The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 03/08/2005 R March 8, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, March 8, 2005 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: Fred W. Coyle Frank Halas Tom Henning Jim Coletta Donna Fiala ( absent) 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 tì"' ""', ..... , , "-- ..,,~~.. AGENDA March 8, 2005 9:00 AM Fred W. Coyle, Chairman, District 4 Frank Halas, Vice-Chairman, District 2 Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1 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 1 March 8, 2005 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. 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 A. Associate Pastor David Swicegood, Marco Presbyterian Church 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.) B. February 8, 2005 - BCC/Regular Meeting C. February 9,2005 - BCC/District 2 Town Hall Meeting. D. February 15, 2005 - BCC/Listed Species Workshop 3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS) A. Advisory Committee Service Awards 1) Presentation of the Advisory Committee Outstanding Member Award to Michael Delate, Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. 4. PROCLAMATIONS 2 March 8, 2005 A. Proclamation to designate the week of March 6th through March 12th, 2005, as Extension Living Well Week. To be accepted by Carol Yates and Mary Tarnowski. B. Proclamation to recognize the Parks and Recreation Department and its staff for becoming accredited to the National Committee on Accreditation. To be accepted by Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator and the Parks and Recreation Staff. 5. PRESENTATIONS 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS A. Public Petition request by Jeff Bluestein to discuss Code Enforcement Board Case No. 97-029 on behalf of Anthony Varano. Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m.. unless otherwise noted. 7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. CU-2003-AR-4326: Dieudonne and Lunie Brutus represented by Ronald F. Nino, AICP, of Vanasse Daylor, requesting Conditional Use approval in the Village Residential (VR) zoning district for a church or house of worship for the Tabernacle of Bethlehem Church pursuant to LDC Sections 2.04.03, Table 2 and 10.08.00. Property is an 0.69-acre tract located at 305 3rd Street South, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Florida. (COMPANION ITEM TO V A-2003-AR-4327) B. This item reQuires that all participants to be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. V A-2003-AR-4327: Dieudonne and Lunie Brutus, (regarding the Tabernacle of Bethlehem Church), represented by Ronald F. Nino, AICP, of Vanasse Daylor, request the following variances in the VR zoning district for a Conditional Use (LDC §4.02.02.E.): 1) from the minimum one-acre lot area; to allow an existing structure on an 0.69 acre tract to be converted to a church use; 2) to reduce the front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 20 feet; 3) to reduce the required 33 parking spaces to 19 spaces (LDC §4.04.04.G.Table 17); and; 4) to reduce the landscape buffer on the north and south property 3 March 8, 2005 lines from the required l5-foot type "B," to allow a 10-foot wide type "B" buffer (LDC §4.06.02 Table 24). Property is located at 305 3rd Street South, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Florida. (COMPANION ITEM TO CU-2003-AR-4326) 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land development regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section one, recitals; Section two, findings of fact; Section three, adoption of amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter 6 - infrastructure improvements and adequate public facilities requirements, including Sec. 6.06.02 sidewalk, bike lane, and greenway requirements; Chapter 10- application, review, and decision-making procedures, including Sec. 1 0.02.03.b.1. Final site development plan procedure and requirements; Section four, conflict and severability; Section five, inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section six, effective date. B. This item was continued from the February 8 BCC meetine:. Recommendation to consider adoption of an ordinance establishing the City Gate Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes. 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Appointment of members to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. B. Appointment of members to the Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee. C. Request to consider allowing the Haitian American Corporation, Inc. use of the Immokalee Community Park in Immokalee free of charge for the purpose of holding a Haitian Play and Art Festival to be held May 28, 2005 and May 29, 2005. (Total cost $780.00) (Commissioner Coletta) D. Appointment of members to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. 4 March 8, 2005 E. Discussion regarding "No Jake Brake" signage on Oil Well Road and Everglades Boulevard. (Commissioner Coletta) F. Appointment of members to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. Recommendation to adopt FY06 Budget Policy. B. This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. Recommendation to review the written and oral reports of the Advisory Boards and Committees scheduled for review in 2005 in accordance with Ordinance No. 200155, including the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee, Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee, Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee, Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee, Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, and the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Advisory Committee. C. Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of $25,689,039.43 to John Carlo, Inc. and reserve $1,258,000 in funding allowances to construct road and utility improvements on Immokalee Road Six-laning Project, from U.S. 41 to 1-75; Project No. 66042B; Bid No. 05- 3788; Fiscal Impact $26,947,039.43 D. Recommendation to approve RFP #05-3770, to be posted to solicit bids for "Design-Build" services for capacity improvements to Immokalee Road from immediately west of 1-75 to immediately east of CR 951 Collier Boulevard", County Project No. 69101. E. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida directing that Ad Valorem revenues (generated from .15 mils) shall be dedicated to Collier County's Stormwater Utility for Fiscal Year 2006 and the next nineteen fiscal years. F. Recommendation to authorize the purchase of long lead-time equipment, to approve the award of Contract #05-3743 and Bid #05-3738, and to approve the necessary budget amendment for upgrades and modifications to the Lime Softening Water Treatment Plant Process at the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant, Project 700571, in the amount of $3,943,270. 5 March 8, 2005 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 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, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of "Whispering Woods". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. 2) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Veronawalk Phase 2C", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 3) Recommendation to allow County Staff to administratively issue Development Excavation Permits and Vegetation Removal permits as required for Saturnia Falls (Terafina PUD) located in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. 4) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Andalucia", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 5) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra 6 March 8, 2005 ._._"~-- Parcel 125 Replat", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 6) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of "Ibis Cove Phase 2C". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. 7) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of "Islandwalk Phase 5B" The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. 8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a $43,800 budget amendment from Fund 131 Developer Services Reserves to Fund 131 Prior Year Reimbursements to cover a refund associated with a Stewardship Sending Area Application. 9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Island Walk, Phase 2. 10) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities for Whisper Trace, Fiddler's Creek. 11) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Mediterra Golf Course Rest Shelters. 12) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Mediterra, Unit One. 13) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for Carlton Lakes, Unit 3C. 14) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water utility facilities for Sterling Greens at Glen Eagle Tr J, Phase II. 15) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Veronawalk Phase 3 A", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 7 March 8, 2005 B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (1) approve a Resolution approving, and authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute, a Local Agency Program Agreement with the State Department of Transportation, in which Collier County would be reimbursed up to $437,500 of the total estimated cost of $500,000 for the design and construction of Sidewalks - Various Locations. 2) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of $102,986 for funds from the Federal Transit Administration for the Collier Area Transit (CAT) system. 3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for the conveyance of easements required from Villas at Mandalay Development, LLC for the construction of improvements to Rattlesnake Hammock Road between Polly Avenue and Collier Boulevard, and the installation of an underground drainage pipe along a portion of the frontage of the development, within Rattlesnake Hammock Road right-of-way (Project No. 60 169)(Estimated Fiscal Impact: Not to exceed $150,000.) 4) Recommendation to approve Adopt-A-Road Agreements with Freedom Tax Services SW Florida, Landmark Naples Home Owners Association, TJ. Turf Farm, Gulfstream Homes, Collier Cleaning Company and Marine Corps League of Naples. 5) Recommendation to award Bid #05-3689 to Ground Zero Landscaping Services, Inc. for the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract after review by the County Attorney's Office. 6) Recommendation to award a contract in the amount of $530,000 to D. N. Higgins, Inc. for the River Oaks, Palm River Subdivision culvert replacement Project (Project No. 51007), and approve a budget amendment to transfer funds in the amount of $554,600.00. 8 March 8, 2005 7) Recommendation to approve the three (3) Landscape Maintenance Agreements between the Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU with the Board of County Commissioners, as governing board and (1) Lely Square Partnership, (2) Earl C. and Charlotte J. Koops and (3) Buena Vida, for the landscaping and maintenance on St. Andrews Boulevard. 8) Recommendation to accept a final status report from the I-75/Golden Gate Interchange Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. C. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1) Recommendation to authorize purchase of a Pilot Water Filtration Unit for the South County Water Treatment Plant 12-MGD RO Expansion and award Bid 05-3727, Project 70097, for $125,950.00 to Aerex Industries. 2) Recommendation to approve, execute and record Satisfactions for certain Water and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreements. Fiscal impact is $28.50 to record the Satisfactions of Lien. 3) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien. 4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal impact is $30.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien. 5) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal impact is $30.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien. 6) Recommendation to approve a new easement to be deeded to Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L) for electrical power service for the 9 March 8, 2005 Reuse Pumping Station at the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF), Project 739501, for a minor recording fee. 7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, as Ex- Officio the Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, declare the QualServe Workshop a valid and proper Public Purpose and approve the expenditure for an on-site QualServe Workshop in a sum not to exceed $500.00. 8) Recommendation to reject all bids for Bid 05-3766 and to provide authorization to re-bid for "Pigging Station for Immokalee Road 30" Force Main", Project 73943. 9) Recommendation to accept five grant agreements for alternative water supply projects from the South Florida Water Management District in the amount of $750,000. 10) Recommendation to waive the competitive bidding process and award a contract for technical assistance to perform post implementation review, work flow analysis & documentation of operating procedures for Special Assessment software system and create procedures for new County programs-Cat a not to exceed cost of $99,200). D. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Recommendation to award bid #05-3759 for rental of portable toilets to J. W. Craft, Inc. at an estimated cost of$26,000 countywide. 2) Recommendation to approve application and Memorandum of Understanding for a Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Grant in the amount of $350,000 from the United States Department of Justice. 3) Recommendation to accept donated funds in the amount of$79.29 and approve a budget amendment recognizing the revenue and appropriating funds for Immokalee Community Park. E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the external Auditing 10 March 8, 2005 Contract 03-3497 Auditing Services for Collier County between KPMG, LLP and Collier County in an amount not to exceed $58,100 for the purpose of performing a group health insurance third -party administration claims audit of the County's group health insurance claims administrator, CBSA, Inc. 2) Recommendation to ratify a staff report on Property, Casualty, Workers' Compensation and Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the Risk Management Director pursuant to Resolution # 2004-15 for the first quarter of FY 05. 3) Recommendation to reject all responses received under Invitation to Qualify 05-3779, Construction Services for the Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage and reissue as a bid, project 90295. 4) Recommendation to approve standard form contracts for use in the acquisition of construction services, construction management services and professional services. 5) Recommendation to approve payment of $454.07 to the State of Florida Department of Revenue for taxes due, interest and penalty fees for late fuel tax filings in Fiscal Year 2003. F. COUNTY MANAGER 1) Recommendation to approve Amendment NO.1 to Work Order #HM- FT -05-02 under Contract #013271, Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone Management Projects, with Humiston & Moore Engineers for Shorebird Monitoring related to Hideaway Beach Renourishment, Project 90502, in the amount of $11,648.00. 2) Recommendation to Approve Two (2) Contractual Service Agreements between Collier County and the East Naples, and Golden Gate Fire & Rescue Districts to provide Fire Protection and Rescue Services within the Collier County Fire Control District at a cost of $175,600. 3) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment. 11 March 8, 2005 G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will be attending the 2005 Humanitarian Award Luncheon honoring Clyde Butcher on March 11,2005 at the Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort at Tiburon; $100.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending the Lincoln Day Fundraiser to be held at the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club on March 12, 2005 sponsored by the Collier County Republican Executive Committee. This fundraising event will have two prestigious Congressmen as keynote speakers; $75.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. 3) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending the Lincoln Day Fundraiser to be held at the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club on March 12,2005 sponsored by the Collier County Republican Executive Committee. This fundraising event will have two prestigious Congressmen as keynote speakers; $75.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget. I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous Items to File for Record with Action as Directed. J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners designate the Sheriff as the Official Fiscal Year 2005 Applicant and Program Point-of-Contact for the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, accept the Grant when awarded, and approve applicable budget amendments. 2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of whether the purchases of goods and services 12 March 8, 2005 documented in the Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders dated January 22, 2005 to February 18, 2005 serve a valid public purpose and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said purchases. A copy of the Detailed Report is on display in the County Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112. K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment as to Parcel 139 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. John Aurigemma, et aI., Case No. 04-344-CA (Vanderbilt Beach Road Project 63051). 2) Recommendation that the Board authorize staff to open a Purchase Order for Gerson, Preston Robinson & Co., P.A., to be used as an expert witness and consultant for the County in the acquisition of well field easements for the "South County Regional Water Treatment Plant 20-MGD Well field Expansion" (SCRWTP) Project No. 70892, for an amount not to exceed $50,000.00 3) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to Approve an Agreed Order for Payment of Appraisal Fees in Connection with Parcel No. I in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Francisco Lemus, et aI., Case No. 03-2788-CA (13th Street Project #69068). 4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Agreed Order with Respondent, Crown Castle GT Company, LLC, in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Tree Plateau Co., Inc., et aI., Case No. 03-05l9-CA. (Immokalee Road Project Number 60018) 5) Recommendation to approve the Mediated Settlement Agreement with Respondents, David and Barbara S. Burgeson for Parcel No. 170 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Thomas F. Salzmann, et aI., Case No. 03-2550-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project 60027). 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 13 March 8, 2005 ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI- JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN. A. This item reQuires that all participants to be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. V A-2004-AR-6793 Leobardo & Maritza Gutierrez represented by Daniel D. Peck, of Peck and Peck, are requesting a 5-foot after-the-fact variance in the "E" Estates zoning district from the minimum required 75-foot front yard setback, along 47th Avenue N.E. (southern boundary), to allow a 70-foot front yard setback for a single-family home that is currently under construction. B. This item has been continued from the February 22. 2005 BCC Meetine:. This item reQuires that all participants he sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2003- AR-4942 - Conquest Development USA, LC, requesting a PUD to PUD rezone for property located on the East Side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and approximately 1 3/4 Miles South of Tamiami Trail (Us 41), further described as Silver Lakes, in Section 10 & 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 14 March 8, 2005 --- March 8, 2005 MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, you have a quorum. Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're now in session. Would you please all stand for the invocation to be delivered by Associate Pastor David Swicegood, Marco Presbyterian Church. PASTOR SWICEGOOD: Good morning, everyone. Let us pray. Father in Heaven, we thank you that your mercies are new to us every morning. We acknowledge that you are the everlasting God, the Creator of this vast universe and all that is in it. We bow before you humbly asking that your will be done here on Earth this morning as it is in Heaven. We thank you for the freedoms we enjoy as citizens of this great nation, and we ask your blessing especially today and protection upon our military men and women who are defending the freedoms that we enjoy. We thank you for Collier County. We thank you for each of our county commissioners, for their families, and we pray your richest blessing upon them. Especially for this meeting and all the items on the agenda, we humbly ask for your wisdom and discernment. In your hands we commit all of these matters, and we ask all of this in the name our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Pastor Swicegood. Will you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. PASTOR SWICEGOOD: Thank you very much. (Commissioner Coletta entered the meeting room.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. As many of you can see, there are only three commissioners here right now. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I beg your pardon, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Page 2 March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fourth one just showed up. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I was so hopeful. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thought you were going to get done early. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But on a more serious note, Commissioner Fiala is away because of a death in her family, and our hearts and prayers go out to her for the loss of her sister unexpectedly recently. She hopefully will be returning within the next week. Do I hear an approval of today's regular, consent -- first of all, let's have the ex parte disclosure. Item #2A REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Let's do the changes first. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to do the changes first, right? MR. MUDD: Then we'll get to that, because you might not have to do any. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. Go ahead. MR. MUDD: County Attorney, do you have anything? MR. WEIGEL: No changes to the agenda other than stated by Mr. Mudd. I will be speaking at staff communication relative to a request for executive session at a future meeting. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, we have agenda changes, the Board of County Commissioners meeting March 8th, 2005. Continue item 7A to March 22,2005, BCC meeting. It's conditional use 2003-AR-4326, Dieudonne and Lunie Brutus represented by Ronald F. Nino, AICP, of Vanasse, Daylor, requesting conditional use approval in the village residential VR zoning district Page 3 March 8, 2005 for a church or a house of worship for the Tabernacle of Bethlehem Church pursuant to LDC section 2.04.03, table 2, and 10.08.00. Property in a .69-acre tract located at 305 3rd Street south in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 east, Immokalee, Florida. And that's -- again, it's a continuation of item 7 A and 7B. And 7B is a companion item to -- which is a variance 2003-AR-4327, and I'm not going to read that variance but both are companion items, and both will be heard on March 22nd. The next item is continue indefinitely item 8B and that's a recommendation to consider adoption of an ordinance establishing the City Gate Community Development District, CDD, pursuant to section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and that's at the petitioner's request. And I believe each commissioner received a letter from Mr. Pickworth about that particular item. Next item is to withdraw item 9E, and that's a discussion regarding new Jake Brake signage on Oil Well Road in Immokalee -- excuse me -- and Everglades Boulevard, and that's at Commissioner Coletta's request. Next item is item 10C. Note, in the fiscal impact of the executive summary, delete all reference to utility user fees, and that's at staff's request. Next item is to add item lOG, and that's a recommendation to terminate the lease agreement between Gulf Coast Skimmers Water Ski Show, Inc., and Collier County, and that's at staff's request. The next item is continue indefinitely item 16A3, and that's a recommendation to allow county staff to administratively issue development excavation permits and vegetation removal permits as required for Saturnia Falls, which is Terafina PUD, located in Section 16, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, and that's at staff's request. The next item is item 16F2, and it should read, recommendation to approve two contractual service agreements between Collier County and the East Naples and Golden Gate Fire and Rescue Page 4 March 8, 2005 Districts to provide fire protection and rescue services within the Collier County Fire Control District at a cost of $176,400, rather than $175,600 as stated on the agenda index. The executive summary in the packet is correct, and that reading is at staffs request. The next item is to withdraw item 16H 1, and that was an item for Commissioner Fiala to go to a function, which is the 2005 humanitarian award luncheon, and I believe that the death in her family precluded her from going to that. Next item is item 16K5 . Note, one of the property owners and parties to the proposed mediated settlement, Barbara Burgeson, is employed by Collier County in the Department of Environmental Services. This property was condemned for Collier County's Golden Gate Parkway project, and approval of the proposed mediated settlement does not create a conflict of interest for the board. This is consistent with the Commission of Ethics' opinion, 78-8, and that clarification was asked for by Commissioner Coyle. The next item is continue -- is to continue item 1 7B to the March 22nd, 2005, BCC meeting, and it's PUDZ-A-203-AR-4942 (sic), which is the Conquest Development USA, LC, requesting a PUD to PUD zone for property located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, County Road 951, and approximately one and three quarter miles south of Tamiami Trail, U.S. 41, further described as Silver Lakes in Section 10 and 15, Township 51 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida, and that's at the petitioner's request. And I know that there were a lot of people earlier that wanted to sign up and speak on this particular item, and I'm going to say that the Silver Lakes petition is requested to be continued, and that's item 17B, until 22 March, 2005. And, Commissioners, you have one time certain item, and that's item lOB, and that's basically the reports from your advisory boards, and that's at 9:30. Page 5 March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Mudd, can you tell me if it is necessary that all of those petitions that are requesting a continuance be scheduled for the next regularly scheduled BCC meeting, or can we move them out to a later date? MR. MUDD: Well, I'm going to ask the county attorney, but I believe some of them have -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Already been moved? MR. MUDD: -- some of them have advertising particular requirements, and there's a time period in which they have to be -- in which they have to be heard, or then they have to go through the advertising process again. But County Attorney Weigel, can you help me on that particular period of time? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I can, but just to a degree, because I think, for instance, the City Gate item is being withdrawn indefinitely; takes that one out of the picture, so that's not a problem. But for the others to be continued specifically to March 22nd, I can only state that we have a policy in place that allows for up to five weeks of continuance with specific rescheduling that does not require a readvertisement. And just judging from the items here, I can't tell you where they are in the five-week spectrum. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Five weeks from what time, David? From the time -- MR. WEIGEL: A few of them -- well, for the initial -- initial advertised date. So if any items have been continued to this date, they already have utilized part of that five-week period. If this is an initial -- initial agenda appearance for an advertised item, then they have up to five weeks from now to be brought back with specific rescheduling. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, from the time of the advertisement, so since we don't know -- MR. WEIGEL: Well, from the advertised scheduled date, yes, . SIr. Page 6 March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we don't know in all cases when that advertising date was, so we can't make that determination right now. But with the board's concurrence, I would like for us to exercise whatever flexibility we need to assure that because of requests by petitioner to continue an item from this meeting, we should not be forced into a marathon meeting of two days or more for the next meeting, and if it is necessary, we will postpone those till a later date, and they will have to readvertise. So if the board has no concerns about that policy, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I am open for meetings in the evening if we need to on these items that are going to run like four hours. I would have no problem with it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I brought up evening meetings on land use items, and I was turned down. I don't see why we can't hear these today. It's a request. It's not that the board has to grant it, unless some of the -- any of the board members have a concern about the action that we're about to take. I know the Planning Commission recommended approval on both cases, so I -- you know, just asking my fellow colleagues, do they have any concern about listening to this item today and -- instead of continuing it? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're talking about the ones that have been pulled, continued? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, except for the CDD one, and I understand that, they're trying to work through issues, but the church in Immokalee, the two items on the churches in Immokalee, I can't understand why we can't hear those today. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may? Page 7 March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In a way, I do agree with you, but you've got to remember, this is the petitioner's request, and with only four commissioners up here and it taking a supermajority, we'd all have to be in agreement. And I think the petitioner's got every right to -- I agree, it's going to be inconvenient, but it's the petitioner's call, you know. Ifhe's got five commissioners to work with, he might find it more favorably than having only four and have to get all four to agree with him. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, he might just lose this one if we're going to put it on a heavy schedule. And it's the Board of Commissioners'meeting. It's not the petitioner's meeting. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I disagree with that. I think it's the petitioner's and the public's meeting, and we're just here as part of it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we will proceed. With respect to ex parte disclosure -- we do have one speaker on 1 7 A that we'll hear from before we finish this, but on ex parte disclosure, can we start with Commissioner Halas, please? COMMISSIONER HALAS: At this particular agenda, what we have here, I don't have any ex parte, and all I have is just what I've discussed with staff. MR. WEIGEL: That's ex parte. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no changes to the agenda and no disclosures to make on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have no further changes to make to the agenda, and I -- the only disclosure I had was with respect to the Silver Lakes PUD, and that has been pulled, so it is not relevant. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- no ex parte on today's summary agenda. I do have some changes to today's agenda. Page 8 March 8, 2005 I have concerns, item lOG, recommendations to give notice to -- intent to terminate the cause (sic) lease of the Gulf Coast Skimmers. I would imagine this is a I GO-page document that I -- the commissioners received this morning. You're asking us to take action based upon this document. I think it's only appropriate to continue this so the board can study, and that's my request. I also want to put on the regular agenda 16A8. Those are the two items. And I don't think -- if we need to have a discussion on lOG or not, I don't know. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was there an urgency to getting lOG done today or quickly? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. They have issues. Over the weekend they had two particular shows. They had boats on the lake that weren't -- that weren't covered by insurance. We have some issues with how they're utilizing our particular park. They're in violation of their contract. And we need to let them know that we are -- we are in the process of terminating their contract so that they can get their particular business in order. They have -- they have a court case that's going on right now between their -- I guess it's -- it used to be their president, Mr. Gursoy, and the organization as it stands right now, and who has ownership of boats and other equipment. It behooves this board to serve them notice and give them a 180-day notice that you're going to terminate this particular contract. And it happened because of this weekend's event primarily, and it puts the county in a liability situation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So in your opinion it's a health, safety, welfare issue that needs immediate action? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Board members? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm okay with that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Now, to make sure that Page 9 March 8, 2005 there's not the impression this is being rushed through, it's my understanding that what you intend to do is give notice of termination now, not to take final action -- MR. MUDD: That's right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- until the expiration of a specific time period. MR. MUDD: Hundred and eighty days, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hundred and eighty days, okay. Okay. So we will have time to discuss this in greater detail when and if necessary; is that correct? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that okay with you, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then with that, let's hear from our first -- our speaker on 1 7 A. MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. You have the speaker slip. And may I ask Mr. Mudd what 16A8 will become? MR. MUDD: 10H. MS. FILSON: 10H, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Mr. Dan Peck. MR. PECK: Good morning, members of the board. I am before you seeking a five-foot variance of the 75-foot front yard setback requirement from the road to 70 feet for the Gutierrez house under construction at 1815 47th Avenue Northeast, the E zone in Golden Gate Estates. The house was originally intended to be built and thought to be build 100 feet from the road rather than the required 75-foot setback, but unfortunately the surveyor made a mistake, and instead of measuring from the center of the road, he measured from the edge of the road causing the house, in fact, to be built 70 feet rather than 75 feet, or five feet too close. Page 10 March 8, 2005 The home is an authorized use. It is consistent with zoning. It is consistent with the land development code and the growth management plan. We have an extreme hardship because in accordance with the letter from the builder, it would cost about $98,500 to demolish the house and reconstruct it. I had introduced a letter before. I'm not sure whether that was in the file, so I'll introduce that letter again, setting forth those costs to tear down and rebuild. The innocent Gutierrez family already has been extremely inconvenienced by the delay and interest charges that they're bearing and the cost of the variance petition. Five feet is a minimum reasonable use of land and no special privilege is conferred on the applicant since others have been granted similar variances. The staff recommended the variance without a finding of special conditions and circumstances or preexisting conditions of the property or peculiar conditions, but I would respectfully submit an argument could be made that there are such peculiar conditions because we would not be here if the land were the same as most in Collier County and he could have measured from the edge of the road rather than the middle of the road, and that peculiar condition caused our problem and caused the surveyor's mistake and the Gutierrez' need for vanance. Granting the variance is not injurious or detrimental. I don't believe there's any objection from anyone. The setback is from a road rather than from another house, and the house across the street, after a variance, is going to be 70 feet plus the road, width of 60 feet, plus 75 feet for the other house, or a total of 205 feet rather than 210 feet. I think we can all recognize from our experience that the real objection when you abut a road is a road in front of you, not a house, whether it's 205 or 210 feet away. That five-foot difference is not very material, whereas, if it were sideyard setback with a close Page 11 March 8, 2005 sideyard restriction, that might be a very material one and affect someone. We would accordingly support the staff recommendation and the unanimous vote of the Collier County Planning Commission and request that you help us put an end of the nightmare for the Gutierrez family who had nothing to do with creating the problem and intended to build more than 75 -- more than 25 feet further than the setback requirement and allow the five-foot variance. Thank you. Any questions? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. It is on the consent agenda, so it will be approved unless some commissioner now takes action to pull it. MR. PECK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. So now we can proceed with the -- Commissioner Halas, do you have a question about that? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was just going to ask the gentleman why it's going to be $98,000 to correct this problem, because normally I would think that the problem would have been discovered in a survey on this. MR. PECK: The problem was discovered in the survey, and I do have an itemized list of the costs, and I have a duplicate copy. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Rather than discussing this in detail at the present time, is there a motion to pull this and put it on the regular agenda? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I was satisfied. If there's any question, I think we ought to pull it. If not -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Let's pull it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas would like to have it pulled and placed on the regular agenda, so we'll pull it and place it on the regular agenda, and we'll discuss it whenever it comes Page 12 March 8, 2005 up In sequence. Okay. Thank you very much. Now, do I hear a motion to approve today's regular, consent, and summary agenda as amended? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Halas. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 13 AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING March 8. 2005 Continue Item 7A to the March 22. 2005 BCC meetina: CU-2003-AR-4326: Dieudonne and Lunie Brutus represented by Ronald F. Nino, AICP, of Vanasse Daylor, requesting Conditional Use approval in the Village Residential (VR) zoning district for a church or house of worship for the Tabernacle of Bethlehem Church pursuant to LDC Sections 2.04.03, Table 2 and 10.08.00. Property is an 0.69-acre tract located at 305 3rd Street South, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Florida. (COMPANION ITEM TO VA-2003-AR-4327) (Petitioner request.) Continue Item 7B to the March 22.2005 BCC meetina: VA-2003-AR-4327: Dieudonne and Lunie Brutus, (regarding the Tabernacle of Bethlehem Church), represented by Ronald F. Nino, AICP, of Vanasse Daylor, request the following variances in the VR zoning district for a Conditional Use (LDC §4.02.02.E.): 1) from the minimum one-acre lot area; to allow an existing structure on an 0.69 acre tract to be converted to a church use; 2) to reduce the front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 20 feet; 3) to reduce the required 33 parking spaces to 19 spaces (LDC §4.04.04.G.Table 17); and; 4) to reduce the landscape buffer on the north and south property lines from the required 15-foot type "B," to allow a 10- foot wide type "B" buffer (LDC §4.06.02 Table 24). Property is located at 305 3rd Street South, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Florida. (COMPANION ITEM TO CU-2003-AR-4326) (Petitioner request.) Continue indefinitelv Item 8B: Recommendation to consider adoption of an ordinance establishing the City Gate Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes. (Petitioner request.) Withdraw Item 9E: Discussion regarding No Jake Brake" signage on Oil Well Road and Everglades Boulevard. (Commissioner Coletta.) Item 10C: Note: In the Fiscal Impact of the executive summary, delete all reference to "Utility User Fees". (Staff request.) Add Item 1 OG: Recommendation to terminate the Lease Agreement between Gulf Coast Skimmers Water Ski Show, Inc. and Collier County. (Staff request.) Continue indefinitelv Item 16A3: Recommendation to allow County Staff to administratively issue Development Excavation Permits and Vegetation Removal permits as required for Saturnia Falls (Terafina PUD) located in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. (Staff request.) Item 16F2 should read: Recommendation to approve two Contractual Service Agreements between Collier County and the East Naples and Golden Gate Fire & Rescue Districts to provide fire protection and rescue services within the Collier County Fire Control District at a cost of $176,400 (rather than $175,600 as stated on the agenda index. The executive summary in the packet is correct.) (Staff request.) Page 2 Change Sheet March 8, 2005 BCC Meeting Withdraw Item 16H1: Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will be attending the 2005 Humanitarian Award luncheon honoring Clyde Butcher on March 11, 2005 at the Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort at Tiburon; $100.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. (Commissioner Fiala request.) Item 16K5: Note: One of the property owners and parties to the proposed Mediated Settlement, Barbara Burgeson, is employed by Collier County in the Department of Environmental Services. This property was condemned for Collier County's Golden Gate Parkway project and approval of the proposed Mediated Settlement does not create a conflict of interest for the Board. This is consistent with the Commission on Ethics Opinion 78-8. (Commissioner Coyle request.) Continue Item 17B to the March 22. 2005 BCC meetina: PUDZ-A-2003- AR-4942 - Conquest Development USA, lC, requesting a PUD to PUD rezone for property located on the East Side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and approximately 1-3/4 miles south of Tamiami Trail (US 41), further described as Silver lakes, in Section 10 & 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner request.) TIME CERTAIN ITEMS: Item 1 OB to be heard at 9:30 a.m. Recommendation to review the written and oral reports of the Advisory Boards and Committees scheduled for review in 2005 in accordance with Ordinance No. 2001-55, including the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee, lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee, Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee, Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee, Bayshore/Gateway Triangle local Redevelopment Advisory Board, and the Golden Gate Estates land Trust Advisory Committee. March 8, 2005 Item #2B, #2C, #2D MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 8, 2005 BCC REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 9, 2005 BCC/DISTRICT 2 TOWNHALL MEETING, FEBRUARY 15,2005 BCC/LISTED SPECIES CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve the February 8th, 2005, BCC regular meeting minutes; the February 9th, 2005, BCC District 2 town hall meeting; and the February 15th, 2005, BCC listed species workshop? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to approve; seconded by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Item # 3 SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS) Page 14 March 8, 2005 We move on now to service awards, and I would like to ask Mr. Michael Delate to come forward. Michael? Michael, come right up here and turn around and face the audience, and let us read these wonderful things about you, okay? MR. MUDD: Michael Delate has served for the past two years as a member of the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, a new committee first appointed by the Board of County Commissioners in February 2003, to assist in carrying out the directors -- directives of the Conservation Collier program. Mr. Delate served his first one-year term as a member and as vice-chair. He reapplied in 2004 and was appointed for another three-year term, which will expire in February 2007. He additionally contributes as a member of the lands evaluation and management subcommittee. Conservation Collier County (sic) ordinance 2002-63 is very specific in regards to criteria for property selection and development of land management plans. Mr. Delate contributed significantly to developing a criteria matrix, which is used by the staff as a scoring system for evaluating how well properties meet the program criteria. Additionally, he has reviewed initial management plans for acquired properties and suggested improvements which have been subsequently adopted by the full committee. As chairwoman -- and that's not you, Mr. Delate. This is the chairwoman. The chairwoman, Kathy Prosser, of the land acquisition committee, had the following to say about Mr. Delate's contribution. Taxpayers benefit when someone like Mike Delate serves on an important committee. He does his homework, listens carefully, and comments to advance an issue, and shows up for every meeting on time. It's a pleasure to work with him. Chairman of the Land Evaluation and Management Subcommittee adds the following comments: Mike brings an incredible wealth of knowledge as an environmental engineer to the Page 15 March 8, 2005 table and has devoted many hours to developing a ranking system and working to develop initial management plans for newly acquired programs. Bill Poteet, the current land acquisition chair -- excuse me -- committee vice-chair, and the committee -- and the committee member who nominated Mr. Delate, wrote, Mike always has great input to the committee. He is reflective of the quality of our overall committee, which I personally think is loaded with talent. Mr. Delate's nomination as advisory committee member of the month was unanimously supported by the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee during their regular meeting held on December 13th, 2004. And I will tell you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, this isn't all that he's done. When we were -- when we were doing odor on the landfill when I first got here, he was instrumental. He got my ear and he was instrumental to making that -- clean that up for the -- for this community, okay. And he was dead right there. Every time you needed him, he was on the spot and he was bringing his expertise to the table. And, sir, I present to you, Michael Delate. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a plaque of appreciation for the fine work you've done for the people of Collier County. And most valuable of all is a free parking space for a month at the government center. Congratulations. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've been watching your input on many advisory boards, and I found you very valuable to whatever advisory board, and I would choose you over anybody for my district, knowing that you live in District 2, any future advisory board that you would participate in or wish to. Page 16 March 8, 2005 MR. DELATE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Michael, thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you'd like to say a few words, we'd be happy to have you do that. MR. MUDD: You've got to get a photo first. MR. DELATE: I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it would behoove us to recognize Commissioner Henning as the person who thought up this wonderful award for our advisory people. It's something that should have been done a long time ago. Thank you, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Item #4A PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE THE WEEK OF MARCH 6, 2005 THROUGH MARCH 12, 2005, AS EXTENSION LIVING WELl, WEEK - A D.On.ED CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to proclamations. The first proclamation will be read by Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. If Carol Yates and Mary Tarnowitsky ( sic) could come forward. MR. TARNOWSKI: You might like to try that again. Tarnowski. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Tarnowski, okay. MS. YATES: If I could have the rest of this front row come forward. And Kathy Martinson. Bonnie, Michael. Page 1 7 March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Anybody that's involved in this. This is very important. When I was a farm boy, we used the extension service quite a bit where I come from. Whereas, the health well-being (sic) of the family is crucial to the functioning of the nation and to providing adults and youths -- youth with the necessary skills and knowledge to help them achieve the best quality of life possible; Whereas, the psychologically, socially, and emotionally strong families provide strength for future generations; and, Whereas, the National Extension Association is a nationwide educational network through the land-grant universities, funded cooperatively through the Department of Agriculture, state governments, and local county governments; and, Whereas, the National Extension Association provides non-biased research-based information through informal education to help adults, youth, families, farmers (sic), business, communities; and, Whereas, the National Extension Association Family of Consumer Sciences educators are advocates of education for families so that the families might gain skills for a full and productive life; Whereas, the designation of the second week of March 2005 as Extension Living Well Week is a fitting tribute to the National Extension Association for Family and Consumer Sciences professionals who provide education that is critical to the quality of life for adults, youth, individuals, and families. This includes food preparation, food safety, nutrition, financial management, healthy lifestyles, work, home environment and safety, and relationships and parenting skills and much more. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners that March 6th through March 12th, 2005, be designated as Extension Living Well Week, and encourages the people of Collier County to take advantage of the educational opportunities that the Extension Family and Consumer Science Page 18 ^' ,~--,----- March 8, 2005 educators provide. Education that can be helpful in raising children, eating right, spending smart, and living well. Done in this order, this 8th day of March 2005, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred W. Coyle, Chairperson, and I move for approval of this proclamation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very, very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're going to say a few words, right? MS. TARNOWSKI: My name is Mary Tarnowski, and I'd like to thank the Board of County Commissioners for their support of the University Extension's Family and Consumer Sciences Program, which brings valuable educational services to Collier County families. We all know that strong families build strong communities. FCS educators also contribute to the health and safety of county residents by providing educational training and certification of food handlers who work in restaurants, hotels, churches, assisted living facilities, and public institutions. I have personally benefited from the homebuyers program, as have 10 other county employees last year. We were able to access our ability to purchase a home as well as prepare the necessary Page 19 March 8, 2005 documents, repair credit, and build savings before applying for financing. I feel that being able to raise my children in a home of our own will help provide stability to my family. And I can't begin to tell you how rewarding that is. Thank you. (Applause.) MS. YATES: I am pleased to have worked with the Family and Consumer Sciences educators, Marci Crumbine (phonetic), Bonnie Falls, over the past few years in helping provide homebuyers education to young families looking to purchase their first home and others who have -- who may be new arrivals to Florida. Education is the key to living well in Florida. Other areas where extension has made a difference are family financial stability, community leadership development, and youth development. I'd like to leave you with copies of the latest issue of the district newsletter that provides information on a wide variety of topics and the contacts for all the extension offices in Southwest Florida. I'd like to thank the board again for your support in these vital programs for Collier County residents and for being a part of the national initiative of Living Well Week. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'd request that we do 4B, and then go to our 9:30 time certain. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay . Yeah, we have just one -- wanted to get this handout completed now. That brings us to the next proclamation to be read by Commissioner Coletta. Item #4B PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE THE PARKS AND Page 20 ..-.,---, "",-...-,,.. March 8, 2005 RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND ITS STAFF FOR BECOMING ACCREDITED TO THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Would Marla Ramsey, the public service administrator, and any of her staff members that are present, please come forward. Oh, yeah. Look at this. I'll tell you, Collier County is famous for a lot of the things, but one of the things that we all appreciate is the wonderful parks that we have. It's just absolutely amazing what's been done here. And if I may. Whereas, nearly 200 million people use local parks and recreation services annually and -- to enhance their physical and social -- to enhance their physical and social well-being, all of them seeking the highest quality recreational experience possible; and, Whereas, agency self-assessment and peer review is an excellent process for evaluating the quality of the system that delivers these services; and, Whereas, in response to this, the National Committee of Accreditation for public parks and recreational agencies was formed in 1998 to develop the standard and procedure for the National Accreditation program and is now fully responsible for the administration of the program; and, Whereas, on February 18th, 2005, the National Committee on Accreditation for public parks and recreational agencies conferred upon Collier County Parks and Recreation, the status of accredited agency; and, Whereas, through the accreditation process, the Parks and Recreation Department has been measured against 156 national standards covering agency authority, role and responsibilities, planning, human services, fiscal policy and management program, service management, facilities and land use management, safety and Page 21 March 8, 2005 security, risk management, and evaluation and research. The Collier County Parks and Recreation Department has met the 36 fundamental standards required and more than 85 percent of the remaining 120 standards that are required to achieve the accreditation (sic) status; and, Whereas, because Collier County Parks and Recs. is an accredited agency, the public can be assured that it receives well administered services in according (sic) with the approved professional practices. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that recognizes (sic) and esteem is bestowed upon the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department and its staff for their achievements, which reflect their continued dedication to the benefit and well-being of the people, community and environment of Collier County. Done and ordered this, the 8th day of March 2005, Fred Coyle, Chairman, and I move for approval. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe could, please, would someone hold this document up for the photo. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You didn't bring the light with you, Marla. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Look like a family. Now, Page 22 .u_...__.'_''''''·_' March 8, 2005 everybody smile. No pushing and shoving. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations. MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, if I could just have a moment of your time to, first of all, thank Collier County. Without Collier County, Commissioners, the system that parks and recreation has today would not exist. It starts at the top, but it also starts at the bottom, and by -- what I mean by that is that what you had in front of you today was the leaders of the Parks and Recreation Department that made the accreditation happen. But each and every employee that parks and recreation has is important in that team that puts together the parks and rec., whether it's the gentleman that is prepping a field for a T ball or whether it's an employee who is standing guard at the pool, or if it's an instructor that's teaching a new still. I look at the Parks and Recreation Department like I would a sundae. You have different kinds of ice cream within your -- in front of you, whether it be chocolate, vanilla, or strawberry, all the different park systems that we have, whether it be beaches or community parks or passIve. On top of that, you put our programs, which are the toppings, various types, whether they're fruits or nuts or chocolate or whatever. On top of that then you have a whipped cream, which is our community, who comes in and utilizes our facilities. At the base of that, you have our staff. It's the bowl. It's what holds that whole sundae together and makes it work. On the very top of that, you have the cherry, and that is the accreditation award that we received today. With all of the other ingredients, the cherry standing by itself means nothing. And so I thank the staff for all the dedication that they've given Page 23 March 8, 2005 you throughout the years, and we look forward to being able to continue to provide that thought the future. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, she's made me hungry. Could we have a short recess and have some deserts. MR. MUDD: Now you can talk about the chocolate sprinkles. Item #10B RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW THE WRITTEN AND ORAL REPORTS OF THE ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES SCHEDULED FOR REVIEW IN 2005 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE NO. 2001-55, INCLUDING THE BA YSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE, LEL Y GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, VANDERBILT BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD, AND THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LAND TRUST ADVISORY COMMITTEE SERVE AS A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - ALL REPORTS AEEROVED AS ERESENIED CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going directly now to our time certain item, 10B. MR. MUDD: And this item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. It's a recommendation to review the written and oral reports of the advisory boards and committees scheduled for review in 2005 in accordance with ordinance 2001-55, including the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee, the Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Page 24 '_""~_--'_~.·....~_..··h March 8, 2005 Committee, the Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee, the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee, the Bayshore and Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, and the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Advisory Committee. Mrs. Winona Stone will present. MS. STONE: Good morning, Chairman Coyle. Winona Stone, assistant to the county manager. As you are aware, in accordance with ordinance 2001-55, your numerous advisory boards and committees are scheduled for review every fourth year on a rotating basis. The purpose of the reviews is for you to determine if the existing boards and committees continue to address the issues for which they were created and to determine any revisions needed for the board or committee to operate more efficiently and effectively. This year you will be reviewing 11 committees; six today and five at your March 22nd meeting. Today you will be reviewing the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee, the Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee, the Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee, the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee, the Bayshore Gateway/Triangle Local Development Advisory Board, and the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Advisory Committee. This year the written reports were submitted to you in a standardized format for ease in your review. The written reports are included in your packet and in order of presentation. If there are no questions at this point, I'll introduce your first speaker. Unfortunately Bill Neal, who's the chairman of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU is enable to attend today. He's ill. I believe Diane Flagg is here to address any questions you may have. MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Commissioners, Diane Flagg, director of alternative transportation modes, for the record. Mr. Neal, Page 25 ~--- March 8, 2005 as Winona indicated, is not available today. He's identified his comments in the report that you have before you, and I'm available to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sure we've all had a chance to read the report. Do the commissioners have any questions? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I hear no questions. Thank you very much. MS. FLAGG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I presume we're going to take a vote individually on these; is that the way you want to proceed with this? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You need to -- if there is any additional, they basically say we want to keep the advisory board, and if there's any instructions you want to give the advisory board, if you vote to do that, then this would be the appropriate time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Do you have any instructions that might be appropriate? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I move to approve the Bayshore Beautification MSTU to find it a valid public purpose. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much, Diane. MS. STONE: Your next speaker is Robert Slebodnik. He will Page 26 --" March 8, 2005 be presenting the Lely Golf Estates MSTU report. Mr. Slebodnik? MR. SLEBODNIK: Good morning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. MR. SLEBODNIK: For the past three years members of the Lely MSTU have been involved with the planning and execution of modernizing the irrigation system, which provides approximately 1. __ which provides water to approximately 1.7 miles of medians and cul-de-sacs, and then replanting all medians. The water that we use, with the exception of medians one and two, is -- and three is effluent, so approximately 90 percent of the water we use is effluent. The first year medians 14 through 19 on Pebble Beach Boulevard were completed. The second year, two medians on Forrest Hills were finished. This fiscal year we are working on St. Andrews Boulevard from u.s. 41 to Forrest Hills Boulevard. The first segment on St. Andrews Boulevard, known as proj ect one, includes the medians three through 10, and it was finished on February 25th, 2005. Proj ect two, the last phase, includes medians one, two, and narrow strips of land adjacent to Lely Square, Lely Plaza, Buena Vida Retirement Center, and Lely Presbyterian church. Project two involves the enhancement grant which we received two years ago. As soon as we receive the notice to proceed, we will begin to execute the last phase of our three-year renovation project. Hopefully project -- the project will be totally completed by July 1st, 2005. This three-year project will end with an expenditure in excess of $200,000. Another accomplishment this past year, in a joint venture with the Lely Civic Association, the U.S. 41 entry signs were updated at a cost of approximately $20,600. We are now working with new signage for the Doral community, which has an entrance off Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Page 27 March 8, 2005 I'm going to jump to number seven on your report. Talk a little bit about our budget. Our budget for the fiscal year 2004/2005 is $278,400. That includes capital outlay carryover from last year, and the $69,800 enhancement grant. And with that, we hope to complete the entire project, which will mean totally landscaped area with brand new irrigation, and that probably will last us 10 to 15 years. On the last page, additional comments, I would like to address a couple of these. Our advisory board, when we undertook this major project, we had a lot of help from some key people in the county, and I recognize these people in my report; Mrs. Diane Flagg, Mr. Robert Petersen, Mrs. Liz De Leon, Val Prince, and Andy Vaniseak. Some of these people have been reassigned and do not work with our -- directly with our MSTU s anymore, but they were instrumental in getting our project completed. Second comment I would like to make, I think the bidding process in the purchasing department needs to be streamlined a little bit. Our MSTU was forced to take the lowest bidder when the project came up for renewal, and after six months we had to fire the contractor. The contractor that we were forced to take had no experience doing medians. They could not handle the complex irrigation system. And as a result, in order to save $5,000, we probably wasted 10 to $15,000 of taxpayer money taking care of the damage that the low bidder was responsible for. As you know, Lely has a major problem with stormwater management, and this problem was compounded when U.S. 41 was widened. We catch all the water coming into our community off of 41. Prior to the widening, water was directed to the Lely Canal and to that little creek that flows between the -- is going to flow between the two new developments going in, the WCI Development, and I think the other one is named Tera -- Teracinda-- Page 28 March 8, 2005 MR. MUDD: I always call it Wentworth. That's the-- MR. SLEBODNIK: Wentworth. That was the old name, right. And this flaw was called to the attention of the county before they signed off on the project. We've got to get this problem corrected, because we have too much water coming into our community that should not be coming in. We have enough problems with draining the water within our community, dealing with grates, we have the curved curbs with the grate. When water -- when debris collects on these grates, the water cannot get through it, and the area at the comer of Pebble Beach and St. Andrews Boulevard many times had to be barricaded because of the excess water. In conclusion, the past four years have been a challenge. The MSTU board members, Tony Branco, Robert Cole, Ron Thorp, and Bill Erickson, who passed away this last December, logged many hours beyond the normal one and a half hours for our monthly meeting. Our major projects are almost finished. We thank the commissioners for their support when we asked for it. And we hope that as advisors, we have served you well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Slebodnik. What information do we have on the issue of stormwater, County Manager, these particular problems? MR. MUDD: I believe that particular issue is addressed in the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Program. And I talked to Ricardo, who's here, yesterday about that particular issue, where do we sit with the permit. You know we've been that close for 14 years. I'd like to say we're a lot closer than that. We -- the EP A, all indications are they're going to give us a clean bill of health on that particular project after 14 years of answering their concerns and making sure the design basically does that, and I believe we're within 30 days of having the permit. The basic core says the EP A is their last stumbling block. As Page 29 March 8, 2005 soon as they have it -- they said they'd issue and make it contingent upon EP A. Let's make sure we've got a clean bill. We can wait 30 more days. And when we do that, we energize with Big Cypress Basin money and with our own money for that particular project. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you can start how quickly after getting that permit? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ricardo? MR. VALERA: Right away. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's Ricardo Valera. MR. VALERA: Yeah. Ricardo Valera, for the record, director of stormwater. Yes, we can start right away. We would, of course, start taking bite-sized pieces and work from downstream, upstream. But Wentworth and the property to the north, that's -- MR. MUDD: Sabal Bay. MR. VALERA: -- Sabal Bay, have provisions for the basic ( sic) improvements. CHAIRMAN COYLE: There is an overall plan for that? MR. VALERA: Yes. MR. SLEBODNIK: In the meantime what we need is a temporary fix on two drains. They are probably 500 feet from the entrance of U.S. 41, and those two drains, they catch all the water coming off 41, all the water coming down St. Andrews, all the cul-de-sacs, and when they become plugged up, that's our low point, and everything backs up beyond that. MR. VALERA: Let me give you my contact information and we'll take care of it. MR. SLEBODNIK: Okay. That would be appreciated. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Slebodnik. MR. SLEBODNIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to approve or -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That this MSTU continues to serve the Page 30 _. ._-~.- "."~~"''''---_......-~-''. March 8, 2005 public purpose? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion to approve, there's a second. I second it. Okay. The second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you. Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee now. MS. STONE: Susan Saum, the chairman of the Radio Road MSTU, is unable to be here. Diane Flagg, again, will answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Any questions, Commissioners? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- what would be the charge of the MS TU over the next two years? MS. FLAGG: For Radio Road? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MS. FLAGG: Some of the projects that they're working on right now is to add some additional plantings along Radio Road that exceed what the landscape master plan calls for. They're also in the process of building and paying for four of the Collier Area Transit bus shelters that are within their MSTU boundaries. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How are we handling the bus shelters in other areas? MS. FLAGG: The-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: How are they paid for? Page 31 ~··<__"_M' ,-, "'n_..,,,"_"_~_._.~ March 8, 2005 MS. FLAGG: Several of the MSTUs, the Bayshore MSTU, Golden Gate MSTU, Radio Road MSTU, because they have bus routes through their areas, have offered to pay for the bus shelters, and the areas that aren't within MSTU boundaries, we use the limited taxpayers' funds and FT A funds to built shelters. So it's a community cooperation effort to get bus shelters built. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any way under my request that the MSTU poll the residents and find out if they would like to increase the landscaping above the standard guidelines under the beautification -- or the median master plan? I just find that this committee is so close to where they could dissolve and let the county maintain the landscaping median, since that was the model of the basis of improving the master plan. MS. FLAGG: This committee also does the Devonshire Boulevard that is not in the landscape master plan, so this committee is responsible also for Devonshire. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's always going to be in existence? MS. FLAGG: Yes, unless the County chooses to take over the landscape maintenance of Devonshire, and they would have to add that to the landscape master plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other questions? Yeah, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. In regards to the bus shelters, in an MSTU area, are those bus shelters upgraded from the present bus shelters that are provided in other areas of the county? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. What they do is in the Golden Gate area, the Golden Gate MSTU is putting in shelters consistent with the Golden Gate master plan, if you will, in terms of design. And then the other shelters, the MS TU is putting in the same shelter that you see throughout the community so that we have some Page 32 ._-". March 8, 2005 consistency and appropriateness with the community. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Would that fall under transportation grants that we could possibly get? MS. FLAGG: Bus shelters are already funded through FTA and county gas tax, so this was just an effort to get more shelters out there than what the limited funds provide in an effort to work with the community. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to find that the Radio Road Beautification MSTU continues to serve a public purpose? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Moved by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Henning. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much. Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee. Mr. Dick Lydon. Good morning, Dick. MR. LYDON: Good morning. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. See if I can see here. Since this is a mandated report, I'll endeavor to be as brief as possible and follow the outline you have furnished. The committee is serving the purpose for which it was created. We believe we are serving the needs of the community and continue to search for and review additional projects. During the last year, we hired WilsonMiller to complete a master Page 33 March 8, 2005 plan. Before the plan was completed, it became apparent that the primary community interest was in the burial of utility lines. The contract, therefore, was terminated before completion at a cost of some 53,000 plus dollars. We also renegotiated our maintenance contract, main landscaping of the roadways in the area. We believe our MSTU is the best representation available at this time. In connection with the utilities -- the burial of utilities, it's my understanding that a member of our committee will be meeting with Commissioner Halas and Mr. Mudd in the near future to see if we can't speed up the burial of the utility lines over there before we get another hurricane. The ordinance as I see it does not need amendment at this time. Membership requirements do not require modification at this time. We are charged by the county an arbitrary fee of $23,510 plus the fee for recording secretary as a cost of maintaining this board. More on that later. Comments, and these were approved by our committee. First of all, we would recommend that you eliminate the sunshine law requirements from MSTUs; since we have no power to spend taxpayers' money and can only make recommendations, we do not see the applicability of this law. Our ability to communicate one on one would go a long way to shorten the meetings and provide much wider use of the talents of the members than the subcommittee system we have now established. Discussing this fact with both state and federal elected representatives, they are in full agreement, and well they should be since neither of those people have anything to do with sunshine laws. Probably have a little trouble with the newspapers along those lines, but maybe it would be worth a shot. Number two, you know, when you take the dressing off an MSTU, it is obviously in place to let the BCC avoid using ad valorem funds to do the things that should be done in the neighborhood. The Page 34 -- ~'.~-..,-- March 8, 2005 argument that it is. for extras just doesn't hold water. The MSTU funds expended enhance the property values and the results -- and that results in higher ad valorem taxes. The best of our knowledge, there have been no capital improvements in our area in the last four years, if you don't count legal fees. We begin to wonder just when, if ever, we will see any return on our investment. Charging our budget for staff time and cost of minutes would seem to be overkill. The same might be said for the tax collector and appraiser fees. I realize that this is the way it's done, but I'm not sure that makes it right. We read that both the tax collector and appraiser give money back. Somehow that never shows up as income in our budget. How come? We'd like to know how come that is. And while the system is a long way from perfect, it is workable. May I suggest a committee made up of one member of each MSTU be appointed to come up with changes designed to make the present procedures more efficient. Thank you. Be pleased to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I was -- this is a question I want to direct to Mr. DeLony back there, and that's in regards to -- I know one of the high costs of our MSTU up there in the Vanderbilt area is using potable water, and I want to know where we stand on the possibility of reclaimed water. MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities administrator. Thank you, sir, for the opportunity. Here's where we're at. We're just before getting the last permit for our aquifer storage and recovery well site. Once that well site's in place, it will take up to maybe a year, or half a year, to fill it and make sure that we have the right permits in place. At that time we'll have satisfactory storage capacity to begin to address the shortfalls we have for our current customer list and Page 35 March 8, 2005 potentially add additional customers as we come on. I'll have before the board here within the next couple board meetings, we're refining -- in fact I actually have it scheduled for the next board meeting, a request for the board to approve the hiring of a consultant to help us map out a master plan for not only reused water, but for an irrigation program for Collier County that goes out at least 10 years, maybe as much as 20 years, as a critical companion to answering your question. We need to make sure that what we've done in the past will sustain us in the future both in terms of our financial and planning considerations. So the easy answer is not there right now to tell you a date, but I can tell you, the wheels are in motion to get after -- and give some predictability to neighborhoods just like one in terms of the ability of the utility to bring online something other than potable water for irrigation purposes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My understanding was right across the road from where this MSTU starts, there's a possibility of potable or reclaimed water, and I was hoping that we could just put a line across and connect up with the existing system we have now and basically divorce it from the potable water system. MR. DeLONY: Sir, we can look into the specifics of that and see if that is as easy as it appears in terms of quantity and pressures and what that line is already providing to existing customers. It would have to be taken a look at before we can put on additional customers. We're willing to do that, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, would you look into that. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. We can work on that with Mr. -- with Dick or anybody else from his committee and see what we can do to do this in the context of what I've played out here before. MR. LYDON: Based on what we understand in the connection if Pelican Bay is annexed by the City of Cleveland -- or City of Naples Page 36 --. March 8, 2005 -- Cleveland would be good. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a real stretch. MR. LYDON: In the City of Naples, then we've got plenty of potable water since you won't be providing it to Pelican Bay anymore, we'll have lots of it. The words that we have up to now, Commissioner, is that it looks like a base of $70,000 to put the lift station in, some 1,300 feet up the road. We'd like some help along those lines; however, if we could get it done in the $50,000 range, it would only take a couple years to save that much money, plus the fact you in the county could save some money in Marla's department, the parks and rec. because you could then run it up to Conner where you're using fresh water to do that as well. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do the Commissioners have any comments about the recommendation that a committee be established to find more efficient ways that MSTUs can work within the county? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I didn't know that we had a problem there. Maybe we need to have staff report and find out if we really do have a problem with -- if other MSTU s are experiencing this problem. And in the area of sunshine, can the county attorney give us some -- enlighten us a little bit on this? MR. WEIGEL: Sure. Nothing has changed with the sunshine law for about 30 years, and that is that the sunshine law provides for the public to have the ability to see, whether they appear or not, all of the decision-making process. Any committee such as this one that is created by the Board of County Commissioners to provide recommendations to the board is considered part of the ultimate board decision-making process. And no different than this board or the planning commission or the EAC, this advisory committee, and essentially nearly all others, must Page 37 "'--'-'~- ....,-",...~."._-'",..- March 8, 2005 comply with the sunshine law. And if the -- if the members of the committee do not, then they will find themselves with potential individual liability for prosecution. That's the way it is, and as I have stated in my numerous seminars on sunshine law, the law was not put in place to make government easier. It was put in place to make it very accessible to the public, and there's essentially nothing we can do at the local level here other than disband MSTUs and let people work in a purely ad hoc not-appointed basis, which may defeat the purpose in the first place, or for the individuals to operate at their peril, which, of course, is not good for them and not good for anyone, or lobby the legislature, which, I think, would be a failing process as well. MR. LYDON: Still doesn't mean we have to like to. MR. WEIGEL: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Also I'd like to address one other thing, and that's in regards to where you feel that you're not getting your fair share of money back returned to you. I can assure you that we have a UFR list here in the county and that we're addressing all areas of concerns in all neighborhoods in the county, so bear with us. As we look at this UFR list, we hope to get some money back there to Vanderbilt. Just for your -- just for information to you, when we made our trip to Washington, that was the -- County Manager Mudd and myself, we got a call from Connie Mack's office that they wanted to know if we had any particular concerns in regards to addressing water issues, and Connie Mack is going to -- Congressman Mack is going to put into the appropriations bill hopefully $300,000 to address one of the issues that's been near and dear to your heart and a lot of other people up there, and that's the quality of water back there in the Vanderbilt Lagoon. So we are looking. Weare trying to get some money back there so that you don't feel deprived that you're not getting money back to Page 38 ""-". ------,.. March 8, 2005 your neighborhood. So bear with us. We're working on it. MR. LYDON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Do we hear a motion that the Vanderbilt Beach -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Beautification MSTU Advisory Board continues to meet a public purpose? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I make that motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much. MR. LYDON: Thank you, gentlemen. MS. STONE: Your next speaker was Bill Neal, and, again, he's out ill, so we have John David Moss of your staff here to address any questions you may have on the Redevelopment Advisory Board. MR. MOSS: Good morning, Commissioners. John David Moss, comprehensive planning. Because comprehensive planning has been providing administrative support to the Bayshore/Gateway redevelopment area while they're searching for a new executive director, I was asked to come and answer any questions you might have about this item. So if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try and answer them for you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How do we stand, Mr. Mudd, with respect to the Bayshore MSTU? How do we stand on their administrative support over this -- during this interim period of time? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it started off with some bumps to Page 39 -"- ---~-_. .,'-,....-.-.-.-- March 8, 2005 say -- to put it mildly, when their executive director left and when we -- we kind of were in a hiatus at that particular juncture, things -- some bills weren't paid, some other administrative issues weren't done in order to do connections. I think we've resolved all of those particular issues, and we've got connectivity with our system. We're locked in. There was some questions about, you know, do they fall under our purchasing policy. I think we've got that resolved. We've got the bills paid. I think it's running pretty smoothly as far as that's concerned. Would we like them to get an executive director? You bet ya, and they're actively trying to make that happen. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you. MR. MUDD: But I think we're providing them the service so it becomes pretty transparent for them. It's a little cumbersome because they don't have an executive director, but I think we've got all those things worked out. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other questions from board members? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to find that Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board continues to serve as a valid purposes? I will take the motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Halas. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much. MS. STONE: Your last presenter is Mr. Charles Van Gelder, Page 40 '-" March 8, 2005 chairman of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Advisory Committee. Mr. Van Gelder? MR. VAN GELDER: Good morning, Commissioners. Charles Van Gelder, though I answer better to the name Skip. F or about the past seven or eight years I've had the privilege of participating in your Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Advisory Committee. You have our letter of December 12th, and I'll summarize it for you. The land trust committee was originally created in 1983 by an agreement between A vitar Properties, the developer of the Golden Gate Estates, and the Collier County Board of Commissioners. It set aside certain properties throughout the Golden Gate Estates area that were to be deeded to the -- Collier County for use as -- for recreation, utilities, and community services. The Board of County Commissioners has the right to sell the properties or to deed them to different entities throughout the county for use and for fire and police, public schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and the equipment that is needed to operate those facilities. The advisory committee is charged to provide recommendations for marketing, set priorities and monitor expenditures of the fund, and make recommendations to your board for expenditures of the funds that are contained within the committee for purchases pertaining to the fire, police, public schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and the equipment. Currently, or at the time of the production of the letter, the cash available within the land trust committee was $1,093,860. The value of the land was $4,283,100, the land that still remains within the control of the committee and the Board of Commissioners. Over the past four years the committee's been able to recommend to you expenditures from the committee funds for playground equipment for the Sabal Palm Elementary School in the amount of $102,917, purchase of a fire safety training device and the vehicle Page 41 -""-. --"-""-- March 8, 2005 that's used to tow it around at the cost of $84,055. That's a great piece of equipment. You guys really need to see that thing. It's a little schoolhouse that's set up to demonstrate to the schoolchildren what it's like to be trapped inside a home that sets on fire. It creates smokes and stuff and shows them how to get out safely. It's a real good device. They're moving it around through all the different elementary schools right now in Golden Gate. They've also offered it to the other elementary schools throughout the county. Fitness equipment for the Max Hasse Fitness Center, Max Hasse Park, $50,000. Purchased all the fitness equipment that they put in there. Golden Gate Fire Department, I believe we -- we did not fund the entire purchase of the water tanker, but we provided, I think, around $60,000 towards that purchase, probably about half the cost of the tanker. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $30,000 was expended to provide personal protective equipment for the Big Corkscrew Fire Department. We've also recommended transfers of land to the school board to help compile the land retired for the Sabal Palm Elementary School, to the parks and recs, to provide a neighborhood park, and swap a piece of land that had been held in reserve for the school board, and that transaction for another piece so the parks and recs could build a small neighborhood park up on Oaks Boulevard, I believe it is. Currently, I believe the advisory board is serving community needs for the purpose which it was created. I don't believe that any other board exists to serve the community in this capacity. I don't believe that any amendments are needed at this time for the committee or the operation of the committee. And the recommendations to modify the membership are not required. We currently have a full board of five members with the appropriate distribution throughout the areas in the Golden Gate Page 42 March 8, 2005 Estates area. The cost of operating the committee is limited to the cost of one representative from your real property department and a secretary approximately once every two months. If you have any other questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them for you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, first off I want to thank you and the other members of the Estates Land Trust Advisory Committee for the time that you spend on this. Do you have any idea what kind of funds are still left that might be able to be distributed back to the community? MR. VAN GELDER: At the time of the writing of the letter there was 1,093,000, and the value of the land at the 4,283,000, there's very little land left to be sold. Now, there's a lot of the land that's in the committee that has been reserved for the public schools and for the fire departments and for parks and recs. Unless -- unless you decide to sell those properties, it's probably, I would estimate, less than a million dollars on top of the available cash. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I tell you where I'm going. I don't know if it's possible, but I was wondering if there might be any consideration given for the funding maybe to supplement the county's funding for the paving of roads in the Estates that are under county control but are still lime rock. MR. VAN GELDER: I believe the original agreement explicitly prohibits road work. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm trying. MR. VAN GELDER: I know, I know. You and several other folks have approached us with beautification projects for the roads, and we've had to refer back to the original agreement and say, sorry. It's just -- it's excluded from -- Page 43 __"",0.l..._~._. March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, what's happening-- MR. VAN GELDER: The original agreement just specifically excludes road work. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The county roads that we maintain that aren't of -- with an asphalt cover on them, they're a lass leader. We-- MR. VAN GELDER: I know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Over a period of time, the amount of money we have to put into it, they're not cost effective, plus they're a deterrent for people that live in that area. MR. VAN GELDER: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I thought I'd give it a try, and I do appreciate your time, and I appreciate what your committee is doing, and I make a motion for approval. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion for approval by Commissioner Coletta. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's unanimous. Thank you very much. MR. VAN GELDER: Thank you, Commissioners. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that was your last report for this meeting. And, again, you'll have five additional reports on the 22nd. That brings us to item - Item #6A PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JEFF BLUESTEIN TO Page 44 '--- .."--~... March 8, 2005 DISCUSS CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. 97-029 ON CHAIRMAN COYLE: 6A, I think. MR. MUDD: -- 6A, which is a public petition request by Jeff Bluestein to discuss the Code Enforcement Board case 97-029 on behalf of Anthony Varano. MR. SHAPIRO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Mark Shapiro. I'm filling in for Jeff Bluestein. We are here because -- if I could give you some brief background. An agreement was entered into a little less -- I think approximately a year ago to resolve this matter, and this matter was going to be -- the code enforcement issue was going to be resolved with Mr. Varano. He was going to sell one of his properties, pay $25,000 in fines, have that property that he sold, the new owners must agree to clear up those violations within 30 days, and then there was another property he owned that had some violations on it, and he was going to use the funds from the sale of that to clear up those violations on the other property. Mr. Varano has done that. That has been completed since July of 2004. He has paid the $25,000. All violations have been cleared. It was not done timely, according to the agreement, although it is now completed; therefore, what we are requesting is that the commissioners authorize the county attorney to stop the -- end the foreclosure against Mr. Varano, that he pay the additional $25,000, which he is willing to do. Since these violations are cleared up, he does have a buyer who has been ready since November to purchase this property. We have submitted the name. It's Dan Osborn, who has already -- has his loan in place, has the property surveyed, and has already spent considerable time and expense and is ready to close on this, which would give the county the other $25,000 agreed to in the agreement. Page 45 ---~_.__..- -- March 8, 2005 And Mr. Varano is also willing to pay any additional attorney fees or costs that were incurred by the county. And we would ask that, you know, the county authorize -- or the commissioners authorize the county attorney to stop the foreclosure and continue on with this settlement. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions by the board? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there anything that the county attorney would like to present or maybe code enforcement in regards to this issue? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ellen? MS. CHADWELL: Good morning, Commissioners. Ellen Chadwell, assistant county attorney. I really don't have anything to present. I'm here to answer any questions that the board may have. It's -- this is more of a policy decision, really, for you all to make. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Have they met all their obligations? MS. CHADWELL: They have cleared the violation on the second property. That was -- there is a dispute as to when that occurred, but it is -- it has occurred, and that's ultimately the important fact. They -- the 25,000 for the first property was paid and received by the county. So that one is done and over with. The only -- if the agreement were in place, the only additional obligation would be for them to tender the $25,000 and -- at which point we would release the lien. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is code enforcement comfortable? Is the property presently in compliance? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The answer to that was from Michelle Arnold. Page 46 ----" March 8, 2005 MR. MUDD: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it is. Okay. The one troubling part of this is this has been going on for a very, very long time. I'm reluctant to take any action that would postpone foreclosure unless we can say with absolute certainty this will solve this problem. Are you willing to say that? MS. CHADWELL: I agree. I would suggest that if the board's inclination is to accept Mr. Shapiro's offer to pay the 25 plus the costs, which would be the benefit of our bargain that we would be entitled to, that we've incurred since the date of the approval of the agreement and could -- was in a position to tender that amount, we could come back to the board for its final -- to take action on that, and then it could all be said and done. There is a little bit of an issue with, I guess, the tendering of the monetary amount because there may be -- anyone willing to put up the money may need some assurance from this board that that would be acceptable. You're not in a position to take any formal action today, so either Mr. Shapiro comes up with some other proposal that would meet those -- give us the assurances we need or we'd have to come back twice to this board. That's not to say that it couldn't all be wrapped up within 45 days from now, but -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You could work out an escrow arrangement for the transfer of the funds, I'm sure, couldn't you? MS. CHADWELL: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Our objective is not to solve the problem today, but decide whether or not we think it's worth even discussing any more. What's your -- Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. The only thing I'd like to discuss is some way or another that whatever form of action that we'd want to take on this, that it's tied with the sale of the land, so make sure that we're not going to have a reoccurring issue here, because we Page 47 March 8, 2005 hope that the new landlord will then, obviously, make sure that this property is in compliance. So there has to be some way of interconnect, that before we're going to resolve this issue, that that has to be in the formal agreement. MS. CHADWELL: Well, the property is currently in compliance. If you're going to tie it into the sale, then you may be creating a problem in disposing of this once and for all, because what I don't want to do is have the buyer walk and be stuck back in foreclosure again, you know. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just looking for some assurance here that we're going to end this problem because it's been going on and on and on. It's burned up a lot staff time -- MS. CHADWELL: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- that's taxpayers' money, and I want to get this resolved, and that's the bottom line. MR. SHAPIRO: Commissioner Halas, if I may. I know that there is a buyer in place that has been waiting. I mean, we would be willing to say that the other 25,000 could be paid out of the closing and we would also be willing to put a time limit that that has to take place, or if the closing didn't take place within that time, that he would pay the additional 25 plus the additional cost in attorney's fees. The only difficulty that I have with -- with this is that Mr. Varano doesn't personally have the money to put up, so he would either need the money -- either need to have this paid through the sale, or he could have someone give a private loan on this property, but no one would be willing to do that with the lien in front of them, but -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So are there any commissioners who want to bring this back for a formal public hearing and resolution? COMMISSIONER HALAS: We'll bring it back. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas will make a motion that we bring it back. Page 48 March 8, 2005 Is there a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have -- I'm having serious thoughts about it, but I'll be honest with you, I think we've been through this what, two, three times now? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, it's about the fourth time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I stuck my neck out a couple of times, and I think we're setting a precedence where it's going to be never ending in the future. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I pull my motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honors, if I could. If we don't get this resolved, then I guess Mr. Varano is stuck in the foreclosure process where he's either going to lose the property that's basically all he has left in the world -- he's on disability. I mean, this is all he has. With the other property that sold, he used that money to clear up the violations on this new property. I know this has been dragged on for a while. We also -- if the foreclosure does proceed -- and I don't really want to get into this because I don't think it's in Mr. Varano's best interest, but he does have a defensible position in that to -- in a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Granted he didn't perform on time, but the agreement that he signed also didn't state that time was of the essence. So in the foreclosure action, we would be arguing that he did substantially comply with the agreement, performed all his obligations, and the county has, you know, proceeded with the foreclosure anyway. Again, I don't want to go down that road because this is all he has in the world, and he really can't risk losing it. But, you know, I feel that he's now in the position where the county has been paid -- or will be paid $50,000 plus any additional attorney's fees and costs, and, you know, the only thing that would happen if you proceeded is that Mr. Page 49 -- March 8, 2005 Varano could potentially lose everything he has. MS. CHADWELL: Commissioner, I -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? MS. CHADWELL: I'm sorry. I just wanted to respond to Commissioner Coletta's comment. I really don't -- this is a very unique situation, and unfortunately, we thought we were creatively resolving it over 18 months ago when I presented an agreement to this board for its consideration. You can rest assured I will not be presenting another such agreement to this board for its consideration, and I don't think that you will find other violators in the same situation as Mr. Varano. So I can appreciate your position on that, but I -- I think I can give you some assurances that you won't see this happening regularly henceforth, and we can -- my proposal would be that if we bring it back, that it would wrap up quickly or not at -- or not at all. I mean, it's going to have to happen. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what we're concerned about. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And believe me, I mean, the compassion of this commission and staff is remarkable. And as you mentioned, and I was going to point out also, this is extremely unusual. I can't remember another time in my four and a half years on this commission where we had an occurrence like this. And I mean, everybody's bent over backwards time after time to try to resolve this Issue. We understand that there are mitigating circumstances. And if you feel the slightest bit of discomfort with what's taking place here, I'll pick up on the motion and make the motion that we bring it back. MR. SHAPIRO: We would be willing to put a strict time limit on the payment. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That has been the problem many, many times before. We have reached agreement that something will be Page 50 ----- ---~-".._._.._....._- --.."'..--,""'....--. March 8, 2005 done at a certain time -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it hasn't. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and it wasn't done, and then we come to another agreement, and I just continue to get the impression that there's not ever going to be compliance with this particular situation. And I appreciate the fact that you would like to see this happen. But I believe that we've given the petitioner every opportunity to deal with this issue, and I don't want to see this come back again. I think we've got a solution and I think we ought to stick with it, but I'll leave it up to the vote of the board. MR. SHAPIRO: And I understand that, and I would like to represent that it -- I believe it wasn't for lack of effort on Mr. Varano's part. It's not like he sat back and said, oh, I'm not going to do it, you know. He did make an effort. There was cars, a lot of -- about 40 cars on one of the properties that it wasn't easy to find someone to get out there in a hurry to remove those cars. And he did have those cars taken away. And in his words, he had a -- he actually had crushed about $40,000 worth of cars to get this done in a timely manner, or as close to timely as he could. So it's not -- I don't believe it's for lack of effort on his part or for saying, you know, I'm not going to do. I think he was making every effort that he could to comply with this. And, you know, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, did have you anything else? Did you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did make a motion. I don't recall hearing a second though. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second to Commissioner Coletta's motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion dies for lack of a Page 51 -,-~ March 8, 2005 second. We will not be bringing this back for consideration. MR. SHAPIRO: So it's going to proceed at the foreclosure? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Yes? David? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Just a comment, and that is, this has taken a long time even to get to this point. If Mr. Osborn or whomever's a potential buyer has been waiting in the wings since November, conceivably they could still purchase the property very quickly at this point. Obviously there's an obligation and an action that lies on the title relative to the foreclosure, but all that requires is a payment of money. And I recognize this board's concern about getting into contingencies based upon some future sale. But having heard that there was a person that's been willing to buy since November seems to me that the solution is really imminent between the potential seller and potential buyer. And if it does go to foreclosure, Mr. Osborn or anyone else may be able to pick it up at even a different rate than contracted price right now. So it seems to me that there are expediencies that should motivate Mr. Varano and the potential purchaser right now, because all it takes to satisfy the county and take it out of foreclosure proceedings mode is the money that is rightfully owed through a long process, due process, and agreed to by agreement. And from that standpoint, I think the message from the board is clear, and the county attorney office as well, have dealt with this for a long time, and I think it's -- I appreciate the board's determination at this point in time as well. But it may -- perhaps my comment will spur Mr. Varano and the potential buyer to make the arrangements for a property that has value beyond the $25,000 in any event. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it is not our intent to try to deprive Mr. Varano of that value. So all we're trying to do is recover our costs Page 52 March 8, 2005 of going through this very lengthy and laborious process. And it would appear to me that whatever action is taken under foreclosure, Mr. Varano would derive some value from that property, so we're not taking it from him. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. Commissioner Coyle, if I can just get some clarification. Are you saying then if at some point, let's say next week, Mr. Varano can come up with the 25,000 plus some additional money for attorney's fees and costs, that at that point you would consider it? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I can't say that I will consider it. That would be something for our attorney to advise us on, and you might want to coordinate with our county attorney. But all I'm telling you is that the board has elected not to bring this back for a formal public hearing. Short of that, the county attorney's office might be able to coordinate with you with respect to some terms that would bring this thing to -- MR. SHAPIRO: Because if it does proceed to foreclosure sale, the amount of the lien would, in effect, deprive him from the right to the property due to the amount of the lien that has accrued. But if -- that's something that, you know, we definitely, you know, could coordinate with the buyer and get that money on the table. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I would suggest you get onto that very, very quickly and coordinate with the county attorney's office and see what's possible. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Halas, you had something else? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just remembered that it was his responsibility to address this early on, and he wouldn't have had a lien on this property. If he would have addressed all these issues right up front, right from the get-go, we wouldn't be where we are today. So, sorry. Page 53 .".".~-_.=--...".-._--" March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. MS. CHADWELL: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's now time for a 10-minute break. (A brief recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please sake take your seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Where are we going to go now? Item #9A RESOLUTION 2005-110: RE-APPOINTING KATHY PROSSER AND WILLIAM H. POTEET, JR. TO THE LAND ACQUISITION MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that should bring us to 9A, which is appointment of members to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we'll have appointment of members for the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. The committee recommendations are Kathy Prosser and William Poteet. Are there any -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve the committee recommendations. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner Halas to approve, the second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Page 54 March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you. Item #9B RESOLUTION 2005-111: RE-APPOINTING RITA AVALOS, CHERRYLE THOMAS, AND DORCAS HOWARD TO THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY MR. MUDD: Next item is 9B. It's appointment of members to the Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The committee recommendations are for Rita Avalos, a reappointment, Cherryle Thomas, reappointment, and Dorcas Howard for reappointment. Are there -- and that pretty much takes up all the applicants. MS. FILSON: And if you choose to reappoint these three applicants, you'll have to waive -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have to waive. MS. FILSON: -- the section of the ordinance for the two-term limit. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Then is there a motion to approve the committee recommendations with the waiver of the term limit provisions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does that include your motion to -- in your motion for the -- Page 55 March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, the term limit. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. That includes that-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: The waiver of the term limit. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- plus the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's unanimous. Thank you. Item #9C REQUEST TO CONSIDER ALLOWING THE HAITIAN AMERICAN CORPORATION, INC. USE OF THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY PARK IN IMMOKALEE FREE OF CHARGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING A HAITIAN PLAY AND ART FESTIVAL TO BE HELD MAY 28, 2005 AND MAY 29, 2005 - AEEROVED MR. MUDD: Next item is 9C, and that's a request to consider allowing the Haitian American Corporation, Inc., the use of the Immokalee Community Park in Immokalee free of charge for the purpose of holding a Haitian play and art festival to be held May 28th, 2005, and May 29th, 2005. The total cost is $780, and this is at Commissioner Coletta's request. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning wanted to Page 56 March 8, 2005 say something first. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I met with the Haitian American community, and it was my understanding they needed to petition the board to hold this event. In no time did I remember our conversation was to waive any fees. So I want to correct that on the record. And I'm concerned about precedent setting under the requested action. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Commissioner Henning, you know, you're right, and I think you're going to be pleased at what you're going to hear today. If I may, Chair, may I call up -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Certainly. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Marie Innocent (phonetic), who is the president of the Haitian American Corporation. Ms. Innocent, would you be so kind to come up to the podium. This is an organization that is doing some wonderful things within Collier County, and I've given it some special attention because they're going to fill a tremendous need not only in all Collier County, but especially in Immokalee. Ms. Innocent, would you give us an idea exactly what you're contemplating, what you would like to do and what you're actually looking for from the commission. MS. INNOCENT: Okay. What we are looking for is to have an event, a festival event so the Haitian community could be known by other cultures and they could know our cultures as well. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And this particular event that you're looking for, you're actually -- from the commission what you're looking for is, you've got your permit already taken care of, that's already done, but as far as the fees go, your intentions were that -- were to pay them yourself. Page 57 March 8, 2005 MS. INNOCENT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And to that end, I'm going to donate $100 to help you out with that. MS. INNOCENT: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you had concerns over one of the limitations as far as the use of the grounds. It seems that the county, when they hold their events, can have pony rides, but the -- the general applicants aren't permitted to have them, and they'd like to be able to reserve the right to be able to have pony rides for the children in Immokalee similar to what the county does when they hold their events. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Who's going to pay the insurance fees? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're taking care of all the . Insurance. MS. INNOCENT: We will. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They've been communicating with parks and recs. Marla Ramsey has been most helpful in helping them walk through this. And this event is contemplated for when? MS. INNOCENT: The 28th and the 29th of May. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And it's going to be a two-day event. There's going to be numerous vendors. They're taking care of all the insurance, putting the whole thing together from one end to the other, paying their own fees where it's appropriate, and it will be at the airport park -- MS. INNOCENT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- which is near the Haitian community, plus also all of Immokalee's going to be participating in this. And we're looking for some help from -- he doesn't know it yet -- but Benny Starling I hope will be a tremendous help because he's been instrumental. But at this point in time what we're looking for is for the commission to allow them to have the pony rides. Page 58 March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER HENNING: For all the citizens that attend or just the kids in Immokalee? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All the citizens that attend in Immokalee. MS. INNOCENT: All. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you can bring your child too, and we'll see he gets on a pony. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for the clarification. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion that we allow the Haitian American Corporation, after they secure all the necessary permits and pay all the necessary fees and have the insurance in place and meet all the requirements of our land development code and ordinances, that they be permitted to have pony rides for children. CHAIRMAN COYLE: A recommendation for approval by Commissioner Coletta with the stated conditions. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning. Any further discussion? Commissioner Halas, you had -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I'm all set. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're okay? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further questions from anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Page 59 March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it passes unanimously. And thank you very much, but I would not be satisfied with merely $100 from Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd ask he pay the whole thing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'd like to -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: He gets -- he gets a travel allowance of $3,000 every year. MS. FILSON: Four. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Four thousand dollars every year. Now, there's no reason that he can't give you more money than that to help with this good cause. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I have to be totally honest with you, my allowance has been spent in pursuit of issues for the county. But Commissioner Coyle's allowance is still fully intact. MS. INNOCENT: Okay. Then I'm looking forward to have more allowance from you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, and good luck with your festival. MS. INNOCENT: Thank you very much. If you don't mind, let me pass this to you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Then next -- MR. MUDD: The next -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry; go ahead. Item #9D RESOLUTION 2005-112: APPOINTING DARROL RIFFLE AND Page 60 March 8, 2005 TIMOTHY TOOLE AND ALSO JOSE NUNEZ, PARTICIPATING WHEN AVAILABLE, TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION MR. MUDD: 9D, appointment of members to the Parks and Rec. Advisory Boards. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the committee recommendations are Darrol Riffle and Timothy Toole. Does anyone have any recommendations? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have an opportunity to get one of our young citizens involved in Parks and Rec. Advisory Board, Jose Nunan -- Nunez, who I think that we all know, is all-- an applicant and, I think, it's appropriate at this time to -- MS. FILSON: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. MS. FILSON: If I may make a comment on that. He has been accepted at a college, and so he's going to be unable to attend all of the meetings. He came in in person and explained that to me, so he would get appointed and then a month later I would have to readvertise. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, I was looking at that also, because he worked for me for the summer, and I'll tell you, he was an outstanding citizens and he's got a great potential. I think that we ought to just go with the committee recommendations at this time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Henning -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to accept committee recommendations, seconded by Commissioner Halas. And Commissioner Coletta has a question. Page 61 March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Is there a possibility that we could name Mr. Nunez as an ad hoc member of this committee? Is there any provisions for that, in other words, where he can attend but he doesn't have voting powers and they can seek his input? MR. WEIGEL: There's no possibility under the ordinance as written, although he certainly can participate just as you've described if he wishes to, and I expect that he and the board would recognize the recognition you're giving him today to do just that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, could we possibly include that in the motion that we welcome him to join the board whenever necessary to be able to sit in on the meetings? MR. WEIGEL: I think that'd be very nice, yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we welcome all the public to sit in on the board and participate in the meetings, right? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Especially Mr. Nunez. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Item #9F RESOLUTION 2005-113: RE-APPOINTING SHERI BARNETT AND APPOINTING NICHOLAS HEMES TO THE COLLIER MR. MUDD: That brings us to the next item, which is 9F, and Page 62 March 8, 2005 it's appointment of members to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And there are no recommendations by the committee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion that we reappoint Sheri Barnet and Nicholas Hemes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to appoint Sheri Barnet and Nicholas Hemes, and a second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Item #lOA RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE FY06 BUDGET POLICY =-.AEER OVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, and that's lOA, it's a recommendation to adopt the FY-'06 budget policy, and that will be presented by Mike Smykowski, the director of Office Management and Budget. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Michael Smykowski. The purpose of our discussion study is for the board to reach consensus on the policies that will guide the Page 63 " ___,'__._' mo' ".,~."~'_^_ March 8, 2005 development of the fiscal year '06 Collier County budget. The county manager did meet with the productivity committee as well as the constitutional officers to share the proposed FY-'06 budget policies prior to this board presentation today. The executive summary itself is broken down into three distinct elements. The first element consists of budget policies that require board policy direction. The second element consists of standard budget policies that the board has adopted and been in place for a number of fiscal years. Just for purposes of brevity, those begin on page 7 of the executive summary. As we get to that point in time, we'll deal with those on an exception basis; otherwise, we'll kind of treat it like a consent agenda, if there are no questions relative to the policies contained therein. And then the third element consists of the three-year analysis of the general fund and unincorporated area general fund so that you have an idea of the fiscal landscape as it's shaping up for the next few years. With that, I'd like to move to page 2 and begin with the budget policies that do require board policy direction. You will note that many of these policies are similar from year to year providing consistency in the budget process. The first of which is last year the board had adopted a budget -- agency budget allocation policy in the general fund in that each of the agencies were limited to their respective proportionate share of the general fund as it existed in fiscal year '04. The purpose of that is twofold. Obviously the board policy direction was to be millage neutral, and attaining the millage neutral goal requires the cooperation of all of the agencies, inclusive of the constitutional officers. And, I guess, the second component is that all agencies then get a proportionate share of available growth dollars as the taxable value Page 64 March 8, 2005 grows, as well as the incremental increases in some of our sales tax and revenue sharing dollars. Everyone shares proportionately in those items. So with that, the staff recommendation is to continue the budget policy that was instituted last year limiting general fund agency budget appropriations to no more than their respective percentages in the adopted fiscal year '04 budget. Those are outlined, the actual percentages, on page 2 within the executive summary. Deviations from the budget allocations should be offset by a reduction in the proposed 3.9 percent cost of living adjustment in that agency. And then secondarily, the recommendation is to develop millage neutral general fund and unincorporated area general fund budgets for fiscal year '06. That's particularly important for the county manager to have a clear policy direction from the board as to your desires relative to the tax rate for the upcoming year as we begin the process of developing the FY - '06 budget. If there are no questions, I'll move on to page 3. We're continuing the -- in the county manager's agency, the limitation on expanded positions to maximize organizational efficiencies. Over the last few years the county manager has limited new position growth to 25 new positions. There is an exception here. Obviously we're bringing on the North Naples Regional Park. Probably, I think, it's May -- May '06, so, obviously, the staffing for that new facility will continue to grow, but the limitation outside of that new park facility is 25 within the county manager's agency. Again, we're trying to make better -- better use of existing resources rather than simply adding on the margin. Obviously in a service organization, staff members are the most significant expense, and we're also, as you're well aware, dealing with issues in terms of being able to house additional employees, and obviously, constructing Page 65 March 8, 2005 new facilities or rental space for -- for new staff members are fairly onerous in costs, so we're trying to limit that to the extent possible. And also the county manager has further direction from the board to try to get out of all the leased space within a five-year time frame. MR. MUDD: Now, I have the productivity committee -- Jim Mudd, for the record. I have the productivity committee looking at the North Naples Park, the manning, the operational expenses, and they're still going through that study. And I talked to them when I gave them the budget guidance and presented it to them. I basically said, we're going to need their input so -- for this budget for '06, and they told me that that would be forthcoming before we submit that budget for parks and rec. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have a question about that, but Commissioner Henning was first. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Historically we've taken the new dollars and allocated them out as recommended in this budget, but yet we never looked at, okay, what is the rate of growth in Collier County, and used that as a basis, instead of increased assessed values. And I think that would be important for a basis for new employees, and it's -- a great correlation is, you have new residents, they need new services. I don't know what the other commissioners think about that type of approach. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'll be happy to comment on it, but Commissioner Coletta has asked to speak first. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead. I'll follow you, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I believe that the cap on budget positions is well below the increase in increased revenues, so I think that the staff has actually applied a different criteria to establishing budget -- personnel increases that doesn't correlate to the increases in property value revenue. And, in fact, it's much more strict in that end. And I believe -- well, it is, far less than our rate of growth. The 25 members that you're permitting -- and I don't yet have the count on Page 66 March 8, 2005 the park system yet. But the 25 members that you're suggesting that we limit growth to is really less than the five percent increase in growth that we're experiencing county-wide as far as population is concerned; am I right? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So -- but I think Commissioner Henning's comment is a good one. It's not always true that the indices we use for calculating things in the government don't necessarily relate directly to increases in property value and the revenues obtained therefrom, but it certainly has served us well this past year as a guideline and an index, and it probably would be good to continue refining its application. And if we can find ways and we should -- use other indexes, then I think we should probably do that. But Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My question has to do with, on page 3 -- excuse me. Get that mike a little closer so you can hear me. Page 3 of the bottom of the page says, it's further recommended that 80 percent employees' share, 20 percent employees' share be uniform across all agencies including -- inclusive of constitutional officers. This policy treats all county employees equally in terms of cost share for health premiums. Any deviation from this policy, example, employee paying less than 20 percent share should be offset by a reduction in the 3.9 cost of living adjustment. I think I understand what it's saying, but that cost of living adjustment reduction, in other words, instead of that taking place, then that would be reduced if the -- if they didn't make the 20 percent of the -- of their share of the medical; is that what we're saying on this? MR. SMYKOWSKl: Yes. That, in essence, if you're not at an 80/20 split within your agency and you choose to pay an additional benefit on behalf of your employees, there should be a corresponding reduction in the 3.9 percent cost of living adjustment. Page 67 March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we're -- how far do we have to go for the different constitutional officers to get to that point, or are they already there? MR. SMYKOWSKI: The clerk participates -- all the constitutional officers are in the board health plan, with the exception of the sheriff. The property appraiser, I'm -- supervisor, clerk, I believe all three of those use the county employee/employer breakdowns. The sheriff does not, and the tax collector does not. The tax collector, I believe, pays 100 percent of the cost for his employees. MR. MUDD: Again, the productivity committee is looking at the benefits package, and they have a subcommittee. When I briefed them I said, you know, it would be nice if we had recommendations from this subcommittee as we went and did this budget. They've been looking at that for over a year. They said that it would be forthcoming with some kind of a recommendation from that subcommittee prior to the budget submission for this particular year. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And one more question, and then I'll give it up then. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At this present time, what is the split in the county government itself, the manager's end of the county government? What do the employees pay and what do the -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's about 82/18. Over a five-year period we've been migrating to get -- making incremental adjustments in the employees' share to get to that 80/20 split in fiscal year '06. So this is the culmination of a five-year effort to get to that 80/20. MR. MUDD: We've been diverting two percent a year, making COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MR. MUDD: -- making the employees carry it over a five-year period of time. It was 90/10. And we had set a goal for 80/20. The productivity committee asked me during my presentation of Page 68 March 8, 2005 this budget guidance, is it going to be your guidance for '07 that you take another two percent and get it to be 78/22? And I said no. We set a goal at 80/20, we presented it to the board that way. I believe that that's a significant burden on the employees because as -- this year being an exception, most COLAs weren't at the three percent level. They were in the two -- two percent level, and that -- and that diversion of dollars to the medical program increasing their burden significantly reduced the amount of what the COLA would do to their pay. And so we made a promise to the employees, and unless I get further guidance from this board, I'm going to hold to it as much as I can. We went, Leo and I, talked to every employee and every employee group when we were doing this, and they basically accepted that burden. And I will tell you, the employees haven't come out in full-scale revolt writing you e-mails saying that this is over and above. They just want a good medical program, one that they can count on to pay their bills, and they want it to meet their expectations and something that doesn't flop all over the place. When I got here four years ago -- and by no shape of imagination this happened because I showed up. I just tell you, when I got here, we had a pretty nasty medical program and dental program. I mean, you -- employees were waiting 18 months before they saw a dentist because there was only like about seven on the list that we could go to. The medical program was hit or miss with employees, and I think we've firmed that up with the consortium that we're in right now. And I think we've made great strides in that program to make it a very good one for this county, and I think the employees have bellied up -- bellied up to the plate, so to speak, in order to carry their fair share. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me go back to the staffing for the North Regional Park and! or any other significant staffing that might be considered beyond the 25 new positions. And that -- by the way, Page 69 March 8, 2005 just for -- just for percentage purposes, if I did the math calculations correctly, it's about one and a half percent growth over your existing. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we are experiencing five percent growth in the county, and we're experiencing -- or expecting about a 12-percent growth in tax revenues, but we're budgeting only about one and a half increase in staffing, which I think is pretty good presuming that we're able to hold down major increases like North Naples Park staffing. And my point is, we have gone over the sheriffs budget in -- for this past year with respect to staffing for a new jail, and we have gotten agreement that certain things will be phased in. There is a corollary here, and I'm wondering if the staff has evaluated the possibility of having private vendors deal with some of those venues at the park who are, perhaps, more qualified at operating a water park than we might be and might be able to do it at lower cost. And so I'm just -- we don't need to solve that right now. I just -- we'll want to be assured at some point in time that we have evaluated all alternatives to providing the best possible experience at the park at the lowest possible cost. And so I'd just like to make sure that we continue to look at that. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that we are looking at that source. In fact, I think that the operating hours are going to be based on the efficiency of how that park can run; is that correct? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. So I think they're looking at it as basically going to be, with the revenue generated from the park, it's going to hopefully be on the neutral plane. But I think that your comments should be well taken, and I think that is another option available, yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. The productivity committee is, Page 70 .-..-^ March 8, 2005 again, working aggressively with staff to maximize the revenue generating potential of that facility. Obviously with a water park that's opening in May, that's the prime season of the year in which the water park is going to make money in the summer with kids away from school and the like and the weather being the warmest. But I'm sure, the flip side of that is, revenue generating potential while also at minimal cost in whatever fashion that takes, and I'm sure their review will not be limited to staffing that with county employees. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now one other thing I just want to mention just for your consideration, and it hasn't been fully investigated, but it would be good if you could maximize the parking availability at the park, maybe beyond what you anticipate for the park, because it seems to me that you can offer the citizens of Collier County an experience that is much broader than just the park. They can come to the park and spend part of the day, park their car, and then maybe take a CAT bus to the beach. And if you've got sufficient room to create some additional parking, it could be a very low cost way of getting people to the beaches if they want to do that. A lot of people don't like having to be shuttled to a beach. They prefer to drive there and park, but that's not going to be possible in all cases. But if you could have the additional parking spaces and have a CA T route that would drive people back and forth to the beaches all day, then you might find that a lot of people will utilize that process. Not many people go to the beach and spend all day at the beach, but they might want to split up their day between a water park or the North Naples Park facility and the beach. So if you have parking space available to be created, you might be able to kill two birds with one stone there. So I -- just mention it, okay. We don't need to hash out the details here today. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. And obviously as the population grows, you know, the beach parking becomes tighter and tighter, the Page 71 March 8, 2005 viability of shuttling people, I think, will only increase over time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. The other thing that we have to also address is that if you do shuttle people to the beaches, you have to put them in an area where there's services available. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Page 3 there, limitation on current service discretionary operating expenses. Again, using the CPI of 3.9 percent or less. Obvious exceptions would be things like uncontrollable costs such as insurance, fuel. FPL has forewarned us to anticipate a seven percent rate increase there, so obviously that doesn't work within the confines of 3.9. But the extent to which staff can control expenditures, we are putting a cap on that as well. We've already addressed the health care program cost sharing. That turns us to page 4 in terms of compensation administration. Again, this is consistent with the policy that the board has adopted over the last few years. In essence, the concept of the three-legged stool, where there be a cost of living component, an awards program, or merit component, and a very small pay plan maintenance component that would consist of survey data as for particularly -- particular positions that have been particularly difficult to fill, just to see that we're current relative to market. I know planners and engineers over the last year or two have been particularly difficult to come by. At one point a few years back, IT professionals, especially around the year 2000 where that was a particularly onerous acquisition of staff in the IT arena, so that's what the pay plan maintenance is designed to do. The cost of living is 3.9; the awards program would be 1.5; the pay plan maintenance would be one quarter of one percent; and that, for a total of 5.65. The top of page 5, stormwater management capital funding. Page 72 March 8, 2005 You're going to -- on item 10E today you're going to be asked to approve a resolution consistent with this policy recommendation of the staff with funding equivalent to .15 mills annually. The county manager last year in the budget endeavored to begin that process of carving out dedicated dollars available to address longstanding capital project needs in the stormwater -- stormwater management program area. And the key component, I think, is being able to identify to grantor agencies that the county has a dedicated funding source to provide and meet the local matching requirements for any grants that would be available to alleviate stormwater issues throughout Collier County . In terms of scheduling, we do need to schedule board workshop dates in June. The recommended dates that I worked out with Ms. Filson, and taking into consideration the F AC meeting the third week in June, and the availability of commissioners, the recommended dates are Wednesday, June 15th, Thursday, June 16th, and then a wrap-up contingency date of June 17th that would be on an as-needed basis, and I believe Ms. Filson had incorporated or at least obligated those time frames on your respective calendars to make sure that those dates were available. The proposed millage rates would be adopted on July 26th, 2005; that is a Tuesday. Weare required by law to provide the property appraiser and the tax collector with the proposed millage rates by August 4th. So -- and that's consistent with what we've gone over the last few years. Public hearing dates, the recommended dates Thursday evening September 8th, 2005, and then two weeks later, September 22nd. The importance of selecting a date for the board hearings, there is a formal actual pecking order, so to speak, in the statutes. The school board has first choice in selecting hearing dates. Their final hearing is scheduled for September 13th, and our dates are Page 73 March 8, 2005 built around that, and then each of the respective -- the municipalities, as well as the independent fire districts, have to set their dates then around the school -- school board and county commission hearing dates so that the members of the public would be available to attend multiple hearings, should they so desire, to address any of those issues they may have with any of those respective bodies. Comparative budget data. Last year the county manager, as part of the budget process, instituted a formal comparative basis to similar -- similar-sized Florida counties. We used Sarasota -- the recommendations are Sarasota, Lee, Charlotte, Marion, and Manatee. We found that very useful just to compare and contrast, obviously to judge how well you're -- you're doing relative to others. You first have to gather the data and analyze it and look at how you're doing, so that process was instituted last year. We felt it paid some dividends, not only in the county manager's agency, but also with the constitutional officer budgets, and the recommendation of staff is to continue that practice this year. The reserves. As a general rule, we budget a five percent reserve for a contingency and operating funds with the exception of constitutional officers, which are budgeted in the general fund. And the recommended level is two and a half percent. In the area of attrition, we've previously used a four percent attrition factor, recognizing that in large organizations there will be staff turnover, and 100 percent of the budget personnel services expenses are typically not expended in a given year. We've reanalyzed and updated that analysis, and the data suggests that two percent is a more accurate reflection of where we're at. Obviously the county has limited expanded positions over the last few years relative to the preceding years, in addition within the group health fund and workers' compo fund. We've utilized all the available budget for group health to augment and reinforce the fiscal stability of both our group health and Page 74 March 8, 2005 workers' compo funds. As a result there is not as much accrued salary and benefit savings as there might have been in the past. So the recommendation is to utilize a two percent attrition factor in developing the FY -'06 budget. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to stop right after overtime limitations, aren't you? We have a question from one of the commISSIoners. MR. SMYKOWSKI: If you have a question, please. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. Why don't you finish that up, because you're going to be going into another section. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's fine. Okay. I'd be happy to. Thank you. Overtime limitations. That's recommended at two percent of the budgeted -- two percent times the two percent attrition calculated on the budgeted regular salaries, and that is actually particularly onerous for agencies that are staffed around the clock. That involves things like EMS, fire departments, obviously the sheriffs agency, as well as water and sewer facilities as well, which, while not in the front line, public safety issues are manned around the clock as well, so that is a particularly onerous thing. But in terms of controlling the costs of overtime, the manager is recommending that limitation be instituted this year. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: To set the millage rate is scheduled for July 26th. I was just asking my colleagues if that works for their schedule to be here for July 26th, or do we need to change it? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, for me it's not particularly convenient, but I don't know that we have any choice. We've got to get the millage rate set by August, what, 4th? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Fourth. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we don't have much flexibilityi Page 75 March 8, 2005 there, but I'm certainly open to any recommendations. What do you-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we ought to leave it where it IS. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where it is. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does the 29th work better? I mean, that's a Friday. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Rather get it done and get out of town, start my vacation. The sooner the better. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to be out of town already. You're going to have to come back. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: July 5th. MR. MUDD: We do that -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we do it July 5th? MR. MUDD: We do that millage rate setting at the same time we'd have our summer, our one summer BCC meeting. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. The question, I think, is, if that's the only reason you have the summer BCC meeting, why not do it before you leave. Is there a way of doing it before you leave, before the recess? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is not the sole item though, Commissioner. That is typically a -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it could be the sole item, okay. You don't really have to schedule anything else at that point in time, do you? MR. MUDD: Unless you -- unless you give me broader discretion to approve stuff in the board's absence, Commissioner, I'd say you need to have a meeting at the end part of July in order to do it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that include PUDs? MR. MUDD: Well, we could get a hearing examiner and that solves that problem, but we're not going in there. So unless I have Page 76 March 8, 2005 broader discretion, I will tell you -- and I'm looking at Jim Mitchell, okay? We need to be staring at each other here a little bit here. I believe you need to at least have that meeting in July because you have PUD rezones that would have to wait from the end of June to the beginning part of September. That does become an issue. CHAIRMAN COYLE: They could be moved to 2007 for all I care. But nevertheless, we'll deal with that later. But -- so the question then is whether you want to do it at the time it's scheduled or slip it a few days to the 8th of July, which is a Friday. So what do you think of that? Would you -- slip it from Tuesday to Friday, or you want to leave it at Tuesday? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If there's a-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you talking the end of July or first of July? CHAIRMAN COYLE: The end of July. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The first of July. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, the first of July. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, the first of July. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But I don't think the county manager is saying that's possible. It won't work. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, July 1 will not work. We will not even have the final tax -- certified taxable value until July 1 from the property appraiser. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we're better off leaving it where it is. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we're talking about the 26th right now? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. MUDD: Twenty-sixth right now. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir, that's the fourth Tuesday. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The recommendation could be to move it from the 26th to the 29th, which is a Friday, but does that help Page 77 March 8, 2005 anybody? Make any difference? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could I ask a question? What's the reason you want to move it to the 29th? I mean, I can readjust my schedule to accommodate someone, if necessary. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not accommodating me. I just -- you know, I'll be here regardless. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we just leave it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will come back regardless, I should say. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we just leave it where it's at? CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. CHAIRMAN COYLE: W e'llleave it the way it is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I've got a complication, because I've got -- the 29th, I've got to be at an MPO meeting up in Jacksonville, so that wouldn't work. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. W e'llleave it the way it is so that will leave you free for the 29th, okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm sure our staff people went through all of our calendars and probably found that this is the -- best accommodates where we're at right now. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That date was selected -- that's been the past practice over the last few years, so we kind of thought you might have that date reserved. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to be different and complicated. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good work. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Challenging. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can't make it too easy for the staff. Page 78 March 8, 2005 How about walking me through the reserve calculation process, starting with the total tax receipt that we expect to get. How do you do that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm not sure I understand your question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: But I want to -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have a reserve. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you establish that reserve on the basis of what? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Board policy. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Reserve for contingency -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. You calculate the five percent; you multiply what by five percent? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The personal service operating and capital budgets in -- within each respective fund to determine, in essence, the pool upon which the five percent contingency reserve is calculated. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But the budgets are based upon a slice of the pie of all of the revenues received from ad valorem property taxes, I mean, that's one example? MR. SMYKOWSKI: The general fund, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, the general fund. So how would the general fund reserve be calculated? What would it amount to? Is it five percent of all of the general fund revenue that goes into the reserve? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. It's five percent of the general fund expense of that collective pool of each agency's relative total. It's pooled together, and then two and a half percent would be calculated on that number. Page 79 f March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Two percent, not -- two and a half percent, not five. MR. SMYKOWSKl: Two and a half in the general fund. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've been using five percent. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. That's okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are those two figures the same? That is, the collective budgets of all of the agencies that get a slice of the pie, is that the same as the total tax revenue received from ad valorem property taxes, since it's being divided -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, because you're dividing up the entire general fund, not only the ad valorem, but you also have sales tax -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- fund balance, revenue sharing, and ongoing departmental charges as well. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if you took only the ad valorem property taxes, then is the 2.5 percent multiplied by ad val -- the total ad valorem property taxes, is that equal to the aggregate of all of the slices of the pie? It should be. I'm just trying to figure out if it really IS. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, I believe it is. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are we right? MR. MUDD: Are you saying that what was there in the reserves at five percent last year will be there at two and a half percent this year? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, not really, no. No. I'm just trying to understand how the reserves are calculated. That's all. We take two and a half percent this year and we're going to multiply it by something to arrive at two and a half percent. Now, if we -- if we deal only-- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Let me give you a real life example rather than try to talk conceptual. I think if you actually see the basis upon which it's calculated, it may be a little more apparent. Page 80 March 8, 2005 We take the subtotal of the board here, the county manager total, we exclude the transfers to other funds because within each of these respective funds, there is -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Another reserve. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- another reserve, so we don't want to be reserving on top. That was a change actually the productivity committee had brought about in past years. The same thing in terms of transfers to the capital and debt service funds. MR. MUDD: We can't see where you're pointing. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm sorry. It's 41 million. That's also excluded, again, because within those respective capital funds, there are reserves. So really you're talking about the subtotal for the board, the county manager agency, and then the constitutional officer subtotal, the aggregate of those three numbers times two and a half percent or five percent, whatever the policy is. So that is the basis for the calculation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Does that help you? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it does. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: My conclusion then is this, and you tell me if it's right. If you've got $100 and you allocate it to 10 different organizations, 10,000 -- or $1,000 each -- $10,000 each, then two and a half percent multiplied by the total amount of $100,000 would result in the same reserve that you would get if you took each individual slice of the pie and multiplied it by two and a half percent and added it up. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. It would be $2,500. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. That's all I wanted to try to understand. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I've got it. So if I'm correct in that Page 81 March 8, 2005 statement, then we're okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Now very briefly about attrition factor issues. We could live with a four percent attrition factor last year. This next year we probably can't because of the reasons you've stated. Is there a better way of determining the attrition factor like on a moving average of some kind over the past couple of years, in other words, so that you can pretty much forecast where your next attrition rate is going to be based upon your observation of actual attrition rate over the recent history? MR. MUDD: What Mike did is he pulled up what our history was last year, and we have -- when I first got here -- again, going back four years -- there were some big -- there were some big gaps in personnel all over the county, okay, and I'm not just talking about the county manager's agency, but there were some -- there were some vacancy -- high vacancy rates in the constitutional organizations too, the clerk's shop, the sheriffs office. And so what Mike does is he tracks what the savings are based on the attrition factor. And this year it came up with about 2.3 percent, okay. And we're starting to have better fill ratio, so that's why we came up with the two percent. It wasn't arbitrary; it wasn't capricious. It was because we did an analysis of where we were last year and what the savings really were, and it's closer to that two percent than it is to that four percent. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And next year you'll go through essentially the same kind of analysis to try to determine what it would be next year? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Then we'll take a look at that and we'll make another recommendation to the board. And if we're closer -- if we're closer to the zero, which would be good for everybody and we -- that's what we'll recommend. Page 82 March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, the final question I've got, and then I'll stop this, is with respect to the overtime budget. You're not suggesting that the EMS department itself be restricted to this kind of restriction, are you? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're basically saying here's the guidance. Let me see your budget based on what you're -- what you're going to be able to do. And we're going to try to hold everybody as much as we can to the guidance, and it is guidance to come back with the budget. And then if we're off the guidance, then we owe it to the board at the workshop to let you know that we couldn't meet it and here are the reasons why, and let you know that particular case. But it's a benchmark so that people will know. Now, I want to go back to when I became county manager. We used to have 10 different submissions for each one of our departments, and it was like a moving train. I said, well, what's the guidance so that we know what we need to come into? Well, I'll know it when I see it, was kind of the rule of thumb in the manager's agency. And I said, that's wrong, that's bad. We're wasting a lot of staff time doing the what-ifs. Give me guidance, make it stringent, whatever it is, so that we have an idea what the budget -- what we need to bring forward to the Board of County Commissioners. And then if we can't meet the budget the basic -- or the guidance, to basically tell the board what it is that's a deviation from that guidance and the reasons why. It seems to -- it seems to have done pretty good in the last two years, at least in the county manager's agency because we're not having to do all kinds ofwhat-ifs prior to and guesses. You know, we don't get the, well, this is the world. You know, if I could get the world tomorrow, here's what my budget would be. You basically are providing one budget to meet that guidance and try to stay within it. And it seems to have worked well. Page 83 March 8, 2005 Now, I make it through take through murder (sic) board with every one of my administrators and department directors as they provide their individual budgets to the manager, and we hear them all out. We asked them -- Leo and Mike, and I asked them tough questions as they come forward, and we make some changes to their budget that they're bringing forward, but I'm only seeing one now. I'm not seeing 10. You know, here it is with a two percent cut, a three and a half percent cut, here's what it is flat line. We're not playing that kind of game anymore. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. But that's not really my question. My question is that the budget -- budget guidance is not two times two percent of the personnel salaries of the EMS department. It is two times two percent times the personnel salaries of the entire Collier County budget; is that what you're saying? And then it's allocated to those departments that are incurring overtime. MR. MUDD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I need to understand. MR. MUDD: It's the two percent vacancies that you have. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right. The attrition rate. MR. MUDD: And the salaries to that two percent-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MR. MUDD: -- times two -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right. MR. MUDD: -- okay? Because it's basically double time when you need to cover that particular case, and that particular figure would apply to EMS, along with Mr. DeLony in public utilities, and they will let me know if they cannot follow that guidance. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it is specific to the department's personnel cost and not to the Collier County government's total personnel cost? MR. MUDD: It is department level. Page 84 March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. At the department level? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. A number of departments experience little to no overtime, so obviously we wouldn't want to use that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's why I was asking that question. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. I appreciate-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I wanted to make -- it was not clear from this -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. It is on a department by department or fund by fund basis, so EMS as a stand-alone fund would be bound by that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And the manager, as part of his opening remarks in the June workshops every year has said, we've put out a table. These were the various guidance bullet points and here's where we were able to meet them, and if there were exceptions, he will note those up front and be frank as to exactly where we were not able to meet it, if that should be the case. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've finished my questions. I think we're ready to go. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Page 7 begins the policies that we've used for a number of years. Obviously we do the -- I'll just kind of hit the titles and breeze through those fairly quickly. We do this three-year projection, obviously to improve financial planning and so that you all understand the long-term impact of funding decisions you're making in the relative short term. Grant funded positions. If you have positions formerly grant funded that you're recommending be included in general operating budget that is no longer grant funded, we treat those as expanded service requests. Obviously the county has self-insurance for work Page 85 March 8, 2005 comp., property and casualty, and group health. By policy, of the boards use of gas taxes has been allocated entirely to the road construction program. Reserves, that's inconsequential. Contract agency funding. We've underlined that, and I want to bring that -- that's been a subject of some debate. This past year as to contract agency funding, the current policy of the board is that they will not fund any non-mandated social service agencies. I know there were questions relative to UFR money for some agencies that were interested in requesting funding, but that has been a long-standing policy of the board following -- we actually weaned those agencies off funding over a multi-year period because for a number of years we did provide funding. Median maintenance. We used the unincorporated area general fund for maintenance costs. Obviously we -- for capital projects and operating -- external operating funding requests, we like those submitted during the framework of the budget process. We don't like to consider requests outside the framework of the budget process because, if that's allowed, they are not really competing against all the other interests and other projects or programs. So to even out the playing field, we feel they should be reviewed during the budget process. Obviously we appropriate fund balance. The current board policy is to maximize impact fees. We charge enterprise funds and special revenue funds for the cost of service provided by the general fund. So the indirect cost plan, that is a general fund revenue. Enterprise fund payment-in-lieu of taxes. Same thing. Obviously if those entities were private businesses rather than government facilities, they would be paying ad valorem, so we charge the solid waste fund and the county water district a payment-in-lieu of taxes. The debt administration policies are fairly straightforward. We don't fund projects beyond their useful lives. And to any proposed Page 86 -.,-'...--,-......- March 8, 2005 refinancings, we would like for net present value savings of a minimum of five percent before we would consider that. Ad valorem capital funding. The board policy direction has been one third of a mill. We recommend that continue. With that, that gets us to the three-year budget projection, which begins on page 11. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can we stop there for just a moment? MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, we have a public speaker. And I presume the public speaker is going to address the budget policy, which we have already discussed, and not the budget projections; is that a fair assumption? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Yes, budget policy. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sheriff Hunter. Okay. Then I would like to go ahead -- we're going break for lunch here pretty shortly. I'd like to go ahead and get that public comment concerning the budget policy before we break for lunch, and then we can come back and take a look at the three-year budget projections. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. MS. FILSON: Your speaker is Sheriff Don Hunter. SHERIFF HUNTER: Good morning, Commissioners, Don Hunter, Sheriff, Collier County, Florida. Good to see you. Appreciate you permitting me to speak. I am simply here to formally voice some concerns pertaining to the budget policy as proposed by County Manager Mr. Mudd and ask that the board entertain my comments. First I would simply ask that the board reconsider the piece of the pie budget formulation or, as it was characterized this morning, I believe it was referred to as the proportionate share formulation of the budget. And I would do so on the basis of some comments that were Page 87 March 8, 2005 made and offered by Commissioner Henning specifically. I think he was right on point, and that -- and I believe Commissioner Coyle, Chairman Coyle, you also alluded to the fact that, perhaps, the piece of the pie or proportionate share formulation of a budget assuming simply changes in valuation may not be sensitive to some of the change effects occurring in Collier County, Florida, as opposed to other areas of the country, and that would be that, for instance, certainly, the changes in value of our property here in Collier County can't predict the number of people who are vying for road space, who are filling our landfills, who are enjoying the sanitary services of our county commission and their employees cannot, in any way, predict the number of times a person picks the phone up to call the Collier County Sheriffs Office for service. Those values are something independent as a variable of all of those service demands, and your levels of service are calculated not on values of property in your comprehensive plan but rather on the actual service demand on the people that we serve, not only the permanent resident population here, but the part-time residents and the unique visitors to this community, international visitors, as well as migrant labor populations. And those migrant labor populations are also dependent upon the countries of origin, because as we know, culturally there is some difference and distinction between the different cultures and how they interact with law enforcement, for instance, and your service providers. So, again, that's just a general caveat. I would ask the board to be sensitive to this idea of a piece of the pie formation or a proportionate share formulation of the budget and be more attuned to the level of service demand in formulating this year's budget policies. I would -- I can reserve some of my comments, I suppose, to a later date, but I do have some concerns about this commitment to a millage neutral budget. I do -- I would ask that the board be sensitive Page 88 March 8, 2005 to your constituents and also recognize the responsibility that this board has. Beyond a commitment to millage neutral, you have a responsibility for the health, safety, and care of the people who live in and visit Collier County, Florida, and I believe that's at least an equally important responsibility as to the commitment to a millage neutral budget. Comparative data flaws, I think that we've been through this a few times. And all that I would ask is, if we're going to use comparative data, that we do a full assessment and not look at simply the land mass nor the population base, permanent population base, nor crime rates or the expenditure that a given group of taxpayers were willing to make in a given county, but rather we look at everything, part-time populations, migrant labor populations, number of calls for service to any given service provider. All of those have to be deemed factors in a comparative analysis of this county to others. As we all know, the quality of life here is far different than the quality of life just up the road in the adjacent county and beyond, and we have committed this county to be a county of quality, and, therefore, we have undoubtedly witnessed additional expense. I have a number of other concerns. The insurance health benefit programs. Ours is designed a little differently than yours. Our costs are different than yours, we believe less than yours. Our cost allocation to our members are different than yours. Perhaps I could simply say, since most of these recommendations appear to be coming out of the productivity committee, I would again ask this commission that you direct staff to invite us to the productivity study group meetings as well as their subcommittees. I have a standing request to be invited. I would appreciate the opportunity to address the productivity study group and be a participant. Thank you very much for your time today. Page 89 March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Sheriff Hunter. Do you want to take a few minutes and go through the FY-'06 budget proj ections -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. I-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- your three-year budget projections, and then we'll break at 12 noon? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. I think I can do that fairly succinctly. That begins on page 11. It does provide a three-year projection. It shows you the historical millage rates. We've been the same millage rate from '02 through '05. It does show the need for a millage increase to 4.0878. The out years are showing varying degrees. While it's less than what is shown in FY -'06, it is still above the 3.8772, which is the millage neutral target. Now, I will also tell you that the model has been -- has been fairly -- fairly realistic, but I can also say that a millage increase has been proj ected in the past. Obviously I'm fairly conservative relative to sales tax revenues at this point in time. We only have two or three months of actuals. Obviously by the time we're formulating the budget in June or July, I have six to seven months of actuals, so I'm a little more comfortable in being a little more aggressive there. There were -- on the taxable value front, if you turn to page 12, it does show the history. Obviously in '02 it peaked at 20.5 percent increase. Over the last few years it dropped from 20.5 to 18.3 to 16.4, and then last year to 11.5. So for purposes of the three-year model, I assumed 11, 10 and 9 percent. But I think everyone who's been driving around town and every article every Sunday it talks about, you know, the meteoric increases in property values in Naples, Florida, and the, you know, issues facing employers and the like because of affordable housing Issues. In addition, each time a property that was previously protected by Page 90 March 8, 2005 the Save Our Homes cap is sold, it's reassessed at current market value, and obviously current market value, even from what it was two years ago, could be significantly different, so you're getting that benefit. We will not have the benefit of a preliminary tax roll until June 1. But at this point, I used 11 percent as the assumption. I also need to point out, going back to page 11, those out years. While looking lighter than the millage projected in FY -'06, the millage rates were based on the sheriff adding 119 positions in '06. One year ago that analysis assumed 183 positions being added in FY-'06. Obviously that differential has a major impact on projected millage rates in the out years. And while I did work with the sheriffs staff relative to the -- their proj ected needs, we were looking primarily at mandated costs of positions grants, positions that were previously grant funded, they have to be absorbed in the general fund; jail staffing and the like without necessarily looking at support staff or additional investigators or dispatchers. So the sheriffs staff, I included their concerns or their caveats to what was included in the model's assumption, so obviously there may be some give or take there. And obviously what is funded this year or requested this year will have a spillover effect into the millage rates in '07 and '08. But at this point, you know, the millage neutral targets will be a challenge. Obviously, we're hopeful that the taxable value will help us out in that regard. Again, on the revenue side, I am fairly conservative this early in the fiscal year. I have a little more latitude with six months of actuals in the bank, and at that point, too, we typically work with the clerk's office relative to the interest earnings and the like, so there will be some give and take there. But I feel it is a pretty good analytical model, and there will Page 91 March 8, 2005 being upward millage pressure that we're all going to have to deal with, especially in the general fund. The analysis in the unincorporated area, general fund shows need for a very slight millage Increase. I will also tell you that property values in the unincorporated area over the last few years have out-stripped the increase in the county-wide value. Obviously, you know, as the cities get closer to buildout and there haven't been the major condo towers being added in the municipalities on the beach over the last few years, the growth, again, being in the, you know, Golden Gate Estates area and the like. So the unincorporated area has had a larger gain relative to the county-wide value so -- and we would expect that to continue. So that's it in a nutshell. It's really not any different than what we've been talking about over the last couple years. That's -- meeting that millage neutral target does require the cooperation of all the agencies, and there is upward pressure. It's, you know, a fairly consumptive community in terms of service level expectations and demands, and the population continues to grow. But we're going to do the best we can to live within the policy guidance that you provide us. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, in the projection, when you talk about 3.8 to 4.08, you're basically talking about a $12 million -- we're in the red if we're going to stay, millage -- so we're looking for $12 million worth of efficiencies, cost savings or whatever, as we get through this particular issue. So that's what that .2 mills equates to. And for every percent above Mike's percentage -- for instance, he's -- he's surmising that it will come in at 11 percent. We don't know for sure, okay, and we won't know for sure. You know, I've got a little bet going on with the boys in the office, and it's just, you know -- it's one of the things, what do you think it's going to be? And I'm hoping it's going to be 16, but hope is not a method. But for every point above 11, that brings in about a million and a half additional. So if you think we're 12 million in the red and every Page 92 March 8, 2005 point above that for assessed value comes in a little -- you know, gives you that million and a half, you start nibbling away at that -- at that shortfall, so -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: When you say every point, you're talking about every tenth of a point, aren't you? MR. MUDD: I'm talking about every percentage point above 11 percent brings you another million and a half into the general. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're saying we would have to get to a 27 percent increase to make up for the -- MR. MUDD: No. I didn't say that, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: I said you're hurting for about $12 million. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twelve million. But you said every percentage point would give us another million, so we'd have to go up MR. MUDD: Million and a half. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- 12 percentage points? MR. MUDD: Million and a half. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we're talking about eight point something percentage points. You're saying that we could only recover this if we hit 20 percent or higher -- MR. MUDD: We'll say about 19-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- of property value? MR. MUDD: -- 19 percent. And if you were just talking about what's estimated on this page versus what your assessed value would have to come in to be, okay, so that in this model that you see in front of you, where you wouldn't have to raise it two-tenths of a percent, I'm talking the millage rate, you're looking at a 19 percent assessed value, okay, where you break even. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: I'm just trying to get it so you have an idea of it in your mind's eye. Page 93 March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: But there are some things in the model, too, like within EMS, over the next three years, we assumed an additional crew each year. Obviously the extent to which we could reach agreements on the ALS units with the fire districts, that may alleviate the need to add a unit. They're $700,000 in one fell swoop with that agreement. So it's not just solely going to be on the back of the ad valorem in addition. Like I said, sales tax. There are other revenue factors, but the expense side is part of the equation as well. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you'll have firmer figures by what time of the year? MR. SMYKOWSKI: June. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Early? Early June, okay, good. MR. SMYKOWSKI: June 1 we get the taxable value, and that is -- and we're asking -- the board had briefly adopted a resolution requiring the constitutional officers to submit their budgets by May 1 rather than June 1 so that we don't have all those things colliding all at once. So hopefully we'll get to the big picture total that much quicker this year. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just one brief comment, then Commissioner Halas wants to ask a question. It would be my preference that we instruct staff to give us a budget that really permits us to be revenue neutral based upon the assumption of 11 percent increase in valuations and not to be assuming that we're going to go for a tax increase, okay. It would be better to give that guidance that we're going to get. MR. MUDD: That's what the guidance is, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Just to clear the air, make sure that everybody out there understands exactly what we're talking Page 94 March 8, 2005 about. This supposedly -- budget increase if we need do this is only in regards to everybody receiving the same piece of pie that they did last year; is that correct? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Same percentage. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Same percentage of the pie. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So what we're trying to do then is squeeze, to make sure that everybody looks for efficiencies, so maybe we can cut some of the percentages out of the pie so that we can remain millage neutral. MR. MUDD: You're trying -- you're trying to come up with $12 million worth of savings. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Savings, exactly. MR. MUDD: That's exactly -- that's why I talked about the figure so that you would know about it. If you got the same piece of the pie and it went across the board, we would not be -- we would not be in the red by 12 million, we would break even, and we'd be --live within that 11 percent. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that's the message we're trying to convey here -- MR. MUDD: That's what's in the budget. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- is that we want -- we're looking for these departments, constitutionals, to go through their departments and look for areas for efficiencies, and -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- I want to make that perfectly clear also, on the record. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You finished your presentation? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further questions by commissioners? (N 0 response.) Page 95 March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: No public speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- moved to approve the policy, and seconded by Commissioner Halas. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to break for lunch. We'll be back here at 1 :03. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike. Item #7C RESOLUTION 2004-114: V A-2004-AR-6793 LEOBARDO & MARITZA GUTIERREZ REPRESENTED BY DANIEL D. PECK, OF PECK AND PECK, ARE REQUESTING AS-FOOT AFTER- THE-FACT VARIANCE IN THE "E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 75-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, ALONG 47TH AVENUE N.E. (SOUTHERN Page 96 u__-.--···.··'· .."-."".-__,,....._""____'" March 8, 2005 BOUNDARY), TO ALLOW A 70-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THAT IS CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session. It's going to take us to 7C, I believe, which was previously 17 A; is that correct, County Manager? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir; that's right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: And that item was exactly -- this item requires that all participants be sworn -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sworn in. . MR. MUDD: -- be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's variance 2004-AR-6793. Loebardo and Maritza Gutiez? MR. PECK: Gutierrez. MR. MUDD: Gutierrez, excuse me -- provided by commission members. It's variance 2004-AR-6793. It's presented by Daniel Peck of Peck and Peck, are requesting a five-foot after-the- fact variance in the "E" Estates zoning district from the minimum required 75-foot front yard setback along 4 7th Avenue Northeast, southern boundary, to allow a 70-foot front yard setback, for a single-family home that is currently under construction. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And will all persons who are going to speak on this issue please stand and be sworn. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And ex parte disclosures; Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have any ex parte disclosures on this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Neither do I. Commissioner Henning? Page 97 March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just heard somebody talk about it at the beginning of the meeting. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we're ready for the petitioner, okay. MR. PECK: Good afternoon. I previously made my presentation, rather than bore you with it again. If there are any questions, otherwise, we had the unanimous planning commission approval and staff support, and I would request and hope that it would be approved. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just -- the only question that I really had on this -- in fact, I wasn't going to raise it until you brought it up, so you probably almost -- MR. PECK: Shouldn't have spoken. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- almost got to the point where you snatched victory into defeat. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, defeat from the jaws of victory. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And that is the $98,000. Normally you have a spot survey, and a lot of times this will catch it prior to going any farther or even putting the tie beam up. So where are you right now in the construction of this? MR. PECK: We had the survey, and that's what caused the problem, because the survey was in the middle of the road, and so it was 30 feet off. We would have to take out the stem wall, which is $7,000; the slab, which would be $12,000 to replace; the block is $10,000. So we've basically got the sides of the home up already so -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if you say 98,000, it sounds to me as though the house is almost all totally constructed; is that about right? MR. PECK: There's 12,000 for demolition, so that takes away from that; earth work would be $12,000; relocation, $15,000; new foundation, $16,000; stem wall, $7,000; block 10,000. Page 98 March 8, 2005 Yes, there's been a tremendous amount done, unfortunately. And I represent a poor construction worker that that was -- he thought he was 25 feet to the good rather than five feet -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand, I just was trying to get a clarification in my mind where all the 98,000 was. If you looked at just -- if you stopped before you put the tie beam in, I would think it would be a lot less, and it sounds to me like you've gone farther than the tie beam. MR. PECK: There is an owner payment to the bank, which $9,500 is included in that, so you're looking at effectively $89,000 or something. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. (Commissioner Coletta entered the hearing room.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was thinking that we needed a supermajority on this variance. We do have a supermajority of the commissioners here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Real super. Yeah, you have to have -- we have any ex parte disclosures on this item? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that is item? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Item 17 A. MR. MUDD: 17 A. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it had to do with a variance for a building that was -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm familiar with it. No disclosures. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Does staff have anything they feel they are compelled to discuss? MR. MUDD: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other speakers? Page 99 March 8, 2005 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I really don't have anything to add. I'm totally in support. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, what's your pleasure? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion for approval. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion for approval by Commissioner Coletta. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A second by Commissioner Henning. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. It is approved. MR. PECK: Thank you. Item #8A AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, Page 100 March 8, 2005 MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER 6 - INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SEC. 6.06.02 SIDEWALK, BIKE LANE, AND GREENWAY REQUIREMENTS; CHAPTER 10- APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SEC. 10.02.03.B.1. FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURE AND REQUIREMENTS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE - FINAL VERSION TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO MARCH 22,2005 MEETING WITH BCC STAFF RFCOMMENDAIIONS MR. MUDD: The next item, Commissioner, is advertised public hearings, item A, and that's an ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending ordinance number 04-41 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land development regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, providing for section one, recitals; section two, findings of fact; section three, adoption of amendments of the land development code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter 6, infrastructure improvements and adequate public facilities requirements, including section 6.06.02, sidewalk, bike lane, and greenway requirements; chapter 10, application, review, and decision-making procedures, including section 10.02.03.b.1, final site development plan procedure and requirements; section four, conflict and severability; section five, inclusion of the Collier County Land Development Code; and section six, effective date, and the presenter will be Mr. Joseph Schmitt, the administrator for community developments and environmental Page 101 . ...~--'- March 8, 2005 services, and Mr. Patrick White, assistant county attorney. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good afternoon. For the record, Joe Schmitt, community development/environmental services administrator. First I want to turn it over to Patrick White so he can make an entry into the record. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Joe. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Assistance County Attorney Patrick White, and just a housekeeping matter. I've reviewed the Affidavit of Publication for today's first of two public hearings in these chambers pertaining to the proposed ordinance. I find that it is legally sufficient. And at this time I'm submitting an original to our minute keeper for recordkeeping purposes. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: And Commissioners, I'll follow up. Just to make this short and succinct. As you recall, back in -- December 7th, we had a workshop where we asked for your approval to authorize a special cycle of the land development code to deal with issues specifically regarding sidewalks and a payment-in-lieu of program. The 14th -- December 14th Board of County Commissioners meeting as item 16A 11 you approved that special cycle. This is the first of the two public hearings in regards to the LDC amendment. And you recall just the expediency of this was based primarily on the number of existing site plans that are pending, the results of this -- this commission -- or this amendment, so we decided we would -- we'd be best, for the public benefit, to go ahead and make this a special cycle. In that regard, basically what we're dealing with here is an amendment that deals with payment-in-lieu of. This has been before the Board of County -- or before the planning commission and the Development Services Advisory Committee, both of whom made Page 102 March 8, 2005 comments. Planning commission, the amendments that went before both boards -- or both of those commissions also included language in regards to greenways. The first vote by the planning commission recommended that any reference to greenways be removed until such time that the county's comprehensive pathway plan is amended. The version you have before you today deals strictly with sidewalks and bike lanes in regards to how they will be constructed and requirements to be constructed within Collier County. In that also is language dealing with payment-in-lieu of. If I can have your direction at least to the portion that I'm showing here. These two -- these are the issues of concern right now. The DSAC recommended that for projects that are 75 percent or more built out, that if there is an expansion of that proj ect, that they would be allowed to construct under the existing development criteria of the original PUD as noted in the PUD documents. That was supported by the planning commission and also supported by staff. The next footnote -- and I'm going to track down -- regards projects that are in the final subdivision or plat with 25 or fewer lots having to deal with cul-de-sacs, I will show you two pictures. Basically what this was asking for is an exemption from the requirement of sidewalks. As you note on your computer screen, this is a cul-de-sac which shows a sidewalk on one side, no sidewalk on the other side, diversion. And this is the -- basically what staff is looking for and what staff had recommended in regards to cul-de-sacs with 25 or fewer units, that the sidewalks do, in fact, comply with the development standards as required throughout the entire projects as they're now required in the code. That certainly is your purview and certainly your desire. You can provide guidance to the staff in regards to the requirements for sidewalks or providing sidewalks on cul-de-sacs. That seems to be the Page 103 March 8, 2005 most pressing issue. There's another item -- and I'll flip over again to page four, dealing specifically with sidewalk construction, which was added by the DSAC. Oops, I went beyond it. Yep. Right -- in this area right in here, where sidewalks must be a minimum of four inches thick with a 28-day compressive strength of PSI, pounds per square inch, and constructed over a four-inch lime rock base, or a minimum of six inches thick on a concrete -- thick of concrete, which must be constructed without lime rock base. That was a construction criteria added in there by the staff and seems to be some -- of some controversy. I would welcome you to listen to any of the speakers. And certainly, we would be delighted to receive your guidance in regards to the issues regarding construction. The most pressing, and what you'll hear, is pretty much four-inch concrete over compacted subgrade, as an alternative, primarily in subdivisions as an acceptable construction standard. With the requirement of four over four, meaning four inches over four-inch lime rock base or six-inch thick concrete for arterial or collector roads, and that seems to be the only other hang-up. So I -- without any further embellishment in regard to the LDC amendment, I welcome your questions. MR. WHITE: I would just add, Commissioners, that with respect to the CCPC, their recommendation with respect to the 25 or fewer provision is that it not go forward. MR. SCHMITT: Right. MR. WHITE: The DSAC had two of those coming forward to you, one with a 75 percent or more, as well as the 25 or fewer lots provisions. Those were both DSAC recommended. The CCPC only recommended bringing forward the one for 75 percent or more, just so we're clear. MR. SCHMITT: And that's the portions that are highlighted in red, and it's very clear in the write-up that those were the two Page 104 March 8, 2005 requirements added by the Development Services Advisory Committee, and the planning commission only supporting one of those two. Subject to your questions, that concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. So what you're recommending is that whenever we have more than -- 25 or more homes in a cul-de-sac, that we require sidewalks around the whole perimeter of it; is that correct? Both sides of the street? MR. SCHMITT: That would be the way it's written now. What this is asking for is a waiver from the sidewalk requirement for cul-de-sacs of 25 or less units. But staff -- and neither staff nor the planning commission supported that recommendation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now, if you go 25 or less, does that -- is there a requirement to have a sidewalk on at least one side of the street? MR. SCHMITT: We're requiring, Commissioner, this type of design with a sidewalk is on both sides of the street, and actually throughout the entire -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's for 25 or more, that's your recommendation? MR. SCHMITT: Twenty-five or less as well, any cul-de-sac. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And one other question is -- maybe the engineering staff can give us some guidance in regards to the lime rock requirement. Is it because of the instability of the base prior to putting concrete over? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner -- and I think you'd probably want to ask Ms. Diane Flagg about that. That's frankly -- on an arterial or collectors -- and maybe Mr. Feder as well -- arterial or collectors, it's primarily when utility trucks Page 105 March 8, 2005 or other type of vehicles pull up off the road, let's say they're repairing a line or doing some other things, and if the sidewalk isn't of sufficient strength, it will crack the sidewalk, and then the county is held liable for basically repairing it out of the side pathway's fund. The requirement in regards to subdivisions -- and I'll ask Tom Kuck to give you his professional engineering recommendation. But as far as subdivisions, all sidewalks are inspected prior to CO of a home. And oftentimes if a concrete truck or block truck or whatever pulls into a lot during the construction process, cracks the sidewalk, we will not CO the home until the sidewalk is repaired by the builder or developer. So the sidewalk issues in subdivisions are usually not the problem. The problem is primarily on an arterial or collector roads, building it of sufficient strength, just by chance, to support any type of activity like a utility truck or some other activity. And certainly Diane can certainly talk about that from the transportation perspective, if you have any questions. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think you answered it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- on page three, what I read on C, in payment-in-lieu of, it gives discretion to the county manager of -- or his designee; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Should we have some guidelines for the in payment-in-lieu of? I just -- MR. SCHMITT: It's in the fee cycle already in regards to the fee payment program and -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. The guidelines of -- maybe there's a conflict in between the asking and the giving. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Page 106 March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And wouldn't we rather have -- if it meets this guidelines, it they can ask the in payment-in-lieu of or receive the in payment-in-lieu of? MR. SCHMITT: Basically the way the program works, if you recall, the situation we had where -- a church. We had -- they had a $40,000 addition, and Nick probably can come up and talk more about that. But the sidewalk requirements were going to be three or four times the cost of construction. That's why we came back for and asked for a payment-in-lieu of where it would be 25 percent of the cost of construction. That decision would be made at the staff level, normally between the transportation staff and the community development staff, and we would come into agreement. If we agree to disagree, it would probably be at Diane's level and at Don Scott's level, Tom Kuck's level. And if there's disagreement, it would be -- escalate or rise up to Norm and I, and then eventually to the county manager if, in fact, there was disagreement. But all we're trying to do here is provide an opportunity for a payment-in-lieu of rather than being stung by the entire cost of having to meet the sidewalk criteria as it's currently written in the LDC. If you're looking for some kind of an oversight program or a board review or some other type of -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think what you said is sufficient, and all I'm asking for is consistency when we have an asking of a permit or an asking of in payment-in-lieu of. I think government -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- should be consistent. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I just have an overall problem with the consistency of county government. And I think your Page 107 March 8, 2005 answer -- I mean, I don't have any concerns. There is an avenue where an applicant can go to a higher level. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And we do have a formal -- Susan, what do we call it, a dispute process? Dispute resolution process -- I wanted to use the right word -- where you can -- it's not before the board, but they actually just fill out a form through the dispute resolution process, and it becomes -- administratively comes to either my level or -- Susan Murray, the zoning director, or myself. If the building director's involved or Mr. Feder from transportation, where we can sit down and -- basically all we want to do is the right thing. I mean, that's what we want to do with this. We want to have a program that we can apply some common sense to the requirements of putting in sidewalks. The payment-in-lieu of program, if they're not constructing sidewalks, the payment-in-lieu of program will go to the pathways fund to provide intersection improvements or system-wide improvements basically for the betterment of the county at large rather than just specifically at that one location. But I think the -- with the oversight, the three department directors involved and two administrators and if it even has to come to the county manager, we can apply this and apply it where it makes common sense. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions? MR. SCHMITT: Any other questions? (No response.) MR. SCHMITT: Well, that pretty much concludes -- I'm sure you want to hear some public speakers, but we'll be bringing this back to the next Board of County Commissioners meeting for its second hearing. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many public speakers do we have? MS. FILSON: We have five. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are all of the five public speakers here? Page 108 March 8, 2005 Could you raise your hands, please. Okay. I see more than five. I see SIX. MS. FILSON: I have five slips. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have all of you been sworn in? MR. WEIGEL: They're just public speakers, and this is a legislative process. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So they don't have to tell the truth, right? MR. WEIGEL: No one does. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's a loaded question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's have the first public speaker. MS. FILSON: Joe Bonness. He will be followed by Maureen Bonness. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Quick change job there, Joe. MR. BONNESS: Luckily the wind was blowing in the right direction. I was able to get home in just 15 minutes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One of these days you've got to buy a car. MR. BONNESS: Well, I know. I had fun. It was interesting riding down Livingston Road. I'm Joe Bonness. Thanks for listening to me this afternoon, Commissioners. The items that I'm very opposed to on this are the footnotes three and four, especially number four, of which would allow a developer to come in and put a bike lane only on one side of the roadway on a cul-de-sac. I don't think that this flies -- this is proper as far as traffic control. It doesn't follow in with the proper manual of uniform traffic control devices. Basically what they're asking to do is where if you've got 25 lots or less, which -- the 25 lots could have a lot more than 25 houses. You know, if you start tossing in multi-family, you could have a pretty good-sized residential community on a cul-de-sac. Page 109 March 8, 2005 But what you're ending up is you have a -- bikes are supposed to go in a specific direction with traffic. They are supposed to go in the same direction cars are. If you have a bike lane that's only one side of the road on a dead-end street, you are asking the bikes to go against the law of how it's supposed to be doing. They're supposed to be riding with the traffic, not against the traffic. You have a bike lane only on one side, so now you are promoting that bikes should go in the wrong direction. Bike accidents, the largest single cause of bike accidents that lead to fatalities is head-on collision with bikes going in the wrong direction against traffic. Cars are not expecting vehicles -- bikes to be coming from their right-hand side. When you pull out into a road, you always look left. You start pulling on out, and 10 and behold, here's this bike coming in the wrong direction, and you run into it. That's -- that is where people get killed. You know, basically what you're -- a five-foot bike lane on one side of a cul-de-sac, you're building a one-way dead-end street, and that shouldn't be right. So that is primarily what I'm concerned about. And I think that footnote four -- which wasn't approved by the zoning and planning -- should be stricken anyways. If you have a subdivision that's in there and you haven't built the cul-de-sacs yet, even if it is 75 percent built, we should take a very -- a much closer look at getting both the bike paths in there instead of going on out, building half the -- half of it. You know, if we can't get the cul-de-sacs right where, you know, basically the kids and the families are starting to ride from, how do we expect the bikes to follow the rules when they get out on the rest of the roadway? You know, we're promoting proper -- improper riding of the bikes, and that is another major cause of bicycle accidents throughout the State of Florida is bikes not following the proper rules. Page 110 March 8, 2005 Well, if we don't have the facilities to do it properly, bikes are going to start going helter-skelter all over the place, and that's when they get hit, and that's when we run into the problems. That's also when you run into the aggression between the drivers and the bicyclists because the drivers don't think they're supposed to be there and the bikes don't have a place to be. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Joe. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Maureen Bonness. She will be followed by Clay Brooker. MS. BONNESS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm an active bicyclist for health, recreation, transportation, and I've even bicycled across the country. From my experience with places where I've lived, which include New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, Texas, and now here, I find Collier County to be kind of poor in the realm of bike ability. Also this past summer I spent a lot of time bicycling around different parts of Florida, in central Florida and northern Florida, and I did find some roads similar to Immokalee Road, I'll agree, but there were a lot of other roads that I was surprised at, the fairly heavy traffic roads, that I felt okay on because there was a bike lane. So I encourage any kind of amendment to come along that increases the number of bike lanes that we construct in this county. In particular with the LDC amendment in front of you right now, I participated in some of the public meetings when there were a number of stakeholders there to come up with some consensus. And the language we came up with was the language before the DSAC changes, and that's the language I endorse. I also endorse what the previous speaker said, to remove that last footnote, number four in particular. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Clay Brooker. He will be followed by Deb Millsap. Page 111 March 8, 2005 MR. BROOKER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's Clay Brooker. I am vice-chair of DSAC and have been asked to come to report and explain the rationale of our recommendations. I'm also a citizen of Collier County and happen to be a cyclist, although not a very good one, so I'll throw in a little -- some personal comments as well. Overall, we -- the DSAC recommended approval of what you have before you. The payment-in-lieu idea creates some flexibility, which we all thought was a good idea. It was unanimous. And we are in favor of that. You've heard reference today to footnotes three and four, and let me spend a few minutes on those, or a minute on those -- on those particular provisions. This gets to the point of two sides of the street, whether sidewalks should be on two sides of the street or just one side of the street. DSAC never considered eliminating the sidewalk requirement altogether. It was either the one or two sides of the street that we discussed. At the workshop back in December, it was explained that the existing LDC provision works 95 percent of the time. The question here is, what does did it mean to work 95 percent of the time? It may be doable, but does it make sense? If you don't have the demand for a sidewalk in a certain location, is it, therefore, needed or does it make sense to require it in those circumstances? So based upon that thinking, DSAC came up with the two footnotes, three and four, that you have before you. I won't spend much time on footnote three. The planning commission agreed with us in that respect, the 75 percent built projects should be able to continue their pattern of sidewalks that they have already constructed. With regard to footnote four, the 25 or fewer lots, planning commission disagreed with DSAC in that regard. I happened to be the one who brought or raised this particular issue at DSAC. And the Page 112 March 8, 2005 reason is, I felt, and DSAC agreed with me, that at that point when you're dealing with that number of lots, that you no longer have the demand for two sides of the street. And this is where my personal comments will come into play. I happen to live on a cul-de-sac of about 20 to 25 units, not 20 to 25 lots. And that might be a distinction that the board may want to take into consideration today. The language you see today says lots. In all honesty, I can't recall whether that was the precise language that was approved by DSAC. I'll stand by the language. I'll defer to it as being the language that DSAC adopted. But my thought, when I raised it, was, I live on a cul-de-sac of 25 or few -- it's about 20 to 25 units. Lots, probably four, five lots of multi-family. It's a condominium development. There's a cul-de-sac. And being somewhat familiar with these provisions and these requirements, I've watched what kind of demand is required or what kind of demand is there for the sidewalk. There is a sidewalk in my community on my cul-de-sac on one side of the street. Rarely used. You know, I don't know how else to more bluntly state it. It's such a small -- we're talking about not a roadway of any length where bicyclists or cyclists are going to come racing down the street. I understand. I'm a cyclist myself. I understand the comments that were just spoken to you about cyclists wanting to use the roadways and not going against the grain of traffic. I understand that. There's not a cyclist on my street. You'll have just the pedestrian use, and we talk out on the street. The neighbors join out there, the kids join out there. The demand is simply not there. So if the 25 or fewer lots, emphasis on the word lots, create's a problem, I understand that. Perhaps withdraw from that. My suggestion again, this was perhaps not what DSAC said, but perhaps Page 113 March 8, 2005 it's 25 or fewer units. If 25 is not the magic number, there's no science there. It's just based on my personal experience, and perhaps staff can take a look to see at what point; is it one house? Under the current provisions one house on a cul-de-sac, two sides of the street. Is the demand there? DSAC felt at that point -- at some point, and they agreed with me on the 25 number, that you no longer have the demand for two sides of the street, and you're no longer creating a public safety, health, or welfare issue. My final comment on the sidewalk depth. DSAC recommended to leave it at the four inches as currently drafted. We believe that is more than sufficient based upon the engineering -- the engineers that are in DSAC that, as they explained to us -- I'm not an engineer. But we understand that this proposal results primarily on -- 20 seconds, I'm done -- primarily from maintenance or repair vehicles driving up on the sidewalks and possible cheating by contractors who don't put in the actual four inches of concrete that's currently required. What we suggested is the four inches is more than sufficient, and an inspection process can be done to catch any cheating. Alternatively I've heard the proposals discussed about requiring the enhanced depths on arterials and collectors only. The residential or local streets would just have the four inches as currently required. DSAC did not vote on that particular provision, but I'm personally in favor of it, and I would surmise, although I can't guarantee, that DSAC would be in favor of that alternative proposal as well. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Deb Millsap. She will be followed by your final speaker, David Ellis. I understand that someone put a speaker slip on my desk during break. I can't locate it. I took the liberty of asking county manager. He doesn't have it. MS. MILLSAP: It was someone for-- Page 114 March 8, 2005 MS. FILSON: Oh, okay. So there was only five okay. MS. MILLSAP: Thank you. My name is Deb Millsap, and I am -- I work for the Collier County Health Department, and I'm here today on behalf of Dr. Joan Colfer, our director of the Collier County Health Department. And in the interest of public health, we want to stress the importance of maintaining the integrity of the land development code to include sidewalks and bike paths. Not doing so will result in public health costs to our community. First and foremost, the most obvious is increased risk of injuries. Research does show that when there are not sidewalks and bike paths, that the risk of injury or fatality goes up significantly. Also, the concern is inactivity. The research shows that in areas where people do not have access to bike paths and sidewalks, safe areas to walk or bike, that they are more likely to be inactive. And inactivity, we know, is associated with chronic diseases that have an economic and human cost to our community. Those diseases include, but not all inclusive, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, hypertension, osteoarthritis, et cetera. The governor's task force on obesity strongly recommends that the state and local agencies responsible for community planning ensure that policies are routinely considered for accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists in each community and ensure that communities have bicycle and pedestrian development plans as part of their planning process for new construction. The Center for Disease Control, or CDC, has pointed to our built environment and transportation infrastructure as one of the leading causes of the obesity epidemic. The number of trips people take on foot has dropped by 42 percent in the last 20 years due to the car-oriented structure of our communities; therefore, we feel that in the interest of public health in our community, it is imperative to include sidewalks and bike paths in Page 115 March 8, 2005 the land development code. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is David Ellis. MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm David Ellis with the Collier Building Industry Association. And I think we're all talking about the same thing today. As you recall a couple years ago we talked about sidewalks, and there were a lot of issues to bringing together what we could do to make sure and ensure that we had good walking environments in our communities. You've come a long way to ensuring that would happen. I remember during that I actually made a comment about flexibility in the process, and somebody said, what he means by flexibility is no sidewalks. Well, the truth is, that's not -- it can't happen anymore in Collier County that we would build communities or not have those sidewalks. They're required by the code and they should be. The industry I represent wants to make sure we have a good walkable and ridable community. It makes a better place to live and, frankly, a better place to build and sell homes. So that's one thing we certainly support, and the LDC ensures that. We've done something else, Commissioners, to ensure that happens. You've brought in focussed and competent staff that are enforcing those rules and making sure it happens. We have a better process now to ensure that those sidewalks and those bike paths are done and done properly. So all those are very good and important things. Something I would mention though, at the time we talked about this a couple years ago, we did say, you know, this one size fits all approach probably isn't going to work. And really what we're coming back with now is saying, you know, there were a couple opportunities where we could do better or have these other opportunities. Page 116 __._ __" ~_,___.o_ March 8, 2005 The pay in lieu -- pay in lieument (sic) -- pay-in-lieu idea is a good idea, and it's going to solve some issues that we didn't anticipate a couple years ago when we went through this process, and certainly that's a big part of what's being brought to you today. I'll also tell you when the Development Services Advisory Committee reviewed this, they spent a lot of time trying to come up with ideas that would make this even more a credibility process and a workable process. Their idea in relation to 75 percent of the communities that are built out was a very practical idea, and that was something, I don't think, that had really been anticipated. When the planning commission heard the same thing, they agreed and brought that recommendation forward to you. The cul-de-sac idea about one side of the street in a cul-de-sac, at the time I was in the DSAC committee's discussion, and they really were talking about units at the time; they were talking about houses. I live on a house -- a street, a cul-de-sac that has 14 units on it and a sidewalk down one side, and it works very well. I'm very comfortable with the environment there for safety for my family and for walking. We try to walk every day. And there's -- from a practical perspective, that works. N ow I'll tell you, Commissioners, I can't talk to you professionally about the thickness of the sidewalk idea. I've heard very many competent professionals in the Development Services Advisory Committee, as well as others that have sent me information weighing in on that idea. I think the suggestion that Joe brought forth today, Joe Schmitt, about the idea that, perhaps, we keep the higher standards on the arterials; and in the residential communities where we have some enforcement opportunities as well as a practical matter, it may not be necessary, that we could look at that four-inch alternative. It seems to make sense. Quite honestly, it's quite overkill to think Page 11 7 March 8, 2005 about a six-foot depth of a sidewalk in a residential community. It probably just isn't necessary. And, of course, I could put on and talk a little bit about what it creates, even in a small way, about the affordability of housing. Commissioners, the one thing I'd end this discussion with is, as we talk about sidewalks in our community, it's an important topic. We should continue to focus on a master plan that looks at the whole community and is site specific. And then once we developed that good master plan, we need to be able to implement it, find the funding sources necessary to do that. We're going to be talking about pathways in the upcoming months. Same concept applies. Let's develop a credible, workable master plan. Figure out how we're going to pay for it as a community, and then implement and do it. That's really one of the things we've always found with those kind of issues. Thank you so much, Commissioners. And again, I'd ask you to support the recommendations that came forth from DSAC and continue to help us build a better community. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, I await your guidance on this. MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker. MR. SCHMITT: What we'd like to do is bring back the final version on the 22nd, if you have any other specific guidance in regards to how you want staff or what you want staff to put into this amendment. I do want to note that the planning commission made it very clear to the staff their desires to have this entire section of the LDC come back once you approve the comprehensive pathway plan, and that -- my understanding is that will be coming to you later this year, or towards the summer months, at the end of the summer, and their instructions were for staff to look at this and bring the entire amendment back to address the issue in regards to greenways. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas? Page 118 March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Some of the sidewalk issues could be addressed if we knew what the width of the roads were in a lot of these areas that do have cul-de-sacs. I've been in some communities where there's no sidewalks and the streets are very narrow to the point where if two cars try to pass, it's difficult, and if there's people in the roadway and there's no sidewalks, that presents a real serious issue, not only just bicycles. And so I wonder what the standards are in regards to communities where there's PUDs and there is cul-de-sacs that are designed. Is there a specification for the width of those roads and cul-de-sac areas? MS. FLAGG: Generally the local streets can be as narrow as nine feet wide, 10 feet wide. They generally don't go beyond 11 feet wide for a travel lane. So it would be one side of the road, or the car on one side of the road could be as narrow as nine generally, not more than 10 generally, so a total of 20 for both sides that the cars are traveling on. Just a note to clear up potentially some confusion. The current LDC, from a maintenance perspective of sidewalks, already requires four feet, excuse me -- four inches of concrete and a four-inch lime rock base. That is current code. And the reason that the board changed that in 2003 was because of the maintenance issues. It's not just on the arterial and collector roadways, but it's also on the local roads within areas that it's a public street. So Pine Ridge subdivision or any of the subdivisions that have sidewalks, the county is responsible for maintaining those sidewalks, so that is why the code was changed two years ago to require four inches of concrete and four inches of lime rock base. The only new change to the proposal in regard to depth of the sidewalk is to give developers an alternative to do six inches of concrete as opposed to a four-inch concrete and four-inch lime rock Page 119 March 8, 2005 base. MR. SCHMITT: Just to correct the record, then I want to follow up what Diane said. But there are public roads that are also -- have MSTUs or CDDs or other activities that certainly they're responsible for maintaining the sidewalks and not the county. T om, you want to -- Tom wants to correct the record on the size of roads. MR. KUCK: Yes. For private streets, our requirement is the same. It's actually 24 foot of pavement and two foot of alley gutter. The exceptions, that would be maybe where there were condominium units, and whether you called it a cul-de-sac or a private road, I would call it more of a driveway where it's only serving a few units, there would be exceptions where the drive may only be 20 feet wide. But in all subdivisions, we require the 24 foot, two foot of alley gutter. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to continue on this discussion about the depth of the sidewalk. Reed Jarvi sent all the Board of Commissioners an e-mail correspondence from our staff, and the question was continually asked, where is there a problem in the neighborhood. And Ms. Flagg, you were asked repeatedly, and I'm asking, where is the problems in the neighborhoods? Can you give us cases? MS. FLAGG: They've had problems specifically in Vineyards, In -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Those are because of trees. MS. FLAGG: Not necessarily. The road maintenance gentleman who runs road maintenance, John Vliet -- actually he -- Mr. Jarvi sent you portions of the e-mail, but not all the e-mails, because he did send me what he sent you. And road maintenance is going to follow up with him and offer him a tour of the sidewalks where they're having difficulty so that he Page 120 March 8, 2005 can see for himself. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know for a fact the roads -- the sidewalks in Vineyards was because of the landscaping. I was directly involved in that. MS. FLAGG: And, again, that's something that John Vliet could provide the specifics. Our department doesn't do the maintenance part of sidewalks. The recommendations came out of the engineering staff from Techum (phonetic), which actually builds the roads and the sidewalks, and the maintenance group, which is John Vliet's group. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And nobody from maintenance is here to answer that? MS. FLAGG: In regard to specific locations? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MS. FLAGG: The areas that he's indicated to me that he's had specific maintenance issues are in the Immokalee Road area. I don't know the specific subdivisions, but we can certainly get you that information. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- because I thought John Vliet's response was because of landscaping, why that was put in. MS. FLAGG: He did not -- parts of the e-mails that Mr. Jarvi did not send you was -- that was a portion of what he was responding to, but he also supported the transportation engineer's recommendation to go to a four and four because of maintenance issues due to cracking of the sidewalk. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's what he said. I was addressing vegetation problems, not traffic or vehicles. So that's -- I think it's a valid question that needs to be answered, and if we're looking for guidance on any specific language, we ought to have those questions answered, but I don't see where we're going to get that answer today. MS. FLAGG: We could certainly get that information to you. Page 121 March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I don't know what the guidance is going to be as far as the depth of the sidewalk. But I would like to ask anybody, we have a comprehensive pathways plan. When was it adopted by the Board of Commissioners? MS. FLAGG: The plan was adopted in 1994, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization is in the process of updating that plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I can find in 1994 where the MPO adopted it, but not the Board of Commissioners. Can you give me any specific date? MS. FLAGG: I can find out for you and get back with you on that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We are implementing this comprehensive plan, correct? MS. FLAGG: The comprehen -- the comprehensive pathway plan is referenced by the growth management plan, which is adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, so the compo plan for pathways is specifically referenced in the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it also says in the comprehensive plan that it must be updated on a regular basis, which it hasn't been done. MS. FLAGG: The MPO is working on that as we speak. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It -- it requires that the county will adopt a comprehensive plan, and this -- I'm guessing it's a comprehensive plan. I've asked the question, I just haven't been able to get an answer. MS. FLAGG: The comprehensive pathway plan is the plan that the MPO originally put forth that was adopted in '94. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This one? MS. FLAGG: Correct. And they're currently in the process of updating that plan now. What you have before you is to revise the land development code that specifically addresses sidewalks in the Page 122 . --, --"'~.,..~----._. March 8, 2005 county's land development code. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we're asking to adopt language for -- in payment-in-lieu of, and on page four on the top three existing development -- and it talks about the five-year comprehensive plan or within the plan's five-year work program. MS. FLAGG: Okay. The -- are you in section D? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm in section C, number three. So it's referring to the comprehensive plan, or within the plan's five-year program. So maybe once I get the answer of when it was adopted by the Board of Commissioners, I could feel that, you know, we're doing a good thing and we're following consistency on how the Board of Commissioners adopt ordinances and resolutions -- MS. FLAGG: It's actually two documents that the proposed LDC is referring to. It's referring to the comprehensive pathway plan, which is -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, which is here. MS. FLAGG: -- currently in place and adopted in 1994. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're going to get me that date? MS. FLAGG: That the board adopted it? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MS. FLAGG: Yes. And then the second document that this LDC amendment is referring to is the county's five-year work program. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Under the MPO? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. That's the county's alternative transportation modes transportation five-year work program in regard to sidewalks. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Then the pathways committee has -- recommends that to the MPO? MS. FLAGG: It's a combination. The pathways committee Page 123 ,_...~~---~-- March 8, 2005 recommends sidewalk projects to -- for use of the 500,000 box pathway funds that is appropriated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization. In addition, there are other pathway plans that -- other pathway proj ects that use county funding, so it would be a county work program. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Halas? Wait. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The last thing, no questions, but the issue of cul-de-sacs. I'm not sure if, you know, we can legislate putting in all kinds of infrastructure, but how are we going to legislate people from actually using it? And I've just seen so many cases where either walkers or bicyclists are using the road instead of the sidewalk there. Nevertheless, I think a -- my personal feelings, a cul-de-sac with 25 units, there's not a great demand or there's zero demand for sidewalks. But when you get into where you have multiple units such as attached units where you have two or three units on a lot, I can see where there could be a demand for sidewalks. MS. FLAGG: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas has a question. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are these same standards going to be enforced by the county and their parks and walkways? MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. The parks, just like all the other departments inside and outside the county, follow the current land development code. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Have we had these standards in place the last couple of years in regards to putting lime rock under sidewalks for county parks? MS. FLAGG: When you all heard this item in 2003, that's when the standard change to four inches of lime rock and four inches of concrete, and since that time, developers and county departments have been required to follow that standard. Page 124 March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because we recently had a park completed up in my neck of the woods, and there's vehicles that drive over the sidewalks up there performing maintenance, and it's ending up where the sidewalk is cracking up. So I wondered how long ago this has been. And I know that we have continually, along -- there's a sidewalk that parallels the road of Vanderbilt Drive, and we have continued use of Sprint trucks and FPL trucks that drive up on the sidewalk and are causing some damage there. So that's what I was wondering, how long these standards have been in in regards to it being part of the law, and you said since 2003; is that correct? MS. FLAGG: Correct. If they already had an approved site development plan, which I believe both of those sidewalks were approved prior to the LDC changing, and that -- for those specific reasons is why back in 2003 we made the recommendation, which was subsequently approved by the board to go four inch and four inch. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'm glad that's going to be in there because I think it's going to save taxpayers a lot of money when we start going out there and start replacing these sidewalks. The other item that concerns me is, I was involved with some sidewalk issues in a gated community not too long ago in regards to where there was cul-de-sacs and no sidewalks. And there was one individual that was -- this person that was spearheading it, but also I talked to many of the homeowners that lived in that area, and they were all concerned that they would like to have sidewalks in there because they were elderly and there were some that had young children there, and they were concerned about the use of the sidewalks. So I think that if sidewalks are there, people do use them. MS. FLAGG: Commissioner Coyle, we can -- Mindy Collier, pathways project manager, can answer Commissioner Henning's question in regard to when the board approved the path -- Page 125 March 8, 2005 comprehensive pathway plan. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. MS. COLLIER: Mindy Collier, for the record. I'm looking at the transportation element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. And within there, there was an ordinance adopted in May 9th, 2000, and it identified policy number 4.2, more specifically actually 4.3. That says, the county's pathway construction program shall be consistent with the comprehensive pathway plan. It also says under 4.4, the county shall add newly adopted pathway plan, and that's done through the alternative transportation modes. Under 4.1, which was adopted in November 19th, 2002, policy 4.1 specifically states, the county shall incorporate the Collier County Comprehensive Pathway Plan by reference and update the plan as needed. And this is actually in the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're correct. MS. COLLIER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely correct. The -- what happens, my understanding, the growth management plan is adopted, subsequent, what happens is the policy, and then there's action after that. So when was the action that they actually adopted that? It's not in the -- it just refers to it as a policy, and either it's adopted as a code or ordinance or in the land development code, which is an ordinance. So what ordinance did (sic) the Collier County comprehensive plan pathway, pathways plan was adopted under? MS. COLLIER: It's just adopted, as you said, by reference under Ordinance 2002-60. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was the growth management plan? MS. COLLIER: Right. Where it actually has in there that it's adopting it by incorporating the pathway plan in here. Page 126 March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Staff have anything else to say? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, that pretty much concludes our staff presentation. The issue, what we're looking for is your guidance, if you want us to make any changes or recommendations in regards to this as far as any of the aspect of the code. And if you want to talk specifically in regards to the thickness of the concrete, you can question Tom Kuck, my department director for engineer services in regard to engineering specifications. He's here if you want to talk specifically about concrete thickness. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I do have a question about that and I have no solutions, but it would make me feel a lot more comfortable if we could verify that this is a serious problem and that this is the least costly alternative to solve it. We have gotten a number of e-mails from people who say that putting four inches of concrete over four inches of a -- well, it's referred to, I guess, as compacted base and/or lime rock. It's my understanding it used to be just compacted base. N ow it specifically states lime rock. Is that true, Tom? MR. KUCK: That's what it states now. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. KUCK: I might elaborate a little bit on that. I've been a professional engineer for over 45 years, which includes being a consulting engineering, being in the construction and the development business, and for the last 20 some years, a government employee. For private streets, I feel comfortable with four inches of concrete and a compacted sub grade. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. KUCK: And we also had the advantage in the private subdivisions, like Joe said earlier, most of those sidewalks are constructed after the home was constructed, so they're not subj ect to Page 127 ,-~._..., ..... .,,- March 8, 2005 some of the maintenance trucks and everything else. And then like he said, if they are cracked at the time we do the CO inspections, they have to replace them. So it's a little bit different than the arterials and collectors. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So what you're essentially saying is that four inches of concrete over a compacted sub-base is sufficient for residential streets, but not for arterials and collectors where you are recommending four inches of concrete over compacted -- four inches of compacted lime rock? Now, help me a little bit. I'm confused on what the code used to say before we came up with -- MR. KUCK: The code -- the code used to say just four inches of concrete. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- compact. Four inches of concrete only? MR. KUCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And so-- MR. KUCK: And just a standard procedure, to compact the sub grade before you formed and poured the concrete. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But you're going to require that the sub grade be compacted for those residential streets; is that what we're saying now? MR. KUCK: That's true, yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I think I understand it a little more clearly now. And you think that is probably the most cost effective way to deal with this problem? MR. KUCK: I do, but I'd also like to point out that what's being presented here, it would be four inches of lime rock compacted, with four-inch concrete wall, not four inches compacted sub grade. There is the difference of the four inches of lime rock. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Some of the people who have communicated with the members of the commission have indicated Page 128 ~__._.._.___.,...... .,_._.,.--,__~.'Ú" ',_ .,~--...,~,-" March 8, 2005 that it is more expensive to do it with lime rock than just a compacted sub grade and that it's a waste of money to do that because there is no appreciable gain for the residential streets. Would you agree with that? MR. KUCK: I would agree. Actually, I would imagine that six inches of concrete would be more economical than four and four, because you just -- you've got the same amount of labor involved, more concrete. But with the lime rock, you've got an extra step involved, grading and preparing and compacting the lime rock, and then the same labor amount, putting the forms down for the four inches of sidewalk. MR. MUDD: But this partic -- Jim Mudd for the record. But in this particular case, it does say four on four or a minimum of six inches thick of concrete which may be constructed without a lime rock base, so it gives them the capability to go six on just the compacted. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but it says, four inches of concrete on top of four inches compact -- of lime rock, and I think Tom is saying that you could go with four inches of concrete on a compacted sub grade for residential streets; is that right? MR. MUDD: Vb-huh. MR. KUCK: Yes. The only problem we do have is most of the concrete contractors use two-by-fours, and they put a two-by-four down, and you end up with three and a half inches. I was used to -- and I hate to say it, from up north, but it was a long time ago, we used steel forms and would set those and grade it out in between them so they got the full four inches. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand. Okay. All right. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to put you on the spot here. In regards to four inches of lime rock, what would be -- how much would we lose in the strength of the concrete if we required two inches of lime rock versus this four inches of lime rock? Would we Page 129 March 8, 2005 lose any strength in the sidewalk? MR. KUCK: Well, you're going to have a little bit more strength with four inches of lime rock. With the two inches of lime rock and when you're compacting it, you know, with the vibratory roller or whatever, you're going to also be compacting some of that sub-grade underneath it. But it's -- I'd have to be honest and say, yeah, you're going to have more strength with four inches of compacted lime rock and with four inches of concrete than you would with two. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you give me some kind of a figure of how much strength we're going to lose percentage-wise? MR. KUCK: I don't have them off the top of my head, but there are conversion units for strength for, you know, like one inch of asphalt, one inch of lime rock compacted sub-grade where you can take those with a set value that's been predetermine and add them up and come up with what the equivalent would be, but I don't have those numbers available right now. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, let me put it this way. Are we overbuilding the sidewalks? MR. KUCK: I don't think we're overbuilding them in the public rights of way where you've got arterials and collectors. I think a four-inch lime rock and four inches of concrete in subdivisions based on the control we do have is a little bit of an overbuild. And Stan's got one of the design manuals from the Concrete Institute, and I believe they're recommending just four inches of concrete for sidewalks. And one other thing that we have here in Florida is we have a -- with the sand soil we have, it's a little bit more porous, so we have excellent drainage, which does help give a better structure. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If I may, Stan Chrzanowski with the engineering department. The book is titled, Municipal Concrete Pavement Manual. It's put out by the American Concrete Pavement Association. And it has a bunch of charts in the back and they're Page 130 March 8, 2005 based on the number of trips by trucks on concrete of different thicknesses -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- of base of different types, and the bases are -- well, it's to get a K value, and you don't know what that means, but it's on the chart. A K value of 150 to 220 is a poorly-graded sand, which means that all the grain sizes are the same size. Well graded sand would be all different grain sizes. The one thing that the book does say is recommend that a minimum thickness of four and a half inches be used for residential streets in new developments since construction truck traffic will be using these pavements. Now, if you're going to use four and a half inches for construction truck traffic, nobody can convince me you need six inches for bicycles. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it seems to me that based upon what you've told us, that four inches of concrete over a compacted sub grade is adequate for the residential -- the sidewalks in the residential streets; is that a correct statement, Tom? MR. KUCK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I'd be willing to go with that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You were looking for guidance on concrete. MR. SCHMITT: You give guidance on this so we can bring it back at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then for -- Chairman, then Page 131 March 8, 2005 you're saying that on arterials, that we're going to go with the -- require the four inches of base -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Four inches of concrete over the four inches of lime rock or six inches, if they prefer. MR. SCHMITT: Right. I think that's -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: They've got the option of going either way. Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Now the only other guidance we need is if you want to continue with the recommendation that was proposed in footnote number four in regards to cul-de-sacs. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, 25 units. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, the recommendation was to have it on both sides, right? MR. SCHMITT: Recommendation number four is that they only have it on one side. That was not proposed by staff, so you would default to having it on both sides as required by the current code. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: Now, this is asking for basically a deviation to allow for twenty -- it says 25 lots. We could, if you wanted 25 units, what Clay said, then we'd bring it back as that -- under that guidance. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, you're making the motion, Commissioner Halas. What would you prefer? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, with the 25 units. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not the 25 lots, but the 25 units. MR. SCHMITT: Twenty-five units but one side for units-- cul-de-sacs with 25 units or less would only have a sidewalk on one side. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. Fine. MR. WHITE: If I may. As to the motion, Mr. Halas, would Page 132 March 8, 2005 there also be, as was suggested by Mr. Bonness, the idea that there would be bike lanes on both sides even though there would be sidewalks on only one? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't they have bike lanes on the same side where the sidewalk is? MR. WHITE: I think his point was that the standards manual required them to travel in one direction, and they couldn't, like the walkers on the sidewalk, travel in both directions at the same time. And accordingly, the safer practice would be to have the bike lanes on both sides. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On cul-de-sacs? MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. That was his position. It's not mine. I'm not advocating it. I'm just telling you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's a little bit -- way too much overkill. MR. SCHMITT: We -- and I'm checking with the transportation staff right now. On private streets like this, there are no -- if they're going to mark bike lanes, we'd probably require it on both sides, but there are no marked bike lanes, like in this example here you have shown. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not going to add that to the motion, not for cul-de-sacs. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we have a motion to restrict the requirement to a sidewalk on one side for cul-de-sacs of 25 or fewer -- MR. SCHMITT: Units. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- units. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Greater than that, then there'd be a sidewalk on both sides. CHAIRMAN COYLE: On both sides, yes. Page 133 March 8, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, that's right. And to address the thickness of the sidewalks, we've already stated that. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give you a second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta is seconding the motion. I'm going to close the public hearing. Is there any other discussion concerning this? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought we just needed to give guidance instead of a motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we can give it through a motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The guidance is through a motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And it looks like it's unanimous. Item #10C RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,689,039.43 TO JOHN CARLO, INC. AND RESERVE $1,258,000 IN FUNDING ALLOWANCES TO CONSTRUCT ROAD AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ON IMMOKALEE ROAD SIX-LANING Page 134 "'^....."""'--'....- March 8, 2005 PROJECT, FROM U.S. 41 TO 1-75; PROJECT NO. 66042B; BID NO. O~-~7RR; ÐSCALIMPACL$2(),94LQ3.9.A~ - A-eEROVED MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, that brings us to item 10C, and that's a recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of$25,689,039.43 to John Carlo, Inc., and reserve $1,258,000 in funding allowance to construct road and utility improvements on Immokalee Road six -laning proj ect number -- excuse me -- six -laning project from U.S. 41 to 1-75, project number 66042B; bid number 05-3788; fiscal impact $26,947,039.43. And Mr. Norm Feder, the administrator of transportation, will present. MR. FEDER: And for the record, I am Norman Feder, transportation administrator. As Jim noted at the outset of the meeting, I want to make sure that it's understood in the fiscal section that any reference to utility user fees not be included in this consideration. What I did want to point out to you is just a couple of quick things. I think most of it's in the agenda, and I will open it to questions, but that we are aggressively going after establishment of milestones in our proj ects. In this case this section between 1-75 and 41 contains three milestones. The first milestone is between 1-75 and Livingston Road. That milestone is set on a definitive date of completion, no matter the start date, Notice to Proceed, if you will, which we expect to essentially be May 1. But whatever the Notice to Proceed is, the bid is based on that completion by November 15th of the section from 1-75 over to Livingston Road. That's very important as well, because coincident with that in our Vanderbilt Beach Road project, we also put three milestones in. The first milestone is between Airport and Livingston; therefore, together establishing an alternate corridor as the east/west project on Page 135 March 8, 2005 Immokalee progresses further to the west. The second milestone is from Livingston over to Airport Road. That's approximately another seven months later, with a completion set for June of 2006. And the last milestone is then from Airport over to U.S. 41, with the final substantial completion by November of 2007, and final completion by December, 2007. Now, with those milestones, we have added liquidated damages specifically for each of the milestones, and then final completion. The liquidated damages on the first milestone, which, as I said, to be completed no later than November 15th of 2005, this fiscal year, calendar year, is 1,567 a day; on the next milestone, that liquidated damages goes up to 2,348; on the third milestone, it becomes 4,708 a day; and then the final completion, 4,312 a day in liquidated damages. Now, as you saw in your executive summary, we had three particular bidders on this with a wide range of prices because of the aggressive nature of what we're doing ona project that's very tight right of way and has significant work to be done. The low bidder, as was pointed out, was John Carlo. They've done work around the airport and up in Lee County. This is their first project down here in Collier County. The next low bidder was Better Roads at about six million more in the base bid. As well, the third, or the highest bidder of the three, was about 14 million more, AP AC, who is doing sections out in Immokalee Road. So the 24 sent over our engineer's estimate, reflects the volume of work in the area, that's part of it. Another part of that is the cost of concrete and steel and other issues that are going up. But the most significant portion of that is a very aggressive schedule to establish milestones, very, very strong provisions to make sure that we can monitor our project and get delivery on it. As you well know, we've had concerns in the proj ect we had on Page 136 March 8, 2005 Goodlette- Frank Road nearing completion. Should have been completed before now. We didn't have the milestones to allow us to push that proj ect forward and in particular out of sensitive spots. Again, we are moving from, in this case, from the east to the west, and by November 15th of this year, and about that time on Vanderbilt, we should have the alternate between 1-75 to Livingston, Livingston down to Vanderbilt, and then Vanderbilt on over to allow and alternate for progression within the county. I realize there's a lot of construction going on. We're trying to resolve it as best we can. It is a premium that's going to cost us to get some of these things done, but that's what the community wants and what we're trying hard to hold to. I'm open for any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The contractor, John Carlo, does he have a full understanding of the milestones and also that we mean business as far as -- that he has to meet those milestones or -- MR. FEDER: All of our contractors know that we mean business. We've worked strong with them, in spite of what you may have heard. We do have to address legal issues. And when there are unusual issues underground, in particular, let's say utilities are items that could not have been anticipated in the design, we have to respond to it. Even where there are some that could be anticipated, we've gone after the designer to get some monies back where those issues come up. So we've always meant business. But this is very, very clear in the bid documents. We came to you with this three phasing, brought that to you a couple of board meetings ago before we went out to contract bid on it. The bid has come in knowing that we have these provisions, and we're always very serious about it, in spite of some of, as I said, some that perceive it as a game. It is not a game. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we're going to have traffic run Page 137 March 8, 2005 as usual down these roadways as we're widening them; is that correct? MR. FEDER: That is correct. As we've done in all of our projects, which makes it a little bit longer, unfortunately, but we maintain existing lanes open. In this case, while there may be spot occasions where there's a closure, four lanes will be maintained open throughout construction. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You don't need to speak? Very well. Any other questions from commissioners? Do have you any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have none. I think Mr. Feder's done an excellent job. I make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Halas. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much. Item #10D RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE RFP #05-3770, TO BE POSTED TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR "DESIGN-BUILD" SERVICES FOR CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS TO IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM IMMEDIATELY WEST OF 1-75 TO IMMEDIATELY Page 138 March 8, 2005 EAST OF CR 951 COLLIER BOULEVARD, COUNTY PROJECT NO ó9lQJ - AEEROVED MR. MUDD: The next item, Commissioners, is item 10D. It's a recommendation to approve RFP number 05-3770 to be posted to solicit bids for "Design-Build" services for capacity improvements to Immokalee Road from immediately west of 1-75 to immediately east of County Road 951, Collier Boulevard, county project number ,6910l. Again, Mr. Norm Feder is here to present. MR. FEDER: I'll be extremely brief, and then I'll make staff available, because we are plowing some new territory here as we continue to try and find ways to bring the product, as best we can, to the community. In this case we're talking about a design-build project, as Jim pointed out. There's an important section of 1-75 to 951, which, unfortunately, four years ago, should have been six-laned rather than four, but it was four-laned. Now we're coming back. Unfortunately while it was set up for four-lane within a six, no turn lanes were provided for when you go to six lanes, so that's another challenge. I hope not to give those opportunities to my successor. But nonetheless, that's one thing that we're dealing with here. So we've gone out to a design-build which allows us to have the project designed, increments of that more forward under construction while other parts go in design, therefore, reducing the scheduled time, although it still being in the end of 2007, beginning of 2008, even under an aggressive design build. What I first want to point out to you before I bring it to staff is just a couple of things. First of all I'd ask this board, in whatever motion you make, if it's your pleasure, to acknowledge that rather than saying gas tax and impact fees, we're going to make this exclusively Page 139 -...._,--~_.~ March 8, 2005 impact- fee funded. We're working with the clerk's office. An issue that just got brought to our attention, we think maybe we have the issue clarified and in concurrence. But since we received most of the funding for this seven to eight million dollar job from the Heritage Bay DRI and have available impact fees, we are going to make this impact-fee funded solely while we continue to explore with the clerk and make sure any outstanding issues relative to design-build and use of gas tax and the statutory gas tax is resolved, because we want to do that with extreme caution to make sure that we're always on the upside of those issues. So with that being said, I'm going to ask you in your consideration to note that our intention is to not use gas tax on this. There may be some funds from the state who does design-build all the time, which is not statutory gas tax, that comes relative to the loop, but other than that, all of the local funds, the county funds, will be impact- fee funds derived. The other thing I'll point out in this design-build is there's a stip -- stipend that's going to be provided. Our intent is to obviously get many, many people coming after this proj ect, but then to short list down to three hopefully, because we have more than three that come in, under both a designer and a contractor team. Then those three will develop what amounts to about 30 percent, or the concept design plans. We will pay each of the two unsuccessful after the contract with them bids and we go through and it is a competitive selection at that point to determine it, we will then pay 50,000, I believe it is, to each of the two unsuccessful design firms and those teams to pay them for their work, but also to take that work into public ownership such that if there are ideas or concepts there of valuing engineering in effect that we want included into our design, in the selected design-build firm efforts, we can incorporate those. So that's an unusual item. It's done pretty much around the state in a lot of areas, but I wanted to bring that to your attention. Page 140 ._..~.,.",,-..._--- March 8, 2005 Having said that, staffs here that's worked hard on bringing design-build to the county, a lot of exploration of how it's done elsewhere and the refinements. And like I said, hopefully what you're being brought is basically the benchmark of the best case of design-build, both locally and statewide and around the country. So if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Since we've got somebody from the clerk of courts sitting beside us, is there any concerns in regards to where we are at this point, with the process? MR. MITCHELL: The only concern that we had when we looked at this thing is, the consultant's competitive negotiation act, which is 287-55, this is a method of contracting certain types of professions. Once you get into roads, especially county roads, you have to look to chapter 336, and especially 41, subparagraph three, when you start using the constitutional gas tax. And there is a provision in there basically says that it has to be let to the most -- the least -- the lowest bid, the lowest responsive bid. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. MR. MITCHELL: Now, there are some exceptions in there, and that's the things that Robert and Steve Carnell and we have been talking about today. You know, I'm not an attorney, sir. I mean, I just know there is these exceptions in there, and I appreciate the fact that Norm is going to take the gas tax off the table because this statute only applies when the gas tax is being used. It appears that it would probably be okay, but until we've had a chance to look at it in greater detail, I really can't tell you. But by taking the taxes, the constitutional gas tax out of the equation, you've taken that component of 336 out of it. So I think you would be very safe in proceeding with what Norm is suggesting here. Page 141 March 8, 2005 MR. FEDER: And, Commissioner, if I could, we'll work with the clerk's office, explore this further. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was going to -- MR. FEDER: But we have the opportunity here, because the prominent was going to, in any way, be impact fees, as I mentioned, Heritage Bay DRI. Those funds are directly associated with trying to come forward with this improvement. CHAIRMAN COYLE: This process of paying for two unsuccessful bids might appear unusual, but that can be helpful from the standpoint of value engineering -- MR. FEDER: Very definitely. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- in particular, because once you've chosen the primary bid, there are always ways you can make these things more efficient. And having a couple of other proposed designs could help us perform a more effective value engineering study process. Commissioner Henning? MR. FEDER: Very definitely. Commissioner, I'll point out, particularly when there at the outset, trying to be very, very competitive, you get a lot of good creative ideas, and we want to capitalize on all of them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now that we're about to approve this, when are we going to have the court (sic) of clover -- no, that's a state project. So it's not going to come back to us, correct? MR. FEDER: Part of this includes that clover and we're going to work with the state. Again, in the design-build, that will be a little later in the process, but the date we're giving you, the end of 2000 (sic), very first of 2008, and I like the first one better, is with the clover and the other issues addressed. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's finished? MR. FEDER: That's finished, sir, yes. Page 142 March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Halas. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Item #10E RESOLUTION 2005-115: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DIRECTING THAT AD VALOREM REVENUES (GENERATED FROM .15 MILS) SHALL BE DEDICATED TO COLLIER COUNTY'S STORMW ATER UTILITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item, and that's 10E. It's a recommendation to adopt a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, directing that ad valorem revenue generated from .15 mills shall be dedicated to Collier County Stormwater Utility for fiscal year 2006, and the next 19 fiscal years. Page 143 March 8, 2005 And Mr. Ricardo Valera, our stormwater director, will present. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we know what this is for, right? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas. Is there a second? I will second it. And just for the benefit of the listening public, we're not increasing property taxes by this amount. We're merely saying we're setting aside what we've got in this amount and putting it into stormwater to solve many of the flooding problems we're encountering throughout Collier County. MR. MUDD: And the ability of this resolution gives you -- gives you the ability now to go after federal and state funds that you were never eligible for before. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which is a good thing. Good thing, good. MR. VALERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Ricardo. We have a motion to approve, but we have a question by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: With those grants from federal and state, they usually come with stipulations. The stipulation that I'm thinking of is the maintenance of these capital improvements. How would you propose that we pay for those maintenance items? MR. VALERA: Okay. Ricardo Valera, director of stormwater, for the record. Usually the stipulations that come with the monies from the state or the feds are for us to invest them in the proj ects that we have committed to do, and that we do it in the time frame that we anticipate will happen. Maintenance activities will be part of the stormwater utility effort. We're not only devoting money for capital improvements, but also for maintenance of important elements of the secondary and Page 144 March 8, 2005 tertiary system. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that a part of the stormwater millage that you're proposing -- MR. VALERA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that will include? MR. VALERA: Yes. That is part of the stormwater utility. And there -- there is a document that was created back in the ordinance, 91 -- in 1991, that -- 91-27, that pretty much elaborated on what the utility would be doing. And the utility is basically going to construct capital projects and going to maintain facilities that are part of the responsibility of the county. So the money would go towards that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please -- of approval, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. All opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning is opposed. Three other commissioners are in support. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, do you want to take a break, it's an hour and a half, or do you want to -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Let's do -- give our court reporter a break. We'll be back in 10 minutes. (A brief recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, take your seats. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session. County Manager? Page 145 March 8, 2005 Item #10F RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF LONG LEAD-TIME EQUIPMENT, TO APPROVE THE AWARD OF CONTRACT #05-3743 AND BID #05-3738, AND TO APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR UPGRADES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE LIME SOFTENING WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS AT THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT, PROJECT 700571, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,943,270- AEEROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, your next item is -- spit it out -- is 10F. It's a recommendation to authorize the purchase of long lead-time equipment, to approve the award of contract number 05-3743, and bid number 05-3738, and to approve the necessary budget amendment for upgrades and modifications to the lime softening water treatment plant process at the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant, project 700571 in the amount of $3,943,270. And Ms. Karen Guliani, I'll get it right, Rudy's niece -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Rudy's niece? MR. MUDD: -- yeah -- is here to present from the public utilities division. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Karen. MS. GULIANI: Thank you. I wish I was Rudy's niece. But I appreciate this opportunity. Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You only have 30 seconds. MS. GULIANI: Okay. Recommend approval. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Karen for approval. If you'll just briefly run over the important elements of this thing, Page 146 --'"~--_.,--_...__.,.,...- March 8, 2005 I think we can move on. MS. GULIANI: Okay. I'd like to talk about the public purpose a little bit. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. MS. GULIANI: It's to upgrade over -- this equipment is over 20 years old. It's the workhorse, the lime softening process at the south water plant. It's run 24/7. Now that we have the 8 MGD RO process plant online, we can jump right in there and do these upgrades, the lime softening progress. It will save us money in the long run. We're automating several processes, improve the safety of plant personnel by improving the ventilation, the environment, eliminate tripping hazards. Just an overview. For familiarity on the south water plant, we're talking exclusively for -- of the older portion, and I'm going to circle that for you. The high service pump room and the lime softening process, the chemical building. We are not talking about the new reverse osmosis process that just came online in December. Again, the scope, I want to show you a few pictures of the condition in the chemical building. And you're welcome -- I gladly give tours out there, too; just an overview of some of the condition we have there. These will be greatly improved, and panels replaced. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Karen, all this has basically happened since 9/11; is that correct? MS. GULIANI: Well, what's happened, due to 9/11, we had to close the doors to the chemical feed building, and so we have a moisture -- a higher moisture/humidity situation. More chemicals in the atmosphere have greatly accelerated the deterioration of the equipment in the chemical feed area. The project cost includes procuring equipment, and the county did that to save money to avoid the cost of the contractor markup and also to save the cost of the taxes. We calculated that to be over $100,000. Page 147 March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: In savings? MS. GULIANI: Yes, sir, in savings. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. MS. GULIANI: Thank you for that clarification. So, again, we recommend that the board approve the bids, waive the formal competition for the sole source purchase of the variable frequency drives and the pumps and the motors, and approve the budget amendment. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions, Commissioners? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, move for approval. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta has made a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Halas has seconded. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much, Karen. MS. GULIANI: Thank you. Item #10G RECOMMENDATION TO TERMINATE THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN GULF COAST SKIMMERS WATER Page 148 March 8, 2005 MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is number lOG, and that is a recommendation to give notice of intent to terminate for cause the lease agreement between Gulf Coast Skimmers Water Ski Show, Inc., at Collier County, and Ms. Marla Ramsey, the administrator for public services division, will present. MS. RAMSEY: And good afternoon, Commissioners. Marla Ramsey, for the record. First I apologize for bringing this on as a walk-on, but I'll give you just a smidgen of the history that's happened over the last month or so. On February 6th we had an incident where there was a confrontation between members of the Gulf Coast Skimmers, and the sheriffs department was called to the area. The gulf -- the police officers at the scene recommended that we lock down the facility, and we locked it down for a little over three weeks. We opened it back up this weekend based upon conversations that I had with the Gulf Coast Skimmers a week ago Monday. In that conversation we discussed ways that we could make the situation better with the Gulf Coast Skimmers. I was expecting to receive a letter from the president of the Gulf Coast Skimmers on Friday that was going to be a mutual agreement to have the county take over the water ski show at the location. And if you'll notice the very last page of your fairly thick back-up, there's a letter in there where -- the second paragraph. It talks a little bit about the suggestion that we meet to discuss a business plan and submit our mutually agreed upon plan to the county commissioners' meeting on March 22nd. And that's the letter that I received on Friday of this past week. Once I received the letter, we made an arrangement to meet with the Gulf Coast Skimmers board yesterday afternoon to discuss the business plan. Page 149 March 8, 2005 In the meantime, we talked to the Gulf Coast Skimmers about having a show both on Saturday and Sunday of this weekend, so we opened up the Gulf Coast Skimmers area so that they could do a show. Staff contacted them and reminded them that any boats that were to be on the lake had to have insurance, proper insurance as documented in the lease agreement. Staff was out on site on Saturday and Sunday, and there was a boat on the water that did not have the Collier County government listed as an additional insured. The other boat that was on the water on Monday was insured, but it was not registered with the risk management department. On Monday when I discussed with risk management the liability insurances that are to be on the boats, we were also told that there is no current general liability insurance nor pollution liability insurance registered with risk management as we speak. Some of the things that lead us right to this issue is that in August, staff discussed with the Gulf Coast Skimmers president that there could be no boats on the lake that did not have the proper insurance. Again in November that conversation happened, and again on Friday that conversation happened. Every time the boats are on the lake without the proper insurance, Collier County government is exposed. And so it is our recommendation at this time, based upon the packet of information I provided to you and the ongoing turmoil that's happening in the Gulf Coast Skimmers organization, that we give the Gulf Coast Skimmers their I80-day notice for termination of the lease. And with that, I'll take questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions? Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Help me with this just a little bit, Marla. We're asking -- we're going to give them notice of 180 days. Do they have a right of appeal where they can come back, Page 150 March 8, 2005 or is this sort of final? MS. RAMSEY: I'm not sure about the legal element of it, but in the lease itself, that with cause, we can terminate a lease, and we have to give them a 180-day notice. Now, it would personally be my hope that as we go through this 180 days, we continue to have some dialogue with the Gulf Coast Skimmers, who have indicated to us that they would like to have a program at the lake that is more beneficial, is larger in scope than the program that they have currently, and they want the Collier County government to help make that happen at that location. So we're hoping that we don't have to go the full 180 days, but we may have to. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And believe me, you've got just reasons for bringing this forward to us for consideration for ending their lease. My concern was is, like Commissioner Henning mentioned in the beginning of the meeting, we receive a packet, and that's one thing for us to be able to assimilate the information, but what kind of -- how did it get out to the public so they know this is taking place today so that in case somebody -- anybody wanted to interj ect their opinion, how they'd be able to do it? Did we have some sort of formal notice that went out, or is this just something that came on our agenda and that's it? MS. RAMSEY: The notice that we have given was through the meetings that I've held with the Gulf Coast Skimmers themselves. And yesterday afternoon was one of those where I had three board members and a representative of the membership of the Gulf Coast Skimmers in my office for about a two-hour meeting. We discussed a number of these issues, and we told them at that point in time that we were looking to bring this forward at this board meeting, so we alerted them there. I then had a conversation with one of the board members in the evening about it, as did Murdo Smith, who's interim director for parks and recreation, had with the president of the association. Page 151 March 8, 2005 So we've given notice to the Gulf Coast Skimmers. Whether the public has heard that or not, it's probably only if they were listening this morning, you're right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's where I have a problem. I do think that we're justified in probably going ahead with the information that's here, but lack of the public input -- I look out here, and I don't think I see anybody in the audience from the Skimmers or anyone connected to it, you know, plus or minus, and that bothers me. That's the only thing I've got concerns about. And I, myself, wonder if we shouldn't make this an agenda item for the following meeting, or is that something that's going to throw off your schedule in some way or form? Maybe we could direct staff to do something that will preserve the integrity of the county as far as insurances go or something in the meantime so we might be able to hold this off until a following meeting. MS. RAMSEY: Well, there are some other options. I mean, if you want to discuss them, we could tell them to suspend their activities on the lake until this issue is resolved, or we can continue the situation as we're having it. Unfortunately, I would want to make sure that all insurance -- if they're going to continue to do the shows, that the proper insurance is provided, and there seems to be more insurance missing than just boat registration. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I for one would more or less like to give you the powers to be able to call that as you see fit, but that it comes back to us at another time; in other words, if you think that the best thing to do would be not permit them on the lake, period, cease all operations, fine. If you think that you might be able to oversee it where they do have the insurance and they can continue for a short length of time until at least we have another meeting and decide the final fate of this Page 152 March 8, 2005 organization and their activities, that's fine, too. It's just -- it just bothers me about the public notice part. I'm through. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think, Commissioner Coletta, we've addressed this, that what we're doing is we're putting notice to them that they've got 180 days to respond to this, and I think that we're putting the taxpayers in an unjust situation here. If there's an accident there, the county's going to have a hell of a liability suit, and I feel that we've had other problems with the Gulf Coast Skimmers in the past, and I think that we ought to go through with this resolution here. That's my feeling, and they've got 180 days to address the issue in regards to getting their -- getting their house in shape. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that the way you read it, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Well, close, but not quite. This is merely a notice of intent to terminate, but it does put the operation, pursuant to the lease, for termination to occur at 180 days. In the normal context of their general rights, which are vast under this lease, they will continue to operate, and they may, in fact, operate where certain elements of the lease are not being -- requirements on their part are not being -- are not being met. But all the -- all we're asking, all the staff is asking right now is that notice of intent to terminate. But this does not mean, however, that if they go and get their insurance certificates and things of that nature, that everything's hunky-dory. It is an intent to eliminate this lessor/lessee relationship to be effective 180 days in the future. Correct, Marla? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Gulf Coast Skimmers always has the ability to petition the Board of Commissioners for Page 153 March 8, 2005 relief, and I think in this period, that's one option they can do besides trying to work it out with our parks and rec. staff. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. They can always come back to us. I think it's important that the public understand a little about why we're taking this action. You've talked about insurance issues and safety issues. I think it's important that all of the board members read these police reports in this packet. This is absolutely outrageous. The intimidation and physical confrontations that are occurring between members of this organization that are supposed to be working with young people and setting examples is intolerable. And I, quite frankly, would cancel this contract in a heartbeat because of that alone. They have proven themselves to be an unfit organization to do what they're supposed to be doing there. And I -- I'm fed up with it. We've had nothing but trouble over the years because of these kinds of attitudes and competition between the adults themselves about who's going to make decisions and who's going to take ownership of the boats and what they're going to do with them and who's going to run the shows. There's no place for that sort of conduct in this community, and particularly when children are involved. So for me it goes far beyond the issue of liability and insurance. This is not a fit organization to be doing what they're doing, and we ought to get them out of the business as quickly as we request. But anyway. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to make a motion to approve the staffs recommendation to give notice of termination? And is there a second? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A second by Commissioner Page 154 "' _._____._......--,^ä'> March 8, 2005 Halas. Any further discussion? Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, just comments. I'm not saying that you're wrong. You're totally right. You obviously found the time to be able to read the packet that was handed to us this morning. If I had the time to read it, I probably would have felt differently at the very beginning. I think it's the appropriate action to take. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I think it was unanimous. Thank you very much. Item #10H RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE A $43,800 BUDGET AMENDMENT FROM FUND 131 DEVELOPER SERVICES RESERVES TO FUND 131 PRIOR YEAR REIMBURSEMENTS TO COVER A REFUND ASSOCIATED WITH A STEWARDSHIP MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item, number 10H, which used to be 16A8. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a $43,800 budget Page 155 March 8, 2005 amendment from fund 131, developer services reserves, to fund 131, prior year reimbursements, to cover a refund associated with a stewardship sending area application. This item was moved to the regular agenda by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And let me just -- Stan, I don't even think you -- the reason I pulled it, it said, legal consideration. The recommendation action is consistent with all applicable constitutional and general law and complies with the adoption of regulations. On the -- and thus, it's legally sufficient for the board to consider approval, but on the sign-off sheet, I don't see anybody from our county attorney's office that opined that it was legal. MR. LITSINGER: For the record, Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning director, and I apologize, I forgot my jacket this morning. This is an administrative process. We did not circulate this or send it to the county attorney's office. This is a legal interpretation based on our understanding of the regulations and the administrative authority granted to the community development administrator. Also, keeping in -- take into consideration that upon payment of the initial fee, in protest, I might add, we did acknowledge that we had no basis to determine what a fee should be because no one had any experience in processing and adopting these stewardship sending area designations, and that we would track time and all the resources applied in the approval in the ultimate approval of the designation resolutions by the board, and we were able to determine that it was about $9,500, and we have subsequently amended the fee resolution. But at that moment in time, we found ourselves about to accept an application for a new and very complex technical designation relative to the stewardship program in Ave Maria University, and we had no fee in place. And I will personally take ownership of having imagined a fee. Page 156 March 8, 2005 And we did acknowledge that we would keep track and try to determine an appropriate fee for this process related to the services provided. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can -- can we approve it if we remove the paragraph where it says legal considerations? MR. LIT SINGER: Commissioner, I would indicate that, yes, you may, that that's part of the executive summary, and that's an opinion of your professional staff and not your county attorney. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we ask the county attorney? What's your opinion, David? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you can approve it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it meets these legal considerations as stated here? MR. WEIGEL: I believe so, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. That's all I need. Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. MR. LITSINGER: Thank you. Item #11 Page 157 March 8, 2005 MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 11, which is public comments on general topics. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have one registered speaker under public comment, Mr. Wayne Sherman. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sir? MR. SHERMAN: First of all, I'd like to thank the commissioners for allowing me to talk, and I'm here -- MR. MUDD: Come up to the microphone. MR. SHERMAN: -- at the microphone now -- to thank you very, very -- MR. MUDD: Please state your name for the record. MR. SHERMAN: My name is Wayne Sherman. I'm a resident of Naples -- Collier County, rather. I live in Countryside Country Club, and not too far from where the new EMS facility is being considered. And first of all, I'd like to introduce myself a little more by telling you my background. I was 20 years as senior manager with Department of Defense with a staff whose responsibility was to do special troubleshooting for large emergency facilities that the federal government owns, the Department of Defense owns. I spent quite a bit of time in Cheyenne Mountain in NORAD. I spent some time in the SAC headquarters at Otis Air Force Base working on problems there related to computers, communications, and satellites, and also I spent a couple of years working specifically with the -- with the Joint Chiefs of Staff Command Center in the Pentagon working on facilities there for emergency response, emergency -- worldwide emergency management and response. And I guess I have some background in emergency management, although it's at a much higher level than Collier County. But I do Page 158 March 8, 2005 have some ideas and what it takes to have a strategic -- to have an emergency management facility. And not long ago, some friends of mine apparently were talking to Mr. Henning, who challenged them to find a possible -- another location for this facility that's being -- looks like it's aimed to be built across the street from our country club. And so I figured, you know, rather than just complaining, I ought to go out and look for something, and so I did, and I found a spot I think is ideal. Now, there's several reasons I think it's ideal. The proposed -- first place, we're talking about not an EMS facility anymore. We're talking about a, what was called in the paper not too long ago, emergency services headquarters, which is different -- you're talking about elements of the sheriffs department possibly, you're talking about fire, you're talking about EMS, you're talking about a location where they have all the 911 people; is that correct? Not? Okay. That's what I heard. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No fire station. MR. SHERMAN: Huh, no fire station? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No fire station. MR. SHERMAN: What about the -- what about the sheriffs department? MR. MUDD: Yes. There's a substation location and the 911, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's part of, but not the whole sheriffs department. MR. SHERMAN: But the possibility -- now one of the things that I did -- I was also planner with the Department of Defense, and one of the things I looked into was what will happen not only this year, but two years from now, five years from now, and 20 years from now. And what -- what might be good right now might not be good two, five, 10, 20 years from now at all. And once a big building like Page 159 March 8, 2005 that is built in a location that's fairly limited in space and in a resident __ primary residential area with not really terribly good infrastructure like hotels, restaurants, and so forth in the immediate area and not really good transportation in and out, is -- although some improvement in the transportation is planned, but is probably maybe not really good in the long run. This facil -- this location might have been good 20 years ago, but I don't -- I don't consider it very good today. The -- and it might be that we end up with fire equipment or fire trucks in the area some day if enough space and resources are provided. One of the things that I was concerned about -- concerned about it. I wrote an article -- I wrote a letter to the editor in the news, Naples Daily News, which got published about it, and I just thought it might be interesting to expand on that a little bit, and what I did was go out and got a map of the area and went out and photographed -- or went out and looked at the area, then photographed the area that I was thinking about might be a good location. Turned -- I'm going to give you a copy of each one of these -- of this area. It's a -- 100 or more acres, or several -- maybe more than 100 acres out there that's developed, has been -- has been platted, has the utilities run in, and there's nothing been built on it for 10 years. I don't know why it hasn't been built up, but it's sitting there vacant. And I don't know if we have something where it would be eminent domain or if we have the capability to contact these people and say, we'd like to use it, because there would be -- it might be a great benefit to somebody that's got something sitting on the ground. I'll be through in a minute -- on the ground, that's not being use and would be ideally located for this. Let me give you some of the reasons why it would be ideally located for this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sir? I'm up here. MR. SHERMAN: Oh? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Up here. These speakers are sort of Page 160 March 8, 2005 confusing. Sound comes from everywhere when we talk here. But let me suggest that we get the county manager to get you with Mr. Summers who does the planning. MR. SHERMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not going to make any planning decisions about -- MR. SHERMAN: I know, but I just thought you'd like -- need to be aware of this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we are -- I think the county manager has already pulled this whole item and has instructed staff to take another hard look at everything. MR. SHERMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The design, the location, and everything else. And it would be good if we could get your input into that process because what we have -- what we're talking about right now, I mean, what has already been initially proposed is not necessarily what's going to be considered. So they're already in the process of re-evaluating this whole thing. MR. SHERMAN: Well, I'm concerned of not just having a different style or shape building, but having a different location, which I think would be much more ideally suited for the county. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we're all concerned about that, too. And what we need to do is get the interested citizens to work with our staff who is involved in planning it right now, because we can't make any planning decision. We appreciate your input and your interest, and we encourage you to continue, but we can't make any planning decisions with respect to this. We leave that up to the experts. MR. SHERMAN: Well, I think I've got some pretty good arguments why it should be there, and I think maybe -- if you're interested, I can give you copies of this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, by all means, please; please do, yes, Page 161 March 8, 2005 please do. But more than that, I would encourage you to talk with some of the members of this department who are involved in the planning process. MR. SHERMAN: I'd be glad to. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And hopefully you could contribute to it. MR. SHERMAN: Tell me who to talk to and when, I'll be glad to. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, good. And the first person to talk to is right there, Jim Mudd, and he's going to get your name and telephone number. MR. SHERMAN: Not only, I would probably -- I'd like -- I could volunteer to help in the design development of it, especially from the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't have to pay us, that's fine. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Put your wallet away. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can volunteer, you just don't have to pay us as a requirement. MR. SHERMAN: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we do appreciate your interest, and we're looking for all the good help and good ideas we can possibly get. MR. SHERMAN: Okay. And here's one for you all, and one for each of the commissioners, how's that? CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got copies for each of us already? MR. SHERMAN: Okay. If you'll give them to them, I'll appreciate it. MR. OCHS: I'll do it. MR. SHERMAN: Okay. I've already met Mr. Price. And if I could have some cards and some people I could talk to. MR. MUDD: That's what he's going to do right now. Page 162 March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what he's going to do. Thank you very much. Appreciate you coming in and talking with us. MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. County attorney's report? Item #12 MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one item, and that is, as I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, I wanted to give my notice to you of our request, county attorney office request, for a closed attorney/client executive session for the next board meeting of March 22nd, and this is pursuant to the sunshine law, 286.011, parens 8, which requires notice of request. And then next week we would like to talk to you behind closed doors briefly, I emphasize briefly, about strategy-related litigation in the pending case of, this is Collier County versus the Department of Community Affairs in the City of Naples. This is the, call it, the remnants of the overpass litigation related to the city's growth management plan. And I look forward to working with the county manager if, in fact, there would be a desire for a time concern. But since it's only our counsel, internal counsel and no outside counsel, we're fully flexible that way. And that's all I have to report. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, do you have anything? MR. MUDD: And I'll get him a time certain there around the lunch hour on the 22nd. Yes, sir, I have three items. Page 163 March 8, 2005 Item #15 First item is; I want to make sure I remind the board of the 1 7 March trip to Tallahassee to be part of the Southwest Florida delegation. I've sent an e-mail to each one of you to inform you -- I received it from Holly Schwartz (phonetic), who's the administrative assistant in Lee County. They are the county this year that's leading the issue. It was Charlotte last year. It's Lee this year. It will be Collier County's turn next year in order to get all the arrangements done. I sent that to everyone, so just want to make sure it is for the 17th of March, and they're trying to get the schedules locked in with our particular representatives and State Senators. There's -- they basically lock in their schedule about a week ahead of time, so she's working on that. Again, I sent you an e-mail on that particular issue. Next item is, I've had a request from Dr. -- Dr. Lee, the manager from the City of Naples, to coordinate a joint workshop between the city and the county. I believe a wonderful topic that we could talk about is the FEMA issue and the FEMA flood maps. I'd like to get that scheduled to also get a representative from FEMA to come down and talk to us at the same time as we get our consultant, Tomasello -- Mr. Tomasello to come down here and talk about that particular issue in some detail with us, and I believe we need to really talk about that before we get flood maps that get distributed to our particular county and flood insurance changes, so I'd like to devote the majority of that meeting to that particular item, if I can get direction from the board in order to set that up. CHAIRMAN COYLE: How quickly can you get this set up, do you think? We have a deadline of March 31 st, don't we? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I think we're talking about latter part of Page 164 March 8, 2005 March, first part of April when we're looking at the time we can get all those folks together. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wow. MR. MUDD: Our mission in life is to get everything we can get to the FEMA folks by the 31st of March. I believe Mr. Tomasello is thoroughly engaged seven days a week, 24/7 in making that happen. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And he ought to work harder. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I was just -- if we put jet boosters on him, that would be nice, too. But I think it would be -- it would -- I believe FEMA has some latitude, okay? I believe there's certain levels of that organization that are playing hard line for us, and I don't blame them to play hard line to get the information so that they can solidify their maps. I believe they'll have some opportunity to discuss that especially with them, because they're the ones at that time that have the flexibility. If you remember the letter that I received when I asked for the last extension that I'm going to ask for to go based on a schedule that was provided, and they came back and said 31 March, is the part where you will have your input, and we will have done our review. You know, how you can hold me to a suspense -- you know, I can hold myself to a suspense to get the data in, but then to hold me to a suspense on their review time, I think, was a little bit far -- it was a far stretch as far as they were concerned, because especially when they were talking about four to five months of review time for the data that we provided. To try to hold me to that suspense and have that review time done on their agency's part, I think, they pushed the envelope just a tad. So we're doing everything we can do to get our data in by the 31st of March, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if we try to give you guidance to try to get it done before the end of March, could you do that? Page 165 March 8, 2005 MR. MUDD: I'll try. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners, how do you feel about that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just on this one topic we're going to be dealing with? MR. MUDD: You want any other topics? I can add others topics, if you have more. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It may be too early, but when I get to my turn I'll throw something out for consideration. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And the last item that I'd like to talk about is the next board meeting, and I've got scheduled the next board meeting for one and a half days. And the first day is the 22nd. That Tuesday in the afternoon, with your direction, I would like to dedicate that afternoon meeting to two items, and they have to do with Coconilla. And if you've watched the planning board meeting, it lasted for longer than four hours. So I think if we set that for that particular item -- and I might have one on standby of lesser significance, but we dedicated that, and then the next morning, on Wednesday the 23rd, we get to the rest of the seven and eight items. I think that's a doable agenda. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you thing we'll be able to finish it up by noon on the second day? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Ifwe do -- if we do the two items at Coconilla the afternoon of Tuesday, because that could go the afternoon of Tuesday into the evening of Tuesday. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So in other words, we're going to have to limit the time of Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Coyle, right, as far as taking·up time talking? CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this is from the guy who spent 45 minutes today talking. Page 166 March 8, 2005 MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I have no response to that last statement. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that it? MR. MUDD: That's all I have, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if it has anything to do with the overflow on Wednesday, that church in Immokalee, it might be continued again, because I'm not too happy about not hearing that today. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two things in preparation for the March 17th trek up to Tallahassee. There is a Senate Bill 1640. There's no compatible -- from my understanding, if there's no compatible in the House today by the end of today, it's not going to move forward. Senate Bill 1640 deals with eminent domain, and the amendment is to remove -- remove the -- the ability -- it will remove the cap from attorney's fees. And I -- some of our road projects or any other capital improvement where we have to do eminent domain, it could affect the bottom line pricing of that capital improvement. So I hope if it still continues, that we can stay on top of that and make that one of our legislation priorities. The other one was brought up by some citizens in Collier County, that's House Bill 741 and Senate Bill 1178. And what this bill does, it allows for a bigger mesh for a net for catching mullet. And what I understand is, the net size -- the mesh size is much smaller, therefore, catching what they call byproducts of something of -- you know, smaller snook and redfish and mullet. And the whole -- the goal here is to just target certain types of species like the mullet. And I see it as a benefit to some of our residents, not only in Everglades City, but a lot of other areas in Collier County, and I would hope that the Board of Commissioners Page 167 March 8, 2005 would -- if we could pick this up as far as our legislation priorities for 2005. And if there's any other questions on the net bill, there's a couple residents in the audience that can address any further questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I have no questions. Anything that will benefit the residents and fishermen of Everglades City, I'm for. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta, do you have anything? I mean Commissioner Halas, do you have anything? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I have a couple of items. First of all, I'd like to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute. Are we picking these three things up as our priorities? That was the question. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. One more time, Commissioner Henning. What would you like to do, make this an agenda item? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- not an agenda item, as one of the priorities of the Board of Commissioners, legislation priorities for 2005 before the House and the Senate. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. Why not? COMMISSIONER HALAS: How many items have we got now to lobby with our legislature? MR. MUDD: Well, we have four joint items with the five counties, and we can add these as separate items that we talk to our particular legislators about when we're up there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I, for one, would like to see copies of the COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bill. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- of the bill, and-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here it is. I'm sorry. Page 168 March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Pass them out, okay -- and understand their provisions a little more thoroughly. With respect to the legal fees of lawyers on the -- MR. MUDD: Eminent domain situation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- eminent domain situation, I can see circumstances where taking caps off the lawyers fees and paying them for the actual services would be improvement, because right now we're having to pay them a set percentage between what we offer for a settlement and what actually is determined, and that sometimes results in what I think are exorbitant fees with little or no work on behalf of that lawyer. So-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think they're just overpaid in general. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I do, too. You know, if there's some way we can reduce their reimbursement, I'm all happy about that. But sometimes a piece of legislation looks like it's one thing, it really turns out to be something different. And I'd just like to take a look at it to make sure that it doesn't further obligate us in these areas where -- and I think it's -- what, is it 30 percent of the difference between our offer to purchase -- MR. FEDER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's 30 percent. So right now if we offered somebody a million dollars for a piece of property and it finally settles for $3 million, then the lawyer's going to get $333,000 whether he even takes it to court, and that's crazy. And what -- my point is, does this bill eliminate that and replace it with a fee schedule of some kind, which in some cases might be good, or does it do both, which would be horrible. So that's all I'm saying is I just need to take a little closer look at it before I can make a decision as to whether or not it should be placed on our legislative agenda. Page 169 March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not going to have an opportunity to do that. We're not going to have an opportunity to talk about it at the next meeting. Our next meeting is the 22nd. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I can make a recommendation, if that's the way you feel and the other commissioners feel the same way. Can you do that in the next 24 hours? Because you have a town hall meeting tomorrow night in Commissioner Coyle's district, and if you want to dedicate five to 10 minutes at the end for just a discussion on this, then you have that opportunity. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I tell you what would serve my purposes, and that is if the county manager -- or I'm sorry, the county attorney and the county manager, were to take a look at this and decide what it's effect on us would be, and if you say it's favorable, then I'd be willing to go support it. Okay? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there any more information, or should I just go to the website on this? MS. JOHNSON: What questions? Some of them I can answer. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's very vague. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you're going to speak, we're going to have to get you on the microphone, we've got to get your name. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Social security number. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, we don't want that. MS. JOHNSON: You can't have that. MR. MUDD: State your name for the record. MS. JOHNSON: My name's Christina Johnson. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just don't talk over our head. I know there's fishing lingo. MS. JOHNSON: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that will -- you'll totally lose us. MS. JOHNSON: Well, Uncle Bobby has most of the fishing lingo. Page 1 70 March 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you had a question, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have a couple questions. Is there anything more in detail than this? This is just basically a number of statements, and I'm not sure -- is there any -- if I go to this website, will it answer a lot of my questions? MS. JOHNSON: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. JOHNSON: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We presently -- all we can use now is just the throw net, is that correct, for mullet, in the inlet? MS. JOHNSON: In the inlet? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, or backwaters. MS. JOHNSON: In the state, as a whole, you can only use 500 square foot nets with the two-inch net for the mullet, right? MR. JOHNSON: Five hundred square foot each. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you're going to talk on the record, we have to get you on a microphone and we have to get your name. MR. JOHNSON: Robert L. Johnson. Yeah, you're allowed 200 (sic) and 500 square foot pieces of net per vessel in the water at one time not connected. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you're saying the same thing for this too or what? MS. JOHNSON: Yes, but we want the mesh sizes larger. The two inch mesh is the maximum right now. That has a by-catch of90 percent. Making the mesh larger decreases the by-catch to, some cases, zero. So that's what we want. And, in fact, when the net limitation act took place, that's what was allowed to commercial fishermen in this state. Two 500 square feet nets with any size mesh. The two-inch mesh size wasn't implemented till two years after the net limitation act took affect. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And your proposal is for larger than two-inch? Page 171 _.-..<,.~._---..._-"...-- March 8, 2005 MS. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what are you proposing is the size? MS. JOHNSON: Any size mesh. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Any size mesh above two inches? MR. JOHNSON: Sir, before -- pre-net ban, the MFC and the people in state, we went to a three-inch mesh size net, no smaller than three- inch stretched mesh, except in a seine pocket, which could be less than three-inch. For the -- the reason this was is for the minimum take of juvenile fish; fish that we could not catch. I mean, you know, you caught, you would destroy. And we would catch a viable fish. In our run season down here, even the Marine Fish Commission, they regulated, even put us on bigger size meshes during our run season. Now, this was done pre-net ban. After the net ban we could still use, in those two pieces of 500 square foot net -- which actually is about 33 yards long apiece, five foot deep -- we could use any size mesh. Then the CCA, or whoever, back behind -- with the Marine Fish Commission, they come up with this, well, let's go to a two-inch stretch mesh net, which is about that long. I've got a piece in the back of my truck. And all you do is, when you strike in any place you want to strike, all you kill is juvenile fish, and that's all you take. Now, you might catch one or two or three, or whatever you're going to catch, fish you can sell. But all you're doing is you're taking out the juvenile fish. What they done pre-net ban, they turned around, the Marine Fish Commission done a complete flip-flop. They're sitting there saying, now, hey, look, you know, if you take and use a bigger mesh net, you're going to take a lot of other fish, which -- you know, and that's hogwash. Page 172 March 8, 2005 And it's just a big political thing or whatever. I don't know what the problem is. But you can't have before and then after, and then especially when you've got -- our nets before net ban, I would probably fish -- it was about 500-yard net in run season, four-inch, four and a quarter stretch. Now you're down to two pieces of net, you can't tie them together, five-foot deep, and let's see, no longer than 60 or 70 yards, and that's the two-inch stretch. Now, you don't hurt very many fish that's viably caught with two-inch stretch like that. You don't hurt too many. But now, if you get around them holes and stuff with a lot of juvenile fish like that, you can take out a nasty eyeball. Now, if anybody wants to ever ride with me to see it done and help me clear something like that, I'll do it. The other thing is, if I strike that piece of net that the Marine Fish Commission is regulating me on, if the marine patrol pulls up, I have that net root, which we have to do in a lot of places we strike to get our equipment without losing it, they can write me a ticket on each one of those juvenile fish I caught. So what they have done, they have said, you use a piece of equipment, Mr. Johnson, that if you root that net, I can turn around and I can have you arrested. And let me tell you something, them fines ain't -- you know, that's ain't -- that's pretty rough, so -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think I got the picture. MR. JOHNSON: You got the picture. I hope so. The whole thing about it, if you want a show and tell, I'll go with you, and we'll explain it to the men when they catch us. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So can we take up this item? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? Okay. We've Page 173 March 8, 2005 got three nods. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MS. JOHNSON: Thank you very much. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And with respect to the one on legal fees, if I could just get, you know, the county manager and county attorney to tell me if this is better than what we've got now, I'll be happy, okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just sent you an e-mail from Ellen Chadwell from the county attorney to explain it a little bit more. CHAIRMAN COYLE: They've got an opinion on it already? MR. MUDD: We're working on it. We'll have it for you by your town hall meeting tomorrow. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Let's discuss that tomorrow night at the town hall meeting COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I have. MR. MUDD: We'll have a memo to the board to give you that information. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, do you have anything else? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd like to say that I think all of us want to give our warm wishes to Commissioner Fiala in the sudden death of her sister, and also Commissioner Coletta's daughter, we hope that she has a speedy recovery in the hospital. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want to say that we had a very fruitful trip to Washington with the county manager assistant, Debbie Wright, County Manager, Jim Mudd, and myself, and I want to say that the trip went very well. It was very well put together. Hats off to Debbie Wright. She really stretched herself on this, along with her other duties. Page 174 March 8, 2005 And I think we -- we were able to get some additional funding for some projects here in Collier County, one in particular is that I think we're going to -- hopefully that there will be $2 million earmarked for a study for the interchange justification report, and that's the interchange at Everglades Boulevard and 1-75 so that the people that are in Golden Gate Estates can possibly find another way to ingress and egress out of there. We're also look -- I think we're going to get some funding -- anyway county commission -- County Manager Jim Mudd asked for some funding requests for cleaning up an issue in Vanderbilt Lagoon, water quality, and I believe that's going to come from water resources in the development area, and then I think we're also going to be -- possibly a grant for, what, $2 million for the upcoming garage for the transit. MR. MUDD: Transit, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So -- and I think our lobbying to -- with Congressman Mack early Tuesday morning, I think, we came across good in regards to showing him some of the pictures, some of the incidences that take -- transpire each day on 1-75, and I think that had a pretty good effect. Anyway, in our discussions with the congressman, he stated that he didn't know if he could assist in anything more than maybe 50 million. And as everybody knows, at this point in time, I think -- I hope that some of our lobbying had an effect in regards to him being able to get the $72 million. So we told him that we needed about 147 to complete the project of six-laning. So I want to say that, hats off to Congressman Mack in regards to what he's done here for Southwest Florida. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I understand from the county manager that you were able to also get enough money to build that overpass at Vanderbilt Beach Road and U. S. 41 ? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. Page 175 March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The one with signs on it? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That's going to be going up pretty soon. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Boy, are the phones ever ringing in the office. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I really need all your help. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anything more you want to say? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to be quiet at that. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to -- I'd like to add one thing to Commissioner Halas' report. We also saw State Senator N elson, we also saw Congressman Mario Diaz- Balart, which was also instrumental. It was like a tag team with Congressman Mack as far as getting that $72 million. We also saw representatives for Congressman Mica, Congresswoman Brown, and representatives staffers from Senator Martinez' office, and I believe that combination from all those people will help to bring that across. And we also went outside of Florida, and we saw -- we saw staffers from Congressman Petri's organization because he's chair of one of the subcommittees that's very important to us. We showed him a lot of Wisconsin plates out there that are helping us cause 1-75 and that traffic jam. And we took pictures to make sure that it wasn't just the local Wisconsin thing. But his folks are helping us as far as our traffic congestions are, and it would be good if he could help support us in Southwest Florida and make the roads better. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Nothing more? We are adjourned. Thank you very much. ***** Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner Page 176 March 8, 2005 Coletta and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 RESOLUTION 2005-103: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "WHISPERING WOODS", THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE Item #16A2 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "VERONA WALK PHASE 2C", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY- W /STœIlLAIIONS Item # 16A3 - Continued indefinitely COUNTY STAFF TO ADMINISTRATIVELY ISSUE CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT EXCAVATION PERMITS AND VEGETATION REMOVAL PERMITS AS REQUIRED FOR SA TURNIA FALLS (TERAFINA PUD) LOCATED IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST-W/STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN Item #16A4 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "ANDALUCIA", Page 1 77 March 8, 2005 APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY- W /STœllLA.IIONS Item #16A5 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA PARCEL 125 REPLAT", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE Item #16A6 RESOLUTION 2005-104: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADW A Y (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "IBIS COVE PHASE 2C", THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE Item #16A7 RESOLUTION 2005-105: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "ISLAND WALK PHASE 5B", THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE Item #16A8 - Moved to Item #10H Page 178 March 8, 2005 Item #16A9 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR ISLAND WALK, PHASE 2 - W /RELEASE OF Item #16AI0 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR WHISPER TRACE, FIDDLER'S CREEK- Item #16All FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR MEDITERRA GOLF COURSE REST SHELTERS - W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECllRITY Item #16A12 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR MEDITERRA, UNIT ONE - W/RELEASE OF Item #16A13 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR CARLTON LAKES, UNIT 3C - W /RELEASE OF Item #16A14 Page 1 79 March 8, 2005 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR STERLING GREENS AT GLEN EAGLE TR J, PHASE II - W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECllRITY Item #16A15 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "VERONA WALK PHASE 3A", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY- W /STœl.ILA.I.I(ThIS Item #16Bl RESOLUTION 2005-106: (1) APPROVING, AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE, A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, IN WHICH COLLIER COUNTY WOULD BE REIMBURSED UP TO $437,500 OF THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF $500,000 FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS - VARIOUS LOCATIONS; (2) AUTHORIZE $437,500 TO BE REIMBURSED BY FDOT AND THE COUNTY'S CONTRIBUTION OF $62,500 FROM GAS TAX RESERVES (313); AND (3) APPROVAL OF FUTURE FISCAL YEAR ANNUAL COSTS OF SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE AND INCLUDE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - AS Item #16B2 Page 180 March 8, 2005 A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ALLOCATE THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S 5309 GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $102,986 FOR FY2005 FUNDING FROM THE FTA FOR THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) SYSTEM - FOR REPLACEMENT, REHABILITATION AND PURCHASES OF BUSES, EQUIPMENT, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUS- RELAIED...F A ClLITIRS Item #16B3 AN AGREEMENT FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENTS REQUIRED FROM VILLAS AT MANDALAY DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD BETWEEN POLLY AVENUE AND COLLIER BOULEVARD, AND THE INSTALLATION OF AN UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE PIPE ALONG A PORTION OF THE FRONTAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, WITHIN RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT NOT TO RXCEED.jJ 50,000 (~O 601(9) Item #16B4 ADOPT-A-ROAD AGREEMENTS WITH FREEDOM TAX SERVICES SW FLORIDA, LANDMARK NAPLES HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, T.J. TURF FARM, GULF STREAM HOMES, COLLIER CLEANING COMPANY AND MARINE CORPS LEAGUE OF NAPLES FOR A TOTAL COST OF $150.00 FOR TWO ROAD- WAY RECOGNITION SIGNS - AS DETAILED Page 181 March 8, 2005 Item #16B5 AWARD BID #05-3689 IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,606.20 TO GROUND ZERO LANDSCAPING SERVICES, INC. FOR THE FY2004-2005 BA YSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE STANDARD CONTRACT AFTER REVIEW BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE - Item #16B6 A WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $530,000 TO D. N. HIGGINS, INC. FOR THE RIVER OAKS, PALM RIVER SUBDIVISION CULVERT REPLACEMENT (PROJECT NO. 51007) IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT NO. 04-3535, AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF Item #16B7 THREE (3) LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE LEL Y GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AS GOVERNING BOARD AND (1) LELY SQUARE PARTNERSHIP, (2) EARL C. AND CHARLOTTE J. KOOPS AND (3) BUENA VIDA, IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,918.50, FOR LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE ON ST. ANDREWS BOULEVARD - AS Item #16B8 Page 182 March 8, 2005 A FINAL STATUS REPORT FROM THE I-75/GOLDEN GATE INTERCHANGE AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE - AS Item #16Cl THE PURCHASE OF A PILOT WATER FILTRATION UNIT FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT 12-MGD RO EXPANSION AND AWARD BID #05-3727, FOR $125,950.00 TO AEREX INDUSTRIES (PROJECT NO. 70097) - AS Item # 16C2 EXECUTE AND RECORD SATISFACTIONS FOR CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER IMPACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENTS, FISCAL IMPACT IS $28.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN - AS DETAILED IN THE Item #16C3 RESOLUTION 2005-107: APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SllMMARY Page 183 March 8, 2005 Item # 16C4 RESOLUTION 2005-108: APPROVING THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, FISCAL IMPACT IS $30.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN - AS DETAILED IN THE Item #16C5 RESOLUTION 2005-109: APPROVING THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, FISCAL IMPACT IS $30.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN - AS DETAILED IN THE Item # 16C6 CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (FP&L) FOR ELECTRICAL POWER SERVICE FOR THE REUSE PUMPING STATION AT THE NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF), PROJECT 739501, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED Page 184 March 8, 2005 Item #16C7 APPROVAL OF THE EXPENDITURE FOR AN ON-SITE QUALSERVE CLOSEOUT WORKSHOP CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST IN A SUM NOT TO EXCEED $500.00 - AS Item # 16C8 RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT ALL BIDS FOR BID #05-3766 AND TO PROVIDE AUTHORIZATION TO RE-BID FOR "PIGGING STATION FOR IMMOKALEE ROAD 30" FORCE MAIN" (PROJECT NO. 73943) - AS DETAILED IN THE Item #16C9 ACCEPTANCE OF FIVE GRANT AGREEMENTS FOR AL TERNA TIVE WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN THE AMOUNT OF $750,000 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SllMMARY Item #16C10 WAIVE THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND APPROVING VACCARO CONSULTING, INC. FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO PERFORM POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW, WORK FLOW ANALYSIS & DOCUMENTATION OF OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEM AND CREATE PROCEDURES FOR NEW COUNTY Page 185 March 8, 2005 Item #16D1 AWARD BID #05-3759 FOR THE RENTAL OF PORTABLE TOILETS TO 1. W. CRAFT, INC. AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $26,OQO.OO COllli.TYWIDR Item #16D2 AN APPLICATION AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR SAFE HAVENS: SUPERVISED VISITATION AND SAFE EXCHANGE GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $350,000 FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICES' OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN FOR THE CHILD ADVOCACY COUNCIL - Item #16D3 ACCEPTANCE OF DONATED FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $79.29 AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING THE REVENUE AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS Item #16E1 AMENDMENT A-2 FOR EXTERNAL AUDITING CONTRACT #03-3497 AUDITING SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY BETWEEN KPMG, LLP AND COLLIER COUNTY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $58,100 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMING A GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE THIRD - Page 186 March 8, 2005 PARTY ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS AUDIT OF THE COUNTY'S GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, CBSA, INC. - AS DETAILED IN THE Item # 16E2 REPORT AND RATIFY A STAFF REPORT ON PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKER'S COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 2004-15 FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF Item # 16E3 REJECT ALL RESPONSES RECEIVED UNDER INVITATION TO QUALIFY #05-3779, CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH PARKING GARAGE AND REISSUE AS ~O 9029~) Item #16E4 STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS FOR USE IN THE ACQUISITION OF CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (SINGLE PROJECT), AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (FIXED TERM) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SllMMARY Item #16E5 Page 187 . ,~..,--- .... ""-,,...- March 8, 2005 PAYMENT OF $454.07 TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE FOR TAXES DUE, INTEREST AND PENALTY FEES FOR LATE FUEL TAX FILINGS IN ElSe A L...YEAR.2DO ~ Item #16F1 AMENDMENT NO.1 TO WORK ORDER #HM-FT-05-02 UNDER CONTRACT #01-3271, FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, WITH HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS FOR SHOREBIRD MONITORING RELATED TO HIDEAWAY BEACH RENOURISHMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,648.00 (PROJECT NO. 90502) - AS DETAILED IN THE Item # 16F2 TWO (2) CONTRACTUAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE EAST NAPLES, AND GOLDEN GATE FIRE & RESCUE DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE FIRE PROTECTION AND RESCUE SERVICES WITHIN THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT AT A COST OF Item #16F3 BUDGET AMENDMENT #05-206 REGARDING A DECREASE IN Item #16H1 - Withdrawn Page 188 March 8, 2005 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE 2005 HUMANITARIAN AWARD LUNCHEON HONORING CLYDE BUTCHER ON MARCH 11, 2005 AT THE RITZ-CARLTON GOLF RESORT AT TIBURON; $100.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BllIlGEJ' Item #16H2 COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE LINCOLN DAY FUNDRAISER TO BE HELD AT THE NAPLES BEACH HOTEL AND GOLF CLUB ON MARCH 12, 2005 SPONSORED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, THIS FUNDRAISING EVENT WILL HAVE TWO PRESTIGIOUS CONGRESSMEN AS KEYNOTE SPEAKERS: CONGRESSMAN CONNIE MACK AND CONGRESSMAN MARIO DIAZ-BALART; ATTORNEY GENERAL CHARLIE CRIST WILL ALSO BE IN ATTENDANCE; $75.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLEIT A'S TR A VELlll.lDGET Item #16H3 COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE LINCOLN DAY FUNDRAISER TO BE HELD AT THE NAPLES BEACH HOTEL AND GOLF CLUB ON MARCH 12, 2005 SPONSORED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, THIS FUNDRAISING EVENT WILL HAVE TWO PRESTIGIOUS CONGRESSMEN AS KEYNOTE SPEAKERS: CONGRESSMAN CONNIE MACK AND CONGRESSMAN MARIO DIAZ-BALART; ATTORNEY GENERAL CHARLIE CRIST WILL ALSO BE IN ATTENDANCE; Page 189 March 8, 2005 $75.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BllIlGEJ' Item #1611 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED: The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Page 190 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NaSCELLANEOUSCORRESPONDENCE . March 8, 2005 FOR BOARD ACTION: 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: H:Data/Format 1. Historical & Archaeological Preservation Board - Notice that the February 16, 2005 meeting has been canceled. 2. Collier County Tourist Development Council - November 22, 2004. 3. Development Services Advisory Committee - Agenda for February 2, 2005; Minutes of February 2, 2005 4. The Ochopee Fire Control District - Minutes for January 11, 2005. 5. Collier County Contractor's Licensing Board - Agenda for February 16, 2005. 6. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Agenda and Minutes for January 27, 2005. 7. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for February 17,2005, Minutes of January 6,2005. 8. Productivity Committee Meeting - Minutes of January 19,2005. 9. Collier County Environmental Advisory Committee - Minutes of January 5, 2005. 10. Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for February 8,2005; Minutes of January 11,2005. 11. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee - Agenda for February 14,2005; Minutes of January 10,2005. 12. Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for February 16,2005; Minutes of January 19, 2005. 13. Community Character Smart Growth Advisory Committee - Agenda and Minutes for October 6,2004; October 25,2005; and Informal Minutes for November 10, 2004. B. Other: H:Data/Format 1) Caribbean Gardens Blue Ribbon Committee - Minutes of December 9,2004. 2) Special District Services. Inc - Ave Maria Stewardship Community District Activity Update. March 8, 2005 Item #16J1 DESIGNATING THE SHERIFF AS THE OFFICIAL FISCAL YEAR 2005 APPLICANT AND PROGRAM POINT-OF- CONTACT FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, ACCEPT THE GRANT WHEN AWARDED, AND Item #16J2 A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS DATED JANUARY 22, 2005 TO FEBRUARY 18,2005 SERVE A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES, A COPY OF THE DETAILED REPORT IS ON DISPLAY IN THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER Item #16K1 A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PARCEL 139 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN AURIGEMMA, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-344-CA (VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT NO. 63051) - STAFF TO PAY THE SUM OF $6,400 TO Item #16K2 Page 191 March 8, 2005 AUTHORIZE STAFF TO OPEN A PURCHASE ORDER FOR GERSON, PRESTON ROBINSON & CO., P.A., TO BE USED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS AND CONSULTANT FOR THE COUNTY IN THE ACQUISITION OF WELLFIELD EASEMENTS FOR THE "SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 20-MGD WELLFIELD EXPANSION" (SCRWTP) PROJECT NO. Item #16K3 AN AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF APPRAISAL FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PARCEL NO. 1 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. FRANCISCO LEMUS, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2788-CA (13TH STREET PROJECT NO. 69068) - AS Item #16K4 THE AGREED ORDER WITH RESPONDENT, CROWN CASTLE GT COMPANY, LLC, IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. TREE PLATEAU CO., INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 03- 0519-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NUMBER NO. 60018) - Item #16K5 THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH RESPONDENTS, DAVID AND BARBARA S. BURGESON FOR PARCEL NO. 170 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. THOMAS F. SALZMANN, ET AL., CASE NO. 03- 2550-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT NO. 60027); ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND PARTIES TO THE Page 192 March 8, 2005 PROPOSED MEDIATED SETTLEMENT, BARBARA BURGESON, IS EMPLOYED BY COLLIER COUNTY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. THIS PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED FOR COLLIER COUNTY'S GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED MEDIATED SETTLEMENT DOES NOT CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR THE BOARD. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS Item #17 A - Moved to Item #7C Item #17B - Continued to the March 22, 2005 BCC Meeting ORDINANCE 2005-13: PUDZ-A-2003- AR-4942- CONQUEST DEVELOPMENT USA, LC, REQUESTING A PUD TO PUD REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) AND APPROXIMATELY 1 3/4 MILES SOUTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL (US 41), FURTHER DESCRIBED AS SILVER LAKES, IN SECTION 10 & 15, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:35 p.m. Page 193 March 8, 2005 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL '1uLW. æ FRED COYLE, Chal an ATTEST: DWIGfLt.13,ßRPCK, CLERK ~r;è.:··~:~~:c: . .... ~··::·::1,7~ "\ ~··A~~~·o.( . .t"':'·Iiij~~1)· · "', J~."".~"", )'r:"':.:;.,\..'~" These niinutès ypproved by the Board on 1}:.¥1' \ di èJ::IJ5 , as presented v or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 194