Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/28/2004 R September 28,2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, September 28, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala Frank Halas Tom Henning Fred W. Coyle Jim Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Jim Mitchell, Office of the Clerk of Court Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ AGENDA September 28, 2004 9:00 a.m. Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chair, District 4 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 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. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 1 September 28, 2004 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. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission member for summary agenda.) B. September 3,2004 - BCC/Emergency Meeting - Hurricane Frances Briefing 3. SERVICE AWARDS 4. PROCLAMATIONS A. Proclamation to designate October 16, 2004 as NAACP Freedom Fund Day. To be accepted by Laverne Franklin. B. Proclamation to designate Sunday, September 26,2004 as Cancer Alliance of Naples Day. To be accepted by Steven Wheeler, Executive Director of the Cancer Alliance of Naples, Inc. C. Proclamation to designate the week of September 28, 2004 as Mental Illness Awareness Week. To be accepted by Don Williams. D. Proclamation to designate the month of September as Lymphoma Awareness Month. To be accepted by Ana Preciado, Campaign Coordinator of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. 2 September 28, 2004 5. PRESENTATIONS A. Recommendation to recognize Cindi Gordon, Administrative Secretary, Bureau of Emergency Services as "Employee of the Month" for July 2004. B. Recommendation to recognize Mark Holmes, EMS Helicopter Pilot, Bureau of Emergency Services as "Employee of the Month" for September 2004. 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS 7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Appointment of members to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee. B. Appointment of members to the Collier County Planning Commission. C. Appointment of member to the Black Affairs Advisory Board D. Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Black Affairs Advisory Board. E. Appointment of member to the Collier County Citizens Corps. F. Appointment of member to the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. Recommendation to award a contract for Bid No. 04-3666R to Lodge Construction, Inc. in the amount of $3,626,844.00 for construction of renovations to the Public Utilities Operations Center, Project Number 70059 and 73072. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities) B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing condemnation of fee simple interest in the proposed right-of-way and/or stormwater retention and treatment pond sites, as well as perpetual, non-exclusive road right-of-way, drainage and utility easements, perpetual, non-exclusive slope easements, 3 September 28, 2004 and temporary driveway restoration easements, which will be required for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility improvements to Logan Boulevard from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road (Project No. 60166). Estimated fiscal impact: $5,760,000.00. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services) c. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the fee simple acquisition of property by condemnation for the purpose of providing the Wiggins Pass Basin with an unobstructed stormwater outfall. Fiscal impact $250,000 (project 512122) (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services) D. The Annual Performance Appraisal for the County Manager. (Jim Mudd, County Manager) E. Review and approve the FY2005 Annual Work Plan for the County Manager. (Jim Mudd, County Manager) F. Recommendation to deny the request by Waterways Joint Venture IV for refund of Transportation Impact Fees totaling $217,830 for the Summit Place project. (Joseph Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development & Environmental Services) G. Presentation of the Golden Gate High School Bridge Study conducted by the Collier County School Board evaluating the traffic impacts of a pedestrian bridge or a vehicular bridge over the Golden Gate canal at the south end of Tropicana Boulevard in Golden Gate City. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services) H. Recommendation to approve a Locally Funded Agreement and Memorandum of Agreement with the State of Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for the advancement of$1.8 million for the U.S. 41 (project number 620091) from SR 951 to CR 92 Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services) I. Recommendation to approve amendment for the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant 8 MGD Reverse Osmosis (SCRWTP) construction contract to an amount of$7,678,866 and to approve transfer of funds from reserves to the contract in the amount of$2,870,547, Project 70054. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilitiess) 4 September 28, 2004 J. That the Board approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a standard, County Attorney approved contract for RFP 04-3629 "Consultant Services for the Public Involvement Element of the Metropolitan Planning Organization 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan Update, in the total amount of$324,513.27 with Cella and Associates. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services) K. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or purchase of fee simple interests in the proposed right-of-way and/or stormwater retention and treatment pond sites, as well as perpetual, non- exclusive road right-of-way, drainage and utility easements, perpetual non- exclusive slope easements, and temporary driveway restoration easements, and temporary construction easements, which will be required for the construction of roadway drainage and utility improvements t Logan Boulevard from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road. (Project No. 60166). Estimated fiscal impact: $5,760,000.00 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT A. Recommendation to Approve the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release involving Litigation in Collier County v. Nationwide Health Properties, Inc. A/KJ A Homewood Residence, Case No. 02-4943-CA, in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit. 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 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, the item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 September 28, 2004 A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities for Hawks Nest at Fiddler's Creek. 2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Pine Ridge Commons aka Magnolia Square. 3) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of "Ibis Cove Phase Two-B." The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. 4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Quail West, Phase 3, Unit 3. 5) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of "Quail West Phase III, Unit Three". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. 6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Quail West, Phase III, Unit Two. The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. 7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Quail West, Phase 3, Unit 2. 8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Island Walk, Phase 5-B. 9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Cardinal Cove at Fiddler's Creek. 10) Recommendation that the State continue the Florida Enterprise Zone Program pursuant to the Florida Enterprise Zone Act, established in Sections 298.001-290.016, Florida Statutes. 6 September 28, 2004 11) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of "Augusta Falls". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. 12) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of "F ountainhead". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. 13) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of "Villa Vistana at the Vineyards". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. 14) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Charlee Estates- Phase Two", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 15) Recommendation to approve contracts related to RFP 04-3677 for "Special Master Services for Collier County Code Enforcement Department" (Estimated maximum annual contract amount $125,000.00). B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1) Recommendation to approve award of a construction contract with Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. intersection improvements in the amount of$397,213.00 on Golden Gate Parkway at 50th Street S.W. Bid No. 04-3696. 2) Recommendation to Approve award of Bid #04-3693, "TS-2 Type 1 Traffic Controller Cabinet Assembly" to Traffic Products Incorporated, in the amount of $264, 120 to be funded from Project 60172-2, "Computerized Signal System," and reimbursed by the Florida Department of Transportation. 3) Recommendation to Award Bid No. 04-3665 for an Annual contract to purchase Wetland Mitigation Credits. 7 September 28, 2004 4) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment to recognize revenue that was received from FDOT for Phase II Design of the Advanced Traffic Management System and to appropriate in a project to be used for SCOOT (Split Cycle Offset Optimization Technique) Project No. 601724 for expenditures that will be incurred during the implementation of traffic signal system enhancement in the amount of $795,000.00. 5) Award Bid #04-3676 "Lely Golf Estates MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance" for FY 2004-2005 to Commercial Land Maintenance C. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1) Recommendation to approve annual Rate Resolution to set landfill tipping fees, recycling center fees, residential annual assessments and commercial waste collection fees for Fiscal Year 2005. 2) Recommendation to award a contract for Bid No. 04-3680 to Belair Builders, Inc. in the amount of $886,487.56 for installation of a 16- inch sanitary sewer force main along Collier Boulevard (CR-951) and Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR-862), Project Numbers 73085 and73086. 3) Recommendation to approve a $92,000 Budget Amendment, Pre- Construction Monitoring Work Order and Permitting Work Order Amendment under Contract #01-3271, Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone Management Projects, with Humiston & Moore Engineers for the Hideaway Beach Renourishment, Project 90502, in the amount of $91 ,259; and confirmation of a Mangrove Study Work Order for Hideaway Beach Annual Monitoring, Project 90540, in the amount of $8,000. D. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Recommendation to support the Florida Association of Counties (F AC) Select Medicaid Reform Workgroup proposal for Florida Medicaid Reform. 2) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Officiating Services with Collier Athletic Arbiters Association, Inc. for officials for adult softball games. 8 September 28, 2004 3) Recommendation to approve Naples Wholesale Bait as a sole source supplier of live bait shrimp for resale at Caxambas Park, with an estimated Fiscal Year 2005 expenditure of $40,000. E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1) Report and ratify staff-approved change orders and changes to work orders to Board-approved contracts. 2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the 2005 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan, providing for a general wage adjustment and merit increase and also authorizing the creation of new classifications, modification and/or deletion of classifications and assignment of pay ranges from the proposed 2005 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan, using the existing "Archer" point-factor job evaluation system, for positions below the level of Director, subject to quarterly ratification by the Board of County Commissioners. 3) Approval to purchase Property, Casualty and Workers' Compensation Insurance and Related Services for FY 2005. F. COUNTY MANAGER 1) Recommendation to approve First Amendment to the 2004 Tourism Agreement Between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida and the Naples Botanical Garden Extending Agreement to January 31,2005. 2) Recommendation to Approve a Resolution Requiring FY 06 Budgets for the Sheriff, Clerk, and Supervisor of Elections to be submitted by May 1,2005. 3) Approval of Budget Amendments 4) Recommendation to Approve an Interlocal Agreement between Board of County Commissioners and the City of Naples for the Renourishment of the City of Naples Beaches in the amount of $9,914,600. 9 September 28, 2004 5) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2003-04 Adopted Budget. G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Commissioner Halas' request for Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attend the United Way of Collier County Campaign 2004 Kick-Off on September 29, 2004. $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget 2) Commissioner Halas' request for Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attend the Collier County Museum's A Taste of History on October 20,2004. $25.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget. 3) For the Board of County Commissioners to declare a valid public purpose for a Commissioner to attend the United Way of Collier County Campaign 2004 Kick-Off event on September 29, 2004. $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel budget. 4) F or the Board of County Commissioners to declare a valid public purpose for Commissioner Henning to attend the NAACP 22nd Annual Freedom Fund Banquet and Silent Auction. $55.00 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel budget. I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous Items to file for Record with Action as Directed. J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) Recommend that the Board Authorize the Extension of the Tax Roll Before Completion of the Value Adjustment Board Hearings Pursuant to Section 197.323, F.S., and Tax Collector's Request 10 September 28, 2004 K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to approve an Agreed Order A warding Appraisal Fees relative to the acquisition of Parcels 739 and 839 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Nancy L. Johnson-Perry et aI., Case No. 03- 2373-CA (Golden Gate Parkway - Project 60027) 2) Recommendation that the Board of County commissioners Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment Relative to the Acquisition of Parcels 121 and 122 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Carole Construction of Naples Inc., et aI., Immokalee Road, Project #60018. 3) Recommendation to authorize application for tax deeds for sixty (60) County-held tax certificates and to authorize a notice to proceed to the Tax Collector. 4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Adopt a Resolution Approving the 2005 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan, a General Wage Adjustment (COLA) and Merit Increase for the Office of the County Attorney. 5) Recommendation to the Board of County commissioners to approve a Settlement With Project Integration, Inc. Arising Out of Disputes Over Payment and Delays in Connection With the North County Regional Water Reclamation Facility 5-MGD Expansion Contract/Bid No. 99-2908. 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 AUTHORIZED AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEM S ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THE ITEM FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE 11 September 28, 2004 QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN. A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. DRI-04-AR-53 17, Airport road Limited Partnership represented by Richard Y ovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., requesting an amendment to the Pine Air Land Development of Regional Impact Development Order in order to extend the termination and building dates from October 15,2000 to October 14,2005 for property located on the west side of Airport-Pulling Road (C.R. 31) approximately a quarter mile north of Pine Ridge Road in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution Amending the Effluent Irrigation (Reuse) Customer Rates which is Schedule Three of Appendix A to Section Four of Collier county Ordinance No. 2001-73, Titled the Collier Water- Sewer District Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards Ordinance. C. Request that the Board of County Commissioners approve an Ordinance providing for the reestablishment and renaming of an Advisory Committee to provide input and assist staff with the Restudy of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 12 September 28, 2004 September 28,2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Will you all take your seats, please. MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. The meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, September 28th, will come to order. And first of all, would you rise with me. Reverend Craig Nelson of the East Naples United Methodist Church will say the invocation. REVEREND NELSON: I would like to ask for 40 seconds of personal privilege. There are some recommended postcards that I would like to share with you, due to conversations around our state. This is one on the screen. This is another one. These are just found around the Internet. I'm sharing them for free with you. I'm sure you've seen them. This one's my favorite. And, of course, you've seen this one. Seriously now, I'd like to pray. Lord, we come here thanking you for today but recognize that amidst the storms, to just thank you for the day takes on new meaning. We have ducked another one. When we come here in Collier County thanking you for today we are humbled because we're mindful that many counties that might be meeting today cannot meet in the air-conditioning, cannot meet in a well lit room, cannot meet necessarily under a roof. And dear, God, I ask that we would be able to help, to be generous, to show care to our neighbors, whether they are adjacent counties or not. Lord, today, we do recognize that it is a normal day for us, that there are normal things on the agenda, that their regular processes of government is happening today, that we will decide who's going to serve on different boards and different committees, the projects are going to be approved for the common good, that just different decisions are going to be made here, and I pray your blessing upon all those who are presenting and who are making decisions, allow them to not forget the least, the lost, and the lonely. Page 2 I .... September 28, 2004 And for our commissioners, I just ask that they would have a sense of their first love, of what brought them here in the first place, that they would sense the excitement and the joy of being able to serve all of the people and to make decisions that will be truly good for everyone. Make this a good day, we pray. Amen. God bless you all. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, will you lead us in the pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2A REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you all for being here today. And with that, we will ask the county attorney if he has any additions or corrections, or whatever, to our agenda. MR. WEIGEL: Good morning, Madam Chairman and Commissioners. No, I have no further statement for the agenda beyond the agenda changes that the county manager will bring to your attention. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And our county manager, Jim Mudd, will you please go through the agenda changes with us, please. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Good morning, Commissioners. Agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioner meeting, September 28th, 2004. We need to add item 3A, and that's 30-year attendee award for Curtis Anderson, Sr., Transportation Road Maintenance, and Curtis couldn't be with us. He was there in the morning; we didn't have the awards last time. He couldn't make the Page 3 r. -- September 28,2004 afternoon session. So we've got it -- we've got it there in front of us right now for this one, so we'd like to add that award presentation. The next item is item lOB, and we're going to continue that until October 26th, 2004, BCC meeting, and that was a recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing condemnation of fee simple interest in the proposed right-of-way and/or storm water retention and treatment pond sites as well as perpetual, non-exclusive road right-of-ways, drainage and utility easements, perpetual, non-exclusive slope easements, and temporary driveway restoration easements, which will be required for the construction of roadway, drainage, and utility improvements to Logan Boulevard from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road, and that was project 60166. And it had an estimated fiscal impact of $5,760,000, and that's at staff request. And the reason for the continuance -- because there's also a request why -- it's because we had -- we had some differing opinions on metes and bounds, and we've forgotten one parcel, so we have to get that included, and that's why we're continuing this particular item. Next item is item 16K3, an additional-- it's basically additional backup information. Backup information was omitted from this item and has been made available. A recommendation to authorize application for tax deeds for 60 county-held tax certificates and to authorize a Notice to Proceed to the tax collector, and that's at staffs request. Other item is a correction to item 16K5. On the contract modification checklist form, the last line of the paragraph titled, summary of proposed change, or changes, should read: And the preservation of any claims for unknown defects by the county against Project Integration, and in brackets the word unknown was omitted from the original document, end of brackets. In the paragraph titled justification for changes, second sentence, Page 4 September 28,2004 the word should be, contract rather than contact, and that's at staffs request. The next item, and last, is to move item 17 A to 8A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by the commission members. It's DRI-04-AR-5317, Airport Road Limited Partnership represented by Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P .A., requesting an amendment to the Pine Air Lakes Development and Regional Impact Development Order in order to extend the termination and build-out dates from October 15th, 2000, to October 14th, 2005, for property located on the west side of Airport-Pulling Road, which is County Road 31, approximately one quarter mile north of Pine Ridge Road at Section 11, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. And that was at Commissioner Coyle's request, but I will tell you, I don't think there wasn't -- there wasn't consideration by just about every commissioner on the board to pull this particular item, okay. That's all I have, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. And Commissioners, do you have any changes or additions or ex parte on anything on the summary agenda other than 17 A? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no ex parte on anything that -- pertaining to the summary agenda, and I have no other changes to be made at this time with the agenda itself. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I have no --nothing to declare, no changes to make. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? Page 5 September 28, 2004 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nor do I. Thank you very much. And with that, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to approve the consent, summary, and regular agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? He always does the lead on this. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He always does that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Page 6 AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING September 28. 2004 Add Item #3A 30 Year Attendee: Curtis Anderson, Sr., Transportation Road Maintenance. (Staff request.) Item 10B continued to the October 26. 2004 BCC meetina: Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing condemnation of fee simple interest in the proposed right-of-way and/or stormwater retention and treatment pond sites, as well as perpetual, non-exclusive road right-of-way, drainage and utility easements, perpetual, non-exclusive slope easements, and temporary driveway restoration easements, which will be required for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility improvements to Logan Boulevard from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road. (Project No. 60166). Estimated fiscal impact: $5,760,000. (Staff request.) Item 16K3 - Additional backup information: (Backup information was omitted for this item and has been made available.) Recommendation to authorize application for tax deeds for sixty (60) County-held tax certificates and to authorize a notice to proceed to the Tax Collector. (Staff request.) Correction to Item 16K5: On the "Contract Modification Checklist Form", the last line of paragraph titled, "Summary of Proposed Change (s), should read: and the preservation of any claims for unknown defects by the County against Project Integration. (The word 'unknown' was omitted from original document.) In the paragraph titled, "Justification for Changes", second sentence, the word should be "contract" rather than contact. (Staff request.) Move item 17A to 8A: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. DRI-04-AR-5317, Airport Road Limited Partnership represented by Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P .A., requesting an amendment to the Pine Air Lakes Development of Regional Impact Development Order in order to extend the termination and build-out dates from October 15, 2000 to October 14, 2005 for property located on the west side of Airport-Pulling Road (C.R. 31) approximately a quarter mile north of Pine Ridge Road in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Commissioner Coyle request.) September 28,2004 Item #2B MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 3, 2004 BCC EMERGENCY COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to approve September 3, '04, BCC meeting, emergency meeting, Hurricane Frances briefing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) Item #3 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. And now we will get to that service award for Curtis Anderson. MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I'm going -- I'm going to ask the question, is Curtis Anderson here? Norman just left me a note and said he might not be here, okay. I'm having trouble with this one, but it's okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we send this one in the mail? MR. MUDD: I don't know. He has a nice present that's wrapped, okay, and I've never seen that present. Some day I'd like to see what's inside that -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: I almost took it. Page 7 September 28, 2004 MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. So we're going --we're going to let that one go, and if he shows up, I'll give you a nod, and we'll try then, okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, great. Didn't he have a lot of his co-workers here supporting him last time? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's -- that, to me, was an example of what a fine employee he must be. I'm looking forward to meeting him. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's not everybody that has 30 years tenure with a company. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. That's true. COMMISSIONER HALAS: With the county, I should say. MR. MUDD: So that brings us to paragraph four, proclamations, ma'am. Item #4A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 16,2004 AS CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. And the first proclamation will be -- will be read by Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this proclamation will recognize NAACP Freedom Fund Day, and it will be accepted by Laverne Franklin. Laverne, would you please come down, please. MS. FRANKLIN: Good morning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good morning. I'm going to read the proclamation. Then when I finish, if you would come up here, I'll present it to you, and we'll take a picture of you. Page 8 September 28, 2004 MS. FRANKLIN: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Whereas, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Freedom Fund Branch (NAACP) will hold its 22nd Freedom Fund Banquet and Awards Ceremony on September-- October the 16th, 2004 -- on Saturday, October the 16th, 2004, at the Elks lodge; and, Whereas, proceeds of this event will be used to ensure that economical, political, educational, and social equality remains strong within our community; and, Whereas, the public is invited to attend and share in this celebration of freedom for all. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October 16th, 2004, be designated as NAACP Freedom Fund Day in Collier County, and urge all citizens to join me in this worthwhile celebration. Done and ordered this 28th day of September, 2004, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala, Chairman. Laverne, could I present this to you. I would like to make a motion that the board -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- accept this proclamation. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion to accept, and seconded by Commissioner Coletta. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. Page 9 September 28,2004 (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MS. FRANKLIN: Thank you very much. It is my honor to receive this award. And we're working very hard for all of our citizens here in Collier County, and we hope that everyone will come and celebrate with us on October 16th. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. (Applause.) MS. FRANKLIN: Thank you. Item #4B PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, CHAIRMAN FIALA: And next I have the privilege of reading the proclamation to designate Sunday, September 26th as Cancer Alliance of Naples Day, and in place of Steve Wheeler, the executive director, Jerry Conti, the president of the Cancer Alliance, and Beth Calvin, will be accepting. Would you step up here. Oh, Beth Calvin isn't here either? MR. CONTE: No, I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Jerry, come on right up front here, if you would, please. Jerry and I used to work on the cancer board, my goodness, years ago. We served on that together for about eight years, huh? Still standing, too. Bless your heart. That's wonderful. If you wouldn't mind -- it's kind of embarrassing -- but face the audience. Whereas, many are engaged in the fight against cancer with research, national programs, improving medical treatment and more; and, Whereas, here in Collier County the quality of life needs for cancer patients and their families too often have been left unmet; and, Page 10 September 28, 2004 Whereas, the community had no central resource where frightened and confused patients could find emotional and financial support; and, Whereas, in mid-2002 a group of Naples citizens and long time supporters of cancer organizations recognized these needs among their friends and families and neighbors and created the Cancer Alliance of Naples, Incorporated; and, Whereas, CAN, Cancer Alliance of Naples, is a grass-roots volunteer-governed charitable organization devoted to improving the quality of life of local individuals and families affected by cancer by providing need-based financial assistance, information sources, and links to services and support groups in our community; and, Whereas, 100 percent of the money raised by CAN remains right here in our community to help those families; and, Whereas, Collier County supports the first annual Cancer Alliance of Naples Day and urges all county citizens to participate along with other many businesses in our community who will come together in support of these families in our community currently battling this decease. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the fourth Sunday in September is Cancer Alliance of Naples Day, and calls on the people of Collier County, Florida, and interested groups to embrace Cancer Alliance of Naples Day on Friday, October 1st, 2004, and to celebrate at the Big Fat Beach Bash on Sunday (sic), October 2nd, at the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club from 4 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Done and ordered this 28th day of September, 2004, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala, Chairman. Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. Page 11 September 28, 2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Glad to see you're still involved; bless your heart. And we're going to ask you to stand and take your picture with us, and then you can say a few words, if you'd like. MR. CONTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MR. CONTI: I just want to thank you for the proclamation. On behalf of the volunteers, we are honored by this proclamation, and we urge the community to come out this Saturday and find out all you can about Cancer Alliance of Naples. We have found a void and we are filling it, and we need everybody's help. There are a lot of families that are not only battling cancer, financial distress, and hurricanes as well. And every other day a family walks into our office needing help, and we're there to help them. And we need to continue this today and tomorrow, and that's why we are urging everyone to come out and find out what we do and maybe how you can help with just a little bit of your time or your talent or your treasure. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Jerry, can you tell us where your office is located? MR. CONTI: Yes. We are located in the Luckert East Building across from the hospital on 4th Avenue. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's the new cancer research center -- MR. CONTI: Yes, yes. Page 12 September 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- for this area? MR. CONTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And could I just add, I'm just such an advocate for your whole organization, because it's truly unique to have a cancer organization totally devoted to their own community where they turn back to the community. They don't send any of the money away to any place. They're right now helping the people that need help, and I'm just so proud of all of you. Thank you. MR. CONTI: Thank you very much. Item #4C PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 AS MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK- ADOTIED CHAIRMAN FIALA: Our next -- our next proclamation, to designate the week of September 28th as mental health awareness week -- or illness awareness week, to be accepted by Don Williams, will be read by Commissioner Henning. Mr. Williams? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Williams. Good morning. Whereas, the national alliance of mental illness (sic) has proclaimed (sic) this week of October 3rd through the 9th, 2004, as Mental Illness Awareness Week; and, Whereas, the alliance of mental illness of Collier County is dedicated to improve the lives of those affected by mental illness through support advocacy and education; and, Whereas, one of four persons are affected by mental illness, that -- we recognize that these disorders can be treated effectively; and, Whereas, NAMI is recognized (sic) October 7th as Bipolar Awareness Day during Mental Illness Week; and, Page 13 September 28, 2004 Whereas, the national alliance for mental illness ( sic) of Collier County hopes that passing the proclamation will raise the awareness about mental illness and reduce the stigma that currently exists about mental illness. Therefore, be it proclaimed that the Board of Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, the week of September 28th, 2004, be designated as Mental Illness Week. Done in this order, the 27th (sic) day of -- 2004. Actually it should say that October 3rd through the 9th is the week of. With that change, I'll make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, sir. (Applause.) MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. On behalf ofNAMI and the Mental Health Association of Collier County, I wish to thank the commissioners and all the people of Collier County for the work that they've done in support of people with mental illness and getting good treatment for them. We have a wonderful county with regard to that, and I appreciate very much the work that the county commissioners do on their behalf. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Page 14 September 28,2004 Item #4D PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER AS LYMPHOMA AWARENESS MONTH- A.l)illIED And our last proclamation will be read by Commissioner Halas to designate the month of September as Lymphoma Awareness Month, to be accepted by Ana -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Preciado? MS. PRECIADO: Preciado. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Preciado, okay. Thank you very much, ma'am. The proclamation reads as follows: Whereas, the blood-related cancers currently afflict more than 712,145 Americans with an estimated 110,960 new cases diagnosed each year; and, Whereas, leukemia, lymphoma, and melanoma (sic) will kill an estimated 55,100 people in the United States this year; and, Whereas, the Leukemia Lymphoma Society, through voluntary contributions, is dedicated to finding cures for these diseases through research efforts and the support for those that suffer from them; and, Whereas, the Leukemia Lymphoma Society maintains offices in Bonita Springs and Tampa to support patients with these diseases and their families and -- the family members in Florida; and, Whereas, the State of Florida is similarly committed to the eradication of these diseases and supports the treatment of its citizens that suffer from them; and, Whereas, the Leukemia Lymphoma Society Light the Night Walk on February -- or Friday, October 22nd, 2004, at Vineyards Community Park at 6:30 p.m., will bring awareness to the dire needs Page 15 September 28, 2004 of the organization and the patients it serves; and, Whereas, hundreds of Collier County residents plan to participate in the meritorious event by walking and raising funds. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, we join with the Leukemia Lymphoma Society in designating the month of September 2004 as Leukemia Lymphoma Awareness Month to enhance the understanding of blood-related cancers and encourage participation in voluntary activities to support education programs and the funding of research programs to find a cure for them. Done in this order, the 28th day of September, 2004, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Chairperson, Donna Fiala. And I move for approval of this proclamation. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: My daughter had Hodgkin's Lymphoma years ago, and it looks like she's in total remission. MS. PRECIADO: Congratulations. Commissioners and citizens of Collier County, it is such a privilege to have the opportunity to accept this proclamation on behalf of all those that have been touched by blood-related cancers. Every five minutes someone is diagnosed with a blood cancer, Page 16 September 28,2004 and what's worse is that every nine minutes, someone perishes from a blood-related cancer. But every year, thousands of people unite to do something about these statistics. October 22nd at 6:00 p.m. at the Vineyards Community Park, the Naples branch of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society will be hosting its sixth annual Light the Night Walk. We invite everyone whose lives have been touched by cancer and anyone who wants to support them. It is an amazing evening that is marked by out traditional illumination of the sky with our lit balloons. We provide white balloons to all cancer patients and red balloons for supporters. A night filled with a sense of community. Celebrate life with your neighbors as you enjoy great entertainment, food, and fun. The blood mobile will also be at our event, courtesy of the Community Blood Center of Naples. Last week at this very meeting, one of Collier's very own citizens was given an award for donating bone marrow. At the blood drive, you, too, will have the opportunity to sign up for the National Bone Marrow Registry . You, too, could save someone's life. I thank the Commissioners for their initiative to incorporate our event within the Naples Community. You all provide us with hope, a hope for a future in which others will unselfishly devote themselves to the aid of others. So now I ask the Naples Community the true question, would you walk two miles to save my life? Register today and call our offices, and thank you once again. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just tell my colleagues that I will be participating in the walk on that Friday night, and I urge the other commissioners and county staff to support this endeavor. I don't know (sic) of very many people that have been affected Page 1 7 September 28, 2004 by, you know, either family or friends, by blood disease, blood cancer, and I think it's a worthwhile event, so that's why I'm supporting it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can you tell me once again Commissioner Henning, where it is, what time it is, what people should do to get there? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's going to be at the Vineyards Community Park on Friday, October 22nd, and it will start at 6:30 p.m., and I know the sheriff is organizing a team. Let's see if I can organize a bigger team than the sheriff does. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not likely. MS. PRECIADO: Sheriff Don Hunter's daughter had leukemia as well, so the sheriffs office has really pulled together to get a team together in support of him. So we urge the county commissioners to beat them. You know, friendly competition. Thank you so much for everything. Item #5A RECOGNIZING CINDI GORDON, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AS " " CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Thank you. And now go on to our presentations, and the first presentation will be to recognize Cindi Gordon, administrative secretary, Bureau of Emergency Services, as Employee of the Month for July, 2004. Cindi, will you come up here. You know when we take pictures after this, maybe first we can take a picture of you with us, and then maybe all of your fellow supporters right there from your department. I bet that would be keepsake, wouldn't it? Okay. That would be wonderful. Thank you, Cindi. Page 18 September 28, 2004 New health -- new federal health regulations were put into effect this year, this past year, and a health insurance probability and accountability representative was needed for the EMS department. Cindi stepped forward and volunteered for the position. This position requires a great deal of extra time and public contact. Cindi knows all the HIP AA rules and regulations. HIP AA is a federal law and all transactions are highly confidential. Cindi has done an amazing job handling this position along with her normal demanding workload. Cindi took it upon herself to attend an Excel class at Barron Collier High School at her own expense and personal time in order to keep spreadsheets for HIP AA's confidential files, and as a result, has become more productive in the department. Cindi keeps all EMS department licenses and certifications up to date and she implemented a database that presented a substantial savings, both in time and cost, to the department. The EMS department often deals with the public in difficult situations. Often family members come to the office to obtain information about a family member's accident, illness or death. Cindi's compassion and empathy are always evident. It is not uncommon for her to take extra time and effort to console and counsel in these situations. Everyone in the department appreciates Cindi's many years of experience as a Hospice nurse, and she is known as our nurse in waiting. In addition, Cindi was a first responder before she moved to Collier County. Cindi always presents herself in a positive, professional manner. She truly exceeds expectations. She extends her services for even the slightest task and is a pleasure to work with and, indeed, is someone to be proud of in our county government. Thank you so much for all you've done for us. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me first shake your hand, then I'd like Page 19 September 28,2004 to give you a check on behalf of the county. Hang this on your wall. Let everybody know who you are. And just a little letter from me. Thank you so much. It's really a pleasure. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's wonderful to know somebody like you. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Congratulations. MR. MUDD: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's kind of exciting, isn't it? MS. GORDON: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now if her group of supporters, I'll call them. MR. MUDD: Friends, come on up. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Other employees, friends. Thank you. Did you want to say a couple words, Cindi? MS. GORDON: Oh, mercy. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That was a couple. CHAIRMAN FIALA: If you do, go over and use the microphone. MS. GORDON: First let me say thank you. I'm a giver and not a receiver, so this is definitely a little overwhelming for me. I want to thank all my co-workers and supporters at EMS, the bill (sic) staff, the battalion staff, the division staff, our wonderful director, Jeff Page, my supervisor, Barbara Brown, who is my -- one of my mentors. I thank them. And I continue to strive and give 120 percent of what I can give for EMS, and hope many, many more years with them. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. MS. GORDON: Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And thanks for all you do for our county. MS. GORDON: Oh, thank you. Page 20 September 28, 2004 (Applause.) Item #5B RECOGNIZING MARK HOLMES, EMS HELICOPTER PILOT, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AS "EMPLOYEE OF CHAIRMAN FIALA: Our next presentation is to recognize Mark Holmes, EMS helicopter pilot, Bureau of Emergency Services, as Employee of the Month for September. Cindi was for July. And Commissioner Coletta will read the proclamation, or the recommendation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Mark Holmes, front and center, sir. Glad to have you here today, sir. If you would just stand right here and face the audience. Pilot Holmes actively participated in patient care while on the scene of 911 emergencies. Often the medic flight helicopter is first to arrive at the scene of motor vehicle accidents, and Mark's EMT training makes him a viable -- vital resource to the paramedics when there are multiple patients and resources are scarce. Pilot Holmes is always positive, professional, and courteous to his customers. When Mark is not assisting with patient care, he is consulting and comforting the family members. In 2001 Pilot Holmes renewed his EMT license with the State of Florida, and in January, 2004, became a certified -- became certified in aerial use of Night Vision Goggles. Pilot Holmes created the training curriculum that is currently used to train local law enforcement and fire department personnel about helicopter safety and medic flight landing zones. Mark actively provides this training. He is considered the local authority on helicopter safety. Mark's dual role as a pilot and EMT Page 21 September 28, 2004 most certainly increases his productivity. Mark is currently one of only two EMS helicopter pilots who is also a state certified EMT. Mark's safety program directly influences medic flight accident free status, which saves both lives and money. Pilot Holmes continues to participate in numerous community events conducted by Collier County EMS department. Pilot Holmes obtained his EMT license at his own expense and actively participates in patient care. Currently EMS helicopter pilots are not required to become EMTs nor participate in patient care. Mark's extension of himself in this area is an example of a dedicated employee going beyond the call of duty. And Mark, you are the Employee of the Month for September for very good reasons, and on behalf of the county, your fellow employees, and the citizenry at large, I'd like to present you with a check and a plaque, sir. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much for all you do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Flying high. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mark, can't get away that quick. MR. HOLMES: I was close. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you like to say a few words, Mark? MR. HOLMES: It's just -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, right over here. MR. HOLMES: It's just nice to be appreciated. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #8A RESOLUTION 2004-310/ DO 2004-02: PETITION DRI-04-AR- Page 22 September 28, 2004 5317, AIRPORT ROAD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP REPRESENTED BY RICHARD YOV ANOVICH, OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN & JOHNSON, P.A., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PINE AIR LAND DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ORDER IN ORDER TO EXTEND THE TERMINATION AND BUILDING DATES FROM OCTOBER 15, 2000 TO OCTOBER 14, 2005 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD (C.R. 31) APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER MILE NORTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, CHAIRMAN FIALA: And being that we have no public petitions and nothing for the Board of Zoning Appeals, we move on to item 8. MR. MUDD: 8A, which used to be 17 A, and that -- this item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's DRI-04-AR-5317, Airport Road Limited Partnership, represented by Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P .A., requesting an amendment to the Pine Air Lakes Development and regional impact development order in order to extend the termination of build-out dates from October 15th, 2000, to October 14, 2005, for property located on the west side of Airport-Pulling Road, which is County Road 31, approximately a quarter mile south of Pine Ridge Road in Section 11, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. That's it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Will all those who will be speaking on this subject, please rise and be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioners -- let's start with you, Page 23 September 28, 2004 Commissioner Halas, anything to disclose on this subj ect? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I have no ex parte on this. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. A matter of fact, I do. I met with staff, of course, which I'm sure everyone did on this. And also, too, unexplainable, there was a Post-em (sic) note on my desk in my office that did nothing more than just reference the item number and what it was. We can't identify who sent it, there was no name on it. We checked with staff, we checked with the petitioner, and no one has acknowledged the note. That note is also part of my file even though it does nothing to refer to it, but I figure it's better to mention it than not. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's great. I met with the Pine Air Lakes people, actually not on this particular DRI, but being that they were in my office, I thought, well, better to disclose it. And I've also spoken to staff on this. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have spoken to staffwith -- about this, and I had a brief telephone conversation with the petitioner's representative late yesterday afternoon about my reasons for wanting to have this pulled, but that was the extent of the conversation. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: This property came in conversation with the Smart Growth/Community Character Committee last week, and I also spoke to staff and representatives of the property. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a correction to the record. I did speak to staff on this, but that was the length of my ex parte. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much, Commissioner Halas. Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, you will be presenting? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, I will. Good morning. For ther Page 24 September 28, 2004 record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. I also have with me Tom High, who works for the petitioner and can answer any particular questions. This was a relatively straightforward request to extend the termination date of the PUD from October 15th, 2000, to October 14th, 2005. Since it's less than five years pursuant to statutes and rules, it's considered an insubstantial change, so it went through the Regional Planning Council with a recommendation of approval. It went to your Planning Commission. At that meeting they brought up the issue --a couple of your Planning Commissioners are on the Smart Growth -- Smart Growth Committee, and advised me that they had some ideas of potential interconnectivity with projects around us and requested that, or asked if we would voluntarily go in front of the Smart Growth Committee to hear their ideas. Weare scheduled to go in front of them, I believe it's tomorrow, to hear their ideas and work with them. We committed to doing that, and we are committed to working with the county and the development around us, where feasible, to provide for interconnection. I think you're all familiar with the proj ect, so I won't go into greater detail. At this point, I'd be happy to answer any -- obviously your executive summary is very detailed. I think it would be easier for me to answer any questions you may have regarding the petition at this time. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. You know, I'm going to step aside from what I usually do, being that we've pulled this. And rather than have staff first give their presentation, I'll ask commissioners if they would like to ask some questions. Commissioner Henning, I think you were the first one onboard here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Y ovanovich, would your client be willing to add to the stipulations of approval to work with Page 25 September 28,2004 transportation --transportation department on interconnection, where feasible, to the north, to the south, and to the west? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And, in fact, we've already had some preliminary meetings with transportation staff. So we're committed to doing that, and that would be an appropriate stipulation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've talked with transportation department. I have some concerns. In fact, when I brought it up to them -- when I read the agenda, I had some concerns, and that's that-- the fact that the TIS study is four years old, and I'd like to see if your client would be willing to do another TIS study, an update TIS study, since this is going to expire in 2005. And we've had a large impact in traffic the last four years, so I really think you need to step up to the plate and give us another TIS study. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we anticipate that we will be back in front of this commission at the end of the expiration period, and we will do a --we know we have to do a TIS. In fact, we already met with staff and talked about how to do it. So we're going to do a full-blown TIS and bring it back to you-all for review and make whatever appropriate changes need to be made. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And when would this take place? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we expire in October of '05, so it will be before that time period. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So there will be a new traffic study them come October '05; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Y es. We will be bringing it to you to reVIew, yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, it says here, only if the project is not built out at that time. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can't even imagine that we are going to Page 26 September 28, 2004 get built out. We have so much square footage left that we're -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: But there is the stipulation. What I think Commissioners Halas is saying is, regardless of what anything says, he wants to see a transportation impact study. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And we are committed to coming back to you with a TIS. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Prior to October, 2005? MR. YOV ANOVICH: How about -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Prior to October, 2005? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Prior to build-out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fine. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or build-out, either one, but prior to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know build-out's not going to happen, so by October 14th. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All we're doing is trying to protect ourselves here, okay? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If I may, I'd like to have Norm Feders (sic) come up. Norm is the administrator of transportation. Is that the correct title? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Close enough. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Close enough. MR. FEDER: Yes, Commissioner. It's transportation administrator. For the record, Norman Feder. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Norm, you heard the statements that are made here. We're looking for something that we know the public's interest is going to be served. Are we hitting on the mark or are we still falling short? MR. FEDER: You are, sir. I think we need to encourage the Page 27 September 28, 2004 interconnections. As the applicant has said, they are ready to pursue that and to do what they can on their property to help encourage those interconnections to the north, to the west, and the south. I think it's an important stipulation to have on this. The remaining issue of the traffic impact statement, understand that they're already four years past their date that they're asking now for a five-year extension, which in effect, is one, as is being pointed out, until October of next year. So that impact statement that they did was appreciably before that four year time frame, and so it would be our desire to see a new impact statement be developed. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. MR. FEDER: The quandary we're in is they have other development proposals that are coming forward. And I'll let the board sort through how you address those issues. But from our perspective, rather than waiting another year, I think there's enough change in what's being developed here, enough change in the background conditions, that as you consider this, it would be our recommendation that a new traffic impact statement be developed. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wasn't the traffic impact statement originally prepared with the residential component involved, and now it isn't anymore, it's completely commercial? MR. FEDER: I'll leave that to the applicant, but that's my understanding as well, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's what I understood too, yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: In fact, that's not accurate. In fact, it has always been a commercial development, retail, office, and hotel. We had come back approximately what, 15 years, 10 years ago, and scaled down the project, okay. We took the hotel out and we left it at retail and office. So it's never been a residential development. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. I'm sorry. Page 28 September 28, 2004 MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I seem to find that in the summary agenda here, and so -- but you say it was a hotel at that time. So was the traffic study -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. We did a -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- prepared? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- full-blown traffic analysis at that time when we amended the PUD to delete the hotel use, so there was a full-blown traffic analysis. And what would have happened -- you know, and admittedly we're late. But if -- you know, had we done this four years, we would have been an insubstantial change under the rules. It's still an insubstantial change, because that would have gotten us a five-year extension. In reality, we're getting a one-year extension at this point. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to emphasize that the reason I asked for this to be pulled was for these very reasons. I felt it was essential that we address the obligations for interconnectivity now rather than waiting until next year and then spring it on somebody, and it's good that it has already been under consideration by the Smart Growth Committee, but it really had not been brought to the Board of County Commissioners and included as a stipulation here. So that was the primary reason. I think you've answered my questions adequately, and we'll look forward to the plans for interconnectivity . CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So, in short, are we going to proceed then with the transportation impact study or are we going to wait? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- are you asking me or your colleagues? Page 29 September 28,2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm ask -- well, I'm asking you. I would like to see a traffic impact study started, because as Norm Feder said, that -- the study was started long before this became -- to the board for approval four years ago. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Halas, we are committed to doing a full-blown traffic analysis and bringing it back to the board before the expiration of a year. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, if it's appropriate, I'd make a motion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: First let me close the public hearing. We have no speakers, so let me close the public hearing at this time. And could I just ask one more question before you make your motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure interconnectivity plays an important role as you do this traffic study and that this is what the - our transportation department needs. Does this -- does this fulfill our needs? MR. FEDER: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion to approve with the added stipulations that the applicant, or the owner, will work with our transportation department for interconnectivity to the -- to the north, to the south, and to the west where feasible, and also to bring back to the Board of Commissioners the traffic impact statement before build-out, no later than October of 2005. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good motion. I'll second that. Thank you. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 30 September 28, 2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #9 A RESOLUTION 2004-311 RE-APPOINTING RANDALL R. SMITH, TONY MARINO AND RUSSELL BERGHUIS TO THE PUBLIC And now we move on to 9. Can you believe this? MR. MUDD: 9A, which is appointment of members to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee. CHAIRMAN FIALA: 9:50 in the morning and we're already at 9A. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do we have? CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have 9A, appoint three members to PV AC. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to reappoint Randy Smith, Tony Marino, and Russell Berghuis. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we -- they say -- they have requested that Mr. Berghuis be appointed as a regular member. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Regular member. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I guess that's involved in his motion. Page 31 September 28, 2004 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Item #9B RESOLUTION 2004-312 APPOINTING DONNA REED AND RE- APPOINTING BRAD SCHIFFER AND MARK STRAIN TO THE MR. MUDD: The next item is to -- appointment of members to the Collier County Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I suggest, Madam Chair, that the commissioner of the district make the original nomination? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I would like to nominate Donna Reed, and I'd like to reappoint Brad Schiffer to serve the term on the Planning Commission for District II. And I think we've got one other. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may, for District V, I'd like to re -- have Mark Strain reappointed to the Planning Commission. He's done an excellent job. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I think we have to take those separately, okay? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that all right? Page 32 September 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that okay, David? MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. You can have one motion on the floor at a time. So you'll have to take the first motion and then put on the record the second motion after you've made a determination of the first motion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So Commissioner Halas, I'll second your motion. Commissioner Halas motioned to approve Donna Reed and Brad Schiffer. I have seconded that motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to reappoint Mark Strain, or have Mark Strain be reappointed. He's done an excellent job for the county. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wow, that's five (sic) seconds. Let's see. Who said it first? Let me give that to Commissioner Halas. I think you were the first one in there, but there's -- you could say that there were four seconds if you'd like. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Page 33 September 28, 2004 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we go on - Item #9C RESOLUTION 2004-313 APPOINTING FELICIA WATSON TO MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9C, which is appointment of member to the Black Affairs Advisory Board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Felicia Watson. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second. Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Item #9D RESOLUTION 2004-314 DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE Page 34 September 28, 2004 MR. MUDD: That brings us to 9D, which is a recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Black Affairs Advisory Board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Item #9E RESOLUTION 2004-315 APPOINTING JERRY SANFORD TO MR. MUDD: That brings us to 9E, which is appointment of member to the Collier County Citizens Corps. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the committee recommendation of Jerry Sanford. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second that motion. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 35 September 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) Item #9F RESOLUTION 2004-316 APPOINTING MICHAEL BOYD TO THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER/SMART GROWTH ADVISORY COMMIIIER- A DillIED MR. MUDD: Brings us to 9F, which is appointment of member to the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Michael Boyd. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second. That would be a second by Commissioner Coyle. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) Item #10A AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR BID NO. 04-3666R TO LODGE CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,626,844 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RENOVATIONS TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES OPERATIONS CENTER, PROJECT NUMBERS 70059 AND 71072 - AEEROVED Page 36 September 28, 2004 MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item lOA, which is a recommendation to award a contract for bid number 04-3666R, to Lodge Construction, Inc., in the amount of $3,626,844 for construction of the renovation of the public utilities operations center, project number 70059 and 73072, and Mr. Jim DeLony, administrator for public utilities, will present. MR. HUBER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Harry Huber, senior project manager of the public utilities engineering department. This is an aerial photograph of the facility located between Mercantile Avenue and Progress Avenue in the Naples Production Park. This is a five-acre parcel with two existing buildings fronting on both streets. The purpose of this project is to -- is to complete the renovations to the two existing buildings purchased last June on this five-acre parcel in the Naples Production Park. Upon completion, this facility will house the functions of the utility billing and customer service, water distribution, and wastewater locates department. This proj ect is consistent with the 2003 water and wastewater master plan that was adopted by the board on May 25th, 2004. This project includes the complete renovation of the two existing buildings between Mercantile Avenue and Progress Avenue. The total area of the buildings to be renovated consists of 86,400 square feet. That's further broken down into office area, which is approximately 30,000 square feet; industrial shop area of 18,400 square feet; and then the vehicle storage area of 38,400 square feet. If you'll recall, at the time of the purchase we were estimating being able to renovate approximately 30,500 square feet, and that was due to the fact that there was 14 existing tenants still occupying the different areas of the buildings. And subsequently, however, all of those tenants have terminated their leases and have vacated, and that Page 37 September 28,2004 enables us to renovate the complete facility at this particular point in time. Together with the site improvements, this project has been designed to meet the Collier County vertical standards and comply with all current codes applicable to the proposed facility. The cost associated with the award of the contract for bid number 04-3666R is $3,626,844. The total project cost, which also includes the cost of furniture, access and security controls and data voice equipment and some minor site improvements, along with the obligation associated with the contract award, is estimated to be an amount of 4,527,000. Therefore, we're requesting, along with this approval of a budget amendment, to provide sufficient funds for the total completion of the project. Therefore, staff is recommending award of a contract for bid number 04-3666R to Lodge Construction in the amount of $3,626,844 for construction of the renovations to the public utilities operations center. This also includes approval of budget amendments necessary for the obligation associated with the award of the contract as well as the other estimated costs required to complete the project and authorization for the chairman to execute the standard construction contract after approval by the county attorney. I'm prepared to answer any questions you might have at this time. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. As I was reading through the information that was presented to the commissioners here, the unit cost per square foot is -- I think you come up with $52.40 a square foot. If we were going to go out and purchase -- or build a building from scratch, what would your estimate be in square footage price? MR. HUBER: Well, I think your current -- that's estimated at approximately 186,000 - or $186 a square foot. Page 38 September 28, 2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wow. MR. HUBER: For new construction. COMMISSIONER HALAS: For brand new construction. And we're talking renovation here costing us about $52.40 a square foot; is that correct? MR. HUBER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does that include the purchase of the building also? MR. HUBER: No, no, that wouldn't. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's just the renovations itself? MR. HUBER: The renovations itself, which that does not include the cost -- like the other costs I had indicated, like the cost 0 furniture and those miscellaneous items, such as access and security control and what have you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if it's $186 a square foot for a new building, what would you estimate the cost would be for the renovation and what it cost us for the building? Do you have an idea what it would work out to in square footage? MR. HUBER: The total -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Price. MR. HUBER: What I've estimated the total cost in -- I think it's indicated in the executive summary. The total cost for the renovations and -- including the purchase of the property, comes to about 10,500,000. And when you compare that to the items associated with the new construction, including purchase of land, that comes to approximately $19 million. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just want to correct something. The original -- when utilities came to the board in June of 2003, the estimate for remodeling was $1.5 million, and that was $51 Page 39 September 28, 2004 a square foot. N ow that we're at $4 and a half million for renovation, we -- if we haven't exceeded, we have touched the construction cost of a new building, if we would construct it as a new building. And if I would have had this information approving -- knew this information when we approved the purchase, I don't know if I would have approved the purchase of the building knowing that it's going to cost us that much money to renovate. But my question is, why do we need -- was it 32,000 or was it -- what was the square foot for ve -- 38,000 square feet for vehicle storage? MR. HUBER: That's primarily for security purposes. That's all county vehicles that would be using that particular area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You need inside storage to secure county vehicles? MR. HUBER: Well, if we didn't put them in there, you know, this site would not - certainly not be large enough to accommodate the parking for the person -- you know, the employees, plus all the parking for the county vehicles that they use in their functions. So that, in turn, would increase the size of the property that you would -- it would need to build a facility. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where do we store the vehicles now at our -- MR. HUBER: At the, you know, the particular sites. I do know that the utilities billing and customer service is -- has very, very few parking spaces available for customer parking, and that's one of their biggest problems. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not sure if it's -- as far as the user fees -- and this would issue water and sewer -- whether it would be good to -- or prudent to spend those moneys on inside storage of vehicles. That's valuable space. Couldn't you take other facilities that utilities owns -- and I think you have a pump -- pump storage or pump repair facility in the same park. Page 40 September 28, 2004 MR. HUBER: I'm not aware of that. We did-- MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony. Sir, could you restate your question, please? I don't know if I understood it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't you have a facility that repairs pumps now? MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, and that's just what this facility is replacing. Our current facility is over in the Glades, and that's the property that we've sold to the folks in the Glades, and that's where that facility is now. This replaces that facility and moves those industrial operations from that largely residential area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. DeLony, you blew your estimate by three times. MR. DeLONY: No, sir. I think that maybe we just didn't communicate effectively. Our original estimate was to renovate about 30,000 square foot originally in the footprint that we had. We had 14 tenants there originally in the building, which was not going to allow us to renovate it all at one time. Since those tenants have moved, I think -- and I'm recommending to the board that it's prudent that we go ahead and do a one-time renovation of this project, take advantage of the opportunity in terms of mobilization, one-time mobilization of contractors. And we have a very competitive price. We've gone through two procurements here, and that's the reason I'm making this recommendation to go ahead and renovate the entire complex as opposed to what we had originally recommended, which was a two-step process, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you think it's prudent to use the user fees' moneys to have vehicle storage, inside vehicle storage? MR. DeLONY: I think it's prudent -- yes, sir, and I would not make that recommendation if I had not believed this was the best course of action for those fees and as well as for our ratepayers and for the utilities, sir. Page 41 September 28, 2004 COMMISSIONER HENNING: For this site? MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or if you had a brand new site, would you build an inside storage for vehicles? MR. DeLONY: Probably not, sir, but I'd have had to spend $20 million to do it. That was the concern that I had with regard to going into this area. I felt that when we bought the property back in June, that we had the advantage of the zoning already there, it was centrally located to the major north/south, east/west corridor so we can get our service trucks out, but at the same time, I knew with the way the site was configured that there'd be some compromise with regard to site optimization. And that's the -- that's the decision, recommendation after w went through the economics and the pluses and the minuses of this site versus maybe a site with less constraints with regard to existing buildings. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was the answer to my question. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. DeLony, obviously you did a study for cost effectiveness in regards to renovating this whole thing and getting it done at the present time. I'm sure -- have you or --did you do this study? MR. DeLONY: Sir, you have that in the executive summary where we looked and tried to compare the cost of new construction to this construction. But what is not there is what was included in the original executive summary when we bought the property. Just to go back and revisit that, I believe we looked at more than a dozen sites within the county that -- where we could locate these Page 42 September 28,2004 industrial activities. And it was very - land was very expensive, land use was going to be problematic with regard to zoning and so on. And when this property became available in the industrial park, it was ideally suited for just our land use as well as the geographic location within the county with the access to -- north/south access to Airport, north/south export -- access to Livingston. So we really -- when we came to the board, we knew that it was going to have shortfalls interims of its overall utility, that is, optimization for this site, some of the concerns that Commissioner Henning has asked me about. But I thought in the end, striking the balance, given what was available, given the cost of the properties, both new and this property, given primarily the geographic location and the land use, I thought it was the optimum fit for the utilities, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And the last question is, what's your best guess -- excuse me. What's your best guess for this building maintaining our requirements? How many years out do you think this will maintain the requirements that's needed for the county in future growth? MR. DeLONY: It's a difficult question to answer, but my be-- my thoughts are this, is that we will locate utility billing and customer service in this location, and we'll maintain it there until we come up with another method or means of collecting bills and providing that customer service. With regard to the water distribution and the locates that are going to be there, I see them there, and this facility will accommodate our needs, for at least five to 10 more years. When we move into the Orange Tree area, this is in 2012, it's my thoughts that we're going to have to locate some type of in-ground services --service center or operations center for the eastern part of the water/sewer district, and we will be looking at that as we develop the plans and specification for that site development at that 216-acre site Page 43 September 28, 2004 just at the vicinity of the fairgrounds. So we'll probably, because of the size of the utility -- more importantly because of the distances between service areas, we'll have this location, we'll have our location on Shirley Street, which we currently have, and then we'll have a third location out in Orange Tree for all of our in-ground services. This would be our water and our wastewater in-ground services folks, as well as their equipment, their personal vehicles, their necessary shops for the rebuilds, the items Mr. Henning was speaking to, and finally, you know, customer service and utility billing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So to paraphrase all this, what you're saying is we're looking for --in future, and we also feel that it will accommodate the future for at least five to 10 years, maybe longer, until we bring the Orange Tree facilities on, but this will not become obsolete; is that correct? MR. DeLONY: Sir, given the fact that it's in the center of-- really the economic center of our county as it stands today, there's no way in the world, A, it's going to be obsolete for our uses; and I think in terms of value, I don't think our values will ever be anything but increased in terms of the value of this property and these utility -- I mean, these services that this particular facility can bring to bear. I think we can cut our trip time down significantly by this relocation. And I know there's some folks in the Glades that are going to be very happy that we're no longer their neighbors in the Glades. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you forecasted what the cost of this building in renovation would cost the ratepayers? MR. DeLONY: The cost, delta cost, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the ratepayers, what it would cost the ratepayers, individual ratepayers in the county? MR. DeLONY: Sir, I don't have that number here with me Page 44 September 28, 2004 today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval of this project. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Coletta to approve this project. Any further discussion? Yes? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I am not going to support the motion based upon, I don't believe that I would have voted for purchasing this building in the first place if I would have had the complete information on what the cost was. I don't think it's prudent to spend ratepayers' money to store county vehicles, and then -- when they can be secured in a fenced in area. Many of our customers don't even have a garage to store their own vehicle in. And I think we kind of jumped the gun on purchasing this building without having the complete information. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, what -- before I vote, I'm just going to say what I thought when I first read about the indoor parking, that bothered me a little bit. But I thought, you know, as that department expands, at least they have a place to expand to. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: They can move cars out of there and build offices in there, as well as, I'm glad to see that we're buying buildings. I don't think that the original estimation for renovating the building included all of these extra spaces that the 14 rental places were using, and so I believe it was based on what we were going to use at the time. So I am going to vote for it. Any further discussion, Commissioners? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. My only comment would be, as we get into this a little bit farther, we might want to see how we Page 45 September 28, 2004 best can use the resources. Commissioner Henning brought up a good point. Maybe some other departments are in rented -- in rented space that we could move in there temporarily until other facilities are open to be able to alleviate the rent cost, and I'm sure that you'll look into that to be able to come back sometime in the future. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think where all this came about is the fact that they had 14 occupants in that building, and for whatever reason, those occupants left the building, so that left us a large area that we can use for future expansion. So I think it's a win situation, and I think that as Mr. DeLony brought out, that the price of land is getting to the point it's getting very expensive here, and I'm sure that we can find better use for that than parking vehicles inside. And I believe that with the expansion of the county here in the future, that -- that those areas that presently may house vehicles temporarily, I'm sure that they're going to be filled out with office space as we see fit here and as the county grows with more people moving in here. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's the last of the questions. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That passes with a 4-1 vote. Commissioner Henning with the nay. Thank you very much. Right now, I think I might deviate from our agenda just a little Page 46 ---- 1. September 28, 2004 bit. Do we have any speakers on C, D, E, or F? MS. McPHERSON: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have speakers on G? MS. McPHERSON: Yes, ma'am. That's the only item. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's move that forward. Pardon me? MS. McPHERSON: That's the only item with speakers. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's the only item. Let's move that forward now. We can get to the other ones. Okay. So we're going to move forward to item lOG. Item #lOG THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD EVALUATING THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OR A VEHICULAR BRIDGE OVER THE GOLDEN GATE CANAL AT THE SOUTH END OF TROPICANA BOULEVARD IN GOLDEN G A TR.CITY - rn.s..CI JSSED MR. MUDD: G, which is a presentation of the Golden Gate High School bridge study conducted by the Collier County School Board evaluating the traffic impacts of a pedestrian bridge or a vehicular bridge over the Golden Gate Canal at the south end of Tropicana Boulevard in Golden Gate City. And Mr. Don Scott will present, and I think Ms. Taylor will help us during that presentation. MS. TAYLOR: Yes. MR. MUDD: Go ahead, Don. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. WilsonMiller, working for the school board, has done a traffic study of the alternatives, if it was pedestrian bridge, if there was a vehicular bridge open all the time, and a vehicular bridge that's gated, Page 47 September 28, 2004 open just during high school hours. I want to turn that over to Jeff so he can make the presentation. If there's any questions after, any of us can field it, and I guess there's some speakers, too. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay MR. PERRY: I think we're all set. Thank you very much. I appreciate having the opportunity to be here. My name is Jeff Perry, transportation planner with WilsonMiller. We are under subcontract to the civil engineering firm doing the engineering site work for the Golden Gate High School which recently opened in August. During the course of the development of the school, the school district and the county began a dialogue concerning the potential for new bridge over the Golden Gate Canal effectively at the entrance -- at the southern end of Tropicana Boulevard that would, in fact, provide direct access to the high school from Golden Gate. We were contracted to do a study of that bridge effectively looking at both pedestrian and vehicular options. What I'd like to do today is give you a brief overview, discuss with you the problem and the solutions, the approach we took with the study, run a few simulations for you and tell you where we are today. Golden Gate High School, of course, opened in August of this year. The location currently gets its access directly from Collier Boulevard via Magnolia Pond. You may know that is currently a signalized intersection now. It's also - at the same location on the east side of 951 is the landfill access and the access to the utility site, just north of the interchange - interstate interchange. The attendance zone for this particular high school, 80 percent of the proj ected population lives north of the Golden Gate Canal. You'll see in this particular exhibit, this is 1-75 here sort of bisecting the school attendance zone. This is the high school with its access off of 951, which is this line right here. This is the community of Golden Page 48 - r September 28, 2004 Gate. As I said, 80 percent of the student population lives north of the Golden Gate Canal, which is right here. And, of course, you can't get to the school from that location because there is no bridge across the canal. This is the schematic of the school layout. I'm sure you've probably all seen the school now. It's a beautiful facility. But the -- all of the students living north of the canal are unable to get to the site. The lack of the direct connection to the Golden Gate High School precludes about 1,000 students living north of the Golden Gate Canal from having the ability to walk to school, about 56 percent of the entire student population. This also means that they are now eligible to be bused because they live -- they do not have access, walking distance access. So without the bridge, as you can see in the graph, there's a substantial number of students that are being bused. The bridge options -- a pedestrian-only bridge option. This was, early on, thought to be a logical approach. Putting a bridge that's somewhere at the end the Tropicana Boulevard that would extend across to the school site, would allow students within the walking area to either walk or ride their bicycles to school. The other options include the vehicular/pedestrian bridge, vehicular bridge with pedestrian facilities. And sort of a choice there is whether or not it serves only the high school or whether or not it's physically in some way connected such that Magnolia Pond and Tropicana become a continuous public thoroughfare that would provide traffic an opportunity to move through Golden Gate, down Tropicana, through the high school area, and out to 951. So that was sort of a second vehicular bridge option. Our study approach was to identify the travel patterns, collect the relevant data, develop some characteristics for the school, because as you might imagine, the high school has its own travel characteristics, Page 49 September 28, 2004 certain times of the day, the number of students, the number of parents that are dropping students off, the number of student drivers and so forth. We chose to use the Lely High School as a model. We did a traffic study of Lely High School and developed some factors that we could then apply to the Golden Gate High School to generate some traffic numbers. We've created a traffic model for each of the options, and we wanted to evaluate the results. The good news as far as traffic flow patterns is that, although the bridge is at the end of Tropicana Boulevard, which in this particular diagram is right down here at the bottom, there are no less than five or six ways of getting to that particular location through Golden Gate. So there is no one particular road that would have to bear all of the brunt of all traffic coming to Golden Gate High School through Golden Gate. Those students living north of Golden Gate Parkway towards the northeast would have two or three options to sort of circulate down through here. Those at the northwest side would, likewise, have ways of getting to the school without everyone coming down simply Tropicana. That does a couple of things, not only it minimizes direct impact on anyone single street, but it also helps spread out the load at the signal -- at the five signalized intersections that we analyzed. Just to give you a flavor for the kind of traffic we're talking about, this is the impact to Golden Gate High School traffic on Golden Gate Parkway, assuming that there is a vehicular bridge. The peaks, as you can see, early in the morning and late in the midday when the school is letting out. This is Golden Gate Parkway traffic in blue. And way down at the bottom of that graph, you can see the Golden Gate High School traffic in yellow, that same amount of traffic compared to the amount of traffic that is actually on the Parkway. As you can see, it's a Page 50 September 28,2004 fraction of the -- a very small fraction of the amount of traffic that's actually using Golden Gate Parkway. And I might add that that, quite frankly, last year, last school year, that traffic theoretically was on Golden Gate Parkway anyway. It was headed to Naples High School. It was either being bused or parents driving their kids or kids driving. It was already out in the network. These children obviously have lived in the Golden Gate community and have traveled the roads whether they're going to Golden Gate High School or the Naples High School. As a percentage of daily traffic, about 25 percent of the school's traffic occurs during the peak morning hour and about 18 percent in the afternoon peak hour. As you can see Golden Gate traffic, about to 7 percent of it occurs basically all day long during the normal daytime hours. We did a study of Lely High School to determine the types of traffic characteristics that might be associated with the high school -- with Golden Gate High School. We chose Lely because, quite frankly, the proximity to a neighboring residential area gave us the walking/biking option that we were looking for, the demographics were very similar, and it was a fairly confined area for us to be able to put traffic counters out and actually do some analysis of the data. The demographics tell us that on - from what the district provided, that in the opening year, there would be about 1,700 students; in 2005/6 school year, there would be about 1,800. These numbers are a little bit different. I don't have the exact numbers from opening day yet, but there were some choice - school choice decisions that were made late in the process and may have had an effect on some of these. The students within the walking distance, assuming a bridge, is about a little over 1,100, and those eligible to ride the bus was about Page 51 September 28, 2004 750. We were able to develop the numbers of students that were likely to be walking, riding the bus, be driven by their parents, being dropped off, riding with other students and the like. All of these numbers sort of worked into our traffic modeling. This is basically what we ended up with; 1,856 student population, about 360 students would likely walk to school if given the opportunity; 374 students, or 20 percent, would ride the bus; 37 students, 20 percent, would be likely to be driven by their parents; and about 750 would either drive or be driven by other students. We'd make a distinction between those being -- driving themselves and riding with students as well as being driven by their parents because the parent drop-off obviously is a two-way trip in the morning. They're coming in, and then they're leaving immediately afterwards; whereas, the student or faculty member or staff member is arriving in the morning, staying there, and is leaving later in the afternoon, so there's a distinction that we need to make when we're analyzing this. We created a traffic model for each option, the pedestrian and two vehicle bridge options, to analyze the Golden Gate High School background traffic. We analyzed both morning and the afternoon peaks. We analyzed with and without Golden Gate High School traffic, in other words, what's the baseline condition. We identified any level of service problems, and a variety of other traffic engineering issues. We also identified conflicts, or are in the process of identifying conflicts on site, because the original site was designed for a single point of access off of Magnolia Pond, and now putting another access in off of Tropicana adds some issues that need to be dealt with on site. The pedestrian bridge with loading and unloading strategy -- we'll talk about that in just a moment -- took both a.m. and p.m. peaks, vehicular bridge with only Golden Gate High School Bridge traffic, Page 52 September 28, 2004 a.m. and p.m. peaks, and a vehicular/pedestrian bridge with through traffic, we chose only to analyze using the MPO's model the a.m. peak, because the a.m. peak is the worst peak. The afternoon school peak does not occur at the same time as the afternoon highway peak on 951, for instance. So we felt that the a.m. would give us the worst condition to be looking at. These are the actual numbers that we were dealing with during the peak hours: A.M., about 850 trips, 585 in, 265 out, and, likewise, in the afternoon, a slightly smaller number. There are activities that go on in the afternoon. The afternoon traffic is actually spread over a little wider area of time. We also looked at the impacts on the - each individual access. I won't go through a lot of these numbers, but I'd like to show you some of the simulations that we've run. I did want to talk a little bit about how we looked at the through traffic. Obviously without a bridge over the canal, there is no interconnect between Magnolia Pond coming east/west off of Collier Boulevard and the Tropicana. This is the current model which has Tropicana Boulevard up in here coming south off of Golden Gate Boulevard. This is the model that we adjusted or modified to simulate a through traffic condition, and we simulated it without the high school, just looking for background traffic, how much traffic would actually use this particular option, and I will go through that with you. With the through traffic option, there are about 2,000 vehicles per day using the Tropicana bridge going to and from the high school. That's the number of trips associated with the high school; about 628 in the a.m. peak hour. If we connected Tropicana to Magnolia Pond and looked out 20 years with the MPO's model, we would have about 14,600 cars a day that would just love to make that their main route from Golden Gate Parkway out to 951. That's about 1,300 additional vehicles in the Page 53 September 28, 2004 morning peak, for a total of 1,941, including the high school traffic. There is a corresponding reduction of Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard traffic as a shortcut is created, basically, from - through Tropicana and Magnolia Pond. So there is a value if you will, or a reduction in arterial traffic as traffic now finds a new route to travel. What I'd like to run for you right now is, just for a moment, is to show you a couple of simulations that we plugged all of this data into the computer models to try to figure out exactly what was going to be happening in the neighborhoods. One of the major concerns that we had initially with the pedestrian option is that, at first blush it sounds logical, we'll just construct a pedestrian bridge and children will walk across. Well, it's not only the children who may walk to that bridge, but it is also every parent who wants to drop their child off living north of the canal is going to drive to that location and park and drop their child off and then leave, and the child will walk across the bridge. And that's not necessarily a problem in the morning, although there is a lot of extra traffic created by that. It becomes a greater problem in the afternoon. This is one particular scenario that we developed that actually creates a drop-off loop, if you will, on about four, five home sites on the north side of the canal that would allow people to come to the end of Tropicana Boulevard, drop off -- get into the loop, drop their children off, and then proceed on out the way they wanted to go. This works well with the stop condition. There's no other highway improvements required for this particular option; however, in the afternoon, there's a different problem created because parents are arriving 15 minutes before final bell, parking and waiting for their child to come across. And if you've ever waited in a car line, you'll know that your child is always the last one that comes out the door or comes across Page 54 September 28, 2004 the bridge. You're always the first in line and they're always the last one to greet you. So we tried to develop a scenario that would actually simulate what might be a whole bunch of cars sort of queuing up. The problem we see here that you might imagine is that parents want to avoid this kind of congestion. They will want to park someplace else, they will want to park somewhere else within the local network along some of these side streets waiting for their child to come across the bridge to reach them where they can actually get out of there rather than getting stuck in some sort of car line here. Now, this particular option has problems associated with it, simply because there is a queuing up of vehicles, sometimes hundreds of vehicles that might want to queue up over a period of 15 to 20 minutes in order to pick up their children. Obviously in a vehicular bridge option, this -- all this queuing occurs on the school property and not on the north side of the canal. This is what the vehicular bridge might look like. At the end of Tropicana Boulevard in this particular situation we have a -- only Golden Gate High School traffic. This is the afternoon drop-off. In the -- around the school property, parking lot is emptying out, traffic is leaving going both directions, some going out to Magnolia Pond, some coming back, circulating back up through here. This I the bus loop over here that handles all the bus traffic. This works fairly well with the stop sign control condition without any major modifications. That's the bridge and additional turn lanes constructed on the bridge. The real problem -- and likewise in the morning, similar situation. Not any serious or significant problems. Where we see the significant problems is actually in the through traffic. We couldn't make the stop sign condition work at Tropicana and the 30-second. We had to put a traffic signal there to make it work. Page 55 September 28, 2004 The flow of traffic during the peak hour -- this is running at four times normal speed here, so we'll slow that down. The traffic flowing through the area creates some serious problems around the entrance at the school, requiring a signal there, and there is additional problems created out at Magnolia Pond that require additional lane improvements and signalization there. This is the traffic that's now taking Magnolia Pond to Tropicana instead of going up to Collier Boulevard and backing -- coming back through Golden Gate Parkway. It's a slightly shorter distance, and it's a much more desirable route, especially for those people who are living in Golden Gate area that want to get to the 951, headed south, area. There's also problems created upstream, if you will, within the local system, side streets that get blocked because people can't get out at a stop controlled intersection, where free-flowing traffic prohibits people from being able to turn and get out of their particular areas. These kinds of simulations give us an opportunity to look at the direct impacts as well as the indirect impacts of these kinds of alternatives. There are direct impacts that we know certain improvements would have to be made. There are also indirect impacts that in terms of traffic congestion and convenience and inconvenience and delay that occurs that you can see simulated in these kinds of situations. Lastly, in the evaluation of the different options, we found no significant traffic operation problems at the major intersections with the Golden Gate High School traffic, with exception of the through volumes that created some problems at 951. But on Golden Gate Parkway, there were no significant problems. The neighborhoods experienced varying degrees of local traffic impact, basically as a result of either parents dropping off students or school traffic to and from the high school coming up and down Tropicana. I'll go through those in just a moment. Page 56 September 28, 2004 Stopping and standing during afternoon peak hours, we believe, would also be a serious concern. The pedestrian bridge has its option - has its advantages. It eliminates the needs for busing of 1,000 students, less construction cost, probably in the neighborhood of one-third the cost of constructing a vehicular bridge, less new Golden Gate High School traffic within the neighborhoods, which would be the parents dropping off, but you would not have the other traffic -- vehicular traffic that would be associated with it, students driving, for instance. Traffic impact would only be during peak hours, those early morning and mid-day afternoon peaks where parents would be picking up and dropping off. There is a small restriction of Golden Gate High School traffic on Collier Boulevard because of the traffic that would now use Tropicana. There is no significant site-related modifications to the high school that would be necessary. Less sensory impact. I characterize that as lights and noise and activities and thing like that associated with the pedestrian bridge versus the vehicular bridge, and it provides Golden Gate community access to the Greenway, which is the pedestrian facility that the county's constructing on the south side of the canal, so the pedestrian facility does provide the access to that. The disadvantages, new traffic creates the drop-off, pick-up problems during peak hours in the residential neighborhoods. We believe that there was probably more houses and land that would be necessary to create some sort of queuing and drop-off area that would be necessary for loading and unloading as opposed to simply a vehicular bridge that would take up fewer lots. Potential for queuing on streets during afternoon peaks -- and there is no improvement to vehicular access, obviously, to Golden Gate City student drivers. The vehicular bridge with only Golden Gate traffic eliminates the need for busing of the students, like the pedestrian option. It improves Page 57 September 28,2004 vehicular access for all student drivers as well as parents, faculty, and staff and buses, allows both vehicular and pedestrian access to the Golden Gate Greenway, greater reduction in the Golden Gate High School traffic on Collier Boulevard. Those students that are continuing to travel on 951 to get to the school will now be coming through Golden Gate City on Tropicana. We believe that there would probably be fewer homes necessary for the construction of a vehicular bridge. The vehicular drop-off area, parent drop-off area is actually on the school site as opposed to north of the canal, and it would eliminate queuing in peak conditions on the residential streets. The disadvantages, it costs more than a pedestrian bridge, it creates additional Golden Gate High School traffic within the neighborhoods, even beyond those during peak. It would be all day long, for instance, if there were no other controls placed by the school district. Site-related modifications would be necessary. That would, of course, be of concern to the school district. Additional security features might be required and there's, perhaps, greater sensory impact to the neighborhoods. The through traffic option has basically the same advantages; however, there are some disadvantages. It creates a significant amount of traffic through residential neighborhoods that would not otherwise be there, and it also increases the risk to the Golden Gate Greenway pedestrian traffic that would ultimately have to be crossing that particular facility. There would also be significant site-related modifications that would be necessary to physically separate school traffic from the through traffic to make it an -- as well as the security options. Our next steps are to finish the bridge schematics for the district for both the school --excuse me -- for the pedestrian option and the vehicular option. We're preparing some computer enhanced Page 58 September 28, 2004 renderings of those bridges to show the public what those facilities might look like. There are site issues that we are dealing with with the district, security issues, opinions of probable cost, comparing them, producing a report, and then going back to the district for a final presentation. And with that, I am done and will be pleased to answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me ask how many speakers we have. MS. McPHERSON: You have three speakers. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Three speakers. And we have a court reporter that is going to need a 10-minute break here. So before we get into the questions and answers and speakers, let's take a 10-minute break. We'll come back, and we'll finish the subj ect then. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Everybody please take your seats. MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mike. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Commissioner, this is a continuation of lOG, which is talking about the different options for the Golden Gate High School access, the bridge issue. We've had the presentation from Mr. Perry from WilsonMiller, and I believe that there are -- there are -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Three speakers MR. MUDD: Three speakers? MS. McPHERSON: Three speakers. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning first had a question, and then we'll move on to the speakers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- Mr. Perry, let's see, the trips -- you said it was 14,000 trips if it's a -- developed as a collector? MR. PERRY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And then how much would that take off Golden Gate Parkway? Page 59 September 28, 2004 MR. PERRY: About 10,000. COMMISSIONER HENNING: About 10,000? MR. PERRY : Yes. It would be a corresponding reduction as -- if you look at your monitors, as traffic up in this particular area here, it would normally be making this kind of movement, actually comes down and makes - down this way. So there is a reduction, if you will, goes -- this is 26,000 right here without the connection. It goes to 16,000 with the connection. This number goes from 72,000 down to 63,000. So there's a corresponding reduction as those vehicles do not make that trip. They, instead, make it this way. So it's the tradeoff, if you will; move traffic from one road to another. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I find that amazing when Golden Gate Parkway is a two lane -- or a four lane divided, and this one is a two lane. You're going to actually balance out the trips on Golden Gate Parkway and Tropicana and Magnolia. It seems -- I mean, my perspective, what I try to do, and I could be different than anybody else, is I try to take the -- not the shortest route, but the easiest route. I just find that amazing. Now, would that be similar to Cougar Boulevard where Barron Collier is? Because that is a collector. You could get from Pine Ridge Road to Airport Road. MR. PERRY: It certainly serves the same kind of function. I can't tell you that it's the same kind of roadway we're talking about here, because obviously we don't have a roadway - we have Tropicana, which is a major collector coming down through, serving all of the local residential neighborhoods on both sides all the way down to the canal, south of the Parkway. It doesn't exist except as a collector known as Magnolia Pond, which is, right now, is a dead-end. Ifit were constructed as a major roadway, which is what your model looks at, if you -- we're talking Page 60 September 28,2004 about a major two lane in this case, roadway, it would be constructed in such as way as to make it a convenient collector. Fourteen thousand vehicles a day is not an unusual amount of traffic to find on a two-lane collector highway. That's -- that would be an acceptable level of service. The problem is that half of that collector is going to be coming through a residential neighborhood that today may only be experiencing 5- or 6,000 vehicles a day at its worst -- at its worst time right now. So there's a -- and you're right on point in terms of the way you travel and the way the model simulates traveling. Your MPO model takes into consideration distances from point A to point B, the travel speeds, and the time it takes you to get there. And when it finds one alternative that is better than another to get you from point A to point B, then it begins to shuffle some of the traffic onto that alternative until that one is no longer the best route and people continue to go and follow other routes. So it's like water, it seeks its own level. Whenever you add a new route into the system, which is what we tested here, dropped the new arterial or collector roadway on into the network to look and see if it was there and if it was a good roadway, obviously built as a collector, what kind of traffic might it carry 20 years from now, not today, not the day it opens, but actually 20 years from now. And the model predicts that you probably move 10,000 people from Golden Gate Parkway and 951 -- would choose instead to travel on this particular collector. Now, that's not to say that you can't do things to that roadway that make it less desirable, obviously stop signs and traffic signals and speed humps and traffic calming measures that would discourage people, make longer travel times. People would no longer want to use that. Those people move back over to Golden Gate Parkway and 951. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The - would you say if there is a vehicle bridge there, it would be comparable to Orange Page 61 September 28,2004 Blossom? Are you familiar with trips on that? MR. PERRY: That's probably a very good analogy, between Airport Road and Livingston Road? That type of connection, where all of a sudden there's a new road that has never existed before that it is desirable for some people to be able to use that roadway, not everybody, but certain people that are living within those developments or at the end of the roadway that would find it easier. Certainly people on the Livingston Road side in Golden Gate Estates that want to get over to points west would be able to travel that kind of road. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I was thinking more of from Airport Road to Goodlette Road, because you have communities and neighborhood communities -- MR. PERRY: Right. There mostly-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- off to the side. MR. PERRY: -- are some gated communities on both sides, but you have those -- even those intersections, you have -- if you have a steady stream of traffic along Orange Blossom, all of a sudden the people coming in and out of those developments find it more difficult, especially during peak times, to be able to get onto the -- onto the collector roadway, and that's when they call -- come knocking looking for a traffic signal, because that's the only way they can effectively try to get out onto their roadway. And sometimes it's warranted and sometimes it's not. But it's those kind of interconnects which are exceptionally valuable in the network. We've looked at this before. This is not the first time that a connection like this was looked at. We looked at it some time ago extending eastward --excuse me -- westward all the way over to Santa Barbara to see if there was some value in that kind of -- what would be Recreation Lane, basically, an extension -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. PERRY: -- connecting through there. So there's been a Page 62 September 28, 2004 study of this before. And while this does seem to have some merit, it comes at a cost. And the cost at this point is to the additional traffic, whether it's an additional 7,000 trips a day that would be through neighborhoods or an additional 5,000 or 3,000 or 2,000. It comes at an additional traffic coming through those neighborhoods, and that's what we're trying to point out. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had the opportunity to view your presentation to the school board -- MR. PERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and correct me if I'm wrong, I thought the model was Naples High School. MR. PERRY: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was Lely High School? MR. PERRY: Lely High School, yes. I gave more depth-- in-depth analysis to the school district because how we developed the actual numbers was, perhaps, of little more concern to them than it might be to you-all. But no, Lely High School was chosen. Now, early on in the discussions, I think you may be recalling that when the school board and the county commission have talked about this before, there was some preliminary analysis done by someone else -- I'm not sure if it was county staff or district staff -- that looked at some of the Naples High School statistics, because that's where the Golden Gate High School students are current -- were currently going last year, so there was some Naples High School information that was provided, and that's probably what you're remembering. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, would you call the speaker please. MS. McPHERSON: Yes. Madam Chairman, you have -- the first speaker will be William Poteet, and he'll be followed by Kaydee Tuff. Page 63 September 28, 2004 MR. POTEET: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is - for the record, my name is Bill Poteet. I live at 6180 Star Grass Lane in Golden Gate, and I currently serve as the president of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association. I'm speaking on their behalf. Almost one year ago this body met with a joint session of the Collier County School Board and addressed the issue before you. At that time all parties agreed a second entrance to the bridge was needed providing traffic studies warranted it. The basic agreement was as follows: The Collier County School Board was to be responsible for purchasing the land; the Collier County Commission and the Collier County School Board would split the cost evenly for the construction of the bridge; the Collier County Commission would then be responsible for the bridge maintenance. Today the study performed by WilsonMiller clearly justifies the need with over 80 percent of the students to the new high school coming from within the four square miles of Golden Gate City, and access directly to the community is needed. Now, Golden Gate Area Civic Association has long been a proponent of a limited vehicular bridge/pedestrian bridge concept complete with traffic calming devices to limit the impact in the neighborhoods. More importantly, we implore the Collier County Commission to make a decision on which option is the commissioners' -- is the commission's preference. For over one year now, local residents along 37 -- 32nd Avenue have put their lives on hold. They are waiting to find out if the school board and the Collier County Commission need their homes in order for the new bridge footprint. The school board has purchased one home in anticipation, knowing that one to three more homes are probably needed, maybe an additional lot. It all depends upon the footprint. The school board is eager to act and is ready to purchase the properties. They just need to know which properties are needed. Page 64 September 28,2004 WilsonMiller advised me several weeks ago that they, too, are awaiting your decision and the school board's decision. They are ready to design a bridge and determine how many homes will be impacted, et cetera. You just need to give them the direction. Now, per option number one, which was the pedestrian bridge, the Golden Gate Area Civic Association does not believe that the pedestrian bridge is in the best plan for our community's future. Initially the plan would require the school board to purchase the highest number of homes and lots. Additionally, it does not resolve any of the issues regarding emergency response from local service providers or truly link the Golden Gate community to the Golden Gate High School. And option number three, the vehicular bridge will full public access, well, that's a nightmare to our community. Imagine 16,000 plus individual -- or cars per day driving down in front of your house and your street. It would destroy your neighborhood, and it would simply destroy the neighborhood over in Tropicana. And personally, I just can't imagine the commission even considering this type of option. Today, you can allow the school board to move forward with this project by making a simple decision. The Golden Gate Area Civic Association strongly advocates the option number two, the limited access vehicular/pedestrian bridge concept. We ask you to take time to make this decision and let the residents adjacent to the bridge site begin reliving their lives. They've been on hold for too long. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak before you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: County Manager, I understand this is only for informational purposes today, not for us to decide. Could you -- could you please give us some information? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. The school board requested the presentation because they had the same presentation. But at this point the school board hasn't made a decision either, so it would be a little Page 65 September 28, 2004 premature to say, this is exactly the alternative to pick at this time. But we do need to discuss where are we going from here. Do we -- you know, from the school board and the board standpoint. MS. TAYLOR: And if I could add, we -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your name, please? MS. TAYLOR: Amy Taylor, for the record, with the school district. We would welcome your -- any of your input and your ideas. The school district did express, as Mr. Bill Poteet expressed, that -- the community support of their strong concern for the vehicular through option. We would like your input and ideas about that, and we welcome your input, and we will pass that on to our school district in its formulation of its decision. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And the school board is the one that actually makes the final decision; is that correct? MS. TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I ask Amy a question? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Amy, I'm sorry. Would you repeat that again? The -- did you say the residents' preference is -- what was that statement again? MS. TAYLOR: As Mr. -- well, the civic association, as Mr. Bill Poteet had expressed, is in support of the vehicular/pedestrian option with limited access. My superintendent has authorized that I express the school board's discussion at their meeting when they saw the same presentation, of their strong concern over the through option vehicular bridge/pedestrian combination. So we also are still open, the decision hasn't been made, and we welcome the input and your ideas and thoughts. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Next speaker? MS. McPHERSON: Madam Chairman, your next speaker is Page 66 September 28, 2004 Kaydee Tuff, and the final speaker is Timothy Guerrette. MS. TUFF: My name is Kaydee Tuff. Some of you might know me as Mrs. Joe from past speakers. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Lunch box is your last name? MS. TUFF: No, I don't have any packages, sorry. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, six pack. MS. TUFF: I wanted to leave that part out. This project began a long time ago. In the mid '90s the civic association and the county were talking about getting our kids over to Golden Gate Community Park. At that time we had to drive along Santa Barbara, which was a very dangerous roadway for our children to be traveling on their bicycles or walking quite a distance. We felt if we could go across the canal there, they would be able to access the county park, and that discussion started talk of the pedestrian bridge. That was before any school building was even planned. And then after the county looked at the school's design, they decided they needed another access route, and I believe the civic association feels that's -- that's true, we do need another access other than the one on Magnolia Pond. One of our concerns, the first time you met with the school board, Mr. Coletta said, let's get this fast-tracked. And knowing how things move in government -- and now we have two government entities, we don't expect it's going to be really fast, as fast-tracked indicates. But we would like to see something in place by next school year. We opened this year without very many juniors and seniors who would be driving. It also puts our numbers a little lower. Next year there's going to be a lot of kids needing to get over there, and the following year even more. So we would like to see that commitment to fast-track this and not let it dangle out there with neither side making a real strong Page 67 September 28,2004 decision either way so we can get things moving. I guess that covers -- I support, too, what Bill indicated for our association. We do not want to see this be a through traffic access. One last thing that I would appreciate, and it doesn't really tie into this exactly. But we are also having sign issues with Golden Gate High School, and since I have your ear, I might mention that we would like -- if you're familiar with the school, you know the school is located quite a distance off the main roadway of Collier Boulevard, and we wanted to put our sign on the roadway where people -- it would be visible and do the most public good. A problem turned out that we are -- it would be an off-site sign, which the county does not allow, but there are variances. Then during the hurricane our school became one of the major shelters for the people - I guess it was Frances, for the people from the east coast. Without that signage there, it made it difficult for those people to find that school. So I'd strongly urge you to support the school in trying to place that sign where it will do the most public good. Naples Community Hospital has committed to the purchase of the sign, and at this point, it's slated to be put up near the school where, yes, parents will see it, but it doesn't have the same public good, it doesn't do the same public good right by the school as it would in a location where it can be more visible. So I'd appreciate your consideration on that. And I thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Kaydee, I saw the county manager taking notes on that, so I'm sure we'll see some action. MS. TUFF: Thank you. MS. McPHERSON: The final speaker is Timothy Guerrette. MR. GUERRETTE: Good morning, Commission. Tim Guerrette, Golden Gate Substation Commander. Page 68 September 28, 2004 I just have a real brief thing, and obviously in the WilsonMiller study, there were several advantages to the vehicle and pedestrian -- limited vehicle pedestrian bridge. I'd just like to add, obviously from a law enforcement emergency standpoint, the ability to have our vehicles to cross over into that area with quick response. I think it, as you know, as a law enforcement agency, we're going to have to work with everybody whichever option you do choose; however, with that ability to get from Santa Barbara down -- correction -- Tropicana down across the bridge area would be a great advantage to us as an agency, and probably, more than likely, most of the other emergency management agencies also. So with consideration, we'd definitely like to go with the pedestrian and a limited vehicle activity bridge. That would benefit us greatly. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. That's all of the speakers? MS. McPHERSON: That's all the speakers, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did our transportation want to talk with us a little bit? MR. SCOTT: Sure. Don Scott, transportation planning. We have one and a half million dollars programmed for next year for construction, this fiscal year coming up. And obviously the decision's not just ours and it's not just the school board's based on the issue of how they're accessed, and also that we have money programmed for it. We don't -- from here, what we had talked about -- I talked with Amy this morning about was they were going to get -- their next presentation was going to be about some of the design, what it would look like, some of the features, and then from there, they might make a decision which way they would like to go. I'm leaving it up -- I mean, from that aspect, how does the board Page 69 September 28, 2004 want to address that from our standpoint. Is there anything that we need to answer that you don't have at this point, those type of issues? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, Henning, and Coyle are up. Commissioner Halas, you begin, please. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned. We're talking about high school students driving back and forth in this neighborhood. What is the -- how many elementary -- elementary school children do we have walking in that area, and do we have sidewalks to address their issues? MR. SCOTT: There are sidewalks on Tropicana. The elementary school is a little bit further over toward the east, and -- but there are kids that walk up that way to get to the school. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how will that impact their safety if we start -- if we look at the idea of opening up Tropicana? Tome that seems -- doesn't seem right to put all that traffic down those neighborhoods. MR. SCOTT: Obviously, open or even open all the time, it would be traffic going that way. We do have sidewalks on Tropicana. Tropicana is actually fairly nice, the way it's been redone. From that aspect, it's safer than some of the other streets that connect over. We have some issues closer to the schools from interconnection of sidewalks. One of the -- one of the other concerns from this aspect of the bridge is also an elementary school that's planned for next to the high school, south of the canal. One -- our discussions with the school board is that the people from Golden Gate City won't be going to that school, but they'll be coming from other areas, but you never know how it will develop in the future, too. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don, the $1.5 million, is that Page 70 September 28,2004 impact fees or gas tax money? MR. SCOTT: I believe it's gas tax money. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So can we use a -- gas tax money for the bridge if the road stops at the high school? MR. SCOTT: And that has been a question that's been raised, is if it's not to a public benefit, should we be using that money to do that? Now -- and I live in Golden Gate City, so the way I've looked at it is, if it's open all the time, it's definitely more public benefit - and I'm not talking about people living on Tropicana. If it's open for part of the time, you can still go down there, drop your kids off, go on down the road, out to 951 and keep going. It's been talked about being gated in different -- now, that's on issue we haven't got down to specifically where would it be gated. I've heard, you know, gated just south of 32nd, and then people would know when it's open, when it's not open, at least coming from the north side. I've also heard of gating on the other side of the high school so that -- just access from Tropicana to the high school itself. Some of those things give more advantage to Golden Gate City accessing the high school and some of it less advantage to people living on Tropicana. I believe that if you gate it and open up during school hours, there is still some public benefit, but, yeah, that is something the board would need to decide, whether it's enough public benefit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess we would need some guidance from our legal staff well before we make that decision. MR. SCOTT: And that's essentially why we weren't making the decision today, but -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- I can tell you that the pedestrian bridge with a student drop-off is a disaster, with or without the student drop-off, because if you didn't have the student drop-off, you're going to have parents lining up on the streets there, Page 71 ------1 ----- September 28, 2004 32nd that parallels the Golden Gate Canal. MR. SCOTT: And that's why we're here today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The other issue -- I mean, I don't know -- I mean, you take a look at the elementary schools or the middle school and the line of parents trying to pick up kids at the schools in Golden Gate, they extend out into the road, and it's not -- it's not good. And I know that in talking to our transportation department, that what we need to do is try to limit vehicles bleeding into the neighborhood, because it's -- that's going to be a disaster, too. So I hope that we can give direction for a vehicle bridge. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, if I could. For the record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator. I think you asked some questions previously that I think are very important to be discussed, just so that the board has the full picture here. Obviously we put aside 1.5 million as we tried to explore how we proceed on this, and obviously our recommendation to you would be the consideration of use of that fund based on how much benefit there is to the overall network with whatever gets decided to be built. I think also you need to be aware that as you heard the presentation -- and WilsonMiller did an outstanding job for the school staff in that analysis. But they also, when they first modeled the concept of this roadway of Tropicana extension further south and showed you approximately 14 plus thousand vehicles and 10,000 coming off of Golden Gate Parkway, that was based on basically a free- flow situation in the model. And that's why you asked, and I thought it was a good question, Commissioner, about Cougar. You've got basically somewhat of the same, not exactly, as Jeffpointed out, a little bit different with the community. But nonetheless, some of the same issue. You don't have the traffic on Cougar as you might expect coming Page 72 September 28, 2004 off of Pine Ridge and Airport as a way to get around that intersection that's pretty congested as well. And so when it was said about 14,000 vehicles, that was, as was noted, without the schools. You add in the schools, that creates stop conditions. Those stop conditions combined with the plans that remain to move, basically, the access of 951 further north across from about City Gate, just south of the canal, to a signalized location, and removing that signal that's far too lose to the 1-75 ramps but needed to go in consistent with the school schedule because of heir demands, those are going to mitigate or mediate some of that level of traffic volumes that, I think, are of concern, rightfully, to the community. And yet you will be able to have that interconnection that will provide public benefit, probably not to the tune, in at least my feeling, of about 14,000 vehicles there and 10,000 off of Golden Gate, because you will have some, as I think was raised, some level of that traffic calming of those movements as people would have to go by schools, go by stop conditions, move up further to the north to come out on 951, if they want to get up to the signal coming in off of 951. So I wanted you to understand that. I think right now what we'd like to get a feel -- and the school board, was basically the board's issue. My comment to you is we put one and a half million aside depending on whether or not it provides some level of relief to the overall networks. The gas taxes can be used even if it were gated if it can be shown that it provided relief to the network. Obviously it provides less in that area, and that's what we'd have to understand once we saw the actual design and then could model specifically what it would do, rather than the free-flow condition. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: My question has been answered. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? Page 73 September 28, 2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got concerns if it's going to be gated that we're going to use gas taxes to build a bridge. I think that should some come out of the school board's fund. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may, Mr. Feder? MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you show us on there -- you said that the intersection that we present -- that we presently see shown on this map would not be conducive to traffic later. It would have to be amended to be able to meet needs. Would you show where it would be coming out? Maybe you could draw a little line or -- MR. FEDER: I don't think I can do it on the teleprompter here. But I'll ask Don to go over as I'm talking. Essentially where it's connecting to 951, just north of the interchange today, that's at what's called Access Road 2, or Magnolia Pond Road. That roadway would go up further through development that's there and come across from that access point you see just south of Golden Gate, little further up, that would come just below the canal itself. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me try one more time. We're talking about a distance of what, like a quarter of a mile? MR. SCOTT: It's not -- I don't think it's that much. MR. FEDER: It's about a quarter of a mile further to the north, but it would establish you going in the opposite direction to some degree, as I was pointing out. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That hasn't been taken into consideration in this study that WilsonMiller did? MR. FEDER: I will defer to Jeff, but in the modeling what they did is they sought to - which is an important issue -- how much could you get relief from a roadway if it was put in. And my understanding, they did that basically by putting it in under the current alignment, not reconfigured as I mentioned, and without the school's basically saying Page 74 September 28, 2004 how much could you potentially divert to try and see what its impact would be. So I wanted you to understand that that was, depending upon your point of view, the worst case of best case scenario as to what it could do. Is that fair, Jeff? MR. PERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jeff, in your study, you said that you -- your study was based upon a school not being there. MR. PERRY: When we modeled the particular background traffic, we did not put into the model the 2,000 students that would -- that might be there in the year 2025 because that would have given us a total traffic, and what I was trying to find out was what would be the background traffic that would be circulating along that road. I already knew what the school traffic was, and I simply just added that to the 14,000. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand that. But when you've got a school, you have those peak times when -- if you've ever been by a school at their peak time, you avoid it like the plague. You don't want to get caught in that traffic when they're going in there to pick up the kids and leaving. It's not the kind of thing you want to experience unless you have a child there to pick up. So I think if you factored that in, the numbers would be quite a bit different. Is there another study that's going to take place or is this it? MR. PERRY: This is essentially it. We were asked to look at -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But that hasn't been factored in; in other words, if I was going to be looking for a shorter way to go, I would never go that way during the school hours, absolutely not, under no circumstances. And also, too, if I had to cut back up to the north before I could exit on 951, that would be a further deterrent. And, you know, I think those numbers there would determine a lot. I'm concerned about limited access. We've done this too many Page 75 September 28, 2004 times. Manatee's a good example where you have a cutoff there in the middle of the road, and you haven't got access to 951. People have to drive all the way back around to be able to have access. It's something people learn to live with, true, but if we -- I am concerned that we keep cutting off these opportunities, even though they're limited, that we may put ourselves in a box someday down the road. MR. PERRY: Let me -- let me just point out where we're talking about. This is -- if you look at the aerial paragraph on your monitors, this is the current access that presently is opposite the landfill, what we call Landfill Access Road. The new access point is about right here. I would venture to say it's 1,000 feet north, and it would be a curved access that would sort of be like this. This connection will remain so that exiting traffic going right would continue to come out here and come down. Entering traffic would probably come up here to the traffic signal, and then come back down this way. So we're talking about a little dogleg that would be built right in here. Quite frankly, I can honestly tell you that the computer models are not sophisticated enough to be able to judge those kinds of delicate differences to any strong degree. We're talking about something 25 years out into the future. There are so many differences that will occur between now and 2025 that this is one suggestion of what might be, and we were just simply trying to identify the order of magnitude of the kind of traffic that might use that road -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Might under certain circumstances that prevail -- MR. PERRY: Sure. Keep in mind that it may have missed -- you may have missed the numbers that -- and we talked about 10,000 being reduced. On this section of Golden Gate Park --excuse me. On this section Page 76 September 28,2004 of 951, we're talking about 60,000 vehicles a day in the year 2025 on a six-lane facility. There's a lot of traffic out there that is going to be looking for any other way it can to get from point A to point B. That's the kind of thing that a model is good for, to give you some guidance. It is not the be-all, end-all decision-maker. It is the kind of thing that you use with a grain of salt and say, okay, that tells us that something like that might occur, it gives us some numbers to work with. I can tell you that there would be a substantial increase over the current volumes on Tropicana, which basically are at saturation now. There's not a whole lot of new development that's going to occur in the Golden Gate City area south of Golden Gate Parkway. There's some infill development that will occur over time. So Tropicana traffic is basically stable now. The Golden Gate High School traffic, 2,000 vehicles a day, is something that the residents along that road will have to deal with if a limited roadway connection is made. Some level above that, whether it's an additional 5,000, 7,000 or 10,000 that may come up and down Tropicana to use a through route is additional that they would have to deal with, and that's what we were trying to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it has - it does -- I mean, you've got weigh one thing against the other. It does have an advantage, even if it isn't a fast route. If you have some sort of problem with Golden Gate Parkway from there going to 951 or at the intersection of 951 and Golden Gate Parkway, here's another way to be able to keep the traffic flow going, rather than have to take them all the way back to Santa Barbara and around. One other question, if I may, then I'll let whoever needs to speak to you. What about bikes, kids on bikes? Is there provisions for that if this is a pedestrian and a car access? Page 77 September 28, 2004 MR. PERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Will children on bikes be able to access this? MR. PERRY: Yes. We treat pedestrians and cyclists in the same -- in the same context. There's a small number, a very small number of high school students that actually cycle, at least that's what we found at Lely. Most either walk or they ride in cars, either -- whatever. But the pedestrian facilities, whether they are -- it is a stand-alone pedestrian bridge or combined pedestrian/vehicular, will be a substantial pedestrian feature that will allow both cyclists and pedestrians to safely move. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Next question is, 20 years from now we can't predict what the demand for bicycles will be. You know, we might go the way of Europe, who knows. MR. PERRY: Right. I'd like to think that more children, high school students would ride bicycles, but surprisingly, they don't. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any other questions from commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you need anything from us now? MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I --let me just help a Ii -- you probably don't, but I -- but I believe there's a -- there's at least a common feeling on the board that a pedestrian-only bridge isn't a good idea, and if you could kind of tell them that, then that kind of gives them - now you're talking about hours of operation through or not, and that's something that's debatable between the school board and staff, and we'll bring back that recommendation to you. But that sure would take one of the alternatives off the table, and then you're just basically talking about open or closed or limited hours, or whatever, on the bridge, other piece, so that you -- they can talk design and other things. I think that, at least, getting some kind of direction in that Page 78 September 28, 2004 particular -- between just the pedestrian-only or vehicular bridge and pedestrian, and then worry about the other limited versus completely open, I think it would help them a lot and further their discussions. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there's one other thing. Commissioner Coletta brought up a good point about the dogleg on Magnolia, 951, which will align for the industrial park to the east. And -- I mean, it's just a better network system, because once that goes in, then you have to deal with traffic lights there. And it just has to be part of the mix when we discuss the overall solutions in that area. Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Now we shall move back to our item -- MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, can I -- I don't know if we got that direction. Is there anybody on the dais right now that's in favor of a pedestrian-only bridge? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. MR. MUDD: That's all I need, ma'am. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MR. PERRY: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Is that enough? MR. PERRY: Yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Now we'll move onto 10C. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. 1 DB, just for the viewing audience, was continued early this morning, and the board approved that continuation. Item #10C Page 79 September 28, 2004 RESOLUTION 2004-317 AUTHORIZING THE FEE SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY CONDEMNATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THE WIGGINS PASS BASIN WITH 10C is the next item, and that's a recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the fee simple acquisition of property by condemnation for the purpose of providing the Wiggins Pass basin with an unobstructed storm water outfall. The fiscal impact is $250,000. It's project 512122, and it says Norm Feder will present, but I don't believe so. I think Ricardo's going to present. MR. VALERA: Yes. MR. MUDD: And I think Ricardo has to put some things on the record though before you talk about condemnation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I could say one thing. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm sorry this couldn't be on the summary agenda, but it's a good thing when we're fixing problems with the estuaries and bays on our coastal area, so I'm fully in support of using everybody's money for that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. That's good news. Thank you. MR. VALERA: Okay. I think I need to work on my prescription there a little bit. Good morning. For the record, Ricardo Valera, director of storm water and road maintenance, and today I'm here to discuss item 10C, which is a request for a condemnation resolution to acquire property to secure a natural flow way in the Wiggins Bay Basin. It's located on the northwest side of Collier County. And this is a view of the basin. I'm trying to see if I can get this all zoomed in in one page. Let me see. Page 80 September 28, 2004 Just as a brief description, we have runoff from Lee -- the border with Lee County, sheet flowing south along Old 41 and entering the tidal waters of the Cocohatchee River. As a little bit of background, in 1995 we experienced a lot of flooding in this area, and Collier County secured the services of Magnoli, Barber, and Brundage. They provided us with a study and a series of recommendations to resolve the problems in this basin. As a result of that, we identified a series of bottlenecks that have been corrected since then. There is a piped sewer -- storm sewer system that goes from Wiggins Pass Road along Gulf Harbor Road to the river. And Collier County, in 2001, purchased a tract of land that's part of the slough system, which is -- you can look at this second exhibit. This piece of property is 13.5 acres, and there's a natural flow way that goes traversing the site all the way to the river. Now, the areas shown in green belong to us. They're Collier County property. And the piece that we're discussing today is this red parcel, 0.29 acres, that we would need to secure in order to allow this natural sheet flow to continue. We have documented the background - and through a memo from my desk to Norm Feder, dated September 17th. We also looked at alternatives. This would be the most cost effective, the natural alternative. There's opportunities for groundwater recharge, provides habitat, improves water quality conditions. This is consistent with environmental -- current environmental concerns and with the long-range planning that we have in the county. So with this, I pretty much conclude my presentation and would like for you-all- request for you-all to approve this condemnation process. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Do we have any speakers? MS. McPHERSON: No, Madam Chairman, you do not. Page 81 ~ September 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, Commissioners, I just feel that we must protect the natural flow way, and if we don't do that, we're going to have more flooding and more problems, so I'd like to make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve by Donna Fiala, and the second by Commissioner Halas. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's, 5-0. Thank you. MR. VALERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we move on to - look at this, our annual performance. Item #10D THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND A LUMP SUM DISTRIBUTION OF MERIT PAY FOR COUNTY MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Number 10D is the annual performance appraisal of the county manager, and that's followed by 10E, which is review and approve the 2005 annual work plan for the county manager. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, Commissioners, I don't know how we start this off, but we've all -- Page 82 September 28, 2004 MR. MUDD: I can -- I can help you a little bit. About a week and a half ago I provided the Board of County Commissioners my self-appraisal for their grading and provided a copy to each commissioner and to Sue Filson, who's your executive director of your office, and asked for the commissioners to do a grading so that I could compile that and bring that board (sic) to the county commissioner for today. That annual appraisal and those metrics are part of my contract with the Board of County Commissioners to be accomplished before the start of the next fiscal year. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. And we've all submitted our evaluations and so forth, and you have them. Actually, I think they were published in the newspaper, so everybody's got them. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And I returned - I took your gradings and your comment sheets from the back, put them on a compilation sheet and returned each appraisal, individual, back to you so that you could check your ratings against what was on that piece of paper to make sure everything is right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You came out with pretty high scores there, Mr. Mudd. So now we need to evaluate -- we've already spoken of the performance appraisal, and we need to consider a merit pay award. Yes, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may make a suggestion that would come across, as being what I would seem to think is fair. If we average it out, we have a 4.37 out of 5, for a 5 being perfect score. That comes out to a percentage rating of .874 of the total of a hundred percent. If you take 87 -- .874 of the possible top amount of money, which would be $16,074, you come up with a suggested merit pay of $14,048.68, and that's based upon the scores that we have given against the percentage of the -- what the pay is to be, the merit pay to Page 83 September 28, 2004 be for a maximum. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a great benefit. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this -- is this base lump sum or -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, lump sum. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- is this base over -- MR. MUDD: Yes, it's lump sum, sir. I - as I did last year. However, if you look at the last line of the third paragraph under considerations of the executive summary, it says, by the existing contract, all such merit adjustments shall be included in the manager's base pay. However, to be consistent with the cost saving merit pay changes for administrators and directors, the manager -- the manager voluntarily requests that his merit pay be awarded as a lump sum payment for FY-'04 performance and not be added to his salary. And that's -- so it's lump sum in that particular juncture. I did the same thing last year, too. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, any other comments? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If that's the case, I'd like to make a motion that we recognize Mr. Mudd's performance by giving a merit pay of $14,048.68. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do you have that motion? Very good. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I read some of these performance reviews from my fellow commissioners, and I'm concerned about one about the relationship, or repair the damage with the City of Naples. And I thought that we were trying to work out with them -- I'd like to have the commissioner that wrote that, if he could maybe enlighten me a little bit in what we need to do, we or the county manager. Page 84 September 28, 2004 Because we have worked with the city, I thought we had. We spent over $500,000 just in additional studies, and then today we have another study that was presented to us, the Board of County Commissioners, in regards to another study for whether we should have an overpass and not have an overpass. So I have some concerns. I think we've tried to work with them as much as possible. And I'm concerned also in regards to when we tried to work with one of the developers down there in Haldeman Creek, and we thought we had something in hand, and then for some reason it came apart. I'm not sure if it was shortcomings on our side or whether it was shortcomings on the other side, so I'm just trying to get some idea of where we are here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I hope there's no disagreement about the fact that there's been a very severe deterioration in the relationship between the county and the city. COMMISSIONER HALAS: There has, but I don't think -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- over the past year. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it is everybody's responsibility to try to build a relationship that is constructive and cooperative, and I don't think you ever reach the point where you say, I'm not going to try anymore, I've tried as much as I'm going to try. I think that's the kind of attitude that tends to perpetuate those kinds of problems. The point is that the county government and the municipalities depend upon each other. And if we do not work cooperatively, then we are going to continue to have problems. And we've discussed what some of those problems are in the past. My request is that the county manager continue to work to do whatever is necessary to maintain a professional and cooperative relationship with the City of Naples, City of Naples staff and the city council, and I would urge that the commissioners do the same thing. There were very, very incendiary statements made both by the Page 85 September 28,2004 city council members and by commissioner -- members of this commission which really started a lot of this off, and I think it's necessary that we recognize we all bear a responsibility and that we all try to work to make this a better, more cooperative relationship. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree 100 -- yeah, I agree 100 percent with you, but it's also a two-way street. Everybody has got to work on this. When I say everybody, not only the city, but the Board of County Commissioners, everybody's got to work on this. And I think there's been some shortcomings maybe on both cases, but I really think that - I know I've had meetings with people in the city, and I've tried to get across the point that, hey, we need to have open communication, open dialogue. So I just hope that people realize it's a two-way street. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have delivered the same message to the city council on numerous occasions, and I believe that we can repair the damage, but it's going to take a while. But my concern is that -- that we continue to work on that, both at the staff level as well as at the commission level. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And while we're talking, just one more. Mr. Mudd, I would hope that this year somehow you can pour some steam on fixing the problems that we have over in our permitting department, because I think that that is - that is continuing the fuel -- to fuel the trend toward annexing other parts of the county into the city because of our permitting problems. And I wrote that, of course, on your - I don't know what the problem is. I've made suggestions in private to you and to others. But I think we need to fix that before it hurts us any further. So I would suggest you do that. Yes, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I couldn't second that more strongly. That was one of my other comments too. We have made a lot of improvements in all departments of government over the past Page 86 September 28, 2004 couple of years under your leadership and under the management of our very abled administrators. But there simply has not been enough improvement in community development/environmental services. We -- you and I have talked about this issue. We have been promised substantial improvements. We've been promised standards for processing requests for permits and reviews. We have not met those standards to the best of my knowledge, and there still seems to be major foul-ups that not only cause me personal embarrassment with my constituents, but do not reflect well on the county, and it has already cost us from a standpoint of annexation. I am absolutely 100 percent convinced that Ruffina was annexed because they felt that they were not being treated properly and promptly with respect to their permits. I know there is disagreement about that. So I'm not accepting that position, but I know that's how they felt, and that is one of the reasons they sought annexation. I think anybody else who wants to develop either in the redevelopment area or other locations where they feel they can get better consideration from the City of Naples will go the same route, and I think it is a self-inflicted injury, and I think we really need to do something about it. So I feel very strongly about that, and I've -- my patience really is growing thin with respect to promises of improvement. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- wow, I don't want to get too far off the topic, but I also have been concerned hearing from homeowners' association that want to remodel their clubhouse or a doctor trying to get a permit to build his office, and it just goes on and on. But I can tell you from how I feel, it's not the administrator of community development, it's coming from above. And I think this is a healthy discussion, and I hope to continue it later on. Page 87 September 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm going to put my two cents worth in, and I -- and where I'm going with this is, it's not business as usual anymore. It's not where people come in and got a rubber stamp and went in one door and the next day they went out the door and they had all their permits in place, and of course, that's what's caused us a lot of heartaches and problems in this county. That's why we've spent hours upon hours in regards to addressing our land development codes to make sure that people played within the arena. And if some developers have a problem, so be it. But I think that what we need to do is make sure that everybody's on the same page and everybody's in the same arena. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So-- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, in that regard, there has been some improvements this year. Might not be as fast as everybody would like them. Mr. Schmitt and his group met with the development community and anybody else that wanted to come on the 15th of September in order to provide some more input. Mr. Schmitt will work through DSAC in order to work that. We will bring those metrics forward. We will start grading submittals against those particular items and the metrics that are there so that you have an idea of how long it takes to get a permit, what steps are staying within standard and what aren't, and then we'll give you a report on those exceptions to the standard and why, so that you'll be there, and we will -- and we'll start keeping track of every item that goes through, okay, and make sure that it's within the satisfaction of the DSAC committee. Now, what I'm saying, within the standard that they set. You know, sometimes you look, and they say they want Page 88 September 28, 2004 everything, and yet there still needs to be a review against the land development code. We'll make sure that we don't give away the farm, so to speak, that we will stay within our land development code, and we will -- and we will gain some efficiencies in that particular department this year. And I'll put that on the top of my list as things to get accomplished. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. And I think that we're all in agreement. So everybody wants to make sure that the building codes are stringent. We want to make sure that when building, we're prepared for the future and for the storm events that might occur and so forth. I think we're all in agreement of that. Some of the problems I've had -- and I'm going to just tell you -- just a couple little ones. For instance, someone just came to me and he said, I want to apply -- I just bought a new restaurant and I want to apply for a permit. What do I do? Well, I don't know the first thing about getting a permit myself. And I said, maybe they have a list of things that you can follow. Step one, go to so and so, and who to do it, and then what you apply for. Well, I don't think there is such a piece. You kind of have to just grope. And so maybe we ought to have a list of instructions or something for John Q. Public who's trying to build a garage onto his house, or whatever it is. The builders all know how to do it, but common, ordinary people like me don't. I wouldn't know the first thing about getting it. That's number one. Number two, because in our capacity as commissioners, there's nothing we can really do -- we cannot tell staff to do anything, nor would we really want to tell them what to do, but we can ask for their help, but we have to really go to you. This is a problem, please see it through. Page 89 September 28,2004 And when we have to do that a number of times on the same permit -- and I'm trying to help one right now. I mean, these guys have been in the process for 11 months just trying to open C,1little coffee shop. And every time they come in, then there's -- they have a list of criteria that they have to meet. They fix those and then they get a new list, and then they get a new list, and then a new list. Well, that isn't -- I don't think that that's correct. You know, list all of your concerns, and then fix them, but don't keep coming back for new ones, you know. But anyway, so enough of that. And others, many others. So I hope you can fix that problem. MR. MUDD: I got it, ma'am, and that was a subject of discussion on the 15th, September workshop to a large measure. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just very briefly. One of the things you don't have any control over are the fire inspections, and I don't know how to fix that problem, but I know that there have been some monumental problems resulting from failure to get the fire inspections done in a timely manner. I can remember the Botanical Garden being delayed for a significant period of time waiting for a fire inspection of a rock wall, and it had electrical wiring in it, but -- so apparently there was a reason why it needed to be done. But it took a long, long time to get done. And I don't know how you solve that, but if you've got some ideas about how we can address that issue, I would appreciate that. MR. MUDD: Yeah. I met the fire commissioners in unison at their planning meeting one time, and I was there with Mr. Disney and Mr. Longo, and we sat down to the -- and I think it was when I was the deputy, and they were talking about developing common checklists between the fire departments, okay, so -- when they do the inspection. I need to go back and revisit, because I believe we're still Page 90 September 28, 2004 broke. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear the drift of what everybody's saying, and you're right. I mean, it is -- it's frustrating if you don't work the system on a regular basis to walk into it cold and expect it all to operate around you. It's a strange atmosphere you're in. The people down there -- and they've got so much patience, it's unbelievable, and they're a tremendous staff working with you. But there is a -- I don't know, it's difficult, let me put it that way. It took me two months to get a permit that I, in the end, didn't really even need to have a storage unit put in the back of my home. And I'm a commissioner, and I should understand these things. But possibly, just a suggestion off the cuff, it's the lack of understanding. Now, we can't take every person aside and walk them through the whole program from A through Z. I mean, it would probably take a good hour, you know. But possibly we might be able to come up with some videotapes explaining to people what the process is and have them on loan where they can come and pick them up, view the videotape to be able to see what the process is and how it works, and show them the different departments, and then when they come back in, they'll at least have their focus narrowed down to something that they can deal with. Because it is cumbersome (sic), and it's cumbersome for reasons. And when it comes to the fire marshal, hey, they're a different entity totally. I mean, they made my life, when I was in the equipment rental business putting up tents, pure misery, and they did for every other one, so it was an equal opportunity misery maker. And I know that they operate under different rules, and I'd like to see them reined in enough so that they serve the public rather than serve themselves as far as hours of op -- I've got to share a story with you. It's going to just take one moment. Page 91 September 28, 2004 Back years ago when we started up, four years ago when we became commissioners, the three of us, we had the fire marshals come to us, and they wanted enough funds to be able to put a second fire marshal in there because they were overloaded. They couldn't handle it, and that's what was the delay, so we came up with something like $90,000 to put a second fire marshal in there. Well, shortly after there, I went in for my last permit that I got before I took the inventory, sold it off, and leased the building out, for a tent permit. And I walked in to get the fire marshal, which has always been the place where I got slowed down in there by hours. I walked in and I asked for -- where's the fire marshal? Oh, he went to lunch. I said, wait a minute, there's two of them. We hired a second one to be able to cover. Well, they went to lunch together. This is back a while ago. And I wasn't going to make an issue because I was personally involved trying to get a permit, you know, but boy, I'll tell you, it just grated, you know, against what it was. So it just -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want to hear my story? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I mean, we've all got war stories. What it is, is Commissioners don't get any special preferential treatment. In fact, I think sometimes -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't get any treatment at all. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- they hold us up even a little bit longer just to make a point. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Lastly -- and then we will vote, because we have a motion on the floor and a second, and we got off the subject of the merit raise. But I just wanted to -- oh, gosh, now, I forgot -- oh, to expand on what Commissioner Coletta just said. He was talking about a video. I think even something where you could, at home, when you're John Q. Public, pull up something on the computer that tells you what's Page 92 _"_".__n._'.. ..j September 28, 2004 Back years ago when we started up, four years ago when we became commissioners, the three of us, we had the fire marshals come to us, and they wanted enough funds to be able to put a second fire marshal in there because they were overloaded. They couldn't handle it, and that's what was the delay, so we came up with something like $ 90,000 to put a second fire marshal in there. Well, shortly after there, I went in for my last permit that I got before I took the inventory, sold it off, and leased the building out, for a tent permit. And I walked in to get the fire marshal, which has always been the place where I got slowed down in there by hours. I walked in and I asked for -- where's the fire marshal? Oh, he went to lunch. I said, wait a minute, there's two of them. We hired a second one to be able to cover. Well, they went to lunch together. This is back a while ago. And I wasn't going to make an issue because I was personally involved trying to get a permit, you know, but boy, I'll tell you, it just grated, you know, against what it was. So it just -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want to hear my story? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I mean, we've all got war stories. What it is, is Commissioners don't get any special preferential treatment. In fact, I think sometimes -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't get any treatment at all. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- they hold us up even a little bit longer just to make a point. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Lastly -- and then we will vote, because we have a motion on the floor and a second, and we got off the subject of the merit raise. But I just wanted to -- oh, gosh, now, I forgot -- oh, to expand on what Commissioner Coletta just said. He was talking about a video. I think even something where you could, at home, when you're John Q. Public, pull up something on the computer that tells you what's Page 92 September 28, 2004 involved in getting a permit, and it maybe even has one printed out there so you can type it in, you know, just to streamline it a little bit, but really to uncomplicate -- that's what I'm trying to say -- uncomplicate it for the average Joe. As we were talking -- Commissioner Halas made a point of talking about the developers. We're not talking about developers. We're talking about the people who just want to go and get a shed on their property or open a restaurant. Okay. Commissioner Halas, you're going to wind it up. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Overall I think that we've come a long way in the last three, four years here in the county. Yes, we have some shortcomings, but when you look at the benchmark that was established four years ago and where we are now, I think that the county manager and the staff have really raised the expectations, and now we've just got a few things to tweak. But overall, I think that we're on the right track. And I mean that sincerely. CHAIRMAN FIALA: What a way to end the conversation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you. Item #10E REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE FY2005 ANNUAL WORK Page 93 September 28, 2004 MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to -- and I think you got a little bit at the next item, and that basically talks about the goals for the county manager in 2005. And what I basically do is take your comments from my annual appraisal and bring those forward as far as those goals are concerned, and we hit upon those to the great extent today, and I will take your individual comments and bring those forward to make sure that they get done. I remember last year at this particular time we talked about vehicular usage of take home vehicles, we talked about commissioners time after -- you know, after hours as far as committees and whatnot with staff. We did studies on that, we provided those particular reports to the board, and we saved taxpayers money because of those particular investigations that the board directed me to do last year, and we will continue to do those this year because we want to make sure that we don't slip off of that, that we keep looking at vehicle usage. And we do, but it's not necessarily -- normally it was a Dan Croft to the administrators, and now it's a county manager item that I look at and basically look at it with a very jaundiced eye to make sure that we're getting the maximum use out of those particular vehicles and that we're not, in any way, wasting taxpayers' dollars or asking for new vehicles that aren't used because there's unused miles on existing ones within a particular department or division. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. You've already taken our past comments and worked those into this. I would like to just address one additional item, and that is reporting on major projects. And we've talked about this privately, and I think the other commissioners need the benefit of the discussion to see what their reaction is. Page 94 September 28, 2004 But we have some very, very large projects here, tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases, I guess, and there's a very long process that we go through to get these approved. The project is presented to us, we either agree or disagree with the project, give you guidance. It includes a budget, then you go out for bid, you come back with a selection of a contractor, we have to approve that, and then you proceed with a contract, and you mayor may not make modifications to certain portions of it as it goes out over time, that are necessary, and so we are presented with lots of decision-making points in all of these very, very large projects. And cumulatively, they add up to a lot of money. It is difficult to keep track of all of these individual decisions as we move through a project and keep it in context when they come to us. And it would be helpful to me if when we have a project, we have a full project schedule. And when you come to us with a modification or, perhaps, wanting to change the scope of the proj ect itself or you're wanting approval for a particular phase of the proj ect, if that could be presented within the overall context of the project that we have been -- already been approved. I don't know if I'm explaining that clearly enough, but I think you understand what I mean. And it would help us to know that, okay, look, we approved this project, the total cost was X amount of dollars. We're eight months into the project. We're dealing with this particular element of the proj ect. This is a change order. It represents so much money. So we've got it in -- we have it in the context of the entire project, and it's a lot better for us to view it and make judgments about that particular element if it's viewed in overall context. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, that's an excellent suggestion. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Number two down here, Page 95 September 28, 2004 develop a revised manatee protection plan. I'm not convinced that it's broken, our present manatee protection plan, looking at what other counties -- well, an example, Lee County. The deaths of manatees in Lee County versus Collier County, there's a huge difference. So I'm not sure if it really needs to be revised. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That came before us -- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have guidance to bring that back this fall, or right after the first of the year, based on a stakeholders group of meetings that you told us to get after, and that's basically what I'm talking about -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: -- in order to get that done. That is a goal to make sure that that gets accomplished based on your direction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for your clarification. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just -- I think during our earlier meeting we decided we would not modify our manatee protection plan until the stakeholders got together, I think that's the case. So I believe what we're doing is we're having the stakeholders get together and make recommendations to us. We mayor may not modify it; is that right? MR. MUDD: That's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there is no guarantee that anything will result in the modification. We just want to hear both sides of the issue. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You told us to get with that group, come back with recommendations on any modifications and bring it back to you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for the clarification. Commissioners? Page 96 September 28, 2004 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got a couple of items I wanted to go over, if I may take the time. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, in your report, too, you made, under goals for financial year 2005, page two, Naples Jail expansion. Is this still necessary? Is there a better way that that could be done? MR. MUDD: Sir, we're doing the Naples Jail expansion right now. And on page -- on page two, we basic -- I talk about those -- those particular projects that are going on. But we're basically building the Naples Jail right now. It will be finished, based on schedule, by 1 September, 2005, and be ready to move in and turn over to the sheriff. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. MUDD: We're within a year of being done. I mean, it's the building that's sitting over on the other side in the courtyard. It was a jail expansion that should have been done years ago, and I wasn't here the years ago that -- when the sheriff talks about that particular task. We -- you're building the jail -- based on occupancy rates that you have right now, the jail is needed. We are working with the court system right now and the judges to make sure that they're hearing those cases for parole violations in an expeditious manner to determine if that person needs to go to the state jailor stay in our jail, or if it -- there's no reason for him to be in jail, and that's the judicial system and that's up to them. But they're taking a look at that particular process. Now, we're not the first county - the county in Southwest Florida that's asking the judges to take a look at that system. It's happening in Charlotte, it's happening in Lee. Because what happened after that girl was killed in Sarasota by that parole violator, the reaction was, all parole violators go in jail Page 97 September 28, 2004 until-- to be heard in court, and it's no longer an administrative thing. It needs to be heard by judges. And with that, the populations in all the jails in Southwest Florida, county j ails, basically expanded far beyond any -- any planning criteria that anyone could have envisioned because of it. And that's one of the reasons - the discussion with the judges, to try to have them take a look at the -- I call them VOPs -- violators of parole. But right now, Commissioner, that new j ail is needed. Now, the board based on -- based on the sheriffs request, recommendation, we were going to have the top floor be a shell, but he asked for that to be finished because it would save money in the long run. He was right because you've got to put the cells into the ceilings and things like that. And to go back and try to re-modify that after you have a shell is additional cost. And based on the rates of growth of the inmates, it was -- it was going to be needed in the foreseeable future. So we have a new jail that's being built. It will be finished on 1 September, is what I get from Mr. Camp and the best projections I have from the contractor that's doing it. And it's been needed for a while, because right now they're over capacity by some 200 inmate over present jail capacity. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, you had some more? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one comment. You've done an excellent job in working with all the entities out there, and I expect that we're not going to just -- we're going to continue everything from the sheriffs department, the clerk and the City of Naples, and you've handled it well. I heard -- the last time the sheriff was here he made a recommendation that we work even closer to them and possibly a commissioner to be able to work with them, too, to be able to go Page 98 September 28,2004 through their auditing procedure. But it's the audit that's my question. I have total confidence that the sheriffs audit is right to the nickel right. It's how the money is being spent and the direction that it's being put into and its ultimate use. And I sure hope that we can go forward with that and that when that time comes, we might be able to take Commissioner Halas up on his generous offer to be able to work with the sheriffs department. MR. MUDD: We'll talk about that during communication. That's one of those items that are on the docket. I need some guidance from the board, where they want us -- where they want me to go with it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So may I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've got one. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, we do? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle, and a second by Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With the incorporation of the comments we've made. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. All those in favor, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) Page 99 September 28,2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. And here it is 12:03, and it's time for lunch. Meet you back here at 1 :00. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Madam Chair, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Well, welcome back to our meeting. Item #10F REFUNDING TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES TOTALING $217,830 TO WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE IV FOR THE We're now on to number 10(F). We're beginning number 10(F). MR. MUDD: That's a recommendation to deny the request by Waterways Joint Venture, the 4th for a refund of transportation impact fees, totaling $217,830 for the Summit Place project. Mr. Joe Schmitt will present. MR. SCHMITT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and Environmental Services. Basically this is an executive summary that was in your packet in response to a petition, public petition made on June 8th, 2004 by Mr. Rich Y ovanovich and Mr. Dwight Nadeau who are representing the petitioner regards to an issue regarding transportation impact fees, but impact fees in general, and looking for a refund of approximately $217,830. In your executive summary, I pointed out the history, I pointed out in detail how this project evolved and what had happened. I can go through that all that, if you want me to do that, or certainly, I think, probably it would be in the best interest to hear the petitioner and allow the petitioner to refute anything that maybe that they think is in Page 100 September 28, 2004 dispute in that executive summary, and I'll be glad to answer any questions. I have with me today Ms. Amy Patterson, my impact fee coordinator, and Ms. Susan Murray, my director for zoning and land development review, if you want to talk specifically about the consolidated impact fee ordinance and application of the impact fee ordinance or any issues regarding the land use authorization and authority that this PUD allowed, because specifically what you're going to be addressing here and what's -- what the issue comes down to is when were the building permits issued, and under what authority, being that a multi-family in condominium type of structure versus a town home fee simple platted subdivision. And all that is in my executive summary, and again, I'll be glad to go through it in detail, if you want me to go through it. But I think probably, like I said, it would be in the best interest to hear the petitioner, and we can discuss the issues. Hopefully you've read the executive summary. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir. I'm sure we all have. MR. YOV ANOVICH: All right. Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. Joe was trying to rattle me. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And did he? MR. YOV ANOVICH: A little. What we're here to talk to you today about is basically the Summit Place project. You've recently seen an amendment to the Summit Place PUD that added a second phase. And in that, we described to you what our project is. And our project is a town home project. And what does that mean under your code? And what a town home project is, it's buildings that have three or more units in them, so they fit the definition of multi- family. And each of those individual units, not only do you buy the four walls, you also buy the dirt below the four walls. So if you have a four-unit building, each unit gets the Page 101 September 28,2004 insides of the unit but also gets the ground beneath it. That fits into two of your definitions in the Land Development Code. It fits into your definition of town homes, which is a defined term, and it also fits into your definition of multi-family home. So your multi-family home definition also allows us to convey the ground beneath the unit. That's just a little historical background. That's what our original PUD allowed. The PUD that was adopted in 2000 allowed us to go forward with town homes under the concept of multi-family. And if you look at both the LDC and -- look at the LDC under the definition of town home and multi-family home, you will see that we have the option of selling the dirt along with the units. We -- I'm going to take you through a timeline that I hope will illustrate this to you. With that background, there was a preapplication meeting with your staff on January 7th of'02. At that meeting, our concept and our plans were discussed. We made it clear that we wanted to do a town home project where we would convey the ground beneath the units to the end purchaser. So in the -- early in the year 2002, our concept was explained to staff. There are even some e-mails. And Mr. Schmitt's executive summary references a January 29th, '02 correspondence from Mr. Nadeau that was not in your backup package, I don't believe. At least it was not in the backup package that I got, so I handed out to you that __ the e-mail trail that we believe is what Mr. Schmitt was referring to. You will see in that e-mail trail that we're continuing to figure out, what's the process that we go through to get to the end result, which is to deliver a unit where the purchaser buys the unit and gets the land beneath it. Because there's no process in the Land Development Code to do what is a fairly common form of development known as a town home. And I think Mr. Schmitt will tell you that, you know, where -- when he spent his time up in Virginia, these are all over the place. It's not a foreign concept. But our LDC Page 102 September 28, 2004 does not have a process to address this. So we were discussing with staff, what do you want us to do? Tell us how we get to the end result. And we had that meeting. Staff ultimately decided that we had to do both a site development plan which would -- would locate all of the buildings within the project, and then we had to overlay the site development plan with a plat to create the individual units. With that, we followed staff direction. We had our preapplication on March 11th, '02 for the SDP. May 8th, '02, we submitted the SDP. And we were also told because of an interpretation of our PUD ordinance that they weren't sure that our PUD ordinance actually addressed the ability to do town homes. Keep in mind, the PUD specifically said we could do town homes. But we didn't argue that point because it was frankly quicker for us to go ahead and amend the PUD instead of going through an official interpretation and winding back in front of the board. We would have gotten to the same place at approximately the same time. So we went through that process of amending the PUD, or starting to amend the PUD. October 20th, '02 is an important date, because that's the date the site development plan was approved. That is the -- gave us the authorization to locate all of the buildings within our proj ect. We then started the plat process shortly thereafter, and we were told way back when, in January of '02, that we could not run the site plan and the plat simultaneously. County policy wouldn't allow us to do that. Had we been allowed to process those things simultaneously, we wouldn't be where we are today. We submitted our -- our SDP was approved, as you can see on the outline. Between October 24th and October 30th we submitted our building permits for each of the individual buildings, and I'll show you a permit in the middle -- in a minute. You'll see that each of those permits identified whether it was a six-unit building or a four-unit Page 103 September 28, 2004 building. So what we submitted in that time frame was the actual building plans that were reviewed and approved. There were no changes to those building plans that we submitted. They are the same plans that were reviewed and ultimately approved. Interestingly enough, we tried, prior to submitting the individual building -- for the buildings with each of the units within them, we attempted to submit building permits for each of the individual units. So we tried to come in with 231 building units. But we were told since we hadn't started the plat process yet we couldn't submit permits for the individual units. Now, that's important, because ultimately we ended up having to modify some permits for the individual units to get exactly where we tried to be at the very beginning, which was to submit permits for the individual units. The PUD ultimately was amended, as staff requested, by October 29th, '02. And I think all that's important, because that's -- on November 1st, '02, that was the magic date that the impact fee ordinance became effective where the rates went up. And I'm sure your staff will tell you that there was a race to the counter to get all of our building permit applications in before November 1st, '02, because that's the critical date, when did you apply for your permit, as to which impact fee applied, the old rate or the new rate. You can see right shortly after we got our permits in and our ordinance amended, we came in with our PSP meeting for the plat. We submitted our PSP. The PSP was approved and then we came in with our final plat. We were then told that the permits that we originally submitted in October were not capable of issuing individual addresses for the individual units. So we had to now come in with new applications for the building permits for each individual unit. So they made us go back and do 159 individual permits for Page 104 September 28, 2004 individual units. They honored from the original groupings that we put in one unit from each of those 33 buildings. So on 33 of the application -- on the original applications, there were 33 buildings that we came in with, they honored one unit from each of those and made us do five in the case of a six-unit building or four in the case of thee-unit -- three in the case of a four-unit building, new permits for the individual units, solely for the purpose of assigning those units an address. Because previously the address would have been -- I'll make something up -- 850 Summit Place Boulevard, Unit 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106. So in order to give each of these an address so it could be 850 Summit Place, 851 Summit Place, 852, to have individual addresses, we had to have a building permit that corresponded with each of those individual addresses. So we did exactly what we were told. We came in and paid for the application fees for the 159 units that we had to do -- had to go through the process of assigning a building permit to so that we can get an individual address. Keep in mind, we did not modify the plans that were originally submitted in October. Those plans were the very same plans that were reviewed and ultimately the permit issued. The only thing that changed was that we had to now come in with individual permits for the individual units. Again, something we tried to do in October of '02, but we couldn't because the county was putting us through a two-step process of the SDP and the plat. Which if we could have done them both at the same time, they would both have been approved in October and we wouldn't have had this issue because we would then at that time said okay, if we have to do individual permits, not a problem, we'll do that in October. But we didn't know about that and we were told basically in April that we needed to go ahead and submit new building permits. If you'll look at the screen, you'll see, this is a copy of an original Page 105 September 28,2004 permit for a -- I can't see the number of units on this one. Is it six? Help me see the numbers. Dwight's going to help me. This is the permit we submitted in October of '02. It was for a -- oh, I see it down there. It was for a building that had six individual units. It's on the right-hand column. We came in and asked for -- it's a six-unit building in October of '02, as I pointed out. That's the plans that were reviewed and approved. You'll see there were some handwritten changes to this permit. These are staff handwritten changes, not our handwritten changes. And you'll see what happened. They changed the number of units to one unit, and you'll see a construction address that says one unit. They reduced the square footage. Before the previous square footage was 11,432 square feet for the building, and the non-living area, for a total square footage of 15,000 and change. They changed those numbers to reflect one unit. We then applied for five more building permits to address the five units that were taken out of this one -- this one permit application. Something that's important is the COA number, which is your certificate of adequate public facilities number, is the same for not only this permit but I believe for the other five permits that were ultimately issued, based upon the original permit. So there's a natural tie-in between the first permit and the second grouping of permits that we were required to file. This just shows you down at the bottom where the note says it's a six-plex building. That's what we originally applied for. This is, you know, the permit application card. You'll see the date and all the totals are exactly -- that gets transferred from what we put in handwriting, they type that in. So that all indicates that we were going forward with six units as of October, '02. We paid -- this just shows we paid all of our required building permit fees at that time that we applied in October. So we went through the process exactly as staff had requested. Page 106 September 28, 2004 We did everything we were requested to do. Staff knew in January of '02 where we wanted to be, what the goal was, and what type of proj ect we were trying to build. It wasn't -- I think you can read the staff report to read that it wasn't until April of '03 that they realized we were doing individual units. That's not the case. We knew -- they knew in January of '02 that we were doing individual units within the building. Where we are today is simply we were required to do a second set of building permits simply for a bookkeeping purpose. The purpose was to assign individual addresses to these units. Nothing changed from October. It was the same plans that were reviewed that we submitted originally. The only thing we did and the only thing that came about of the second round of permits was that we were able to get an individual address assigned to the individual units. The reason it's important on the application date, as your staff report indicates, is if you use an application date of April, '03, that's beyond the effective date of the road impact fee ordinance increase. We believe that the real application date was the date we submitted in October, because those are the plans that were reviewed. We have told -- we were working with staff all along for the end product. The end goal has always been to have individual units that would convey the dirt along with the unit. We followed the staff rules, we followed the staff process. There wasn't an easy process set forth in the LDC to get to the end result. We think the fair and the right thing to do is to honor the application date of October, '02 and not this new application date of April, '03, which really only came about because we needed to get individual addresses of the units. The type of building construction did not change from October to April. It's the same set of plans. And with that, I'll sit down and answer -- or I'll answer any questions that you may have before I sit down, and give Mr. Schmitt an opportunity to say what he needs to say on the record. Page 107 September 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to hold my questions until I hear the other side of the story. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just wanted to get in line. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why don't we just leave that light on permanently. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any speakers? MS. McPHERSON: No, ma'am, you don't. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Well, could we hear from staff? MR. SCHMITT: I appreciate Mr. Yovanovich's highlighting the issue. But I'll go through-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Yovanovich, we don't want you to heckle our staff while they're talking. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's why I moved over here. MR. MUDD: It won't be the first time. MR. SCHMITT: The issue really came down to what did the land use approval authorize. As Mr. Yovanovich pointed out, January 7th, 2002, they had the preapplication meeting. There was some correspondence in January 29th of '02 in regards to what use was available, but as my executive summary pointed out, it was as early as December of '02 that the applicant knew that they had to go through the site development process, followed by individual platting. In May of '02, and if you look at my summary, and I go back -- actually in October of '02, the applicant came in for 33 building permits. At that time -- and let me explain so you kind of understand. There's multi-family units that are in condominium, and they're under a different building code. That means all the utilities usually are on one end of the building, it's in condominium; there's only required one-hour rated fire wall between units, and it's a single building permit Page 108 September 28, 2004 for, let's say, a six-unit apartment building or six-unit complex. We explained to the applicant that in order to have fee simple, you have to then have a building permit for each unit and it has to be under a different fire code and different requirements. They knew all along that's what they wanted to do, they wanted fee simple town home type units. And if I recall, that's actually what they apply for. By the time it got to the building department, we realized that what they wanted and what the land use provided in regards to the SDP process conflicted. The only way we could issue a building permit for each unit was to have the SDP go from an SDP and then convert and plat out and create individual lots, and then we would issue a building permit for each separate unit. They would be conveyed as fee simple units, and of course they would be issued separate COs as individually permitted properties. And you note in January -- actually, we discovered this now, it was October. But in January, we had many conversations and in February, I met with Mr. Yovanovich and several of the representatives of the applicant, and I understood the dilemma they were in. And I made a decision, I said fine, we will proceed as a single- family entity. I will issue you the building permits. You build the buildings, you come back and then plat. And then we -- and then of course we will deal with the administrative process of reassigning and issuing the building permits. And we made that decision in February. It wasn't until April, of course, in '03 when the applicant came in and submitted for the individual town home units less the 33. Now, during that time frame we were undergoing -- now, I'm going to take you back again. We were in April when he finally came back and asked for the rest of the building permits and said okay, I'm going to build these as individual units fee simple, and then I'm going to survey and have it platted as individual lots and then we made the record straight. Page 109 September 28,2004 But I'll go back as early as August and September of '02, we were talking to you about impact fees. And if you recall, we briefed the board in August, we began to sound the alarm as far as what we anticipated impact fees would go at that time was probably almost 200 percent. And in November you approved the impact fee ordinance. And in that ordinance, you also set a time frame, and that's how we underwent the simultaneous reviews that Mr. Y ovanovich talked about. So in summation, quite frankly, on October 27th, we issued 33 building permits and then on April 9th, '03, we issued the rest of the building permits. The building permits were dated the day they were issued and the appropriate fees were assigned the day the building permits were issued. There is some other information in your executive summary, because this issue, when we came before the board and discussed how we would deal with converting from an SDP to platted lots, and that was all in there. And you had approved all that. But in summation, quite frankly, the issue regarding the fees, this whole thing transpired about the same time as we were undergoing the issue with regards to transportation impact fees, which is the significant hit that certainly was experienced by the applicant. But the fact of the matter is, the fees were assessed on the date the permits were issued. And I think the crux of the argument is, as Mr. Y ovanovich pointed out, that because the original intent was in fact in October that they were going to have fee simple units and that they were going to apply for the -- all the units under separate building permits, that we should have postdated and accepted the original date of the application. And in fact, I could not do that. And I noted in the executive summary. It is the policy of the impact fee administration office that Page 110 September 28, 2004 the applicable impact fee rates are determined based upon the building permit application date; therefore, the impact fees for Summit Place must be assessed based on the application date. And frankly, that's what we did. To do otherwise would have meant to have postdated the application and predate the other 169 permits. And that frankly is the crux of the issue. In closing, I would say that I recommend again that the board deny the request of the Waterways Joint Venture IV for refunding the transportation impact fees of $217,830 in regards to this process. I can certainly, if you wish to ask any more detailed questions, specifically in regards to the process, the land use or the application of the impact fee, consolidated impact fee ordinance, we'll be glad to address those. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, Commissioner Halas has been standing at the front of the line. Move forward, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you remember what you were going to say? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who has the timer? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm timing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is directed to our county attorney, David Weigel. David, has you or your staff looked this over and made a decision or an assumption in which way, whether it's in favor or not in favor of the applicant here? I think we need some direction on this, because it's getting to be very complicated. MR. SCHMITT: I think -- if I could just interrupt, I know Assistant County Attorney Patrick White certainly has been involved in this. And I'll defer to our county attorney if he wants to -- whoever wants to opine from that regard. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, thank you both. I'd like to make just an initial statement and then perhaps turn it over to Patrick to Page 111 September 28,2004 respond to specific questions and provide any further infill, if you would, on the matter. But I understand the argument that Mr. Yovanovich, Mr. Nadeau make on behalf of their client in the sense that they believe that there was a concept in place all along. However, with our Land Development Code and the application that staff has to provide, and they are given little parameter, and this is a good thing, they're given little parameter to make individual decisions, and that's why this matter comes to the board and that's why we run into less problems these days with land use decisions up at the Horseshoe Drive buildings than perhaps we did in the past, because the rules are pretty clear. And where there is a rule not stated, this staff is certainly ill at ease and careful not to make a rule. In this particular case -- again, Patrick may want to jump in on this -- but upon my review, independent of Patrick's but having spoken with Patrick, I see that there's a predicate. That's a legal term meaning there are certain things that have to be done before other things can be done. And in this particular case, to achieve the individual unit characteristics that the developer desired, were some things that had to be done, and that included the platting and the site development plan so that the developer could achieve the individuality and individual addresses for its ultimate product. Which also would bring some changes, because instead of what, approximately 34 -- 33 or 34 building permits being issued for entire buildings comprised of multiple units, would be the situation of hundred, multi-hundred building permits being issued, each one of which, subject to a certificate of occupancy. Whereas initially only the entire building would be subj ect to a certificate of occupancy, and there would be no occupancy until the entire building was finished. I don't know ultimately how the rubber meets the road in contracting and in sale business. You might end up with some units Page 112 September 28, 2004 that are occupied while the rest of the building's still being worked on, other units thereof. But the fact is that the units could be sold and -- individually, and a CO issued technically in a different manner than the original concept. So from that standpoint, again, let's call this a early statement from the county attorney in this regard, is that staff clearly had little ability, I think, if any, to make an independent assessment here. And I think it's -- I think that there is this need to get things done out of the way before you can make an application for what you ultimately want. And that's what the developer found here. Patrick, do you have anything to add? MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I think ultimately both David and my analysis comes to the conclusion that the staff had little or no discretion in terms of which rules they were required to apply at the various points in time the developer came forth with its applications. This is not just a single building permit issue, but all of the things that you need to have in place to authorize that type of use. And our review of those things, mine at a very great level of detail, leads to the conclusion that the staff appropriately exercised its discretion, and that they had little discretion in terms of, quote, changing the rules, unquote. There's plenty more detail if you have specific questions that we can provide you to assure you of those things, but I think you're probably more interested, based on the question, what our ultimate conclusion was. And that is that I believe that the staff has properly analyzed and exercised their discretion appropriately. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're telling us is that the result that staff came up with was the correct one -- or more correct than -- MR. WHITE: I believe that the facts that they had to work with, Page 113 September 28,2004 based upon rules that they had to apply, they properly applied those facts and led to the correct conclusions. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remember when we talked about impact fees, and most of these impact fees, I'm not sure if it's this one, that if you apply for your permit and pay your impact fees, then you only have to pay the new rate. Was that the case in this case? MR. WHITE: The difference here, Commissioner, is that the staff allowed some proportion, some small percentage of those, then applied for building permits to apply the then existing rate. But as to all of the newly numbered and dated building permits, they applied the then existing rate. And I think that's confusing. MR. SCHMITT: I want to clarify it. Because you're in fact right, Commissioner Henning, that there was a date. But first of all, I want to make sure I correct the record. Mr. Yovanovich was not at the November 29th, 2002 meeting. It was Mr. Nadeau along with Mr. Davenport and some of his representatives representing Summit Place. There was a date. And that was a business -- that's really the crux of this entire issue. And I could only defer to the applicant and his agents. There was business decisions that were made. Because in the process the applicant knew early on that they would have to plat this project in order to have fee simple lots. When faced with the -- certainly when faced with the oncoming November 1 date, they chose to submit for the 33 buildings. So if this board considers those 33 buildings as the application for all the buildings, you know, that's your prerogative, if you want to do that. Based on our process and applying the rules, we said you want to come in, you have an approved SDP, you can do this. You can build buildings in condominium or multi-family under the rules Page 114 September 28, 2004 because it was a site development plan. If you want to build fee simple units and convey them as fee simple units, you have to go back and replat it. Now, that would probably take another six to nine months. And I can only conclude that a business decision was made and said okay, we're going to proceed. And that's when we had the meeting in February where they applied for those in October, we accepted those 33 building permits and said okay, you can do this, you can build your single- family homes, build it, go out and survey it, plat it, come back and we'll accept it. And it wasn't until April that they came in and applied for the rest of those permits. So the argument comes down to what is the date of the intent? And that's what basically Commissioner Henning is, I think what you're alluding to is, was that October date actually deemed to be the date of intent. But based on our application of the rules in regards to building permits and applying the associated impact fees, the impact fees are assessed based on the date of the issuing of the permits. And we issued the 33 permits in October and the rest of them we issued in April, 2003. And that's basically the argument. Go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I can, just briefly. A couple of things that Joe said during his original presentation that I don't necessarily agree with. First of all, if I can -- I'm glad you did that. I didn't do it. That -- this is the original PUD that was adopted in the year 2002. And you can see under permitted uses it clearly says under item number three, multi-family dwellings, including townhouses. So you can see in the year 2000, we had the intention of doing townhouses. The code, the LDC recognizes that townhouses can be sold on individual lots, but you have to have three units to qualify as a town home. So you know you can sell each individual unit on an individual lot. Page 115 September 28, 2004 There was no process under the code for us to follow to simply get us to what we had asked for originally in the year 2000. So we were told that we had to go through both an SDP process and a platting process. When we came in and applied for our permits in October of '02, we did -- the permits themselves did not have the utility, as Joe said, on the bank of the wall where you had all of them grouped together for the six units, if it was a six-unit building. We had them individualized. So each individual unit had their own utilities, their own utility meters. So in October of '02, that's the type of building we permitted. I'm not -- I don't disagree that staff is attempting to apply the ordinance the way it could be interpreted. You're ultimately the interpreter. The important date for assessing impact fees is the application date, not the issuance date. It's the application date. What we're asking you to recognize is that our true application date was October of '02, not April of '03 when we were told we had to have these individual permits to get an address. We did not know in October of '02 that we had to have individual permits for purposes of getting an address. So what we're asking you is to recognize that the true application date is October of '02, and therefore, you would apply the impact fee date. And then your staff could do that. If you tell staff the true application date was October of '02, they could then apply the old rate. That's the bind that staff is in. So I'm asking you as a board to find that the true application date was October of 2002, because that's what was ultimately permitted and issued. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, did you have any further questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we agree that the way the ordinance read ( sic) is application for a permit? Page 116 September 28, 2004 MR. WHITE: Absolutely. Commissioner, the bright line in the consolidated impact fee provisions, Chapter 74, is that date. But that is not the entirety of the issue. You have to understand the difference between what was being requested when, in this particular case. At that point in time, the best that those applicants could ask for were building permits for multi-family town homes. And that's what they asked for. They did not have at that point in time the platting of their land that would allow them to be considered to be single-family townhouse units. So correspondingly, the staff was constrained to issue a building permit for something that would be a single-family townhouse unit. That's what I was saying before about the limits on staffs expression. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm getting kind of confused. What's the different between a single-family townhouse and a multi-family? As I drive down 951, there are more than one. MR. WHITE: You will not be able to see, quite likely, the difference from the road. You wouldn't probably know the difference living in one. You may know the difference in how you pay your taxes, because your assessment would be based both on the land beneath your unit and the structure. So there are some differences. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're talking about common grounds versus -- MR. WHITE: Individual platted lots. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Individual plats. MR. WHITE: And that's one of the constraints that the applicants had at the time they made their building permits prior to the rate change. And it wasn't until after they had achieved individual lot status and had then the capacity to implement the use that they were always permitted to develop town homes, but as single-family townhouses, as opposed to a multi-family town home. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we arguing to prove to the board that we're right, or are we arguing to prove to do the right thing? Page 11 7 September 28, 2004 MR. WHITE: I'm not advocating any particular position and certainly not arguing anything. All I'm trying to help you appreciate are the relevant facts and points of law. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, Rich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've got to answer that tax question, because for condominiums, when you own a unit within a condominium you own your unit and you own one -- if there's 100 units in a condominium, you own one one-hundredth of the common elements. So you as the condominium unit owner are paying taxes on the common elements, okay? So you're -- the tax -- I don't know why the tax issue came up, but it's no different tax wise that the unit owner's going to pay, whether it's a condominium ownership or a town home ownership, the taxes are the same. MR. WHITE: If I may respond. The question was whether there would be any difference between the types of units. The further types of differences that are relevant and were relevant to your staffs consideration, were with respect to the property development regulations that were applicable to that distinction between a multi-family town home and individual lots with their own setbacks and other types of property development regulations for individual single- family townhouse units. Additionally, your staff has told you that there were differences, slight, but differences nonetheless, with respect to the construction code requirements. Now, ultimately Mr. Y ovanovich is correct, the staff did not ask that those different construction standards be met, finding that they were grandfathered as to those particular requirements. The difficulty in trying to reduce this down to one simple thing is you have to find, I guess, the most important simple thing. And I think your staff has articulated that to you in the form of saying that there are limits on what it is that they could do at any point in time. The applicants were similarly constrained. The only difference Page 118 September 28, 2004 that they had was they had it within their power to know the code and come in sooner and apply for platting so that they would have had single- family lots. That's the only difference I can see. If you don't have any other questions, I'll -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: This still isn't very clear to me. But I need to understand what the guidance was with respect to the applicability of the new impact fees. I can remember when we established the building moratorium on Vanderbilt Beach, we said that anyone with a site development plan that has been submitted would not be restricted by that building moratorium. Now, what I'm wondering is, if someone had a site development plan that had been submitted and perhaps even approved, would they have had to pay higher impact fees when they come in for their permit? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, in this case we followed the rules. They had an approved site development plan for the development. That was approved, based on the language in the PUD. And the building permits that they applied for were issued under that land use restrictions. There were no development standards in the PUD for individually platted lots. That was one of the reasons why they ended up coming back and amending it. But there was -- they did not plat it. So to answer your question, yes, we issued the building permits and assessed the impact fees based on the date of application. And certainly they were grandfathered -- or they beat the cut-off date. It wasn't until after that, that when the impact fees went into effect that they actually then made it very clear that what they wanted to do now was of course -- and we knew this earlier on, but what their intent was and what they were legally allowed to do by both the PUD and the SDP, I'm compelled only to follow what is in the written requirements within the land use criteria, either the SDP and the PUD, Page 119 September 28,2004 when the rules -- when the impact fees went into effect, of course, then they were going back in to apply under a different set of rules, and I can't -- I couldn't -- I can't go back and say okay, now we're going to take these rules and consider them rules that were developed prior to the impact fees. MR. MUDD: Joe, Joe, for the Commissioner's -- Joe, let me interrupt for a minute because you're going around in a circle here. I think what the Commissioner's asking, he asked you a question about SDP. The impact fees are not paid at the time of the SDP, okay? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that. MR. MUDD: The up-front half SDP to the road thing came in later than this particular item. So it's at building permit application now that the impact fees are paid, based on the condition in our -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand that part. But I'm trying to determine what our guidance was with respect to the applicability of impact fees. Because generally when we impose some limitations on development, we would say if they've got their site development plan in, they've submitted it, they do not come under this restriction or this change. Did we do that with these impact fees? I thought we did, but I am not sure. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So if what we said was we're going to implement new impact fees on October -- or November the 1 st, 2002, and anyone who has a site development plan in or has submitted a site development plan will not be impacted by these impact fees. If we said that, it would appear to me that the fact that the petitioner had a site development plan submitted in October the 23rd, 2002, in fact, it was approved on that date. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then why would they be required to pay a higher impact fee if they met our conditions for exclusion Page 120 September 28,2004 from the higher impact fee? They're not building any more units than was proposed in the SDP. They're having no more of an impact than they were before. There was no increase in density. So what leads us to assess a higher impact fee other than just in administrative glitch? MR. SCHMITT: I will have to turn Amy Patterson as far as -- so you can understand there's different criteria. And I need for her to explain that. Just so you're clear, yes, we did issue the building permits for all the construction, the 33 building permits which covered four and six-unit buildings, and they paid the fees at that time. Then they came back in and changed the platting, which was done after the effective date. And it does kick into different rates. And Amy, can you explain that? MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, impact fee manager, for the record. If we can go back in time, back to right before we implemented the new impact fees in 2002, there was a question raised during the public hearings: What about all of these various projects that are in process that didn't necessarily budget or anticipate for this very large increase that we were about to experience. And at that time the board implemented a limited window in time for those people that had already made application for their SDP's but hadn't yet either received their approval or made it to the building permit application point, that if we would implement basically a simultaneous submittal type of procedure for them. And that meant that if they had reached the point where they had applied for their SDP and been accepted by the county within this window, I believe it was -- I can't quote the dates for certain, June to October or whatever, and I can get the exact dates -- but there was about a six-month window that was opened up. And what we said was you've made it in through this window and now we'll give you the simultaneous submittal procedures so that Page 121 September 28,2004 you can come in and you can apply for your building permits, whatever you're prepared to apply for, prior to November 1st. Now, if they were not prepared to do that, to come in and apply for a building permit, then that was their choice. But if they were that far through the process that it was just a matter of getting their SDP approval and then applying for their building permit where it may be a cutoff of just a couple days that they'd be ready to apply for their building permits, the board felt at that time it wasn't fair to inflict on them these brand new rates. And so that's what it was, it was a special-- was a special provision that was placed with a limited amount of time for limited projects. We even worked up a list of the people that were eligible for this program and we tracked them right through the process, all of their building permits, until the new impact fees went into place on November 1st. Now, Summit Place came in right during this time period, although their SDP was approved just before the new fees went into effect, they also applied for their building permits, which was required, just before the fees went into effect, for the 33 building permits for the multiple units. What happened after that is that there was a change, and that's what Joe has gone over with you, the change that required individual building permits for each one of the individual units, rather than multiple units under one building permit. And when they came in and did that, it required them to actually apply again, kicking in a new application date. So we allowed them to retain the 33 original building permit numbers for one unit and then they applied for all of the rest of those building permits when they were able to plat them as individuals. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me try to clarify something here. Is there a difference in the impact fee charged to the owners of a building that are town homes rather than owners of Page 122 September 28, 2004 buildings that are condominiums of the same size? MS. PATTERSON: For the purpose of impact fees, if they were a two-story townhouse or a two-story condominium, no. When you get into high-rise condos, then things change. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's a difference, okay. MS. PATTERSON: But in this case, the only change was not in the impact fee category, rather the application date, which then pushed them onto the new fees. And what triggered that was them having to apply for additional building permits. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that was only because they wanted -- they were told they had to have a separate address for each one of those. MS. PATTERSON: It was because they had to plat the individual lots and apply for -- then they could have then single owner units. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there is correspondence in the record that shows that the staff actually asked them not to come in with a new preliminary site plan until some future point in time because there was some confusion on behalf of the Collier County staff about what we should do; is that -- MS. PATTERSON: I don't believe we directed them not to come . In. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it says as a result, please do not submit the PSP until we discuss this in more detail. That's a request not to submit it. But now, yeah, that happened on January 29th, 2002. But here's -- getting back to Commissioner Henning's question about what's right or are we just taking a look at administrative procedures and paperwork. If -- and let me try to understand this myself, and you tell me if it's right or wrong. Nothing changed about this project. The density Page 123 September 28, 2004 didn't change, the number of units didn't change, the actual method of calculating the impact fees for the units did not change. They were in fact grandfathered to protect them from an increase in impact fees. But because of administrative procedure that requires them to submit individual permit requests in order to get individual addresses on their units, they now lose their grandfathering under our guidelines with respect to application of the impact fee increase. And so we start over again as far as timing is concerned. Now, that was done after the effective date of the impact fee. So we have -- we have chosen to take the latter date as the date that they applied, rather than assuming that the initial date was the date they applied. And I think that's a fairly accurate statement of the problem, right? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioner. One exception, though, both administrative and legal, because of the land use criteria, which required the site development plan and then having to come in and replat. Since it was not replatted, I had no way to issue individual permits. But we did, in February, work to fix that requirement. So yes, I guess in summation what you just said is in fact correct, but it's -- but based on my staffs application of the rules, we were compelled legally, based on the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So in essence, you couldn't have, under the rules, issued individual permits prior to that point in time? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. We did in February to allow for the proj ect to proceed. And once the buildings were completed, we -- they came back and submitted the plat after the fact. But we -- but there was that April 9th date that they actually applied for the rest of those permits and that's the date that we used for the rest. So yes, it comes down to, frankly, the decision of this board. And I have to turn to the county attorney again. Because we applied the rules as both -- as we were confined to do. And I guess the issue Page 124 September 28, 2004 comes down to what this board believes was the intent. And then I have to turn to the county attorney and say does intent in fact mean that we can then because of intent apply those rules? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I'll address this next question, it's is my final question, to the county attorney. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that we exempted the petitioner from the increase in impact fees, but because of an administrative problem in not being able to issue individual permits under the original site development plan, we then notified them of a change in procedure, which was required, according to our administrative procedures. And then that meant that they were no longer exempted from the increase in impact fee application. So it was a change in procedure which apparently occurred after the impact fee took effect. And the applicant had no way then of correcting the problem. Although they had taken every opportunity to notify us of what it was they had in mind, to the best of my knowledge, I don't see anything that tells them that they have to do this before November the 1st of'02. Is that true or not? Am I missing something? MR. WEIGEL: Well, to whom are you directing the question? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess anybody. Well, the primary is to -- MR. WEIGEL: I'll be happy to try to respond. The -- the staff didn't create new procedures or change anything. The applicant wanted to achieve a particular goal, as I stated when I first spoke, wanted to achieve a particular goal but didn't have things in place to achieve it. And so they applied for a different goal, hoping that -- apparently hoping that that would suffice while they took care of the work that had to be done, that is, to have individual lots recognized by a plat process that requires approval by the board, which had not been done. And so because of that, the staff had a legal impossibility to issue Page 125 September 28, 2004 individual building permits. And of course as Amy and Joe Schmitt have indicated, the impact fee ordinance talks about the collection of the appropriate in force at that time fee at the time of application for the building permit. And so if the developer had applied for individual building permits when there didn't exist individual lots, which would have required a plat first, the -- just the mere application for building permits will not lock you in place for the permit fee that exists at that point in time, because you don't have the underpinnings for an adequate and appropriate application in the first place. But I would say this to the board and that is, the board here is in a position, you know, call it a judgmental position to determine in fact, if in fact the facts as presented by the petitioner are ones that you find are equivalent to an ultimate appropriate building permit application that achieves the goal of a developer and call it a uniform application of impact fees. It's correct that the units themselves are physically not different. Probably one could say that's not important, it's the question in time when the application is made. Because you will always have a situation where when a rate changes at some point in time, whether there's a window of opportunity to get in or not, that a construction built afterwards will pay the higher rate and the construction that's approved before the rate change will pay the lower rate. A question that I think wasn't discussed here was would the rate for individual town homes collectively, the 180 units, whatever it was, if they had paid the building permit fee that was in place in October, '02, would that have been the same as the collective fee, the entire fee for the 33 buildings that they did pay for in '02? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I asked that question. MR. WEIGEL: I think that's an interesting question, I'm not sure I heard the answer. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The answer is yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The answer is yes, it was the same. Page 126 September 28, 2004 MR. WEIGEL: Well, I go back to tell you that you may in fact make a determination of fact. The reason I'm talking fact really more law here is because I'd like to say that the law is the law, and it's clear enough for our purposes here to make a determination. But if you find facts here that should allow you to vote to say that the refund is appropriate, we have arguably relatively specific particular facts here which tend less to create a precedent for others that would claim to be similarly situated. Whereas, if you claim that the law should be changed or that your interpretation of law is different, you may tend to have more applicants coming in and saying this is the same thing, or so nearly the same that by application of law you, the board, cannot find differently. And so I want to try to keep your decision on this application, on this application alone. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, Commissioner Halas is waiting, I'll wait until later. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. MUDD: Just one question. And it has nothing to do with when, the timing. The only question I have for the petitioner is if you had 33 buildings with four or six each in your plan, why do you want to go to single plats when you already had them done? I mean, we have buildings with four things in them, and it's building number 12 and it's unit number one or two in the address for mailing addresses, and we do that all the time. And there was some differentiation here. And I would just like to know why they wanted to do single lots. And I think that has a lot to do with what the board has to get to is was the intent and why was it necessary to go to single lots, based on their buildings. Or was it just an address thing or is there some kind of a profit motive in it. And I think you need to find that out. That's all I have. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How dare you try to make a buck. Page 127 September 28,2004 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Frankly, the market. People like owning the ground beneath their unit. It's a better market. There's pride in ownership of owning the actual ground. People prefer that over a condominium form of ownership. Simply addressing the market conditions. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I have a question. If you knew all along how many you were going to build, and that's where you went to right from the beginning, and when you went to pay your impact fees, why didn't you pay for all of the units? If they said you only have one in each building, say 33, why didn't you say no, no, no, wait a minute, you know, we're really going to build this out as all single- family, we need to pay the impact fee. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Commissioner, I think some people have confused you a little bit. There's the application date, and then you don't pay your impact fees until it's issued. So the permits, they were still reviewing our application for all of the different units. At the time they were ready to issue them, we came in and paid our impact fees for all of the units. So we did pay for all of our units at the time we were supposed to pay for them. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I see. So you didn't have to pay for them then before that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: You don't pay at the application date, you pay at the issuance date. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. MR. WEIGEL: If I can jump in, it's just a question of the rate at the time the payment is made, which rate do you apply. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I thought you paid it in two separate payments. I'm so sorry. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, no, ma'am. We paid them all at the same time. MR. WEIGEL: Well, they were given credit on the initial applications based on 33 buildings. And so 33 units of the total 187 or Page 128 September 28,2004 whatever it was, were given the October, 2002 rate, and the rest of the units were given the new rate. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. I read that. I just didn't realize they didn't pay them all at the -- that they paid them all at the same time later on. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think if we just cut to the chase here. What it amounts to is like you go to Burdine's and you buy three shirts on sale and then you go take them home and you say this is such a great deal, I'm going to go back and buy six more shirts but I want to get them for the same price, and you find out that you got back there one day too late. And that's what it amounts to here, I think. Am I right in my analogy? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I think it was the intent, the expressed intent of the board when we took a look at impact fees and raised impact fees, that the people in the process, that we wanted to give them a grace period. When you move forward by doing that application or whatever, and just because you have to do a plat because you got -- you want to have -- you've got to have individual building addresses to play in the market, that's knocking somebody out. And it's the process that we -- that we're having to go through. We heard a little bit about it, we talked about it this morning. It's the process that we have to go through that makes it cumbersome. I think the intent -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: And yet with the process, when the developer was trying to move through the process and they e- mailed, our staff told them no, don't do it that way. And if our staff wouldn't have told them that, then they would have completed it on time. But staff said no, don't do it that way. And they have proof, because here it is. Page 129 September 28, 2004 MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair, may I? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. MS. MURRAY: We didn't have -- Susan Murray for the record. We didn't have a choice. The rules that were in place at the time determined what process we had to go through. It wasn't an administrative decision as to allow one to come before the other. And that -- I know that point's been hammered home so I just want to make sure one more time you understand, because my name is on the e-mail. I just want to make sure that that's clear. It wasn't an administrative decision. The rules in the PUD didn't allow for certain types of development, and they had -- they chose to follow a certain process through an option that we gave them to allow them to develop, which is what they wanted to do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's the process of the board of making it cumbersome (sic) to make them pay that. I mean, that's how I view it. MS. MURRAY: I want to be sure you have the facts straight, that's all I'm -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And clearly, I think the intent was to move forward and go through the timeline, the time line that the board set. And I think that is a finding of fact. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So do you have a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to refund the amount of whatever it is to the applicant. MR. MUDD: The amount is $217,830. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor from Commissioner Henning, and a second by Commissioner Coy Ie to refund the amount. Do I have any discussion from Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, all those in favor, say aye. Page 130 September 28, 2004 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that's a 3-2. Thank you very much. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #10H A LOCALLY FUNDED AGREEMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF $1.8 MILLION FOR THE U.S. 41, PROJECT NUMBER 620091 FROM SR 951 TO CR 92, DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SIllDY -A ~OVED MR. MUDD: Next item is to -- is 10(H), and that is a recommendation to approve a locally funded agreement and memorandum of agreement with the State of Florida Department of Transportation, FDOT, for the advancement of $1.8 million for the U.S. 41 project Number 620091 from State Road 951 to County Road 92. Project development and environmental study. And Mr. Don Scott, plans director for transportation services, will present. MR. SCOTT: Don-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. MR. SCOTT: -- Scott, transportation planning. Essentially what we're trying to do with this -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excuse me. I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Henning. Page 131 September 28, 2004 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Scott. Great presentation. Very convincing. Item #101 AN AMENDMENT FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 8 MGD REVERSE OSMOSIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR AN AMOUNT OF $7,678,866 AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM RESERVES TO THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,870,547, PROJECT NO. 70054- A-eEROVED MR. MUDD: The next item is number 10(1), and that's a recommendation to approve an amendment of the south county regional water treatment plant eight million gallon per day reverse osmosis construction contract to an amount of $7,678,866, and to approve a transfer of funds from reserves to the contract in the amount of $2,870,547, project number 70054. And Mr. Roy Anderson, head of engineering for public utilities, will present. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. Page 132 September 28, 2004 This request is for -- let me just get this up. It's related to the south county regional water treatment plant, and it's a continuation of the plan that was set in place in -- on July 27th by the board that would allow us to have water at the south plant by the end of December of this year. And that's what we're gearing everything to. The program is broken out into three phases, if you will recall: Phase I being the new contractor would make a preliminary assessment; Phase II would be that we would get him started with a $3 million payment up front, on a not to exceed basis; and the third phase is that he would give us a final estimate for final -- for the final completion of the project. The specifics of that were that Phase I was $25,000. That's completed and expended now. Phase II is the not to exceed of $3.0 million, which was approved on September 21 st. Phase III is what we're doing today. And now that we've got the contractor's estimate of $7.6 million to finish the project, we're requesting that this money be made available. This will provide us with an operational plant by December 31 st. The source of the funding for this request for the contract of $7.6 million is our -- we -- first of all, we have a project balance of $756,000. You've given us $3 million already. And we've done an internal transfer from the old contract to the new contract of a million dollars. And now we're asking for the $2.8 million transfer out of reserve to bring it up to the total. So really, the bottom line is what we're asking for today is that, number one, we would like approval of the contract for $7.6 million; and number two, we would like approval of the budget amendment of $2.8 million. And I stand ready to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, you don't even have your button on yet. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. Page 133 September 28, 2004 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta to approve and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? All those in favor -- oh, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd be happy to go along with it if this is the last time we're going to see this discussion on this item, whether it be change orders or parking garages or whatever. If you promise to never come back. MR. ANDERSON: This quote, this construction estimate, has been thoroughly reviewed by our consultants and by me personally, and we're satisfied that this will get the job done. We do have other costs in the proj ect. In fact, at the next board meeting we have an executive summary for engineering inspection continuation, you know, because of the extra time and extra work required to keep track on a not to exceed contract as opposed to the previous lump sum contract. So you will be seeing that next month. MR. MUDD: And Commissioner, if I might pile on, you will also see that these particular charges will come back up probably in a closed door where we talk about lawsuit. Because we have filed a lawsuit against the previous contractor, and that will come back again. So that part I know is going to come back. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just concerned about we have a different contractor, I'm concerned about change orders coming through, that's all. But you don't anticipate any change orders with this proj ect? MR. ANDERSON: There is a -- we don't anticipate any. They could come along, but there is a margin built in this estimate for a certain amount of that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I hope that you take Commissioner Coyle's recommendation made earlier in the day where he said he'd like to see a complete format of everything that's being Page 134 September 28, 2004 spent. I mean, like -- and this is exactly what he was talking about earlier in the day. Now, you give us this one this week and next one doesn't even refer to this one at the following board meeting. You know, it's like a new agenda item. So it would be great to have -- because I'd really like to know how much extra has this project actually cost us. MR. MUDD: Ma'am, it's going to be totaling about $9.6 million because the original construction contractor failed to perform. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that the total actual or is that -- MR. MUDD: An increase, ma'am. This is what -- when the guy said he was going to be done in two months, when we bring this contractor on in order to look at the work, this is what he said the other guy hadn't performed. So -- and it -- I don't want to say too much more, because we have lawsuits flying between -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Does that include all of the, what, two years we've been horsing around trying to these guys to -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it does. It includes all the engineering and the monitoring and the construction work, that is correct. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I think the happy result here is that there's a high degree of confidence that with this contract, this will be done by December of this year. MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The job will be finished. MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, great. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that I toured the facilities after the original contractor left, and going through it, I think they'll justify that I basically came off with a figure, and it's very close to what the people on the site are estimating. And that was just my walk-through assumption as I walked through that plant. I was quite taken by how the plant was left prior to somebody else coming on Page 135 September 28, 2004 board. So I really think that the people there, they've had a lot of time to make an assessment, a true assessment, so I'm hoping that this is the end of the change orders. But who knows, as we dig deeper in the bowels of this plant, really. And it's a sad state of affairs, but I think the people there are really doing due diligence in trying to bring this plant on line to meet the requirements for the upcoming season here. And I think their estimate is very close. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. We have a motion on the floor and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: That passes 5-0. Item #1 OJ A CONTRACT FOR RFP 04-3629 "CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS 2030 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE" WITH CELLA AND ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $324,513.27- AEEROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is No. 10(J), and that the board approve and authorize the chairman to sign a standard Page 136 September 28, 2004 county attorney approved contract for RFP-04-3629, consultant services for the public involvement element of the metropolitan planning organization 2030 long-range transportation plan update in the total amount of $324,513.27, with Cella and Associates. And Mr. Johnny Limbaugh will present, the MPO director. MR. LIMBAUGH: Commissioners, good afternoon. As you're aware, the MPO is required by state and federal law to go through the long-range transportation plan update process every five years. And this is one element of that plan update. You've previously approved the technical consultant end, which we are happy to say is actually moving forward and they're gathering their data now. The public involvement element has been through the MPO committees and the MPO board previously, and the hang-up seems to be that it's a lot of money to spend for public involvement. I don't think -- no one's disagreeing with that, it's a lot of money to spend. I think in the long run we'll see the benefits of this contract in not only the MPO process, but in the county and the cities will also see benefit from the activities that the MPO is planning on undertaking. But to help ease some of those concerns about expending all that money at one time, staff has worked with its consultant and we've come down basically to identify a Phase I, Phase II contract. Phase I being the items that we need to implement immediately to maintain our current schedule and feed our technical consultant. A lot of this information that we'll be generating in Phase I of the public involvement is data collection and tool development, which will allow us to get the technical information that's being generated out to the public for their consumption and ultimately to provide input into that overall process. So what I've provided each of you is a breakdown sheet of a Phase I, Phase II contract. And so what I'm asking the board to consider is to approve the contract as a Phase I, Phase II, realizing that Phase II will come back through the MPO for approval prior to those Page 137 September 28,2004 notice to proceed being issued. And I'll take any questions. This has been -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Have you worked in any accountability plateaus or any performance measurements so that we know that these things are not only being taken care of, but evaluated, to make sure that we're spending $324,000 wisely? MR. LIMBAUGH: We're working with the consultant on that. It's hard -- I tried to develop that, based on our conversations. And it's hard to set a plateau for a public meeting. Is it 100 people, is that an acceptable number? Is it 15? So it kind of gets to a gray area when you're looking at that. That's why I broke it down. This data and tool development, those are hard things that we can look at. When we get the GIS data base, we'll be able to look at that and that's either what we wanted or it's not what we wanted. The steering committee will be able to see that committee functioning and know that their input into the process is a benefit overall. And the kick-off activities, which are the website, the mailing list and the newsletter, those are all hard items that we'll be able to see, and the board and everyone else will be able to make judgment as to whether or not they are meeting the intent of what we wanted. That's why I broke it down as to the data collection and the tools that give staff the opportunity to get the process moving. And then we can look at the tools and say okay, are these working and how do we implement them. That's what Phase II is, is actually using these tools. And that's when it will be a decision made on can staff use the tools and the data that's been generated by this consultant to move forward with the project on our own merits with MPO and county staff, or do we need to continue with supplementing the staff hours with consultant activities. And that's Phase II. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Limbaugh, if I may, what are we actually required to do under federal and state regulations to be Page 138 September 28, 2004 able to draw that money down? Is this what we're required to do? MR. LIMBAUGH: Well, yes, sir, we're required to hold together public input. We're wanting to do more so rather than holding the standard public meeting and saying we're here, come tell us what you think. MPO staff and the consultant will actually be going out to community civic associations, Kiwanis meetings and going to where the people are. Rather than the tried and true method of asking them to come to us, we're actually going to go to them and hope that we can gather some more input. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So when it comes to replacement of roads, or the expansion of roads, what this will do is increase the citizen participation? MR. LIMBAUGH: Absolutely. I think you'll see that we have a much greater participant -- and we got records from our last plan updates which show the public meetings, when they were held and who was there. I think we'll be able to through this process see an increase in public involvement, that we've actually had people come and take part in the overall process. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have any facts or figures in regards that this process will work? Has anybody else tried this, and has it ended up being less confusion on the part of constituents when it comes point in time to build a road? MR. LIMBAUGH: Other MPOs have tried similar tactics to gather this input, and I think they've achieved their desired results. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have any facts with you today that you can share with us in regards to it made the process a lot easier for people to understand out there in regards to roads or additions being put in place, so that we don't end up whereby everybody says I didn't hear about the meeting, I wasn't at the meetings, and then at the last minute we're starting to build the road and of course we run into all sorts of problems where people aren't Page 139 September 28,2004 there. So I guess what we need to know is what's the track record and show us some evidence that it works. MR. LIMBAUGH: I don't know that we'll ever solve the problem of people coming in when we've got the bulldozers out there and saying I didn't know about this, I bought my house last week, no one told me about this prob -- that this was going to happen. But the fact is, this data collection and this public involvement process gives you a database and a legal record to go back to and say look, we held these -- we held 50 meetings throughout the community, we had 1,000 participants at that time. That information that was generated from that public involvement process was delivered to the board as fact, and that was what the board used, the best information at the time to move forward with that proj ect. That will help us with our permitting requirements with the federal government as we move forward to try to get water management permits or any of the federal required permits. That's the first thing they ask, what's your public involvement process and how many -- you know, have you gotten this message out and what is the comments on those projects? I don't see us losing from expending any of these dollars. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle is before me. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll waive. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, on the -- going back to this, let's draw a comparison so we can know what we're talking about here. We just went through a very interesting, what do you want to call it, lesson plan in how to do it and how not to do it when it came to the overpass. And wouldn't it be great if we had something that was out there working for us on a continuous basis in the community, a plan that's already together to be able to go out there and keep the flow Page 140 September 28, 2004 going, rather than having these confrontational things take place? Because people are totally upset, they can't be able -- they can't deal with it, they don't know what's happening, and then we personally have to get involved in it. I think we wasted a lot of money on consultants. We wasted a lot of money on community meetings that were less than productive. But if we had a plan ahead of time, we knew how to approach it, we probably could have saved money. And I think this is the direction. How many years is this money going to carry us for? MR. LIMBAUGH: This project -- the update is an 18-month window. We have to have the plan updated by December of2005. Now, then five years from that point we'll be going through this same motion of updating that plan. That's the five-year cycle for updating the long-range plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, let me address one of those issues. I hate to see us develop any false hopes here. Please remember that the overpass was in fact a part of the long-range plan of MPO. It was developed with public input. It was developed with input from the City of Naples and the communities surrounding it. It was developed in cooperation with the developers who agreed to provide land for it. And in the intervening period of time, all the people who did that are not around anymore. And you have people who move into the community who are not aware of what goes on here, and when they're surprised, they're going to be unhappy. And I don't know that we'll ever solve that problem. We have a very rapidly changing community, it's rapidly growing. And I wouldn't want to lead anyone to believe that we're going to come up with a plan that will not be opposed by people, because that's, I'm afraid, always going to happen. People don't get upset about these things until it gets personal to them. And if they see it in the abstract and they just see it in some transportation plan of maybe 10 or 15 years in duration, they don't Page 141 September 28,2004 really get worked up about it. But when you get the bulldozers out and you start tearing down trees and doing something with the right-of-way, then they get really active and interested and they get upset and they want to know what's going on. So I don't see this as solving that problem, quite frankly, but I do know that Johnny does not have the staff to do all this himself. And unless the county's going to step up to bat and provide him with resources, it's not going to get done. So I think it's a lot of money. I don't agree with some of the things that the consultant has proposed, I think they're way overpriced, but I quite frankly don't see an alternative. Johnny needs the help. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is this an annual contract or does it lead to other annual contracts? MR. LIMBAUGH: This is a one-time contract for this specific project, the 2030 long-range transportation plan update. It's a one, 18-month -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you're not going to need to do this every year? MR. LIMBAUGH: We'll come back in five years to have another long-range transportation plan update. I mean, we'll have other consultant contracts for MPO duties that we're obligated to have throughout the year, like the congestion management plan, but it won't be -- we'll be able to use the public involvement that's generated through this long-range plan update to help us feed into the other technical reports that the MPO will be producing over the next year. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just, is that a form of a motion, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm going to vote against it. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? Page 142 September 28, 2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what are we looking at right now for the bottom line today? We're looking for $144,000? MR. LIMBAUGH: Authorization to proceed with 144,000 of the overall 324,000 -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then you're going to come back for the -- MR. LIMBAUGH: Come back after we get these tools developed, and then we'll be able to -- staff will be able to look at that and say based on the tools, we have the staff capability through county help and MPO staff. We can look at Phase II and say well, we can cut that out, we don't need that much consultant help there, or we might not need them there. So we can -- probably we'll do the -- if there's any cutting to be done, it will be done at Phase II. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do you think there'd be any cutting to be done on the 144,000 as we start into this process? MR. LIMBAUGH: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: For lack of a second, the motion dies. Commissioners, what would you like to do? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Take a break. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it for discussion purposes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, so then the motion is reinstated? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Reinstated. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second by Commissioner Coyle for discussion purposes. Yes, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are we going to have any Page 143 September 28,2004 benchmarks? When we spend this 144,000, will we have some benchmarks to look at prior to going any further on this? MR. LIMBAUGH: Are you referring to Phase I or Phase II? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Phase I. MR. LIMBAUGH: Phase I, you'll see the website, you'll be a party to the selection of the steering committee. Each member of the MPO board gets to appoint one or two people to the overall steering committee. You'll be receiving feedback from them, because they'll be seeing every product that both consultants to the MPO produce. Steering committee will see those products, so you'll be able to receive feedback from there. You'll also be going through the MPO committees and ultimately the MPO board every time a product and technical memo and everything is generated. Those will be presented to the board. So you'll be seeing it in real time as it's developed. It's ultimately up to the MPO board to approve every element of this plan. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this going to be tied in any way with Lee County, or is this strictly going to be Collier County only? MR. LIMBAUGH: Lee County is doing a similar -- of course they're in the plan update. We'll have a joint model and we have elements of the technical end that are shared. This is strictly -- or I should say primarily, we'll have some overlap in the regional stuff, just because how things tie together. But Lee County -- and this number is in line with what other MPOs have done. I've called around to see if it's in line. Everyone's spending a lot of money on public involvement and their technical. The plan update is probably the biggest and most important thing the MPO does. Now, in comparison, our goals and objectives, which MPO staff is doing in-house, Lee County has already concluded their goals and objectives through a consultant. And they paid $87,000 to a consultant to develop their goals and objectives, where we're using Page 144 September 28, 2004 staff with consultant assistance, and our line item is 10. So it's all on how it gets broke up. And that's part of the problem in comparing our MPO public involvement process with other MPOs. Everyone slices it up a little bit different. Like I could have, and maybe should have, taken Phase I of this contract and left it in my technical end, because this is mostly data collection and tool development, which probably could have been handled by the technical consultant and that probably would have went right on through. But I wanted my public involvement consultant to be hands on in the development and data collection of this overall process so that we know from the ground up that we're getting a good public involvement process. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make sure that when we're looking at the requirements that we need here in Collier County, that we're basically expanding our vision to look out farther, so that when we have east-west roads or north-south roads that may impact our neighbors that where -- we include them in the study and making sure that everything falls into the equation. If it doesn't, then we run into a problem and we're going to waste money. So, I mean, we just don't just have the Collier County to look at, we have a regional area that needs to be looked at in general. MR. LIMBAUGH: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And this is like pulling teeth, but I see a real problem if we -- let's go a little differently. Ifwe don't do it, what happens? We go back to square one, which is using our transportation staff and the limited resources that are there, keeping them totally tied up in meetings with no particular direction, not dedicated to that particular thing. We got some major things going to be happening in the next 25 years. We got a public out there that has to be given the opportunity to be able to play in on it. I don't know if you've just recently seen -- Page 145 September 28, 2004 one issue is that Wilson Boulevard extension, and it has all sorts of alternatives, coming through neighborhoods, right down through the middle of the street. Believe me, when that thing starts going forward, if we don't have that in place, our regular staff ready to handle it, work with it, it's going to be -- going to cause a lot of turmoil within the county government. Because this is a far-reaching plan. And there's a lot of them out there. And we got to get this -- get ahold of it now, because if we don't, we're going to be in the same predicament that our predecessors left us in from years ago, where they didn't plan it out ahead. And public involvement is A-Number-1. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Johnny, what do you do if the board doesn't approve this money? MR. LIMBAUGH: That's a real good question. I go back -- I'll go back through the MPO, through the committees, and basically start at square one, which will put our plan update seriously behind schedule. And we're trying to maintain schedule with Lee County as they develop theirs. We're a little bit behind them now. I would have to go back and we'll reevaluate what we can do. Basically we'll go back to figure out how many public meetings would be the bare minimum. We'd go back to the bare bones approach, basically, and try to maintain our federal and state certification of the MPO by meeting the minimum requirements of the MPO process, and just hope that our plan comes out well. The blueprint for 2030 is -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: When we're talking about kickoff activities, things like mailing lists and an introductory newsletter, does this include the postage for sending those? MR. LIMBAUGH: Yes, that's all-- yes. Basically that's for the consultant to make sure the mailing list is correct, number one. Generate the newsletter, have it -- it's a color newsletter; printed, Page 146 September 28,2004 folded, stamped and mailed out to everyone. That's -- yeah, that's the cost that you are seeing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And a website. MR. LIMBAUGH: And a web site with the surveying, being able to take on-line surveys. We'll be able to track all the public comment. Both written and electronic format gets put into the interactive website. So we'll be able to -- and that's probably a good point, that will give us a real good indication as to how many people are actually using, taking our surveys, providing input, sending letters, if anything. It all gets dumped into the interactive on-line public involvement manager and written -- they're all treated the same. And we'll be able to pull a report and I believe that we'll be able to break it down via area of, you know, which areas are actually contributing or attending the public involvement. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we do this: Amend the motion, allocate 144 and some change and get back to a more conservative approach on this issue. Because, you know, Commissioner Coyle is absolutely right, whether you have people out there today or tomorrow, whether they want to get involved or not, they're going to say I never knew. And, I mean, it's just not -- it's not a prudent exercise. Because, you know, previous -- or boards to come down the line is going to run up the same thing that we did. I never knew. I never knew that Logan Boulevard was going down next to my community, and I'm a realtor. So, you know? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I've been here for five years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I know everything. So if we can do that, I think it would be money well spent. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Were you next or was Commissioner Coletta? Page 147 September 28, 2004 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was next. I'm Commissioner Coletta. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, I said or Commissioner Coletta. I know who you are. I've got your number. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm a little concerned about how we may be going. Our responsibility is -- you're right, you can lead a horse to water, they're not going to drink every time. It's the opportunity that you give them. And that when you can be able to stay back and say yes, we had five consultant, yes, we had "X" number of meetings, yes, we've done this, we've provided every access that we could possibly have involved you in on something that's going to majorly influence your life sometime in the future, either positively or negatively. I'd like to hear what Mr. Feder has to say on this. Maybe he can give us a different perspective. MR. FEDER: Madam Chair, if I could, Norman Feder, transportation administrator. I'll be extremely brief, given the view of the board here. What I do want to share with you is first of all, you've got federal requirements to maintain certification. That's a lot of what Johnny's trying to work with, so I won't go through the MPO end of it. He's been addressing that. From the county staff, though, I need to point out to you that this long-range plan also becomes part of our comprehensive plan. It is our transportation element of our local government comprehensive plan. It provides for a number of things that are federal requirements that are in this first phase. I did review this with Johnny, even though this is the MPO's process. And these are the tools that are extremely needed. First of all, some of what you have in here, that really hasn't been hit on hard, but some of the identifications of the environmental items under the federal requirements. As we go more and more in our proj ects, we'reM Page 148 September 28, 2004 finding that permitting issues are becoming paramount. And what's happening is more and more through the state level and at the federal level, we're being required to show that we have a plan, a direct nexus and that we have significant public involvement and alternatives analysis in any project that we're trying to bring forward. I think it's important to do that just for the very nature of things, but it's becoming critical relative to our ability to get permits and move forward on projects. It is true that unfortunately when people come to the meetings, they get most concerned about the day after the bulldozer's already been sent out there after many, many meetings and many attempts by this board and by your staff to get them aware of and involved in the process. But I think bringing this out to them, utilizing the web, using the techniques, and taking these techniques, not only for your long-range plan update, but as we go through our individual meetings, these first tools and data will be very useful as we do corridor studies, as we do the Livingston extensions, and the other issues that we've been tasked with over the last couple of years and the years to come. I think it puts us in a very good stead to have the tools, not only for this plan update, but also as we go forward and try to bring the projects out and deliver them here in the county. So I would encourage you to move forward, hopefully, on what is at least PL funded, that was saved up for a number of years, the federal PL funding specifically for this purpose of plan update. The major portion or the first phase is PL funded and can be solely PL funded. And then the decision, once we have the tools, do we really have the value added out of that, which I think you will find you'll have. I know we have a lot of applications for it. Then the question becomes do we then, once we have a plan or an initial plan developed, we have the tools to communicate, to get out to people. We've developed those. Do we then as staff try to bring Page 149 September 28, 2004 out and handle the rest of that, or do we go at a more aggressive basis with outside support, and to what level. But I think by dividing it into two phases, you are getting the tools that you need. It could have been put in the technical end, and some areas have been. And you're in a position then to evaluate whether or not we continue with expanded resources when we get down to trying to get the further input and the refinements of the plan to the final plan development. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe one of the things we're missing is a good understanding of the technical end, Johnny. What do you have in the technical side of this thing, just briefly? What are you contemplating here? MR. LIMBAUGH: The technical -- and they've -- well, FDOT has developed a new transportation model, joint Lee/Collier model. Our technical consultant is taking that, using the control totals that the MPO approved, population control totals, developing the 2030 needs and ultimately the cost feasible network and a 2015 in-from year cost feasible network. We'll also be looking at transit and truck movement to a certain extent, and basically all modes of transportation. The modeling and all the number crunching, the cost feasible. Basically the project going through and doing cost estimates for the various phases of the projects that are in the plan. That's all on the technical end. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So all of that is going to be developed. And these are going to be specific projects, specific roads, widening, whatever . No overpasses, nothing like that. But really good things like widening roads and things of that nature, right? Is that what we're talking about? MR. LIMBAUGH: It'll definitely address all the transportation movements in the county. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that will be available to this Page 150 September 28, 2004 consultant at public meetings and people will have something to react to; is that a correct statement? MR. LIMBAUGH: Correct. But the public involvement consultant's job or duty is to assist MPO staff in assimilating all the public comment, making sure that people have someone to talk to, that we get all the ideas that are out there. As we go out and do network determinations, they're going to have different alignments, different roadways, someone's going to say not in my backyard, he's going to say not in my front yard. And somewhere in between we have to help the citizens realize that it might not be here or there, but it's got to be somewhere because we have a need to move traffic. And that's part of the challenge of are we going to make everybody happy with this plan? Absolutely not. Can we make one or two? I hope. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The bottom line is you're going to have a plan that you can take out to the public and show to the public so they can react to it. MR. LIMBAUGH: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: My concern is that just getting a group of people together in the community to brainstorm about what we have to do with the transportation network is going to be largely a big waste of time. But if you've got a transportation network recommendation and a set of alternatives that you can take to the community and have them react to that and ask questions and make sure they're properly informed, I am supportive of that process. MR. LIMBAUGH: That's exactly what part of the steering committee's job is along with the other MPO committees and the MPO board. Before anything goes public, out to a public meeting, it will go through the committee process of the MPO and the MPO board for approval to release to the public. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think Commissioner Henning might have been -- might have asked you this question: Can Page 151 September 28,2004 we break this approval into two parts and approve the initial $144,359? CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's what we're doing. MR. LIMBAUGH: That's what I'm -- I'm asking for a Phase I, Phase II contract, basically approving the overall contract, but only authorizing the MPO to issue notice to proceed for Phase I, the 144. And then after we get through these elements, come back to the MPO and say we've got the tools, let's look at staff availability and how do we use -- effectively use the consultant and the balance of this contract to achieve our goals. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you're not asking us to commit to that second phase of the contract yet? MR. LIMBAUGH: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're really only talking about Phase I approval. MR. LIMBAUGH: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then once we see the quality of the work of Phase I and see if it addresses our needs, then we can decide upon -- MR. LIMBAUGH: Moving forward with Phase II. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- moving forward with Phase II. MR. LIMBAUGH: And to what extent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Is that the motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, all those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 152 September 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that passes unanimously. MR. LIMBAUGH: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public comment on general topics. Do we have any speakers? MS. McPHERSON: No, you do not. Item #12A A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE INVOLVING LITIGATION IN COLLIER COUNTY V. NATIONWIDE HEALTH PROPERTIES, INC. AlKlAlHOMEWOOD RESIDENCE, CASE NO. 02-4943-CA, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL ~OVED MR. MUDD: That brings us to Item 12(A), which is a recommendation to approve the settlement agreement and mutual release involving litigation in Collier County versus Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., a/kla Homewood Residence, Case No. 02-493 -- excuse me, Case No. 02-4943-CA, in the circuit court of the 20th Judicial Circuit. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 153 September 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Opposed, like sign. (No response.) MS. HUBBARD: Madam Chairman? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great presentation. MS. HUBBARD: I'll make it very, very brief. This concludes the litigation involving our efforts to collect unpaid impact fees from the facilities that consider themselves adult only facilities, and we've had a very successful result. I wanted to just give you a breakdown very briefly of what we have done and what we have recovered in our office. Approximately 56 percent of the fees collected went to the various county impact fee funds; to roads, EMS, community parks, regional parks and libraries. And we collected a total of $692,059.20 in cash. Of that amount, we set aside $80,000 to cover our litigation costs, attorney fees, depositions, copying, transcripts, things of that nature, and are happy to report that we have spent approximately $33,000 in attorneys' fees and approximately $20,000 in cost. So we've managed to conclude this litigation in a relatively inexpensive fashion. In addition to the cash amount that we have received from the litigation, we've also netted a total savings, that is in not having to repay refunds for overpayments, in the amount of $314,283. So our total amount collected is $860,622.10. And as I said before, the majority of that money went back into the county coffers. And that concludes my report, unless you have some additional questions. We started out with about 23 different cases and Homewood was our last one. And they all ended successfully. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, Jackie. MS. HUBBARD: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Mr. Mudd? Let's see what we have here. Page 154 September 28, 2004 Item #15 MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there's -- this brings us to agenda item number 15, and staff and commissioners' general communication. There are a couple of items. The first item I'd like to talk about is a request - visualizer backup -- that I received on 5 August, 2004. And the reason I bring it up is you're going to have a joint workshop with the City of Naples on the 4th of October. And you were going to discuss -- you're going to discuss the Naples Bay boat speeds, I believe. There are two items on this particular request, and I've provided the board, each commissioner, with a copy of this particular request. I want to make sure that you understand that we are acting on the request. It is being heard by the parks and rec. advisory board. They have heard the first item on the Fleischmann Park project. They're continuing to listen to the particular details of this request, because it's a significant request, some $6 million. They have not gotten to the Pulling property yet, that request for $400,000. But again, I thought it would be better if your advisory committee took a look at this particular request for dollars and analyzed them to see if they're appropriate or not before coming to the board with a recommendation. So we're going through that process right now, and I just thought I'd give you an update just in case it becomes a discussion item during your joint meeting. The next item -- and again, each commissioner has a copy of that request, I've provided it to them. The next item that I'd like to talk about is a request -- and I'll provide you some backup data for that joint meeting and what I'm Page 155 September 28, 2004 specifically going to provide is the notes from the city council meeting so that you all have them on the Naples Bay speed limit so that you know what's been discussed and the particular items for it. So I'll provide that to you this week, and again, it'll be nothing more than what was printed in the agenda for the City of Naples, so that you'll have that background. There is also a community round robin -- no, I don't want to call it a round robin, it's more like an expert panel discussion this week on the Naples Bay speed limits that the board might consider going to. And I believe everyone has an invitation for that particular item. The next item I have is a response from the clerk to the county manager's letter about the CAFR. And the reason I bring that back up is there's an item of interest, and I'd like to be able to respond one way or the other on this. But there's an item of interest in that letter that basically talks about setting up an audit committee between the clerk and the manager and having a member, in this particular case the clerk suggests the chairman of the board be a person on that committee, that audit committee. From a manager's perspective, I think the audit committee is a good thing. Because I will tell you, for the last four years, two years that I've been manager, this year excluded, I will tell you the audit has been something that pretty much the clerk has basically been the project manager for and done for the county. And it's presented, and the manager gets a letter that he signs along with the clerk, but he doesn't ask a lot of questions in that particular case. This year was an exception, because I really got into the CAFR a little bit, and I wish I would have got into the CAFR a little bit earlier. I believe that this committee will give us that opportunity as the audit starts, as it proceeds through the committee can watch as that goes forward and make sure that any corrective actions that we find while we're doing it, we can get done while the audit is transpiring, so it doesn't end up as a finding. And I believe that's in the best interest of Page 156 September 28, 2004 Collier County and our future bond rate. Did I misspeak, Mr. Mitchell, at all? MR. MITCHELL: No, sir. MR. MUDD: So I would like to know if the board is interested to have a member in this particular committee and who, if they decide they want that, who that committee member is going to be. Or they want to wait until the audit committee is pretty much into the audit and then get involved later on, how you'd like to do that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: When does that process begin? MR. MUDD: As soon as I respond. This letter just came to me within the last week or so. As soon as I respond, we'll get it started. Mr. Mitchell, do you have any suggestions on how to start? MR. MITCHELL: I'm not certain if you're talking about when the audit process starts or when the audit committee itself would start. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, the committee. MR. MITCHELL: But the 2004 audit has already started. We currently have auditors in-house today. They're basically doing their test of transactions and trying to do as much as they can prior to the close of the fiscal year. The committee responsibilities I think probably start -- today would be a good day. What they could do is look at the plan that KPMG offers. One of the first things that we will get from them will be an engagement letter that basically outlines exactly what it is they're going to do. It would seem fitting that this committee would review that engagement letter, make sure that everybody's in agreement with exactly what the responsibilities are of KPMG during that process, and then the committee would follow the process through. Basically as the audit comes to a conclusion, there would be an exit conference that would include all of the audit committee members, where they would be made aware of any deficiencies that may be disclosed during that process, and then as a committee they Page 157 September 28, 2004 could work through what we're going to do about those. This particular issue here was discussed with KPMG. They thought it was a great idea. And several other of their clients have a committee very similar to this. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could you expand a little bit on the responsibilities of the committee and what the committee would be expected to do? MR. MUDD: Well, first thing that Mr. Mitchell basically talked about is take a look at the audit letter and see if our auditor is getting at the issues, some of the issues or all of the issues that the board has or the clerk has in that particular -- if there's a special interest item that the board would like to take a look at in the audit, you'll have that opportunity in order to put that into the annual audit for something that they would like to look at. That's first and that's from my side of the house. The second thing is to take a look at the CAFR from last year, okay, and make sure that both agencies are actively engaged in corrective actions to make sure that those findings that were given to us during the last year's CAFR are addressed, so they don't end up being repeats for this year, okay? That doesn't make for a good audit. And make sure that those things are accomplished. Then take a look as the auditor is doing those audits, and if they're finding intermediate findings, preliminary findings, taking a look at those and seeing if there's things that can be addressed so that they can be corrected before the final audit is written, so that you basically have a preemptive action to prevent it from becoming a finding for the county. Those are the kind of issues that I foresee this committee doing. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think it's -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. Is it a committee that has authority to direct that these things, Page 158 September 28,2004 corrective actions, be taken is my real concern here. I have always been concerned about commissioners sitting on boards or advisory boards or agencies of some kind that take action that perhaps have not been approved by the full board of county commissioners. It provides, I think, an opportunity for an ethics violation and involvement by a county commissioner, unintentionally, and it also tends to circumvent the accountability of the Board of County Commissioners. Because if you have a county commissioner on this board, this audit committee, and the audit committee has the authority and responsibility to take corrective actions and to change systems or procedures within Collier County government, then the other commissioners are sort of left out of the loop, unless it is brought back to them for approval. If it is advisory in nature, I guess that's a different question, it's a slightly different issue. But if it has authority to do something, and it has the responsibility for correcting problems, I see the potential for circumventing the normal approval process by the Board of County Commissioners. F or example, if you found something systemic about the way something was happening in accounting or contract administration and I decided hey, I want it done this way, I've got a vote on this board, this audit committee, as an example, but the other commissioners don't have any input at all under those circumstances. And I think that's not right. And so either -- if it's going to have some responsibility and accountability, I would prefer to see -- not see a commissioner on this board. If it's going to be advisory in nature, then it's going to be this board that has to take the action with respect to changing anything. I mean this Board of County Commissioners. Does that make sense? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You know, part of my thoughts when I first received the letter, and I still have been having thoughts about it, I believe that the clerk, with the board and some of the recommendations for -- from our auditing firm is basically to at least Page 159 September 28,2004 try to educate the commission, okay, on the process of the audit. So that all it -- so it becomes something more than just the clerk standing up here once a year with the auditor and saying here it is, how do you like it? And I will tell you, there are municipalities and counties all over the country, okay, that haven't paid a lot of attention to their audits that are in serious problems with their bonding capacity right now, because things have gone to the worst end for them. I don't think it's a bad process. Maybe the board member that comes or board members that come -- and we can advertise the meeting, the board members that come, maybe we put an invite out on a quarterly basis so that we update the board members on the process of the committee and where the audit is. And we do it not necessarily at a Board of County Commissioners meetings, but this meeting's going to meet on a quarterly basis, we're going to advertise it because we've asked more than one commissioner -- we've asked all the commissioners to come if their schedules avail themselves of the particular meeting. And then they can hear on a quarterly basis how the committee's doing and where we are in the audit process and what we found, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I like that concept a lot better. I like the idea that a committee made up of people who are intimately aware of what's going on with respect to the audit will come here and brief all of the County Commissioners at the same time, everybody understands at the same time what's happening or what's likely to happen or if any problems have been found. And then we can have the responsibility for directing that action be taken to correct it within our purview, of course. So I like that concept a lot better. And I think it is better for the County Commissioners to do it that way. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other comments, Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Looks like --s Page 160 September 28, 2004 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you need guidance of some kind? MR. MUDD: No, unless somebody's disagreeing with the quarterly concept. And that's how I'll respond to the clerk of court's office. And Jim, you'll already have told them that -- MR. MITCHELL: Let me just make one comment. And you're only going to have it for one quarter. You know, the audit process is not -- you know, even though it covers an entire fiscal year, the process that we're talking about in relative terms is a fairly short period. It's our hope this year that we will be in front of you sometime in January or February with the audit report. We're trying to condense exactly how we go about that process. So, you know, you're looking at maybe a one-time shot, if you're going to do it on a quarterly basis. I just want to share that with you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess what I'm missing is that we just recently had an audit report, and certain discrepancies were determined. I'd like to have an update on what's being done to solve those, okay? And I'd like to know if we disagree with the findings or if we agree with them, when are we going to get them solved, and what are we going to do about it. And then, of course, there's the problem to anticipate potential problems for the next year for the next audit. And the purpose of that one is to make sure that we correct them before the audit is finalized. And my belief is that a good auditor is going to mention it anyway if it existed when he started his engagement, but he'll then indicate that it's been solved. And then we will repeat the process. So it seems to me that we have not only a proactive responsibility to take a look at the upcoming audit and try to anticipate any potential problems and start solving them, but we also have the retroactive responsibility to look at last year's audit and track the correction processes. Because some of the problems that were noted in this year's audit were carried over from prior years, and we don't want to Page 161 September 28, 2004 be in that position, we don't want to see anything carried over from prior years that are bad. So I guess that's where I see the County Commissioners getting involved. And if they're briefed on these things, then we are aware of them and then we recognize our responsibility to direct some corrective action. That's what I would do. I don't know how the other commissioners feel. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's got the timer? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute, I haven't said much during this thing. I'm trying to make up for Commissioner Halas now. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Well, it looks like we're all in agreement with Commissioner Coyle. Nobody has countered. MR. MUDD: I think I have enough -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. MUDD: I think I have enough direction on that particular item. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you. MR. MUDD: The other item I'd like to talk -- well, I'd like to defer to talk about. We had, during the budget hearing and the subsequent meeting or the meeting before that in the budget hearing, the sheriff had made an offer for a committee with a commissioner participation, and I'd like to continue that discussion till the next meeting until the sheriff feels better and we can get him in, kind of like we talked to Mr. Mitchell today, to talk about how that committee wants to work, so we can discuss it to see how the board wants to interact with that particular item. On the 4th of October, the joint city/county workshop, there's only one agenda item. I've talked to Mr. Lee about that to make sure. And that has to do with the Naples speed zones and the proposals that on the table that are being considered by the city. And that's the only item that's for discussion on that particular agenda. Page 162 September 28, 2004 The other item I'd like to talk about is -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can I interrupt you here for just a second? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I've read October 4 and October 5. MR. MUDD: It's October 4, ma'am. The October 5th date is a proposal by the county to start the determination, figure out the ground rules to this conflict resolution item by Florida Statutes based on the overpass. And so -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, two separate items. MR. MUDD: -- so it is on the 4th of October and it's in the afternoon over at city hall. MR. WHITE: If I may, Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. MR. WHITE: My recollection from the CRA's meeting on the 20th was that that board asked the county manager to add to the joint meeting the discussion about annexation. And I just wanted to clarify that point for that potential meeting agenda. But that was the direction of the CRA. Thank you. MR. MUDD: I think that was resolved, though, during the interlocal agreement discussion that's being considered by -- that I talked to you last time during discussion and that the city is looking at right now. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't think they were particularly referring just to Ruffina, they were talking about any annexations, because they saw more looming out ahead of them. There's another one coming right up the pipeline now, and with more to follow, and they felt many of them would be right there in the gateway triangle, Bayshore area redevelopment -- redevelopment area. So that's I think why they wanted to discuss that, or why they asked the board to discuss that. And we should come to a conclusion. MR. WHITE: And I apologize, this is Assistant County Attorney Patrick White, and that is my recollection from the meeting, that it Page 163 September 28, 2004 was a general discussion of annexation, not the specifics of Ruffina. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I could add that it could be the subject of a subsequent meeting, it doesn't -- if it's too late to add it on this agenda. MR. MUDD: No, sir, we could add it on this agenda if you'd like. But I don't know how long this discussion on the Naples Bay is going to go and what the public sentiment is going to be. But I believe there's going to be numerous amounts of speakers, from what I can tell. CHAIRMAN FIALA: How long are we scheduled, 9:00 to 12:00? MR. MUDD: I think it's a three-hour joint meeting that's been scheduled. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's in the afternoon. MR. MUDD: It's in the afternoon. MS. McPHERSON: 1:30. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, is it? Okay. Who's running the meeting? MR. MUDD: It's at the City of Naples, and so -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Manager, what about the -- there's not going to be any discussion whatsoever on the overpass since this new study came out from the city? MR. MUDD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So getting back to -- MR. MUDD: No doubt you'll probably bring it up, but it's not on the formal agenda, and I have no idea what the city, once they see the study, what they're going to say at their city council meeting tomorrow or during their executive session that they have planned for tomorrow, and the discussion and the final votes that are going to Page 164 September 28, 2004 come out. And by the end of the day tomorrow, this might be a non-issue. I don't know, and nor does this board. So it's not on the agenda at this time. They -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That discussion is about a Michigan U-turn. MR. MUDD: -- this board asked the city to have a discussion in a workshop on the Naples Bay speed limits before they finally had their final decision on what they were going to do as far as any kind of speed limits on the bay is concerned. And they basically said affirmative, that they would, and they scheduled that on the 4th of October. And that's basically what we're talking about. If this board would like to include an annexation item, I can go over to Mr. Lee and see if he wants to do that. And if their -- you know, if their meeting's tomorrow and he can ask the question. If you want to add that, we can do that, too. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes? I see some nods yes. Oh, I see five nods. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. I will get with Mr. Lee as soon as this meeting's over and talk about that item. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Okay. Next item, sir? MR. MUDD: You received a letter from Mr. Joe Swoja (sic), the chairman of the productivity committee. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Joe Swaja. MR. MUDD: Swaja. I'm sorry, I stand corrected. And he basically brought to your attention that the school impact fee is in arrears, it's been in arrears for a number of years, and I'm not trying to be a poet here. And that it doesn't seem like it's going anywhere. How do you want to reply as a board to that letter to the school, or do you want to just let this one go by? I really don't believe you have the option, I believe you have an ordinance. I also believe that the ordinance isn't prescriptive as far as you making the school board provide the information. And I'm going Page 165 September 28,2004 to defer a little bit to David Weigel as this discussion goes on. But I don't believe you can prescribe that they do it or else. But I think you probably need to let them know that they're seriously behind. We've had a contractor on board, paying him for three years now, trying to do the school impact fee, and all we keep doing is giving him more money because we keep getting stiff armed as far as the information is concerned. They need to get serious about it and they need to say we're not worrying about it and that's the end of it. I believe that's what I'm asking you. What do you want me to do? David, please, chime in. MR. WEIGEL: Well, Jim, certainly spoken appropriately in this regard. And I would suggest that the board authorize the chairman to send a letter over to the school board itself, copying the new superintendent, of the requirement. Obviously you are the legislators that create the ordinance. When there comes an issue in regard to the enforceability of it based upon requisites that aren't being followed, we'll be tied up in that whether we get the money or not, which of course we do not. So I think it's certainly time, and the letter from the productivity committee is well written and appropriate for this board to follow up, I would suggest, with a letter to the school board. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that's an excellent idea. As you're probably aware -- I'm sorry I jumped the gun on that, but I sent out my own letter. I was very dismayed by the fact that my taxes are offsetting the impact fees that they haven't collected. But I totally endorse it, if the other commissioners are in agreement, to have you do it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm all for it. Looks like I'm getting a bunch of nods. Yes, five of them. Okay. Yes, would you-- MR. MUDD: I'll get a letter drafted for your signature, ma'am. Page 166 September 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you. MR. MUDD: I'm done. Thank you very much. Thank you for your -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Didn't you have anything else to talk to us about? MR. MUDD: Oh, yes, ma'am. Today we received the city's consultant's plan -- his review of the Golden Gate overpass. I've provided each commissioner a copy today. I'd ask you to take a look at it as you go through it in case you get questioned by the press or whatever. From a personal perspective -- and I've just read it; I've glanced at it and read it rather quickly -- I believe it pretty much is where we were before. If you take a look at 2025 and you look at the traffic projections, the overpass is the item that comes back up. And yes, there are things which we could do as a county in between besides building an overpass in order to -- you know, we talked about Michigan U-turns and intersection improvements and whatnot. But when you get to the 2025 side of the house, if the projections are correct, your -- the overpass looks like about the only alternative that meets -- and I'm talking above grade, now. An above grade structure is the only one that satisfies the projections. And I believe that's what this consultant has come to grips with. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And this is a consultant that was hired by the City of Naples? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'll read that tonight. Anything else, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Weigel, do you have anything? Page 167 September 28, 2004 MR. WEIGEL: Nothing now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Then we'll move on to Commissioner Henning. Closing remarks. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know there's great concern about Commissioner Coletta's ability to find enough nutrition on his trip, so I took the motherly instinct on my side and took a -- and picked up a few things. Well, I think he's going to get a lot of that, but just remember that Commissioner Coletta's on a special diet and I would hate to see him deviate because he couldn't find any special food. So Commissioner, I got you some high protein sardines. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they, you know, keeping with your heritage, they're in pesto. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Packed in oil, right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Packed in Italian olio. And then low sodium crackers for your trip. And I know that this is going to probably get into your hunting time, so I got you some deer jerky, in between bus stops over there, in case you get caught. I did have some ravioli, but I didn't know if you'd have any means to cook them, so I didn't bring them. It's something that you might want to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, thank you. It's the thought that counts. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And when -- you know, when you travel overseas in different countries, you never know if the water is going to be palatable to your system, so I stopped by Copeland and got some spring water for you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One bottle for the whole trip? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no, there's two in here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, for the return. Thank you. That's very kind of you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then Representative Mike Page 168 September 28, 2004 Davis brought you a cheat sheet on the Polish language. And the one down here, I just want to remember is "J esc", that's the word that you want to remember. And that stands for eat. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh. I got scared for a moment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I have. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I guarantee you, when I return, I'll have an appropriate response to give you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: These items might be good for the plane, you know, the sardines. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's for sure. I'll share it with the rest of the delegation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: These were soaking in the sun for quite a while, and that should be great. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I'll give it to the rest of the delegation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing for me. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. I would like to say, don't forget to take your Echinacea before you go and before you're coming back, because when you get on an airplane and everybody else is coughing and everything, make sure that you've prepared. Just take a little Echinacea. Sounds like a mother, right, but anyway. But Commissioner Henning gave you some motherly points on eating, so I can give you little tips on flying. I have nothing else. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it's great to be part of a family, I'll tell you, mom and dad. And I just wanted to mention that I am looking forward to going there. And I'm looking forward to bringing back some positive results for the rest of the group. During my absence, I've talked to Commissioner Halas, and in case of another hurricane, God forbid, I hope we don't see one, he saide Page 169 September 28, 2004 that he would step in on my behalf in Immokalee and Plantation Island where there's numerous trailers and assist wherever possible. Somebody speaking? You made me lose my train of thought. But in any case, he's going to put some FEMA training that he received in the last couple of years to good use. Also, for the interest of this commission, some -- about a year and a half ago, with Ray Judah and Meg Judd, I helped to put together -- well, I was part of it -- a committee for red tide research, which consists of a number of the universities, NOAA, Burt Saunders is a member, so is Carol Green and Mike Davis. I've been having a little problem making the meetings. Just seems like every time that they plan the meetings, which is generally down to the university, this time it's going to be at the Hyatt, something else has happened that takes me away from it and I feel like I'm losing the momentum. So I talked to Commissioner Halas -- this is not a commission type appointment -- and he's agreed to step in on my behalf to take an active part on this committee. And I will be there to back him up as time goes along. But I wanted to invite each commissioner, if they could fit it into their schedule to also attend the next meeting, which will be on -- I'm sorry, what's the date on that? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The 5th, 6th? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: October 7th, 9:00 to 11 :00 at the Hyatt in Bonita Springs. And they're very interesting meetings. The only problem is that the language that these technical people use sometimes goes over the tops of the heads of the average individuals. But they are making some wonderful direction, they have some tremendous incentives going forward and they're going to be looking for some of that state funding that's been set aside. So you may wish to sit in there and offer them all the encouragement you can and also to support them when you go to Tallahassee on behalf of Collier County and talk to our legislative delegation. Thank you. Page 170 September 28, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: That is an important -- it's nice that Commissioner Halas has agreed to do that. That's great. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Representing a coastal district, I think it's very important to get technically involved in red tide issues. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Halas, winding it up. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it was a very interesting meeting. I just have to say that I just hope that we didn't open the door for the camel to get his nose under the tent on 10(F). So it's going to be interesting to see how this all shakes out in the future. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Which was 10(F). COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was the impact fee. Returning the impact fee. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any -- how about the clerk of courts? MR. MITCHELL: I'm good, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No comments. Okay. With that, we adjourn this meeting. (The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.) ***** Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner Halas and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR HAWKS NEST AT FIDDLER'S CREEK- W/ RELEASE OF Page 171 September 28, 2004 Item #16A2 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR PINE RIDGE COMMONS (AKA MAGNOLIA SQUARE) - W/ Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 2004-298: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "IBIS COVE PHASE TWO-B". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE Item #16A4 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR QUAIL WEST, PHASE 3, UNIT 3 - W/ Item #16A5 RESOLUTION 2004-299: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST PHASE III, UNIT THREE". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED - W / RELEASE OF THE Item #16A6 RESOLUTION 2004-300: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE Page 1 72 September 28,2004 ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST PHASE III, UNIT TWO". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - WI RELEASE OF Item #16A7 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR QUAIL WEST, PHASE 3, UNIT 2 - WI Item #16A8 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR ISLAND WALK, PHASE 5-B - WI RELEASE Item #16A9 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR CARDINAL COVE AT FIDDLER'S CREEK- Item #16A10 RESOLUTION 2004-301: IN SUPPORT FOR THE LEGISLATURE CONTINUING THE FLORIDA ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE FLORIDA ENTERPRISE ZONE ACT, ESTABLISHED IN SECTIONS 298.001-290.016, FLORIDA STATUTES - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SllMMARY Page 173 September 28, 2004 Item #16All RESOLUTION 2004-302: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "AUGUSTA FALLS". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED - WI RELEASE OF THE Item #16A12 RESOLUTION 2004-303: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "FOUNTAINHEAD". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - WI RELEASE OF THE Item #16A13 RESOLUTION 2004-304: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "VILLA VISTANA AT THE VINEYARDS". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED - WI Item #16A14 FINAL PLAT OF "CHARLEE ESTATES-PHASE TWO", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - WI Page 174 September 28, 2004 SIIEllLAIIONS Item #16A15 CONTRACTS RELATED TO RFP 04-3677 FOR "SPECIAL MASTER SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT" - THE SPECIAL MASTERS WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HEARING CASES RELATED TO VIOLATIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES AND CONTESTED CITATIONS (ESTIMATED MAXIMUM ANNUAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $J 25,000.00) Item #16B1 AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC. FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $397,213.00 ON GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AT 50th STREET S.W. BID NO. 04- 3696 - THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WILL IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW TO HELP REDUCE SAFETY AND Item #16B2 AWARD OF BID #04-3693, "TS-2 TYPE 1 TRAFFIC CONTROLLER CABINET ASSEMBLY" TO TRAFFIC PRODUCTS INCORPORATED, IN THE AMOUNT OF $264,120 TO BE FUNDED FROM PROJECT 60172-2, "COMPUTERIZED SIGNAL SYSTEM," AND REIMBURSED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -AS DETAILED IN Page 175 September 28,2004 Item #16B3 AWARD BID NO. 04-3665 FOR AN ANNUAL CONTRACT TO PURCHASE WETLAND MITIGATION CREDITS - AS Item #16B4 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE THAT WAS RECEIVED FROM FDOT FOR PHASE II DESIGN OF THE ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND TO APPROPRIATE IN A PROJECT TO BE USED FOR SCOOT (SPLIT CYCLE OFFSET OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUE) PROJECT NO. 601724 FOR EXPENDITURES THAT WILL BE INCURRED DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $795,000.00 - INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF SCOOT WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED ALONG PINE RIDGE ROAD FROM Item # 16B5 AWARD BID #04-3676 "LELY GOLF ESTATES MSTU ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE" FOR FY 2004-2005 TO COMMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE FOR $45,196.00- FOR ANNUAL SERVICING OF THE ROADWAY MEDIANS WIIHIN..IHE.MSJ J Item #16Cl RESOLUTION 2004-305: LANDFILL TIPPING FEES, RECYCLING CENTER FEES, RESIDENTIAL ANNUAL Page 176 September 28, 2004 ASSESSMENTS AND COMMERCIAL WASTE COLLECTION FEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005. TOTAL FEES BUDGETED TO BE COLLECTED FROM RATES APPROVED WITH THIS RESOLUTION ARE INCLUDED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGETS FOR THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FUND (470- $16,338,900) AND THE MANDATORY TRASH COLLECTION ~7~-$J 2,5~R,900) Item #16C2 CONTRACT FOR BID NO. 04-3680 TO BELAIR BUILDERS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $886,487.56 FOR INSTALLATION OF A 16-INCH SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN ALONG COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR-951) AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (CR-862), PROJECT NUMBERS 73085 AND 73086 - WI SIIEllLAIIONS Item #16C3 APPROVAL OF A $92,000 BUDGET AMENDMENT, PRE- CONSTRUCTION MONITORING WORK ORDER AND PERMITTING WORK ORDER AMENDMENT UNDER CONTRACT #01-3271, FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, WITH HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS FOR THE HIDEAWAY BEACH RENOURISHMENT, PROJECT 90502, IN THE AMOUNT OF $91,259; AND CONFIRMATION OF A MANGROVE STUDY WORK ORDER FOR HIDEAWAY BEACH ANNUAL MONITORING, PROJECT 90540, IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,000 - Page 1 77 September 28, 2004 Item #16Dl SUPPORT THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (FAC) SELECT MEDICAID REFORM WORKGROUP PROPOSAL FOR FLORIDA MEDICAID REFORM - AS DETAILED IN THE Item #16D2 AGREEMENT FOR OFFICIATING SERVICES WITH COLLIER ATHLETIC ARBITERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (CAAA) FOR OFFICIALS FOR ADULT SOFTBALL GAMES, WITH AN ANTICIPATED FISCAL YEAR 2005 EXPENDITURE OF $55,000 - TO PROVIDE HIGH-QUALITY, LOW - COST OFFICIALS FOR AilllLT SOEIBALLLRA GOES Item #16D3 NAPLES WHOLESALE BAIT AS A SOLE SOURCE SUPPLIER OF LIVE BAIT SHRIMP FOR RESALE AT CAXAMBAS PARK, WITH AN ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2005 EXPENDITURE OF $40,000 Item #16E1 REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 30, 2004 THROUGH AUGUST 27,2004 (AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SllMMARY) Item #16E2 Page 178 September 28, 2004 RESOLUTION 2004-306: APPROVING THE 2005 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN, PROVIDING FOR A GENERAL WAGE ADJUSTMENT AND MERIT INCREASE AND ALSO AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF NEW CLASSIFICATIONS, MODIFICATION ANDIOR DELETION OF CLASSIFICATIONS AND ASSIGNMENT OF PAY RANGES FROM THE PROPOSED 2005 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN, USING THE EXISTING "ARCHER" POINT-FACTOR JOB EVALUATION SYSTEM, FOR POSITIONS BELOW THE LEVEL OF DIRECTOR, SUBJECT TO QUARTERLY RATIFICATION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI..SSIONER S Item #16E3 PURCHASE PROPERTY, CASUALTY AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RELATED SERVICES Item #16Fl FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 2004 TOURISM AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE NAPLES BOTANICAL Item #16F2 RESOLUTION 2004-307: APPROVING A RESOLUTION REQUIRING FY 06 BUDGETS FOR THE SHERIFF, CLERK, AND SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED BY MAY 1 , 2005 Page 1 79 September 28, 2004 Item # 16F3 BUDGET AMENDMENTS - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SllMMARy Item #16F4 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE RENOURISHMENT OF THE CITY OF NAPLES BEACHES IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,914,600 - FOR RE-NOURISHING MOST OF THE BEACHES FROM DELNOR-WIGGINS STATE PARK ST Item #16F5 RESOLUTION 2004-BAR-01: APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 AIlOEIEIlBl.IIl Item #16Hl COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR BOARD APPROVAL FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO ATTEND THE UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY CAMPAIGN 2004 KICK-OFF ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2004. $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - TO BE HELD Item #16H2 Page 180 September 28,2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR BOARD APPROVAL FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO ATTEND THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM'S A TASTE OF HISTORY ON OCTOBER 20,2004. $25.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS ' TRAVEL BUDGET - TO BE HELD AT THE FRESH MARKET AT 4129 IAMI.AMLIRAIJ J Item #16H3 COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR BOARD APPROVAL TO ATTEND THE UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY CAMPAIGN 2004 KICK-OFF EVENT ON SEPTEMBER 29,2004. $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET - TO BE HELD AT THE Item #16H4 COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR BOARD APPROVAL TO ATTEND THE NAACP 22nd ANNUAL FREEDOM FUND BANQUET AND SILENT AUCTION. $55.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET - TO BE HELD AT THE ELKS LODGE ON RADIO ROA~A Item #1611 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED ANDIOR REEERREJ)' The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Page 181 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE '-September 28, 2004 FOR BOARD ACTION: 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1. Collier County Airport Authority - Minutes of August 9, 2004. 2. Development Services Advisory Committee - Minutes of August 4, 2004 3. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for August 5, 2004, August 19, 2004, September 2, 2004; Minutes of July 1, 2004, July 15, 2004, July 22, 2004, August 5, 2004. 4. Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for September 1, 2004, August 4,2004; Minutes of July 7, 2004. 5. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisorv Committee - Agenda for August 9, 2004; Minutes of July 12,2004. 6. Pelican Bay Services - Agenda for August 4,2004; Minutes of July 7, 2004. a) Clam Bay Sub Committee - Agenda for August 4, 2004; Minutes of July 7, 2004; Budget Sub-Committee - Minutes of July 21, 2004 7. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee - Minutes of June 10,2004. 8. Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee Meeting - Minutes of May 24, 2004. 9. Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Minutes of February 10,2003; Minutes of April 13, 2004, Minutes of June 8, 2004. 10. Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for August 11,2004 Agenda September 8, 2004; Minutes of July 14,2004; Minutes of August 11,2004 11. Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. - Agenda and Minutes for August 5, 2004. 12. Citizens Corps Advisory Committee - Agenda and Minutes of May 19, 2004; Agend.a and Minutes of June 1.6,2004. H:DatalFormat H:DatalFormat 13. Park and Recreation Advisory Board -Agenda for August 18,2004; Minutes of June 16, 2004. 14. Immokalee Area Master Plan - Agenda for August 18, 2004; Minutes of June 16,2004. 15. Collier County Librarv Advisory Board - Agenda for August 25,2004; Minutes of May 26, 2004. 16. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Agenda for September 8, 2004. 17. Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board - Minutes of July 28, 2004. 18. Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisorv Board - Minutes of August 17,2004. 19. Collier County Contractor's Licensing Board - Agenda for August 18, 2004. 20. Historical & Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for August 18, 2004; Minutes of May 19,2004. 21. Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda and Minutes of July 21, 2004. 22. Lely Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for August 19,2004 and Minutes of July 15, 2004. 23. Collier County Emergencv Medical Services Advisory Council- Minutes for May 26, 2004, June 23, 2004, and July 29,2004. September 28, 2004 Item #16J1 AUTHORIZE THE EXTENSION OF THE TAX ROLL BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD HEARINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.323, F.S., AND TAX COLLECTOR'S REQUEST - AS DETAILED IN THE Item #16K1 AN AGREED ORDER AWARDING APPRAISAL FEES RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 739 AND 839 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. NANCY L. JOHNSON-PERRY ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2373-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY - PROJECT 60027) - DIRECT STAFF TO PAY THE SUM OF $4,200.00 TO RICHARD HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC Item #16K2 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 121 AND 122 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. CAROLE CONSTRUCTION OF NAPLES INC., ET AL., IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT #60018 - DIRECT STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $34,900.00 INTO THE COURT REGISTRY AND DIRECT PAYMENT OF $150.00 Item #16K3 APPLICATION FOR TAX DEEDS FOR SIXTY (60) COUNTY- HELD TAX CERTIFICATES AND TO AUTHORIZE A NOTICE Page 182 September 28,2004 TO PROCEED TO THE TAX COLLECTOR-AS DETAILED IN Item #16K4 RESOLUTION 2004-308: APPROVING THE 2005 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN, A GENERAL WAGE ADJUSTMENT (COLA) AND MERIT INCREASE FOR THE Item # 16K5 A SETTLEMENT WITH PROJECT INTEGRATION, INC. ARISING OUT OF DISPUTES OVER PAYMENT AND DELAYS IN CONNECTION WITH THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY 5-MGD EXPANSION CONTRACTIBID NO. 99-2908 - AS DETAILED IN THE Item #17 A - MOVED TO ITEM # 8A Item #17B RESOLUTION NO. 2004-309: AMENDING THE EFFLUENT IRRIGATION (REUSE) CUSTOMER RATES WHICH IS SCHEDULE THREE OF APPENDIX A TO SECTION FOUR OF COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2001-73, TITLED THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARD OR.DINANCR Item #17C Page 183 September 28,2004 ORDINANCE NO. 2004-62: PROVIDING FOR THE REESTABLISHMENT AND RENAMING OF AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE INPUT AND ASSIST STAFF WITH THE RESTUDY OF THE IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN _ ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3 :30 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALSIEX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL TRICT~PER ITS CONTROL. DONNA F ALA, Chairman ATTES'r~. ;~t:: ... ' " DWI@ftr'E.:~U(QCK, CLERK ~:: . .., I '" t. !,Yt.d2iJ e . . _ _ ,'~ -, '\ f .. ~;.'j') ~..~ttelt::* ..~.' dt.1naan' s " ',~;,.t...:tur. '~fy'.. , QI1 . .. ,'. , . . '!. 'f" l>\U;;lv..\J ~ These l}1intites approveP by the B?ard o~ I Q - J-~ -0 c..f , as presented /..,../' or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 184