. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think that is applicable currently to the Isle of Capri or to two-thirds of Marco Island. Now, some day we will be developing policies and a business approach to try to sewer all these areas into the future. But that is yet to be decided as to how to do that and what it will cost to do it and how it will be funded. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The agreement, and it wasn't in the motion, that you're going to waive the 25 percent surcharge for the residents not in the municipality that are Isle of Capri and Goodland? MR. MOSS: Chairman, there is a-- there is indeed a state statute, Florida Statute 180, that allows municipalities to surcharge for areas outside the corporate limits. I can give you my word that the City Council of Marco Island has never discussed or even considered such a surcharge, and I frankly would recommend that we not do a surcharge for some very fundamental reasons. The revenue that we get from that surcharge could not nearly offset the goodwill that would be lost by having that surcharge. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we put that in the resolution? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me, I don't know how Page 151. October 14, 2003 you can -- MR. WALLACE: I don't think you can trump a statute by resolution. I'd have to defer to the County Attorney. But I think as long as we have what we have on the record, I think that may suffice. MR. MOSS: I perhaps can maybe give you a little bit of satisfaction by advising that we are -- that I am drafting a utility ordinance for council's consideration on Monday and in that ordinance it specifically states that there shall not be a 25 percent surcharge. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We okay with that? I mean, we can't -- what Mr. Wallace says, we can't -- by this resolution it would -- MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- be a conflict with state statutes. Okay. You answered my question. MR. WEIGEL: If your resolution has a contingency in it, it would be problematic, so the answer is no. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next question, and I appreciate your-- I don't know if we're assuming, Mr. Moss, that none of the residents on Isle of Capri has -- are within 200 feet of the -- of the sewer line. And if they are within 200 feet, they naturally need to hook up. Can we get, for those residents not within the incorporated area to get -- offer some kind of financing? Let me give you an example of what happened in East Naples a lot of years -- back in '89. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Max Hasse was there. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: The -- some people got foreclosed on because they could not pay their utility assessment hookup charge. Therefore, the county offered some financing over a period of time. I think it was eight years, six years, seven years. MR. MUDD: Seven years. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is the city willing to do that? MR. MOSS: To answer the question, yes, but I'm not able to Page 152 October 14, 2003 bind the city in that respect. Let me offer a couple of suggestions. First of all, this is somewhat of a unique area, because it's served by both Collier County, as well as what will be the City of Marco Island's sewer area. If the county would rather provide sewer service to that area, we will donate that line to the county for your district, if that's what you would prefer. But actually what's going to happen, I suspect, is that we'll have to work closely with the county. I do not see us going out there and doing a mandatory sewer hookup program without coordinating closely with your staff, with this Board, as well as with the residents. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We have another speaker? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Are you finished speaking, Mr. Moss? MR. MOSS: If you're calling for Mr. Arceri, he had to go. Chairman Mike Minozzi of the Marco Island City Council is here and would like to say a couple of words. And again, on behalf of my staff and City Council I would like to thank you for six years of support to help us reach this. Your decision is critical to us. In fact, within moments of your decision a lot of things will get set in motion, because that is the last major decision that needs to be made. The interest rates on these -- on $102 million bond issue will be set in two days. And the closing -- final closing will occur in three weeks. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. MINOZZI: Good morning -- it started out good morning. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Just to add on to what Mr. Moss had said, it has been a very arduous, long, I think six plus years on three -- and this is taking over the water company. On three occasions in those past six years, we came within a hair of closing, only to just watch it just fade away Page 153 October 14, 2003 before our eyes. And one of them, which I know that you're aware because the county helped us out tremendously, where we had two little tiny cities way, way up in the opposite end of the Panhandle, so far away from us that they were actually in a different time zone, taking over this water company. I mean, this would have been totally, totally disastrous, not only for the City of Marco Island but all the other cities that are involved. Because we had a situation where they were totally overpaying, and we did very careful due diligence and we knew that the money they were paying could not begin to afford this system. And along with that, we had a situation where there were no PFC controls. I know, I do that all the time. You kicked the phone off the receiver there? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No,' it was a gavel. MR. MINOZZI: In any event, so we had a situation where we knew they totally overpaid. We knew that there was no controls whatsoever, because it was now a municipality that was going to be running the system, and our water rates would have just absolutely skyrocketed. So with the thanks -- with the help of the county, we certainly, you know, thank you for actually having that deal fall apart. When it did fall apart, we were back to ground zero. Not only were we back to ground zero, but the water company was angry with everybody. And I've got to say, with the persistence of-- the one who took the leadership role was our manager, Bill Moss. Not only for Marco Island, but I think there are many, many cities in the State of Florida that owe a debt of gratitude to Bill Moss. He did a tremendous amount of work. He was able to pull this coalition back together and bring us to this point. And this vote that we're hoping will be positive this afternoon is really the last hurdle. And as Bill has mentioned, as we speak, there's $103 million worth of indications of interest being taken on Page 154 October 14, 2003 the bonds. They will be priced out on Thursday, and at this point we got permission from the -- from Florida Water Services to close independently of any of the other cities. Originally it was supposed to be a closing all at one time, which certainly is not practical. So at this point, having gone through this last hurdle today, we will then be a position -- we're not quite celebrating. Once we get the bond issue and we expect it will be -- by Thursday it will be all taken up. Once we sign on the dotted line and give the check over, then we'll start our celebration. But in the meantime, there was a lot of help that we did get from Collier County, and we certainly do appreciate that, on behalf of the people of Marco Island. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Next item is 10(B) to approve a development agreement with Collier County Land -- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, do you want to finish up 9, or do you want to keep going on 107 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, we've got 9? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, you haven't got there yet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Page 155 October 14, 2003 MS. FILSON: That would be me. Item #9A RESOLUTION 2003-357 APPOINTING ELSA MARIA HERNANDEZ TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD- ADOPTFJD MR. MUDD: First item is to -- the appointment of a member to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board. That's 9(A). CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion that we approve Lisa Hernandez to the Board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. Item #9B RESOLUTION 2003-358 APPOINTING STANLEY E. FARNHAM (TERM EXPIRES 2/4/06), SYDNEY E. BLUM (TERM EXPIRES 2/4/05), AND CELIA M. FELLOWS (TERM EXPIRES 2/4/05) TO THF, COl INTY GOVFRNMF, NT PRODI ICTIVITY COMMITTF, E. Page 156 October 14, 2003 Next item is appoint a member to the productivity committee. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, if I may interject, I advertised for vacancies on this committee, and during my advertisement I had another resignation, and the three applicants I got all tied for first place, although they made the recommendations after I did the executive summary. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I nominate all three of them. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item # 10C RESOLUTION 2003-359 CONFIRMING SCHOOL BOARD'S APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISION: AMY TAYLOR (4 YEAR TERM EXPIRING ON 10/1/07 - ADOPTED Confirm a member representing the Collier County School Board and determine a member as voting as a non-voting member of the Collier County Planning Commission. Your time's up. MS. FILSON: In this issue, the school board is appointing Amy Page 157 October 14, 2003 Taylor as their representative. And the Board's decision will be whether she is a voting member or a non-voting member, and to confirm her appointment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if you're going to do a voting member, make it be -- if you consider that, if you consider her to be a voting member in any respect, that it only be a voting member when it has to do with school planning issues. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Which most of the things on the planning commission are school planning issues. They're land use issues. MR. MUDD: Well, this is your planning commission, the one that you have standing up that listens to all your land use items before it comes to you as -- in your capacity as the zoning board. Amy Taylor, based on the interlocal agreement, and by direction from the Florida legislature, says that a school board representative -- and in this particular case, that's Amy Taylor, their planner -- will sit on the planning commission in some aspect. You can either have her sit in your planning commission as a non-voting member, and she will sit and give comment about school board -- school building issues, zoning issues, or she can sit on that commission and be a full voting member, or you can withhold her voting on other rezoning issues in Collier County and only have her vote on those issues that pertain to schools and school zoning issues. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, what I remember the statute saying is for the school board to have a member on there to give their input on issues that affect the school and school -- I mean, land use items, a PUD, however big, might affect the school board, you know, school sitings or whatever. Am I -- Marjorie, would you help us out? MS. STUDENT: Yes, I will. Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. And the statute has a provision in it, not to rehash this, to have a Page 158 October 14, 2003 school district representative on the planning commission to be present and comment where their Comp. Plan amendments are considered or rezones are considered that would increase residential densities. And it's up to the Board of County Commissioners to determine whether or not that member is a Voting member. It would be the County Attorney Office position that the statute limits what they vote on, and it would be limited to those items that I referenced, Comp. Plan amendments and rezonings that increase residential density. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question here. Is it the objective really to assure that there is communication and information flow? MS. STUDENT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that we can make unified decisions? I really don't see a school board member sitting as a voting member of their planning advisory commission. If there -- they can exchange ideas and exchange information in a non-voting capacity. If there is any conflict, I think that's an issue that should be brought to us and let us revolve it. And it should not be done at the Planning Commission level. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. MS. STUDENT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I would make a motion that Amy Taylor be appointed as a non-voting member of the Collier County Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 159 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #9E RESOLUTION 2003-360 REAPPOINTING WILLIAM J. TYSON AND WILLIAM J. DEMPSEY (TERMS EXPIRING 10/1/06) AND APPOINTING ADAM BROOKS (TERM EXPIRING ON 10/1/06 TO THE HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD- ADOPTF, D Next item is 9(E), appoint members to the Historical Archeological Preservation Board. Commissioners, one thing that we might want to consider, we've got, let's see, six members, three seats. It's been suggested that we take each and every one of them one by one and vote on each one of them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to nominate Bill Tyson then to be reappointed. MS. FILSON: And if Mr. Tyson is reappointed, Section 7(B) of Ordinance 2000-155 will have to be waived. He has served two terms. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that part of your motion, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it is, thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, Page 160 October 14, 2003 second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would nominate Mr. Dempsey for reappointment and also with section -- he be waived. MS. FILSON: He doesn't have to be waived, he's only served one term. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He doesn't have to be waived, okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I will second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- by Commissioner Halas. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Brooks as a new appointment. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. I'd like to nominate Adam Page 161 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #9F RESOLUTION 2003-361 CONFIRMING REGINALD A. BUXTON, II (TERM EXPIRES 11/5/05) TO THE COLLIER COl JNTY CITIZF, NS CORPS- ADOPTF, D Next item is 9(F), confirmation of members to the Collier County Citizens Corporation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nominate Mr. Buxton. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is written out different. Okay, I got it. MS. FILSON: Yeah, he's the representative and they supplied his name. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. Page 162 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER.COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #9G RESOLUTION 2003-362 REAPPOINTING LINDA HARTMAN (TERM EXPIRES 10/13/07) AND CHARLES P: VANGELDER, II (TERM EXPIRES 10/13/07) TO THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES I,AND TRI IRT COMMITTEE- ADOPTED Appoint members to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I'd like to nominate both people there. I got the wrong page -- MS. FILSON: And again -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Which would be Mrs. -- excuse me, Linda Hartman and Charles Gelder, III (sic) -- II, rather. MS. FILSON: If Mr. VanGelter is appointed, you'll need to waive Section 7(B). COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wish to waive that section. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Henning. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 163 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #9H RESOLUTION 2003-363 APPOINTING GARY D. HOLLOWAY (TERM EXPIRES 4/4/07) TO THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE IMMOKALEE CRA ADVISORY BOARD- ADOPTF, D Appoint members to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency and the Immokalee CRA committee. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I'd like to make a motion to appoint Gary Holloway. And I'd like to also mention, this is a young man that's coming up far. He's committed to his community. Only 25 years old, and he is involved in everything in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Page 164 October 14, 2003 Item # 1 OB APPROVE DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER LAND DEVELOPMENT 1NC., FOR PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FUTURE LELY CANAL STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND OTHER STORM WATF, R PROJF, CTS- APPROVF, D Now we are going to 10(B). MR. MUDD: To approve developer agreement with Collier Land Development, Inc. for appropriate fair share of costs associated with the future Lely Canal Stormwater Improvement Project and other stormwater projects. And Mr. Wiley will present, the director of stormwater. CHAIRMAN HENNING: MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does staff agree with this one? Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, for the record, I just want to let you know if you had to itemize that, depending on who does the assessment of-- and how you compute the benefit to the taxpayers of Collier County, this agreement basically goes anywhere from $3.3 million to $1.7 million as a savings. And it's in that range. It depends on who's doing the calculation and exactly what the appraised values that they are using. But we did some stubby pencil work in order to get that done. Another issue that needs to be brought to the record, if for any reason the Collier Land Development, Inc. doesn't do what they say they're going to do, we have free reign to go out there and get access to the particular property in order to get that done. So I think it fares well for the citizens of Collier County with this agreement. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning, Page 165 October 14, 2003 second by Commissioner Coyle. Discussion? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would just like to add that staff deserves a lot of credit for this. This is going to help dramatically with the Lely drainage stormwater issue, as I understand it. And the fact that the staff has been able to negotiate these transfers of property and/or purchases of property at reduced prices is really a great service to the taxpayers. And you're to be commended for it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: With this added stormwater management, how does this blend in for the whole picture out there in Lely? And does -- will it meet the criteria that is going to be set forward to us -- sent forward to us for meeting the 2007 goals? MR. WILEY: What you have before you -- Robert Wiley, with Collier County Stormwater Management. What you have before you today is the agreement that provides for easements for about half of the outfalls. The other half you already have obtained them when you did your development approval for Wentworth Estates PUD. So those are all three outfalls for the entire Lely area now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, do you have anything? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'm just so happy that we're finally getting to this and I'm delighted that the Collier people are moving forward with this. And of course, stormwater management has been a great concern not only to myself but to East Naples Civic Association and the residents who are getting flooded so regularly. And to stormwater management, Robert Wiley has been wringing his hands for years trying to figure out how he's going to get the money to buy this. Now we're in place and we're moving forward. And I'm just -- I just see that this is a great step forward in Page 166 October 14, 2003 our history. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) Thank you. Seeing none, all in favor of the CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #1 lA FACT FINDING ON MERGING FIRE DISTRICTS OF EAST NAPI,ES, TSI,ES OF CAPRI, AND OCHOPEE - DISCIISSED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 10(D), it's report to the board regarding the management of country contracts, presented by Steve Carnell, the Director of the Purchasing Department. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We got some -- can we go to public comments now? I mean, we've got some fire chiefs and firefighters that would like to state some things on the record. Anybody opposed to that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. MS. FILSON: I have two public comment registered speakers, Mr. Chairman. Bob Schank. He will be followed by Dan Summers. MR. SCHANK: Wow, thank you so much. Good afternoon, Commissioners, Bob Schank, Fire Chief, East Naples Fire Page 167 October 14, 2003 Department. Approximately about six months ago my staff met with some of the members, actually, the Chief of the Ochopee Fire District, along with two of the chiefs of Isles of Capri, basically to talk about some issues we could have to better improve our services, being that we all work so close together. And many items were kicked around and some we already have completed and working on. But most important, one of the issues that did come up for a lengthy discussion was to consider the concept of a merge between the three districts. And I have met since that time with Chief Rodriguez on several occasions to see if there's any feasibility into this, and we all decided before we go any' further with this that we need to bring it to the Board and bring it open and hopefully get your support and your -- and any concerns you may have to see if this is even something we should go forward with. This does affect the residents of Donna -- Commissioner Fiala's district, as well as Commissioner Coletta. But more than that, we have Commissioner Henning now who's playing a vital part of our steering committee and working with the special districts on behalf of the Board, and we have him to work with us now and hopefully he can join us, along with the county administrator's staff, to see if this is a -- once again a feasible thing to do. I've asked the two chiefs to come as a show of support that this just isn't my idea, this is something we're working on, and hopefully we'll get your blessings on it and if we can go forward with it, we'll do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, question. This would include Isle of Capri and Ochopee, is that what it is? MR. SCHANK: Isles of Capri, Ochopee and East Naples. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about -- and Everglades Page 168 October 14, 2003 City would still be isolated from all this, from any consideration? MR. SCHANK: I understand they -- if I understand that right -- I need to learn a little bit more about that area, but I believe they contract with Ochopee Fire District so they would be included in it also. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, you'd be holding community meetings on this to be able to get to the public? I'm all for looking at every possibility we can find to do a better job for our taxpayers out there. MR. SCHANK: That's what we're trying to do. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let them evaluate it. So, you know, put the show on the road, see what happens. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to have a road show? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure, why not? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, do you have any input on this item? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just think that it's great that these -- the fire departments are communicating with one another and finding a way to work together. And it seems as one unit. And that's going to be great as we move forward. But I'm so glad that they're doing it amongst one another rather than striking out separately. Great job, Chief Schank. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Summers, do you want to give us-- I guess what we're-- I think everybody's in favor of giving the blessing to, I guess, do a fact-finding mission, flushing out and seeing if it's possible. MR. SCHANK: It's very imPortant. All we want to do at this point is look at the feasibility of this. This is nothing in concrete. We do have some issues with the Ochopee area because of the millage differences, but I think we can work through that with county staff's help. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Mr. Summers, do you have Page 169 October 14, 2003 anything? MR. SUMMERS: Thank you. Dan Summers, Director of Emergency Management. I just wanted to mention to you that critical in this discussion of any feasibility of merger or consolidation between the departments is the partnership that Emergency Management has with the fire service. Critical to the EOC, critical to major emergency operations is the disaster planning and programming. And I wanted to make sure that you were aware that if you see fit, I will volunteer to be part of that process to make sure that we look at it programmatically, so we look at it -- look at the big picture in terms of strategy during major emergency operations. Again, continuing to stress the word feasibility and the fact that we need that partnership. I use the two dependent departments as the conduit for emergency management programming in and out in our major emergency response. And I can't function without these departments and the resources, along with others, but primarily these departments that work with us during major emergencies. Remember, in our comprehensive emergency management plan we committed to an integrated emergency management approach. So maintaining that partnership, I wanted to stress to you, is mission critical for me and the EOC to be successful. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. I think that's great for our emergency management director, or is it administrator? MR. MUDD: He's director. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Director to flush out this issue and bring it back to the Board and East Naples Fire Commissioner. And we have two advisory boards, correct, for the dependent? You know, everybody needs to be involved. And of course Commissioner Coletta's Everglades City. Agree with that? Okay. MR. MUDD: Commissioner-- Mr. Chairman, I would suggest Page 170 October 14, 2003 that they start with those advisory boards, okay, and make sure that they don't mix. Because you don't want anybody saying, well, they bypassed us. They are your advisory boards on those dependent districts and they need to talk to those folks first. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Don't have a problem with that? MR. SCHANK: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great. Thank you. MR. SCHANK: Thank you. Item # 1 OD REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF COl INTY CONTRACTS - PRESENTED AND DISCIISSED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Carnell, I'm -- kind of slid you. We're back on 10(D). Report to the Board regarding management contracts -- county contracts. MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir, worth waiting for. Thank you very much. Steve Carnell, purchasing general services director. I appreciate your time. I just want to take a few minutes this afternoon and walk you through some information that we have regarding our contracting process. And if I could, just a little help here briefly. Thank you. You'll see we have on the screen for you a brief presentation. What I'd like to do is tell you a little bit about what we've been trying to accomplish, what we're seeking to achieve through our contracting process and through some innovations and changes, enhancements we've been making to the process, really starting back about two to three years ago, and what we're actually doing to make that happen, what we've accomplished to date and what we're planning to do in the future. I begin by -- if I could begin by just focusing on, again, kind of Page 171 October 14, 2003 the big picture and what we're trying to achieve in a general way. I have for you four different values, if you will, that we try to focus in on in contracting: accountability, effectiveness, efficiency, and timeliness. When I speak of accountability, of course I'm talking about making sure that our contracts are proper, legal, fiscally responsible and that we document that the actions that go with our contracts in support of them and administering and carrying them out, we document them in a thorough and transparent type of manner given -- that's especially important, given that we are a public agency. When we speak of effectiveness, we're talking about getting the bottom line, the job done. Did we accomplish what we set out to with regard to that project and the end result? Was the public served in the manner that we sought to? Are they served? Do they have something now, an improvement that's of value to them? Efficiency -- and that's for just for you engineers in the audience -- that's outputs to inputs. That's really the amount of effort that goes into get that deliverable and being sure that we are intelligent and good stewards of our time and resources in administering and delivering projects. And then the final consideration here or value, if you will, is timeliness. Do we get it on time, do we deliver the project, the improvement, the services, at the time that it's needed by the public? Now, accountability obviously is extremely important, and there's been some previous discussion about that. We must be legal, we must be proper, we must be physically prudent -- fiscally prudent in what we do. But we have to hit these other things too. We have to be effective, we have to be efficient and we have to be timely. And that's particularly true for this Board and those of you who work for this Board in terms of being able to hit all four of those criteria if we're to deliver full and complete service to the public. So when we go through and we look at our processes, and we Page 172 October 14, 2003 look at our actions, we've got to be sure that we're hitting the mark in all four areas. Now, today we have a few things on record that have taken place that have started the process of enhancing our current contract administration. This Board, for the past really two and a half years, has been on record in its strategic plan as having listed contract administration as a -- among its top five priorities for improvement within county government operations. Shortly after the Board adopted that, and that was in March of 2001, a task force of staff was appointed that was put together to look at some initial opportunities for improving our system, and that group met and worked from March to August and did some review of some different programs and other agencies and came up with some general ideas to begin with, which included starting a project management training program, increasing the use of alternative methods for delivering projects and contracting for projects, and then coming up with a little more centralized method of tracking contract activity and changes to contracts. And as you'll see here shortly, some of those things are in place and others are in process of being developed and put into place. More recently, this past March we formulated a steering committee for contract administration -- or I think executive oversight group which includes directors, administrators from within the County Manager agency, as well as participation from the Clerk of Courts agency. Jim Mitchell sits on this executive committee that meets periodically to review different issues regarding our contracting process and overseeing some of the enhancements and improvements that we've made to the system, which I'll tell you about in more detail in just a moment. So those are some of the initial broad initiatives that we have identified and that we are bringing into place. What this has brought about to date have been some specific and Page 173 October 14, 2003 significant changes to our system. Among these include the development of a new construction management at risk agreement. If you'll remember a moment ago, I mentioned the use of alternative delivery methods. The most common method of contracting that we use in county government and that most local governments use is the sealed bidding process where, in the context of construction, we will hire an engineer who will design a project or improvement for us and then we will take those plans and specifications that come from the engineer and put them out for formal competitive bid, with award to the lowest qualified and responsive bidder. That method works very well for many types of projects. There are some projects where, due to the complexities and due to the nature of them it is helpful to look at alternatives. And the construction management at risk is an alternative tool. And in the construction management at risk approach, we hire a construction manager through a qualifications process first. And then that individual works with a design professional, similar to the sealed bid process. The design professional has been hired apart from that to be our representative. The design professional designs the improvement. But the construction manager is involved in the process before it ever goes to bid and has input into the constructibility of the plans and the specifications and gives input into improving that process. That is perhaps our most significant method of value engineering that we use to improve our projects. And we have used that process in the last 10 years about 10 to 12 times, and we anticipate using it with a little more frequency in the future. It's been very successful by and large from a performance standpoint. The most notable project was our recent major central library construction up on North Airport Road. There were issues with that contract, but there were not issues with the project itself. I think the Page 174 October 14, 2003 public by and large has been extremely pleased with that facility and I think it's going to serve the citizens of this county for many years to come in a high-- highly level effective way. In addition to the CM at risk process, we have also updated our direct purchase procedures. That's the method for being able to make purchases of materials and equipment directly from suppliers to legitimately avoid having to pay State of Florida sales tax. That gives us the opportunity to save six percent on large portions of our contract. And we have updated that method so that we can capture those savings appropriately within each project. We've also done something with contract retainage. And again, this applies primarily to construction agreements. We have for many, many years, as have many other governments, in our construction agreements we have a practice of retaining a portion of the payable funds. Typically pay requests are paid on a monthly basis to contractors, and each month the contractor will submit a pay request, and assuming that all items in the pay request are deemed acceptable and having properly delivered and received, we will sign off on that pay request and we will withhold, however, 10 percent on that payable amount. And our practice -- historical practice has been to withhold that 10 percent each month, repeat that cycle each month, put aside 10 percent, hold it back, if you will, and then that money is released at the very end of the project when everything is complete. Now, what we've gone to in recent months -- and this is a practice that many other local governments and state government, State of Florida uses this practice as well -- is to use that, initiate that retainage process at the beginning of a contract period. But we've now given our project managers the discretion to adjust the level of retainage as the project progresses. So, in other words, we begin by holding 10 percent. When we get past the 50 percent point of the project, if things are going well, if the contractor is schedule, Page 175 October 14, 2003 performing effectively, and we don't have any significant outstanding issues, we've given our project managers the discretion to reduce the level of retainage withheld in the second half of the project delivery. So they can go from 10 percent to five percent, to three, to seven, to any amount less than 10 that they deem appropriate. And they do that through -- there is a formal process that we have instituted to notify the contractors of the change. Now, why do this? We do this to incent contractors to perform. And we do this to reward people who have their act together and who are delivering their work to us monthly. We believe that the incenting of contractors helps us in the long run in terms of retaining their business and their interest in bidding on our work. We also think it has some reduction of cost in our projects. Because if we are holding back less of their money, that's less money they have to float in terms of payroll and expense and costs they have. So we think some of that comes back to us sometimes in terms of price savings in our contracts. But that's a tool that we implemented in May, with your blessing, and it is now in place and working with Jim's staff very closely to implement that and be sure that we put those changes into place in a manner that's consistent with your policy and with good contract practices, and I think we're achieving quite a bit of success with that as we go. One other enhancement that we have done in a big picture kind of way, and we had some mention of this a few weeks ago when I spoke to the Board. And you may have seen the article in yesterday's Naples Daily News regarding our vendor performance evaluation system. I wanted to just take a moment and tell you a little bit more about that. The primary objectives, again, of that system are to incorporate past performance data into future award considerations, so that when we're awarding contracts in the future we have some sense of how Page 176 October 14, 2003 you, Mr. or Ms. Contractor, have performed for Collier County previously. In the instance where you have done a good job, this affords us an opportunity to recognize and consider that. If you were in a situation where you haven't performed as well, it gives us the opportunity to provide you feedback and hopefully see your performance improve. Some of the factors, or the factors that we use in each and every evaluation include the quality of work, the adherence to schedule, how timely they are in delivering their work, cost control, business practices within that firm as we do business.with them, how do they deal with issues that arise on the contract project site and during the delivery period, how effectively and clearly do they prepare their invoices and their pay requests, and then performance of key personnel representing the contracting firm and how professional and effective they are in dealing with us. We evaluate all those things and then we provide that feedback to the contractor after the project is completed. Now, if we can take -- the other part of the focus that we want to take today and look at today very closely in our presentation is really the area of contract changes. I mentioned some of these other changes to the bigger contracting process, but we've also implemented some changes in -- as they pertain to contract changes and amendments to contracts. Our current work policy first, just to refresh everyone's memory, is that all changes to contracts that exceed 10 percent of the Board approved amount or $10,000, whichever those two -- whichever is greater, are approved by this Board. Anything that falls below either of those limits are approved by administrators or directors. That's our current policy. Now, we've done two significant initiatives that pertain to change orders that are in place now. One is, about a year ago this time we instituted a central -- or a centralized, I'll call it, contract Page 177 October 14, 2003 modification review process where we put together some instructions and a form that we ask each of our project managers to fill out every time they wish to initiate a change order. And that is regardless of the scope or size of the dollar amount of the change order. And those contract modification forms are prepared and they are processed through the system with the change orders, and the appropriate approving party will see those modifications forms prior to approval or action on a change order. So in the case of change orders that come to this Board, you'll see that in your backup material, the contract modification form. Simply put, that modification form is a one-page summary of the key issues pertaining to the contract, and I'll elaborate just a little more on that in just a moment. The other aspect of our contract processing that has changed is that we have commenced reporting of what our -- what we call administrative change orders. If you remember what I said a moment ago about our policy, change orders in excess of 10 percent come to this Board, those that are less than 10 percent are approved by either a director or administrator. The ones that are approved by directors or administrators, the action takes place at the staff level, but there is a reporting of all of those to this Board each and every month. And we commenced that process back in April with your blessing. And with regard to the contract modification process, just to elaborate a little further on that, the project manager will evaluate, document the purpose and the need for the change. The purchasing staff, my department, is now centrally involved in reviewing each of these. That was not the practice prior to a year ago. We are now reviewing all changes to contracts. And then the administrator or director will approve each change. These of course will be the administrative changes. And then the Board of County Commissioners, in the case of changes that exceed 10 percent, the Board will approve. Changes that Page 178 October 14, 2003 are less than 10 percent, the Board will ratify them monthly through the reporting process. What kinds of things are we looking at in the contract review process? We look at the hard and soft costs associated with the change. We look at the benefits and the impacts of that change. We also look to see that the change that's proposed is consistent with the existing scope and pricing of the contract. And we also verify that this constitutes a true addition of work or a true deletion of work to the contract and that we are not paying twice for something or not paying in any way for repetitive work. Ultimately there's an overall appropriateness of the change that that project manager is required to certify on behalf of this agency. And that certification then is passed up the line to the approver, whether it be the division administrator, the department director or ultimately this board. I wanted to just briefly talk about why contracts change and why these things -- these changes occur in the first place. Because there really are a number of different factors. I don't have to tell the five of you that this is a dynamic community. I don't have to tell you that life changes in a short amount of time. If you sat here today, October 14th, 2003, and I asked you to think back one year in time, October 14th, 2002, and I asked you, what was your life like then versus what it is like today, if you thought about it carefully, you could probably think of a number of things that changed in the last 12 months; whether it be with your family, your friends, your business, whatever you might be involved in in your life. And contracting is no different than that. We contract in an environment where things change and alter around us all the time. Some of the typical types of changes that we see to projects include what we'll call internal changes to the project scope, where we may change -- for example, if we're building a building, we may Page 179 October 14, 2003 change the exact composition of the occupants. That is a very common type experience. We may start out, for example, with the intent of constructing a public safety facility that will be shared by, say, EMS, the Emergency Medical Services Department, and the Sheriff's Department. Well, we get into the early stages of the design or maybe we get toward the end of the design and perhaps a fire district asks for permission to participate in the project, to have space in the facility. Now, we can take the hard line of well, gee, we're already past our window of design and we don't want to make -- we're in a zero tolerance for change orders so we're not going to allow you to come into the facility. But more often than not, that's not a good business or a good public service type decision. More often than not, the public as a whole benefits from a change like that, from modifying, if you will, the design to accompany another participating entity into a building or facility. And so naturally we're going to work very cooperatively with other agencies to try to bring them into the process and to hopefully eliminate some redundant costs for the taxpayer as a whole if we can share facilities. So that's one example of how facilities will change, changes in occupants that occur. Then we have external changes to the project scope. And when I say external I'm kind of going outside the realm of the public sector. This is a very common occurrence with your transportation, your road building program. And the five of you especially, I think the public as a whole needs to understand the position that you are in, this particular Board is in. I've worked for this agency for 18 years. The first 14, 15 years I was here, we probably built five, 10, 15 new roads, in terms of out and out new construction of a new facility, of new roadway. You have a roadway, a very aggressive road building program now that calls for a whole lot more activity than that. So naturally, as you go and we proceed with this work and we implement it and construct it, Page 180 October 14, 2003 we are touching more points of the community than ever before in our road construction. And a very common occurrence with road construction, with the rate of growth and development taking place around us, is that we have private developments coming on line as we bring these roads into existence. And a number of these private developments aren't on the drawing board in some cases or are barely off the drawing board at the point that we're designing the road. We go to construction and lo and behold, developer A or developer B is ready for access to -- with adjacent property adjunct to what we are six laning or four laning or improving. So we have to -- again, the smart, logical business, most efficient, economical way to give that developer access is to alter the contract in many instances and to make changes to the design, changes to the construction in order to bring them into the process. Now, there's no free lunch here. The developer pays for that improvement as a developer contribution agreement approved and accepted by this Board. But what you'll see in the change order side is you'll see a substantial change order sometimes to add intersection or lane or turn lane access improvements to bring that development into the larger arterial road that we are constructing. So those are some of the examples that we run into. With regard to internal and external changes, we also have very common, unforeseen site conditions above and below ground. A very common issue is that we go out, we build something, we have a drawing and a scope of what's under the ground, we dig it up, it's not what was drawn on the plans at all. Now, there is a long-term solution. Your graphical interface system, your GIS system, is going to address that, and hopefully some day we'll have a much better data base that will eradicate some of these issues, but for now that's going to be happening in many, many instances, where we go underground, we're going to hit some surprises and we're going to have to adjust our contracts to reflect that as we go. And there's just no way to Page 181 October 14, 2003 avoid that in many instances. Finally, last couple of categories here that I wanted to highlight. We often have changes in our product or quantity estimates in our contract. We'll go out and our engineers will do their best job to estimate how many materials are needed to cover a physical area, to make a physical construction of an improvement, but it's not a perfect science and we're going to have to adjust quantities from time to time, sometimes in substantial amounts. So these are some of the things that bring about changes to contracts. And it's something that we have to recognize that's just part of the process. Now, that said, we will continue to make improvements to our system, we will continue to try to improve our reporting methodology to this Board so that this Board is kept fully informed of what we're doing with regard to contract changes. And we will continue to train our project managers better so that we can try to do our best to anticipate these things and minimize the need for changes wherever possible. Finally, just kind of back to the big picture. We have some bigger and larger initiatives that we are pursuing in the coming months. Right now we are working on updating our selection committee procedures to make them a little bit more comprehensive and to try to address some of the issues of being able to identify issues of vendors up front as we make selections in our RFP process. We're also going to be updating in the future months our standard construction and design agreements. These agreements, by the way, these are the base language of agreements that we had that we use every time we award a sealed bid or we hire a consultant. And these agreements, for the most part, have served us very well. They're very protective of the county's interest and they've protected us in many instances, either prevented us from going to court or served us well in court. So we're going to continue to improve those Page 182 October 14, 2003 and make them stronger. And as I alluded to a moment ago, we are in the process of developing an agency-wide project manager training program. Right now all of these things I've described are things that we're doing with existing resources and I'm at a point in my department where I've redirected people from task A to task B to try to address some of these more intense areas of focus right now, particularly change order management. So in order to move forward in the future you may see some requests in the FY '05 budget to look for additional resources to enhance our process, and of course we'll come back to you at that time and give you a more full explanation of that. But that's the gist of where we are at this point in the process. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question by -- MR. CARNELL: Please. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- the Board members? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. We have a representative from the Clerk of Court's office, Jim Mitchell. Jim, does this tie in with what you're -- how you want staff to interface with the Clerk of the Courts in regards to all these change orders and so on? MR. MITCHELL: The only thing that I can say, Commissioner, is Steve Carnell and his staff have done a great job in keeping us involved in the loop and coming up with these initiatives that they've created. I think that we can say that we have come a long way in a very short time. I think we have a few more steps to make but I think that Steve as his group have identified those areas and are working toward those successes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, Steve, this has been, like you pointed out, a pet project of the Board of Commissioners for quite a number of years, and I think Commissioner Coyle was the Page 183 October 14, 2003 one who initiated the discussion process. You know, they always need to change and I commend you and Jim Mudd for being very pro-active on this. Some things on the agenda for the change orders that we have today. You know, I have concems about a couple of them. County Manager is aware of my concerns and we're going to work through those. But I like the system, as we are moving forward, the changes that you have made to bring the Board more aware of what's going on in the day-to-day business. And the power point presentation was great. I know one organization that we would probably really benefit from seeing what the Board has been doing and the staff, and, you know, with the permission of the County Manager I would hope that we can offer that up to -- for their review. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's a wonderful idea. The only thing I would suggest that you do since -- we're familiar with a lot these terms and these processes. The average layperson is not. And I think it would be really good if you were to take a couple of examples and go through the process and show how you have effectively managed those contracts and how these particular modifications that you have made have benefitted the taxpayers. And I think Commissioner Henning's idea is an excellent idea because I have heard just recently probably one of the most uninformed and biased characterizations of our contracting procedures that I have ever heard. And it essentially means that people just don't know and they assume the worst. And I think it would be a great idea to try to help those people understand what really is happening, and that way maybe they will be less inclined to conjure up these horror stories that they seem to like to throw around. And I just think it would be a great idea if you were to do that. Page 184 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree with you wholeheartedly, Commissioner Coyle. CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, Jim Mudd, do you want to give us a short overview of the -- I think it's the "Weiss" phonetic) system or the "Bernie" system. And I think that we need to come to a consensus on where the buck stops on this. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what-- first of all this has been a three years' journey for us, okay, and it started in -- around 2000 but really started to kick off in February 2001 with your strategic guidance for the plan for 2002. And you will go back and you'll notice that contract management was one of your prime items that you wanted to take a look at because Collier County was going into a new dimension. It was going into increased construction and with that you needed to have some good contracting methodologies. And what Steve basically described to you was, you know, first 14 years of his 18, okay, you built five to ten roads, okay. That's about -- well, if it was five roads that means you were building a little less than one road every three years and if it was ten roads then you were building something -- about every 18 months you were putting a new road on line. Well, you're doing seven or eight now a year and it's significantly different. And Steve's staff hasn't grown by leaps and bounds in order to do that nor has the clerk's staff, as far as contract management is concerned. And I think what you're getting and you're hearing from Steve, and you hear a little bit from the clerk -- and the clerk has taken some action in order to increase his particular staffing in order to start covering some of those things to help us out. But Steve is going to have to take some -- some -- he's going to have to do some help in '05 in order to, as we proceed forward, to get more eyes on those contracts and manage them. Page 185 October 14, 2003 Let me give you a for instance. In the district that I was in we had about a $168 million annual budget. We had over a dozen, close to 21, contracting people and that's all they did were contracts. That's all they watched. And your budget, your capital improvement budget is three to four times that, at least three times that, and I think it's significantly less as far as staff is concerned watching that. I think we need to be prudent in the future to make sure that we do have the staff levels in order to manage that. One of the things that we're missing, and we had at one time and it kind of fell to the wayside, was a way to grade the contractors for the work that they did. In the present environment if you have a contractor who does a poor job, if that project manager or that director is no longer in the service of Collier County and they are not on the selection committee for that particular contract that this contractor did a lousy job in the past has bid for, we have no way to come back and say, "Well, do you remember, do you remember that one and the project they did on the north water plant and how they botched it? Do we really want that person to come in here again and do that to us?" It took us five years -- sometimes you lose that, that historical flow of information. And having a grading system that isn't so cumbersome for the employees to grade and is fair to and is objective -- has objective standards, not necessarily so subjective that you can, you can get into an argument no matter what you put down on that piece of paper, and have some particular items that you're grading against like a check sheet, I think you'd have a way to institutionalize that historical memory of the county staff for future selection processes. And you also dissuade people that do a poor job from bidding again and you incentivise with a good grade those people that did a great job for you to bid on future projects. We need to reinstitute that process, and I basically told the employees that I would back them as far as their gradings are Page 186 October 14, 2003 concerned. I didn't say that I wouldn't ask them questions about their grading and how they came up with them in order to put them on there, but I would back them on their grading sheets and I would give them the opportunity. And if their analysis and their grade of a particular contractor for his or her job is, is a good one, I'll go to the carpet with them. Because that's the only way we're going to get some control as far as the contractors are concerned to make sure they are giving us what they told us they were bidding on as far as a product is concerned, and that they don't take any short cuts. Now this grade system should be one that happens someplace about a quarter of the way through the project so that you get an in-process review, and you sit there with the contractor or the designer and you tell them about how you feel about the product. And then you go half way through the project and you let them -- you talk to them about the process and you grade them about three quarters of the way through, and then you get a final grading. So if somebody is going -- deep sixing it, it won't be a broadside or it won't be an enlightenment at the end that they were doing a poor job. They will have a series of times where there has been conversations and grade sheets have been passed so that they understand where their shortcuts are and where they need to do better. Or if they are doing a great job you can tell them along the process what is really working well, and then you can worry about the minor things that could be going even better as far as that's concerned. So it's a way to move the process along and at the same time keep your corporate memory for future bids from particular vendors and contractors. And that's what we want and we're doing training right now on that new revised system, and they call it "Bernie" after Bernie Weiss (phonetic) who was the person on the productivity committee that had the idea in the first place many years ago. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The last Board meeting, the issue was, Commissioners, you're going to get a lot of complaints once we Page 187 October 14, 2003 implement this. MR. MUDD: If somebody gets a bad grade they will come to the Board of County Commissioners in droves because -- let's say it's a local firm and they do a poor job, okay'? Maybe this is one in a million or maybe this is a reoccurring thing, but it is the first time they had a grade. If they get a bad grade and they are a local firm and they depend upon Collier County government work and now they don't have a leg up because they are a local firm and they didn't do a good job and now they're something less than the other people that are bidding, yes, they are going to complain. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me just make an analysis and I think the Board needs to take action on it. This is -- this "Bernie" system and the evaluation is a part of the day-to-day operation of the county government. There's a County Manager's ordinance prohibits County Commissioners interfering with the day-to-day operation. That's how I see this system, and the buck stops at the County Manager. If the Board gets a complaint it needs to refer it back to the County Manager because he's in charge of the day-to-day operation of county government. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody have any disagreements with that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I might also add on that, if you get any calls from vendors refer them right to the County Manager's office because we've got no business dealing with them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Vendor complaints, or protests. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Vendor complaints, or even vendors making pitches for their product. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, yes. I always do that anyways. I agree. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. That's fine with me. Page 188 October 14, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Thank you. Item # 1 OF REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD APPROVED CONTRACTS- APPROVED Next item. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's 10(F). And that's a report: Ratify staff-approved change order and changes to'work orders to Board approved contracts. And again Mr. Carnell, the Director of Purchasing, will-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions by the Board members? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just, again, have a concern about one. We're going to deal with that -- MR. MUDD: We're going for-- and we're going for a ride, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yup. We might bring it back or whatever, but-- I like this process, Mr. Carnell. It's great, it gives us some more detailed information what's going on. It gives the public some more information what we're doing on these very small, minute change orders. And I see there's some good stuff in here too on these change orders, some positive things for the taxpayers of Collier County. MR. CARNELL: Mr. Chairman, if I could just say one thing. I appreciate that feedback. And I would like to thank, for the record, my staff and specifically Linda Jackson and Greer White, who work in our office, who have worked very hard with Jim's staff, Bonnie Zinn and Bonnie's folks, to develop this report and to coordinate the Page 189 October 14, 2003 information and to stay in step with one another. They have worked extremely hard, particularly in the last few weeks to hone this report. And in future months I think you're going to continue to see it improve further in terms of its level of information and clarity. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: Sir, I'm going to need a motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Henning. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-0, Commissioner Halas not in attendance. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public comment? Item #12A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WAIVE TRIAL COURT COSTS IN THE CASE OF VANDERBILT SHORES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC., ET AL, V. COLLIER COUNTY- APPROVED MR. MUDD: No, we already did that. Then we go to the County Attorneys' report, Number A, and that's a recommendation to Page 190 October 14, 2003 the Board of County Commissioners: Waive trial court costs in the amount of $1,433.31 in the case of Vanderbilt Shores Condominium Association Inc. et al, versus Collier County. Case number 01-5080-CA, now pending in the Second District Court of Appeals, otherwise known as the Bellagio Grande case. MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Mike Pettit, Chief Assistant County Attorney. I have brought this item forward. It arises because there was a question raised by the plaintiffs as to the propriety of the motion to recover cost here. I went back and researched it and found that there had been some discussion at the time this case concluded at the trial court level in which Mr. Tripp explained to this Board that we could not recover his attorney's fees but under Florida law the prevailing party typically recovers what are called taxable costs. Those are very narrow items that are set forth in the statutes that we can recover costs on. He has filed a motion for $1,433. He did that out of an abundance of caution when we realized that the plaintiffs were going to appeal this matter. There had been some discussion, as I understand it, about waiving those costs if they were not going to pursue an appeal. The reasons that we believe you could consider authorizing him to drop that motion at this point are set forth in the executive summary. I would emphasize that the Board didn't make a decision or give him specific direction at the time, contrary to what I think the plaintiffs believed. And I put the minutes attached there. But the reasons that we bring this forward are that, for one thing he'll have to come down and argue this. Our office is conflicted out. This is the case in which we were -- I was a witness and others in our office, I believe, could have been or were asserted to be witnesses. And so Mr. Tripp is handling this not with me as co-counsel. So he would cost money for the county to bring him down here from Fort Myers to argue it. Obviously some of the cost might be Page 191 October 14, 2003 disputed. And finally, this is a distinguishable issue from the case -- typical case we are dealing with where somebody seeks damages from the county. It's a group of neighborhood citizens. I think they are wrong. Mr. Tripp thinks they are wrong. The Court's already decided they were wrong. They've appealed, but the reality is they were simply seeking an interpretation of a county code where they simply disagreed with county staff as to how the code was to be interpreted. I think it's a distinguishable case from an entity seeking damages from the county, so you may want to take that into consideration and with this recommendation to waive. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Pettit, you're essentially saying that the cost to recover would probably equal the amount that we would recover if we were successful? MR. PETTIT: I can't say that they would equal. I think they would halve at least. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So it's hardly worth the effort, and I would agree. So I'll make a motion to accept your recommendation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second that. MR. PETTIT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion? It's pretty hard in this case, you know, what the taxpayers' benefit -- and I think Commissioner Coyle stated it. And then suing some of our residents -- but I hope this doesn't encourage others to sue the taxpayers of Collier County. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can always set up an MSTU after, to recover that money. MR. PETTIT: Like I said, I think we need to keep clear in our minds the distinction between a dispute over how a county code is Page 192 October 14, 2003 interpreted -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. MR. PETTIT: -- versus a claim for damages against the county. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion? All in favor the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #12B MOTION TO OPPOSE THE APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY DAVID W. RYNDERS AS AN INVESTIGATOR ON BEHALF OF THE COURT TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED UNLAWFUL ACTIONS AT THE COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT- APPROVED MR. MUDD: Brings us to 12(B). That's to inform the Board of the action taken by the County Attorney and staff regarding Friends of Gummi, Inc.'s petition in Collier Court for approval to appoint an investigator. Miss Jacqueline Robinson will represent. MS. ROBINSON: Thank you for introducing me. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Our office was informed that a petition had been filed by the Friends of Gummi and their attomey, David Rynders, for the appointment of an investigator pursuant to Florida Statute 828.03, Page 193 October 14, 2003 which is the prevention of cruelty to animals provision. And, although we weren't served with this petition, we were named-- we, being the county -- several times in the petition. And the petition is specifically to have Mr. David Rynders appointed as an investigator to investigate the conditions that have been alleged in the petition against our Domestic Animal Services Division -- department. When we received a copy of the petition our office decided that since it really is attacking the county, that we should take a defensive posture. And the posture that we've taken is that, first, the Court needs to decide if an investigator is merited. And, if it does, then it needs to decide who it will appoint. We are opposed -- and hopefully the Board of County Commissioners will agree with us -- that Mr. Rynders should not be appointed the investigator because Mr. Rynders has a number of matters pending either-- in the local courts against the county. The most important one of those matters is the fact that he represents a former employee of our Domestic Animal Services Department and he's indicated to the county that this person intends to sue the county and that he's representing that person. Frankly, there's a conflict of interest. And that is the position we have taken in our response to the Court. We filed a memorandum of law opposing his appointment on the basis of this conflict of interest. We also asked the Court for a hearing and on Friday we were informed that the Court will in fact have a hearing on this matter. So I'm presenting this to you today on behalf of our office for a number of reasons: One of them is that I think it's important that the Board of County Commissioners take a position in this matter, and then I would ask that you adopt a motion that you oppose the appointment of Mr. Rynders. Our office is not asking the Commission to oppose an investigation of the facility, but we are asking that you oppose his appointment. Page 194 October 14, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me get this straight, Ms. Robinson. A lawyer who is representing a plaintiff to sue the county wants us to appoint him as an investigator for the same facility that he has filed his complaint against; is that essentially correct? MS. ROBINSON: He's not asking that you appoint him. He's asking the county court to appoint. And what I'm requesting on behalf of our office is that you not approve his appointment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How can any lawyer, any lawyer, make this kind of proposal without violating the rules of the Florida Bar? MS. ROBINSON: Well, you know, I personally think, and it's expressed in my memo to the Court, that he is possibly violating certain ethical considerations that are set forth in the Florida statutes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MS. ROBINSON: And whether or not he's violating Florida Bar rules, I haven't researched that issue. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'd like to understand that, at least. But the -- I would be happy to make a motion that we oppose his appointment. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would be happy to second it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I think that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. I'm just flabbergasted that any practicing lawyer in Florida would even propose such a thing. But nevertheless, I believe that -- I hope that the county manager is already investigating the situation over there, and I'm sure he is. And -- but nevertheless, I presume that the Court has the right to appoint an investigator if they believe something needs to be investigated. Is that not -- MS. ROBINSON: It appears from the statute that the Court Page 195 October 14, 2003 does have the right. It also appears from the statute that the Board of County Commissioners can express their disapproval of a particular appointment. There is some ambiguity in the statute, and that's why we brought it to your attention. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we possibly inform the Court that we have an ongoing internal investigation and that we would like to present -- have the results of that -- or have that investigation finalized and have the results of it made public prior to -- MR. MUDD: We have done that investigation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: It's about two inches thick. That's what got everything -- it was basically this attorney's client and his -- and his friend, okay, who is also a former employee that quit. They made some charges. We investigated those particular circumstances. And the things that you saw in the press and have heard in the editorial page were results of that investigation. The results of that investigation was the suspension of Ms. Jody Walters. Okay? Mr. Dunnuck went into that particular area for over a two week period of time and developed a very detailed behavior action plan for Ms. Walters on her -- on her return, as far as actions that she needed to do within her organization for improvement, in order to get that done. There was another thing that hit the press, and that had to do with a newsletter that had some -- some comments about the Friends of Gummi in it, okay, that were unfortunate but were written by Ms. Walters prior to her behavioral action plan process that was going on in that investigation. Okay? So it was a little bit of an action that happened prior to it. We have also, for Ms. Walters, have a mentor for her and Ms. Denise Blanton is her mentor to try to help her correct those particular things that might be a lack of leadership, a lack of management on her part, to make her a stronger director and have her Page 196 October 14, 2003 try to live up with that, live up to that behavior -- live up to that behavioral action plan. And the Court is still out on that because it was significant and it's a six-month journey, as far as the corrective action is concerned, with monthly and quarterly counselings that go along with that, with measurable outcome that Mr. Dunnuck has put in place in that behavioral action plan. What I would like that do is give that-- this is a long-time employee of Collier County, who has done some good work for us in the past. And, you know, you're talking about a Department of Animal Services that's the best in the State of Florida this last year. So we're trying to correct behavior that doesn't live up to standard and trying to not throw the towel in on a director that's been a long time employee. But, if she can't live up to the directorship that she's been given in our government agency, then she'll be the one that will determine that, along with us. And, if she can't make it, then, you know, we'll let her go. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. The bottom line of all of this was, does it make sense to ask the Court to consider the fact that we have got this program going and we would like to see it through to its ultimate conclusion or-- MS. ROBINSON: Yes. I think that does make some sense, and the Court has granted us a hearing and we can certainly inform the Court of those facts. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's interesting here, Ms. Robinson, is the fact that it sounds like the Board of County Commissioners are going to be pitted against a judge. Now, who has the ruling factor; is it the judge or is it the Board of County Commissioners? MS. ROBINSON: There is some ambiguity in the statute. The Page 197 October 14, 2003 statute basically says that the county -- if a society that exists to prevent cruelty to animals is duly incorporated in the state, and the address of that society is within a municipality -- and the address of Friends of Gummi is within the city limits of Naples -- then they have to receive permission from the mayor of the City of Naples. And, if they are operating outside of the city limits -- which they would be doing in investigating our Domestic Animal Services Department -- then they have to get the approval of the county judge. The statute, however, the language is a little ambiguous. You could read it to say that both the judge and mayor must approve the appointment, or you could read it to say that only the Court -- only the judge -- I think my mic. went off. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You could use mine. It works. Why don't you step over to the other podium. MS. ROBINSON: Okay. All right. I'm sorry about that. Can you hear me now? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I can hear you loud and clear. MS. ROBINSON: All right. The statute has ambiguous language and I think it could be interpreted to mean that the mayor of the City of Naples -- because Friends of Gummi, its address is in the City of Naples -- has to approve the appointment of an investigator, as does the county judge. Or it could be read arguably to say that the county judge will appoint an investigator if the judge feels it's merited. But there's also a sentence at the very end of the statute that implies that the County Commission can approve the appointment of an investigator. So, in an abundance of caution, we're asking for that motion, that you not approve this particular investigator. Our office is not asking that you oppose the appointment of the investigator, although at the hearing we certainly think that the Friends of Gummi need to show that an investigation is needed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Page 198 October 14, 2003 MS. ROBINSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, do you have anything? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. No comments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Pettit? MR. PETTIT: I just wanted to add that -- maybe Mr. Mudd has caught all of this -- but the report that was done was done by Human Resources Department staff. They investigated some of these issues over a period of time. And, as Mr. Mudd is correct, the issues were raised by a then current county employee, now former county employee who -- it is my understanding is a client of Mr. Rynders', as well as based upon allegation by the former county employee, who is a client of Mr. Rynders'. That report I determined was a public record. To my knowledge, the Naples Daily News and Mr. Rynders' client have read it. And it is quite detailed. So that information is out there for anyone to see, and we have done that investigation. And, to my knowledge, based on recommendations from our office, that-- regarding auctioning procedures and so forth, we have given some guidance to Mr. Dunnuck and Ms. Walters about things to do prospectively to correct any issues that may have existed. Another thing I've suggested, and Mr. Rynders will be aware of this because I sent it to him in a letter a couple of weeks ago, is invite someone down from the Department of Professional -- Business Professional Regulations to talk to our staff out there about how Chapter 474, which deals with the practice of veterinary medicine and potential unlicensed practice claims -- which is one of the issues that I think is being asserted -- can be avoided and the safeguards we need. So there has been a lot of positive action by county staff to address these issues. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas? Page 199 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just to get one last clarification from Ms. Robinson here. MS. ROBINSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You said that the Board of County Commissioners has the ability to approve. Does that also mean that they have the ability to disapprove? MS. ROBINSON: Well, in an abundance of caution, we're asking that you disapprove. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That was the motion and the second. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries unanimously. MS. ROBINSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Don't go away. You know, looking at this petition -- and I'm not going to call anybody a scumbag attorney, ambulance chaser or anything like that -- but I think there is concerns that, you know, this should be taken up by the -- what is that, the attorney -- MR. MUDD: State Attorney's office? CHAIRMAN HENNING: State Attorney's or -- but not State Attorney's but whatever. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Florida Bar? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Florida Bar, or something. And if we can get some kind of input on that maybe at our next meeting, the Board make recommendations of some sort of investigation of this Page 200 October 14, 2003 attorney due to conflict of interest or something like that, I think it's prudent. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, Dave Weigel here. We'll look forward to getting back to you. I think that the information that we would have for you would be more u~eful after we have had the hearing with the Court and see how the Court deals with this request in the first place and the aspects of conflict that we bring before the judge. And so that I would suggest that our report back to you would be subsequent to that hearing and a determination by the judge so that we can give you a fuller account of how it's been viewed in the court. If they determine it's a conflict right there, it may be of some assistance to us if we wish to go further with the Florida Bar. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. MS. ROBINSON: You're welcome. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GF, NFJRAI, COMMIJNICATIONS CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the end of today's agenda. Now we're going to go to staffs comments and County Commissioners. Mr. Weigel, do you have anything today? MR. WEIGEL: Just a few and it follows from the item you just heard, and that is you can see that the County Attorney office, particularly in terms of acting as counsel to this Board of County Commissioners, the county taxpayers, the county government in general, fear that we will from time to time respond where the county is placed in a defensive position, so that there is a posture of the county in court. It will be our practice, as today, to come to you to indicate what Page 201 October 14, 2003 we have done. But I want to differentiate this from the constant practice, as my predecessors as well as with me, that we do not file anything as a plaintiff, as a protagonist party in court without coming to you first minimally on an individual basis to tell you what we're about to do, but for -- looking and seeking ratification of this Board of County Commissioners. But this will show that from time to time with the meetings that we have with the Board that are regularly scheduled, that it may still be important and prudent from a court standpoint and a filing standpoint for the County Attorney to file on behalf of this county. And I would appreciate if you understand that fact, that we have no agenda of our own but it is for the protection of the county and the county taxpayers and that -- and the staff practices that we will act from time to time in a manner such as this and report back to you. Additionally, in the back of the room we have an attorney who is relatively new to our offices and I think new to all of you. Mr. Scott Teach (phonetic) is with us. Identify himself. And his background is in a national business contracting practice and he's working with us into our contracts as well as HR, Human Resources, services from the legal side. And we're very pleased to have him here. One last thing I would mention is that with the discussion with Mr. Moss and the Marco water system, I would like to let the record reflect that our outside counsels, Mr. Mike Toomey and Susan Fox, and our inside counsel, Tom Palmer of my office, together as a team, and working with Bleu Wallace as well, did a tremendous yeoman effort toward achieving the outcomes that led for the city of Marco to do what they are about to do right now. So I wanted the record to reflect my appreciation of what they had done. And I thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Don't go away. I got a call from Mr. Hemke, our attorney, and we never did address that. And I talked to Mr. Pettit about that. Page 202 October 14, 2003 MR. PETTIT: Mike Pettit again for the record, Chief Assistant County Attorney. I will be bringing an item before the Board on the 28th -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. PETTIT: -- relative to the proposed resolution of the Aquaport claims against individual County Commissioners, not against the county, that appeal will continue on. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, Jim Mudd. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, hopefully a little shorter than David's because normally I'm long winded and he's short winded and we just changed seats today. This has to do with the conditional expenditures of dollars for the game plan training program. That was the abstinence training that you were petitioned on the last meeting. If you remember, I sent a letter, or you signed it or I signed, that basically told the school board that the dollars are there if they would like to accept and pay us back in next year's budget because they found themselves in a fix. We received a letter, Commissioner Henning did, that said, "In response to your letter" -- this is from the office of curriculum and instruction for the district school board of Collier County. "In response to your letter regarding the Board of County Commissioners' approved action of September 18th, 2003 regarding funding assistance for the game plan training, I must send my regrets relating to our inability to participate. As I understood, this was a grant request from the Life Network. We will not participate in an advancement of funds program. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions please contact me, Deborah Ogden", who is the health coordinator for the Collier County public schools. Page 203 October 14, 2003 So with that I'll put the money back in reserves. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good. Anything else. MR. MUDD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wow. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Would you believe that. Next time I'll be back to sit up there with you guys. I'm two weeks out of surgery and I'm not ready to kick butt yet, but I'm working there -- I'm working in that direction. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, just don't kick the butt with the bad knee. But I'm glad to hear you're doing better. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And looking forward to your return. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, we all -- we missed you very dearly here. And of course, Commissioner Coletta, we observed his birthday today. Sixty-one years old, and of course we had cake and he also partook of some cake. So at that we would like to sing happy birthday to him. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll join in. (Commissioners sing happy birthday to Commissioner Coletta.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I've got some chocolate cake here to enjoy. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be down there in a few minutes, Donna. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm kind of at a loss for words. I thank you very much for the -- it didn't quite work, though, I'm not that much at a loss for words. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, unlike you, Commissioner Coletta looks much older than his age. Page 204 October 14, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Donna, I'll never look as good as you and that I know that for a fact. We miss you, we really do. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Been a wonderful meeting. I've enjoyed it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm ready to go home. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. One thing. The fire -- the county is going to host the fire steering committee here in the boardroom tomorrow night. And maybe the public can get an idea what the fire steering committee is all about. One thing that, regretfully, that we can't provide any fixins like they usually do at the fire steering committee, but I think it'll be an asset to the community to understand what the fire service, fire steering committee is all about. MR. MUDD: It's televised too, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Okay. With that we are adjourned. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. *****Commissioner Coyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Halas and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16Al RESOLUTION 2003-337 PETITION AVESMT2003-AR3920 VACATING, RENOUNCING AND DISCLAIMING THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN EASEMENTS Page 205 October 14, 2003 RECORDED BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS 1N THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COI,IJIER COI JNTY. FI,ORIDA Item #16A2 AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUS1NG AUTHORITY (CCHA) FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE (TBRA) PROGRAM FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROVIDING INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLDS WITH ASSISTANCE FOR THE PAYMENT OF RENT, SECURITY DEPOSITS, AND 1JTIIJlTY DEPOSITS Item # 16A3 RESOLUTION 2003-338 GRANTING A CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "BRIDGEWATER BAY UNIT ONE" THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY-WITH STIPI JI.ATIONS Item #16A4 RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "ARROWHEAD RESERVE AT LAKE TRAFFORD- PHASE TWO", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECI IRITY-WITH STIPI H,ATIONS Page 206 October 14, 2003 Item #16A5 -Continued to October 28, 2003 APPROVING COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.868 "STEWART EARTH MINING", LOCATED IN SECTION 18 AND 19, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST; BOUNDED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING CITRUS GROVES, ON THE SOUTH BY VACANT LAND AND EXISTING CITRUS GROVES, AND ON THE EAST BY VACANT LAND AND A FARM BUILDING-WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SI~MMARY Item # 16A6 AN INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE AUTHORIZATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,000 IN THE FY04 TOURISM ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION FUND (194) WITH A CORRESPONDING DECREASE IN RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES TO FURTHER PROMOTE TOURISM IN COLLIER COUNTY AND APPROVFJ A REI.ATED BIIDGF. T AMENDMENT Item # 16A7 AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE EMPOWERMENT ALLIANCE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES AND OPERATING F. XPF. NSF. S Item #16A8 TOURISM AGREEMENTS FOR GRANTS AND SPONSORSHIPS Page 207 October 14, 2003 FOR FY2003-04, TO FIND THAT THE PROJECTS ARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY PROMOTING TOURISM IN COLLIER COUNTY AND TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF ALL EXPENSES RELATED TO THOSE PROJECTS-THE FIRST ANNUAL BLUEGRASS FESTIVAL, THE RESTORATION OF PALM COTTAGE AND THE NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDEN PROJECT Item #16A9 BOARD OF COIJNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTlNG AS THE COMMIJNITY REDEVEIJOPMENT AGENCY. OBTAINING DIRECTION TO IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM THAT UTILIZES A PORTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) FUNDS ALLOCATED TO THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA AS A DESIGNATED FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE IMMOKALEE RESIDENTIAL DEFERRAL PROGRAM, PROPERTY TAX STIMULUS PROGRAM AND FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, AND STAFF TO DRAFT ALL REQUIRED ORDINANCES AND/OR AMENDMENTS NECESSARY OR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item #16Al0 RESOLUTION 2003-339 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR "LIVINGSTON ROAD, PHASE TWO (MEDITFRRA ENTRANCF. TO IJEE COl JNTY IJNE)" Item #16Al 1 Page 208 October 14, 2003 RESOLUTION 2003-340 REGARDING AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 2003-335 WHICH ESTABLISHED A FEE SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES AS PROVIDED FOR IN DIVISION 1.10 OF THF, COIJJIF, R COl JNTY I,AND DF, VF, LOPMF, NT CODE Item # 16B 1 PURCHASE OF 3.55 ACRES OF LAND REQUIRED FOR A STORMWATER RETENTION AND TREATMENT POND FOR THE SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD EXPANSION PROJECT. (FISCAIJ IMPACT: $321_8371-WITH STIPlII,ATIONS Item #16B2 PURCHASE OF 2.96 ACRES OF LAND REQUIRED FOR A STORMWATER RETENTION AND TREATMENT POND FOR THE SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD EXPANSION PROJECT. (FISCAIJ IMPACT. $268;365)-WITH STIPlH~ATIONS Item # 16B3 SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKING OF FIRMS FOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS FOR RFP #03-3553, "ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING SERVICES FOR CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS TO COLLIER BOULEVARD FROM US 41 TO DAVIS BOULEVARD", COUNTY PROJECT NO. 60001-TO CH2M HILL, KISINGER, CAMPO AND ASSOCIATF, S. AND BOYIJFJ ENG1NEFRING Item #16B4 Page 209 October 14, 2003 APPROVAL OF QUOTES UNDER CONTRACT #03-3495 CONCRETE/PAVEMENT CONTRACTORS FOR "coUNTYWIDE SIDEWALK PROJECTS" AND THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER IN THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $5927400 TO COl ~GAR CONTRACTING SPECIAl.TIES [NC Item # 16B5 REPORT REGARDING COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION MASTER PLAN AND APPROVING IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING-AS DETAILED IN THE EXFJCI JTIVE SI JMMARY Item # 16B6 - Withdrawn AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED-FOR THE PROVISION OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR QUALIFIED MEDICAID RFJCIPIENTS Item #16B7 - Withdrawn AWARD RFP #03-3505 "TRANSPORTATION ROADWAY ASSET INVENTORY DATABASE" AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO COMMENCE NEGOTIATIONS. ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT TO I:IFJ $250~000-TO SPACE IMAGING Item # 16C 1 AWARD BID NO. 03-3513 - PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF Page 210 October 14, 2003 WALLACE AND TIERNAN LIME SLAKER TO LOC PUMP AND EQIIIPMENT 1NC_: IN THE AMOIINT OF $85,474 Item #16C2 AWARD BID NO. 03-3541 - PURCHASE OF ONE (1) CARBON DIOXIDE SYSTEM TO TOMCO2 EQUIPMENT COMPANY IN THE AMOIJNT OF $737650 Item # 16C3 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. FISCAL IMPACT IS $36.00 TO RECORD THE IJIENS Item # 16C4 RESOLUTION 2003-341 AND RESOLUTION CWS-2003-04 APPROVING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HARDSHIP DEFERRALS FOR CERTAIN SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2003 TAX YEAR. THE FISCAL IMPACT IS $16.00 TO RECORD THE RESOIJl ~TION Item # 16C5 WORK ORDER CDM-FT-03-03 FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES TO SEEK MODIFICATION TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WATER USE PERMIT FOR WITHDRAWAL OF WATER FROM THE GOLDEN GATE TAMIAMI WELLFIELD IN THE AMOUNT OF $87,500 Page 211 October 14, 2003 PROJF, CT 70158-TO CAMP DRESSFR & MCKEE, INC. Item #16C6- THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DELETED Item # 16C7 RESOLUTION 2003-342 AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A LOAN APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) FOR THE WASTEWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS PRE-CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,556,000; AUTHORIZING THE LOAN AGREEMENT; ESTABLISHING PLEDGED REVENUES; DESIGNATING AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES; PROVIDING ASSURANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR CONFIJICTS_ SF, VF, RAFIII,ITY_ AND EFFECTIVFi DATE Item #16C8 RECORD SATISFACTIONS (3) FOR CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER IMPACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $31.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS- AS DFiTAII,F,D IN THE F, XECI ITIVF, SI JMMARY Item # 16C9 RESOLUTION 2003-343 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $12.00 TO RECORD THE IJIFiN-FIRADFORD W & lqRF, NDA STF, INMANN Page 212 October 14, 2003 Item # 16C 10 RESOLUTION 2003-344 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $12.00 TO RECORD THE IJlEN-DARREIJlJ S SHF. PHFRD Item # 16C 11 RESOLUTION 2003-345 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $16.50 TO RECORD THE IJlEN-HI IlqERT P & DIANA E SCHFRER Item #16C12 SUBMISSION OF A REQUEST TO THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO INITIATE A COLLIER COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT, AND APPROVING COORDINATION WITH CONGRESSMAN GOSS' OFFICE TO PURSUE A CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF INITIATING THE PROJECT-FOR SHORE PROTECTION Item #16C13 Page 213 October 14, 2003 ASSIGNMENT OF REIMBURSEMENT TO DEVELOPER AGREEMENT FOR THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF A WASTEWATER FORCE MAIN TO SERVE THE M & E TRAIIJFR PARK Item # 16C 14 RESOLUTION 2003-346 SUBMISSION OF A GRANT APPLICATION FOR IN SUPPORT OF A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GRANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE RENOURISHMENT OF VANDERBILT, PELICAN BAY, PARK SHORE AND NAPLES REACHES Item # 16C 15 WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT #01-3271, FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, WITH COASTAL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING FOR DEVELOPING A PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM FOR THE COUNTY/CITY OF NAPLES MAJOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT, PROJECT 90527: IN THE AMOI INT OF $8,491 Item # 16C 16 RESOLUTION 2003-347: JOINT COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE RENOURISHMENT OF VANDERBILT, PELICAN BAY, PARK SHORE AND NAPLES BEACHES, PROJECT 90527, AND PAYMENT OF FEES NOT TO EXCEED $30~000 Page 214 October 14, 2003 Item # 16C 17 RESOLUTION 2003-347A REGARDING A GRANT APPLICATION IN SUPPORT OF A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GRANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE RENOURISHMENT OF MARCO ISI,AND SOl,TH BEACH Item # 16C 18 PURCHASE ORDER, UNDER CONTRACT #02-3360, WITH LIGHTNER CONTRACTING INC., FOR GRADING MARCO ISLAND FROM TIGERTAIL PARK TO RESIDENTS' PlF, ACH. IN THE AMOIJNT OF $15.000 Item # 16C 19 WORK ORDER AND PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE PROJECT TO RENOURISH HIDEAWAY BEACH WITH UPLAND SAND, PROJECT 90541; A WORK ORDER WITH STD ENTERPRISES OF NAPLES INC., UNDER CONTRACT #02-3305, TRANSPORT, PLACEMENT AND GRADING OF BEACH SAND, IN THE AMOUNT OF $387,250; AND A PURCHASE ORDER WITH E. R. JAHNA INDUSTRIES INC., UNDER CONTRACT g01-3272, PRODUCTION OF BEACH COMPATIBLE SAND, IN THE AMOIINT OF $183,400 Item #16C20 WORK ORDER, UNDER CONTRACT #01-3271, FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, WITH HUMISTON AND Page 215 October 14, 2003 MOORE ENGINEERS FOR HIDEAWAY BEACH RENOURISHMENT WITH UPLAND SAND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING SERVICES, PROJECT 90541, IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,,450 Item #16C21 JOINT COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE RENOURISHMENT OF AND REPLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY T-GROINS ON HIDEAWAY BEACH, PROJECT 90502, AND PAYMENT OF FEES NOT TO F, XCF, ED $36~000 Item # 16C22 WORK ORDER, UNDER CONTRACT #01-3271, FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, WITH HUMISTON AND MOORE ENGINEERS FOR HIDEAWAY BEACH RENOURISHMENT DESIGN MAGNETIC ANOMALIES INVESTIGATION, PROJECT 90502, IN THE AMOUNT OF $15_829 Item # 16D 1 AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR TRANSPORTING SCHOOL-AGE RECREATION PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AT AN FSTIMATF, D COST OF $70~000 Item #16D2 DEDICATION OF CAPRI PARK TO THE MEMORY OF DOC Page 216 October 14, 2003 I.OACH Item #16D3 TO FUND A SHORT-TERM MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE FOR SHELL ISLAND ROAD, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $307000 Item #16D4 REJECTION OF PROPOSALS RECEIVED UNDER RFP 01-3228 "DESIGN OF THE VANDERBILT BEACH PARKING FACILITY"-DUE TO CHANGING CONDITIONS OF THE PROJECT OVER A TWO-YEAR PERIOD Item # 16E 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND CROWN CASTLE GT COMPANY AN ANNI;AI~ COST OF $6:300 AT Item # 16E2 AMENDMENTS TO COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING CONTRACTS TO ADJUST FEE SCHEDULES FOR CONSUMER PRICING INDEX-FIRMS INCLUDE: TAYLOR ENGINEERING, INC., COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC., AND HUMISTON & MOORE F. NGINEFRS Item #16E3 Page 217 October 14, 2003 COLLIER COUNTY DRIVER EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM TO FUND THE DIRECT EDUCATION EXPENSES OF DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN BOTH PUBLIC AND NON- Pl IFIl.lC HlGH SCHOOI,S Item # 16E4 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND SOUTH SEAS NORTHWEST CONDOMINIUMS AT AN ANNIIAI. COAST OF $600 Item # 16E5 AWARD BID NO. 03-3554 FOR THE PURCHASE OF PAINT AND RELATED ITEMS USED IN COUNTY REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION, ESTIMATED AT $55,000-TO M.A. BRUDER AND SONS, INC., SCOTT PAINT COMPANY, THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, AND COl.OR WHF. EI. PAINT MFG. CO., INC_ Item # 16E6 CONTRACT AMENDMENT INVOLVING CONTRACT #03-3493 "GREY OAKS PIIFII.IC SAFETY FACII.ITY" Item # 16E7 RISK SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NAPLES PHYSICIAN HOSPITAL ORGANIZATION D/B/A COMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., AND COLLIER COUNTY GOVFRNMENT Page 218 October 14, 2003 Item # 16F 1 RESOLUTION BAR-2003-02 APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 ADOPTED BI IDGF. T Item # 16F2 BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT- BA #04-005 IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,850 TO PAY FOR STUDY OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND PREPAREDNESS FEES COMPARED TO OTHER FLORIDA COUNTIES; AND TO RECOMMEND POTENTIAI. REVENIIE STREAMS Item #16H 1 COMMISSIONER HALAS APPROVAL FOR REQUEST FOR PAYMENT TO ATTEND PUBLIC WATER ACCESS CONFERENCE-AT THE SOUTH SEAS RESORT ON CAPTIVA ISLAND, FLORIDA ON NOVEMBER 5-7, AT A COST OF $129.00 FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE TO GARNER INFORMATION ON PI~BI.IC WATER ACCESS ISSIJES Item # 16I 1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR REFERRED- The following miscellaneous corresl~ondence, as l~resented by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Page 219 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE October 14, 2003 FOR BOARD ACTION: 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: mo Bo 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 August 2, 2003 through August 8, 2003. 2. Disbursements for August 9, 2003 through August 15, 2003. 3. Disbursements for August 16, 2003 through August 22' 2003. 4. Disbursements for August 23, 2003 through August 29, 2003. 5. Disbursements for August 30, 2003 through September 5, 2003. 6. Disbursements for September 6, 2003 through September 14. 2003. 7. Disbursements for September 15, 2003 through September 21, 2003. Districts: Key Marco Community Development District - Annual Financial Report, Audit, Management Letter, Minutes of Meetings for June 2, 2003: Agenda for June 2, 2003. Naples Heritage Community Development District - Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2004; Agenda and Minutes of Meeting June 9, 2003. o Collier Soil and Water Conservation District - Proposed Budget for 2003- 2004.; District Map, Public Facilities Report and Description of Outstanding Bonds. Heritage Greens Community Development District - Proposed budget for FY 2004, Agenda and Minutes of May 12, 2003 ° Port of the Islands Community Improvement District - Minutes and Agenda for the July 18, 2003 meeting and the FY Adopted Budget for 2004. H:DataJFormat Co Fiddler's Creek Community Development District - Minutes of Meeting for June 25, 2003 and May 28, 2003; Agenda for June 25, 2003. o Immokalee Fire Control District - District Map; Proposed Budget for 2003-2004 and Notice of their monthly board meeting. ° East Naples Fire Control District -Proposed Budget for 2003-2004; District Map; Schedule of Meetings for 2003-2004 and Public Facilities Report. Golden Gate Fire Control - Proposed Budget for 2003-2004; District Map and Registered Office and Agent. 10. North Naples Fire Control District - Annual Financial Report; Audit; Management Letter; Rebuttal to Management Letter; Budget for 2002- 2003; Proposed Budget for 2003-2004; District Map; Registered Office and Agent; Schedule of Meetings and Public Facilities Report and their five year capitol plan. Minutes: 1. Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for September 8, 2003. o Collier County Planning Commission - Minutes of July 18, 2003, August 21, 2003; Agenda for September 18, 2003. o Collier County Contractor's Licensing Board - Agenda for September 17, 2003. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board- Agenda for September 17, 2003; Minutes of August 20, 2003. o Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. -Agenda for September 1 I, 2003; Minutes for July 16, 2003. ° Pelican Bay Services Agenda for the September 10, 2003 Sub-Committee and the Minutes of August 6, 2003. o Lely Golf Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for September 11, 2003; Minutes of August 14, 2003 and August 21,2003. H:Data/Format October 14, 2003 Item #16J1 AUTHORIZING THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF EVERGLADES FOR THE USE OF SERVICES AND VOTING AND TABULATION EQUIPMENT FOR THEIR ELECTION NOVEMBER 257 2003 Item # 16J2 DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES. A COPY OF THE DETAILED REPORT FROM SEPTEMBER 20 TO OCTOBER 3, 2003 IS ON DISPLAY IN THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, 2ND F[,OOR~ W. HARMON TIIRNFR FIl HI,D1NG Item #16K1 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 184 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. LAZARO HERRERA, ET AL, IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60018-$8404.00 TO BE PAID TO THE RESPONDENTS, LAZARO HERRERA, ELIZABETH HERRERA, BERTO HERRERA AND LUCIA HERRERA; $892.00 TO BE PAID TO KENNETH A. JONES, ESQUIRE FOR ATTORNEY FEES; AND $900.00 TO BE PAID FOR APPRAISAIJ FEES Page 220 October 14, 2003 Item #16K2 SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENT ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN AND AMONG COLLIER COUNTY, THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, AND KRAFT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., IN CONNECTION WITH CONTRACT NO. 98-2829 AND CONTRACT NO. 00-3064-AS DETAII~ED IN THF~ F, XECI JTIVE SI JMMARY Item # 16K3 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 807, 907A AND 907B IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. MICHAEL A. MCCUMBER, ET AL, GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT NO. 60027-STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $21,023.00 INTO THE COURT REGISTRY AND $100 SERVICE FEE TO CLERK OF COl JRT Item #16K4 MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 170 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ISMAEL GONZALES, ET AL, CASE NO. 02-2159-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60018~-AS DETAII~ED IN THE EXECI ITIVF, SI JMMARY Item #16K5 Page 221 October 14, 2003 MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A STIPULATED F1NAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 172 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ISMAEL GONZALES, ET AL, CASE NO. 02-2159-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60018)-$93,000.00 TO BE PAID TO RESPONDENTS IN FULL SETTLEMENT; PETITIONER SHALL PAY $5940.00 AS STATUTORY ATTORNEY FEES; COLLIER COUNTY TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $32,640.00 EQUALING THE BAI~ANCE OF FI II,l~ COMPENSATION AND ATTORNEY FEES Item # 16K6 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE TAKING OF PARCEL NO. 152 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. TECH FOUNDATION INC., ET AL, FOR THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 60027)-STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE ADDITIONAL SUM OF $700.00 WITH THE REGISTRY OF THE COl IRT Item #16K7 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION OF ROAD RIGHT OF WAY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS DESIGNATED AS PARCELS 157A, 857, 157B IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOSEPH J. GUIDISH, JR., ET AL, CASE NO. 03-2549-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY) (PROJECT NO. 60027)-STAFF TO PAY THE SUM OF $11,535.00 TO THE RESPONDENTS, JOSEPH J. GUIDISH, JR. AND ANNE C. Gl JIDISH~ C/O KF, NNF, TH A. JONES~ ESQ_ Page 222 October 14, 2003 Item #16K8 ITEM CONTINI IED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 9:2003 BCC MEETING. THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX-OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD OF THE ISLES OF CAPRI MUNICIPAL RESCUE AND FIRE SERVICES TAXING DISTRICT AND THE OCHOPEE FIRE DISTRICT ENTER INTO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS WITH INDEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE VARIOUS DEPENDENT AND INDEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICTS WITH RESPECT TO FIRE PLAN REVIEW AND FIRE CODE INSPECTIONS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN THE VARIOUS DISTRICTS-STAFF TO WORK WITH E. NAPLES FIRE DISTRICT TO REVIEW AND ESTABLISH APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE CONTINGENCY FUND I.EVEIJS Item #17A RESOLUTION 2003-348 SV-2003-AR-4207, GIL STRELEC, OF KEMP SIGNS INC., REPRESENTING MOBIL/EXXON OIL CORPORATION, REQUESTING A SIGN VARIANCE OF 10 FEET FROM THE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK OF 10 FEET TO 0 FEET FOR A GROUND SIGN FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATION LOCATED AT 4577 EXECUTIVE DRIVE, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS QUAIL CREEK PI.AZA PHASE 1 Page 223 October 14, 2003 Item # 17B RESOLUTION 03-BAR-03 (RES-03-349) APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 ADOPTED BI JDGET Item # 17C RESOLUTION 2003-350: VA-2003-AR-4243, MELANIE BEEBE REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 11.9 FEET FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 30 FEET TO 18.1 FEET FOR THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND 12 FEET FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 30 FEET TO 18 FEET FOR THE EXISTING UTILITY SHED ON PROPERTY I,OCATFD AT 245 22ND AVF, NI JE NF, Item # 17D RESOLUTION 2003-351: VA-2003-AR-4426, ANDREW SOLIS, ESQUIRE, OF SIKET AND SOLIS, LLP, REPRESENTING JOHN J. SLAUGH, OWNER, REQUESTING A 7.4 FOOT AFTER-THE- FACT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FEET LEAVING A 7.6 FOOT FRONT YARD FOR 1.46 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE "E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF 1 ST STREET SW AND GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD-WITH STIPI JI,ATIONS Item # 17E RESOLUTION 2003-352: CUE-2003-AR-4544, HOMERE Page 224 October 14, 2003 HYPPOLITE, REPRESENTING FIRST HAITIAN ALLIANCE CHURCH, REQUESTING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE CU 2000-08 FOR A CHURCH IN THE "E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COUNTY BARN ROAD IN THE 2300 BLOCK, DESCRIBED IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50, RANGE 26, COLLIER COUNTY, FI.ORIDA Item # 17F RESOLUTION 2003-353: CUE-2003-AR-4257, JEREMY STERK OF HOOVER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTING IGLESIA HEREDEROS DE DIOS, REQUESTING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE CU 2000-07 FOR A CHURCH, PRIVATE SCHOOL AND A CHURCH RUN CHILD CARE FACILITY OF THE A-MHO ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 2 ½ MILES WEST OF SR 29, FOR PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COI,I~IER COl INTY~ FI~ORIDA Item #17G-Continued Indefinitely THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 BCC MEETING AND IS FURTHER CONTINUED INDEFINITELY. SNR-2003-AR-4058 PETER GOODIN, OAKS ESTATES ADVISORY INC., AND RICH LIDGARD, REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM 10TH AVENUE NW TO ENGLISH OAKS LANE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 96, TOWNSHIP 48 SOIJTH~ RANGE 26 EAST~ COIJI.IER COIJNTY~ FIJORIDA Page 225 October 14, 2003 Item #17H ORDINANCE 2003-56 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR DUE TO INACCURATE LANGUAGE IN AN INTENDED REVISION TO SECTION 2.6.4.2.1. AND BY PROVIDING FOR AN F, FFF, CTIVE DATE Page 226 October 14, 2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:40 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TOM HENNING, Chairmaflr ATTEST: DWIGHT ~;:B,.~K, CLERK These minuteS, approved by the Board on as presented v/ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM AND ELIZABETH BROOKS Page 227