The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 07/24-25/2007 R July 24-25, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, July 24-25,2007 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: Jim Coletta Tom Henning (via speakerphone) Frank Halas Fred W. Coyle Donna Fiala ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court Page I COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB) ~. ~ )1 ,,\ AGENDA July 24 - 25, 2007 9:00 AM Jim Coletta, BCC Chairman, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman Tom Henning, BCC Vice-Chairman, District 3 Donna Fiala, BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner, District 2 Fred W. Coyle, BCC Commissioner, District 4 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 PRESENT A TION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, 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." Page 1 July 24-25, 2007 ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and summary agenda.) B. June 12, 2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting C. June 19,2007 - BCC/PUD Audit Workshop D. June 22, 2007 - BCC/GMP Amendment Meeting E. June 26 - 27 2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting F. June 28, 2007 - BCC/Budget Workshop G. June 29, 2007 - BCC/Budget Workshop 3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS) Page 2 July 24-25, 2007 A. Advisory Committee Service Awards 10-Year Recipient 1) Edward Olesky - Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force 5- Year Recipients 1) Helen Carella - Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee 2) Michael Carr - Housing Finance Authority 3) Frank Donohue - Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 4) Ed Staros - Pelican Bay Services Division B. 25 Year Attendees - Employee Service Award 1) Patrick Webb, Facilities Management C. 30 Year Attendees - Employee Service Award 1) Joseph Chirico, Transportation D. 35 Year Attendees - Employee Service Award 1) James Thomas, Parks and Recreation 4. PROCLAMATIONS 5. PRESENTATIONS A. Recommendation to recognize David Verrot, Senior Field Crew Leader, Wastewater Collections, as Supervisor of the Year for 2006 B. Recommendation to recognize Barbara Olko, Administrative Assistant, Public Utilities Operations, as Employee of the Month for July 2007 Page 3 July 24-25, 2007 c. Vanderbilt Bay Construction will present the status of their construction efforts for the new Collier County Sheriff's Special Operations Building, Project #52002 D. Presentation by Mr. Bill Barton regarding continued support for the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority E. This item to be heard at 3:00 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept presentation of status report on (I) potential inclusionary zoning ordinance, (2) potential mitigation fee ordinance, (3) affordable workforce-housing supply study and (4) economic impact analysis of potential affordable workforce-housing mitigation fee, and give further direction to staff and the County Attorney on the potential ordinances. 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS A. Public petition request by Marion Gregory to discuss administrative fence height waiver fee B. Public petition request by Jim Kramer to discuss waiver of inspection fees resulting from repairs to Hurricane Wilma damage C. Public petition request by Don Smith to discuss weed problem in the Port Au Prince canals D. Public petition request by Blake Gable to discuss Impact Fee Deferral Program to the Ave Maria project E. Public petition request by Guillermo and Carmen Pena to discuss easement access to reach property 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. V A-2007-AR-11459 James and Lavonne Williamson, represented by Sonrise Properties of Naples, DBA Sonrise Building Company, is requesting a variance within the Page 4 July 24-25, 2007 Wyndemere Lodgings Planned Unit Development (PUD) reducing the existing front set back from 40' to approximately 36' to extend the front of their garage, for purposes of accommodating a second vehicle, for a project to be known as the Williamson Garage Addition. The subject property consisting of 0.34 acres is located at 186 Edgemere Way South, in Section I of the Wyndemere Lodgings Subdivision, on Lot 46, of Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PE-2006-AR-1055I , DeVoe Family Limited Partnership II, represented by Sandra Bottcher ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., is requesting a parking exemption for the De V oe Suzuki dealership. The exemption seeks approval of an off-site employee parking area on a residentially-zoned lot to serve the DeVoe Suzuki dealership in the adjacent commercially-zoned district. The subject property, consisting of 0.23 acres, is located at 1397 Trail Terrace Drive, on the northwest corner of 14th Street North and Trail Terrace Drive, approximately 500 feet south of Solana Road, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition: V A-2007-AR- 11500, The District School Board of Collier County, represented by Donald Murray, TKW Consulting Engineers, Inc., requests a dimensional variance often-feet from the maximum height 35 feet for the Residential Multi- family - 6 units per acre (RMF-6) Zoning District as provided for in Section 4.02.01 A Table 2 ofthe LDC. The 25.60+ acre tract ofland contains several buildings for the Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology campus. A new 3- story high school is proposed to be constructed to a zoned height not greater than 50-feet. The project is located at 3710 Estey Ave, in Section I and 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida D. This item was continued from the Julv 25. 2006 BCC meetinl!: and the September 12. 2006 BCC meetinl!:. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. CU-2005-AR-8046 Jaime and Demarys Oliva, represented by Robert N. Pelier of Blanco & Pelier, P.A., is requesting a conditional use, Pursuant to Land Development Code Sections 2.04.03 and Page 5 July 24-25, 2007 2.03.08.A.3, in the Rural Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) zoning district, for "facilities for the collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste." The applicant proposes to use the site for a horticultural mulching and recycling facility. The subject property, consisting of 10.04 acres, is located at 1340 Wild Turkey Drive, east of Immokalee Road, in Section 26, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA-2007-AR-Il 081: Dr. Terry P. McMahan, president for International College, Inc., represented by Michael J. Volpe, Esquire of Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi, LLP, is requesting an amendment to the Harvest for Humanity PUD to change the permitted uses to replace the current resident's activity center and blueberry farm with its ancillary sales facility with limited Educational Services on certain tracts. The subject property, consisting of 38.4 acres, is located in the northeastern quadrant of the intersection of Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road in Immokalee, Florida, in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners considers adoption of a Temporary Planning Moratorium Ordinance C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Continuation of the June 4. 2007. later continued to June 5 and 22. 2007, Public Hearing for the 2005 Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments (Transmittal Hearing), ONLY to consider Petition CP-2005-12, and that portion of Petition CPSP-2005-14 Pertaining to Properties Located Within Sections 29 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Consisting of918:l: Acres and Known as Map Parcel Numbers 25-31. (Transmittal Hearing) 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Affordable Housing Commission Page 6 July 24-25, 2007 B. Consideration to appoint an alternate member to the County Government Productivity Committee C. Appointment of member to the Housing Finance Authority D. Update on the progress of the RFP for the County Attorney Recruitment Search. E. This item to be heard after Item 5D. This matter is before the Board of County Commissioners to consider a Resolution approving a financial commitment of$775,000.00 to the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority, less all amounts previously provided by the Board, as long as the Expressway Authority agrees by Resolution that it will not toll future lanes five and six on Interstate 75 within Lee and Collier Counties. (Commissioner Henning) F. Appointment of members to the Black Affairs Advisory Board G. Appointment of members to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board H. For the Board of County Commissioners to discuss dropping the lawsuit BCC vs. Clerk of Courts as Fee Officer/Budget Officer; also discuss County Auditor. (Commissioner Henning) 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation of fee simple interests and/or those perpetual or temporary easement interests necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility improvements required for the extension of Tree Farm Road from Davila Street to Massey Street and Woodcrest Drive from Immokalee Road to Tree Farm Road. (Project No. 60171). Estimated fiscal impact: $1,200,000.00 B. This item continued from the June 26. 2007 BCC Meetinl!:. Recommend consideration of cost comparison of alternative fence material, review justification for fence installation, receive direction on how to proceed with private fence issue for properties in the Queens Park subdivision as part of Phase lA of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP), Project No. 511011 Page 7 July 24-25, 2007 C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation of fee simple interests and/or those perpetual or temporary easement interests necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility improvements required for the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and for the construction of Stormwater Improvements as a component of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project. (Capital Improvement Element No. 32 and 291, Project Nos. 60091 and 51101 respectively). Estimated fiscal impact: $7,428,942.00 D. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by condemnation, if necessary, of the fee simple interest in certain tracts ofland in Golden Gate Estates necessary for the construction of stormwater retention and treatment ponds required for the expansion of Golden Gate Boulevard from West of Wilson Boulevard to DeSoto Boulevard. (Project No. 60040) Estimated fiscal impact: $3,627,000.00 E. Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to Fund 517, Group Health and Life Insurance to pay anticipated claims expenses for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2007 in the amount of $1 ,306, I 00 F. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a Resolution Declaring a Valid Public Purpose for Accepting Voluntary Donations Made Directly to the County for Affordable-Workforce Housing, Establishing an Affordable-Workforce Housing Trust Fund and Providing General Guidelines for Use of Monies in the Affordable-Workforce Housing Trust Fund G. To seek Board approval of a State Joint Participation Agreement (JP A) with the Florida Department of Transportation and to authorize the Chairman to enter into and execute these agreements with the Florida Department of Transportation to be used for the SR84 (aka. Davis Blvd) Project H. This item to be heard at 10:30 a.m. Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase by and between the Board of County Commissioners and Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed Land and Water Trust, Incorporated as Purchasers with Marilyn H. Adkins, as Trustee of the Marilyn H. Adkins Revocable Trust U/D/T dated July 8, 1997, Joan H. Bickel, Trustee of the Joan H. Bickel Living Trust dated March 29,2000, Hugh E. Starnes and Judy A. Starnes, a/k/a Judy Ann Starnes as Sellers for Page 8 July 24-25, 2007 367.70 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $5,370,000, and to approve a Lease Agreement with Huge E. Starnes for cattle grazing for an annual revenue of$368. I. Recommendation to award contract 07-4164 for the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) Sodium Hypochlorite (Bleach) System Phase 2 Instrumentation and Electrical reliability upgrades to Technical Management Associates in the amount of$880,199.00; award contract 07- 4163 for the NCWRF Bleach System Phase 2 Mechanical reliability upgrades to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. in the amount of$343,000.00; award construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) services to Hole Montes not to exceed (NTE) $107,490.00 under "Fixed Term Utility Engineering Services" contract number 05-3785; and the necessary Budget Amendment, Project 739661 J. Recommendation that the Board of Count Commissioners Adopts the Proposed Millage Rates as the Maximum Property Tax Rates to be Levied in FY 2008. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider approving a settlement agreement with Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC (owner of the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development) to settle alleged claims, including an alleged Bert Harris Act claim purportedly arising from denial of an amendment to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD to modify the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier County, Case No. 05-962-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS A. That the Board of County Commissioners discuss whether staff should draft and bring back to the Board a "Red Light Traffic Signal Camera Enforcement System Ordinance" to authorize use of unmanned cameras at road intersections to enforce Ordinance violations of vehicles running red traffic lights Page 9 July 24-25, 2007 B. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2006 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) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item. all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Chanel Subdivision". 2) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item. all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of "Milano". The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained 3) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water facility for Bridgewater Bay, Phase Two 4) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility facility for Wal-Mart Store East 5) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfactions of Lien for payments received for the following Code Enforcement actions: Van Elway Enterprises, Inc, E. J. Properties, LLC and Daniel Robbins Page 10 July 24-25, 2007 6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer utility facilities for Bridgewater Bay, Unit Two 7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award contract # 06-3962 to White & Smith, LLC Planning and Law Group for the update and re-write of portions of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) 8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorizes (as the said beneficiary) the release and ultimate closure of irrevocable standby letter of credit number SM222312W in the amount of $40,000.00 on behalf of the Florida Audubon Society. Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Restoration and Maintenance (ERM) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) bonus credit requirements, the Collier County Land Development Code requires financial surety in relation to all privately implemented environmental restoration and maintenance plans until one of two regulatory criteria are confirmed and documented 9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a resolution delegating authority to the County Manager or his designee for the purpose of signing, on behalf of Collier County, a Limitation of Development Rights Agreement with the expressed objective of executing Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program severances. 10) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item. all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Vita Tuscana", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security 11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners direct the County Manager, or his designee, to prepare amendments to Article 10 of Chapter 22 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, pertaining to the numbering of structures, to incorporate changes that provide for clarification of administrative processes and procedures, eliminating potential for the duplication of addresses, street names, developments and subdivisions and providing improvements to the Page 11 July 24-25, 2007 public notification process, for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at a future meeting 12) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item. all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Fiddler's Creek Phase Six, Unit One, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security 13) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item. all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Silver Lakes Phase Two-G 14) Recommendation to accept a Proposed Settlement Agreement providing for Voluntary Dismissal of the Circuit Court Action for Injunctive Relief entitled Collier County v. Colin S. Flinn, et aI., Case No. 06-83-CA, in consideration of payment ofa $5,000 civil penalty 15) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a Satisfaction of Lien, related to impact fees, due to the deferred impact fees being repaid in full, in accordance with the Immokalee Residential Impact Fee Deferral Program, as set forth by Section 74- 20 I (g) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances 16) Recommendation to approve two budget amendments to transfer funds from Fund 339 Reserves (Road Impact Fee District 5 - Immokalee) to Fund 339 Reimbursements (prior year) in the amount of $100,000 and from Fund 355 Reserves (Library Impact Fees) to Fund 355 Reimbursements (prior year) in the amount of $5,000 17) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item. all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Sandalwood", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security Page 12 July 24-25, 2007 18) A Resolution superseding and replacing Resolution Number 2005-48, amending the procedures for expediting the development review process for qualified Affordable- Workforce Housing Expedited Review Program projects and to establish a regulatory process program; and providing for codification of this policy and procedures 19) Recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the authorization of expenditure of funds beyond the $50,000 dollar limit contained in the Purchasing Policy for the required legal advertisement of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments, the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the Horizon Study Master Committee, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area 5- Year Review Committee and various other items managed by the Comprehensive Planning Department which requires legal advertising 20) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfactions of Lien for payments received for the following Code Enforcement actions: Wilkinson-Meffert Construction Company, Inc 21) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfactions of Lien for Payments received for the following Code Enforcement actions: Wilkinson-Meffert Construction Company, Inc. B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1) To present to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners for approval, the paratransit operators selected by McDonald Transit Management, Inc., operating as Collier Transit Management, Inc., d/b/a/ Collier Area Transit to perform paratransit services in Collier County 2) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve renaming the Gordon River Water Quality Park, located at the corner of Goodlette-Frank Road and Golden Gate Parkway, to Freedom Park 3) Recommendation to approve and execute a contract extension between Collier County and the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged for funding in the amount of $264,20 1 for the provision of transportation for qualified Medicaid recipients Page 13 July 24-25, 2007 4) Recommendation to approve selection of Dyer, Riddle, Mills and Precourt, Inc., a qualified firm and award a Contract Under RFP #07- 4106, "North-South Corridor Study East of CR95 I ", for Project Number 601041 in the total amount of $748,731.36, and approve all necessary budget amendments 5) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing implementation of school zone speed limit reductions to 20 MPH during school arrival and dismissal hours as indicated by flashing beacons at two locations at a cost of $26,000 6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Budget Amendment and Reimbursement to Bayvest, LLC., and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute said reimbursement to Bayvest, LLC. in which Collier County would be responsible for a total estimated cost of$99,125.21 for design and construction of the pole relocation 7) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to authorize certain designated County Transportation officials to certify disbursements to the Florida Department of Transportation; superseding Resolution No. 2004-76 8) To Advise the Board of County Commissioners of Staffs Release of Certificates of Occupancy on Stipulated Motion to Issue Letter of Credit and to Proceed with Mediation or Other Alternatives in the County's PUD dispute with Lucky M.K., INC. a Florida Corporation Within the Next 24 Months 9) Recommendation to award bid #07-4149 "Floridan Avenue" for construction of sidewalk improvements on Floridan A venue from Confederate Drive to Broward Street to Neubert Construction Services, Inc. in the amount of$367, 190.00 and approve a budget amendment in the amount of $24,39 1.53 (Project #601201) 10) Recommendation to accept the highest bid and approve and execute the attached Real Estate Sales Agreement for the sale of a single family residence on 2.27 acres in Golden Gate Estates to the First Baptist Church of Golden Gate. (Fiscal Impact $0) Page 14 July 24-25, 2007 11) Recommendation to award Bid No. 07-4161 to Haskins Inc. for the Cypress Way East and Ibis Way Crossing Stormwater Improvements, Number 510141 with the base amount being $696,250.00 and a Contingency for Unforeseen Conditions in the amount of $50,000 for a total amount of $$746,250.00 12) Recommendation to award Bid No. 07-4154 to Posen Construction, Inc. for the Fish Branch Basin Culvert Extension, Project Number 510211 and 510212 with the base amount being $431,01O.50,plus Bid Alternatives being a total of $21 ,800.00 and a Contingency for Unforeseen Conditions in the amount $50,000 for a total amount of $502,810.50 C. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1) Recommendation to approve the Satisfaction for a certain Water and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreement. Fiscal impact is $10.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien 2) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1992 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien 3) 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 4) 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 1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien 5) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving Special Assessment Hardship Deferrals for certain Sewer Special Page 15 July 24-25, 2007 Assessments for the 2007 tax year. The fiscal impact is $18.50 to record the Resolution 6) Recommendation to approve, execute and record Satisfactions for certain Water and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreements. Fiscal impact is $28.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien 7) 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 1991 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record Satisfaction of Lien 8) 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 1992 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien 9) 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 1993 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien 10) 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 1995 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien 11) 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 1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien 12) Recommendation to award Work Order CDM-FT-3593-07-04 to Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., (CDM) for continuing professional engineering and program management services for the Well Field Page 16 July 24-25, 2007 Reliability Improvements and Expansion Program in the time and materials not-to-exceed amount of $748,000 , Project Number 75005 13) Recommendation to waive competitive bid process and approve a sole source purchase of valves to Fluid Control Specialties, Incorporated in the estimated amount of $500,000 14) Recommendation to approve the acquisition ofa Utility Easement for the operation and maintenance of a potable water pipeline, and access, on property owned by Rose M. Briggs and David A. Salinas in the Henderson Creek Park Subdivision at an estimated cost not to exceed $4,500, Project Number 710101 15) Recommendation to award bid #06-4061 R "Collection and Recycling Latex Paint" to Scott Paint Company, Inc. for the purchase of recycling latex paint 16) Recommendation to approve the conveyance of the fire suppression facilities installed by the Collier County Water-Sewer District ("District") to convert fire protection within Pelican Bay from irrigation water to potable water for an estimated cost not to exceed $4,664, Project 740231 17) Recommended to award bid #07-4151 "Annual Contract for Sale of Baled Corrugated and White Goods" to Garden Street Paper Products for Baled Corrugated (cardboard) and Mike Anderson's Hauling for White Goods (appliances) 18) Recommendation to approve the acquisition of a Utility Easement for the operation and maintenance of a potable water pipeline, and access, on property owned by Borah Partners, LLC near the Henderson Creek Park Subdivision at an estimated cost not to exceed $12,000, Project Number 710101 19) Notice of cancellation of two grant contracts issued by the South Florida Water Management District to Collier County Public Utilities for FY 2007 20) Recommendation to approve Work Order #UC-QE-FT-3535-07-07 in the amount of$407,625.75 to Quality Enterprises USA Inc. for Pump Page 17 July 24-25, 2007 Station 312.12 improvements under contract 04-3535 Annual Contract for Underground Utility Contracting Services, Project 72546 21) Recommendation to approve Work Order #UC-QE-FT-3535-07-07 in the amount of$403,006.25 to Quality Enterprise USA, Inc., for Pump Station 107.02 Improvement under contract 04-3535 Annual Contract for Underground Utility Contracting Services, Project 72546 22) Recommendation to award contract 07 -4081 to Creative Information System - SMS Turbo for the purchase of a Solid Waste Material and Financial Management software system; approval to purchase the required hardware; and authorize budget amendments for $40,000. Total cost is $231,956 (Project number 590 I 0). D. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Recommend approval of Proposal dated May 4,2007 under Contract 05-3657 and necessary Work Order subsequent to approval with Johnson Engineering to provide planning, environmental and engineering support for Connor Park Expansion Study Proposal for time and material not to exceed $15,000 and all necessary budget amendments 2) Recommend approval of Work Order CPE-FT-07-06 under Contract 06-3902 with Coastal Engineering (CP&E) for the 1 st annual biological monitoring of the Near Shore Hard Bottom and the post construction biological survey of the Artificial Reef for time and material not to exceed $349,837.55 and authorize the County Manager or his designee to sign Work Order No. CPE-FT-07-06 (Project No. 900331 ). 3) Recommend approval ofTDC Category "A" Grant Applications from Fund 183 and 195 for The City of Naples, The City of Marco Island and Collier County for FY-07/08 for a total amount of$9,694,133 and approve all necessary grant agreements per County Attorney approval. 4) Recommend approval ofa Budget Amendment for Work Order CPE- FT-3902-07-08 in the amount of$122,624 for a Time & Material Not- To-Exceed proposal from Coastal Planning and Engineering (CP&E) Page 18 July 24-25, 2007 under Professional Services Contract 06-3902 to conduct off-shore sand source investigation (Project 902981). 5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement providing a $150,000 loan of State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) funds for the construction of a new affordable housing unit 6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the after-the-fact submittal of the 2008 State of Florida Challenge grant application to the Department of Community Affairs Office on Homelessness 7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement providing a $77 ,000 loan of State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) funds for the construction of a new affordable housing unit. 8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Mario Sylvain and Viergelie Thomas Sylvain (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 7, Milagro Place 9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign, an Amendment to extend the timeline for an existing Subrecipient Agreement with Shelter for Abused Women & Children, Inc. using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for housing infrastructure for transitional housing units to be used for income eligible clients leaving the Shelter's facility 10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Marco Bay Homes, LLC (BUILDER) and Elva Moreta (DEVELOPER) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at West 75' of the East 150' of Tract 83, Unit 62, Golden Gate Estates Page 19 July 24-25, 2007 11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign, an amended HOME Subrecipient Agreement with Big Cypress Housing Corporation, Inc. to adjust the construction timeline and budget for a 55 unit, multi-family rental housing complex for legal migrant and seasonal farmworkers in Immokalee. 12) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement with Big Cypress Housing Corporation, Inc. for $192,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to be used for the development and construction of 55 multi-family rental housing units for legal migrant and seasonal farmworkers in Immokalee. 13) Recommendation to repeal Resolution No. 2006-101 and Adopt the Attached Revised Resolution that lists new fines and fees for Collier County Public Library 14) Recommendation to approve budget amendments transferring $137,900 in summer camp expenses, $15,500 in reserves and $153,400 in summer camp revenue from fund 130 to fund III 15) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Marco Bay Homes, LLC (BUILDER) and Gary Hildebrandt (DEVELOPER) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at East 75' of the West 150' of Tract 12, Unit 79, Golden Gate Estates 16) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign a grant agreement accepting one Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance grant award from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) totaling $35,816; and approve an associated budget amendment of$3S,816 recognizing the funding associated with the grant award 17) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement with Shelter for Abused Women & Children, Inc. for $35,816 in Continuum of Care funding to support the shelter operations Page 20 July 24-25, 2007 18) Recommend approval of lO-Year Capital Plans prepared for Beach Renourishment/Pass Maintenance Fund (195) and Beach Park Facilities Fund (183). 19) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase to acquire a residential lot for expansion of the County's Bayview Park at a cost not to exceed $575,500, Project 80060 20) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement providing the Collier County Housing Development Corporation (CCHDC) with a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) operating grant, in the amount of$3S,894 from the Home Investment Partnership (HOME) program 21) Recommendation to approve an award of Introductory-Level Geographic Information System (GIS) software, valued at $100,000, for Collier County 4-H clubs 22) Recommendation to approve Grant Agreement number 06163 in the amount of $20,000 from the Florida Boating Improvement Program Grant Program for the removal of derelict vessels 23) Request to the Board of County Commissioners for direction on amending Chapter 98 Article 3 Code of Laws and Ordinances (also known as Collier County Ordinance #90-9, Section 3) to provide for alcoholic use/sales at Clam Pass Park 24) Recommendation to approve resolution that supports assessment of a pass-through user fee associated with the use of Parks and Recreation Internet registration service 25) Recommendation to approve resolution that supports Alternative A of the Everglades National Park's General Management Plan (GMP) 26) Recommendation to approve a temporary use permit for an All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) park on leased land associated with Supplemental Agreement between the Board of County Page 21 July 24-25, 2007 Commissioners and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) 27) Recommendation to approve a Consent to Use Agreement with the Collier County Airport Authority (CCAA) for an undeveloped portion of the Immokalee Regional Airport for recreational purposes E. ADMINISTRA TIVE SERVICES 1) Recommendation to approve a continuation of the Conservation Collier Interim Management Plan for Otter Mound Preserve to December, 2007 2) Recommendation to approve Change #20 to Contract #02-3422, "Professional Architectural Services for New County Fleet Facility", with Disney & Associates, P.A., to provide construction phase services for the Fleet Facility, project 52009, Phase II in the amount of $136,150 3) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to Lease Agreement with Islands and Highlands, LLC for the continued use of an office and garage/warehouse space used by the Sheriffs Office, at a first year's cost of$67,468.56 4) Recommendation to approve the conveyance of an Easement to Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) for providing electric service to the Board of County Commissioner's Fleet Facility and Sheriff's Fleet Facility at 290 I County Barn Road, at a cost not to exceed $27.00, Project number 52009 5) Recommendation to approve an Assignment of Lease with Alan and Patricia Boo1e to A & P Boole, LLC, concerning a Lease Agreement naming Collier County as Lessee, with no annual cost 6) That the Board of County Commissioners approves the award Bid 07- 4127 for Office Supplies to Corporate Express F. COUNTY MANAGER Page 22 July 24-25, 2007 1) Board ratification of Summary, Consent and Emergency Agenda Items approved by the County Manager during the Board's scheduled recess. Approval of the following documents by the County Manager is subject to formal ratification by the Board of County Commissioners. If the decision by the County Manager is not ratified by that Board, the document(s) shall be enforceable against Collier County only to the extent authorized by law in the absence of such ratification by that Board. a) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jeanne Jean and Grandoit Jean (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner- occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 12, Milagro Place. (Public Services) b) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Adolfo Tinoco and Margarita Tinoco (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner- occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 116, Trail Ridge Naples. (Public Services) c) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Naomi Valdez (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 147, Independence Phase II. (Public Services) d) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Ronda Lofton (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 148, Independence Phase II. (Public Services) e) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Marie Midouin and Jn Robert Jn Baptiste (Owners) for Page 23 July 24-25, 2007 deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner- occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 149, Trail Ridge, Naples. (Public Services) t) Recommendation to Reject Bid No. 07-4115 for "US 41 (Tamiami Trail) & SR 84 Davis Boulevard Roadway Lighting Maintenance Contract". (Transportation) g) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Regina Rhodes (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located Lot 200, Trail Ridge, Naples. (Public Services) h) Recommendation to ratify additions to, deletions from and modifications to the 2007 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan made from April I, 2007 through June 15,2007. (Administrative Services) i) Recommendation to recognize additional revenue in the amount of$913 and approve a budget amendment to increase the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) budget. j) Report and ratify staff-approved change orders and changes to work orders to Board-approved contracts. k) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a Resolution fixing the date, time and place for the Public Hearing for approving the Special Assessment (Non-ad valorem Assessment) to be levied against the properties within the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. Resolution 2007-174 Adopted on July 10, 2007 2) Approve Budget Amendments 3) Recommendation to approve Memorandum of Understanding for emergency situations between Collier County and The Shepherd of the Glades Lutheran Church 4) Recommendation to approve Memorandum of Understanding for Page 24 July 24-25, 2007 emergency situations between Collier County and First Church of Christ Scientist 5) Recommendation to approve Memorandum of Understanding for emergency situations between Collier County and United Way of Collier County 6) Recommendation to approve Memorandum of Understanding for emergency situations between Collier County and I HOPE (IMMOKALEE HELPING OUR PEOPLE IN EMERGENCIES) 7) Recommendation to approv(f Memorandum of Understanding for emergency situations between Collier County and Marco Island YMCA 8) Recommendation to approve Memorandum of Understanding for emergency situations between Collier County and Naples United Church of Christ 9) Recommendation to approve Memorandum of Understanding for emergency situations between Collier County and American Red Cross of Collier County 10) Recommendation to approve a Resolution providing for user fees for Collier County ambulance services, up-dated billing and collection procedure, up-dated hospital transport billing and fees, adjustments of EMS user fees pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 96-36, waiver of EMS user fees for special events, and a procedure for approving hardship cases and payment plans; superseding Resolution No. 06-222; and providing for an effective date 11) Recommendation to award RFP# 07-4152, Auditing Services for Collier County to Ernst & Young LLP subject to successful negotiations (Estimated First Year Cost $ 560,000). G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Page 25 July 24-25, 2007 1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to approve the purchase of a residential (mobile home) lot and trailer in the Bayshore area of the CRA as part of a CRA residential infill project; to approve payment from and authorize the CRA Chairman to make a draw from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Wachovia Bank Line of Credit in the amount of $90,000 plus cost and expenses to complete the sale of subject property; and approve any and all necessary budget amendments. Site address: 3024 Van Buren Avenue ($90,000). 2) To approve and execute Site Improvement Grant Agreement(s) between the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and a Grant Applicant(s) for 2675 Bayview Drive Naples, Florida 34112 within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment area 3) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to approve the purchase of a residential (mobile home) lot in the Bayshore area of the CRA as part of a CRA residential infill project; to approve payment from and authorize the CRA Chairman to make a draw from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Wachovia Bank Line of Credit in the amount of$99,000 plus cost and expenses to complete the sale of subject property; and approve any and all necessary budget amendments. Site address: 4032 Full Moon Court ($99,000). 4) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to approve the purchase of a residential (mobile home) lot and trailer in the Bayshore area of the CRA as part of a CRA residential infill project; to approve payment from and authorize the CRA Chairman to make a draw from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Wachovia Bank Line of Credit in the amount of $90,000 plus cost and expenses to complete the sale of subject property; and approve any and all necessary budget amendments. Site address: 30 16 Van Buren Avenue ($90,000) 5) To approve and execute Site Improvement Grant Agreement(s) between the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and a Grant Applicant(s) Samuel and Kasthia Aleman d/b/a S & K Realty, LLC. for 2727/2737 Bayshore Drive Naples FL 34112 within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment area. Page 26 July 24-25, 2007 H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Commissioner Fiala request's Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the PRACC (Public Relations & Advertising Professionals of Collier County) Luncheon on June 21, 2007, at the Collier Athletic Club; $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget 2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will attend the Youth Haven Night at Villa Venezia on Sunday, July 29,2007, at the Van Hoesen Estate Home in Marco Island; $75.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) To file for record with action as directed J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of June 16, 2007 through June 22, 2007 and for submission into the official records of the board. 2) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of June 23, 2007 through June 29, 2007 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 3) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of June 30, 2007 through July 06, 2007 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 4) Request that the Board of County Commissioners accepts and approves asset disposition records for the time period April I, 2007 through June 30, 2007. 5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve and sign the State of Florida Annual Local Government Financial Page 27 July 24-25, 2007 Report for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 as required by Florida Statute 218.32. 6) Recommendation that the Board approves prepayment of the Caribbean Gardens Commercial Paper Loan in the amount of $1,000,000. K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel 129 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. West Coast Development Corporation of Naples, Inc., et aI., Case No. 06-0708-CA(Santa Barbara Boulevard Project No. 62081). (Fiscal Impact $0) 2) Recommendation to approve the Offer of Judgment in the amount of $9,000 as to Parcel 168 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Thomas F. Salzmann, et aI., Case No. 03-25S0-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project No. 60027). (Fiscal Impact $2,246.80) 3) Recommendation to approve settlement in the lawsuit entitled Collier County, Florida vs. The Estate of Omar Fernandez, et aI., filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, Case No. 07-070S-CC for $7,465.00. 4) Recommendation to Approve an Agreed Order Awarding Expert Fees and Costs Relating to Parcel No. 134 in the Case Styled Collier County v. TreeSource, Inc., et aI., Case No. 02-S167-CA (Immokalee Road Project #60018) (Fiscal Impact: $6,400.00). 5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve an Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Naples and Collier County for Contractor Licensing by Collier County. 6) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel Nos. 114 & 914 in the lawsuit styled CC v. Elias Valencia, et aI., Case No. 03-2274-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project No. 60027). (Fiscal Impact $10,100.00) 7) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has Page 28 July 24-25, 2007 received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien. 8) 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 1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien. 9) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1992 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien. 10) 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 1991 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00 to record Satisfaction of Lien 11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of County Commissioners as the Ex -Officio Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District approve a Settlement Agreement and Release with Professional Service Industries, Inc., relating to the project known as the Collier County Landfill Scale House, Contract No. 03-3427 and Project #59005, and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Settlement Agreement and Release. 12) Recommendation to approve settlement in the lawsuit entitled Doris McDonald, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David McDonald, deceased vs. Collier County, et aI., filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, Case No. OS-486-CA, for $1,000.00. 13) Recommendation to approve settlement in response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Violation of the Federal Clean Water Act for the September 22, 2005, unleaded Page 29 July 24-25, 2007 gasoline overspill/discharge at Collier County's Caxambas Park. ($9,601.00) 14) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a budget amendment to pay for minor security recommended alterations of the office space allocated to the Office of the County Attorney at the Community Development and Environmental Services building. ($7,000) 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI- JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN. A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Recommendation to reject approval of Petition A VPLA T -2007 -AR-11341, Lot 24, Villa Floresta at Wyndemere, Phase 2, to vacate the County's and the Public's interest in a portion of a platted drainage easement running along the easterly side of Lot 24, Villa Floresta at Wyndemere, Phase 2, a subdivision located in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 102-103 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and being more particularly described in Exhibit "A" B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Recommendation to approve Petition A VPLAT-2007-AR-Il083, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the Public's interest in a 15 foot wide drainage easement along the common boundary line between Lot 46 and Lot 47, Turner Oak Hill Estates, Inc. - First Addition, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 115 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, Page 30 July 24-25, 2007 situated in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, and being more specifically described in Exhibit "A" and to accept a replacement drainage easement, as described in Exhibit "B" in place of the vacated easement. C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition: CU-2005-AR- 8479 (NG) Southeastern Association of Seventh Day Adventists, Inc., represented by Fred Learned, LA of Community Engineering Services, Inc. requesting a Conditional Use in the Village Residential (VR) zoning district pursuant to Table 2, Section 2.04.03 of the Land Development Code (LDC). The 1.0]:1: acre VR zoned site is proposed to permit a Church with a maximum of 4,250 square feet oftloor area. The subject property is located at 745 5th Street South, Immokalee, in Section 9, Township 47, Range 29, in Collier County, Florida. D. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Recommendation to approve Petition A VESMT-2007-AR-116S3, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the Public's interest in the following easements; 15 foot wide drainage easements being 7.5 feet each side of and along the common lines of Lots 26 & 27, 30 & 31 and 37 & 38, also a 15 foot wide drainage easement along the north line of Tract "G", all part of Block 106 according to the plat thereof known as Twineagles Phase Two B, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 47, Pages 23 thru 39 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and being more specifically described in Exhibit "A" and accepting replacement drainage easements at alternate locations, as more specifically described in Exhibit "B", in place of the vacated easements. E. This item reQuires that all participants sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Recommendation to approve Petition A VPLA T -2007 -AR-Il 097, Heritage Bay Commons, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the Public's interest in all of Tract "L- I" and the underlying lake, drainage easement and lake maintenance easement, and also the temporary access easement over Tract "E", Heritage Bay Commons, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 43, Pages 46 through 54 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, situated in Section 14 & 23, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, as specifically described in Exhibit "A"; and accept a replacement drainage Page 31 July 24-25, 2007 easement and additional drainage and access easements, being more specifically depicted and described in Exhibit "B" F. Recommendation That The Board of County Commissioners Approve a Final Resolution In Accordance With Resolution 200S-385A, Approving The Final Roll And Assessment Concerning The Project To Restore The Lake Between 107th Avenue North And 108th Avenue North Within The Naples Park Lake Municipal Services Benefit Unit. G. Request to Approve an Amendment to Subsection Five E of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-55, as amended, to Allow Candidates who are seeking Re-Election and Are Already Serving on County Advisory Boards to Remain Serving during their Candidacy for Re-election. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. Page 32 July 24-25, 2007 July 24-25, 2007 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please, if you'd please take your seats. Commissioners, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Board of Collier County Commissioners' regularly scheduled meeting for July 24th. Please stand at this time for an invocation by Mr. Mudd. MR. MUDD: Let us pray. Our Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings on these proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask a special blessing on the Board of County Commissioners, guide them in their deliberations, grant them the wisdom and vision to meet the trials of this day and the days to come. Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens and be acceptable in your sight. Your will be done, amen. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, would you lead us in the pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does anybody have my little step stool down there? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just one second, Mr. Mudd. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're moving the furniture around to try to accommodate Commissioner Fiala. Okay. Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, we have probably one of the most ambitious agendas that we have had in six years. We're going to make every effort to try to get through as much of it today as possible. I do believe that we're going to be running late today. I'm hoping Page 2 July 24-25, 2007 our deliberations go to at least seven o'clock. I'm going to ask my commissioners to comment on that in a little while. We're going to break for lunch between 12 and one, and I'd also like to take a moment before we go too far talking about the time schedule to also discuss tomorrow's schedule and how we're going to try to work it the best way so we can get the business of the peoples done in an efficient manner. Starting off with tomorrow, we have -- we're going to start at eight o'clock in the morning, unless there's some serious objections by my fellow commissioners, and proceed to nine o'clock. Nine o'clock we're going to break for the Value Adjustment Board meeting at nine COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was Tom Henning. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, we'll be right to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nine o'clock we're going to break for the Value Adjustment Board. I'm hoping that we can have that meeting done in a half an hour. It's -- there's really not an awful lot to deal with. It's mostly on the legal end that we have to deal, and I'm hoping the county attorney will be able to talk real quick to get us out of there. Nine-thirty, come back and continue the meeting up till that point in time that we have to leave for the ribbon cutting, which will be at quarter of 11. The ribbon cutting will go at 11 o'clock, and we should be back here, Mr. Mudd, by what, one o'clock? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: By one o'clock, then we'll be able to proceed at that point in time to try to finish off the balance of our agenda. Did I miss anything, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: No, sir. Page 3 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any comments from my fellow commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, then we'll plan to be in session till at least seven o'clock this evening. We'll plan on a short break at about 5:30 for dinner, maybe about a half an hour so we can get right back at it and make the best use of the time. I don't think anybody -- Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, we might even want to break at 5:00 that -- because then that still gives us time, and if we get a second wind between 5:00 and 5:30, who knows, maybe at 7:00 we'll still feel like going on another half hour. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Seven o'clock's good enough for me. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So five o'clock is when we're going to break today for -- also besides noon. Noon and then five o'clock. Noon will be one-hour lunch, because I imagine you have already had plans. Okay. So we'll have a one-hour lunch at noon and then a half an hour dinner at five. We'll get together and figure out how you're going to get your food here and all that. That's-- Commissioner Halas, would you like to comment on that? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. Item #2A APPROV AL OF TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED - APPROVED AND OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM #9H AND ITEM # 12A Page 4 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, if there's no other comments, we'll get right into the agenda. Commissioner Henning, are you there? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I am. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, thank you for joining us today. I'm going to have the county attorney give us the verbiage to be able to get you into this meeting in a legal way. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. It's appropriate in regards to an off-site commissioner wishing to participate for the Board of County Commissioners with a quorum, and you have a quorum, to make a motion and finding, motion to approve his participation off site with a finding of extraordinary circumstances. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, for the record, I already know what it is, but would you state what the extraordinary circumstances are? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's because ofa memorial service that we had for my mother. It wasn't timely enough to fly back. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And for me that's a good enough reason. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Coyle to approve the extraordinary circumstances, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's out of town. I don't know that that was mentioned. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Mr. -- Commissioner Henning is out of town. The reason he couldn't make it back in time for the Page 5 July 24-25, 2007 meeting was because of the fact that he had a memorial service for his mother that passed away, I believe it was this past year. And for -- as far as I'm concerned, that's more than enough reason for an extraordinary circumstance. Okay. And with that, any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor in the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Abstaining.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0. We1come aboard, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there some way somebody could turn up the volume on Commissioner Henning so when he gets ready to speak we can actually hear him? Okay. With that now, we have before us the approval of to day's regular, consent, and summary agenda. MR. MUDD: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But before we go to that, we're going to go to the county manager and get the changes that have taken place. MR. MUDD: Agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners' meeting July 24, 2007. An error occurred in the numbering of the agenda backup material. The agenda index income is correct, however. The corresponding items in the printed backup material shown in the upper right corner of each page are not numbered correctly. Page 6 July 24-25, 2007 Following is a table showing the correct agenda numbers and the incorrect number as it appears on the printed backup page. And it had to do with items 10E, 10F, lOG, 10H, 101, and lOJ. And for the folks out there that can see this particular graphic, you can see the correct changes, and these were the agenda items and these were the incorrect numbers that it had on the right-hand side of the page. Item 2E should read: June 26-27,2007, BCC/regular agenda. That's at staff's request. Next item, item 3B, 3C, and 3D should read as follows: 20-year attendees are Patrick Webb; 25-year attendees is Joseph Chirico; and 30-year attendee is James Thomas. They all had an additional five years added on the printed agenda. I just wanted to get that correction on the record. Next item is to withdraw item 7 A, and that's variance 2007-AR-11459, James and Lavonne Williamson represented by Sonrise Properties of Naples, dba Sonrise Building Companies, requesting a variance within the Wyndemere Lodging planned unit development, reducing the existing front setback from 40 feet to approximately 36 feet. This item is being withdrawn at the petitioner's request. The next item is item 7B. It's continued to September 11,2007, BCC meeting. This item is PE-2006-AR-10551, the DeVoe Family Limited Personship II, represented by Sandra Bottcher ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P .A., is requesting a parking exemption for the DeVoe Suzuki dealership. Again, that item is being continued at the petitioner's request to September 11,2007. The next item is item 8C. A revised Exhibit A has been provided to correct an inconsistency in the original documents that appear in the agenda packet. The correct agenda (sic) A has been distributed and made available for review. That correction at staff's request. Next item is item 10C. Exhibit A on page 27 is being replaced to Page 7 July 24-25, 2007 reflect the correct legal description. Copies have been made available for review. Again, that correction is at staffs request. Next item is item lOB. Paragraph 4.014 to be inserted into the agreement for sale and purchase as follows: 4.014, reservations of oil, gas, and mineral rights that exist in the chain of title as well as applicable leases may affect purchaser's use of property for conservation purposes. Purchasers shall have 55 days from the effective date of this agreement to obtain releases of such rights to surface exploration and mining or to otherwise satisfy concerns that surface exploration and mining will not occur on property or to otherwise terminate the agreement at no penalty, and that correction is at staffs request. The next item is item 12A. This item is continued to September 11,2007, BCC meeting. It's a recommendation that the Board of Collier County Commissioners consider approving a settlement agreement with Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC, owners of the Cocohatchee Bay planned unit development to settle alleged claims including an alleged Bert Harris Act claim purportedly arising from denial of an amendment to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD to modify the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC, versus Collier County, case number 05-962-CA now pending in the 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. This continuation is at petitioner's request. Items 13A and 13B. These items are correct as they appear on the agenda index; however, the backup material for 13A was printed twice and the backup material for 13B was omitted. Copies of items 13B have been distributed and made available for review. Next item is item 16A7, continued to September 11,2007, BCC meeting. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners awards contract 06-3962 to White & Smith, LLC, Planning and Law Group for the update and re-write of portions of the Collier County Land Development Code. Again, that item is Page 8 July 24-25, 2007 continued at staffs request until September 11 tho Next item is to move item 16A9 to ION. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a resolution delegating authority to county manager or his designee for the purposes of signing on behalf of Collier County a limitation of development rights agreement with the express objective of executing transfer of development rights, TDR program severances. This item is being moved at Commissioner Henning's request. Next item is item 16A13. Continue to the September 11,2007 BCC meeting. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. This continuance is on a recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Silver Lakes, phase Two-G. Commissioners, you might remember that this item was continued until the fall. Staff was made aware that was settled and the pool issue was on this particular item, and yesterday we found out that everything wasn't settled. And Commissioner Fiala's asked that this item be continued until the September 11, 2007, meeting so that the participants and community can work an agreement out. Next item is item 16B6, continued to September 11,2007, BCC meeting. This is a recommendation the Board of Collier County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment and reimbursement to Bayvest LLC, and to authorize the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute said reimbursement to Bayvest, LLC, in which Collier County would be responsible for a total estimated cost of $99,125.21 for design and construction of a pole relocation. Again, this is at staffs request to be continued until September 11 tho Next item is item 16D3. Remove Tigertail Beach vegetation for $50,000 as it appears in the TDC category A grant application. The revised grant total will be $9,599,033, and this change is at staffs Page 9 July 24-25, 2007 request and was as a result of the public vetting and the Marco City Council's decision on this particular project. Next item is to move item 16D23 to 1OL. It's a request to the Board of County Commissioners for direction on amending chapter 98, article 3, Code of Laws and Ordinances, also known as the Collier County ordinance 90-9, section 3, to provide for alcoholic use/sales at Clam Pass Park. This item is being moved at Commissioner Coyle's request. Next item is to move 16D25 to 10M. It's a recommendation to approve a resolution that supports alternative A of the Everglades National Park's General Management Plan, GMP. This item is being moved at Commissioner Coyle's request. Item 16D26 should read, recommendation to approve a temporary use permit for an all-terrain vehicle, A TV park, on leased land associated with supplemental agreement between the Board of Collier County Commissioners and the South Florida Water Management District until May 31, 2008, with eligibility for a six-month extension. The italics portion on your change sheet, Commissioners, is the change to the title. And this clarification is at staffs request. Next item is to move item 16E9 to 10K, that the Board of Collier County Commissioners approve the award of bid 07-4127 for office supplies to Corporate Express, and that move is at staffs request. Next item is item 16G5. The executive summary considerations should include: The advisory board originally approved two of the three commercial projects for grant funding, landscaping, painting, and parking lot resurfacing; however, the grant fund request will now cover one project for painting for $25,871.40. The fiscal impact statement should read: This site improvement project totals $21,871.40. And the grant request is $8,000, which is 31 percent of the estimated project cost. That clarification is at staffs request. Page 10 July 24-25, 2007 Next item is item 16K3. The title in the executive summary should read: A recommendation to approve settlement in the lawsuit entitled Collier County, Florida versus the Estate ofOmar Fernandez, et ai, filed in the 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, case number 07-0705-CC for $4,000, rather than the $7,465 that's in your executive summary. And that clarification is at staffs request. The next item is to move item 17 A to 8D. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's a recommendation to reject approval of petition A V -- A VPLAT-2007-AR-11341, lot 24, Villa Floresta at Wyndemere, phase 2, to vacate the county's and the public's interest in a portion of a platted drainage easement running along the easterly side of lot 24, Villa Floresta at Wyndemere, phase 2, a subdivision located in Section 19, Township 49 south, range 26 east, as recorded in Plat Book 15, pages 102 through 103 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, and being more particularly described in Exhibit A, and that item is being moved at Commissioner Coyle's request. Commissioner, you have a series of time certain items, and I'm going to be brief on these descriptions. Item 5E, which has do with inclusionary zoning, affordable housing supply study, the mitigation fee ordinance, will be heard at three p.m. Next item is item lOF, and it will be -- and it will be heard following 5E, and that is a recommendation the Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution declaring a valid public purpose for accepting voluntary donations made directly to the county for affordable workforce housing, and that -- and that -- they're basically grouped items, and Commissioner Henning thought it would be good that we follow it with that particular discussion. Next item is item lOA (sic) to be heard at one p.m., and this has Page 11 July 24-25, 2007 to do with OYDA-2005-AR-I1081, Dr. Terry P. McMahan, president oflnternational College, represented by Michael 1. Volpe of Robins, Kaplan, Miller, and Ciresi, LLP, is requesting an amendment to the Harvest of Humanity, PUD. And again, that item is 8A at one p.m. Item 8B to be heard at 11 a.m., and that's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of temporary planning moratorium ordinance. Item 9E to followed by 5D. 9E reads, this matter is before the Board of County Commissioners to consider a resolution approving a financial commitment of $775,000 to the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority less all amounts previously provided by the board as long as the Expressway Authority agrees to a resolution that it will not toll future lanes five and six on Interstate 75 with Lee and Collier Counties. Next item is item 10H to be heard at 10:30, and this item is basically the purchase of the Starnes property by Conservation Collier. The next item is 13B to be heard at 10:00 a.m., and that's the presentation of the CAFR, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2006. Mr. Chairman, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. County attorney? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one item in regard to agenda change, and Assistant County Attorney Ellen Chadwell will bring that to the board's attention. MS. CHADWELL: Good morning, Commissioners. The change list references item 16D26, and it says that italicized portion should be added -- excuse me -- should be added to the title of the item. We really want to include with the language the eligibility for a six-month extension in the recommendations section, not just the title of the item so that the recommendation would read, recommendation to approve a temporary use permit for all-terrain vehicles on leased land until May 31, 2008, with eligibility for a six-month extension. Thank you. Page 12 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mrs. Chadwell. Anything else, County Attorney? MR. WEIGEL: No, that's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Weigel. Let's start with Commissioner Coyle. I'll remind you we're looking for the disclosures on the consent and summary agenda and -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll start with the consent agenda, Mr. Chairman. I have no disclosures for any of the items on the consent agenda. With respect to the summary agenda, I have disclosures for 17 A. I have received correspondence concerning that item, and for 17B, I have received emails and telephone calls concerning that item. And for the remainder of the items on the summary agenda, I have no disclosures except that I have discussed some of these items with the staff. And that -- and I have no further changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have no items on the consent agenda that I have to have ex parte on. I do have a couple of items on the summary agenda, one being 17 A. I had correspondence on that. 17B, I had emails and phone calls in regards to that particular item, and on 17C I've had meetings and emails and also had discussions on all items on the agenda with staff members. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Halas. And myself, as far as the consent agenda, item 16A2, I have received emails, and on the summary agenda, 17B, I have received emails and phone calls, also, too, 16AI4,Idon'twish to pull it, but I did have a question on the settlement, and I may have got an answer late yesterday and I was never able to get to my email on the -- it was a $5,000 civil penalty. And the question was, if the settlement was for $5,000, what was the total fine and cost prior to the settlement. If there's a brief answer on that, I will not delay -- ask this to be pulled. MR. MUDD: About $25,000. Page 13 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's the answer I needed. Thank you very much on that. I do have one other thing. On the agenda, 9H, which Commissioner Henning had regarding the Clerk of Courts, whether he's a fee officer or a budget officer. We had this discussion at the previous meeting. We had an executive session and then we came out and we dealt with whatever issues we had, and I really see no benefit in having that item on today's agenda. I don't know if my fellow commissioners agree with me or not. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by myself to strike that item from the agenda, seconded by Commissioner. Now time for discussion. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I don't see any -- yes, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. That doesn't pertain to this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It doesn't? COMMISSIONER COYLE: But before you approve the agenda, I would like to make a comment. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine, sir. We have one item right now as far as removing that one item from -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETT A: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, through our ordinance, on the board's meeting, a county commissioner can put any item on the agenda. I've checked this with the county attorney. There's evidence that, new evidence, that I think the board should be aware of. Not only of this, but the other lawsuits with the Clerk of Court and the Board of Commissioners. So by -- voting on removing it from the agenda is a violation of the board's ordinance. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning. If it is, we'll find out very shortly. I'm going to check with the county Page 14 July 24-25, 2007 attorney at this time. In other words, Commissioner Henning's saying that once something's put on there, the commissioners don't have the ability to remove it from the agenda. MR. WEIGEL: I'm going to have to look at that rather briefly. The -- Mr. Henning is correct in the sense that any commissioner may put something on the agenda, and it has been placed on the agenda. I'm going to have to review, rather quickly, the question as to whether, in fact, the board, sitting as a board, may remove something from the agenda in session. And rather than provide a precise answer that may be imprecisely correct, I'm going to have to look at that rather quickly and get back to you. I would suggest, as you approve, that you approve it with the proviso of a further agenda determination on this item that you be able to make within a relatively short time, few minutes, quite frankly, if you would. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So when it comes time for the approval of the agenda, you'll -- MR. WEIGEL: I'll assist you, if you'd like, at that point. But I think that you can approve the agenda with all the other changes. You have here a question in regard to whether a motion may be heard and entertained to remove an item from the agenda, and I'm going to have to -- I want to, as we all do, want to be absolutely pinpoint precise on this very important question, and I just need to look at the law again -- momentarily again. If you approve the agenda with the changes putting in a proviso that you're going to come back to the agenda on this particular item, which is 9H, and the board have brief discussion, either go forward or not based upon the legal opinion, you'll have saved yourself the opportunity to take care of that in a few minutes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, Mr. Weigel. That sounds fine. Do you withdraw your motion, Commissioner Halas? Page 15 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I'll draw (sic). CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. I withdraw my second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The second, okay. And I withdraw my motion. And with that, we're going to continue with the --I'm sorry, Mr. Mudd, you had something? MR. MUDD: Commissioner Fiala's next, I believe. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. We're going to Commissioner Fiala now. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Fiala, good morning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning. Yes, I do have a couple of items on the consent agenda. 16A 17, I've just had some correspondence on that as the Sandalwood issue. And then on 17 A, I have had correspondence on that as well. And on 17B, I've had emails and calls. And that's it for the consent and summary agenda. I also want to ask a question. I don't know what we want to do about this, but on 16C22, we were talking about buying -- buying a financial system for our public utilities. And I was just wondering why we're going to buy this when we're working on the SAP right now. It seems like we're spending double the money, and I didn't know if you wanted to discuss that now, if you wanted to pull that and discuss it on a regular agenda. MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. I think the executive summary basically lays it out, and it's quite clear. The SAP module for this particular item is three times the cost of the one that's purchasing that's outside of it, and there was a decision as far as financial and the SAP module is and how that goes, and I was -- I specifically checked that before I approved that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will this speak then to SAP -- Page 16 July 24-25, 2007 MR. MUDD: Well, that, you're going to have to talk to Ms. Price. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. PRICE: Commissioner, at this time there's not -- we're not planning to do an interface with SAP. We're going to work that manually the way we've been doing it right now. The software that's out at the landfill right now has fallen apart. This is a transitional type of a solution, keep us going for a couple of years while we do a lot of other projects in SAP, and then we'll be able to bring this in afterwards. We've got small resources to get SAP up, and we're trying to do the things that are going to give the greatest amount of benefit to the county first, and then we'll bring that in afterwards. We have worked with public utilities and we are comfortable that this is a good solution for the time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you. I just wanted to get that on the record. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Fiala, anything else? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I have -- on 16AI0, I had phone calls and emails. 17 -- 16A17, the board received an email, one-way correspondence for Commissioner Fiala. There's one more. 16 -- 17B, I received emails and phone calls. And that's it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning. Okay. At this point in time, would someone care to make the motion? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, before you make a motion, I would like to make a request that something be included in the motion. With respect to item 12A, we are continuing it at the request of the petitioner. Page 17 July 24-25, 2007 Now, this is something -- this settlement is something that's been going on for a very long time. I see no reason to continue to delay this. So that we don't delay it and a decision can be made at the next meeting, I would feel a lot more comfortable if we got some input from our Planning Commission concerning this item. And I would like to ask that the county manager send this item to the Planning Commission so that we will have the benefit of their recommendations concerning the settlement before it comes back for consideration by the board. It's a fairly complex issue, and I place a great deal of confidence in the Planning Commission's ability to analyze the potential impacts. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then I'll second that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I would like to do is ask that that be included in the motion to approve the agenda, or separately, either way. It makes no difference. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, why don't you go ahead and just make the motion and include it right in, and we'll have it all in one step? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I would make a motion that the board ask the county manager to refer this item to the Planning Commission for their review and -- so that we can have their recommendations prior to the time the item returns to the Board of County Commissioners for a decision. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you mind rolling the whole thing together with the approval of the agenda? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Then I will make a motion to approve the agenda with the changes as stated by the commissioners, the county manager, and the county attorney and with the supplemental instruction to the county manager to refer item 12A to the Planning Commission for their recommendations prior to its Page 18 July 24-25, 2007 return to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And what about the proviso? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which one? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The proviso to be able to bring it back COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- at the point in time we get a ruling from the county attorney? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the approval of the agenda is contingent upon a future determination today concerning the item that was being considered for removal from the agenda. MR. WEIGEL: And for the record, that is item 9H that we are under review right now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And your second? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. My second -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- includes all those. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- second for approval of the agenda as amended and with the ability to be able to bring back that one item when the county attorney makes a determination. We have a second by Commissioner Halas. With that, any other discussions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, any discussion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All-- okay. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 19 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show that Commissioner Henning was opposed to the approval of the agenda as amended. Page 20 AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Julv 24, 2007 An error occurred in the numbering of the agenda backup material. The agenda index numbering is correct; however, the corresponding items in the printed backup material (shown in the upper right corner of each page) are not numbered correctly. Following is a table showing the correct agenda item number and the incorrect number as it appears in the printed backup material. Correct Agenda Item Number Incorrect Agenda Item Number (As shown on allenda index) (As it appears in the backup material) 10E 101 10F 10E 10G 10J 10H 10F 101 10G 10J 10H Item 2E should read: June 26-27, 2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting. (Staff's request.) Item 3B. 3C and 3D should read as follows: B. 20 Year Attendees 1. Patrick Webb, Facilities Management C. 25 Year Attendees 1. Joseph Chirico, Transportation D. 30 Year Attendees 1. James Thomas, Parks and Recreation Withdraw Item 7 A: V A-2007 -AR-11459 James and Lavonne Williamson, represented by Son rise Properties of Naples, DBA Sonrise Building Company, is requesting a variance within the Wyndemere Lodgings Planned Unit Development (PUD) reducing the existing front set back from 40' to approximately 36' to extend the front of their garage, for purposes of accommodating a second vehicle, for a project to be known as the Williams Garage Addition. The subject property consisting of 3.04 acres is located at 186 Edgemere Way South, in Section 1 of the Wyndemere Lodgings Subdivision, on Lot 46 of Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's request.) Item 7B continued to September 11. 2007 BCC meetina: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PE-2006-AR-10551, DeVoe Family Limited Partnership II, represented by Sandra Bottcher of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., is requesting a parking exemption for the DeVoe Suzuki dealership. The exemption seeks approval of an off-site employee parking area on a residentially-zoned lot to serve the DeVoe Suzuki dealership in the adjacent commercially-zoned district. The subject property, consisting of 0.23 acres, is located at 1397 Trail Terrace Drive, on the northwest corner of 14'h Street North and Trail Terrace Drive, approximately 500 feet south of Solana Road in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's request.) Item 8C: A revised Exhibit A has been provided to correct an inconsistency in the original documents that appear in the agenda packet. The correct Exhibit A has been distributed and made available for review. (Staff's request.) Item 10C: Exhibit A on page 27 is being replaced to reflect the correct legal description. Copies have been made available for review. (Staff's request.) Item 10H: Paragraph 4.014 to be inserted into Agreement for Sale and Purchase as follows: "4.014 Reservations of oil, gas, and mineral rights that exist in the chain of title as well as applicable leases may affect Purchaser's use of Property for conservation purposes. Purchasers shall have fifty-five (55) days from the effective date of this Agreement to obtain releases of such rights to surface exploration and mining or to otherwise satisfy concerns that surface exploration and mining will not occur on Property, or to otherwise terminate this Agreement at no penalty." (Staff's request.) Item 12A continued to the September 11. 2007 BCC meetina: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider approving a settlement agreement with Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC (owner of the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development) to settle alleged claims, including an alleged Bert Harris Act claim purportedly arising from denial of an amendment to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD to modify the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier County, Case No. 05-962-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's request.) Item 13A and 13B: These items are correct as they appear on the agenda index. However, the backup material for Item 13A was printed twice and the backup material for Item 13B was omitted. Copies of Item 13B have been distributed and made available for review. Item 16A7 continued to the September 11. 2007 BCC meetina: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award contract #06-3962 to White & Smith, LLC Planning and Law Group for the update and re-write or portions of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). (Note that the correct contract number and name for this item is 07-4105, "Land Use Attorney Services for Rewriting Land Development Code.") (Staffs request.) Move Item 16A9 to 10N: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a resolution delegating authority to the County Manager or his designee for the purpose of signing on behalf of Collier County, a Limitation of Development Rights Agreement with the expressed objective of executing Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program severances. (Commissioner Henning's request.) Item 16A13 continued to the September 11. 2007 BCC meetina: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Silver Lakes Phase Two-G. (Commissioner Fiala's request.) Item 16B6 continued to the September 11. 2007 BCC meetina: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Budget Amendment and reimbursement to Bayvest, LLC., and to authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute said reimbursement to Bayvest, LLC., in which Collier County would be responsible for a total estimated cost of $99,125.21 for design and construction of the pole relocation. (Staff's request.) Item 16D3: Remove "Tigertail Beach Vegetation for $50,000" as it appears in the TDC Category "A" grant applications. The revised grant total will be $9,599,033. (Staff's request.) Move 16D23 to 10L: Request to the Board of County Commissioners for direction on amending Chapter 98, Article 3 Code of Laws and Ordinances (also known as Collier County Ordinance #90- 9, Section 3) to provide for alcoholic use/sales at Clam Pass Park. (Commissioner Coyle's request.) Move 16D25 to 10M: Recommendation to approve a resolution that supports Alternative A of the Everglades National Park's General Management Plan (GMP). (Commissioner Coyle's request.) Item 16026 should read: Recommendation to approve a temporary use permit for an All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) park on leased land associated with Supplemental Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) until May 31, 2008 with eligibility for a 6-month extension. (Italicized portion added to title.) (Staff's request.) Move Item 16E6 to 10K: That the Board of County Commissioners approves the award Bid 07- 4127 for Office Supplies to Corporate Express. (Staff's request.) Item 16G5: The Executive Summary Considerations should include: "The Advisory Board originally approved two of the three commercial projects for grant funding (landscaping, painting and parking lot resurfacing); however, the grant fund request will now cover one project for painting for $25,871.40." The Fiscal Impact statement should read: "This site improvement project totals $25,871.40 and the grant request is $8,000 which is 31 % of the estimated project cost." (Staff's request.) Item 16K3: The title in the Executive Summary should read: Recommendation to approve settlement in the lawsuit entitled Collier County, Florida vs. The Estate of Omar Fernandez, et al., filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, Case No. 07-0705-CC for $4,000.00 (rather than $7,465.00). (Staff's request.) Move Item 17A to 80: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to reject approval of Petition AVPLAT- 2007-AR-11341, Lot 24, Villa Floresta at Wyndemere, Phase 2, to vacate the County's and the Public's interest in a portion of a platted drainage easement running along the easterly side of Lot 24, Villa Floresta at Wyndemere, Phase 2, a subdivision located in Section 19, TownShip 49 South, Range 26 East, as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 102-103 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and being more particularly described in Exhibit A. (Commissioner Coyle's request.) Time Certain Items: Item 5E to be heard at 3:00 p.m.: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept presentation of status report on (1) potential inclusionary zoning ordinance, (2) potential mitigation fee ordinance, (3) affordable workforce-housing supply study and (4) economic impact analysis of a potential affordable workforce-housing mitigation fee, and give further direction to staff and the County Attorney on the potential ordinances. Item 10F to heard followinq 5E: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Adopt a Resolution Declaring a Valid Public Purpose for accepting voluntary donations made directly to the County for Affordable-Workforce Housing, establishing an Affordable-Workforce Housing Trust Fund and providing general guidelines for use of monies in the Affordable- Workforce Housing Trust Fund. Item 8A to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. OYDA-2007-AR-11 081: Dr. Terry P. McMahan, president for International College, Inc., represented by Michael J. Volpe, Esquire of Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi, LLP, is requesting an amendment to the Harvest for Humanity PUD to change the permitted uses to replace the current resident's activity center and blueberry farm with its ancillary sales facility with limited educational services on certain tracts. The subject property, consisting of 38.4 acres, is located in the northeastern quadrant of the intersection of Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road in Immokalee, Florida, in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. Item 8B to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners considers adoption of a Temporary Planning Moratorium Ordinance. Item 9E to follow item 50: 9E reads: This matter is before the Board of County Commissioners to consider a Resolution approving a financial commitment of $775,000 to the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority, less all amounts previously provided by the Board, as long as the Expressway Authority agrees by Resolution that it will not toll future lanes five and six on Interstate 75 within Lee and Collier Counties. Item 10H to be heard at 10:30 a.m. Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase by and between the Board of County Commissioners and Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed Land and Water Trust, Incorporated as purchasers with Marilyn H. Adkins, as Trustee of the Marilyn H. Adkins Revocable Trust U101T dated July 8, 1997, Joan H. Bickel, Trustee of the Joan H. Bickel Living Trust dated March 29, 2000, Hugh E. Starnes and Judy A. Starnes, a/kfa Judy Ann Starnes as sellers for 367.70 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $5,370,000 and to approve a Lease Agreement with Huge h E. Starnes for cattle grazing for an annual revenue of $368. Item 13B to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2006. July 24-25, 2007 Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F, #2G MINUTES FOR JUNE 12, 2007 BCC/REGULAR MEETING; MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 2007 BC/PUD AUDIT WORKSHOP; MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2007 BCC/GMP AMENDMENT MEETING; MINUTES OF JUNE 26-27, 2007 BCC/REGULAR MEETING; MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2007 BCC/BUDGET WORKSHOP; MINUTES OF JUNE 29, 2007 BCC/ BUDGET WORKSHOP - APPROVED AS PRESENTED CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, let's go on and see if we can get a motion to approve the June 12,2007, BCC/regular meeting minutes; the June 19, BCC/PUD audit workshop; the June 22, BCC/GMP amendment meeting; June 26th to 27th BCC regular meeting; the June 28, 2007, BCC/budget workshop; June 29, 2007, BCC/budget workshop. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Halas to approve that and a second by Commissioner Fiala. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Item #3 Page 21 July 24-25,2007 SERVICE AWARDS Mr. Mudd, service awards? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And we'll start those with the advisory committee service awards, and the first awardee is for 10 years, and that's Mr. Ski -- Edward Ski Olesky for the Lake Trafford Restoration. Mr. Olesky, if you could come forward, please. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ski, it's with great pleasure that I give you a five-year pin. It's what, the second or third one? MR. MUDD: Ten-year pin. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ten-year pin. Congratulations, sir. We appreciate your devotion to the county. MR. OLESKY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations, Ski. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ski, thank you very much. MR. MUDD: Ski, can we get a picture? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ski? We need you to stand, gentleman. (Applause.) MR. MUDD: That brings us to our five-year recipients for your advisory committee service awards. The first five-year recipient is Helen Carella, and she has worked for five years on the Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee. Ms. Carella? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Our next awardee is Michael Carr. He's worked for five years on the Housing Finance Authority. MS. FILSON: He won't be attending. I wrote that on the sheet there. MR. MUDD: Oh, I'm sorry. Our next five-year attendee is -- for advisory committee is Mr. Frank Donohue, and he's worked for five years on the parks and Page 22 July 24-25, 2007 recreation advisory board. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. We really do appreciate the time you give to Collier County. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. MR. DONOHUE: Thank you, Commissioner Henning. (Applause.) MS. FILSON: Mr. Mudd, Crystal tells me that Helen was here somewhere. Ms. Carella was here somewhere. MR. MUDD: Okay. Brings us back to five-year recipient. Ms Helen Carella. She's spent five years working on the Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee. MS. KINZEL: I think they may have gone out to find her. We know she was here. MR. MUDD: Okay. We'll come on back. Next five-year recipient is Mr. Ed Staros, and he's worked for five years on the Pelican Bay Services Division. Ms. Staros -- Mr. Staros? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sue? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Okay. We'll come back if they come back into the room. And this is -- we'll move to 3B, which has to do with the awardees for longevity as far as county employees are concerned. The first awardee is Patrick Webb. He's worked for 20 years in the facilities management department for Collier County. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's beautiful. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow, I want to see what it is. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. It's probably a Jack in the Box. Oh, wow, Pat. Hey, listen, you want to trade? Page 23 July 24-25, 2007 MS. FILSON: Commissioner Coletta, that's the 30-year. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Just a little bit premature there. Actually we got a pen for you also. Please, accept this plaque. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's your pen you gave him. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's right, but it's a little something. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you so much. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't go away. Okay. Got the man all excited. That was a nice watch, too. MR. WEBB: Yeah, it was. Darn. (Applause.) MR. MUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd better hang onto this. That's quite a hand you have. MR. MUDD: The next awardee is for 25 years, and that -- 25 years, and that's Mr. Joseph Chirico from transportation division. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hey, Joseph, would you like to see the watch I'm not going to give you? We're glad you're here. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your service. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, Gerald (sic), please step back just so we can get a picture. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. MR. MUDD: Okay. And our next awardee is 30 years of service to Collier County, that's Mr. James Thomas from parks and recreation. (Applause.) Page 24 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I tried to give this away twice. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think he just switched watches, too. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim, good seeing you. MR. THOMAS: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi, good to see you. Thank you for all your service. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Jim, turn around and face the camera. MR. THOMAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, very much so. Thank you very much for what you do to feed our children, too. (Applause.) MR. MUDD: Commissioner, these are no -- okay. I'm going to go one more -- I'm going to go one more time just to make sure -- did Ms. Helen Carella, are you back in the audience? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Nope. Okay. Item #5A RECOGNIZING DAVID VERROT AS THE SENIOR FIELD CREW LEADER FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS AS SUPERVISOR OF THE YEAR 2006 - PRESENTED We're going to -- that bring us now to paragraph 5, which is presentations. First presentation is recommendation to recognize David Verrot, the senior field crew leader for wastewater collections as Supervisor of the Year for 2006. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The nice thing about this is you don't have to change the batteries. MR. VERROT: Thank you. Page 25 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all you're doing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for your dedicated service. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. MR. MUDD: David deserves this high honor because he was -- because he has demonstrated great skill in motivating the employees under his direction. He does an exceptional job of planning and organizing tasks, as they are often completed ahead of schedule. His timeliness often results in a significant cost savings to the department. He puts in extra time to meet with customers and is always willing to listening to them. His communication skills are excellent and his responsiveness and visibility go a long way to create good will and confidence with the public. In fact, David plays a key role each and every day in protecting the health and safety of the citizens of Collier County and is certainly deserving of this honor. Again, David is supervisor of the year for 2006. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow. (Applause.) MR. MUDD: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Item #5B RECOGNIZING BARBARA OLKO AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JULY 2007 - PRESENTED Commissioner, the next presentation is a recommendation to recognize Barbara Olko, administrative assistant for the public utilities operations as the Employee of the Month for July 2007. Ms.Olko? (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you so much for your servIce. Page 26 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all you do. MR. MUDD: Barbara Olko is always upbeat and has a positive attitude in everything she does. She always strive for excellence and has an outstanding commitment to the mission of the public utilities division. Barbara is detail-oriented and has proved to be a valuable asset in managing many tasks and functions assigned to her. She is generous with her time and is always ready to help support others. She offers to assist with special projects and has been valuable in this regard. She helped coordinate the office renovation, filled in as the executive secretary for the division administrator, and participated in new candidate interviews. Presently she serves as the safety coordinate for the division and has served as the coordinator for the public utility healthcare. Barbara has approached all of these tasks in an efficient and professional manner. She is also acknowledged by her peers as a mentor. Barbara is truly an asset to the division and to the county and is a valuable member of the team. She has earned this prestigious honor. Barbara, the Employee of the Month for July 2007. (Applause.) MR. MUDD: Congratulations. Item #5C PRESENTATION BY V ANDERBIL T BAY CONSTRUCTION ON THE STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION EFFORTS FOR THE NEW COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S SPECIAL OPERATIONS BUILDING - PRESENTED Commissioner, the next presentation is the Vanderbilt Bay Construction, and it will present the status of the construction effort Page 27 July 24-25, 2007 for the new Collier County sheriffs special operations building, project 52002. Mr. Skip Camp will present, or at least introduce the speaker. MR. CAMP: Good morning. For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities management director. We have a very short presentation on the sheriffs special operations project by Vanderbilt Bay Construction and Mr. Nicholas Kieft. MR. KIEFT: Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Vanderbilt Bay Construction, I'd like to present this progress report on the construction of the Collier County sheriffs special operation building. VBC mobilized the site on Monday, the 27th of November, and commenced the removal of surface vegetation. Groundwater was very close to the surface, and conditions were worse than expected. In addition, demucking encompassed an area greater than anticipated, and in certain areas we demucked to a depth of six feet. Following de mucking, fill was brought in, compacted and rolled, and by the end of January, the site was ready for the next phase. An oil/water separator located close to the boundary of the site but serving the adjoining property had to be removed along with a small amount of contaminated soil which surrounded the tank and taken to a licensed disposal facility. This work was carried out at the expense of the airport and did not delay the project. At the beginning of February, work on the underground services began, and in mid February the west boundary retaining wall was set out, formed and constructed. In March, VBC started work to the foundations. The building comprises a steel frame engineered to meet 160 mile-an-hour wind loading with external masonry walls for the first floor and insulated metal panels above. The building frame is attached to mass concrete foundations by anchor bolts. The concrete footings are sized accordingly to provide the Page 28 July 24-25, 2007 support needed for a building of this size and capability. While the foundations were being formed, work continued elsewhere, including installing 10,000 lineal feet of electrical conduit within the site boundary and pouring the hangar apron. The work to form the foundations was extensive, and the first pour for the elevators did not take place until mid April. The first concrete for the foundation was poured at the end of April. During May and most of June, pours were taking place twice a week, averaging over 80 cubic yards of concrete per pour. The site drains into the airport system, and part of the project included forming a new drainage and retention system air site connecting into the existing system. As soon as the first third of the foundations of the building were completed, the masons began construction of the masonry walls and the concrete sun shades, which is a design feature of this building. The steel frame started to arrive on site on Monday the 16th of July, and erection is currently underway. Hand over of the hangar will take place towards the end of September when internal fitting out starts. The remainder of the metal frame is scheduled for completion at the end of October. VBC records progress using a project management program, and weekly meetings are scheduled with subcontractors. Regular meetings every two weeks with the architect Sonoma (sic) also enables problems and changes to be agreed in a timely and economical manner. A couple of changes have had to be agreed, including additional demucking and the redesign of part of the metal frame in order not only to meet the wind load criteria, but to remain within the permitted footprint and to comply with FAA height restrictions. These changes have resulted in cost increases of $340,000. I do not, however, foresee any further major cost increases. I'm pleased to say that the project is currently on schedule, and if Page 29 July 24-25, 2007 mother nature is kind to us, we see no reason why occupancy cannot be granted on the agreed date. Thank you very much indeed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's great. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. MR. MUDD: Do you have any questions, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see no questions here. Mr. Mudd, go ahead. Item #5D PRESENTATION BY MR. BILL BARTON REGARDING CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY - PRESENTED MR. MUDD: Okay. Brings us to our next petition, and that is a presentation by Bill Barton regarding the continued support for the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's to be followed by Commissioner Henning's -- MR. MUDD: And that's to be followed by 9E. MR. BARTON: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good morning. By way of introduction, my name is Bill Barton and I'm here this morning at the request of the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority board of directors who serve them as their chairman. The purpose of our being here today is twofold. First is to share with the commissioners the findings and short-term plan of action of the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority and the second is to request the commissioners to -- consideration to extend the $625,000 balance of the Expressway Authority's requested loan. Page 30 July 24-25, 2007 Before I get into that, let me preface my remarks with several things. First I'd like to introduce Mr. Bruce Anderson, who I think is with us this morning, one of our board members, and also Mr. David Loveland and Ms. Amy Davies, who are with the Lee County staff loaned to us. As you're also aware, Collier County staff assists us as well, your Mr. Nick Casalanguida and Mr. Scott Teach have also been very valuable to us. We recognize your tight agenda this morning, and as a consequence, we have reduced our comments to the briefest possible. But we have passed out to you -- excuse me. On Friday last the Expressway Authority took a look at what we have been doing for the past year plus and reduced that to a series of findings and a short-term plan of action. We have passed that out so that you can have that text in front of you and read it at your leisure, but I wanted this morning to spend just a few minutes going through only five bullets -- excuse me. Chris, tell me what I'm doing here. Okay. These are a condensed version of the information that has been passed out to you this morning. On a six-lane 1-75, most segments in Lee and Collier Counties will be congested to levels of service E-F by 2015. To improve 16 miles to 10 lanes will cost in excess of 800 million in 2007 dollars and mandates six tolled lanes to be financially feasible. To avoid tolling lanes five and six will require in excess of 500 million in initial non-tolled funding. The probability of securing $500 million from federal or state sources in the next decade is so slight as to be virtually nonexistent. These are all findings that the Expressway Authority has considered and found to be reasonable. That leads us to this conclusion. If tolls are eliminated from lanes five and six, the 10-lane expansion will be delayed for several decades. The estimate by FDOT is that conventional funding for those lanes will not be available until at least the year 2030, perhaps beyond that. Page 31 July 24-25, 2007 One other thing I would like -- two other things I'd like to share with you. In the documents that we passed out to you, there is an item number four well into the document that you'll see when you get to it. But basically it is the expression of the intent of the Expressway Authority that regardless of the outcome of actions that mayor may not occur today, that moving forward the Expressway Authority has the intent and the desire to work very closely with Collier County as this issue moves forward in our collective societies. So I wanted you to be aware of that. It's our objective to see that our line of communication remains open and that we continue to explore any options available to us. The last thing I would share with you is that several weeks ago I had an opportunity to meet with Florida Department of Transportation Secretary Stephanie Copalosis (phonetic). And during the course of that, I was able to explain to her what this project is about, where it stands today, and some of the paths that it may be moving down. I think it's fair to say that the secretary well understands the issues that we have in Southwest Florida on the 1-75 project, and I'd like to give you -- and this is pretty close to a quote. The secretary said to me that in her opinion the worst thing that we collectively could do in Southwest Florida where -- when speaking of advancement ofI -7 5 beyond the six lanes that are about to be under construction, the worst thing we could do is nothing. And the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority concurs in that logic and in that reasoning, and as a consequence, we're making every effort to move a project forward where we can have 10 lanes on the most congested segments ofI - 7 5 by the year 2015. And Commissioners, that's what we came to speak to you about this morning. We would like your consideration on the loan of additional funds to us so that we can keep this project moving forward. I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you add to your discussion Page 32 July 24-25, 2007 there what Lee County Commission is doing and when they meet? Because this may be something that a final decision by this commission may want to wait upon the findings of the Lee County Commission. MR. BARTON: I'm not sure how that works, Commissioner. All of us, of course, are aware of the resolution that is before you today, one which would demand that the Expressway Authority pass a resolution stating, in essence, that we would preclude any effort to lane -- toll lanes five and six. Our position on that has already been expressed. We see that as -- basically as killing the project. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand. But let me -- could I ask David Loveland to come up just a moment? MR. BARTON: Oh, certainly. Staff is here for that purpose. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Dave, would you state your position with the Lee County Commission and also the Expressway Authority and give a little bit of background of what the Lee County Commission's going to be looking at. We have no idea which way they're going to go because it's a decision, of course, that they can't talk about until it comes before them in a meeting. MR. LOVELAND: Yes. For the record, David Loveland, manager of transportation planning for the Lee County Department of Transportation and interim staff for the Expressway Authority. The -- depending on the action of the Collier commission today and what direction we end up going, if it looks like we might be moving down the path of exploring for now a Lee County only project, that issue would go before the Lee County Commission on August 14th. That would also be accompanied by a request for some additional funding if necessary. If Collier chooses not to continue the funding partnership that we've experienced so far for the Expressway Authority for administrative and staffing purposes, I don't know exactly how the Lee County Commission is going to react to that because they will discuss Page 33 July 24-25, 2007 that on August 14th. But I think there's a feeling that, you know, we need to move forward with some kind of improvement on 1-75 beyond -- beyond the six lanes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Please stand by for possible other questions. MR. BARTON: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it might be helpful to you for me to read into the record one of the motions that was passed by the Expressway Authority on Friday last, and that is that should the Collier County Commission decide against granting the $625,000 loan requested by the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority or should the Collier County Commission elect to place conditions on such loan that, in the judgment of the Expressway Authority Board, significantly compromises the financial feasibility of expanding portions of 1-75 in Southwest Florida to a lO-lane facility, then and in that event, the Expressway Authority shall respectfully decline such loan. Additionally, the chairman and staff are then directed at the earliest appropriate opportunity to formally request the Lee County Commission to increase the amount of their previously approved loan to a total of$I,275,000 with the intent for the Expressway Authority in cooperation with Lee County and the Florida Department of Transportation to move forward with the determination of the feasibility of an 1-75 improvement project within the geographical limits of Lee County, Florida. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But suppose this commission decided to wait. I'm just giving you a for instance because there's many options here. Suppose they want to wait to see what the Lee County Commission's going to do or not do? What would that do as far as this going forward to Lee County? MR. BARTON: Well, that -- candidly that would confuse me a little bit because then when we went to Lee County, we would not know whether Collier County intended to loan the 625,000 and be a partner in this project or not. Page 34 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you know, I can't tell you which way this is going to go, but let's go right to Commissioner Halas, see if we can move this along. MR. BARTON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is, we've lent, I believe, 125,000 and a good portion of that was used for PRo How much PR are we going to -- MR. BARTON: Commissioner, of the 150,000 that you have previously loaned to us, the amount of that that was used for -- in PR -- we refer to it as -- a little differently. We refer to it as community involvement. But the amount of money that -- out of that have 150- that's been used for that is zero, zero. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you telling me all of these -- all this information that's been printed and all the informational items that you've brought forth in all the meetings, that there's been no money spend on that? MR. BARTON: No, I didn't say that. I said none of your 150,000 has been spent on that. We also received from the Florida Department of Transportation Revolving Trust Fund a loan of $650,000, and all of the consultant expenses, including Seller-Mulner (phonetic), have come out of that 650,000. None of it has come out of either Lee County or Collier County's loan to the Expressway Authority . COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then how come you don't have -- you said you're just about -- from the last meeting we had, I think you said you had like $46,000 in the treasury. MR. BARTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So where did the money go then if you didn't spend any money? MR. BARTON : We did spend money . We spent money on administrative costs, we spent money on attorney's fees, we spent money on accountants. We've spent a significant amount of money, Page 35 July 24-25, 2007 but it's been on administrative costs, not on consultant costs. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or putting on these types of -- MR. BARTON: It has not been spent for that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. BARTON: All of those dollars came from the revolving trust fund loan. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. This was a present -- okay. Commissioner -- okay. I thought you were reaching -- you are reaching for your button. Go ahead, sir. I'm trying to anticipate what you're going to do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Mr. Barton, I would like to thank you for your leadership on this tollway authority board. I understand that you're trying to find the most cost effective way to expand 1-75, and that's exactly what we asked you to do. The problem I have, however, is essentially this: When we went into this, we went into it expecting that there would be six free lanes and four toll lanes. As a matter of fact, I was one of the people who went to members of the Collier County -- or Lee County Commission to encourage them to support this concept in the beginning. You might recall they did not support it in the beginning. So the problem I have is that the state and federal governments have an obligation to make sure their facilities do not fail just as Collier County has an obligation to assure that our transportation facilities do not fail. Ifwe have a failing segment in our transportation system, we have an obligation under law to do something about it. What I cannot accept is that the federal and state government don't have a similar obligation and they're looking to counties to make decisions to get them off the hook. At the same time they're taking action to reduce the amount of money that we have to spend on our Page 36 July 24-25, 2007 own facilities. And I don't see any resolution to that problem. I see it getting worse, particularly with the potential referendum in January to further reduce our revenue. Now, all of the dire predictions are predicated on the fact that the state and federal government won't do anything with respect to their facilities to make sure they don't fail. I don't necessarily accept that conclusion. I suspect that lots of people are telling us that the money won't be available just so we can find ways that they won't have to fund it. So I'm probably at the end of my rope with respect to state and federal government funding the things they're supposed to fund. They've removed critical funds from Collier County. They're asking for us to advance funds to them to do an intersection improvement at Davis and Collier Boulevard. We'll consider that later today. As much as your proposal, in my estimation, makes sense from the standpoint of dollars, from the standpoint of principle and responsibility, I really can't support it, and I'm sorry for that. I know you've worked hard on it. But the federal and state governments have to step up to the plate. It's their responsibility. It's not the responsibility ofthe residents of Collier County to bail them out by paying tolls on lanes that we never anticipated we'd have to pay tolls on. So I just wanted to get that on the record. It's not a reflection of the work of the tollway authority. You're doing the best you can to do what needs to be done, and there is no doubt in my mind that if we did it now it's going to be a lot cheaper and a lot better than if we wait 10, 15 years to get it done, but I don't see the prospects of getting this accomplished the way it's being done. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. BARTON: Commissioner, I might make two quick comments to that. Firstly, I don't think there's any of us that do not Page 37 July 24-25, 2007 disagree (sic) that in a perfect world the appropriate funding for an interstate highway is through federal and state governments. All of us agree with that. Our concern at the Expressway Authority level is twofold. Firstly, if we chase this pot of gold at the end of the proverbial rainbow, every year that we delay commencement of this project, we anticipate the cost of this project will increase by somewhere between 40 and 50 million dollars. As a consequence, if we are $500 million short today, and instead of being able to start construction in 2011, that slides to 2013, then we're going to be $600 million short. That's my -- the first comment I would make. The second one is that, from my own personal perspective -- and this is not the Expressway Authority board's position, but mine -- it would seem to me that here we sit in two of the most Republican congressional districts in the United States with the prospect of Democrat control of both houses of the Congress, which is currently in place, and by all views, will remain in place following 2008, and we're going to go to those particular folks and say, we have a serious problem looming with transportation on 1-75 in Collier and Lee County, and it is our intent to severely punish ourselves until you give us enough money to fix it. From my perspective, that's illogical. I just -- I don't understand that. That's -- forgive me for disagreeing, but that's my position on it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We've still got another part of this issue to deal with in just a moment, Bill. I do thank you for your presentation. I see no other lights on. MR. BARTON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. MR. BARTON: If you have any other questions, I'll be in the audience. Page 38 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Item #9E TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINANCIAL COMMITMENT OF $775,000.00 TO THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY, LESS ALL AMOUNTS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED BY THE BOARD, AS LONG AS THE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY AGREES BY RESOLUTION THAT IT WILL NOT TOLL FUTURE LANES FIVE AND SIX ON INTERSTATE 75 WITHIN LEE AND COLLIER COUNTIES- MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL LEE COUNTY MAKES ITS DECISION OR THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA EXPRESSWAY BRINGS BACK A COUNTER OFFER; TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO A FUTURE BCC MEETING - APPROVED Okay. Next item is 9E, but we also have -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and this item to be heard right after 5D. This matter is before the Board of County Commissioners to consider a resolution approving a financial commitment of $775,000 to the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority less any amounts previously provided by the board as long as the Expressway Authority agrees by resolution that it will not toll future lanes five and six on Interstate 75 within Lee and Collier Counties. Commissioner Henning has asked for this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may, we have four speakers on that. Let's go to the speakers first. Three minutes apiece. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have four speakers. Jim Burke will be the first one. The second one, Gina Downs. MR. BURKE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm here with the Citizens Traffic (sic) Coalition of Collier County, and I just have some brief comments. And this has been a very troubling progression of Page 39 July 24-25, 2007 events for me as an individual and as a member of the coalition. If I go back to December of '06, the Turnpike Enterprise Study said 10-lane -- a 10-lane roadway with four toll lanes moves the most traffic. Ten-lane roadway with six toll lanes, however, generates the most toll revenue, okay? Good point. In January the Expressway Authority hires a PR firm to promote the toll road to the public. They call it a public outreach effort, and they stressed -- and this is a quote -- putting choices before the public not in selling them on the virtues of the tolling project. In March, Representative Mack says, tolling lanes five and six is, quote, bait and switch. Senator Saunders in March says, quote, toll lanes, not in the plan for lanes five and six, when he helped create the Expressway Authority . In March, the PR firm, after they put the choices before the public, report that 84 percent favor tolling. Now, remember, the aim was not to sell them -- sell the public, simply to inform them of the choices. April, Expressway Authority Chairman Barton reports, quote, uninformed public responds differently than those who have had, quote, choices put before them. June, PR firm has met with 61 different groups to, quote, put choices before them. They now say that 80 percent want 10 lanes and over 70 percent favor tolling lanes five and six. I said this has been, for me, a troubling progression of events. I pick up the Saturday Naples Daily News, read the article, and I tell you what I smelled, not a choice of -- not a choice, I smelled intimidation and I smelled desperation. So what I ask you to do today is put an end to this, at least on Collier County's part. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gina Downs. She'll be followed by Gary Eidson. MS. DOWNS: Hi, Gina Downs, and I'm speaking on behalf of Page 40 July 24-25, 2007 Citizens Transportation Coalition. I want to talk a little bit about the pricing that we've been hearing over the life of these toll roads. In December of '06 the Florida Turnpike Enterprise Consultant Hugh Miller talked about optimal rates. That was the toll that would produce the most revenue but would not keep drivers from using the road. He said, the study showed that the optimal rate would be 50 cents per mile. In May, while addressing the Bonita Council, Chris Mulner with the PR firm, said the rates would be between 8 cents and 28 cents per mile based on the time of day of usage. In June, Chairman Barton said the rate would be 21 cents per mile. He talked about a one-way 17-mile trip to the airport from Immokalee at a cost $3.57 in today's dollars. In -- later in June, PR rep. Chris } Swenson (phonetic) said the tolls would range from 7 to 25 cents per mile. For the first time on June 23rd the PR firm talked about offering discounts to users who paid ahead for the toll road usage, for the first time they talked about assistance to low income users. Also, for the first time, we heard about the cost of the transponders. It's about the size of a credit card that goes on your dashboard. And they say the cost of the transponder would be about $6. In -- June 27th, when the Lee and Collier County Commissions met up in Bonita Springs, we heard for the first time from the PR firm that the cost could be 40 cents per mile for the toll road. Let's assume you make that 17-mile trip to the airport, let's make it a trip, because you have to come back from the airport, now it's a 34-mile trip. Using all those variable prices we were quoted, 50 cents a mile makes it a $70 --I'm sorry, a $17 trip; 28 cents a mile, it's a $9.52 trip; 21 cents a mile, $7.14, and so on. The average of all those rates makes that trip $13.60. I'm sorry. The average is $11.15 . We don't want to expand that. Page 41 July 24-25, 2007 Let's assume you're a commuter, not just someone driving to the airport and back, you make that trip five days a week. That trip costs you $55.75. We'll give you two weeks vacation so you only have to drive that route 50 times -- 50 weeks in a year. It now costs $2,787.50. That's in one year to commute to home -- from home to work and back. That's assuming you only go 17 miles of that toll road. Let's add in the cost of the transponder for about $6. Now, if you add in the price of gas, $3 a gallon one way. Let's say you get 17 miles. It adds $1,560 a year, bringing your total to $3,400. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ma'am, I'm going to have to ask you to wind it up. Thank you. MS. DOWNS: That's it. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gary Eidson. He'll be followed by Donna Caron. MR. EIDSON: Hi. My name's Gary Eidson. I'm with the -- I'm the chairman for the Citizens Transportation Coalition of Collier County here in District 2. I do thank Mr. Barton for the work he's done as an advocate. I appreciate it and I know he's worked hard. Unfortunately, I disagree with the Authority. Tallahassee has found, in my opinion, another way to diminish home rule. We're going to wake up three years from now and wonder why it costs us $11 to go to the airport round trip when it only costs $2.50 to go across Alligator Alley. The Citizens Transportation Coalition is asking you folks to say no to funding the authority and no to yet another layer of bureaucracy. So far the authority has suggested that there is a resounding support for tolls, yet on further examination, we find their surveys were limited in demographic scope by their own admission. Also, they didn't mention the toll cost to people when they were asking them if they wanted a toll. Page 42 July 24-25, 2007 The Citizens Transportation Coalition, we did our own survey, and we found there was resounding support against it 2-1. So much for surveys. Toll costs are laughable, almost. The Authority's pricing moves around more than the stock market. They even want the rates to change throughout the day. Now, picture driving down 75 at 70 miles an hour trying to decide if the price is right in lane four, five, six or seven. I think I'll make my decision for six today. What -- our drivers can't decide which lane to go in without anything in front of them, let alone a toll decision. The Authority suggests that to vote against tolling, particularly on the lanes already funded, is a vote against Southwest Florida's future. No, it's a vote to encourage finding funding differently. It's a vote to find an alternate approach. It's a vote to be sure that 10 lanes is really what we need. I want to know how you blend 10 lanes into four lanes south of Golden Gate. We ask, is this Authority created to serve the best interests of the community or rather to create a business to be sold to foreign interests once the business is up and running? And would I say that? HB985, the house bill that encourages privatization of our Florida roads, is where Tallahassee would like this thing to go, perhaps. It's another stake in the heart of the county home rule. Commissioners, if you have an extra six and a quarter laying in the coffers that's burning a whole in your pocket and you want to spend it on something, spend it on lobbying in Washington so we can get our own type of funds like they did in Alaska, to build a bridge to nowhere. Ask them where the $16 billion went that they put in a hole in the ground in Boston. Kennedy was able to get that money. So what -- you talk about Democrats, let's ask them where they're going to spend the money to help us. Commissioners, say no to funding Southwest Florida Authority. Page 43 July 24-25, 2007 Thank you. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Donna Caron. MS. CARON: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Donna Caron speaking on behalf also of the Citizens Transportation Coalition. Typically it's not very good to follow Gary Eidson when he's passionate about an issue. The Coalition sent each of you commissioners a letter, and it had been -- I had been requested to read that letter into the record; however, since all the commissioners have it, I will save everybody time and just give a copy of this letter to the court reporter. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, this was your item on the agenda. Did you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. First of all I would like to say -- is to thank the Authority for their hard work, and particularly Mr. Barton as the chairman. I do believe that $150,000 went to a great -- or a good expense, you know, considering other items that the board has approved. They found out that the cost feasibility is not feasible without tolling five and six. It was my understanding, along with Commissioner Coyle's statement, it was always going to be six free lanes and four toll lanes. With that said, I would like to make a motion to approve the resolution and also, I think it's appropriate for the chairman of the Board of Commissioners to write a letter to Lee County saying that we would like to work with them in trying to procure monies from state and federal, that 500 million shortfall, to complete the needs ofI-75 in both Lee and Collier County. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So that's part of your motion, Commissioner Henning? Page 44 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That is part of your motion, the last? COMMISSIONER HENNING; Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a second from Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me make sure about the approval. The approval of the resolution is not to approve the $625,000? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not unless the Authority agrees to remove toll lane five and six. So if five and six is not a consideration for tolling, the county will approve in future the -- what is it, 625,000? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, you've still got the floor. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just have a question then, Commissioner Henning. If the toll authority does not toll lanes five and six and we provide the $625,000, what do we expect the toll authority to do? Are they going to obligate themselves to toll lanes seven, eight, nine, and 10? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So could we make that obligation part of your motion so that if we give them the $625,000, they will move forward on tolling seven, eight, nine, and 10, and I don't know what Mr. Barton will say about that because I don't know if you can afford to do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, obviously he said -- yeah, I'll include that in the resolution. Mr. Barton has already told us it's not cost feasible. Page 45 July 24-25,2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if it's not cost feasible to do that and we give them the $625,000, we're getting absolutely nothing out of the deal. We may as well just fold our participation in the tollway authority which, by the way, might not be a bad idea. But I like the idea of continuing to work with Lee County on solving the transportation problem in finding the funds, but I'm a little reluctant to provide $625,000 for an agency that is not going to build the toll lanes and is consequently not going to widen 1-75 beyond that which the federal and/or state government has already committed. So I'm not sure what we get for the $625,000. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand your concern. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I agree with Commissioner Coyle. MR. BARTON: IfI might address that just a moment. What I presented to you earlier in the motion that I read to you, that in the event that there are constraints on the loan that in the view of the Expressway Authority would significantly reduce the financial feasibility of the project, that we were going to respectfully decline the loan. I can tell you that without question, any effort to take five and six off the tolling table, from our perspective, kills the project. So obviously from our perspective, that is not an issue. If you wish to pass this resolution, then there would be no loan granted to the Expressway Authority because we would, indeed, refuse it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We still have a motion on the floor. That motion hasn't been amended in any way. I think, Commissioner Henning, your motion stands as stated? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, I'd have to ask Commissioner Coyle, is he okay with Mr. Barton's explanation? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I understand what Mr. Barton just told us, is if we pass this resolution, giving them the $625,000 without the approval to toll lanes five and six, that the tollway Page 46 July 24-25, 2007 authority will, in fact, reject the loan. I don't like open-ended business deals like that. I would prefer to disapprove the $625,000 and just get it done so there's no confusion and there's no lingering obligation by Collier County. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coyle, we still want to participate in these decisions further down the road, so I thought that it was kind of a no brainer that we will not be participating because Mr. Barton -- and we all have knowledge -- that it won't be financially feasible without tolling five and six. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A suggestion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would be that possibly you might want to consider amending your motion that at this point in time, meaning that at some point in the future, if other options come available, that Collier County might open itself up to extending the loan, but at this point in time, the way it's coming down, that it's not an acceptable part for the Collier County Commission. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thank you, Commissioner. I think that's the silver bullet that we're looking for is to approve it with that piazo ( sic) that no funding will be coming forward, if any consideration of five and six, and leave our options open down the road. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, yeah, I understand, Commissioner Henning, but you already had a meeting take place with the Expressway Authority, and at that meeting they said that any -- any offer made that did not include five and six would be refused. So what I'm saying is, it might behoove us to consider just refusing the offer without conditions to it when we know the conditions aren't going to be met, and then that just leaves the book open somewheres down the line to be able to pick it up sometime in the future, open it up. Who knows what could happen between now and next year at this time. Page 47 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. We're saying the same thing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, but the five and six part, you're creating a scenario that's absolutely guaranteed to fail. It won't go forward. So what I'm saying, if you remove that and still refuse the money, you've got the option to come back later. Just a thought. But it's your motion, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm including your comments into the motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But they contradict the original parts with four -- with five -- excuse me, five and six. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'll tell you what, to remove any confusion, let me just remove my motion and allow somebody else to clarify. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I mean, if! was to make a motion it would be to give the funds to them and proceed forward because I think this is a needed facility, but I assure you that I don't see any change in the direction the commission's been going, so I prefer somebody else make that motion. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'd just like to table this whole subject for the time being because I don't think that right now we can make a decision on this one way or another. We know that we do not want to participate in tolling lanes five and six, and I don't think there's any reason to proceed with any type of a motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Fiala. I'll second the motion just to get it going forward. Commissioner Halas, your light's on. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I had the same concerns that Commissioner Coyle had. I don't believe we should have something that's left dangling out there that is not completed, so however this Page 48 July 24-25, 2007 moves forward, I believe that the motion should be made in such a way, is that we tie up the loose ends and make sure that everybody has an understanding exactly where we are and hopefully resolve the problems. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion by Commissioner Fiala to table this item till, I guess, Lee County makes their decision and then come back with it probably in September. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yes. If -- yes, let's do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And a second by myself. Any other questions, comments? Commissioner Henning, I don't want to leave you out. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I don't -- I can't support the motion. I think the public needs to understand, clearly understand where the Board of Collier County is. So I'm not going to support the motion. I wanted to try to find a previous reso. that I had, but I can't get it on my screen -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- right now, but go ahead. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me comment on that. I think that we were -- at least you and I happen to be in agreement, even though we did not discuss it, but from your motion here, I felt that we should advance them the money if, indeed, the tolling issue was taken off of lanes five and six. They've come back to say, that's not possible and we're not going to do that. So then I feel that there's no reason to discuss it any longer. They've just rather slammed the door in our face and said, nope, if we can't have it our way, then we don't want to play at all. And yet I'd like to table it in case something comes up at a future time that they would like to reconsider and say, you know, that they'd like to work with us in some way without tolling lanes five and six. I didn't want to close the issue completely. Page 49 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala that tables the item, seconded by myself. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And let the record show that Commissioners Henning was in opposition. Motion passed. With that, we're going to take a short 10-minute break. Everybody be back here in 10 minutes. (A brief recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike. Item #13B PRESENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30. 2006 - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to our time certain item of 10 a.m., and this is item 13B. It's a presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006. And somebody has a cell phone that's close to a speaker. Page 50 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Whoever it was, I think, discovered their cell phone is too close to the mike. So we're all set now. MR. MUDD: I believe Mr. Skip Jones from KP -- excuse me. MR. JONES: Excuse me. Crystal's going first. MS. KINZEL: Okay. Start out. For the record, Commissioner, Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director for the Clerk of Courts. We're here today to present to the board of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, also referred to as the CAFR, for the year ending 2006. I just wanted to start offby saying there are many, many people to thank for this. This isn't something that just occurs in a day. It's a year-long process leading up to the preparation of the financial statements. We'd like to thank each of the constitutional offices and their staff representatives who work diligently with the external auditors and our office to make sure that you have an accurate report. We'd also like to thank all of the county staff. We work with them throughout the year to make sure that this year-end process works smoothly. I would also like to specifically thank the finance staff. Most of them are back at the office still working. I do have two particular people to recognize. If Kelly Jones and Derek Johnssen would stand up. They take the lead on the preparation of the financial statements, and without their technical expertise and backup, we would not have a CAFR. So I appreciate all of their help through finance. And with that, I'd like to introduce Mr. Chip Jones. He's the engagement partner from KPMG, and he's going to make the presentation to the board of the CAFR. Thank you. MR. JONES: Good morning. I have to say this is the first time I've had a standing room only to come here on a financial statement, but -- I assume that's why they're all here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, sure. MR. JONES: Not for anything else that's on the agenda. So I'll Page 51 July 24-25, 2007 make this real long, so -- no. Anyway, the CAFR has been issued. And this is a presentation similar to what I've done in the prior years. I'll start off with the CAFR, which you all received a copy. It's a very long document which contains a lot of information, and you can literally look at almost any fund in the county and get an understanding of what occurred in that fund this year. We audit the financial statements as a whole as well as the major funds, and I'll go over which major funds those were. We expressed a clean opinion on the financial statements this year, meaning that they do fairly represent the county's operations in conformity with GAP. We also though had a paragraph referring to the fact that we had restated opening fund balance for the accounting treatment for certain impact fees and developer contributions. And let me just explain briefly what happened. You've had a provision in your impact fee legislation which provides for a refundability if these monies are not spent, and a lot of counties have similar provisions and a lot of counties follow the same treatment that you did in prior years. There was a clarification that came out from one of the governmental accounting boards this year that essentially said that you had to look past the refundability portion of the legislation and more to the enforcible claims on those impact fees and when it takes place. In working with county staff to look at that, it was decided that the impact fees that we reflected as deferred revenue in the past should be recorded as revenues and be part of the fund balance instead of deferred revenues. Additionally there was developer contributions in prior years in lieu of impact fees that had not been recorded, and we recorded those, too. So essentially the financial statements are clean, but if you took last year's statements and said, I want to see what ending fund Page 52 July 24-25, 2007 balances were and go to this year, you would see differences, and those are explained in the last note to the financial statements. We issued an opinion on internal control over financial reporting and on the compliance over other matters. We did report a material weakness. And, again, that's a result ofthe impact fee. A material weakness is defined as an internal control that, if it is not in effect, would allow a material error to occur in the financial statements. Well, since we had a material error, even regardless of the circumstances and clarification, by nature you have a material weakness, and that's just because we didn't catch the error in the prior years. So I wanted to bring that to your attention. We issued an opinion on major, federal, and state programs. We audited six federal programs and six state programs. Those included the HOME, SHIP, and CDBG programs, which we reported on to you earlier, in early March. We issued a management letter, which I think had six comments in it. You have an audit committee which is very progressive for county governments, and it's an active audit committee. We've met with them three times during the audit to review the planning, the interim progress, and the completion of the audit. Mr. Mudd plays a very active role in that committee, and my compliments to Mr. Mudd and his staff because from a county manager's standpoint, they seem to be very interested in the audit, more so than I see in a lot of my other counties, and I think that's very good because it's a very important process. We issue separate audits on each of the constitutionals, and those are available for your use if you would like them, and we also do an audit of the county, water, and sewer fund, which is in the process of being completed. On page 2 I've indicated the major funds that we audit. And essentially we decide major funds based on if they meet certain criteria. Usually it's if they're over 10 percent of revenues, assets or Page 53 July 24-25, 2007 liabilities, we consider them major. And the procedures we perform on those proc -- on those funds are just as if they were their own fund and not part of a bunch of other ones. This year we had a new fund, community redevelopment fund which was put in there, and part of that was because of the legislation in the state that does require some separate accounting of redevelopment districts. Gone are two funds that we had in the past that were considered major because of the deferred revenue on the impact fee. Since those fees went to fund balance, they were no longer major funds, and that was the government facilities impact fee fund, and the parks impact districts fund. So they're still in the CAFR but they're in the back now. You also have four component units which are reported in one column, and they had very little activity. They facilitate issuance of bonds and things like that. Page 3, 4, and 5 that I'll go over now are probably the most important pages, but page 3 is a snapshot of the county of September 30th, '06. And this reflects all of your assets, your liabilities, long-term debt, and your net assets, and it reflects your net assets as to whether they're invested in capital assets, being buildings, infrastructure, those types of things, net of any outstanding debt that was borrowed to build or construct those facilities. Restricted, which means in -- and there was a new accounting pronouncement on that, too, which I'll explain. But restricted is essentially by a third party or by legislation that you all may have passed restricting certain monies. And then unrestricted, which is money that, really, you can do what you want with. And some of that you have reserved in some cases; in other cases you haven't. The restricted balance, $366 million. That is a lot bigger than what we had last year. Most of that is, again, because of the impact Page 54 July 24-25, 2007 fees that previously were not reported in fund balance. You have a healthy accounting, as demonstrated by these financial statements, and you can see your unrestricted net assets went up a $100 million this year. The next page is a statement of activities, and I think this is a good, again, picture of an overall presentation of what the county does for the citizens of Collier County. It lists all the different governmental activities, and that's what taxpayer dollars are supporting. And you can see the categories, general government, public safety, physical environment, transportation, economic environmental, human services, culture and recreation. It also lists your business-type activities, and those are designed essentially to be least break-even or make a profit. There was a new one this year, the mass transit, which is now on a separate fund and being tracked separately, and you can see that we've got a line there that reflects about $6 million of cost for your transit operations this year, which was offset by about $3 million in operating grants, about 1.6 million in capital grants, and 800,000 in charges for service. The emergency medical services is not -- their charges do not cover the cost of their services, but you do transfer every year monies from the general fund to make up that deficit. That does not reflect here, but that is a transaction that takes place. Down below are the general revenues that essentially support the cost of the government operations. The biggest source being property taxes, which were 293 million, and a good increase over the prior year. In fact, the last two years we've had good increases in property tax revenues because of all the growth going down here as well as the appreciation in the properties. The next page talks about your general fund, and this is where most governments spend most of their time -- because this is Page 55 July 24-25, 2007 essentially where most of the property tax revenues go for and this is what covers most of what our taxpayers perceive as the services that the government performs for them. They would include parks and recreation, public safety, those types of things. You also have other funds, special revenue funds, which could be earmarked monies that come in for those. Tourist development taxes would be an example. You have debt service funds that are using the service debt that's outstanding, and you have capital projects fund, which essentially accumulate monies to build future roads, infrastructure, those types of things. But your general fund balance is healthy. At the end of the year it was 18.9 percent of your expenditures and transfers, and that compared to 21 -- 21.8 percent the prior year. The big difference for that drop was that in this year we had roughly $40 million of Hurricane Wilma expenditures. So having that fund balance helped you handle those expenditures because you don't get the money the next day back from the government. And again, it was a reserve that comes in. And again, a fund balance is important to a government, particularly when you're in a growing county like Collier where you -- where you've got future growth and you have to sometimes make expenditures recognizing what that future growth will be. You have to have flexibility, again, for things like that, hurricanes come in. And we could imagine if we had one hit us like as bad as Katrina hit New Orleans, how that could just disrupt a lot of services, and your ability to react to that in a rational manner is very important. But anyway, your fund balance at the end of the year is about 18.9 percent. I think, you know, most counties try to keep in the 10, 15, 20 percent range, so I would say you have a very healthy fund balance. On page 6, as I mentioned, you have other types of funds, special Page 56 July 24-25, 2007 revenue, debt service, capital projects. And again, you can see the biggest one is capital projects. And if you actually look and see the 2004 number -- because we restated 2005 to just get a comparison to this year, but that was when we used to show impact fees as deferred revenue. Once we put them over here as revenue and part of the fund balance, it increased that fund balance by $300 million. You still had the same money in the bank. Nothing's changed about it. It's just no longer considered deferred. Governmental revenues is reflected on page 7, and this provides you a good history of the growth in certain of these revenues. And again, you did see the tax base. Now, that includes some other taxes, about 30 million, but overall taxes has increase from 173 million to 327 million in 2006. If you ever have the time, I would suggest you look at the statistical section in your CAFR. It's in the very back. But it provides summary information like this for sometimes the last four or five, some cases, 10 years, and it really gives you a good idea on trends, and it's also useful information as far as understanding what's happening in the county, what the growth has done to the county, where your expenses have been changing over the years, those types of things. It also talks about revenue sources, too. The biggest increase in revenues was in the intergovernmental work. Again, we're reflecting roughly $30-plus million received from FEMA on the Wilma damages that we incurred. Page 8 gives you a summary, again, as far as a pie chart of where your revenue sources come from. And this year 52 percent of your revenues, close to half, came from taxes. Down slightly from 55 percent last year, and meanwhile intergovernmental was up slightly because of the Wilma receipts. Page 9 gives you similar information regarding expenditures. The biggest expenditures that we have in Pin -- not Pinellas -- in Page 57 July 24-25, 2007 Collier County is public safety. That is true in every county that we deal with. And I think if you had to ask your taxpayers what's most important, public safety would be right up there at the very top. Capital outlay is the other really big one, and you can see there the growth in there. And again, every time I drive down here, I see all the roads that are under construction and the new construction taking place. You've got a lot going on. And again, you need to because this is a very growing county, and it's got needs and you're meeting those needs. Well, I don't live here so I can't say you're meeting needs, but I know you're spending a lot of money trying to meet those needs. But obviously that was a big chunk of your expenditures for the year. Page 10 also is a pie chart of expenditures. Again, you can see capital outlay actually was 39 percent of all your expenditures this year versus 34 percent last year, and I think if you did a comparison to other counties, you'd find that you're high in that area. On the next page is an analysis of your general government debt. 2006 was roughly comparable to 2005. If you recall, in 2005 we did issue a lot of bonds, capital improvement bonds and gas tax bonds, which were used for a lot of road work and stuff. And last year you had a lot of those unspent bond proceeds, and this year you started spending those monies. Government's always had the choice of looking at borrowing debt to finance construction, infrastructure improvements, and repaying it with future revenue sources or looking at your reserves that you have and depleting them to make those payments. That's a choice that you make, and each time you issue new debt, you go through those choices to see how we want to finance something. Page 12 shows your water and sewer fund debt. And again, that's roughly the same as last year, down a little bit. Not much activity in that. On page 13 -- and again, water and sewer is your only major enterprise fund, so that's why I'm reporting on this separately. But thisi Page 58 July 24-25, 2007 reflects revenues and expenses in net income, and you can see income was down about $7 million this year, and a lot of that was because, even though revenues were up $7 million -- and I think that was somewhat due to a rate increase -- our expenses went up more than that during the current year, and that's operating expenses. But, again, we have a healthy fund balance in our water and sewer fund of unrestricted roughly 48 million. It's down 66 million. I'll show you how that occurred on the next page. This is cash flows. And again, this is important because you design your rates not only to make -- to cover your operating costs, but also to service your debt and make future improvements in the system for growth. So this is essentially saying, well, we had $10 million of operating income in the current year. If we back out depreciation, which really is not a cash expenditure, and some other adjustments, we had $26 million coming from the operations of our water and sewer fund. And how did we use that? Well, we used that along with system development charges of 60 -- of $28 million in debt proceeds of 15 million to make $69 million of capital project expenditures in our water and sewer system and also to service $14 million of our debt. Overall, we had a decrease in our cash and investments of $7 million. On page 15, this gives you just an idea just the composition of your securities at the end of year where your cash and investments were held. I think this is detailed out by each security in note three to the financial statements. And down at the bottom shows that roughly half of those monies were restricted and half were unrestricted. And then on the last page, these were a listing of all the single audit programs that we tested. If you recall, we had a presentation to you in March, early March regarding the housing programs and all the funding that they received, principally CDBG, HOME, and SHIP. Page 59 July 24-25, 2007 There were a number of findings there. Those findings are essentially repeated somewhat in our single audit report. But as a result of those findings -- we have to evaluate our findings and we have to evaluate the expenditures associated with those findings that's come up with the type of opinion that we give on each program, and because of the findings that we had mostly with the CHDO money, and because the CHDO money was a fairly significant part of the overall HOME program, we hade to have adverse opinion on compliance with your HOME regulations. Now, what does that mean? Probably nothing, but we have to go through and follow the guidance. And because we had roughly, I think, 13 findings and they touched on the number of the compliance findings that we were testing, that was the opinion we had to give. We also qualified our opinion on highway planning construction as to Davis Bacon compliance. Davis Bacon is a requirement that prevailing wages are paid by the contractors that the county uses to build the roads, for example. And one of those requirements is that you received certified payrolls and stuff, and that was not taking place. It is now, but it was not taking place then. And then back on -- the other program we had to qualify on SHIP, because we had found back when we did our work, some issues on how the reporting was taking place in SHIP. But the audit's done. It's been a pleasure to work with everyone. I'd be very happy to respond to any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Chip, could we go back to the cash and investments page. MR. JONES: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would you just briefly explain restricted and unrestricted so everyone will understand what that means. MR. JONES: Okay. Restricted means essentially that the Page 60 July 24-25, 2007 amounts that you received -- and again, I'll use the impact fees as an example -- can only be used for a specific purpose, in this case capital projects, our road projects, park projects, those types of things. So even though the county has roughly $850 million, $425 million of that is limited on how you spend it. You can't spend it to run the general government. The remaining 425 million, you can. And -- but now, part of that too you need because you go through the months of September and October and really most of November without any property tax collections, so you need that for cash flow purposes, those types of things. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, with respect to some of the qualified opinion issues, based upon your knowledge of whatever corrective action the staff is taking, can you given us an assessment as to whether you feel reasonably comfortable that action has been or is being taken to resolve these issues? MR. JONES: Yes, I do feel reasonably comfortable. I'm very satisfied with the responses they gave us. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Do I understand correctly that -- of course, this is a historical audit. Are the corrections that we are implementing now corrections that will essentially eliminate this problem for the future audit? MR. JONES: They should. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They should, okay. MR. JONES: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay, good. Now, earlier in the year there was some concern about getting the CAFR a little bit earlier. Has the -- have the county departments responded to you promptly and completely? MR. JONES: Oh, yes. In fact, again, Mr. Mudd's involvement. Ifwe at any time ever had an issue trying to get some cooperation, all we had to do was let Jim know, and the next day, they were calling us. Page 61 July 24-25, 2007 So we've never had an issue with any cooperation from anybody. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good, good. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments? Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, comment. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. Did you find any deficiencies in any of the constitutional officers' budgeting? MR. JONES: Not that I recall. I don't believe we had any. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd also like to make sure that you know that is -- KPMG has decided to end their relationship with us, okay, and this is the last time we're going to have the professional -- we're going to have other professionals, but this is the last time we're going to see Mr. Jones and his crew, and I'd like to thank him publicly for all the help and all his assistance to Collier County over these Page 62 July 24-25, 2007 many years in order to make sure that our books were straight and our financials were up to speed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. We're sorry to see you go, Chip. It's been a long relationship. MR. JONES: I've enjoyed working with you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I've worked with you for probably nine years here and in the city. MR. JONES: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess it just got too boring for you, I guess. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. JONES: I wish. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next item, Mr. Mudd? Item #10H RESOLUTION 2007 -202 AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE BY AND BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CORKSCREW REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM WATERSHED LAND AND WATER TRUST, INCORPORA TED AS PURCHASERS WITH MARILYN H. ADKINS, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MARILYN H. ADKINS REVOCABLE TRUST U/D/T DATED JULY 8,1997, JOAN H. BICKEL, TRUSTEE OF THE JOAN H. BICKEL LIVING TRUST DATED MARCH 29, 2000, HUGH E. STARNES AND JUDY A. STARNES, A/K/A JUDY ANN STARNES AS SELLERS FOR 367.70 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $5,370,000, AND TO APPROVE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH HUGH E. STARNES FOR CATTLE GRAZING FOR AN ANNUAL REVENUE OF $368 - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS Page 63 July 24-25, 2007 MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there is a 10:30 time certain item, and that has to do with 10H. This item to be heard, it's a recommendation to approve an agreement for sale and purchase by and between the Board of County Commissioners and Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed Land and Water Trust, Incorporated, as purchasers, with Marilyn H. Adkins as trustee of the Marilyn H. Adkins Irrevocable Trust U/D/T dated July 8, 1997, Joan H. Bickel, trustee of the Joan H. Bickel Living Trust dated March 29,2000, Hugh E. Starnes and Judy A. Starnes, a/k/a, Judy A. (sic) Starnes, as sellers for 367.7 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program at a cost not to exceed $5,370,000, and to approve a lease agreement with the Hugh E. Starnes -- excuse me -- and to approve a lease agreement with Hugh E. Starnes for cattle grazing for an annual revenue of $368. Ms. Alex Sulecki, your subject matter expert on staff for the Conservation Collier program, will present. MS. SULECKI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, Alex Sulecki, the coordinator for the Conservation Collier program. I'm here this morning in regards to the Starnes contract and lease, and I'd like you to know before I start that there are a number of people here today who mayor may not want to address you but who may also be able to answer questions. Judge and Mrs. Starnes are here; we have Mary Ellen Hawkins, Florida legislature and CREW board member is here; John Murray, the CREW director; Jim Goodwin, who is the Southwest Florida-- South Florida Water Management District manager for the CREW lands, is here; Bill Poteet, who is our own chairman of Conservation Collier Committee, is here; we have real estate services staff; and our county attorney who is working with the program, Jennifer Belpedio. So I hope we can answer your questions between us. This property -- we've given you some information, and this Page 64 July 24-25, 2007 property, we have discovered things that keep kind of evolving last minute for us in the due diligence period. And I emailed to our county manager and I said, how can I let the commissioners know what's going on because -- because we've got new information. And he said, just give them the good, the bad, and the ugly. So that's what I'm going to do this morning. And I'm going to start this morning with the bad. I'm also going to give you the Conservation Collier Committee recommendation. But this -- and this is just the merely bad. We do not own the oil, gas, and mineral rights on the property. We would not be buying them. Now, this, unfortunately, is a reality in Collier County. And we looked at this early on in Conservation Collier, and we said -- because most of them are owned by the Collier family and they rarely, if ever, sell them. So we said, okay, if we're going to decide we're not going to buy property with these rights attached, then we're not going to buy much property, especially the property that's environmentally sensitive, the acreage. So we decided that we would set that aside and understand that's a reality in Collier County. Now, another bad was that we had originally talked to you about mitigation and the potential for panther credits and wetland mitigation. We had some discussions with U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and they said, yeah, we think this can -- this can go on, and we told you that, I told you that. And then we -- in our due diligence period, we looked at our oil, gas, and mineral rights lease, and we checked back with them and said, is this still possible? And initially they said no, but I spoke to Dr. George Dennis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, this morning, and he's looked closely at this property at the changed language that was provided to you this morning that adds some assurances into the contract, and he says that, with directional drilling, mitigation is still a possibility and, of course, it depends on the details. Page 65 July 24-25, 2007 Now, I'd also like to point out that the same oil, gas, and mineral rights leases exist on the adjoining CREW properties in section 30. So this is already occurring out there. It's not perfect, but oil, gas, and minerals are highly regulated -- or oil and gas are highly regulated by the State of Florida, and there are a lot of environmental controls that are going in there. So we believe it's something we can live with. Now, the ugly is the potential for surface rock mining. We looked at this lease, and it's a standard form that's prepared for three states and it has language in there that's designed to give the maximum latitude to those looking for minerals -- oil, gas, and minerals, so it had some kind of scary language in there. And -- so we figured the surface rock mining, that's not something we can live with. So we looked to the county attorney and to the CREW attorney to come up with some revision language, which they have done, to the contract to protect the county's interest in regards to mineral rights. Now, it's still -- all the information is still not in. There's still a question as to what rights are specifically reserved there. And so we put this language in there as a way for us to continue to resolve this issue and to be able to terminate the contract should we find that we can't resolve it and hope that you will find comfort with that. This language is conceptually consistent with the recommendation of the Conservation Collier Committee, which was that they want directional drilling only on the property. The gentleman who's doing the drilling there, he -- who works for the gentleman who has the lease, has agreed to this. He sent us a letter. It's not legally binding, but it shows intent, and he's willing to do what it takes to show us that there will only be directional drilling there. The Conservation Collier Committee said no rock mining, and that's what we're looking to resolve with this language that we've inserted into the contract, and they also wanted us to do a phase one environmental assessment, which we had already decided to do and it Page 66 July 24-25, 2007 was in the funding for it. So that's the bad and the ugly. The good, you've heard the good. And I don't want to belabor it. I know you have a very busy schedule today, but this property meets the criteria in so many ways. Our ordinance is designed so broadly that almost any property's going to meet the criteria in some of the ways, but this property meets them in many of the ways, five out of six, and the sixth only being that it's not within another agency's acquisition boundary, and CREW's prepared to include it, so that will come about. Its large size. We don't have anything else like this in Conservation Collier. This really has the potential for making an impact in conservation. Its location. And I put this map up here to show you, because this is one of the most important groundwater flowway areas in this region. And the CREW -- the Starnes property is right here. This is the CREW lands, the Corkscrew Swamp comes down into Collier County here. It's also important not only for Collier County but for Lee County. We've got the Flint Pin Strand that comes down through here that is protected. A lot of it's been acquired. We have the Lee County DRGR, groundwater reduction -- I never can remember what that is -- density reduction groundwater resource, recharge, something like that. So it's a very important region, and we feel that this property buffers and connects and protects this area. It also has hunting potential. We don't have that on any of our other properties, and this is the one where we do. So it's unique in that. It's got an existing management plan for the surrounding lands, and we have -- we have a conceptual agreement to have this property managed with that. We have a management partner. It's also very significant panther habitat. It's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It's in their -- two-thirds of it's in their primary zone. A third is in their secondary zone. It's got a lease cost pathway Page 67 July 24-25, 2007 through it, which is one of the pathways I think panthers follow as they travel, and we also have -- I received this morning a letter from Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission in support of this purchase. I'd be happy to pass that out if you'd like to see it. And then we also have the Conservation Collier recommendation. As it travelled through our process, it rose to the top, though it's not perfect. So this morning I'm here to ask you to approve this contract and lease subject to the contingency language added by the County Attorney's Office and the agreement on directional drill, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. We'll go to Commissioner Fiala first, and then I have a question also. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. One of the things that's always been important to the commissioners is that public can access this property, and we will have cattle grazing on it and also oil drilling. And it mentioned a few other things, you know, power lines and so forth. Will that -- will those things prevent the public from having access to this property, especially with the hunters? You know, if this is going to be a hunting place -- which is something I think that's really appealing to many -- will all of this drilling and items associated with the drilling prevent hunters from coming on the property? MS. SULECKI: The answer to that is no. We hope that there will be directional drilling only and there will be no drilling on this property. But there's actually drilling on the adjoining property, and there is hunting that goes on there. And I've sat down with U.S. Fish and -- or Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission staff who run these hunts and said, can we do this? Yes, we can. And hunting is a form of public access. The vision in my mind at this point is that we would have hunting while the cattle lease is there. Now, CREW has told me that in five years, which is about when our leases run out, they are planning Page 68 July 24-25, 2007 on trails, installing trails in this area. Be a perfect time for us to start developing the property for that kind of public use. But I'm told that we can amend the wildlife management area for Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission in the spring and we can have limited small game and hog hunts on this property. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No cow hunts though, right? MS. SULECKI: No cow hunts. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I think that this is a terribly important piece of land, not only for our whole Conservation Collier program, but also to the CREW lands. And there were -- yes, we have a couple things that aren't too hot with that oil lease with OGM. They have many rights such as building roads and digging canals and so forth, which would then, I think, disrupt the property. Do you think that some kind of an agreement will be worked out so that they don't injure the property very much? MS. SULECKI: As I said, there's a lot of regulation in the State of Florida to protect that, and there is an active -- there is a well up over here just to the east of the Starnes property that the operators of the well have indicated they want to directional drill from. They wrote us a letter. They're willing to do what we need to give us the assurance that that's their plan. The lease says a lot of things that are pretty scary but that I don't think are going to happen actually on this property . CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Alex? MS. SULECKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The -- let's talk a little bit about the mining. Are we sure that we can control this to the point where it doesn't denude the land to the point that it has little value for conservation? MS. SULECKI: We don't want any rock mining. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So that's understood by the seller, too? Page 69 July 24-25, 2007 MS. SULECKI: I believe so, and he can tell you in his own words if you'd like to hear it, but these discussions have gone on this whole past week. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean, I would like somebody to state for the record that will not be an option, because at that point in time the value of the land seriously diminishes -- MS. SULECKI: For conservation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and takes $5 million for somebody to be able to build a rock mine. MS. SULECKI: Yeah. But you have to understand, there's not just one owner of those rights. There are -- the number that I have at this point is -- 20 different owners of the oil, gas, and mineral rights. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a long time that this is going to be in the domain of Collier County government, and if -- whatever we put on it today, even though it seems unlikely that rock mining would become a use that would be conducive to the land that would be allowed, still, we don't know what will be done in the future. It would be great if we had assurances from all the owners. And I'm not trying to make this difficult. I think it's a wonderful idea. I've got no problem with the oil, directional drilling, to be able to draw it out from underneath. We all know that Collier owns most of the mineral rights under our feet, and they always retained them and probably always will. Doesn't mean he's going to exercise the right to do it. But I am concerned about the mining. Yes? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Jennifer Belpedio might have some -- MS. SULECKI: Yes. I would like to have her address that, because she's worked very diligently with that. MS. BELPEDIO: Jennifer Belpedio, assistant county attorney. Your concerns are well taken, and that is why the CREW attorney and I prepared the language that was added into the agreement for your Page 70 July 24-25, 2007 consideration. It's in the add change list prepared by the County Manager's Office. It recognizes that there are some outstanding interests. We're still in the process of evaluating those interests. We've ordered an OGM, oil, gas, and mineral, search from attorney tonal funds, and what we're going to do is just take a look at what the interests are that are out there and determine if we can obtain the necessary releases of the rights that we think that would impede the use of the property as far as Conservation Collier purposes go. And yes, that would be rock mining, limestone mining. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When we -- if we approve this agenda item, do we have to state that for the record, or is it already included in there? MS. BELPEDIO: It's already in the agreement. It would be a matter of just approving the agreement. I've set it up so that if staff and our office is not comfortable with what we've found in the public records that we received from the search, that we would ultimately come back to the board and advise the board as to what we've found and advise whether or not to terminate the agreement. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much. What I'm going to suggest is possibly somebody might wish to make a motion, we can show what kind of support there is for this. We have four speakers. And I might give some guidance -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- as to -- I'm sorry, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Commissioner Henning was saying something. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a couple questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please, go ahead. I didn't see your light on. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The ordinance, does it-- what does it reference as far as easements? Page 71 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's it reference as far easements? MR. BELLOWS: As far as easements? There are at least two easements that the title opinion have revealed, and one is to South Florida Water Management District. I believe that that is the easement that runs along the northern boundary of the property. It's unimproved. It does have a gate there. And there is also a right of entry for a corporation -- I believe it's RK Petroleum Corporation. That, I believe, according to the Florida secretary, or Division of Corporations online, is a dissolved corporation, and that area of that easement is the same easement area as already given to South Florida Water Management. It's things like that that the OGM search will capture and it will probably capture more records than we have right now, and we'll certainly be looking at access and make sure that there's no easements that could also impede the use of the property for Conservation Collier. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me re-ask that question. In the Conservation Collier ordinance, what does it state as far as easements? MS. BELPEDIO: There is a criteria in the ordinance that specifically requires that there be legal access to the property. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So there -- basically you're saying it doesn't have any restrictions on easements. The second question I have, the appraisal for this property, did it consider the easements in the appraisal amount? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I take a chance at just trying to clarifY something with Commissioner Henning? Commissioner Henning, are you talking about easements or are you talking about mineral rights? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, mineral rights. That would be the same as an easement. They want to retain those mineral Page 72 July 24-25, 2007 rights. And that means -- to me it means that it has an easement on the property . COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just wanted to get that clarification. Thank you. MS. SULECKI: I can answer, perhaps, that question in that, yes, I do believe that's the case, but I'd like to have Roosevelt Leonard confirm that. He's the one that worked with that. MR. LEONARD: The answer to that -- MR. MUDD: State your name, sir. MR. LEONARD: My name is Roosevelt Leonard. I'm the real estate appraisal. When the appraisal was performed, it was performed with the rights for the surface rights only. The mineral rights typically are not taken into consideration because, again, the mineral rights do not transfer with the property. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see. Thank you. Well, I have some objections just to the agreement. This land is right next to the CREW land trust properties. It's a flowway. And you know, in my opinion, pasture -- having pasture lands on there, I would rather see those removed because of potential pollutions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I respond to that for just a little bit? One of the things about having cattle grazing on the land, they keep down the exotics. This is something I've learned through different committees and so forth. So it actually helps us to maintain the property and keep the exotics off of it and free. So I think it might be a help. Plus, it's free fertilizing, you know. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's what I'm concerned about is the fertilizer. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it's been a way of Florida for generations, and it really hasn't raised any problems. Does anyone care to comment on that? No, no one wants to talk about it. MS. SULECKI: I could, perhaps, ask Jim Goodwin to step up. He's probably got the most experience. Page 73 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In the subject matter? MS. SULECKI: Perhaps. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. GOODWIN: Jim Goodwin. I'm the land manager. Range cattle, I don't think we have a nutrient problem. We're not talking about a dairy. We're talking about -- Judge, I don't even believe you use that much supplemental feeding where you would add nitrogen or phosphorous to the food. But I don't think pollution is a problem. We have cattle leases throughout the Kissimmee Valley and the restoration project without any problems. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning, anything else on that subject? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. With that, we do have four speakers after Commissioner Coyle, but let's try to move this along, please, and I'd like to hear a motion before we go to the speakers. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion for approval from Commissioner Halas, a second from Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to make it clear that I consider the retention of earth mining rights to this property to be a deal breaker. So if we don't get the surface mining rights removed from this property, I would not approve of the purchase. Now, is the legal document written that strictly? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So it is a deal breaker, all right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, can't you say that it's already been dealt with within-- Page 74 July 24-25, 2007 MS. BELPEDIO: You would have the option to terminate the agreement based on a recommendation from the County Attorney's Office and from staff. We would bring you the information that we found and -- but what we're -- what we're looking towards is to determine that there is either no opportunity for exploration or if there is, that we obtain the necessary releases. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. So yes, the answer to the question's yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, just one other observation, and I raised this issue at the last meeting when we discussed this. There are certain conflicts between public access and hunting rights and grazing of cattle on the land. In some portions of the country this is being handled fairly easily because you don't have large numbers of public accessing the property. I think that we have a different situation here in Collier County, but that relates to the management plan, and that's something you're going to have to deal with, or somebody's going to have to deal with it. People accessing it, leaving gates open, cows get out. There are just lots of potential problems associated with that. And having pathways built in that area and/or nearby the area and having people walking on those pathways while people are hunting in other portions of that property creates some very serious issues. And so there must be a careful management plan if you intend to proceed in this direction. But in any event, I would vote in favor as long as the surface mining issues are resolved. I think it's a good purchase. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, right. So right now we have two commissioners, one made the motion, one that seconded the Page 75 July 24-25, 2007 motion, and another commissioner just stated that they're in favor. For the record, when it comes down, unless somebody's got something that's going to talk me out of it, I'm for the motion. With that in mind, we're going to call the speakers. If you think we have served the purpose that we are here today for, you may wish to move, have yourself move forward, just -- MR. MUDD: Waive. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- waive and we'll just continue. With that Commission -- sorry. Ms. Filson, please call the first speaker. MS. FILSON: John Murray? MR. MURRAY: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Murray waives. MS. FILSON: He's waving. Nancy Payton? MS. PAYTON: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. William Poteet. MS. FILSON: William Poteet? MR. POTEET: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. Mary Ellen Hawkins? MS. HAWKINS: Waive. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good. I see no lights on. No other comments or questions from my fellow commissioners. And with that, all those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? Page 76 July 24-25, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you very much. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us -- MS. SULECKI: Thank you so much. Item #8B BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONSIDERS ADOPTION OF A TEMPORARY PLANNING MORATORIUM ORDINANCE - MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO NOT GO FORWARD WITH A PLANNING MORATORIUM - APPROVED MR. MUDD: This brings us to our 11 o'clock time certain item. This item is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider adoption of a temporary planning moratorium ordinance. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If! may, I'm going to interrupt this whole process a little bit to see if we might be able to shorten it up. We -- how many people in the audience are here about the moratorium? Well, I think we ought to move this to the last thing on our agenda or else they're all going to leave. How many people --would you please stand if you're opposed to a moratorium. Okay. Please sit down. How many people are in favor of a moratorium? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Raise your hand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Raise your hands. You don't have to embarrass yourself. Nobody's going to hurt you. Okay. Thank you. I think the message is simple. I know I'm opposed to a Page 77 July 24-25, 2007 moratorium. I've heard Commissioner Henning at the previous meeting say he's opposed to a moratorium. Ifwe can get right to the meat of the item rather than have -- how many speakers? MS. FILSON: Twenty-three. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Twenty-three and more invited to come and speak if they want -- speak to us, and probably we'll go until about two o'clock on this one issue, we could probably shorten the whole process and see if there's a will here with the commission to bring this to an end at this point in time. It was a wonderful experiment to see which direction the community wants to go, and maybe end it. What do you think, fellow commissioners? I see Commissioner Fiala's light on and Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think that when we first spoke of asking our staff to draw up the draft on a moratorium, we were in a position at that point in time where we didn't know what the legislature was going to do. We didn't know what they were going to do to our tax base, if we were going to build any infrastructure to support any building or any construction, and we had to be wary of and take precautions against something hitting us below the belt. As it turned out, the legislature didn't hit us very hard. We were able to -- they hit us, but not as hard as we had been concerned about. And so I don't feel that at this point in time there's any need -- and I'm going to say that clearly -- at this point in time there's any need to go forward with a moratorium. Now, we don't know what's going to happen in January. We don't know what the building industry's going to do about rallying legislature to reduce our impact fees or cap our impact fees, which really might crimp our style. So -- but at this time -- at this point in time, I personally don't see a need to continue on with this discussion as far a moratorium goes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm going to go to Page 78 July 24-25, 2007 Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's my understanding that staff has sent up a response to Department of Community Affairs. I think that without an answer to that, we shouldn't even be having this discussion. I have gotten a third word that DCA doesn't have a problem with it. They just need to come to Collier County within the next couple of weeks to look over the details. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So briefly, Commissioner Henning, do you think we should have a moratorium or shouldn't have a moratorium? COMMISSIONER HENNING: At this time I don't see a need for it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we've got three commissioners. Let's go to Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it was Commissioner Coyle. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay. I can be last. Let's take a time-out for a commercial for truth in advertising. This came about as a result of a staff recommendation that we evaluate a planning moratorium until such time as they could sort out the potential sources of funds and the needed infrastructure and resolve the problem where the Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee had raised questions about the financial feasibility of our comprehensive -- of our capital improvement plan. And at that time the legislature was still in session and the plan had not been developed. So we approved the staffs recommendation to proceed with their evaluation. Three commissioners voted in favor of it. I met with the staff yesterday, and the staff, after having had the benefit of our budget hearings and understanding what the impacts Page 79 July 24-25, 2007 were of the legislative changes to our property taxes, have informed me that they cannot support a moratorium, a planning moratorium, of any kind at the present time. Do I have that right, so far? MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, it is inconceivable that any member of this board would approve the kind of moratorium that many of you here in this room have been told that we're considering. Actually what we were considering is a planning moratorium that would give us time to balance what our revenues are against what our infrastructure demands are and to resolve the problem with DCA. It appears we have the time to deal with that. It was never the intent that we stop construction in Collier County. There are 60,000 already approved but unbuilt housing units in Collier County that will keep us all busy for the next 15 years. So much of that would not have been affected. So the dire consequences that people have been excited about simply were never ever really under consideration here. Our only concern has been that we need to balance the available funds with the demands for new infrastructure like roadways and other things. Unfortunately, there are members of this audience and organizations who have been active in Tallahassee undermining our ability to maintain concurrency so that we have the roads and the facilities available at the time when they're needed. I would certainly hope that those organizations and individuals would appreciate that a more constructive approach is to work cooperatively with us to make sure that we do get the necessary funding from the state and other sources to meet the growth needs of Collier County, and that's all we have ever tried to do. But there are ongoing efforts to reduce our ability to assess impact fees and to reduce our ability to collect property taxes. And with those two things reduced, there's no way we can keep up with the Page 80 July 24-25, 2007 roads and other infrastructure, and that certainly will result in a moratorium at some point in time whether we declare it or somebody else declares it. But I just want to make sure that everyone understands what the issue was here. And I think there's plenty of support to accept the staffs recommendation that you've got enough information now to determine that you don't need a planning moratorium of any kind; is that a fair assessment? MR. KLA TZKOW: That would be our recommendation at this time, in fact. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's move on to Commissioner Halas now. Right now you've got four commissioners that don't think it's a good idea. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I still have some reservations, and that reservation is in regards to when our AUIR report comes out, which is -- should be sometime in October, and I would hope that all of you people sitting in the audience would be present for when we go through the AUIR to have an understanding of exactly what it takes to run Collier County. There's been some people who have felt that the county is -- not only this county, but other counties -- are totally flush with money and that we're rich and that the state can send down mandates at their will in regards to addressing their needs up in Tallahassee along with the needs that we, the citizens here, demand that the county provide. So I'm going to go along with my other fellow commissioners, but I'm going to be very -- I'm going to be very candid with you, I'm going to wait to see what the AUIR report has and I want to make sure that we have a good capital improvement element in place and that we have a balanced budget. This is not the federal government. We cannot run in the red. We have to find a way to meet the needs of the citizens and to meet Page 81 July 24-25, 2007 the requirements that the citizens demand upon us. Collier County is a very unique county. It demands that -- a lot of our citizens demand extra services that a lot of counties don't have. You can look around, as soon as you drive into this county, you understand that the citizens here demand that we have higher levels of service, whether it's in EMS, whether it's in fire or whether it's in the sheriffs department or whether it's in landscaping or whether it's in building an overpass to make sure it's attractive to all the citizens and not just to a select group. So I'm going to tell you that's where I stand on this. And as Commissioner Coyle brought out, this wasn't a building moratorium. This was a planning moratorium, and it was very clear in the minutes. And when we discussed this early on -- and I see some people out there shaking their heads, but I think if they went out there and looked, they'd understand that that's what was in the minutes of the meeting when we discussed this earlier. So at that -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I appreciate it. Now -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to make a motion that we not approve this item. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Didn't we already have a motion or am I missing something? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let's not confuse -- there is something in this agenda which is a resolution to establish a moratorium, but Mr. Klatzkow has just said that it is currently the staffs recommendation that we not approve a moratorium. So we have to be clear what we're approving. Are we approving -- excuse me -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Staffs recommendations. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the staffs recommendation not to Page 82 July 24-25, 2007 declare a moratorium? MR. KLA TZKOW: At this present time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we would be approving then, Commissioner Henning, I think, we would be approving the staffs recommendation not to approve a moratorium. COMMISSIONER FIALA: At this time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: At this time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So that's the motion. And the second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I already did. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't fight over it, ladies and gentlemen. Okay. There you go. You've got five commissioners and staff that don't think a moratorium is a good idea. COMMISSIONER FIALA: At this time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At this time, yes, which I don't -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Planning. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think there's a good time in the near future either. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: However, with that said, fair warning, the vote hasn't been taken yet. First we've got to listen to how many speakers? MS. FILSON: Twenty-three. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. God have mercy on everyone's soul. If you don't feel there's a need to speak, there's a thing called a wave (indicating) and that enables you to get out of here to go to lunch pretty quick, and you can go back to work. Would you please call the names? MS. FILSON: William Poteet? Page 83 July 24-25, 2007 MR. POTEET: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive, okay. MS. FILSON: Michele Harrison? MS. HARRISON: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: Bruce Anderson? Mr. ANDERSON: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: Rich Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not here. He waives in the hall, okay. MS. FILSON: Bill McDaniel? MR. McDANIEL: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MR. MUDD: Waive. MS. FILSON: Terry McMahan? MR. McMAHAN: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: Gary Jackson? MR. JACKSON: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: Oh, Robert Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: Kevin Fitzgerald? MR. FITZGERALD: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: Richard Grant? MR. GRANT: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: David Hart? Page 84 MR. HART: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: Al Zichella? MR. ZICHELLA: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: Lou Vlasho? MR. VLASHO: (Waves hand.) MS. FILSON: Ellie Krier? MS. KRIER: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: Richard Rotthof -- Botthof? MR. BOTTHOF: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MR. MUDD: Waive. MS. FILSON: Patrick White? MR. WHITE: Waive. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: David Brogdon? MR. BROGDON: Brogdon, waive. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive, Brogdon. MS. FILSON: Nicole Gassaway? MS. GASSAWAY: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: Richard Davenport? MR. DAVENPORT: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: Edward Morton. MR. MORTON: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: Tom Taylor? MR. TAYLOR: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. Page 85 July 24-25, 2007 July 24-25, 2007 MS. FILSON: Mr. Klohn? MR. KLOHN: (Waves hand.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: And Walter Crawford? MR. CRAWFORD: (Waves hand.) MR. MUDD: Waive. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll tell you, that's pretty good. We got through this in very good order. Okay. With that in mind, all those in favor of the motion to go with staffs recommendation not to declare a moratorium at this time, please indicate -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Planning moratorium. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- planning moratorium at this time, please indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. Enjoy your lunch. Jim, did you want to do it a quarter early and come back at quarter to? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, because you're not going to be able to get anything done with all these people here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. Okay. We're going to break for lunch now. Be back at quarter of-- MR. MUDD: One. Page 86 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- one, yeah. MR. MUDD: 12:45. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. Commissioners, if we kind of work this, my suggestion is, we go in and start working on the public petitions, and then -- because you went through the presentations, and 5E is due for three p.m., begin the public petitions and we do as many as we can until the one o'clock time certain, do the one o'clock time certain and then finish up the public petitions and then keep doing the advertised issues and use into the land issues and Board of Zoning Appeals issues, if that's okay with the board. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We do have -- okay, okay, please continue. Item #6A PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MARION GREGORY TO DISCUSS ADMINISTRATIVE FENCE HEIGHT WAIVER FEE - DISCUSSED MR. MUDD: Okay. First public petition is a public petition request from Marion Gregory to discuss the administrative fence height waiver fee. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Welcome. MS. GREGORY: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Marion Gregory, and I have been a Florida resident for 41 years, a Naples resident for 28 years. I've run a child care sitting service since 1990 called A Tender Loving Care Service, and all of our sitters and myself have been licensed, bonded, insured, CPR certified. Page 87 July 24-25, 2007 I recently decided that, because of my love for children and because of the need for good education and preparing children for kindergarten, that I would start my own day care school for little girls ages three to five in my home. I happen to live on the corner of Vanderbilt Drive and 92nd A venue. And I have a corner lot. And my request today is to allow me to build a fence higher than the three to four feet that I would be allowed through the county. The reason for this is for the safety of the children. Because I'm on a street that is very busy, because I have little girls, I don't want people riding by gawking at them, observing them, and for their safety. It's not a personal request that I have. It's for the children's safety, and that's why I'm here today. Mr. Mudd has some photographs I think he's going to show you, that on my property lot that I have, the fence that I'm planning to have installed is going to be installed behind a group of existing trees that have been there for probably about 17 years. So you don't even see the fence from the road, and also the fence -- the distance from the stop sign, which seemed to be an issue, was brought up, is about 30 feet, the corner of the fence. So from the stop sign you don't even see the fence. And the photographs would indicate that the fence is sort of hidden on my property, and it's -- the fence would be set so far from the streets that it's not going to inhibit any traffic flow and it will not create any unwanted traffic situations. In fact, you'll notice in the photos that you can hardly see the fence, as it will be behind older existing trees on Vanderbilt Drive and 92nd Avenue. Now, I've lived in this house for a number of years, and several years back, maybe seven, eight years ago, a car actually ran off the road and went into a house on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive. Now, I don't know if the driver was ill or ifhe was drunk or ifhe just lost Page 88 July 24-25, 2007 control of his car, but for the safety of the children, I think it's very important that I have a high fence, and the fence would be a very attractive white plastic fence, five feet solid, and then one foot would be a lattice design. And I'm just asking permission to waive the variance because I don't have an extra thousand dollars to pay for a fence. I went in on June 13th anticipating to get the permit thinking it was about 50-some dollars then I was told because of the height that I wanted, it would be $1,000 for a variance. So I'm pleading with you to please waive the $1,000 fee for an administrative fence height variance as soon as possible so I can start on my school which is all ready except for the fence. I have people that are ready to start school. They said call when you get a fence up. And to me it's very important that I have a higher fence for the protection of the children. It's not for my personal protection, but I'm having little girls. And I think being on that busy corner that it's imperative that no one sees the girls playing out there whenever they are. And if a car would accidently go off the road, to me, there's no price that would ever cover the life of a child or if a child were snatched or kidnaped. In this day and age, I mean, it's just -- you just have to be very cautious and protect the children. So it's a big liability to have the children, but they won't be playing outside a lot, but when they are, it could just be one time that something could happen, and that's why I'm requesting that you approve the fence and that I don't have to pay the thousand dollars. Do you have any questions? I'm open for any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you charging to -- are you charging a fee for each of these children that are going to be at -- Page 89 July 24-25, 2007 MS. GREGORY: This is day care, yes. It's not free, yes. I'm going to take care of them in my house, sure. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think that -- MS. GREGORY: And I'm going to provide lunches for them and they're going to play and -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And they're going to pay for the lunches, too, right? MS. GREGORY: No, I'm paying for the lunches. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But that's part of the cost of the day care? MS. GREGORY: That's part of their costs, right, right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. GREGORY: It's going to be a day care service that's going to be in my house, just for six little girls. And I already have a little Cinderella castle out there, and I'd like to put a little slide and a little picnic table for them, and also the fence would protect the equipment so someone doesn't decide to pull their pickup truck up to the area and load it up with the little girl's equipment. But the main -- the main purpose would be for the safety of the children, for their protection. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But this is for profit? MS. GREGORY: Pardon me. COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is for profit, you're doing this because of the money? MS. GREGORY: I'm not doing it for my health, right. I'm doing it for profit. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Susan, do you got some comment you wanted to make? MS. ISTENES: Thank you, Commissioner, for recognizing me. Susan Istenes, the zoning director. I've been in contact with Ms. Gregory. We've probably had about five or six different telephone conversations right now. Let me just clarifY. She is actually requesting that you waive the Page 90 July 24-25, 2007 thousand dollar fee. It's not approve the variance. The -- there is a process in the LDC to allow for an increase in fence height through an administrative variance approval when certain conditions are present. And I did offer to Ms. Gregory that I certainly would not take her thousand dollars and then reject her variance, that we -- if she provided me enough detail, I'd be happy to look at the site and determine whether or not we thought we could approve it. Again, there's an analysis, a staff report, and then a final approval we still need to go through, but I'm pretty confident that we can approve this. So I think the issue before you is just that -- for a fee Waiver. I did explain to her we're a fee for service organization, and then as a taxpayer, she generally does not pay for our services unless she needs them, and then the payment is tendered through an application fee, and that's why there was a charge. And I did note to her that we would have to get our fee regardless of where it came from and -- to support the staff and that if she didn't pay it, then the board could waive it, but obviously would have to be reimbursed through the general fund, which would be a charge to the general taxpayers, basically what I explained to her. So she did want to come before you and still request that fee waiver today. So it's not a request for approval of the variance. I think she can get approval for it. It is just for a fee waiver. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Gregory? MS. GREGORY: I'd like to add that these are children who live in Collier County playing on my private property in Collier County, and I really don't feel that I should have to pay a thousand dollars to Collier County for a fence variance to protect them while they're on -- playing on the property. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Gregory, we really appreciate you being here today. I'll be honest with you, I don't think any of the commissioners have an interest of bringing this forward to another Page 91 July 24-25, 2007 agenda. It would set precedence that would be never ending. You know, the reason, you've got a private business, as mentioned. If the cost to cover the cost of the fence can't be built into the private business, I don't know what to tell you. It's not a case that you're a nonprofit and you're working for charity, you know. It's a real business. Even a nonprofit would have to go through this. And once you relax the rules and regulations on this, at what point in time do you say that this person pays and this person doesn't? And that becomes the issue and why you're not seeing the commission lending a tremendous amount of support for this. We always hate to tell you no. It's one of the things that -- it goes contrary to what these commissioners have been doing for a long time; however, to say yes to you would also be saying no to all the taxpayers that are out there and whose money we're responsible for. In that lies the dilemma that we're faced with. MS. GREGORY: I understand where you're coming from; however, I still feel that this is an unusual circumstance. Not many people want this fence to protect children from the road and from people gawking at them or snatching them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you have that obligation to protect them. MS. GREGORY: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I don't know what -- the state requires you to do it, but you need to do it. That's the private business end of the whole thing where your responsibility steps in and requires you to do these things. If it's a danger to those children to be out in your yard without a fence, then I would say to you, don't open the business, don't run the business, unless you can provide the fence. And I hate to be blunt about it, but I don't see any support here for it. There isn't a good enough argument to consider bringing this forward. Page 92 July 24-25, 2007 MS. GREGORY: Well, to me, children, I think, are a good enough argument, but obviously -- I mean, if you had children or grandchildren, you'd want to make sure they be protected and -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yep, I do. MS. GREGORY: Seeing how it's on my property, you can't even see the fence. I mean, I came to the -- to the development department to apply for the fence, because that was the way to do it, thinking I had to pay 50-some dollars. I was shocked that they wanted a thousand dollars for a fence on my property which you can't even see. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Those rules and regulations were made up by numerous citizens in this community over a period of time to protect the very best interests of the citizens themselves. It's not something that we arbitrarily come up with at a moment's notice and impose upon any particular person. So there lies the whole problem. But I do appreciate -- MS. GREGORY: Are there not exceptions? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- you being here today. I really do. MS. GREGORY: Are there not exceptions to the rule in certain circumstances? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, but obviously there isn't enough circumstances here to justifY changing the rules. And I don't -- I just wanted to let you know that we -- you have had your 10 minutes in front of the commission. We weighed it. If there was enough interest, there would be quite a bit of discussion taking place here. But thank you for being here today. MS. GREGORY: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, one more petition before the time certain? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead. Item #6B Page 93 July 24-25, 2007 PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JIM KRAMER TO DISCUSS WAIVER OF INSPECTION FEES RESULTING FROM REPAIRS TO HURRICANE WILMA DAMAGE - DISCUSSED MR. MUDD: Okay. The next petition is a public petition request by Jim Kramer to discuss waiver of inspection fees resulting from repairs to hurricane -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He left the room. Let's go to the next one. Just kidding. MR. MUDD: He did. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. He'll be right back, but start his time. Mr. Kramer? There you go. Is this something you got off eBay? MR. KRAMER: No, but I'm taking bids. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Ms. Filson, the timer. MR. KRAMER: Good afternoon. I'm Jim Kramer from Naples Mobile Estates. When I showed up this morning for the security screening, they wondered if this was a large pipe bomb. I assure you that it's not. Wackenhut did its job and checked it out first before allowing me to bring it to you. What you see here is a galvanized pipe and three wires that were attached to my home before Hurricane Wilma hit. It was pulled from the meters behind my house by the strength of those category three winds and the snapping of a utility pole down the street about 100 paces from my home. Could you believe that a week later it took an electrical contractor to replace it in about 75 minutes, and it cost $777 for a six-foot pipe and three wires, $777. Plus on top of that, you charged $105 to inspect, approve, and allow the power company to turn the utilities back on 10 days after the storm. Your mandate, as I understand them from the website, is to Page 94 July 24-25, 2007 quote, protect the health, safety, and welfare and quality oflife of the citizens of this county, unquote. If that is the case, why do you allow FP&L to get away with this? I believe my responsibility should begin after the power goes through my meter, not when the utility pole tears up the connection to my house. The damages to my home was limited to a couple of blown-out screens on the patio. I was lucky. Any other owners in my park were not. I've talked to my neighbors. We think it's unconscionable for you to charge us to inspect the reconnections made. Many of us suffered severely during Wilma, and the last thing we needed was to run down to the government center and pay your fines -- fees, excuse me, then call time after time after time to get the inspectors out. Waive the fees. Anyway, what's past is past as they say. It's now a new day into another hurricane season, and we are facing weeks more of unsettled weather. If worse comes to worst, could you please see to it that mobile homeowners' health, safety, and welfare and quality of life are taken care of and not burdened by unconscionable and unwarranted fees from Collier County. Thanks for your consideration. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Who do you think should pay the fees then? MR. KRAMER: After a hurricane -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Who do you think should pay the fees? MR. KRAMER: After I hurricane I don't think there should be fees. I think the fees should be waived. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, don't you think that people want -- the government isn't something -- we don't have a handout Page 95 July 24-25,2007 here. MR. KRAMER: I understand that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well-- and you're saying mobile homes. What about other homeowners? MR. KRAMER: Fine. All the homeowners of Collier County. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Kramer. MR. KRAMER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Appreciate you being here today. Item #8A ORDINANCE 2007-59: PETITION PUDA-2007-AR-II081; DR. TERRY P. MCMAHAN, PRESIDENT FOR INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE, INC., REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL 1. VOLPE, ESQUIRE OF ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER AND CIRESI, LLP, IS REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE HARVEST FOR HUMANITY PUD TO CHANGE THE PERMITTED USES TO REPLACE THE CURRENT RESIDENT'S ACTIVITY CENTER AND BLUEBERRY FARM WITH ITS ANCILLARY SALES FACILITY WITH LIMITED EDUCATIONAL SERVICES ON CERTAIN TRACTS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 38.4 ACRES, IS LOCATED IN THE NORTHEASTERN QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD AND CARSON ROAD IN IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA, IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED W/STIPULA TIONS MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, which is a time certain at one p.m. This item to be heard at one p.m. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's Page 96 July 24-25, 2007 PUDA-2007-AR-II081, Dr. Terry P. McMahan, president of International College, Inc., represented by Michael 1. Volpe, Esquire, of Robins, Kaplan, Miller, and Ciresi -- I hope I got that right -- LLP, is requesting an amendment to the Harvest of Humanity PUD to change the permitted use to replace the current residents activity center and blueberry farm with its ancillary sales facility with limited educational services on certain tracts. The subject property consisting of38.4 acres is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road in Immokalee, Florida, in Section 32, Township 46 south, Range 29 east, Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, question if I may. Not a question, a statement, a fact. This item is not strange to the commission. We've had a chance to read the agenda. We know there's tremendous community support for it. I have heard no objection. Early on when they were going through the process of discovery and finding out who was for and who was against, there were some people that had questions. All those questions have been satisfactorily answered. And with that in mind, to try to move this forward -- I don't know if my commissioners have any questions or not -- but I'm going to make a motion for approval. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Start with Commissioner Fiala, and then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just -- I have two concerns. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was glad to hear what you had to say -- MR. MUDD: Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know the Nogays -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Page 97 July 24-25, 2007 MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have to open up the public hearing, you have to swear people in, you have to ask for all kinds of disclosures. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know, okay, yeah. I got you, Mr. Mudd. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those people wishing to testifY at this time please stand to be sworn in by the court recorder (sic). (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I withdraw my motion as being maybe a little premature. We'll go to Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't we have to -- do we have to -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we got to make a disclosure. MR. MUDD: Disclosure, yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll start with Commissioner -- Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I have emails, written correspondence, and telephone calls on this item. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had phone calls as well, emails, meetings, and I've spoken to Mr. Nogay from Harvest for Humanity, and staff. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This has been a process I've been involved with for some time now. I've had numerous meetings, many emails, many phone calls, and have spoken to staff numerous times about it. Commissioner Halas? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Thank you very much, Chair. I've had correspondence and emails in regards to this subject, and I also had talked with staff in my briefing yesterday in regards to this item. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? Page 98 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have also received email and letters in support of this petition. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, we'll start with you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So far what we've heard is a lot of support, and especially from you. You're a big influence, as far as I go, in your knowledge of the community. Two things that I'm very concerned about, and that is, when the residents bought into this community -- and the Nogays really made it a family community. They made it a community where everybody cared about one another and helped one another. But I don't think that at the time they ever thought of a college community being there. And when I read that people would be -- the college was open till 10 o'clock at night, that means by the time everybody gets out of there, it's going to be later, 10:30, 11 :00, people standing around talking in the parking lot and so forth, and that's a big concern, especially when -- when you get young people and you get their loud boom boxes going, there's a lot of noise coming from that, even though you only have, what, 80 people. And then, of course, professors and whoever else is operating the college, maybe 100 people, I don't know, all totaled. But if you have people late at night, it might disrupt those people who already live there and they might be disappointed that they -- that they supported this. And so that was one of my big things is the noise that would come from it. And then also the residents, it says that it would be operating in the building that already is used for a community center. And what are the residents going to use for a community center? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll let Mr. Volpe answer that, but I think you're going to find that the use of the building still exists. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it said that, but -- yeah. MR. VOLPE: Chairman Coletta, members of the board, for the Page 99 July 24-25, 2007 record, my name is Michael Volpe. I'm with the law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi. I'm here today representing both Harvest for Humanity, Inc., and, International College now known as Hof -- I almost said Hofstra -- as Hodges University, both of which are 501 C-3 not-for-profit organizations. I'll try, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to respond to the specific questions. I would like to just -- Commissioner Fiala, the questions that you raise concern the activity visitors center, which is located on tract H. That tract is owned by Harvest for Humanity, Inc. The residents themselves have absolutely no ownership interest in tract H nor do they have the right under the governing documents or under the contract which they signed when they purchased any right to control the use. More importantly though is the type of activity that currently is taking place at the activity center. There is, in your agenda package, the old previously approved PUD for Harvest for Humanity, Inc. The types of activities that currently are permitted at that location -- and I know you're probably familiar, but if you'd like, I'd just tick them off fairly quickly, and they are greeting tourists to the Blueberry U-pick. On tract G there is a U-pick blueberry farm which is operated in conjunction with a 11 O-acre blueberry farm that the Nogays always owned, which is part of their mission to improve the quality of life for the low-income residents ofImmokalee. So their business enterprise, which is the cooperative farm landscape retail business there, they have a full commercial kitchen. It's a multi purpose room. Permitted uses are a children's room for day care, youth and after school structured by -- with an organized organization, adult education for the residents as well as the community, Sunday worship services, meeting rooms, property manager office. It is a business enterprise. As a part of the approval of the PUD under the subdistrict, the traditional neighborhood district under the Immokalee Area Master Page 100 July 24-25, 2007 Plan, this is a mixed use allowing for residential and commercial uses. In terms of the types of activities, the amendment that we seek today is an amendment in use. There are not going to be any changes to the exterior of the building. There aren't going to be any new structures built. The building itself is about 6,800 -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've been there. MR. VOLPE: -- square feet. You've been there. In terms of the concern, International College/Hodges University, was searched out by the Nogays because of the nature of the programs that they primarily focus on. They focus on the adult learner, people whose formal education, college or otherwise, has been interrupted. One of the programs that we envision in the Immokalee community is English as a Second Language. Commissioner Coletta, I'm sure, is familiar with the statistics of the residents in Immokalee -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hate to interrupt you -- MR. VOLPE: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Mr. Volpe. But I understand all of that, but you haven't answered my question at all. MR. VOLPE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is a place where the community meets and greets, where they congregate, where they even go to church, and if it's dedicated to a school, they're not going to be able to do that, and that was one of my concerns. MR. VOLPE: Right. This is not a community center for the residents. They have had the opportunity to use the facilities there, but it's not -- it's because of -- the Nogays have allowed them to do it. So it's not the traditional clubhouse type of an organization or structure. So that was a concern because they need a place to meet. And so one of the stipulations that was agreed to at the CCPC was that the residents within the Jubilation subdivision would be allowed to use and continue to use the facilities there for their meetings on the same Page 101 July 24-25, 2007 basis as is being used by any other organization. The only thing is, they wouldn't have to pay any type of a fee for the use of the facility. So they will continue to have the right to use -- and that's an agreement that is contained in the stipulation before the CCPC. The other -- you mention about the night classes. The issue there, yes, most of these students are employed full time during the day. They're adult students. Most of the classes are conducted between six and 10 o'clock. One of the concerns that we had was just what you've addressed, and so we have agreed and stipulated that we would provide security in the parking lot to control and to make sure that people leave in an orderly fashion. The maximum enrollment in anyone term would be 80 students. Most of these students are going to be coming from the Immokalee community . The Nogays have offered and have -- all of the residents within the Jubilation subdivision a scholarship for attendance at Hodges University, and most of the residents we would expect, most of the user students, are going to come from that community as well as from the Immokalee community. So these would be neighbors, people who know each other. So the security, I think, will address the concern about the noise. The nature of the student in terms of -- this is not a residence facility. These are commuter students so -- in terms of the young people that you would associate, perhaps, with what -- the type of student, perhaps, at FGCU or Ave Maria, which are universities. They have cafeterias, they have book stores. This is essentially just a classroom that will be used to conduct primarily non-degree and degree programs. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't want to belabor it any longer because we -- MR. VOLPE: Okay. I hope I've answered your question; ifI Page 102 July 24-25, 2007 haven't I'm sure you'll let me know. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sure Commissioner Fiala will come back with more questions probably as we go forward. Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have a number of issues with this. One is incompatibility with the neighborhood. Again, as Commissioner Fiala brought up, the to'ing and fro'ing at night. And yes, it's a blueberry farm at present time, but they don't pick blueberries at 10 o'clock at night. So I think that's where that's going to be infringement on the people that live in this community. The other thing is that I think Immokalee does need an institution of this nature. I think it's something that's dearly needed, but I don't believe that this is the place to put it. I think that there's land that's reasonably priced around the community that could be purchased or whatever to accommodate a university, and maybe there's some people out there that would donate some of that land, because I believe that when you look at the overall picture of what's taking place in Immokalee, I think that's going to be an area that's going to expand and, of course, I believe the campus is also going to expand with the community . So I feel that at this point in time, that that area that you're planning to put this should be left as a residential area and not impact the residents in regards to them being burdened with that. And also I have a problem with -- there's a community swimming pool and needing the -- the associated support equipment such as bathrooms and stuff, may end up being an inconvenience for the people that are presently living there, and so that's my concerns. MR. VOLPE: If! may, Mr. Chairman. As it relates to the shared facilities, the bathroom facilities, which are currently being used by the residents in conjunction with the pool, which is a part of the common areas, as I'm sure Commissioner Halas knows, there is a stipulation with respect to the use of those bathroom Page 103 July 24-25, 2007 facilities. And the college will maintain those facilities but the college itself will not have access to those facilities from the interior of the building. There are bathroom facilities within the structure itself. In terms of what activities occur, Commissioner Halas, in that center, it isn't just a U-pick blueberry farm. There are a myriad of other commercial-type uses that are permitted. There is no restriction currently on the hours of operation of any of those activities that occur there. I know -- and Mr. Nogay can go into particulars if it becomes important -- as to the types of organizations that have used that facility to hold meetings and to conduct seminars and the like. The number of students is going to be limited to 80 in a term. There will be no more than 80. That would be the goal to be able to achieve an enrollment of 80 students in any term. They will not all be there, certainly, at the same time. In terms of the infringement on the rights of the residents within the community, again, this is a mixed use. Our concern is for the residents. And one of the concerns that your staff specifically identified -- which their concern was the compatibility of this use. Their compatibility issue relates to concerns of traffic, and it was on that basis and that basis alone that the staff raised the issue as to the incompatibility of our proposed use. And I think as it relates to the traffic, that your transportation staff found that the change in use, the expansion of the use, would not result in any additional trips per day and, in fact, would result in a reduction of those trips. The residents within the community wholly endorse this proposal. And there are some financial issues that the residents candidly are concerned about, is that the owner of the -- of this tract H is also a member of the homeowners' association, and pays to the homeowners' association currently about $2,300 a month. Page 104 July 24-25, 2007 And so having an institution like Harvest for Humanity, Inc., or Hodges University that is financially viable, that will be able to maintain this facility, is important to the residents within the community who are all low-income residents, all of whom purchased their homes -- this is truly affordable housing. And the Nogays, part of their mission, was to subsidize a portion of the purchase price of these homes. So they are all low-income residents that are living within this subdivision. I understand your concerns, Commissioner Halas. I think the concerns, as relates to the residents, we've been very sensitive to it. We have a letter from the homeowners' association and we also have a letter from the condominium association. Those are the residents that fully support the proposed change to allow this site to be used as an educational institution, a learning site. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: All of these units privately owned, I presume. MR. VOLPE: All of the residential units are privately owned, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All the residential -- do the residential owners own any share of the common areas? MR. VOLPE: They don't own any share of tract -- those that are highlighted on the -- that's the plat of the Jubilation subdivision. So the residents have no ownership interest in anyone of those tracts. Title to those properties are vested, Harvest for Humanity, Inc. There is nothing in the governing documents that gives the residents any rights with respect to how those are used other than the PUD document, and that's what they saw when they purchased was the PUD document which had the commercial uses that are identified, including adult education classes and the adult education classes that are currently permitted. We originally sought a zoning verification Page 105 July 24-25, 2007 letter believing that, essentially, adult education is already permitted under the PUD. Day care is permitted. Afterschool programs are permitted. So we thought education was, as provided by International College, would be within the current PUD. But the staff, as the zoning interpretation, felt that there was the perceived possibility of an intensity of use, and because of that, they sent us to see you to request a formal amendment to the PUD. EDC has endorsed it. We're here under fast track procedures. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is the land going to be sold or leased to International College? MR. VOLPE: The land is going to be donated to International College. It is a sale donation. The Nogays' mission, they are not for profit. Their mission in coming to Immokalee -- they're from Illinois. They came there to improve the quality of life for the residents in Immokalee. They had a three-part mission. One was to provide them with a living wage, and so all of the people who work at the blueberry farm are paid $8.50 by the operations. They also, as a second part of that, were to provide housing, low-income housing. They provided $20,000 -- this is personal monies -- $20,000 to each of the homeowners who purchased within that community. The third part of their mission was to improve education. That's why the PUD, as originally approved, allowed for adult education, youth aftercare. That's why it was in the PUD. The problem is that the Nogays have gotten to that point in their life and finances and age and other demands on them, that they cannot financially support this. So they searched for International College, another not for profit, agreed to donate this property to them. There is a modest amount -- there's an unpaid balance on a mortgage. It's very insignificant in the whole scheme of things, which will be paid by International College. And International College is going to carry on that third leg of their Page 106 July 24-25, 2007 mission to provide educational opportunities to improve the quality of life for the residents in Immokalee. And the residents -- this is -- I know your staff -- and I wanted to analogize to Ave Maria where the community's been built around the university. This is a learning site. English as a Second Language is going to be the primary program. And the way to achieve a better quality of life is through education, and that's the community that's presented. Commissioner Halas seems to think that -- and he's probably right -- that there are other opportunities out there, but this building is worth about $1 and a half million, and to go out and take International College and ask them to try to buy, through purchase or donation, a piece of property and construct -- Commissioner Fiala, you've been there -- a magnificent new facility is an impossibility. So it isn't going to happen unless it happens here, at least through the offices of the Harvest for Humanity. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess my feeling -- and I can remember the time when we approved this particular project, and I can tell you it never envisioned having a university in that neighborhood, permitted use of adult education to be done in the existing activity center. You know, you could interpret that as something -- a benefit that was being provided to the residents to help them learn English if they don't speak English so that they can be more successful. I know that if I had purchased a lot here or a home here and now somebody wants to set up a university there and bring students from outside the area, outside the community -- there's even overflow parking that is placed down around tract E. You're going to have people wandering all around that place. I consider it to be an inappropriate and inconsistent use, and it substantially changes my perception of what this really is, and I simply can't support it. MR. VOLPE: Okay. I respectfully disagree, of course. I can Page 107 July 24-25, 2007 respond to some of your concerns, Commissioner Coyle, I think. But if that's the conclusion that you've arrived at, I won't take any more of your time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to the speakers, please. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have 10 speakers. The first one is Terry McMahan. MR. McMAHAN: I defer to Mr. Nogay. MS. FILSON: Elda Hernandez. She'll be followed by Grisel Gaspar, Grisel. MS. HERNANDEZ: Hello. I'm Elda Hernandez. I'm also a resident at Jubilation. I have a home there. Just wanted to explain a little bit about my personal life. I am a senior at Hodges University. I've been with the university for almost two and a half years, and I've attended both the Naples and the Fort Myers campuses. From my experience, it is a very well-respected university. And also to that, the adult students there are not young teenagers to where they are misbehaving nor do they have large boom boxes and loud music in the community of Hodges University. I, myself, have gone to the -- both schools, and I've felt very secure, very safe, and also in Jubilation, we are very safe. We have an active neighborhood watch, which I am a part of, and we have not had any, per se, crimes to where we need to have not the Hodges University into our facilities. I welcome them. I hope that the commissioners do accept the Hodges University there because it will be more convenient to a lot of our -- our community that they could just walk to a university. Not many people can say that, especially in Immokalee. As you know, we have a lot of transportation problems and we have to travel long distances to Naples or Fort Myers area to get a really good education as in the university, and Hodges has asked to Page 108 July 24-25, 2007 come to us, which I'm more than welcome to accept them. Also the activity center. It is not owned by the residents, nor do I wish to purchase that facility. It is more of a cost to my family than a benefit or an advantage to us. With the university there, it would benefit my family because I have a 12 year old who soon, which I am very (sic) speaking to him about, going into the university. And he's visited some of the universities, and I'm pushing him for Hodges just because it's nearby and he could just walk and I could keep an eye on him. Also, they will be having a security guard there for us, not that we personally need it, but just for extra security, which is great. It's more secure, more safe, and I will feel more at home, per se. Also, the front gate closes at eight p.m. If you don't have a gate key, if you do not have the key pad numbers, you are not allowed to go into the university. So basically saying, adults, you need to be responsible, which most likely you are if you're attending a well-respected university like Hodges. So you will be there at six p.m., no later than 6:30 because classes begin. And then eight o'clock, gate closes, and then when they leave, they go through the same exit but another gate which goes up and down as cars pull out. So just I wanted to definitely say that, please do accept the university into my community, my home, and -- because my family has welcomed them already. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Grisel Gaspar. She'll be followed by Carmeltre Loper (sic). MS. GASPAR: Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Grisel Gaspar, and I'm also a resident in Jubilation. I live in one of the condominiums area. So I just wanted to say that the college coming in into our Page 109 July 24-25, 2007 community will be a great opportunity for our Immokalee residents, for our community residents, because most of these residents have also teenagers that will, you know, soon will go into a college. And instead of driving a long distance, you know, to Fort Myers or Naples or somewhere else, they will have the great opportunity to just walk, you know, across their home and have the great opportunity to have an education as well as myself. I haven't got the opportunity to get a college degree or a higher education because, you know, I was interrupted with something else in my life. So as hearing that the college which come in the community, you know, gives me this, you know, great feeling that I'll be able to be working in the same community and also be getting the education that, you know, will get me through my future, a great future for kids, for myself, and for everything. So I really like to ask you to please accept this college coming into the community because, like they said, it's only adult education. It's not like, you know, teenagers will come and make noises and just stand around and hang around in the parking lot. They will just come, you know, do what they have to do, take their classes, and go home, because these are adults like -- you know, like myself. You know, I work, but I cannot go all the way to Naples or Fort Myers because I don't have sometimes the transportation to go all the way over there, so this will be great. And I believe that all the Immokalee residents will appreciate that you will accept this college coming in into the community. So thank you very much for your time. MS. FILSON: Carmeltre Loper (sic). She'll be followed by Jerry Kennedy. MS. LOPEZ: Hello. I'm Carmelite Lopez, and I live there in Jubilation also. I live on 1115 Serenity Way. In regards to the turnover of Harvest -- Harvest activity center at the Jubilation community by Florence Nogay to Hodges University, Page 11 0 July 24-25, 2007 the board of directors and the residents were pleased by the decision of the planning board giving their approval for the exchange. We are now asking that the commissioners give the final approval so that this project can be moved forward. This is an opportunity for you to bring higher education to the Immokalee area swiftly and at lower costs. The Nogays are offering scholarships to all the residents of Jubilation. We have already had exchanges of ideas and participation by Hodges University. We are looking forward to a long and fruitful relationship with them. This would also be a great testimony to the Nogays for the work they have started here in Immokalee. So for the benefit of our community and all of Immokalee, we are asking that you unanimously approve of this venture. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jerry Kennedy. He'll be followed by Florence Nogay. MR. KENNEDY: Good afternoon. I am Jerry Kennedy. I've been a resident of Jubilation for about four years now. I'm on also the board of trustees about two years. I was very excited when I heard this news about Hodges University coming into the Jubilation. And that may be a great venture for the university and I think it would be great for the community and great for Immokalee because there's a lot of -- many, many, many people that needs adult education and need -- they speak English for the first language. I think it would be a big -- great thing for Immokalee, and I hope you guys will vote for it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MS. FILSON: Florence Nogay. She'll be followed by Richard Nogay. MS. NOGA Y: Commissioner Coletta and Commissioners, my name is Florence Nogay, and my husband Dick and I did create an Page III July 24-25, 2007 affordable housing development in Immokalee, and people have asked us why did we do it in Immokalee? And we said, no one needed it more. No area needed it more. No builders were coming to Immokalee, no -- county things were just for farm workers, just for poor people, just for -- you know, and the middle class in Immokalee was just moving out to Lehigh and Waterways at that time. They can't really afford that now. But we also wanted to spur other development. And all the goals we set have come through. Dick and I did several things well. Education at the center was one thing that we didn't do well, so we looked for a partner. Our original PUD was never approved as a traditional neighborhood design because the county was still formulating those guidelines. But I have read those guidelines in the new county regulations, and it's very similar to the development right now at Vanderbilt and Airport-Pulling where they have commercial on the bottom level and residential right above it where it's all mixed. This is how we designed Jubilation. There's two main streets, Harvest Drive and Reflections, and then the housing is set behind it. The activity center is right there. We had hoped that the residents would make more use of it than they did. They don't come to eat there. They don't come -- we had a computer room, and the kids came and they played the games, but no adults ever came to learn how to use those computers, and we just didn't know how to do it. Never was this building supposed to be just for the residents there. These are all low-income residents. They do pay association fees for the common area maintenance, mostly landscape. We don't think -- and we still don't think today -- that they could afford in their monthly assessment to pay the association fees on that building, to pay the thousand dollar electrical bill, the $110 a month water bill, the alarm system, the pest control, and there's -- it's at least Page 112 July 24-25, 2007 $5,000 a month just to cover the utilities on that building. It was originally built so that nonresident visitors could be at that building. We could rent out that ballroom, and we have. We've had parties there until 11 o'clock and midnight. That won't happen anymore. Is that -- my time is up? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, ma'am. MS. NOGA Y: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may wrap it up. MS. NOGA Y: I just want to let you know that the building has, in our minds, originally been approved for nonresident activities, lots of nonresident activities and as a traditional neighborhood design, and so we really didn't think that it would be extra, but thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Richard Nogay. He'll be followed by Robert Staples. MR. NOGA Y: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I think you're all familiar with what we've tried to do in Immokalee, the quality of life issues that we've addressed there. I think it's very important to point out that over the course of the 10 years we've been there, we've brought this ministry to Immokalee for living wages, for affordable housing, for adult education. Those two legs have been accomplished. But you need to know, please, that we are out of resources. We don't have them anymore. So when you cast your vote, you have to take into consideration, there is no choice between what we've been doing and continuing to do it. All those resources are gone. As of this month, if you visit there today or last week, the building is now vacated. All of the store, the cafe, everything's closed. The plants from the u-pick are going to the farm. We will not be able to provide these facilities anymore. As far as residents are concerned, we'll have to make some kind Page 113 July 24-25, 2007 of arrangements -- we don't have the funds for it -- to pay the monthly fees. We'll have to make some kind of arrangements for them to continue to use the rest rooms and have a meeting there once in a while, but it will be a vacated building. There's not going to be any use there. There's not going to be any more computer rooms. Everything is gone. We don't have the resources to continue. We did our best. The plan was to provide higher education. We had adult education permitted. We've had ESOL classes there. We've had some things go on. We've also had meetings and events there that have exceeded what the college is going to use them for. And please, please, this is not a college campus. This is only the use of an existing physical building to the same or less capacity than we've used in the last four or five years. It's a satellite learning site, not a college campus. It's only going to serve the residents who need this facility so badly, these scholarships, this opportunity to improve their quality of life through higher education. Believe me, there are no other sites in Immokalee that we can just pick up and make available. Even though we've run out of resources, we have decided that we cannot provide the funds anymore to keep the people employed, to keep the payments made every month, and the remaining mortgage. International College will be doing that. It's not only a service to us, but more importantly, it's a service to the community and to the people that are there. And as you heard, they desperately want it, they desperately need it, and we don't want to leave that building vacant and return to where we came from without the opportunity for it to be optimized. Its use is going to be optimized by the college without any negative impact on the residents in the community. So we appeal to you folks to please consider that as part of your decision. We have made all the provisions and arrangements necessary to maintain the same services the folks have gotten there, Page 114 July 24-25, 2007 and they're going to have a great new partner that has financial stability to work with the residents to continue to improve that community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Nogay. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Staples. He'll be followed by Froylan Resandiz. MR. STAPLES: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Robert Staples. I'm a diversification manager with the Economic Development Council of Collier County. I'm the project manager for Hodges University on this project. The EDC is proud to support Hodges University in its drive to bring a new education alternative to the people ofImmokalee. The EDC supports Hodges in that it strives to keep the technological advancements and ties with industry and its educational goals and benchmarks. The EDC actively recruits companies to Collier County. These companies help to diversifY the economy and to create high-wage, high-skilled jobs. First and foremost, the topic of the discussion with these companies that the EDC has is, where is my workforce and how am I going to train this workforce? With the support of the community of Jubilation, with the homeowners' association, the surrounding community of Immokalee was strongly in support of Hodges University and its drive to bring an educational alternative to the people of Immokalee and asked the board to find its way to approve the PUD. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Froylan Resandiz. I know I have your last name wrong. MS. GASPAR: He just wanted to say that he's in favor of the project. MS. FILSON: Okay. Thank you. Your final speaker is Claudette Williams. Page 115 July 24-25, 2007 MS. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, my name is Claudette Williams. I'm a resident of Jubilation. I am a teacher at Immokalee High School. I support the university for several reasons. One reason is, the empty building could be -- could house something worse than a university and things worse can go on in that building. As you know, Immokalee High School is, once again, an F school, and part of our reason for being an F school stems from the community and their lack of English. And students go back home and they have to translate for parents, and it's really hard. And that transition needs to be known over into the university so that community members can be assisted and helped. Teachers cannot do it alone. And as a member of the community, Mr. Coyle, I felt the same way you did at first, and I feel now that something else going on in our community could be worse. And I know that the -- it's difficult, and I've attended several meetings. Community members paying those association dues and their house payments, and to ask them to take on other expenses, probably wouldn't happen. And so the worst-case scenario is that the building would be of use that wouldn't benefit the community. And people have been coming to the building. My pastor and his wife got remarried there. People come to the building to eat. When we have had our school workshop, we went out to Jubilation and we had lunch, my other peer teachers, after school was out, and the building was being used. But I know myself that the computer room and other aspects ofa college or a facility to house education for the community would be best benefited in Immokalee. And teachers do need relief and help and assistance, and I think that it could be better served no place else than to house a program to help our community with their second language and ESOL. Thank you. Page 116 July 24-25, 2007 MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then I close the public hearing at this time and open it for discussion with the commissioners. MS. DESELEM: Excuse me. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, open it up for just a second? Kay needs to put something on the record. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Please do. MS. DESELEM: Thank you. For the record, Kay Deselem. I'm a principal planner with the department of zoning and development reView. I just wanted to respond first of all to some of the things that were stated by Mr. Volpe, to point out that the PUD description in the activity center is clear in the PUD document on page 1 dash 2 or I dash 2, and it states, quote, the residential section will have a centrally located activity center, and it goes on from there. And I also note as far as references to commercial uses within the PUD, I would reference the original section, 4-1, that talks about the uses and the permitted uses. And I would not, as a professional planner, characterize those uses as commercial uses. And I have provided the executive summary for you and I have provided the background information as far as the staff report, and along with the staff report are the findings of fact, both rezoning and the PUD findings of fact. As you may recall, staff is recommending denial of this petition, and we have provided those findings of fact. If! may, I would like to just go over them briefly to note that the main thrust of our recommendation deals with compatibility. The Growth Management Plan requires a finding of compatibility based on policy 5-4. Staff does not believe to place a satellite college campus, which is basically what this is, within a residential subdivision that's existing and platted is an inappropriate (sic) use, and we have recommended denial based on that. Page 117 July 24-25, 2007 We also would reference the changing conditions that have been talked about within this PUD and throughout the presentations you've had before you today. It appears as though it's a financial consideration that's driving this change, and that is not something that the staff reviews. That's not something that's included in the Growth Management Plan nor the Land Development Code. There are allowable uses remaining within that activity center tract. And contrary to what might be the perception of some of the people that live there, that would limit what can be done within that PUD. Anything else that's of a commercial nature that might -- that might -- they might fear would not be allowed unless another, or some other amendment, is made to this PUD. And we have considered in the staff report an analysis of the traffic using a comparison of the U-pick operation versus the proposed college, and staff believes that there is an increase in the traffic based on the comparison of those two uses, and it is inappropriate to place that within this residential subdivision. There are numerous findings of fact in support of staffs recommendation. I won't go over all of them, but I am available if you have questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have questions. MS. DESELEM: Certainly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Let's go with, what would be appropriate to use this building for? We know the residents can't afford to buy it. We know the resident can't afford to maintain it. So let's get right down to the nitty-gritty. We've got a building that's going to be empty. It's empty now. There's a question whether they'll be able to keep the electricity on. The Nogays have expended their resources in the attempt to get Jubilation going, and they've done a wonderful job and the community is extremely grateful for them. What would be the possible uses for this particular building? MS. DESELEM: In all due respect, I would have to go back to Page 118 July 24-25, 2007 the PUD document. There are day care uses, there are other uses that might be available to them, and they would have to investigate that. And it sounds as though they've already made the decision to close the building down. And there are some other uses. They could, perhaps, go to another entity that could do something within this project that is an allowable use. At this point all they have done is targeted one use for that activity center as a relief for their financial considerations. Staff reviewed that one use. And based on that, our recommendation has to be denial. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I appreciate it, and I'll always respect the recommendations of staff and I'll never get in front of them when they're getting towards those recommendations; however, the recommendations of the community far outweigh the recommendations from staff, and I'm hearing nothing but positive saying -- everybody that has to speak about this has always said something positive. And I've been involved in this process now for, what, six months, hearing the chamber of commerce in Immokalee, the Immokalee Civic Association. Every single group sees this as a positive entity to bring something to Immokalee that will have a positive benefit. This is not the coastal Collier County where you're going to fill that building in no time at all, and maybe that wouldn't be true in this particular economic situation, or times, rather. But the truth of the matter is, we have a use that's endorsed by the community that serves a benefit for the community, and even though staff recommendations are opposed to it, we do have the community's best interests at heart when we move forward. Every one of these people that came before us today and that came before the other meetings that we've had before the Planning Commission and in the community itself have all spoken very favorably of it. Page 119 July 24-25, 2007 So we're going to tell them, we have their best interests in mind, we know what's best for you, we're not going to permit this use, and we'll take a chance on something else going in there. I don't think so. I think we really need to look at this thing and to really think this out before we do something that can't be undone. With that, I'm going to go to Commissioner Fiala and then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I participate in this? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, you're still here, Commissioner Henning? We didn't realize you came back from lunch. Please, I'll tell you what, let me go directly to you and then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. I have some questions for Mr. Volpe. MR. VOLPE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you in agreement with the Planning Commission's stipulations? MR. VOLPE: Yes, we are, and so is International College/Hodges University. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You know, the chairman said a lot. Immokalee is unique from the rest of Collier County. Being unique is unique in their needs, unique in their land use planning. My perspective is that we must listen to, I know we all do, all their needs because it is so different than the coastal area of Collier County . This is an opportunity for the people, not only in Jubilation, but in Immokalee to have education, a higher education, in their community that is not there today. Right now the closest one, they have to travel to Ave Maria. You know, if there is a motion to approve with Planning Commission's stipulations, I want to second it, and I want to Page 120 July 24-25, 2007 encourage my other fellow commissioners to support the needs of Immokalee. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning. And with that in mind, I do make the motion and accept your second. MR. VOLPE: Commissioner Coletta, I apologize for interrupting, but this is quasijudicial, and I would like just a moment just to put on the record some information in response to the information that's been provided by your staff, just by way of rebuttal. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine, but why don't we do this, Mr. Volpe. MR. VOLPE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got some discussion going on amongst the commission right now. And when we do finish that, I will give you a chance because there may be some other facts that you want to enter into before we make the vote. MR. VOLPE: I just want to make sure the public hearing remains open though, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we'll definitely bring you back for that point in time. Thank you, sir. I'm sorry. Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well-- boy, I have all these notes. But I've heard what the residents have said and I've read all of the emails, and although -- when I walked in here, I totally agreed with staff and I really felt it wasn't compatible. After listening to what everybody's said, you guys are the ones that have to live with it, not me. And it sounds like a good thing for your community. I know it's a good thing for Immokalee. I want to -- I would like to include in the motion -- I was going to make the motion, but I'm glad you guys did. I was going to make the motion to approve with the understanding that we would -- there Page 121 July 24-25, 2007 would still be an activity center, because that was one of the stipulations that staff had mentioned. There would still be an activity center maintained. Knowing how International College/Hodges University is run -- and it's a home grown university, it's a learning facility who really cares about the community. I've always admired them. They have an outstanding reputation, and I know that whatever they do there, it will benefit not only the entire Immokalee community, but they'll have very grave concerns about making sure that everything is done in your community . So I'll third the motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Let's go to Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The subsequent testimony has led me exactly where I was afraid we were going to go, and that is that there is a shortage of resources here. And I would like to add my thanks to the Nogays for what they have done in Immokalee and to express concern and support to resolving the shortage of resources problem. I'm not sure that I want to pursue the extent to which this resource problem exists, but Mr. Nogay did make reference to bringing in a new partner with additional resources. I don't know whether that is just Hodges University or ifthere are others. But there are other parcels ofland here. And it raises the specter to me of a piecemeal development of a planned unit development that does not have the financial resources to do the things they originally started out to do, and that was exactly my fear at the beginning of this hearing. Rather than getting a comprehensive solution to the problem so that we protect the long-term interests of the people who have invested in this community, we're taking it one tract at a time. Now, ifthere really is a shortage of resources and there is an Page 122 July 24-25, 2007 interest in finding a solution for the entire community, then for goodness sakes, let's sit down and work out a plan that will make sense for the entire community. Let's don't focus on one tract of land and come up with one idea that fits there, and then next year we're going to be talking about another tract of land and trying to fit something in there and so on and so on. So that's my real concern here. Where -- what is the long-term solution and what other plans are lurking in the wings once this one is approved? MR. VOLPE: May I respond? This is a fully developed community. It is built out. That's an aerial of Jubilation subdivision. There are no vacant tracts of land. There are no other buildings that will be built by anyone. This is not a piecemeal approach to anything. All of the residents live there. The units have been sold. There are 49 -- there are -- I think there are 49 single-family residences which are on the one side there. There's a condominium on the other side. There is the activity visitors center. There is a maintenance facility. What I had before you before, Commissioner Coyle, was to show you highlighted that the Nogays are donating not only tract H -- the focus of the discussion was on tract H. But there are four tracts that are involved here. They are the ones that are highlighted. There is tract H. Tract G, which is where the blueberry U-pick farm is right there. There's parking. So some concerns that staff may have had about parking, there's more than ample parking for the activities that will occur there. Tract J, which is the smaller tract, is the maintenance facility. That's where the Nogays conduct -- they have a farming operation there now. It's a farming operation. The large tract, it's about 15 acres, that's preserve. There's a commitment in the PUD for the developer, which is hopefully going to be Hodges University, to maintain that -- it's a responsibility of Page 123 July 24-25, 2007 Hodges University required. So there is nothing left to be developed. This is not a hodgepodge approach to something. These people live there. This is their home. We've got a mixed use, which is commercial. Despite what your staff says, it talks about retail. It talks about office, it talks about commercial type uses. So just to dispel the thought based upon your comments that somehow we're not -- this is -- it's a piecemealed approach, this is a -- this is the solution to make what the Nogays originally intended for this subdivision to be a reality. Their 11 O-acre farm was to provide the finances and the resources to support project. Because of Wilma and other bad weather, they've had bad crops over the last several years. Blueberries have not grown there, so they don't have the financial support which was the financial support to support the project. So I apologize, but that -- I'd like to clarifY that part of the thought process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there anyplace that blueberries grow in Florida? MR. VOLPE: This is the furthest south in the United States that blueberries grow, and it's kind of curious that we would be growing -- there's a certain strain of blueberries that are grown in Immokalee. But they have a 11 O-acre farm, and that's -- the farming operation is conducted there to support the farming operation. So the thought that this is the Vineyards or some other gated subdivision within the coastal community, that simply is not the case. And I think there's, you know, a bit of a misperception. I hope I haven't created it, but -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's considerable open space in both tract Hand B. Now, are you saying to me that there will be no additional construction in those areas at all? MR. VOLPE: Absolutely. In fact, that's a commitment that we Page 124 July 24-25, 2007 will not build any new buildings, we will not change the exterior. We're not going to take a parcel off, and while you've approved all of this, build another college building. That's it. I have a reference. Maybe somebody can help. I've got the language of it specifically. In fact, in your staffs report, on page 1 it says, the applicant states that no new structures or building are planned to be constructed on tracts G, H, J, and no physical changes to the exterior of the existing buildings on tract Hand J are planned, and no deviations from the LDC requirements are being sought as a part of this amendment. That is a part of our stipulation, that's it. We're not building anything, we're not adding on to anything unless you, at some point in time, allow us to do it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You didn't mention tract B. MR. VOLPE: Tract B is not one of the tracts that's involved in this PUD process, in this amendment process. Tract B -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, tract B is just to the east of tract H. MR. VOLPE: Yeah, tract B is common area. Tract B belongs to the homeowners' association. Doesn't belong to Harvest for Humanity. And it's -- it is the recreational area. There's the swimming pool and if -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I was told earlier that the homeowners didn't have any interest in the common areas whatsoever. MR. VOLPE: This is not a common area. I may have misled you, and I apologize. There are common areas within this subdivision and there is an area -- there's a swim -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Those belong to the homeowner? MR. VOLPE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And there is not going to be any change to that whatsoever under any arrangement that is contemplated? Page 125 July 24-25, 2007 MR. VOLPE: The only positive is going to be that the college has agreed to donate to the residents additional ground behind the visitors activity center in order to give them a larger volleyball field or soccer field is what they've agreed to give them. So there is a piece that they're going to get. But in terms of -- nothing taken away. It is a common area. And in terms of the rest room facilities, those rest room facilities, they're within 150 feet of the existing pool. They were used by the residents, but most of the people who use the pool are residents. They're all within walking distance. But the college agreed, as a stipulation before the CCPC, that we would not, from the interior of the building, gain access to the exterior. We're going to maintain it, we're going to repair it. We're going to do everything for the residents so they can continue to use it in conjunction with their use of their community pool. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How many parking spaces are available at the activity center that the Hodges University will be using? MR. VOLPE: There's more than ample parking. There's 55 parking spaces. I think we have more than 15 that are excess parking, 15. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then why are we designating the area to the -- I guess that will be to the south of the residences as overflow parking? MR. VOLPE: It's not -- what we agreed to do was we agreed to give, just in case -- we had excess parking for the college use. We agreed to give the residents an additional -- an easement on four additional parking sites just in case the small parking lot that is adjacent to the swimming pool, which is on their ground -- if they needed extra parking space. They have a permanent perpetual easement to four parking spaces. We were only able to do that because we didn't need them for our use. So there's more than ample Page 126 July 24-25, 2007 parking, and so that's not a challenge in terms of parking. I think maybe it was mentioned, a concern -- I think you may have mentioned it, Commissioner Coyle, about residents being confused and driving through the subdivision. You mentioned, I think tract E. I think one of the commissioners did. Tract E is behind the single-family residences. We -- the entrance in and entrance (sic) out, there's more than ample parking. People are always going to park in closest proximity to where they're gomg. The students will be given an orientation as to how to enter and exit, and we are going to have security in order to direct them out in the evening. So again, to dispel any thought that somehow there's another pea under the shell that hasn't yet been discovered, there is none, absolutely none. These are not for profits. There aren't even any tax incentives. Nobody's going to get a write-off and -- a big write-off out of their income tax. They're all not for profits. It's a magnanimous effort by the community. And when you look at some of the statistics, when you look at the number of high school graduates in the Immokalee community compared to the coastal area, I . , mean, it s -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Appalling. MR. VOLPE: It is disappointing. But here is -- you know, this is a quasijudicial proceeding. We're looking at what's in the record. Ms. Reslin (sic) has made her point that staff has found. I spent four hours before your CCPC developing a record, and your CCPC, by a vote of 7 -1, found that we had met all of the criteria for a PUD rezone. That's what they found. Staff continues to recommend denial because they're concerned about traffic. And if you read their -- and I'm sure you have -- their summary, it relates to traffic. Your transportation staff found there was no impact. It was Page 127 July 24-25, 2007 consistent with the traffic element of the Growth Management Plan. Staff wanted to pick it apart and use the little different analysis. They started comparing the campus use to only the U-pick use and figured that it's 19 more -- or 27 more trips per day, and we perceive that those 27 trips per day may inhibit movement of the residents within the subdivision. That's the basis, truly, that they found this to be incompatible with policy number 5.4. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you are -- you are agreeing with the CCPC recommendations, numbers one through six, and in addition those items numbered one and two at the bottom of page 4 of 250, and then at the top of page 5 of 250, paragraph B, with the addition of stipulation number 3G, that the university shall provide a security guard while all evening classes are in session? MR. VOLPE: Absolutely, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Those are all acceptable? MR. VOLPE: Absolutely. The concern all along has been the integrity of the residential neighborhood, the integrity of the residential neighborhood. And if we had any opposition from any of the residents, we wouldn't be here because that's not where International College/Hodges University, wants to be. Yeah, we are -- it was just being pointed out that we actually have a commitment in the PUD that there will be no structures, just what I read to you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And I want these answers quick. I don't want to go on. MR. VOLPE: Sorry. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're trying to move this along. MR. VOLPE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I don't need a lot offill-in. When I look at this picture, what is this large dark area down here in Page 128 July 24-25, 2007 the lower right-hand corner? MR. VOLPE: Water retention. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Bring up the issuing piece that you had earlier. Yes, there. All of these other areas are now filled in, like tract A and tract C? MR. VOLPE: Yes, sir. They're all -- the community is built out. The PUD authorization, there's no new buildings, no new single family. It's built out completely. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd also like, if! was to vote on this thing, in favor of it, I want something that's put in the documentation that it's not going to exceed 80 students. MR. VOLPE: It is in there, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It is there. MR. VOLPE: We have a -- it's a maximum number of students of80 per term. We did that because of your staffs concern. Remember I said we sought zoning verification about a perceived increase in intensity of the educational uses, so we limited it to 80. We picked 80 only because that's the break-even point for the college. Hopefully we'll get 80. We don't really expect we're going to do that certainly, but that's our goal. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I don't feel comfortable with is the fact, as it's been brought out by a couple of my commissioners here, is that people bought in here with the idea that this was going to be a residential neighborhood, and now we are going to change the complexion of this PUD. And I have some concerns. I don't want to see any further expansion of the college because I feel that it's incompatible with what we have here, and I believe that it should -- if they desire to enlarge, then I think it's up to the people at the college, and it should probably be put in the PUD or in this -- as we go along in making the motion, which has already been made. Maybe it can be placed in there -- that if there's any attempt to expand the size of this, that then you have to Page 129 July 24-25, 2007 -- that the college has to go outside the confines of this PUD and find additional land. MR. VOLPE: That's fine. Both Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas have commented on the residents and when they bought in and what their perception was as to what they were buying into. Your staff makes the point, people who buy into Ave Maria bought into, knowing there was a university there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly right. MR. VOLPE: The analogy, I think, here is similar in a way. The educational use was there. Was it this type of an educational use? It was a commercial enterprise. There was -- there were no representations made as to whether it would be. It's in the hands of this board as to whether now you can find that there is the compatibility to protect the residents, even though those residents may not have thought there was ever going to be Hodges University there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: If the motion maker would add to his motion or her motion that the max is going to be 80 and if there's any ideas of expanding larger than 80 students, that then -- that the university then has to find another location to expand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me ask you, since I'm the motion maker. Eighty students is the maximum, or was there any plans to go to 82? MR. VOLPE: No. Actually there is the commitment. It is written into the PUD 80 students. So we don't have -- we can add, Commissioner Halas. If you'd like to have language, fine, but it is -- it will be duplicative of what we already have in there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That gives you -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That will give me -- because I -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then I include it in the motion. MR. VOLPE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the second? Page 130 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second is Tom. I'm the third. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about second? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You betcha. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And your motion includes acceptance of all of the -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- stipulations. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Staffs recommendations and the Planning Commission recommendations. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, the public hearing has been closed. It's closed again. Now we're going on for the vote. All those in favor of the motion, indicate at this time by saying yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you said aye. Okay. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's passed unanimously. Thank you very much. MR. VOLPE: Thank you very much, Commissioners. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll tell you what, ladies and gentlemen, my apologies for trying to bring this to a conclusion early on. What happened was, is I've been so close to this for so long and I Page 13 1 July 24-25, 2007 knew the benefits that were going to come. I just assumed that the rest of the world understood it, too. It took a long time to explain it, and the Nogays and the people there from Jubilation, you did a wonderful job with your presentations. Please, thank you very much and enjoy the rest of your day. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could we have someone turn the heat down in here a little bit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you. I'm just so hot. I thought it was only me. MR. MUDD: I'm trying. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Huh? MR. MUDD: I've been working on it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to make the motion to take off our jackets? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Last time I tried it, you guys about threw me under the train. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just -- we talked earlier about going and trying to finish public petitions because you have had people -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please. Let's go back to that. Item #6C PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY DON SMITH TO DISCUSS THE WEED PROBLEM IN THE PORT AU PRINCE CANALS - STAFF DIRECTED TO WORK WITH PROPERTY OWNERS REGARDING A POSSIBLE SOLUTION Page 132 July 24-25, 2007 MR. MUDD: This brings us to 6C. It's a public petition request by Don Smith to discuss the weed problem in the Port Au Prince canals. MR. SMITH: I'm Don Smith, and I live at Port Au Prince, 56 Moon Bay, and I'm here on behalf of the residents there. I called a few people and they recommended that I probably went in front of the board here to see what we could do about eliminating this water-hyacinth. This plant is a native of South America. It is now considered a major weed species in more than 50 countries. The floating water-hyacinth was introduced into Florida in the 1880s and covered more than 120,000 acres of public lakes and navigable rivers by the early 1960s. Since then the intensive management efforts coordinated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have reduced water-hyacinths to approximately 2,000 acres statewide. That's what they're saying. The growth rate of the water-hyacinth is among the highest of any known plant in the State of Florida. It can double the size in two weeks. It has -- let's see, little runner, little stems. I've got pictures of the actual plant other than the flower which shows the design of the plant itself. The roots will throw off runners and also flowers, which produces seeds. There are four canals in Port Au Prince. And I went through and I talked to other residents because I just wanted to know if we could get rid of this and what the process was. I'm from Michigan, and I've been down here two years now. And I watched these weeds. I didn't know anything about them. I just thought they were a pretty weed floating in the canal. And you know, I noticed they started getting a little bit bigger and then a lot bigger, and then pretty soon my water's completely cut Page 133 July 24-25, 2007 off from my neighbor's behind my house. And it went from 80 feet to 150 feet and all the way down the canal. Here's three pictures, just the back of my house, not in any other canals. And when I talked to Travis, he told me that this was owned by the private people of this area. I mean, us. We're residents. It's not controlled by the county. Okay. So I talked to other residents. I've got all their signatures. And do you know, I did a little research, me and a friend of mine, Debbie, my neighbor, and what we came up with is, this is a very expensive -- this is a very expensive removal. A price in 2002 was about 35,000 to remove these. We started removing them, Cole and I did, and some of the other neighbors, just a tiny little bit, and I've already filled up two five-yard dump trucks, and I got just a tiny bit out of my canal. Now, what it's doing is it's breeding mosquitoes, which is not allowing the kids to play in the neighborhood, and they're spraying insect repellents in, and there's a very strong odor that's coming from these plants. The water-hyacinths mat lowers the solved oxygen. In other words, it's killing the fish in the canal. We have tarpon and we have snook. And this plant is dropping. One acre of hyacinth can yearly deposit as much as 500 tons of rotting plant material to the bottom of the waterway. Water-hyacinth mats can increase flooding in rivers and canals by forming dams, and that's what's happening right now. The water is rising because of these plants. There are a few more pictures that we took. Basically what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to figure out how to stop this problem. We are all taxpayers in the county, and this is the very first time that I've ever been in a county meeting like this so I'm a little nervous and I'm not sure what the procedure is supposed to be, so I'm kind of playing it by feel. Page 134 July 24-25, 2007 If you have any questions for me or if you have any answers, I would appreciate it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you're doing a great job with your presentation. I'm looking at this and I'm wondering if this might be the biomass we're looking for to come up with the ethyl alcohol. But in any case, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want to thank you very much for taking the opportunity to find out how government down here in Florida works. I'm also from Michigan. It sounds to me as though they have a real serious problem here. I think you brought out in your presentation that these canals are all privately owned, is that correct, that -- the properties on these canals? MR. SMITH: Yes, they are. They're fed off one of the -- one of the canals comes down 951, is fed off Fiddler's Creek. Now that part is maintained by the county from what I understand. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. MR. SMITH: So there are no weeds floating in there. But as is comes down Port Au Prince into the other four canals, that is also, because of the road, that is maintained by the county. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But when we -- when we're involved in private property, then we run into a different problem here. Now, it's my understanding from your presentation that you have a lot of signatures of people who would like to get this taken care of, eradicated; is that correct? MR. SMITH: That is true. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What we have down here is that we have a municipal service taxing unit. It's called an MSTU. And I believe this is probably the best way to approach it. What this means is, is that since this is private property, and if the citizens want to do something in regards to addressing this issue, then what they'll do is tax themselves, set up an MSTU, it will be a small Page 135 July 24-25, 2007 portion of this, and then from there I think you can address your problem. Looks like the county manager may have something to add. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I tried to dissuade you on MSTUs. With the new change to the tax law, you create an MSTU, you've got to find somebody else you're going to take money from because remember, this -- you can't expand. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, that's right. Thank you very much. MR. MUDD: So you're into a special assessment, sir, which is a different term in this particular issue, as Pelican Bay does with the special assessment, and it doesn't go against the tax rolls. It basically COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, it would have to be an MSTBU. MR. MUDD: BU, yes, sir. And I believe that's the way to get it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, an MSTBU. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I would like to hear from staff first. I can see them all lined up here, so maybe they could shed some light on this before I comment, if they would, please. MR. KLA TZKOW: Just to get perspective to where this is. It's off of Collier Boulevard on the opposite side of Fiddler's Creek, and you can see where the canals are and the homesites. I count about 160 homesites if you wanted to set up an MSBU, you can assess -- you can assess it and take it from there. One of the problems we would have in the county cleaning it up is that it's all private, so we won't even have access to get onto that. I'm not sure our machinery can get onto that to clean it up. You couldn't do a chemical spray on it because it would all die off, and then it would just decay on the bottom and that would probably be a worse situation than you have now. Page 136 July 24-25, 2007 My understanding is it needs to be removed mechanically. I don't know if we have an estimate on that or not. But I think Commissioner Halas's idea with an MSBU is probably a good one. MR. VLIET: Yeah, John Vliet, for the record. I would concur with that statement. Mechanically I don't know that we can even get into those canals to clean them. And to chemically treat them would take several treatments at this point in time, and you would have a lot of decayed vegetation that would go to the bottom and create a lot of sediment. And I just -- it would not be good for that environment, and it is all private. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Can you tell me, these canals that are choked up right now, do they feed other canals that we need to keep open within the county? They don't do anything for any other canals? MR. VLIET: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What are they -- what are they there for? MR. VLIET: Quite honestly, I believe it was just -- they were dug when they built the subdivision, and it's all private. It was used for fill material for those properties. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Can that odor, as the gentleman was talking about, is there something that's harmful coming out of those plants that could affect their health? MR. VLIET: Commissioner, I don't have an answer for that, sorry . COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I don't know the answer to that either. I know that this is a low, low income area. As we all know, this was the Diamond Shores area that's in the back of this, and then Port Au Prince is in the front. It's all just mobile homes. Very, very low income. Now, if we establish an MSTBU, but now we're talking about low income people here, will they be able to afford to pay -- to do Page 137 July 24-25, 2007 this? And how long will it take them to get up enough money in such an area to pay for this? MR. VLIET: Commissioner, I don't have an estimated cost on what it would take to do it mechanically. A rough estimate to do it chemically, you're looking in the neighborhood of 15-, $20,000, in that area, because it's going to take several treatments. And quite honestly, I don't know how effective those treatments will be, so it's hard to nail a cost down. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow. I don't know what to do when we're talking about an area that has trouble affording to even live there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we -- a couple things we don't know is what the cost would be for this, how it would have to be broken down over how long a period of time, or if the residents are interested in doing it. So, you know, at some point in time either we get staff or maybe your office to go down there and try to get the sentiment. Now, it may be just the people that are bordering on the canal itself that would be interested in it, and the people living one lot in may have no interest in it. I don't know. COMMISSIONER FIALA: A lot of those are rental units too, right? MR. SMITH: What's that, ma'am? COMMISSIONER FIALA: A lot of the places are rental units, right? MR. SMITH: Yes, a lot of them are rental. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess -- I guess we should bring this back. I don't think we should be discussing it anymore at this meeting. I think we should bring this back to -- MR. SMITH: I see the prices you're referring to. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, but we're going to have to get an agreement with your whole community. I'll have to get busy on that Page 138 July 24-25, 2007 myself. So I would ask right now that you meet with John and maybe with Jeff, and then we'll put together some kind of a neighborhood informational meeting to ask them to -- if they would like to accept this MSTBU, to keep the canals clean and to estimate to them how much it will cost them each year, and then -- and then once we get their approval or denial, then we can move forward. But I don't think we can move forward any further today at this meeting. MR. SMITH: Can I say one more thing? COMMISSIONER FIALA: You'd have to come up to the microphone here. MR. SMITH: Five years ago they came and they sprayed the canals. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But at the time that they did that -- and I was here then and I asked these guys. And they did it because they knew that they were dealing with a low-income area, but they also did it, and it was in writing, and they said, we're going to do this for you once, but we're not going to do this again. You guys are going to have to keep after this yourselves. We just can't come in -- we can't use taxpayer dollars to go in and clean out a private canal. It was made very, very clear to the community. I would love to because it's a great community, and I know some people in there personally but -- and I'd love to do this, but I can't ask taxpayers in his community to pay to clean up our canals when we're not going to clean up his canals. So we have to find another answer, and we will. We're going to work on this right now. So it isn't that this is saying no. We're just going to find another way to do it, and we're going to be able to continue to do it. MR. SMITH: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if you'll meet with these guys, Page 139 July 24-25, 2007 they'll take care of that. MR. SMITH: Now, he did say something about accessibility. Now, I've talked to homeowners there that have extra lots, and they are more than willing -- we have a 30-foot barge there. I mean, they're more than willing to open up their property. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's talk about -- the reason is, this is just -- this is just a petition, public petition. Normally what we do is we listen to the person and say, we'll either bring it back or, no, we don't want to do it. We're saying now, yes, we're going to work with you on this, but we need to work out the agreements. So you'll be working that out with these guys and then you'll be coming back to us for our approval of an MSTBU. MR. SMITH: Oh. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Once you guys approve it in your community. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jeff, you might be able to explain that to him. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to take a short break, Mr. Mudd. We're at that magic time for the court reporter to get a break. Ten minutes, we'll be back. (A brief recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. Item #6D PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY BLAKE GABLE TO DISCUSS THE IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM TO THE AVE MARIA PROJECT - TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT THE SEPTEMBER 1 I, 2007 BCC MEETING - CONSENSUS Page 140 July 24-25, 2007 Next item is 6D. It's a public petition request by Blake Gable to discuss an impact fee deferral program to the Ave Maria project. MR. GABLE: Hi, good afternoon. Blake Gable representing Ave Maria development. Keeping with the theme of the day, I promise you all that I will be brief and I will try to move this along as quickly as possible. A few weeks ago we applied for our first impact fee deferral for one of our low single -- one of the low units in Middlebrook Townhome Development, which is the first affordable/workforce housing development within Ave Maria. One of the -- a member of the County Attorney's Office has basically rendered an opinion that he didn't necessarily think that Ave Maria was entitled to the impact fee deferral program. Since then Jeff and I have had a number of conversations, and I just want to go and raise a few points to let you know what we believe to be what some of the issues are. First, when we had our DR} approved about two years ago, two years ago back in June, we fully anticipated that the 1,900 units that we were committing to, almost 20 percent of our overall units in Ave Maria, would be entitled to the same impact fee deferral programs, affordable housing programs, whatever they may be, that the county has for any other resident who's in that income category. We weren't seeking any sort of exceptions or anything like that. It was simply, if a homeowner makes the income levels -- his income -- income is in those levels and qualifies with all the other guidelines that are out there, they should be entitled to the same benefits that anybody else in Collier County is entitled to. So that being said, we came forward with our first units about a months or so ago, and I understand now some of the current concerns that Jeff has raised, and we fully understand that and are willing to work with him to kind of address some of these issues. And I think Page 141 July 24-25, 2007 the largest issue that has been raised -- and this is something that we understand and are willing to work with you guys on -- is that the impact fee deferral program is capped as it relates to home ownership. When it gets into the rental issue, that's when it becomes a little bit more problematic. It may not necessarily fall under the same caps across the board that the ownership level does. And I can tell you that if that's the issue -- and I think that's a significant concern of Jeffs in the County Attorney's Office -- we are absolutely willing to say that right now we will not come forward and apply for any impact fee deferrals for any rental units until the board approves the policy countywide, that then we would follow under the same guidelines as that. So we will not apply for any rental impact fee deferral pro -- impact fee deferrals until a program is approved by the county, okay. So that's that. The second thing is, one of the -- another issue that we are very cognizant of is our developer's contribution agreement for the widening of Oil Well Road. That was obviously something that was very important to us. As a matter of fact, that was approved by you in April of 2005 several months before our DRI was approved, and that work has really been ongoing for several years. As part of our district's developer agreement, we agreed or committed to spend approximately $6 and a half million in impact fees to the county by the end of 2007. To this point we've spent about $8 million, generated about $8 million in transportation impact fees to the county, and we fully anticipate by the end of 2007, we'll have somewhere between 9 and $10 million of transportation impact fees. So we've well exceeded our commitment to the impact fee credits generated from the road side of things. In addition, as part of our deal for the developer's contribution agreement, we agreed to do the design and permitting for Oil Well Road and pay for that and receive impact fee credits for that later. We Page 142 July 24-25, 2007 estimated that to be about $6 million. To date we've spent $6.7 million, okay. So I can -- I can assure you that from the transportation side of things, we're generating more income coming into the county than we had initially estimated, and we've also spent considerably more than we anticipated getting at the time. So I think from the transportation side of things, I think that is covered. I can also tell you that our group and the county transportation staff with Norm, we've been working collaboratively to try to find additional ways to save the county money when this road -- when this road is finally designed and permitted, hopefully by the end of this year, early next year. So I think from the transportation side of things, I think we have that area covered. I think as it relates to the rental thing, I've stated we are absolutely okay with not applying for that, and then that really comes down to the last issue of, did Ave Maria, because we committed to 1,900 units, does that then exclude us from taking part of countywide programs? And I think it's our opinion that, obviously, that we would like to be treated just like everybody else anywhere in the county. So that is it. I told you I'd try to be brief. I'm trying to go as quickly as possible. I'm certainly happy to answer any questions, or if Jeff wants to raise a few issues, you know, happy to handle it however you guys would like. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Jeff, if I may, the -- what we got before us today is not something we can make a final decision on? We have to bring it back? Or is this something that we can interpret a letter of the law as far as the home units or the -- excuse me. The home-owned units? MR. KLATZKOW: I think there are significant issues here that go well beyond Ave Maria. They go to other developments as well. A ve Maria opened up the issue for me. As I kept opening it up, I kept Page 143 July 24-25, 2007 finding more and more issues with our programs, and I think it would be -- I think it would be a very good thing for staff to come back with a full report to the board as to the various options. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: First meeting in September, do you think by then everything would be resolved as far as the options open to us? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, before we give direction on it, let's go to Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to summarize my understanding of the issue to make sure I clearly understand it, Jeff. There are really two problems here, one has to do with owner-occupied units that are purchased. And I guess it's my feeling that that deferral program is a program that was designed to help people afford to get affordable -- purchase homes and that everyone should be eligible to apply but that the amount of money is limited by however much we commit in the budget to cover the deferrals. MR. KLATZKOW: It's 3 percent of the prior year's impact fee collections. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. And we can change that anytime we wish, but there is a cap on how much money is available? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Your real concern, if! understand it correctly, is that -- let's use Ave Maria University as an example. If the university were to buy all 1,900 of the affordable housing units that is being developed out there for the purposes of renting them to low-income students -- I guess all students are low income. MR. KLATZKOW: I was. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I was, too -- that they might be able to get impact fees deferred, which would result in a total deferral of about $35 million, which would be a really heavy hit to us Page 144 July 24-25, 2007 because we couldn't afford then to build infrastructure because we wouldn't have enough impact fees. And it's that issue that probably causes you the biggest concern, so you're going to come back to with us an interpretation on that. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But my feeling is -- and tell me if this creates a problem -- is that Ave Maria -- the affordable housing units being built in Ave Maria should be eligible for application to apply for those people who wish to purchase units just like everybody else. That's not your -- MR. KLATZKOW: That I'll take board direction on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: My point on that was, they have to do it anyway. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. KLA TZKOW: And if what you want to do with that limited resource is to get it to incentivize other developers who, but for the program, wouldn't have done it, then you may want to exclude. And it's not just Ave Maria, it's anybody else with the obligation to actually do these things. It's sort of like, you know, cannot be combined with other offers type of a thing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. KLA TZKOW: But that's board direction. MR. GABLE: And that was certainly never something obviously that was discussed when we went through. We just figured we would be treated like anybody else. And it's not us, of course. It's the person buying the home. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the key distinction. I believe the program was set up to benefit the person who was buying the home, right? And not the developer. So if we set up a program that was designed to help the person buying the home, then it should apply to any person who is eligible to Page 145 July 24-25, 2007 apply to do that, and we could grant it based upon their eligibility and the amount of money that is available. MR. KLA TZKOW: Right. And it's not necessarily the person buying the home that's getting the benefit of that impact fee deferral. It -- depending upon the way it's structured, it could be the developer gets the entire benefit of that. MR. GABLE: I can tell you that from our perspective, at Ave Maria and Middlebrook, that money comes right off the purchase price, period. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That might be something you need to evaluate in that process. I just wanted to clarifY that, so -- MR. GABLE: Sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- so that he had the right -- right guidance. But what Blake just said is an important issue that you might want to consider when you come back with a recommendation for those circumstances, that if we're going to give the deferral, that the amount of money should come off the purchase price. MR. KLA TZKOW: That's right. And if we're going to go that direction -- and I'm not saying it's not (sic) a really good idea. You could get the fire district purchasing units for their people, school district purchasing units for their people, and that's probably a good public policy to extend the program that way as well. The problem that you start running into is when the private investors start buying units and then renting out, and then from an administrative standpoint, I don't really know that we can track that. And I may trust Ave Maria people, I trust the school board. I don't necessarily trust the average investor out there, and that will be an issue we'll be coming back with. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. I'm okay with that. Page 146 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I participate? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing that I-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thought he was gone. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought he was gone, too. Wait, that's right. We did say he could. Yes, Mr. Henning, Commissioner Henning, of course you can participate. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Should I go ahead? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You know, Jeffbrought up a perfect point that I brought up before, we need to close these loops on these impact fee deferrals, but I -- is it your understanding or staffs understanding that no impact fee deferrals will -- agreements will come to the board until we resolve this? MR. KLA TZKOW: No, it will continue business as usual, just -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So on the first meeting in September, we could see some of those deferrals? MR. KLATZKOW: But we won't -- but I understand Ave Maria's not going to be coming forward with any of the rental yet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, I understand that. But the owner occupied? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. I'm okay with the direction. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a concern. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HALAS: In that -- when we approved Ave Maria, I believe that affordable housing aspect of that was rentals for two years and then homeowners were for five years, and I believe that the ordinance that we have it now in the county is affordable housing is available for 15 years. MR. GABLE: The way our DR! was written, Commissioner Page 147 July 24-25, 2007 Halas, was the moderate level, which we have a thousand of, has a two-year no resale restriction; the low, which we have 700 units, 350 which have to be owner occupied, has a five-year no resale restriction for -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we got-- MR. GABLE: -- a cap; and then the -- then the very low, the 200 units, has a 15 year. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I think most of ours is 15 years, isn't it, whether it's -- MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah. I don't know that we could force it, but it is 15 years. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I think as long as we can -- you can provide us with similar guidelines that we presently have in our ordinance, I think that's the way we need to go. I know what's in your DRI, and I can assure you that if that was coming forward today, there would be some -- a few changes, I think. MR. GABLE: Well, the impact fee deferral program also has its certain series of restrictions and things that go along with that as well. And obviously, any homeowner that took advantage of that program would fall under the exact same restrictions. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I think that's part of the discussion also. MR. KLA TZKOW: And owner occupied is, as long as they own the home, pretty much, and renters it's 15 years, although -- and I'll be bringing this back -- there's no real penalty if they breach it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the problem is, we want to make sure that we can keep in the inventory affordable housing, no matter where it is in the county. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's my big certain. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just a question also. Being Page 148 July 24-25, 2007 that we have a cap on these funds and our goal is to build a thousand affordable housing units a year and, say, for instance Ave Maria builds most of them, that means that they would really get all of the deferral money. It would not be going to any other affordable housing organization who would be building or, you know, private people, right? MR. KLA TZKOW: I believe the ordinance is first come, first serve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. GABLE: I can assure you, Commissioner, that that was never our intent. I mean, we have -- and I'm just going to use Middlebrook as an example because that's our first product that's out there. Ifwe have 326, not all -- 326 townhomes, of course, not all 326 people are going to qualifY for the impact fee deferral program. It's built out over an extended period of time. I mean, it was never our goal to come in, you know, on August 1 st or 2nd, the first day of the fiscal year, and suck up every impact deferral fee program. We're only allowed to take a certain number at the same time anyway. I can assure you that I've spoke to Sam Durso about this yesterday. We've donated land for 150 homes for Habitat for Humanity. We're working very closely with the Empowerment Alliance, so it's our -- it is certainly not our goal to come in and take up that entire resource, that 3 percent that the county sets aside. All we're saying is that if someone qualifies under the program and they choose to live in Ave Maria as opposed to somewhere else, they shouldn't be excluded from that choice. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. So do we have some direction here? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. If -- I just need three nods. I got one voice, okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Page 149 July 24-25,2007 MR. MUDD: Okay. I've got three nods to bring that back on 9/11/2007. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Blake. MR. GABLE: Thank you. Item #6E PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY GUILLERMO AND CARMEN PENA TO DISCUSS EASEMENT ACCESS TO REACH PROPERTY - DISCUSSED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next public petition, and this is a public -- and this is the last public petition -- a public petition request by Guillermo and Carmen Pena to discuss easement access to reach the property. MS. PENA: Hello. My name's Carmen Pena. How you doing today? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine, thank you. MS. PENA: I'm here because we've been in Naples -- better? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Better. MS. PENA: We've been living in Naples for 21 years. I'm sorry. I'm a bit nervous. This is the first time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're nervous, too, because there's more people out there than there are back here. MS. PENA: I don't want to see them. And I come in front of you because I've run out of places to go, except places that won't help. We're trying -- we've purchased 50 acres off of 858, south side, two and a half miles in. And we've been having a hard time getting people to listen to us as far as letting us get through to our property. I visited different areas in the county, engineering, planning, attorneys, you name it, and I have not had any luck. So finally I think I'm going to step further and went to the representative, Michael Page 150 July 24-25, 2007 Davis, who referred me to Mr. Coletta, so we decided to take it to this step. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're in big trouble now. MS. PENA: Yes, I sure am. I know. So what I'm here -- what I hear from Mr. Davis is that there's a chapter 704 of the statutes that states that Florida is a landlock-free state and that I'm not allowed to get landlocked. I don't know if I'm saying it in the right terms, but that's what it says. So I'm here to ask for your help as to what I can do to be able to get to my property, because I'm a little guy. And there's other owners in the area where we're at which have contacted me recently that are also willing to -- you know, that want to get into -- get into their property also. So that's where I stand. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mentioned you were off of 858, but I'm afraid I stop there. I don't know what 858 is. MS. PENA: County Road 858, it's two and a half miles south of Ave Maria and, I believe, a mile or two miles before you get to Camp Keais Road. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. So there aren't any roads -- when you said off 858, you meant way off 858? MS. PENA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. PENA: Way off. There are currently -- we -- our property is kind of like wedged -- well, there's roads wedged in between Collier land and Pacific Tomato Growers there, and they -- Pacific owns the property above us and Collier owns the property to the west of us. So Barron Collier division has let us use their -- what is it, Oil Well Grade Road, which is a dirt road that they have for their site on the west, and we've gotten as far as one mile away from our property, but that's as far as it's gone. There's a lot of other dirt roads. And I've been doing some research, and in recorded documents and plats in the Collier Page 151 July 24-25, 2007 Appraiser's Office, there's some areas where it shows red dotted lines of easements which I have shown you in my documentation. So I'm like, I just want permission to get to my property. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. And if I may help, I suggested that since we couldn't resolve it in my office with the discussion that was taken forward, that the only option left was to come under public petition and talk to all five commissioners. Briefly what it is, it's basically a civil matter. However, with that said, there is a -- there is an element in the Florida Statutes that Mike Davis pointed it out that said, if the Collier County -- that Collier County may get involved in issues that -- that a county may get involved in issues like this, in other -- and take the side of the person that's having the access problem. But the word may is pretty inclusive of the fact that we're not obligated to it. I mean, Jeff, were you the one that worked on this? I'm trying to remember who it was that was in my office at the time. MS. PENA: Ellen Chadwick, Chadwin? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, there we go. MS. CHADWELL: That would be Chadwell, thanks. MR. SCHMITT: I can answer at least from an engineering perspective and a planning perspective. Joe Schmitt, the administrator of community development, environmental services. A private landowner does have a right to access the property; however, quite frankly, the onus is on the private property owner to negotiate with the neighboring properties for access. The cost to do that -- and there is a private condemnation. I'll turn to the attorney for that. But there are private condemnation proceedings one can go through, has to be negotiated to have access. The petitioner is, in fact, correct, Florida does allow access to landlocked, but those kind of activities need to be pursued through legal matters as far as access, and that would have to be paid for by the property owner. Page 152 July 24-25, 2007 So it's usually a negotiation between the property owners to allow access, to negotiate access through easements, and the costs are normally the burden of the property owner. From a standpoint of engineering or any access, I know transportation would have to allow for a right-of-way permit. But other than, I don't think there's anything else staff can do in this matter. MS. PENA: If! may say something, please. Mr. Davis stated -- and I don't know if this is correct or not -- the law's been written. Why should I continue to hire an attorney to go ahead and exercise that law? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well-- MS. PENA: So it's like -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question. MS. PENA: Yes, you can pass through here, but don't pass through there until you get permission from somebody else and somebody else and somebody else. You have to pay me first. You know, let me put a toll here, and until I pay you, you know, you can't pass. I mean, I think that's kind of unfair, when everybody surrounding you is a lot bigger than you. You're just a little fish in the sea. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But at the time you purchased the land you knew it was landlocked. MS. PENA: Oh, absolutely, and that's why I'm standing in front of you because -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want -- MS. PENA: -- I feel that, you know, this is the American Dream. Everybody wants to come here and build something. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But the -- MS. PENA: Build something for their family. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- thing is, it's a civil matter and it's going to require a sizable amount of money to resolve your one case. Page 153 July 24-25, 2007 MS. PENA: It's not only mine. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, no, I know that. MS. PENA: Once I -- I mean, once I get something going, there's other people. There's tons. You can see, there's tons of people in that area that want to get by but haven't had the courage to come up front and do something about it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, let's do this. You're having your time in front of the commission. MS. PENA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And let's go ahead and make the best use of it. We have two commissioners that still want to speak, and that's Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. MS. PENA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm surprised that when you bought this piece of property, that whoever you bought it from, that you didn't negotiate with them to make sure that there was an open easement. MS. PENA: I almost didn't buy that piece of property. I bought it for my children because -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I understand that. I understand where you're coming from, but it's not our obligation, because once we do this for one person, then we're going to be involved with land offers or land problems of this nature, and that's the responsibility of the person who buys the lands to make sure that they have an access to that property. MS. PENA: I understand. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I don't have anything to add to that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, do you have anything to add? Page 154 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thanks for asking, but no, I don't. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I didn't see your light on, sir, or I would have called you sooner. Wow, I'm telling you. MS. PENA: Can I say something else, please? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please, then we're going to have to move on. MS. PENA: Just real quick. There's recorded easements, so all I was wanting to do is to go through those easements that are recorded in the records. So I just wanted to know how to do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hire an attorney, a land use attorney, and then go from there. It might be just as easy to be able to drive through. I have no idea. But I -- we're not attorneys here. And the thing is, that I just -- I wanted to give you this opportunity -- MS. PENA: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- because I kind of hoped that by the time you got to us, some of your neighbors would have given consideration to come forward. MS. PENA: You were probably hoping. Forget it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Get us in there, yeah. But obviously they know more about the law than we do combined as far as what the rights are. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let me ask a question. Well -- my personal experience, and I'm not a lawyer, is that you get a lot further a lot faster if you go to the property owner and talk with them. And if the Colliers own all of the property from the south side up to your -- the border -- the boundary of your property, I think you're on the -- MS. PENA: They own the west. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- north? They own the west side, Page 155 July 24-25, 2007 and you're on the east side. MS. PENA: -- owns the north side and the west -- and the east. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you could talk with one landowner, the Colliers, and probably find an existing trail or road that will get you to your property. They're going to ask for something to grant the easement, of course. MS. PENA: Oh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I would advise you to talk with the Colliers about this, if you haven't already done so. If you've done so, tell me. MS. PENA: Yes, I have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You have. And you didn't get anywhere? MS. PENA: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then your only chance is a lawyer. There's nothing we can do for you. We cannot force another landowner to give you access across their property. That is a civil matter. The courts can do that. MS. PENA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But the Collier County Commission can't do that. And -- but I think that if you had several landowners -- the fear of the Colliers will be that if there are a dozen or two dozen landowners, everybody's going to be wanting a different easement and they're going to be reluctant to sit down and do that. But if all of the landowners got together, defined one path, one road in and out which would service you s one of those landowners, you might find they're far more willing to grant you access under those conditions. But for them to have to deal independently with a dozen or two dozen landowners, it gets to be very, very difficult for them. MS. PENA: Pacific even stated, they're not even willing to take a look at it again, or again. Page 156 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're the ones that even sold you the land? MS. PENA: No, no. We got the land from a private owner who purchased it through something else, so -- okay. Thank you very much for your time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, good luck to you. MS. PENA: Thanks. Item #5E PRESENTATION OF STATUS REPORT ON (1) POTENTIAL INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE, (2) POTENTIAL MITIGA TION FEE ORDINANCE, (3) AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE-HOUSING SUPPLY STUDY AND (4) ECONOMIC IMP ACT ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE-HOUSING MITIGATION FEE, AND GIVE FURTHER DIRECTION TO STAFF AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ON POTENTIAL ORDINANCES STAFF TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE - STAFF TO COME BACK WITH COMMERCIAL MIXED USE W/MANDATORY AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS A MIXED-USE CONCEPT AND ALSO RETURN WITH A DISCUSSION ON THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE HOUSING INVENTORY; STAFF TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE REGARDING THE EXCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE AND MITIGATION FEE ORDINANCE FOR DISCUSSION - CONSENSUS MR. MUDD: Commissioners, this brings us to our time certain item. This is 5E. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept presentation of status report on, number one, potential inclusionary zoning ordinance; number two, potential mitigation fee ordinance; number three, affordable/workforce housing Page 157 July 24-25, 2007 supply study; and, number four, economic impact analysis of a potential affordable/workforce housing mitigation fee and give further direction to staff and the county attorney on the potential ordinances. And this item will be followed by 1 OF. And I believe Mr. Pettit from the County Attorney's Office will-- MR. PETTIT: I will -- I will introduce. This is Mike Pettit, chief assistant county attorney. We have a number of speakers here today on this item. Just as Mr. Mudd said, what we're here to do this afternoon is give you a status report on where we are on a project involving proposed or draft inclusionary zoning ordinance, a proposed or draft mitigation fee ordinance, and also two studies that the board asked be done in conjunction with these affordable housing issues. One was to provide a snapshot of an affordable/workforce housing supply in the county. The other study was intended to provide you with an economic impact analysis should you at some point in the future determine to adopt the mitigation fee ordinance and impose a mitigation fee that would be a fee that you would apply typically, for example, as the ordinance is drafted now, a building permit to create a fund to support affordable/workforce efforts by the county. We retained the firm of Nabors and Giblin to do the ordinance research and drafting, and here from that firm today is Heather Encinosa. We also have, through the Nabors and Giblin firm, they have retained a Dr. James Nicolas who did an extensive study to support the mitigation fee should you proceed -- decide to proceed with that as a possible ordinance. And they also have retained the Fishkind firm, and I think Mr. Weyer, Russ Weyer, is here today from that firm to address the two studies that were done that you requested regarding housing supply and potential economic effect if a mitigation fee were to be adopted. With that I'm going to turn the matter over to Ms. Encinosa and she will, I think, give you an overview of the ordinances and then also Page 158 July 24-25, 2007 Mr. Nicolas, or Dr. Nicolas, and Mr. Weyer will have a presentation on their respective studies. MS. ENCINOSA: Good afternoon. My name is Heather Ancinosa. I'm an attorney with Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson. It's a pleasure to be here before you. As Mr. Pettit said, with me today I have Mr. -- Dr. Nicolas, and I have Russ Weyer. I'm going to let Dr. Nicolas take the lead. He's going to briefly discuss the mitigation study and what the results were. Then I'm going to briefly go over, you know, the draft mitigation fee ordinance. There's also a separate ordinance, a draft inclusionary zoning ordinance. They're related but still very different. And then after I am done, Russ Weyer is going to come up and talk about the housing supply analysis that they conducted for the county and then the economic impact analysis. And we have a presentation that's being loaded onto PowerPoint right now. DR. NICOLAS: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. It's always a pleasure to be back here in Naples. I want to give a brief overview of what we found on this workforce housing issue. First we've got lots of numbers up there, and we've always heard that a picture's worth a thousand words, but it's also worth a thousand numbers. So let me draw you a picture of what those numbers say. Here we're looking at the median resale price. Not of new homes. Now this is resale -- for Collier County, the State of Florida and the United States. And what we can see, of course, is that there's a substantial difference between the Collier County number and the U.S. and Florida, and that that difference is getting greater. Now, I'm sure this comes as no news to you, but the numbers now are here that back up what everybody has observed. Page 159 July 24-25, 2007 Now, this next picture I've got here is, we look at the median resale price of the home here and we look at now what is it that the typical individual can afford to pay. This would be the employed person, and that's using the 30 percent rule. And here we go back, and this begins in 1993, we can see through the '90s that there's a balance between what people can afford to pay and then the prices of homes here in Collier County. And then we cite the recession that occurred in '00, '01, so we see the income of working people going down a bit, and then the absolute explosion in the sales prices here. And we have a coincidence of several factors that come on. First, of course, is tax cuts. Second is, in those tax cuts were changes to the legislation that made investment and real estate much more attractive, especially personal investment in real estate by you can change -- you can sell your home every five years without taxation, capital gains taxation and that type of thing. We also had at that time the demise of the stock market, at least the temporary demise, and so that real estate really looked a lot better, again, for the individual as distinct from business-type real estate investment and development. All of those things came together at one time, and we see the prices of housing absolutely exploding. This isn't just in Collier County. We find exactly the same thing occurring in places similar to Collier County where you have a resort type of environment where there's a great deal of interest in the area, a lot of amenities to the area. And what simply happened is, as that gap started to grow it got bigger and bigger and bigger. People that are earning their living here, the so-called workforce, simply is out of the housing market. Again, you know that, but here, of course, the numbers come along to demonstrate just that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before you leave that slide, will you please tell me the source of the information that indicates that the Page 160 July 24-25, 2007 median price of a home in Collier is over $500,000. MR. NICOLAS: That's from the Florida Board of Realtors on their website. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The most recent information we've gotten is 426,500. MR. NICOLAS: Ijust went to it and got May of2007, and it's 536-. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, that's the median sale -- MR. NICOLAS: Ofa single-family. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- of their listings? MR. NICOLAS: Of the single-family home. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. NICOLAS: Yes, sir. Now, of course, month to month it will go up and down, so you have to be a little bit concerned about an individual month. All of the prior data, of course, are annual, and then as 2'07 -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you were to annualize year to date figures for '07, what do you think the -- MR. NICOLAS: They're up, but perhaps not to 536-. Anyway, that's the source on their website which, you know, is updated monthly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Since Commissioner Coyle already asked a question. Commissioner Fiala, did you want to wait or did you want to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was going to ask the same question, and I was going to say, it seems to me that's $100,000 high. So I was going to ask the same question. MR. NICOLAS: Well, again, this is from their website. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That isn't the average, that's the median. MR. NICOLAS: The median, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Page 161 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue, sir. MR. NICOLAS: Yes, sir. Labor market information, we get the earnings of people employed here in Collier County. This is from employer reports that they sent in, how many people they employed, the industry they're in, and then what they're paying their people. So we've got the real estate sales for Collier County, the earnings of people employed here in Collier County, and that's the numbers we've put together. And I'm sorry for the smallness of the numbers. But here is what people employed in Collier County actually earn. And here we're looking not at individual earnings but the household earnings because the typical household has more than one wage earner, and that's what we're bringing into play here. The -- all industries or all employed persons in Collier County, their households earn $59,000. And then some industries are higher. Finance and insurances, perhaps, as we might expect, goes up to 137, and some industries are substantially lower. And the lowest of the low, of course, are retail trade, and then what's known as leisure and hospitality, or we would generally call that the tourist industry. Those two activities, employments, are notoriously low, and that's, of course, exactly what we wind up with here in Collier County. So when we start -- now, we've got a median resale price today of 536,000. When we start talking about, well, what is the cost of workforce housing? That has little, if any, relationship to $536,000. So we have to come in and try and define, what is workforce housing here in Collier County? And that's exactly what we did through a process of consultation amongst your staff, the consultants, Fishkind & Associates, and we came together with three type of prototype -- three prototype units ranging from $211,000 up to just under $300,000, and this becomes the workforce housing unit that we're looking at here in Collier County. And what it means is simply that someone has to have anywhere Page 162 July 24-25, 2007 from 61,000 in household income up to $87,000 in household income in order to be able to consume workforce housing, not market housing, workforce housing here in Collier County. So we regroup our people because we regulate land use by land use, not by industry, and we have now the house -- the household income by land use types and then what those households can afford to pay, what the housing cost is to them, and then we calculate the critical number over in the far right-hand column, which is a shortage per household, what these people are short in their ability to consume this affordable housing unit here in Collier County. Now, I wanted to point out some other data set we used here. The survey research firm ofRRC Incorporated out of Boulder, Colorado, conducted a survey here in Collier County of Collier County homes, homeowners, and also of businesses, of how many people are being hired at the home to mow the grass, clean the pools, all of the types of activities that many homeowners engage in, especially second homes because they're not there to do it for themselves. And they also interviewed a number of businesses here -- surveyed a number of businesses here in Collier County for how many people they employed. And we're trying to get a ratio of employees per residential unit and per thousand square feet. And here what we find is that the residents -- here are the employees, their operational maintenance employees, and we have the bigger the home, the more people employed to operate and maintain the home. And then we also have the category of critical employees. Critical employees, teachers, firefighters, police officers. We're looking at how many critical employees are needed to support the residents and then we add them up all in the end, and we get both employees and employee households. And we can see, again, as the home gets bigger and bigger, that the number gets larger and larger. Page 163 July 24-25, 2007 Now, each critical employee household needs $48,000 in order to be able to consume housing. Each operational maintenance employee needs 49,000 because they're paid less. So you multiply those numbers by -- those dollar amounts by the numbers, and this is what we wind up with, what a residence would cost in the form of affordable -- workforce housing needs here, a rate out in terms of the size of the home. So it would be from a low of$362, to a high here of what -- we stopped at 5,000 square feet, of $9,000 for that home. Moving over to the non-residential. Again, a survey here of employers in Collier County. We found the ratio, how many employees per thousand square feet, generally from one per thousand square feet up to three per thousand square feet for office types of uses. And then we can do the same type of thing. What -- how many employees do we have per thousand square feet? We know from the labor records how much those employees are paid. We know what a housing unit costs so we can then calculate the needed assistance or the shortage here on a per thousand square foot basis. And that ranges from a low of $3 per -- or $3,000 or $3 per square foot to a high of $48 per square foot. When we add critical employees in there, because firefighters and police officers are needed for the non-residential sector, we get a slight increase, still from $3 a square foot up to a high of $43 per square foot would be the cost there. Now, other communities in Florida are in the same position you are. Destin, Islamorada, Lee County and you are all looking at this subject right now, and several have done similar studies. I'd like to share with you the results of those studies. Here in Destine, we start off with, for a 2,000 square foot residence the workforce housing need is $420; Lee County, $1,000; Collier County, $1,600; Islamorada, $3,300. Perhaps one would expect that type of variation. And then we look over in the Page 164 July 24-25, 2007 non-residential sector, we can see we get similar results there. Now, of course, those are all different places, but somehow I hope that getting some perspective of borrowing information from other places would put what's on the table here before you into perspective. No community in Florida has yet adopted a mitigation housing fee. Two are presently engaged in public hearings at this time, Islamorada and Destine. Both of them have decided to proceed with adoption at 70 percent, and there was a 30 percent reduction. When we go outside of Florida, most of the communities that have adopted workforce housing requirements have adopted it between 50 and 70 percent. So that -- you're looking, of course, at the 100 percent numbers. They decided, as a policy matter, to not go to the 100 percent. These types of programs have been in use for a number of years in the Rocky Mountain tourist areas. And for the same reasons that you're looking at them here, is the people employed there simply couldn't afford housing, and this was one means that they went to try to provide some degree of assistance. Again, in Florida, it is at this point a new subject, but others are looking at it, too, and then we get numbers that are approximately equivalent here, which I think would indicate that the numbers we've discovered here are probably reasonably accurate for the situation here in Collier County. Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to try and answer any questions. I wanted to give you a brief overview. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll tell you what, we have a light on for Commissioner Coyle at the moment, and we'll check with Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm still struggling with that median price, so let's talk about it just a minute and see if I can sort it out. That is the median resale price? Page 165 July 24-25, 2007 MR. NICOLAS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's taken from actual sales data? MR. NICOLAS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I believe it's true that there are more homes that are selling on the upper end of the market than they're selling on the lower end of the market. Now, if that's the case, that median is substantially biased toward the high end. Would it -- would it not be more accurate to take, not the median resale price, but the median listing price of the homes available which would give you a better indication of what the cost for the housing market really is? And from that figure, calculate the assistance requirements based upon that newly calculated figure? What is your reaction to that? MR. NICOLAS: Well, Commissioner, we didn't calculate the assistance based on 500- or $400,000. We based it on roughly $250,000. What we're looking at is the housing market here in Collier County, and what we can see is is that there's a whole segment of the market that's been dropped out. And the desire, of course, is to come back and to re-kindle that market, which is the affordable market. So the number we're using in terms of calculating the shortage is not the 500,000. It's the 250,000. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But if! wanted to get a better idea of how many affordable -- so-called affordable housing units there are on the market for sale in Collier County so I could calculate my shortage, I would want to know how many are listed on the market, not how many of them have been sold so far. MR. NICOLAS: Well, all data provides wonderful information, medians versus averages, listings versus sales. Obviously sales is the most serious number because that's the market realization. And, you know, we can look at it a variety of different ways. We tend to use medians because we can then match that up, the median sales prices with median household incomes, again; rather than using averages. Page 166 July 24-25, 2007 That's the convention here of doing that. Now, in terms of -- it's not necessary that it be measured that way, but let me assure you, Commissioner, that the numbers being calculated here in terms of shortages are not with respect to those large numbers but rather a substantially smaller number. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. It's a problem we've been struggling with. We've been trying to find out how many so-called affordable housing units are actually on the market. MR. NICOLAS: I believe the gentleman following me might be able to provide much more -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. MR. NICOLAS: -- input on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, do you have something? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I do. I do have a couple questions. MR. NICOLAS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, did you state that the affordable housing, the medium (sic) would be a square footage of 2,000 square foot? MR. NICOLAS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You used a figure of 2,000 square foot in your -- MR. NICOLAS: I was just using that as a comparison of what was calculated in other jurisdictions to what was calculated in Collier County so that we had a constant definition unit there. But no, sir, what's a median housing unit here in Collier County would be somewhere about a thousand square feet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Would it be a fair assessment or statement to say affordable housing also requires a need for more affordable housing? Just let me give you an example. You Page 167 July 24-25, 2007 would think that the affordable housing needs, you would have children to go to school, therefore, you would need more classrooms and teachers and other supporting people. Would that be a fair assessment? MR. NICOLAS: It may well turn out to be that because usually when we -- especially when we're talking about workforce housing, the biggest group excluded from workforce housing are retirees and vacation or seasonal residents. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. NICOLAS: So we focus on -- again, on workforce housing. Yes, I think you would find that the household size is larger and you have, of course, much more common presence of children. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And wouldn't it be a fair assessment that that household, that family household, would go to the grocery store more to feed more people? MR. NICOLAS: I don't know about frequency of going to the grocery store. They probably buy more than when they're there. I don't know if they necessarily go more often. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a fair statement. I would -- you know, I'm looking at when you create a tax, you might actually create more demand for that tax because, I mean, there's -- every time that my wife goes to a big box, Target or a Wal * Mart, you know, you see a lot of the working people there. MR. NICOLAS: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- well, thank you, sir. MR. NICOLAS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'm concerned about where you come up with the salaries of construction workers. There's an awful lot of construction workers that aren't make 60- and 70,000 a year. MR. NICOLAS: Yes, sir, that's true. Page 168 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: So how did you flush out saying that the average salaries were somewheres around $60,000 a year? MR. NICOLAS: Commissioner, to make it clear. In the interest of time, I addressed earnings totally in terms of households. Remember, almost all households have more than one wage earner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. NICOLAS: And so we're only talking about economically active households, so we have excluded retirees and seasonal residents and whatnot so we have more than one earner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that. You brought that -- we made that very clear. But I can tell you that schoolteachers, if you've got just one particular schoolteacher, one in a family, that person's not -- starting out is not making $60,000 a year. MR. NICOLAS: Oh, no, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. There might be some people in the construction industry or in the realty industry that are only making $30,000 a year. MR. NICOLAS: Certainly there are. There can be variations about the mean, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so -- I guess where this is leading me to, I'm wondering if the information that you've provided here is adequate enough for us to make a decision as far as what is -- what do you think the average price of a home should be to make it in the affordable range? MR. NICOLAS: Well, we were talking in terms of shortages against this model, which is roughly 250,000, and what we saw is is that people were anywhere from $10,000 short per household to as much as $70,000 short, depending on what industry they're in. So if we're going to turn around and say, well, what number does that imply? It implies from 180,000 as high as 240,000 is what would be needed, if it could be produced in the marketplace, to provide that need. Page 169 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: When we look at this realistically, I have some real problems when somebody says, well, if! -- if they earn $62,000 or $60,000 a year, they can afford a $180,000 house. I think those figures are skewed because of the fact that when you look at what property insurance runs, what the price of gasoline runs with the cost of a car, what the price of groceries are, I think we're way out of bounds. I think you're probably closer to two and a half to two times the salary of somebody that can really afford a house along with furniture payments and whatever else they have. So I've got some real concerns when people come out and tell me that they're -- they can qualifY for a $180,000 house making $60,000 a year. There's -- if they can do that, then they need to run my budget. MR. NICOLAS: Well, the -- you know, the 30 percent rule is one that is generally accepted, obviously has to be applied in individual households and really depends on how much other debt they have, and it's one that I think it generally accepted. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just think, you've got property insurance. You've got to buy a car. That's a necessity. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Child care. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Whether it's -- yeah, and you may have child care, and you've got to put food on the table. MR. NICOLAS: That's right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I guess where I'm going at, the long and the short here is, I'm not sure where we're going to come up with a true evaluation of the amount of affordable housing that we need here in Collier County. Now, people can't go out and say I'm going to make $60,000 a year and I'm going to put myself out on a limb for a $300,000 home and consider that affordable housing. It's not in my book. MR. NICOLAS: Well, I think we would agree there. In these calculations, Commissioner, if I can draw an analogy to impact fees. In calculating an impact fee, what you have to begin Page 170 July 24-25, 2007 from is a set of cost parameters that have credibility, and then you build on those cost parameters and wind up then in the end with a conclusion about, for instance, what does a road cost. And we're really using the similar type of methodology here in the sense of, what is that shortage between what the typical person in the -- employed person in Collier County has and their ability to purchase housing, and then the supply of it. We're using a very similar methodology to that, and which means obviously the credibility of the underlying data is critical, and that's what I've assigned a very high priority to, that we have survivable data. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Another question I have -- MR. NICOLAS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- in your analysis did you come up with how many rental units we may have to have to address housing? MR. NICOLAS: We -- the way I did my calculations is I dealt in ownership, and then we can calculate a rental equivalent if that's what we wished. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's important because I think one of the things that we've lost a lot of in the last couple of years because people decided that they were going to -- would increase their -- the bottom line, is they changed rentals to condominiums, and so we lost a lot of rentals. And let's face it, there's a lot of people that, whatever reason, can't afford to buy a home, so I -- the other segment that we have to look at is providing units that are rentable and affordable. MR. NICOLAS: Well, Commissioner, it basically costs the same to produce a unit whether it's a rental or an ownership. Then it's a matter of, the market will set which one would be the preferred. What we saw in the recent past, of course, there was a shortage of ownership properties, obviously then the conversion then from rental to ownership for that reason. But in the sense of cost of productions, it's basically the same. Cement, lumber, it's going to cost the same to Page 171 July 24-25, 2007 build either one so that we're looking, of course, at the same time at the individual market dynamics, which will direct how they're going. COMMISSIONER HALAS: One other question. MR. NICOLAS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: In your analysis, did you have a breakdown of what it costs whether it's a home or whether it's a rental unit, what the cost per square foot averages out here in Collier County? MR. NICOLAS: We didn't break it out by ownership versus rental, but we did it by type of home, from single-family through townhome to multifamily. Used three different construction techniques. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do you have a graph on that? MR. NICOLAS: I don't have a graph -- well, wait a minute. I think I do. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: To me that's important. I want to know what it costs per square foot to build -- to build either affordable housing, rental housing, et cetera. MR. NICOLAS: Whoops. I'm sorry. I'm getting lost in these. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you've got a hard copy, you can put it right on the -- MR. NICOLAS: Here we are, Commissioner. We used the two types of multifamily product and a townhome. And you can see the three different costs per square foot there. Now, it's sort of small. The cost for a small multifamily unit per square foot is $239, for a larger unit it's $208 per square foot, and a townhome, $160 per square foot construction. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, do you have any other questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, does that conclude your Page 172 July 24-25,2007 presentation? MR. NICOLAS: Yes, sir, it does. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you're up next, Russ? MS. ENCINOSA: Thank you. As Dr. Nicolas just discussed, you know, we're talking first about a mitigation fee, and I'll get to the inclusion zoning option next. The mitigation fee would really be a charge on all residential and non-residential development to help mitigate the effects of that development on the shortage of affordable/workforce housing in the county. As he mentioned, there is currently no jurisdictions in Florida that have imposed this type of fee. And since I'm a lawyer, one thing I'd like to point out is that means that we don't have any Florida case law on this fee, rather we are sort of using case law from other jurisdictions to try and guide us in the development of an ordinance and a legally supportable fee. As the questioning came out, you can see that Dr. Nicolas used very conservative numbers. They could probably be higher, but the important thing is, we guided him. We wanted it to be conservative. We wanted it to be more, in our opinion, defensible by using lower numbers. So what -- you've been provided with a proposed mitigation fee ordinance. It's a draft. We're here for direction. There's a lot of things in that ordinance. I'm going to hit some of the highlights. First of all, what we're talking about is a fee to provide housing that does not exceed 30 percent of the income for families as adjusted for family size that earn 150 percent or below of the median income in the county. That takes us out of the traditional low income and scoops in the workforce housing segment as well. It would be a fee imposed on all residential and non-residential that would be collected at the time of building permit. It would provide an opportunity for an alternative fee if the applicant can show that development is somehow different than what was assumed in the Page 173 July 24-25, 2007 study. From a legal perspective, that's important to provide individual landowners with the option to show that they're different. It establishes a trust fund that would be -- all the money would be swept into the trust fund. It would be used solely to increase and improve affordable housing in the county. It provides certain exemptions such as replacement structures, accessory buildings, and actual affordable units are also exempted. And as with most other fees, it provides for credits. That's -- those are the highlights. If you all have any specific questions on the ordinance as it's presented, I'd be happy to entertain those. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We've -- we initially spoke briefly about inclusionary zoning. Now we're talking about a mitigation fee. Ifwe have an inclusionary zoning ordinance in place that will be building these homes, do we really need a mitigation fee? MS. ENCINOSA: Well, what the mitigation fee does that the inclusionary zoning ordinance wouldn't do is the mitigation fee would -- it would be a fee on everyone, including non-residential. And with inclusionary zoning, you would just get targeting residential developments and putting a requirement on residential developments of a certain size to create a portion of their development as affordable housing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And wouldn't that be redundant? If they have a mitigation fee on residential and they also have inclusionary zoning for residential, that's a double whammy. MS. ENCINOSA: Well, there would be an offset. There would be a credit between those two so that one person was not being required to pay the mitigation fee on a residential unit and also being required to build an affordable unit in their development. If both ordinances were brought forward, there would be a credit provision between the two so that residential development would not Page 174 July 24-25, 2007 be paying twice. But what mitigation the -- the mitigation fee ordinance is more broad in that it would get non-residential and it would also get smaller residential developments, because with inclusionary zoning, you typically think of subdivisions coming in with 30 or more dwelling units, and so the individual homes on the individual lots also would not be affected by a traditional inclusionary zoning ordinance. But you're definitely right, there would need to be an offset credit between the two. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jim? MR. MUDD: Commissioners? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Mr. Mudd. MR. MUDD: Question I have is, could you -- let's talk about -- and I know you don't have any precedent in Florida and you're dealing with outside places, but -- and I think where Commissioner Fiala's coming from is, if you talk about inclusionary zoning and one of the things you're trying to do is spread affordable housing out so it just doesn't get located in one or two places in the county, okay, and then they have problems, if you kept the inclusionary zoning pieces, you could craft it in such a way, I believe, that the -- if you had inclusionary zoning for residential, you kept it and you could -- you could say that there would have to be extraordinary circumstances where they could ever use a mitigation fee to get out of the inclusionary zoning, and you could put your mitigation fee up against your commercial and your retail issues to kind of offset by the workers that they need in the county in order to do it, so you use it hand in hand. And what I believe Counselor just said was, if you have inclusionary zoning, you're just talking about residential, but you have a lot more building and a lot more things that get built in the county that impact the workers that they need in order to be successful. And the two of them work together and basically covers the gamut. Did I Page 175 July 24-25, 2007 misspeak? I think I hit it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make sure that when we -- if and when we do enact an inclusionary zoning ordinance, that we then don't give them a way of not building this, building the housing but instead mitigate it out. You bet your boots, as soon as they have a way out, they're not going to build it. And what our shortage is in, mainly, is land. We don't have land to build it. So you could pump all the money you want into the coffers, but if you don't have land to buy, it doesn't do you any good at all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And another question in that same regards. If they can opt out by paying a mitigation fee, shouldn't this mitigation fee be in steps? In other words, if we come up with something for like every five houses they have to build one affordable unit, and they want to opt out of it, and the mitigation fee is, just a round number, $10,000. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fifty thousand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fifty thousand, okay. Commissioner Fiala said 50,000 and I'll recognize 50,000. Fifty thousand dollars that if they want to opt out of it, one house after another, that the price might go up to the point where they have to include some units. In other words -- and make it so that it's not advantageous, economically advantageous to not do it. Is that -- is that a possibility? MS. ENCINOSA: Those are all definite possibilities. I mean, in the inclusionary zoning ordinance, the draft that you all have been provided, there is an optional fee in lieu where if the developer chooses not to build the units, they pay a fee instead. And I can tell you, you're right on the money. City of Tallahassee is one of the only places in Florida that has an inclusionary zoning. At the moment they're currently litigating that ordinance. And up there, last time at least I spoke to the City Attorney's Office, which was a couple months ago, every developer had chosen to pay the fee rather Page 176 July 24-25, 2007 than build. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. MS. ENCINOSA: From a legal perspective though, you know, with inclusionary zoning, your two big legal concerns are due process and constitutional takings. And so we can definitely look into these issues. You know, we're here to get input from you all and see if you want us to bring something more firm back to you, but we have to -- we have to walk that line between falling onto the taking side and, you know, accomplishing the objectives that you all want. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mike Pettit, did you have something you wanted to add? MR. PETTIT: I was just going to suggest we move to inclusionary zoning in purposes of time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Halas then -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala, were you done? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm going to wait till we get to the inclusionary zoning portion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I find this discussion very good. And Doctor, thank you very much for some of the input that you put into this. The reason I was concerned about the square footage -- I'm glad you had that chart there. Right now the developers that are developing residential area, they have it easy because they just say, well, we're going to throw in a thousand dollars per house towards addressing the affordable house issue. And when -- the facts that -- the figures that you put up there in the board, the cheapest you could come up with a thousand square foot is about $160,000. DR. NICOLAS: That's only construction, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the only -- that's right. That's only construction, okay. That's not the land cost. And so here we are, either we have to come up with something Page 177 July 24-25, 2007 that's inclusionary and it has to be such that it's going to be more advantageous for the developers to look at inclusionary housing, or we have to come up with something way more than a thousand dollars per house to address affordable housing and the land cost. So this -- and this 50 cents a square foot for commercial -_ because when you bring -- when you have commercial property or commercial -- any kind of commercial development, obviously you're attracting a workforce that needs to run that commercial entity, and 50 cents a square foot is sure not getting it done when you look at the construction cost of -- that's bare minimum of $160,000, not counting the land cost. So it really was eye opening for me. That's why I was so -- that's why I pressed you so much that you had the square footage because I think now this gives us a bigger window to look at in regards to, how are we going to address affordable housing in this community, which is not only the issue for the government, but it's an issue for the private sector, and everybody -- if we really have a shortage in affordable housing -- and some of the issues that Commissioner Coyle had about, what is the medium income at the present -- or the medium price of homes -- because we know that the market has softened for a brief period of time -- there's been a readjustment, I guess you'd say, and we know that wherever that readjustment is now and then where is it going to go from there? We know it's going to -- in a couple of years, it's going to increase. So I guess that's what our baseline is, and from there, we have to figure out what direction to go and how to approach this so that it's going to be fair across the board whether you decide to put it in inclusionary zoning or whether you want to opt out, you're going -- it's going to cost you a lot more to opt out of the program than if you provide the housing as you build areas or -- the inclusionary portion of it is where I'm going with this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we heard you loud and clear. Page 178 July 24-25, 2007 Does that conclude your part of the presentation? MS. ENCINOSA: I was going to talk about the inclusionary zoning ordinance. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we do that, let's go ahead and take a short 10-minute break so we can give our court stenographer a chance to take a break. (A brief recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. We are continuing on 5E. MS. ENCINOSA: Good afternoon. We're now to the inclusionary zoning portion. Inclusionary zoning is really a local land use regulation that is designed to encourage and incentivize the provision of affordable/workforce housing by residential developers. You'll see on the slide that it says by requiring developments with 30 or more dwelling units, to make 10 percent of the dwelling units affordable/workforce housing. Those are numbers we've chosen. Those are not set in stone. They're just ballpark numbers at the moment that we've put into the ordinance. Some of the issues -- the highlights of the inclusionary zoning ordinance that you all have is that really it starts by amending your Land Development Code and inserts in your Site Development Plan process a requirement for those subdivisions with 30 or more units to include an affordable housing plan at that point. It provides certain exemptions. Right now, multifamily rentals are exempted. Assisted living facilities, group homes, manufactured homes. And then you'll see when you read that section that there's a catchall at the end that says, anyone else who can sort of demonstrate that they're not going to -- they're not going to create a need for this. That would probably be a very difficult thing to demonstrate. But from a legal perspective, it's important that we have some of that catchall language in there. Page 179 July 24-25, 2007 Right now we've discussed the fee in lieu. There is a provision in the inclusionary zoning ordinance that provides a fee in lieu wherein if a developer chose not to put in the 10 percent of the affordable units, they could pay a fee per unit to buyout of that. The amount of the fee is not in there. You'll see that. It would probably range -- I just had some discussions during the break with Dr. Nicolas. It would probably range anywhere from 40- to 70,000 dollars per unit. And he would need to run the numbers more. I'm not a number person. But just to give you a range of what we would be looking at for a buyout. Now, from an economic perspective, whether that makes it unattractive enough, I guess that would depend upon the development, the size of the development, and how they valued some of the developer incentives that are also included in this ordinance. There are some various levels of compliance procedures built into this ordinance. First of all, we want to make sure that these units are actually going to serve the people that they're intended to serve, so there's a verifYing process to make sure that the families that are going to occupy them are actually qualified. There's ongoing compliance procedures. There's even a recapture provision if the unit is sold within a certain amount of time, and then there's an annual reporting requirement. This also includes various developer incentives. From my perspective, a lot of these incentives, including density and housing-type flexibility and things like that, in combination with the fee in lieu, are really legal protection measures. Ifwe're going to be telling a developer to -- that they have to produce a certain amount of these types of units, there's no case law in Florida on this, but there's case law in other jurisdictions where the courts have looked favorably upon providing these alternatives and these incentives as a way to sort of shield the inclusionary zoning ordinance from constitutional challenge. Page 180 July 24-25, 2007 That doesn't mean the developer incentives have to be presented exactly as they're written. We're here for input. I assume that if this went forward we would be getting a lot of input and we would probably be looking at your code wholesale and trying to sort of mesh things together. But as it stands right now, we have a density provision where any developer who provided the 10 percent on site in the main development could apply for a density bonus. We provided some housing-type flexibility within the development. Setback and lot size requirements can be relaxed. The buffering and screening requirements within the development, not on the perimeters, are allowed to be relaxed if the developer chooses to comply with this, and then there's an expedited development review process for any residential development that complies with -- by providing the actual houses, not by paying the fee. Anyone who chooses to pay the fee is not entitled to the developer incentives that are provided in the ordinance. That's the bare bones of the ordinance. If anyone has any questions, I'm happy to entertain them. It's really a -- as we discussed earlier, it's -- it works in conjunction with the mitigation fee, but it can also stand alone, and that's really why I chose to draft them as two separate ordinances in case one you all wanted to move on and one you didn't. Then we weren't back to ripping things apart and back to square one from a drafting perspective. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have my light on. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see that, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. First of all -- and I mentioned this before -- I feel that the fee, as soon as you give them a fee, if you give them a nice little fee of $1 0,000 or $30,000, they're going to buy their way out and would never build a house, and that's what we need. We need the houses and we need the land. And so it Page 181 July 24-25, 2007 aught to be high enough so that we could build a house someplace and buy the land. I think that the fee in lieu of, the rental as a fee in lieu of, defeats the purpose again. And that's a very important thing here. We're not -- we're creating this to answer a need, to provide a solution, not a way out. Do we know -- in our county do we know what the percentage of housing we have now in Collier County? Say we have a 100,000 homes. What percentage of that is considered affordable or workforce or medium income? MS. ENCINOSA: I'll turn that over to Russ with Fishkind & Associates. He has that data. MR. WEYER: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. I'm Russ Weyer, for the record, Russ Weyer with -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one answer though. I don't want a whole presentation. MR. WEYER: I know. No, I'm not going to do the whole presentation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right. MR. WEYER: I promise to do that. We did an analysis, and it's back in 2005, because that's the latest data that we had. The current data has just come out for 2006, so we will need to adjust that. But for housing in -- do you want the numbers or do you want the percentages? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Percentage. MR. WEYER: Percentage. Less than 200,000 is 5 percent; between 200- and 350,000 is 38 percent; and the 350- to 500,000 is -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just trying to figure out, on a development, what percentage do we really need? Do we need 10 percent? Do we need 15 percent, 38 percent? How much do we really need in order to answer our affordable housing needs? MR. WEYER: I don't have that in this statement. Page 182 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's what I'm looking for. I think 10 percent is low. Probably 15 percent is more reasonable. But I don't know that. I'm just searching for that answer. I have a couple more things. I discussed mitigation already. I'll come to that in just a second. Should inclusionary zoning be required in areas that are already heavily burdened with low-income housing? And I'll mention three. Golden Gate City, Immokalee, and East Naples. They're already overburdened with probably more low-income housing. Should then some developer want to come in and build something, must he be required to have inclusionary zoning when he's surrounded with it? That's just a question that I thought would be interesting for us to address. Let's see. You had mentioned here objective one is to increase the number of new affordable housing units by a thousand per year. That isn't a thousand over the thousand we're already working on, is 't? 1 . MS. KRUMBINE: It's the same thousand. That's our housing element. That's what she wants. MS. ENCINOSA: It's the same thousand. COMMISSIONER FIALA: All righty. Okay, good. Okay, okay. Now the last thing, and that is the distribution. One of the things -- and I'm going to hit the nail on the head here. I'm not going to -- I'm not going to dance around this subject. One of the things that we have in this county -- and I just named the three areas -- is overconcentration of affordable housing. What we've been trying to do with this inclusionary zoning is distribute the housing more fairly. When you have it all concentrated in a few areas, you have a high crime rate, you have a lot of school problems, children have difficulty in their schools because the social aspects of that community are a lot different. Page 183 July 24-25, 2007 I think that we're going -- and I also think that when you're talking about inclusionary zoning, it shouldn't be all one category. You should never -- you should never build a project, 400 low, low-income housing units in one area. That's not even healthy. That's a CrIme area. You should -- you should at least distribute -- or have different levels of housing so that -- I think so that it makes for a healthier community. I don't know how you can do this in this inclusionary ordinance, but I think there should be different levels. I f a developer is required to build 70 housing units, it shouldn't all be gap, it shouldn't all be median, and it shouldn't all be low, low. There should be a combination of that as a reasonable combination. And what I worry about is, again, when they buyout or if they want to buyout, that money will then go into the areas where the land is cheapest to build more low-income housing and, of course, the land is cheapest there because that's where the low-income housing is now located. And I'm trying to avoid that. I'm -- I'm commissioner for one of those areas. He's a commissioner for another. His area has a lot of trouble trying to even get up on their feet because all they have is low-income housing and they want to bring in business, they want to bring in new economy into the area, but they don't have a place to house the people. And so we have to make it, I think, a more balanced community as we address this issue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. And if! may, I'd like to come across. I think that was an excellent presentation that was made, and I really think that your comments are very worthwhile. I have a couple concerns, one is the fact that when it comes to affordable housing, we do have a certain part of our population that is just not up to buying houses. They need rent. So I'm really not that excited about dropping the rental option. Page 184 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I don't think -- I don't think we should drop it. I think that should be part of the component. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, okay. I misunderstood it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm so sorry. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the other part is is that I think that if this is put together in the right way, in other words, it's to encourage mixed housing, I think that's what we're trying to come up with. Myself, the kind of problems I have in Immokalee is the fact that I got a lot of substandard housing, housing that barely meets the mInImUms. So if we had a community being built in Immokalee and it was a balanced community of market rate houses right on down to the 60 percent part of the income group, that -- if it was a balance going across, that would be better than just having an isolated community of all very expensive houses. So I'm more inclined to try to bring a balance to the community. I hope as time goes along the people that live in some of these substandard houses would move to these communities. Arrowhead's a beautiful example. There's a community where they have rental units, they have duplexes for sale, and they also have one part of the community which they call the estates section where -- upgraded homes with the tile roofs and the whole business and -- Estates homes. And so you can come up with a package that's diversified across there, and -- but we've got to continue to meet a need for the general population. A lot of the housing in East Naples, in Golden Gate, is becoming substandard, and some of the older houses, especially in East Naples, when they built it, you know, 40 years ago, you know, it's at that point where it should be replaced and there should be incentives. And if you have housing available -- if there was ever a rebuild of the community where they come in and they tear down housing to Page 185 July 24-25, 2007 be able to build some new community, I think at that point in time it should go across the spectrum to be able to cover what's needed rather than just say, just areas now that are upscale have to accept it. You know, that would be very hard to balance, very hard, you know. That's just my own feeling, but that's what it's about. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, not areas -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just an open discussion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- by the way. Let me explain. I might have said that wrong. I'm saying that say, for instance, Sabal Bay -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sabal Bay, now that just happens to be surrounded by -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: East Naples. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Well, no, not East Naples so much as Thomasson and Bayshore where they've got the lowest of low and a lot of the crime rate. It would be maybe to introduce affordable housing there. We don't need any more of the low, low-income. Maybe you would put in moderate income there and-- or a low and a moderate rather than a low, low because you've already got an overabundance of low, low there. Do you see what I'm trying to say? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But if you put low, low in there, like 5, 10 percent, then maybe you can get the people that live in some of the worst examples there, some of the dilapidated trailers whatever, to be able to move to these units, upscale their housing, and then, you know, you might be able to cure that and do something else with it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's another thing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean, there's a lot of options. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Something to consider. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Let's go to Commissioner Coy Ie. Page 186 July 24-25, 2007 I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning, you've been sitting by for a while. Do you want to go in front of Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Always. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, feel free to do so. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, you're having a discussion on inclusionary zoning, and the outside attorney said you're going to have to do Land Development Code amendments. That takes a supermajority to do so. You know, my perspective with District 3 all built out and District 2 all built out, you're not going to get it in the City of Naples, the only place you're going to get it, inclusionary zoning that is not zoned land, is in East Naples and District 5. So you know, I think we're just locating it by inclusionary zoning exactly where the concerns are, what I'm hearing. And everybody must admit, what the board has been doing recently has been phenomenal about getting inclusionary zoning without even asking for it. The developers are coming forward with that -- that type of a mixed type of unit. So I'm not sure if -- how far you're going to hit the target by including inclusionary zoning. That's my concern. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's a perfect segue to my comments. You know, there are maybe three or four real issues we're having to deal with and the developers are having to deal with. Number one is that the land is very expensive, although I believe it's coming down a bit. It still is very expensive. Even if it comes down a lot, it still is very expensive. And in order to make it work, they need more density. There is an aversion to more density by us and the residents because they don't want to see more density in a county that doesn't have a standard road grid. There's nothing we can do to recover our loss of a standard road Page 187 July 24-25, 2007 grid. And there's also the prejudice against some developed neighborhoods concerning low-income housing next door, and we're constantly battling those things and trying to resolve them, and I don't think we ever will. If we mandate a certain number of affordable housing units in a development, we are placing more restrictions on a developer with respect to his ability to respond to what the market wants. The market is the ultimate decider of what it is that builders are going to build, and if they can't market their product, they're not going to build it, and that's what's happening right now. We've got 5,000 approved. They've been approved, in some cases, for years. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean affordable housing? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, affordable housing units approved, and they're not getting built because the market right now is not all that good. So here's -- here's my thought. Why not, rather than trying to force builders to include affordable housing in their developments, we make changes to our mixed-use commercial developments making affordable housing mandatory so that mixed-use commercial developments become mandatory commercial developments with affordable housing? Now, the advantage that provides is that the jobs are frequently there in those commercial areas. If you have affordable housing collocated there, you solve some transportation problems. Secondly, it permits the developer to spread the cost of the land. I presume they would be building above the commercial units as far as residential is concerned. Now, I believe it's something we should at least explore to see if it works, and we can't explore it independently. We'd have to get the development, the community, involved in taking a look at the idea. But the objective is to find a way to get the land costs lowered without Page 188 July 24-25, 2007 excessively increasing density, and you can do that with a commercial development, mixed-use, with affordable housing. And there would not be so much reluctance by the developers to build it because commercial development is going on quite well right now in Collier County, and we could hope that ifit turns out to be a solid idea, that developers would continue building commercial developments. And you know the thing about commercial developments is that they are spread all over. They're not just located in one place. Commercial developers don't just consolidate all their commercial development in East Naples. They spread it around to wherever they know that the commercial development is going to be effective or profitable. So why not sit down with DSAC or run an idea through the DSAC and say, look, suppose we tweak our mixed-use zoning rules and actually require that commercial development be mixed use and see if that hurts anybody too badly? And -- but at least we should talk about it because that gives us a fairly -- a much faster fix to the problem because we're dealing with a market that is still building, and we can spread the cost and provide housing hopefully on site for some employees who would live there and work there. So rather than trying to force low-income housing into an upscale community that might not get developed because we're trying to force it that way, why not go in the direction where we're pretty assured that something's going to get done and at least try and see what happens? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, are you saying that we should look at this in lieu of inclusionary? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not saying that you throw inclusionary away. I think we need to continue refining inclusionary. There are benefits to sprinkling affordable housing around in more upscale developments. There -- we've talked about that before, and I Page 189 July 24-25, 2007 don't think any of us are opposed to it. But if you make it so punitive that nobody's going to do it, particularly in a market that's marginal, we haven't achieved any result. And the market is going to have to get back on its feet before we start punishing them for not building affordable housing. You see what I'm saying? If we make the penalties too large to opt out of the affordable housing thing, what we're going to do is further inhibit any development and our affordable housing efforts are going to suffer as a result of it. Ave Maria is the one big exception. It is going along, it's successful. They're going to have a lot of affordable housing units there. But if you can imagine that kind of concept spread around the county in the term -- in the form of mixed-use commercial developments, then you've got pretty much the same result. And so I'm just suggesting we pursue that, put it in our toolbox, see if it leads us anywhere. I'm not saying throw this away, throw the inclusionary zoning away, but I'm just saying to you, even if we pass something on inclusionary zoning today, you're not going to have a single affordable housing unit built for the next two years. That's just the way it's going to work. Absolutely nothing is going to happen in the next two years. So I just think the other -- the commercial mixed use thing will provide faster results and it will be less painful for everybody, and I don't think it will be all that hard, but I -- I need to hear from other people about that, you know. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess where I'm coming from is something similar to what Commissioner Coyle has just discussed. And do we really have an affordable housing problem? We hear a segment of the market that says, oh, yes, we do, but yet there's some homes out there. Page 190 July 24-25, 2007 And when I hear what the cost of affordable housing is, I think there's stuff out there in the marketplace that's already in that affordable housing range. Maybe I'm wrong. But in the last couple of months prices of homes have dropped. I still think that when you talk affordable housing, people that are in the workforce, you've got to come up with some housing that's around 100,000 to $125,000. Now, if we don't have that in the marketplace, then we have an affordable housing issue that's serious. And I'm not sure how you're going to get it. As I said before, that everybody throws it on the shoulders of the government saying it's our problem. We didn't drive the price ofland up, we didn't drive the price of building and housing up. But I'm very concerned about when we look at the affordable housing and the information that's been brought before us today, that we are looking at $160 a square foot. And if you look at what that costs without the land costs, we are out ofthe ballpark. Let's face it, we are out of the ballpark. So I'm not sure -- if we really look at it and say, that's what we consider affordable housing, $160,000 plus the land cost, there's a lot of items out there that's for sale in that price range, so maybe we don't have an affordable housing problem. But when I look at it realistically, we should have homes somewheres around 100,000 to 125- to $150,000. That takes care of affordable housing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Halas. Let me understand what you said, that we have a lot of homes in the area that go for 100- to l50-? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I'm saying, we have -- right now when you look at the price of homes and they're under $200,000, most of the time our discussion here on the dais is that well, if you can -- that affordable housing is somewheres around $200,000, that it's around gap housing or just below, 80 percent, and so we always state, Page 191 July 24-25, 2007 well, that's affordable housing. But when you really look at the marketplace, if that's the case, then if you look at today's paper, there's product out there that's not new, it's used, but it's in that range of $200,000, but a real affordable housing is $150,000. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Marcy, could you give us some numbers as far as what's considered affordable? COMMISSIONER HALAS: A hundred thousand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thirty percent of a person's income, is it? Is that how it works? MS. KRUMBINE: Well, yeah, the -- Marcy Krumbine, director of housing and human services. Dr. Nicolas said that the usual rule of thumb is 30 percent of your income can go to housing. And Commissioner Halas, you're exactly right. It's usually between two and a half and three times your Income. So if somebody makes $30,000 a year, then they should be able to afford, 75- to $90,000 should be the home price that they have. And if they're buying a multifamily home, then you have to take into account the maintenance fees, the taxes, everything else that goes along with it. That all has to be within the 30 percent. And having worked in affordable housing for 11 years, I can tell you, Commissioner, that when we got over that 100-, $125,000 mark for the clientele that I work with, it all became unaffordable. And it really isn't a matter of numbers. What I was saying to Commissioner Fiala before is, that $536,000 median sales price is totally irrelevant to us. What's relevant to us is that gap between what the average income is here in Collier County and what the sales price or the median sales price is, because the gap is our affordable housing problem. As long as we have that big gap in that -- you know what I'm talking about, that graph that we have. As long as we have a gap, then Page 192 July 24-25, 2007 we have a problem. So what we need to do is we need to somehow identifY what are the numbers that we need, and then what is the price range that we want to reach, and then what we can do partnered with developers and builders and community partners, what we can do to get people into homes and subsidize that gap. And it's not all about government subsidy. It's a number of things that have to come together to get what people can afford, the price of the house, and then break that out and bring them together, and that's -- and that's how we meet the need. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, the low end of the scale out there for the housing market right now, people have their houses advertised. What's considered the low end? MS. KRUMBINE: You know, I haven't -- I don't go onto MLS a lot, but I believe that there are condos on the market probably between 150- and 200,000 for condos, like the two-bedroom, two-bath condo. Now, two years ago, a year ago, they were all over 200-,225-. Have there been single family homes that low, I do not know. I do not know that single-family homes have gone that low. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let me put the question a little bit differently. If you had a -- ifthere's a $200,000 home out there that's available, what would have to be the family income to be able to afford it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sixty-five thousand dollars. MS. KRUMBINE: Well, probably -- well, we would -- if they would qualifY for subsidy for 200-, they could get $30,000 in subsidies, so they would get a $170,000 mortgage or less, and so you would look at probably around 50-, 55,000 for a family of four. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, right. Family of four it's about 55,000. And it's considered, what -- 65- is considered the average, the medium income? MS. KRUMBINE: The median income is 55,850 for a family of Page 193 July 24-25, 2007 four. The 80 percent of the median income is 55,850, and the median income for Collier County is 63,1-. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So houses for the most part, there is a supply of them out there that can take care of medium income and above? MS. KRUMBINE: I think that, you know, for the last couple of years we've really been focusing a lot on the gap housing, and I think that with the change in the market, that's the group of people that are certainly way more able to purchase at this point is that up -- 60- and above. It's still that first-time teacher or the first-time nurse that -- or the single-family person that's down here at 30- to 50,000 dollars that are still challenged. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So it's the 80 percent and below that -- the target market that has to be taken care of? MS. KRUMBINE: I think they're probably the ones that we have to give the most subsidy to and building the lower amount to. I think that -- but I think we also have to see that our market is -- will be forever changing, and what we see now, in a year or two, we could be right back to where we were two years ago, and then -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Coyle, then Fiala, then we'll come back to you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, Mr. Chairman, Ijust think we are battling around a bunch of concepts here and we are not really going anywhere. I think the staff needs some specific guidance, and I'll go back to my proposal about guidance to pursue mixed-use mandatory affordable housing and float the idea and see if we can't get sufficient guidance for staff to run it through DSAC and talk with the development community and see if it makes sense and see what we can do with that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that. MR. MUDD: You have two more pitches. You've got the supply -- Page 194 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I know. MR. MUDD: You've got the supply piece and the economic impact fees, so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But I don't want to get this one lost in the cracks, okay? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I agree. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, there are a number of issues or additions that I've talked with staff about concerning eligibility for this -- this housing that we are requiring be constructed, and I think that the eligibility requirements, particularly the citizenship requirements, have to be spelled out in this ordinance. MS. KRUMBINE: Yes. And Commissioner, we will -- what my suggestion is, that when we get to this point, I'd like to see more or less a package deal that you would see -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. KRUMBINE: -- across the board, same type of eligibility, including legal status, the same type of sustainability, keeping it affordable in our stock for a certain amount of time so that all across the board all of our programs have those same criteria. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Consistent standard -- MS. KRUMBINE: Consistency. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll mention one other thing just so our board is aware of it, that I've discussed with the staff, is I'm not sure we understand the impact of letting someone sell one of these affordable housing units and keep 50 percent of the capital gain above the 5 percent per year. That encourages people to flip these houses fairly quickly, and all of a sudden they become unaffordable again, and I don't think we can afford to do that. So what I've suggested to the county staff is maybe have a sliding scale. You know, someone who sells one of these within the first five years, they don't get anything more than the 5 percent appreciation per year. That's the cap. If they sell it from five -- you know, from five Page 195 July 24-25, 2007 years to 10 years, then they'll get 25 percent of the excess capital gain. And if they sell it from 10 years to 15 years out, they'll get 50 percent of the capital gain. That encourages them to keep it longer, and we have it in inventory for a longer period of time, so it reduces the financial burden on the taxpayers of Collier County. So I would -- I would ask that the board support at least that concept and let the staff go back and take a look at what those kinds of provisions will do vis-a-vis stabilizing the supply of affordable housing. MS. KRUMBINE: I think that what we'd like to do is, again, do a study of what are acceptable, what are the best practices for sustainability around the country (sic) and come back with that information with what we see as the top three and then decide again, as a county, what way do we want to go, and put that -- that sustainability clause along with every single program we do for affordable housing consistently straight across the board. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, let's talk about this for just a second. Mr. Mudd, what we have before us is a motion and a second, but we've only heard part of the whole picture. Would it be best to wait on this, do you think, until we've heard everything that has to be offered? MR. MUDD: I think the other pieces you're going to hear about are going to talk more about what the supply is out there right now, and then the economic impacts of, i.e., a mitigation fee or whatever, in the issue. But I don't believe that the motion that's before us right now has anything to do with either one of those things. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not even sure it has to be a motion. I was just looking for guidance to staff because they're going to bring it back to us. And I think the staff needs to flesh these ideas out because we certainly haven't developed them completely. And I was just looking for a sense of -- Page 196 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't have a problem. I just -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 1 want to make sure we're covering all the bases. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we at least got those couple covered. But now if you want to go into supply and the other issue of mitigation -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's do something a little different. We've had some people waiting here to speak, four of them. Let's go ahead and bring the speakers forward at this time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I just ask? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Marcy, if -- also when you say 61- to 62,000 dollars, is that taking into consideration people that are retired, too? MS. KRUMBINE: Are you talking about -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Income. MS. KRUMBINE: -- the median income? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Median income. MS. KRUMBINE: The median income does, and that's why it's so high in Collier County is it takes all the passive retirement income In -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's my problem. MS. KRUMBINE: -- and the average wage is 34,000. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's where we need-- MS. KRUMBINE: Again, we have a gap. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's what you need to do is tell us what the -- what the average wage earner that's working makes in Collier County, not what the retirees and everything else combined -- I want to know -- I'd like to know exactly what the wage earner makes. MS. KRUMBINE: The average wage earner is 34,000. The Page 197 July 24-25, 2007 median income is 63,1- -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't want to -- MS. KRUMBINE: -- and that takes into account -- well, I know you don't want to hear it, but all of our programs go according to that figure. So all of the HUD regulations use that figure. And then -- so when we talk 80 percent, 60 percent, we're going to the median income. That's a HUD figure. And -- but there's that huge gap, huge, and it's huge in Collier County because we have so much of the passive retirement income that is figured into that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's our affordable housing issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just say, Commissioner Halas, 15 years ago I was working with the affordable housing, and I was trying at that time to ask them to -- plead with them to use the average income rather -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Working people. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- than the median income. The average wage. And they said it couldn't be done. And I said, well -- yeah, but it needs to be done because our county is so different than others. But they've said it couldn't be done. I don't see why we can't have two figures or something, but I agree. That's what I wanted to say. MS. KRUMBINE: Let me say that if we -- one of the other items on the agenda -- or even with the mitigation fee, when you get into creating your own revenue stream for a trust fund -- and so it's local money, then with that local money, you can choose, if you want to, to use your own figures. But the minute you use state and federal funds, then you have to use -- you have to go according to their standards, and so this would be 80 percent of the median income adjusted for household size with all the strings that are attached to that median income figure. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The problem is there's a great vast Page 198 July 24-25, 2007 of the people, majority of the people, that fall out, whether it's -- they're buying a home or whether they're going to rent a home, based on the medium income. MS. KRUMBINE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because there are $5 an hour jobs out there. MS. KRUMBINE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, did you have -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just had a couple things, and I'll go very quickly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's fine. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. Very quickly, we were talking about prices of homes again and what was for sale and what was on the market, and I did my own little study. So I got ahold of a friend who went through the Naples MLS. This is on June 26th. And for condos and houses and villas under $300,000, and he has them actually pulled out. But it's 41 -- 4,189. For condos, houses, and villas under $200,000, there were another 800. That was on June 26th. And then John R. Wood also gave me listings. And, again, we come up -- I was surprised that there were 686 listings below 199,000, and another 2,200. Now, this was June 18th. Then on Marco Island -- this is what will really surprise you -- 89 condos listed in the range of200- to 300-, and 33 condos under $200,000, and this doesn't count anything that's for sale by owner. We talk about prices all the time, we've got 5,000 probably -- 4,189, nearly 5,000 units on the market. That isn't even owner sales or anything, plus 5,000 that aren't built because there's a glut on the market with these things already, and it's really hard for me to get into that crisis mode when you see all that stock out there. But anyway, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Page 199 July 24-25, 2007 MS. FILSON: Are you ready for the speakers, sir? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please. MS. FILSON: The first speaker's Michele Harrison. She'll be followed by Bob Krasowski. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Since we're going forward and starting to give directions to staff, I thought this would be the appropriate time to get you up here. MS. HARRISON: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. For the record, Michelle Harrison, president ofthe Collier Building Industry Association. For the record, CBIA is opposed to any form of inclusionary zoning, voluntary or mandatory, and supports a private/public partnership to find solutions to providing affordable and workforce housing. Programs like the ULI, EDC, modeled for essential service provider housing is a great example of how we can reduce regulation which impedes the affordability of housing in Collier County. We currently have 5,489 affordable units on the books, of which 1,039 have been built, 2,100 still in the development process waiting for approval, and 3,369 are listed as being under construction. According to the county's comprehensive plan, we should provide a thousand units per year to meet this need, and this gives us a five-year pipeline of units projected to come to market in the near future. This alone should give us cause to reevaluate whether it is necessary to impose another regulation that will add costs to providing housing to the community. As I stated before, regulation is the number one contributor to the cost of housing and yet it is the one thing within your control. In the report provided by Fishkind & Associates, the most compelling reasons for a reevaluation of recommended regulatory solutions to affordability debate are listed. Let me quote, unfortunately for Collier County all the transportation impact fees are so high that they have this Page 200 July 24-25, 2007 counterproductive impact. Reducing the current transportation impact fees would generate more transportation impact fee revenue. Adding the affordable linkage fee on top of the already excessive level of fees on construction will exacerbate an already difficult situation. Raising impact fees on residential construction has the predictable effect of making the housing more expensive and of reducing the volume of housing produced. This effect complicates the county's already challenging affordability. In closing, CBIA opposes inclusionary zoning; however, if the ordinance is imposed above our objections, we will insist that the burden not be shifted to the market rate homebuyers; therefore, we will advocate for a density bonus program that fully mitigates the cost of providing the subsidized units. Is there an equitable buy-out agreement that truly provides affordable units in the county and a sustainable program that does not add more bureaucracy to the already encumbered process? CBIA advocates for an expedited process that can help bring the 3,300 units already approved to the market and the reduction of regulation that impedes the private market practice for providing affordable housing. I'll wrap it up. CBIA opposes regulatory fees that burden the affordability of housing such as linkage fees and impact fees and recommends that Collier County adopt a positive policy to support the marketplace thereby stimulating housing, which is recognized as the cornerstone of our economy. Thank you for your time and attention to this critical issue. CBIA is dedicated to helping find solutions for providing adequate safe housing for all Collier County citizens. And I'd like to address the numbers that were used earlier today. As I sat here, I requested accurate numbers from the Board of Realtors. Condo and single-family homes, bundled together, we have 1,891 units sold for 390,000 median price, and we have 2,955 Page 201 July 24-25, 2007 properties in Naples geographic area at 300,000 or less so -- and that was as of May. So you're accurate -- your figures are pretty close. So I question some of the other figures used as well. And I just ask that you again, I will always ask that you include us in the process in finding the solutions to the problems that arise. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski? (No response.) MS. FILSON: Tammie Nemecek. She'll be followed by Steve Hart. MS. NEMECEK: Good afternoon. Tammie Nemecek with the Economic Development Council of Collier County. I've had the pleasure of coming before you speaking several times over the last year about workforce housing here in Collier County. And I wanted to -- as an opportunity here to provide you an update and thank you, actually, for your vote on the consent agenda today for the updated expedited review resolution that was approved this after -- this morning. Long time ago. The -- this resolution that was approved this morning on the consent agenda was the first step in that process that you approved back in May to direct staff to work with the EDC, the ULI, the community at large in order to come up with some comprehensive solutions in order to address this affordable/workforce housing issue. And as we continue to work through this process, I can tell you that we've had a very positive relationship with county staff. We are working with Joe Schmitt, with Marcy, with Nick, with the transportation department. I mean, all of us are collaborating together on a regular basis to discuss each one of these on an individual basis, look at it from not only the county's point of view from wanting to achieve the goals of the county, but looking at it from what's practical and reasonable for the community, for the private sector to be able to Page 202 July 24-25, 2007 provide this, provide it on an incentive-based approach, and that's what we keep coming back to is versus -- you know, regulating this process, maybe collecting a lot of money that the county would then have to be saddled with actually constructing affordable homes themselves, is providing this on an incentive-based approach, and there may even be some sort of collection of fees that might be needed along the way in order to help offset impact fees. And we realize that and we spoke about that back in May when we came to present to you. And I guess when we come back to discuss this item, such as inclusionary zoning and mitigation fee, my only ask (sic) is that we take this on a holistics basis. Let's work together. I don't think that you'll find anybody in this community that's not willing to sit down at the table and flesh these items out so that we can come up with something that when we bring it back to you, it's supported. This was on the consent agenda today. Nobody had a problem with it. There weren't any issues with it. It was approved unanimously. Those are the types of things we want to bring back to you, that we have full support, 100 percent support from both the public sector and the private sector. So I guess we're offering to be part of the process. We're offering to help. We're offering as much resources as we can to be able to bring this -- all of these items back in a fashion that can be benefiting for the community, for the people who work here, as well as for the businesses. As I always coming back to the reason why I'm involved in this in the first place is that we deal with businesses that are trying to expand, businesses that we're trying to recruit here, and we've got to make sure that we have the policies in place to enhance that ability of that company to locate here and their employees to be here. Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: Steve Hart. MR. HART: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Page 203 July 24-25, 2007 My name is Steve Hart, representing the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. And I've got to tell you, after this discussion this afternoon, I think chamber members that are listening at home are very encouraged, and I want to, therefore, continue to encourage you to take creative approaches. I mean, we heard Commissioner Coyle this afternoon. And Commissioner -- all of you have -- and Commissioner Henning even from the telephone, all of you have had very creative approaches, and the key here is just to continue to have open minds and to -- there is no one magic bullet. There is no one solution. What we know is, that we have a housing problem for working-class families. And so I'm encouraged and I know the chamber members will be encouraged to hear the creativity that will continue to blossom, and we hope to work with you on that. I mean, I would just leave you with one thought. We've heard a lot of numbers bandied around, and the cost of homes, and -- but it is -- it is true that at least in 2005, I think nearly three-quarters of our households in Collier County were earning $75,000 or less. And so you can do the math. What is affordable in that context? And therein lies the rub. And we'll continue to work with you, all of us working together. This is a primary issue, ifnot the primary issue for our community, as you all know. And I commend you for your -- for your creativity expressed this afternoon. Keep it up. We're proud of you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. At this time we are going to take that half an hour dinner break that we mentioned before, and we'll reconvene at 5:36 on the button. We'll take two or three minutes. (A recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, please take Page 204 July 24-25, 2007 your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. Weare still on the item 5E. You still have two presentations still to be given on this particular item, and I would suggest that we move forward on those two presentations. One is, you know, what's the status of the inventory and what's the economic impact. And I believe Mr. Weymer (sic), you're going to give that. Weyer, I'm sorry. MR. WEYER: That's okay. Oh, I'm doing the economic impact analysis first? MR. MUDD: Whatever you'd like. MR. WEYER: Okay. For the record, I'm Russ Weyer with Fishkind & Associates. Mr. Chairman and fellow commissioners, actually I'm going to jump ahead first to -- the economic impact I want to do second. I want to actually do the housing supply first because that will -- kind of relates, and we wanted to do those in that order. So let me kind of zip through these real quick. Looks like you did these and you'll have to -- I'll get back to them in a second. There we go. Okay. Again, for the record, Russ Weyer. We were requested by Nabors & Giblin & Nickerson to conduct an analysis of the available housing supply in Collier County. Again, this is just the supply and total. I want you to understand this was 2005. Since this report, 2006 has come out, so we will need to update this, but there just wasn't enough time. It just came out. So we'll have to get that updated. But this is 2005, and I'm just going to run through a couple of quick slides so you have a good idea what the stock is at the moment. And this includes single-family homes for sale, single-family homes for rent, apartments and rooms for rent, and I did have condominiums in here. I will give you those numbers in total. They don't show up on the slides here, but I know condominiums was missing at the time, but we do have those figures as well. Page 205 July 24-25, 2007 I want to talk a little bit about -- we talked about our methodology. We used the Collier County property appraiser data. Again, 2005 was the later -- latest year available. Naples Daily News, we did the single-family for rent and single- family for rent rooms. Backing up a second, the Collier County property appraiser information, we used their parcel identification reporting system, which is PIRS and -- for short. In case you hear me say PIRS, that's what that stands for. And then we also utilized the Southwest Florida Apartment Association apartment data, which was current as of February of this year. Using the PIRS -- and a lot oflittle numbers up there. And like Dr. Nicolas did, I'm going to put it in pretty pictures that will make it a little easier. Just the bottom line is, there was 70,453 homes being marketed -- or in the market in the county in 2005. The median market value for all single-family homes at that time, it was 387,135, and the average market value for single-family homes in the county is 626,593. Again, having an average value higher than the median appraised value indicates the greater than 500,000 category contains many homes of extremely high values, thus skewing that average upward. So the median one is important to note. Let's put this in a percentage distribution, which we had talked about earlier. This chart displays that for all single-family homes in the county, of all the homes in the county, 11,000 have a market value of less than 200,000; 31 percent have a market value of between 200,000 and 350,000; 23 percent have a value between 350,000 and 500,000; and 34 percent have a value greater than 500,000. Again, this is on a number basis. I'm going to skip by that, and I'm also going to skip by -- these are the single-family homes between 2000 and 2005. We thought it would be important to take a look at when we had this market climb over the past seven years actually. Page 206 July 24-25, 2007 This is just because we only went to 2005. And let me put that in, again, in a chart. Between 2000 and 2005 when you're comparing the 11 percent below 200,000, it's only 5 percent that were built at that -- in that less than 200,000 range. In 200 -- excuse me -- 38 percent were between 200- and 350,000; 24 percent were between 350-, 500,000; and 32 percent were greater than 500,000. Now, I'm going to skip over to -- and this is the home rentals. And this is -- this is the chart we need to take a look at, which is on page 10 of your handouts, and that shows the range of single-family homes for rent in the county. You know what the -- the owner homes are. Of all the single-family homes for rent, which we, again, looked at the Naples Daily News and took an average at that time -- again, this fluctuates. As we know, the market fluctuates daily basically. But at this -- on this date of all the single-family homes for rent, 25 were rent -- for rent in the 995 to $1,200 per month range; 42 were in the 100 -- or 1,200 to 1,400; and 44 were 14- to 1,600. And a total of63 percent of the rental homes rented at a rate below the average monthly rental rate of 1,655. Now, I'm going to talk a little bit about apartments. And Commissioner Halas, you had mentioned about the homes being between 100- and 125,000. We're missing a huge hole there in apartments. And as many of you know, we had a large conversion going on during the height of the ramp-up of prices in the feeding frenzy, if you will, and this is the current market status of the apartments as of February this year. There are a total of 11,031 apartments in the county. Available for rent at that time were 543. So it's a -- there was some that were available on the market. The average -- the lease rate was at 95 percent. The average rental rate was $976. And the median rental rate was 950, so they were pretty close. That's a good thing. The range was between 500 Page 207 July 24-25, 2007 and 1,619. We still need to incentivize to have more apartments here, if you will. The average rental rate by number of rooms per apartment for a one bedroom, one bath, was 836; for a two bedroom, two bath was 999; and three bedroom, three bath was 1,127. Again, I'm going to skip through all this. This was the rental homes, because there's one back here -- this is the total rental unit inventory available. This includes the apartments, the single-family homes and the rooms for rent. And as you can -- as you can see in this one, this final chart shows the percentage of each rental rate price point per price range. Of all the rental units in the county, 12 percent fall within the 385 to 700. Again, you're picking up the rooms of homes that people are renting. Twenty-seven percent fell in the -- between 700 and 1,000; 21 percent between 1,000 and 1,300; and 22 percent between 13- and 1,601; 82 percent of the rental fell below that. And in the condos, just so you know, below 200,000, this is in 2005,25 percent of them, which was 472 units, were below 200,000; 250- to 350,000 was 48 percent or 922 units; 350- to 500,000, 11 percent or 212 units, were produced, and 5 -- over 500,000, 16 percent or 303 units. So that is the housing stock at the moment as of2005. Again, I recommend we go back and let us add the 2006 figures to that, which would give us a better rate and numbers, and we would be happy to bring that back to you. Are there any questions on the stock? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Donna? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. This is such outdated information. It's two years old. I don't know how it even -- everything has changed so much since 2005. I don't know how we can base any of our decisions on outdated information, quite frankly. Page 208 July 24-25, 2007 MR. WEYER: Understand that, Commissioner Fiala. And as I'd mentioned, the 2006 data just came out, and it just came out since __ you know, within the last couple of months, so we do need to bring that back to you as an updated. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. WEYER: Any other questions? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think there's any questions. Commissioner Henning, do you have any questions? MS. FILSON: We can't get him connected. We're trying. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. FILSON: He hung up and -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't rush it. Just kidding, of course. In case he's watching it on video screening. Just kidding, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to try that next time. MR. WEYER: Now let's go back to the economic impact of a -- we were asked, again -- and first of all, I did want to mention -- I did forget to mention before the first part, Dr. Fishkind was going to make this presentation. Unfortunately he was not able to make it and he sends his regards accordingly. We were talking about the economic analysis of a linkage fee at the moment, and we prepared this report from the Orlando office so that we were able to help them with information. As a part of our methodology, we reviewed the documents that are listed on the screen here, which we -- was Dr. Nicholas's report, which you just reviewed. There was an Anderson Economic Group Memorandum to the Economic Development Council back in January. Fishkind & Associates, our housing supply analysis for Collier County, which you've just seen as well, and also Fishkind & Associates, we did a study for Pasco County on their transportation impact fees, which allows us to index the impact fees and how, you Page 209 July 24-25, 2007 know, rising or raising or lowering them, how that impacts the amount of construction activity that happens based on that price elasticity or inelasticity . Based on that, the proposed linkage fees for the non-residential property as proposed or as they were shown, which would have been the cap -- is that correct, Dr. Nicolas -- the max would be on -- for the government, it would be $32.82 a foot; industrial, 35.60; and institutional was 3.05; office was 35.73; retail was 48.86; and tourism -- or the tourist industry would be 43.46. Now, what we did on the methodology, we utilized the standard statistical regression and the economic -- you know, going back to economics 101, if you will, using regression analysis, which measures the relationship between the level of impact fees and the volume of construction activity. We used 35 Florida counties with transportation impact fees in place at the moment. We first looked at the relationship between traffic impact fees, employment income levels, population millage rates, et cetera, to see how each independent explanatory variable explains the variation in the construction volumes. And from there, the transportation impact fees variable was isolated for the various land use types. The average construction volume and impact fee was determined from the sample of the 35, and that becomes the base that we stack the fees upon to take a look at. Most of them were statistically significant. The transportation one was particularly statistical (sic) significant, that that's what we were utilizing to show what kind of variability those fees have on construction activity, if you will, and the amount of -- or the amount of dollars that you will raise for impact fees. Again, the average construction volume and impact fee was determined from the sample. That becomes the base. Once the rate of change is determined, fees are grown incrementally until the current Collier County fee was reached so we could show you what the price Page 210 July 24-25,2007 elasticity or the inelasticity would be, and also determine the additional elasticity based on changes in the fees, what would happen if you went up or down. This is a summary of that result. And, again, it's all statistical and all numbers type of thing, but I'm going to put it in charts so that you have an idea of how it actually shows from a picture perspective. Quick primer on price elasticity of demand. Measures the relationship between that level of impact fees and the volume of construction activity. Inelastic versus elastic -- and always had this one confused when I was going through my stats class. When the price elasticity of demand of a good is greater than one, an absolute value of the demand is said to be elastic. It is highly responsive to changes in price and demands. With an elasticity of less than one in absolute value, they're inelastic. So the demand is weakly responsive to price changes. Given -- or the -- going forward on these charts, I want to show you the green highlight shows the 35-county average relationship between the amount of impact fee and its related construction volume, and the red highlight indicates the location of Collier County's current, in effect, impact fees for commercial properties. Here's the -- and we utilized -- there were three of them that we took a look at; office, industrial, and small retail. And this will give you an idea in terms of -- in all the impact fees on average, where the average was for the 35 counties, half of them were all below the one and actually showed that they were inelastic; therefore, they were -- they had a high reaction to the fee, if you will, which would take care of the construction activity. So you can see the average was between -- was just about .25, and Collier County is like point -- or 2. -- about 2.1. And so the current Collier County transportation impact fee for office space was 7,308 for each thousand square feet of space. The fee is elastic, and that -- the PED is a negative 2. -- Page 211 July 24-25, 2007 MS. FILSON: Are you there? MR. WEYER: -- 11 -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MR. WEYER: -- which indicates that the demand for commercial space will fall off 211 percent for every 1 percent that the impact fees are raised. And the other thing I wanted to show you, we put all of the figures up there, and the green shows you that this shows the elasticity, the -- in this case where the fee that would be the most optimal fee would be just under $6,000, and we're currently at $8,000. So you can see that you would be raising just under 1.5 million, and currently you're raising about $1.3 million. That -- and again, that's just -- that's just common economics, if you will, and not that far off on an office construction where it gets more significant when we start talking about industrial where, again, the 35-county average was just below zero, and in Collier County, we are below four. So when you look at that, our industrial space impact fee is 5,200 for each thousand square feet of space. The fee is elastic in that the PED is minus 4.31, and that means for every 1 percent that you raise the fees, you're going to lose 4.31 percent of commercial activity in relation to industrial space. Finally -- and this, again, shows you more of an impact on a thousand square feet where our current impact fee is roughly around 5,000. You raise 150,000 on that. If you had -- the optimal price would be roughly around $3,200 -- you would be raising almost $300,000. The last one I wanted to talk about is the local retail construction. Again, this one, the average was near zero. Collier, it's below 12. This is the most significant statistically, and also the most -- that has the most impact, the most elasticity. In the case -- this case where current retail space is 25,318 on the transportation impact fee for each thousand square feet, the fee is Page 212 July 24-25, 2007 elastic in that the PED is negative 12, almost negative 13. So again, construction activity falls off almost 13 percent for every one percent you raise those fees. And, again, this one -- this one is one of the more significant charts, if you will, for that. At that fee you're raising less than a million dollars if you had the optimal fee of between 10- and 20,000 -- it looks more like around 14,000 -- you'd be raising roughly 3.5 million. So from a statistical standpoint, price elasticity or the whole bottom line of the whole situation is, the more you raise the fees, again, the less activity that you're going to get and the less fees you're going to raise in total. So in the conclusions, the current level of county fees combined are at critical levels at the moment. Additional fees, whether impact, linkage or otherwise, will further suppress the commercial supply, which is currently below equilibrium levels. Although we are seeing right now that commercial construction activity is -- is going along, it's still catching up to the residential, and sooner or later it's going to start to fall off as the residential falls off, and then the residential, again, will pick up; it follows it. The lower commercial supply would -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One second, sir. MR. WEYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: You said -- earlier in this presentation you basically said that the lower your fee, the more customers you're going to get, i.e., the more people are going to be using your roads, and the higher your fee, the less people you're going to get and the less people that are going to build your roads. And -- but it's -- there's a fee. So, yeah, you're going to include more, but you're going to have to build more roads and you still have a shortage of those dollars. I just want to make sure you equate that, Page 213 July 24-25, 2007 okay, because I heard it and I go -- and it's really good, but what does it do for traffic on the road? Yeah, you lower the fee, you get more customers. The traffic on your road gets worse, you have to build more lanes, you don't have the money in order to do it. And so I just want to make sure that wasn't lost on the commissioners. Thank you. That's all. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. WEYER: The other part of this, too, is that lower commercial supply will also have an adverse effect on the county ad valorem revenues again, which we all know are -- you know, you won't have those revenues to raise it also. Residential linkage fees will also add to the cost of the house. Again, you heard this earlier. This will result in the reduced number of units being produced, thus lowering ad valorem revenue and exacerbating the affordable housing/gap issue. And if the county elects to implement linkage fees, our previous examples indicate that the lower the fee, the better the economic result. And that's what I have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, if! may. MR. WEYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A couple of things. One, the Anderson Economic Group Memorandum to the EDC, what was that? MR. WEYER: They just did -- they did a -- basically it was a very simple couple of page memo which they talked about, because at that time we were looking at linkage fees back in January, a long time ago. And they said basically the same thing in a shorter form with not a lot of statistical base, but it basically said the same thing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This was an opinionated paper? MR. WEYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we want to -- when we're dealing with this, I like to deal with statistics. Page 214 July 24-25, 2007 One thing that gave me a little bit of heartburn is when you were rolling the screens and going through it, one of your slides came up with the word error error on both parts of the top. Now, I don't know if that means that there was an error that was carried through on all your figures or if it was just something at that point in time. Maybe the words wouldn't fit into the slot. But, you know, it's a small thing, but when you see the word error on a presentation -- MR. WEYER: No, I understand what you're saying. Those were some check cells from some other parts, and if they say error on them, it just means that they weren't reading the one cell. They really didn't have anything to do with the chart or anything. They were picked up accidentally when they picked up the chart. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So other than what you just gave us today and other than the Anderson Economic Group Memorandum to the EDC, was there any other opinionated papers that you made your -- drew your conclusion from? MR. WEYER: Primarily the Pasco County study. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was an opinionated study or was that -- MR. WEYER: No. That was based on statistics, just like ours was. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. WEYER: Yes, sir. That was Dr. Fishkind's. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the simple message is, is that the more that you increase the fees, you've got a diminishing return coming back? MR. WEYER: Correct. And there's an optimal level because-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. WEYER: -- the less you -- or the more you decrease the fees, there comes a point, too, that you're just not going to raise enough revenue. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I understand. There's a case of Page 215 July 24-25, 2007 diminishing return. MR. WEYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But once again, too, that balances out against what's needed out there as far as -- and what's -- if you increase it at an expeditious pace, you need more roads, you need more infrastructure, you need more affordable housing. So it's one of those never-ending cycles that we're going to be going through. I am a little bit concerned on the fact that the data that we're looking at is already outdated. Did you know the new study was coming out very shortly, or was that one of those things that sort of surprised you that the '06 data was coming out? MR. WEYER: No. By the time that we were asked to produce this paper, it wasn't out. So -- and it just came out just recently. Like I said, not enough time for us to update it yet because we have to go through the full analysis again. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the information on the condominiums, which consists probably of what, about 30 percent of our housing or what? MR. WEYER: Yes, sir. That will be a part of the new update. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well-- so in other words, what we got from you is a general picture, but it's not a complete picture? MR. WEYER: As far as the total amount, that is correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. WEYER: Because we do need -- as I told Commissioner Fiala, we do need to get that updated. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner Fiala, and then we're going to try to move through and come up with some sort of direction. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. I felt that your report is more or less a -- is a total criticism of our impact fees, yet that's the only way we've been able to build our infrastructure in order to substantiate the growth that's taking place. If they don't have the impact fees to Page 216 July 24-25, 2007 build the roads, we're not going to approve the growth because we're -- they're going to go into -- they're going to go into concurrency. And so I thought -- I didn't even realize we'd asked you to write a report on our impact fees, and I'm just going to put that on the record. Then secondly, you were talking about apartment units. How many other units other than apartments are for rent? There's more things than just apartments for rent. MR. WEYER: Well, that was included in the study. We had houses for rent, we had rooms for rent. Those were all included in there, and they were included in the total. I went over them because they were such a small part of it, but they were all included in the total. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What percentage of all the homes are occupied by workforce, what percent by professionals, what percent by retirees, and what percent by seasonal? MR. WEYER: I will have to get that for you, Commissioner. It's not in this study. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to ask Marcy Krumbine a couple questions, if I may. Weare -- we have some concerns over the report we had brought before us. Was this actually the direction that was given to come back with this kind of information? MS. KRUMBINE: I'll have to defer to Mike. It wasn't from my office. It was from his. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, sorry. MR. PETTIT: Commissioner, the direction we got from the board was to come back with an economic impact analysis of the mitigation fee, and that was what we requested from the outside counsel. No disrespect to Mr. Weyer, but I was pretty surprised to see what -- I guess I kind of agree with Commissioner Fiala --, was simply Page 217 July 24-25, 2007 a study based on the effect of impacts fees. What we asked for was a study on the effect of the potential of a mitigation fee at a 100 percent level, a 25 percent level, and a 10 percent level based on the levels that we'd gotten from Dr. Nicolas. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll be honest with you, I've sat through many sessions of the Urban Land Institute, and this is the kind of stuff I'd seen there many times. And I kind of wonder -- Mr. Feder, do you have something you want to comment on this? I'm trying to get a grip on what we've got and what we're working with, and your insight on this may help. MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator . I think Jim has already hit the item that I had concern on. As I listen to this, you need to understand, your impact fees -- which is not what I thought you were asking about -- are structured on what it takes to deliver the unit of infrastructure needed to address the demand that is created. It has nothing to do with the discussion that you just had presented to you. And the reason I raise that is, is while you can look at the graph and find out that at a fee you will maximize the amount of what's a commercial, industrial, whatever development, in the county, and at another fee might not create that much development. The bottom line is, your fee is structured on what it takes to meet the demands in the case of transportation, the trips generated by that unit of development. It has nothing to do with whether or not you're maximizing, minimizing, or otherwise, that development. And so if you maximize it under what was being presented to you, you therefore have not put in the level of fee, I would assume from the numbers, because you're not establishing a fee actually to totally meet your needs, let alone above, then you're not going to meet your needs and you'll have more development and less infrastructure to meet that need. Page 218 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Feder. COMMISSIONER FIALA: My last comment was, being that he gave a report on impact fees, I just wanted to note for the record that building was never so good as when our impact fees were raised, the building kept on going, our commercial is really going high just in the past year, of course, as throughout the entire country real estate dropped, and so the building stopped. It had nothing to do with our impact fees at all. And still commercial is being built even though -- even though the rest of the country are having some problems and sales are slower, they're still not off. And it's -- I don't believe that impact fees have anything at all to do with the drop in our sales for homes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- I'm puzzled as to what method you went through to isolate all of the variables which affect the building rate of the building industry in Collier County to determine the price elasticity of demand. So I'd appreciate if you could explain that to me. MR. WEYER: Yes, Mr. Coyle, Commissioner Coyle. Again, this is done with Dr. Fishkind, and he went through each of the variables to check their S statistic and T statistic to make sure that they were statistically significant. And again, the one that came out that was most statistically significant was transportation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So somehow the price elasticity of demand for building homes or building -- MR. WEYER: This was commercial. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay -- building commercial has the same curve pretty much across the nation as it does in Florida yet the impact fee structures and rates are substantially different. MR. WEYER: Remember, we utilized the base of the 35 counties within the state and we utilized their impact fees and their construction activity, and then we based that against the economics of Page 219 July 24-25, 2007 home values and all of those statistics against those impact fees on those 35, from those 35 counties. So it wasn't around the county, it was actually in the state. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could you give us that backup data? MR. WEYER: Yes, I can. Be happy to do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to see it, so please, thank you. MR. WEYER: I will be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think we've about beat that horse to death. Thank you very much, Russ. MR. MUDD: Okay. So what I have so far -- Mike, you going to get up there and talk about guidance? MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, as we said earlier, we want -- we brought this in to get some guidance, and I do have some notes here. I think Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Henning -- and I don't know that you've all nodded your heads -- but Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Henning were interested in having the staff explore the mixed-use development and making affordable housing a mandatory component of those mixed-use developments, and I think explore in two ways. One would be explore through the development community and entities like the DSAC, the advisory committees, and the second way, I think, would be to look at what we now have on the books and how those ordinances and laws might need to be changed. So that was one piece of direction we got today. I don't know whether there's three people that are telling us to go that way or not. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I think so. I agree, too. Once again, too, we need to work with industry, like you said. I think it has to have the component in there with the density to make the whole thing workable. And like Commissioner Fiala said, it's got to be enough in there so they're not going to try to buyout. Page 220 July 24-25, 2007 MR. PETTIT: Now that, I guess, brings me to my second point, Commissioner Coletta, which is -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Halas? MR. PETTIT: Oh. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing I think that we need to look at when we look at mixed use is what the cost is per square foot. I think that's a very important component of this whole thing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The real cost? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The real cost per square foot, yep. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that -- wasn't that study already done? You're talking about commercial or -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we had some figures there, but I don't -- I think those figures are a little bit inflated. I want to know what it costs us in this industry here within the confines of Collier County when we look at this mixed use. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can we do that with staff -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- rather than send it back out to the consultant? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean, we already have the basis of how these numbers were arrived at. I mean, I don't think it would be that difficult to come up with it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, maybe the CBIA could come up with those figures for us. Be interested to know what their figures are versus what the consultant came up with. MR. PETTIT: I think the only -- the other question I have is, we have the two ordinances, and I think we'd like to get some direction as to whether you want us to bring back the inclusionary zoning ordinance. I've taken a count of -- I know that Commissioner Coyle had Page 221 July 24-25, 2007 concerns about the legal residency component. I know there was some concerns about the -- I guess we referred to it as the capital gains that could be realized as the ordinance is drafted now and a way to make that such that we could sustain the housing stock at an affordable rate over time, extend that out in time. I know Commissioner Fiala is concerned about the fee in lieu and how we can develop a fee in lieu component that would make it difficult to not build the units if we were going to have inclusionary zoning. So I think we just -- the staff just needs -- our office and the staff just needs the direction, do we develop an ordinance -- it's pretty much put together, but I think we -- obviously we need to tweak it some -- develop it and put it into the Land Development Code cycle. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. You know, at this time, with the economics in that one leg of the three-legged stool being construction or development, I don't think that the board, my personal feelings is, the board should do anything at this time. We do have another item on the agenda that kind of parallels it, which is item 10E. MR. MUDD: F. COMMISSIONER HENNING: F. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning, are you pausing or do you have something else? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I just -- Ijust say, let's not do anything right now and let's go right to !OF. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we just -- we're giving directions right now. We are in the process of giving directions. I don't think we're willing to roll back on it. We are looking for directions to be able to -- I'm sorry, Mr. Mudd. You're looking at me strange. MR. MUDD: No, I'm just listening. Page 222 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my direction. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, this commission's been nodding their heads with the directions they want to go, and we're going to weigh everybody's opinion on how we're going to go. When we get to that point when it comes back to us, when we enact it and how we enact it, that may be another question. MR. MUDD: There was a -- there was a motion earlier though, and it was seconded, and I believe the motions earlier talked about, come back with commercial with mandatory affordable housing, okay, it's the mixed-use concept -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you want to do this in the form of a motion or did you want to do it -- MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner. You already have a motion, and it's been seconded, okay. I want to make sure you have it. Commissioner Coyle-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, you're right. It's still on the floor. MR. MUDD: -- made a motion-- MR. WEIGEL: No, he didn't. MS. FILSON: Yes, he did. MR. MUDD: -- Commissioner Henning seconded it, okay, and the second piece to that said, come back and talk about this sustainability of the inventory and what we have to do in order to make sure that it was -- that we could keep it so that people just didn't flip properties to make a profit. And I believe what commissioner talked -- Commissioner Coyle talked about is, how do we slow down the flipping from zero to five years, 5 percent a year only, anything above that as far as capital gains is concerned, the seller loses, and it goes to the county or wherever; six to 10 years, they'd get 25 percent of the capital gain; and 11 to 15 years, they would get 50 percent of the capital gain. I believe that's what you suggested, Commissioner. I miss anything? And I believe that was the motion that was on the table and Page 223 July 24-25, 2007 that was what was seconded. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll ask Commissioner Coyle. Do you want to make that direction or do you want to keep the motion there? It's kind of mixing two of them together. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd be perfectly happy just to get three nods. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then you withdraw your motion and you got the nods. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then we'd have to really put everything in the form ofa motion. Okay. Continue. MR. PETTIT: The only -- I guess there are two other areas, and I think what I've heard now is, we're not only going to explore this -- the mixed-use concept with mandatory affordable housing, but you do want to see the afford -- or the inclusionary zoning ordinance brought back with the tweaking we've done. And do you want to see it brought back in the typical way where it would become part of the LDC cycle, the CCPC would look at it, obviously the affordable housing commission would look at it, the DSAC, other -- all of the interested groups would get an opportunity to look at it before you saw it again and had to vote on it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That would be my preference. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, we can't see your nod or disapproval from here. Did you want to comment? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I don't think it's time to do any kind of inclusionary zoning or a -- any kind of a fee for affordable house. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we'll make sure that it's noted that you didn't nod your head. MR. PETTIT: Fine. Next step, mitigation fee. I don't think anybody has indicated they are asking us to bring that back, but I'm Page 224 July 24-25, 2007 just trying to get it either on or off the table. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. One more time. Commissioner Fiala, you were sort ofleading the charge on this. Would you state what your position was on that, and we'll see -- on the mitigation fee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you mean mitigation fee on affordable housing? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. In other words, be able to buy out, you're talking about? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Well, I think it should be so high it should be the price of a house. If they're going to -- or as close to as possible, and that would encourage them not to be buying out of it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seventy thousand dollars. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, may I make a suggestion? Maybe we could have them bring it back -- MS. KRUMBINE: Can we -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not what we're talking about. MS. KRUMBINE: Yeah. Can we just clarifY the -- the mitigation fee would be the charge, the fee that would be linked to construction, residential or commercial construction. And-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't like that. I don't know about anybody else. I probably shouldn't say that. MS. KRUMBINE: The reason for that fee is because of-- because of the impact that both commercial and residential have on the need for affordable housing. And when just -- the reason why they were always linked together is when you just do inclusionary zoning, the burden goes on the residential market; whereas, if you include some kind of mitigation fee, then you're getting some impact with the commercial as well. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We already put a commercial-- excuse us. Page 225 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sorry to bother you, CIA. COMMISSIONER FIALA: CIA. We already took care of the commercial component with Commissioner Coyle's suggestion, and we all agreed that that should include something, so we don't need -- we don't need to -- yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think -- I think Commissioner Fiala is correct. If you place a mandatory affordable housing component in mixed-use commercial construction, you deal with most of that. There will be some cases where commercial construction will occur and it will not be the type that we would suggest would be -- would be for part res -- for example, a multi unit storage facility. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, or a Dairy Queen or something. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not going to build a residence -- any residences on top of that. And the question then becomes, should commercial, under those circumstances, have to carry some of the load. And here's -- here's the complication. My answer to the question is yes, commercial should carry some of the load because commercial creates demand for affordable housing because they have employees and some of them will need some affordable housing. So they carry an obligation to support the affordable housing effort. But here's the problem. Let's go back to my example. A multi unit storage facility could be thousands of square feet of commercial area but have maybe five or six employees. And if you -- if you assess the mitigation fee based upon square footage, you're going to kill them, you know. They can't survive under those circumstances. They pay hundreds of thousands of dollars. But if you do this, my suggestion is to give consideration to assessing it based upon the salaries of the employees they are attracting. I've seen it work in other communities. Albertson's department store or Albertson's food store comes to town. They have Page 226 July 24-25, 2007 257 employees at an average salary of $32,000. They are assessed X amount of money based upon the number of employees they had and what their average salary is. Now, that's -- that's more fair because it gets at the actual impact on the affordable housing market. And what you don't want to do is penalize people who are not having an impact. But now, it is more difficult to administer and it's not all that simple. But if the staff could come back to us with some thoughts about this, I would be interested in hearing them. That doesn't mean we need to commit to approving them, but at least let's evaluate the process. Because when you do that, when you spread the contribution to affordable housing over a broader base rather than just having it absorbed by residential, you reduce the impact on any single segment of the -- the industry. So I would be in favor of the staff giving us some ideas, but I would reserve judgment once I see what those ideas are. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. What areas was it, Commissioner Coyle, that you use this particular methodology? COMMISSIONER COYLE: This particular situation occurred in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. It's a concept that has been used there with some success. I know it's also been used in other places, and in California. There are places all across the United States that have used this concept. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's something they assess every year? COMMISSIONER COYLE: They assess when it's being built. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in other words -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's one. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- what happens if they change-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: If they change ownership and it is a different organization, a different service, then you have to reassess it. MS. KRUMBINE: What you're doing is you're drawing the Page 227 July 24-25, 2007 parallel. Dr. Nicols (sic) drew the parallel with residential, and the burden that a certain house would effect on workforce because it would take X number of employees in an affordable range, lower income employees, to maintain different size households, and you're drawing that parallel to -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commercial. MS. KRUMBINE: -- commercial, but not in maintaining the commercial, not in building it, but in their workforce. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. MS. KRUMBINE: So if they are -- if they are generating jobs on the lower income scale, then they're going to have a burden on affordable housing because they're bringing in people that are working at the lower levels and, therefore, we as a community will have to make sure that they have housing at that level of an affordability. Is that correct? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. But by the way, one additional complicating factor is that there are opportunities for those people, those employers, to arrange for housing for their employees if they wish to do so and thereby escape the mitigation fee. So if they can demonstrate that they are providing adequate housing for their employees, they don't have to pay the mitigation fee. MS. KRUMBINE: What I hear you saying is sort of an inclusionary zoning policy except with the focus being on the commercial and not on the residential. So what you're saying is, come up with a proposal that is just like inclusionary zoning where you have commercial, but within that commercial, you're saying, we'd like you to build affordable housing elements within your commercial. If you aren't going to build affordable, then you'll have an opt-out fee. You might partner with somebody somewhere else to build it. You might provide your own housing so then you can -- so you'll have these opportunities to not participate if you show other cause. It's sort of the reverse out of the inclusionary zoning for residential. Page 228 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: They could purchase or build an apartment building as an example -- MS. KRUMBINE: Exactly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and thereby develop equity in the real estate of that particular facility rather than paying a mitigation fee. MS. KRUMBINE: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that way they would be providing housing. Even if the housing were not completely used by their employees, they would be providing the proper amount of housing that could be used by any employee. Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I like this concept, so I think what we need to also look at, the higher the wage that you're going to pay the employees, the less -- the lower the impact of the mitigation fee. MS. KRUMBINE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That works good for me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There would be a balance. The higher the wage is -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the decision is left up to the employer. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I -- you got enough direction on that? MR. MUDD: I got three -- do I have three nods? Three nods on that concept? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep. MR. MUDD: I think you've got the guidance on the piece, you've got inclusionary zoning, and you've got the linkage fee, the mitigation fee. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the way to do it. Page 229 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good work. MR. MUDD: And we're done. Thank you. MR. PETTIT: Thank you. Item #lOF RESOLUTION 2007-203: DECLARING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR ACCEPTING VOLUNTARY DONATIONS MADE DIRECTLY TO THE COUNTY FOR AFFORDABLE- WORKFORCE HOUSING, ESTABLISHING AN AFFORDABLE- WORKFORCE HOUSING TRUST FUND AND PROVIDING GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR USE OF MONIES IN THE AFFORDABLE- WORKFORCE HOUSING TRUST FUND - ADOPTED W/CHANGES (FURTHER CHANGES MADE ON JULY 25,2007 DURING DISCUSSION ON ITEM #15) MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is number !OF, and that was to follow 5E. 10F is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution declaring a valid public purpose for accepting voluntary donations made directly to the county for affordable/workforce housing, establishing an affordable house -- affordable/workforce housing trust fund and providing general guidelines for use of monies in the affordable/workforce housing trust fund. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just a second. We didn't hear you. Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's see. I'm looking at the reso. on the second page, section two on the bottom. It's saying, donations shall be made before or at the time of Certificate of Page 230 July 24-25,2007 Occupancy. To me, that says, well, it's a donation but this is what you got to do with your donation, and I'm afraid it's not a donation. It's a demand. And if we could just tweak that, donations may be made before or at the time of Certificate of Occupancy. It's just a suggestion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Pettit. MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Henning, you were too fast for me. I was going to suggest, as one change to the resolution that was in the package, that we change that sentence in this way. It begins with the word unless, and it's on page 2 of the resolution under section 2. Unless otherwise stipulated as set forth in Exhibit 1 to this resolution, which reflects offered donations to the county for affordable/workforce housing today, donations, I was going to say preferably, would be made before or at the time the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm still trying to find where are you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask a question? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Page-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's the bottom-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. MR. PETTIT: It's page 2 of the resolution. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Actually page 5 of 10. MR. PETTIT: Page 5 of 10. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've gone past it now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just try to clarifY something here? My interpretation of this is that this doesn't say that you have to make a donation, but it says, if you've agreed to make a donation, you have to give it to us on or before we issue a Certificate of Occupancy. MR. PETTIT: That certainly was the intent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the timing. So if you need to Page 231 July 24-25, 2007 clarifY that, I would suggest you just say that donations must be provided before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about agreed donations? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Agreed, that's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Voluntary -- voluntary contributions or donations made by the developer must be received by the county before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a speaker. I see. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would that work? Because you're saying that it's a voluntary donation. Any voluntary donation must be received by the county prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. MR. PETTIT: That works also. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And I think-- Commissioner Henning, does that meet your requirements? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, because what about if somebody wants to make a donation after CO? I mean, I think what the county attorney provided really hits a concern and criticism. I also do have one other thing, too, which is -- I think Commissioner Halas has said it several times -- the gap housing or in the resolution it says 150 percent below medium wage, medium people income. Well, there's enough of that on the market now, and I think that should be lowered substantially. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's stick with the item that we are dealing with. MS. KRUMBINE: Well, I think our -- Commissioner Henning, are you addressing the different strategies and the income level for those strategies; is that what you're getting at? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MS. KRUMBINE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where the money goes, yeah. MS. KRUMBINE: Okay. What we did was we -- what -- we Page 232 July 24-25, 2007 tried to create strategies and gear it to a population that might not -- that is not being served through current programs, because as I stated before, when we're taking state and federal dollars, it's tied to -- it's got strings attached to it. You have to do it a certain way to a certain income level, and this money coming through, it's locally grown, locally owned. So this way we can start addressing some populations or strategies that we cannot address in other -- with other venues. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Ijust agree with Commissioner Halas, is, we don't have a problem in this category, so that's my two comments. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's an interesting discussion you got going. In other words, you think that we should take gap and reduce the amount of gap down from 150- to 120-; is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER HENNING: In this resolution where these funds can go. MS. KRUMBINE: What I would suggest is that what we have in the resolution is a framework, and the resolution is designed so that once a year my office would come to you and say, you know, let's say we have $2 million. You know, Commissioners, this is how we suggest this year would be a good way to direct these -- this funding, and that gives a flexibility so that if in two years' time the market spikes and then gap housing is a big issue, then we don't have to go in and change the resolution. So we're going to still address it on an annual basis to fit the needs of the market and the population for that year. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll tell you what. Let's take a minute and have the speaker that we have come forward. MS. FILSON: Michele Harrison. She may have left. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Coyle, you're on again, or did you -- is that from before? Page 233 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm really confused here. Let's start from the beginning. Somebody comes in, they're looking for the approval of a rezone, a PUD, and they say, we're willing to provide a hundred-thousand contribution for affordable housing. And you say -- we say, okay, if that's what'd you like to do, that's fine, and we approve the petition. Do we make it part of the approval that they have offered the hundred-thousand-dollar donation? Does it become part of the approval process? MR. PETTIT: Commissioner, I mean, I think we look at these as voluntary donations, but I think they've been tracked and in some instances, maybe most -- and Joe, you can speak to this better than me -- I think many of them have been written into the PUDs. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. PETTIT: Now -- and I will tell you, addressing again, I think the concern Commissioner Henning was getting at, I think what we have are voluntary donations. Ifwe say we're going to -- we would prefer that those be made before or at Certificate of Occupancy, there's a reason for that. We're not mandating or saying that somebody can't donate later. But let me give you the practical issues. The finance director needs a way to kind of know when these dollars are going to come in, and that's why we put this language in here. But we also need to address, I think, the fact that it is a voluntary donation, and that's why I want to try to address Commissioner Henning's point. What Mr. Schmitt, I think, would tell you is, that once CO's issued, he has really no way to kind of track it. Now, if somebody walks into his office and says, here, by the way, that's what I should have -- you know, I was going to donate and I didn't get around to it, here it is, I mean, I think that we'd have something in this resolution to deal with that eventually. It may make it a little harder on Ms. Kinzel and her staff to keep track of it when it comes over, but frankly the obligation will be on Page 234 July 24-25, 2007 Amy Patterson and her staff to take that money and immediately get it to the clerk's office and get it deposited in this account whenever it comes in. And I think this resolution says that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm still working further back than that. If somebody says, I want to make a donation to the affordable housing trust fund, why can't that be made part of their approval __ written into the approval document? They've volunteered it, we've accepted it, and if -- otherwise it doesn't work because people can just walk in and say, I'm going to donate $100,000 to the trust fund and then you never hear from them again. We've got it on our books, we expect to have it, we've included it in our projections for funding, and we don't have it and we're never going to get it. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, when the -- at the rezoning, if that applicant makes that offer, it is written in, for the past -- at least for the recent past we've been writing in the date at CO. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you've got it written down and it becomes an obligation? MR. SCHMITT: And the wording usually is at CO because it __ I collect money primarily at two points. One at issuing of building permit. That's when they pay impact fees. To make this less onerous on the applicant -- because the building -- paying the building permit fees and impact fees at building permit, this may be an eight, nine, 10, 12 months later CO, and it becomes financially less onerous. We've said, okay, we'll take the contribution at the point of CO, because at CO they also pay me any reinspection fees or any other type of fees that are owed basically to close out the account. After that -- and we do have some here that pay a closing. Some of the earlier contributions they pay at closing. I can only depend on, frankly, the honest person out there to say, here's my money, we just had closings. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, wait a minute. Ifit's an obligation -- Page 235 July 24-25, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- you have a -- you have the capability of enforcing it. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't have to depend upon just their good word. MR. SCHMITT: But-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got it written into the document. MR. SCHMITT: The recent ones we've written into the document at CO. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, once you've written it into the document, it becomes an obligation. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is no longer voluntary. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you don't have a collection date, then it is unenforceable. So we have to have a date by which they should pay their obligation. The contribution is voluntary in the beginning, but once they have made it and we have approved their petition, it becomes an obligation. MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that obligation then must be paid by CO, by the time of CO. MR. SCHMITT: That's what we write in. We put the-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That should be the procedure, otherwise it's an unenforceable process. MR. SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you'll never know when you're going to get it, if ever. MR. SCHMITT: Agree. COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I make a suggestion? Page 236 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. Then we'll go to Mr. Weigel. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Instead of putting it in the PUD, I mean, the board has to approve moneys anyways. It could be a separate item on the consent agenda, and that way it's -- it's out of the PUD. MR. SCHMITT: It's usually part of the series of stipulations or they -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah. It's a stipulation, yes. And you said it exactly. MR. SCHMITT: Well, I mean, when -- it's part of that series of either stipulations that they've agreed to or they consent to agree to certain contributions, just like a developer's cooperation agreement or donating of land or right-of-way. All those kind of things are spelled out in -- at rezoning here either at the dais and then the board agrees and that's what's written into the PUD, and that's what's enforceable. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, and Mr. Schmitt, I don't have a problem with that if the board adopts a rational nexus, because it comes out of a realm into, this is a demand on the road or demand on the water or whatever. You have that rational nexus. We don't have that rational nexus with affordable housing. At least the board hasn't adopted it. So that's why I'm suggesting of accepting that contribution, donation, on the regular agenda. MR. SCHMITT: I defer to the county attorney. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, before you say another word, Mr. Weigel's waiting very patiently. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I was just going to add that the resolution, remember, is different than an ordinance. And when you're talking about a PUD, that's an ordinance, and that is a law, and it is within the law that you typically have sanctions or things of that nature. Joe Schmitt's discussion was in terms of something happening by Page 237 July 24-25, 2007 a CO or time of application for CO. I'm not sure it went on to state that if something is not done, then the CO doesn't issue. But it appears that, you know, that is a sanction or the carrot and stick that's within the law, which is the ordinance, the PUD ordinance. What Mr. Pettit's brought forward is a resolution which is really just a policy document, and among -- beyond being a policy document, it attempts to provide a clear direction for both the board and for the -- for the custodian of funds to receive monies, and perhaps we are trying to put a little more -- make that resolution carry a little more weight than it needs to or should. That's all I was going to say. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to go back to commissioner -- excuse me for getting in front of you, Donna. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right, that's right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to go back to you, Commissioner Coyle. This was your motion. See if there's something you want to do to change it, and then we're going to hear from the rest of the commissioners and we'll take a vote on it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll just repeat the motion. I think the motion should say that the voluntary -- the document should say that the voluntary donation will become part of the ordinance approving the petition and that the payment ofthe voluntary donation will be made before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, end of story. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I'll -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: You've got a second on that, right? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now just -- is that correct? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had a question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we're coming right to you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me just make sure. What you have now from Commissioner Coyle, who is the maker of the motion, Page 238 July 24-25, 2007 is there enough legal sufficiency in that to be able to cover what we want to do? MR. PETTIT: Well, with all due respect, Commissioner Coyle, I'm going to echo something Mr. Weigel said. I think the purpose of this resolution was to simply provide staff a method to get the money and to set forth guidelines approved by the board to spend the money and then give the clerk this document to test against when the staff came over and said, we need to write a check for this or that, and the clerk could then look at the board actions that are contemplated in the reso. and the staff -- and say, yeah, this is for this kind of an expenditure and the board approved it at the annual budget and also approved this contract. We can release this money, because that's the clerk's function to do that preaudit function on the expenditures. I guess I'm thinking that we're going beyond where the resolution was intended to go. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then let me rephrase it. Let's suppose we change that wording to say that the donation shall be made before a Certificate of Occupancy was issued and leave out the phrase, or at the time, because it really means the same thing. You're not going to be able to issue a Certificate of Occupancy and receive funds simultaneously at the exact second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: This wasn't my question. I just wanted to ask, but was the word shall -- does that contradict donation? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Shall only says that you shall pay it before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. If you don't have that there, then they don't have any obligation to ever pay you and you have no way of getting the money that was promised to you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we're depending upon that, obviously, for some reason. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to clear that up. Page 239 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: It doesn't have anything to do with the voluntary donation. It just merely says that if you've made a voluntary donation, you've got to pay it before the Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A donation is no different than making promises to build a hedge, put up a fence. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's coming across there in such a way, but I guess we've just got to get past the point where the county attorney feels comfortable. COMMISSIONER FIALA: My question is -- off the subject a little bit. I'm still back with what the composition of this thing is, and it says that this money can be used for mitigation uses for members of the community eligible for workforce housing. Does that mean if a developer comes in and he's going to build workforce housing that he can take money from this fund to mitigate his lands? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it could if you decide you want to approve that, but he's not going to get anything out of this fund until you approve it, and you have a list of options that you can use, and that's what Marcy was getting at. Don't throw out your options, and she's going to basically walk up to you and say, okay, we have this request to do blankety-blank, and the inventory looks like we're at the low end, we need more housing than we do at the higher end of the side of the house, and here's an opportunity. Commissioners, what do you want to do, and provide us that guidance. We're -- Crystal's not going to give any money out of this thing until this board says this is what they want to spend it on. And that __ and that behooves us after you did this resolution. COMMISSIONER COYLE: She's probably going to sue us because we collect it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Pettit, the words you got now, Page 240 July 24-25, 2007 does that make it or we still short? MR. PETTIT: Well, that really was how the resolution was essentially drafted that way to begin with. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we're there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm satisfied. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's hear the attorney's statements. MR. PETTIT: And so -- yeah, I drafted it that way originally. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great, good work. See, we finally got to where you were. MR. PETTIT: I think I had -- I think I said that, so __ CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. PETTIT: I have a couple other things I need to get on the record, I think, on this before you vote on it, I'm sorry, but-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, go ahead, sir. MR. PETTIT: Two issues. One is that in the executive summary we can refer to the exhibit reflecting all of the donations promised so far. And I've got an updated exhibit that I would put on this resolution. The actual number now is well in excess of the 6,984,000 number that you had. It's now $7,340,938. And so I would change that chart, that exhibit, out to put the most recent exhibit I got from Ms. Patterson and her group. The second thing is, you need to be aware -- and I need to say this -- that the clerk's attorney advised me today that he believes that the provision in this resolution which provides for the board to receive or return the interest earned on this fund back to the fund in order to continue to augment and use the monies for affordable housing purposes is inconsistent with law, and I think you need to know that before you vote. I think you need to know that our office is in disagreement with that interpretation from the clerk's attorney. And I would note that historically, at least since May of2002, my understanding is, from county manager and other sources, that the Page 241 July 24-25, 2007 clerk has returned interest earned on these interest-bearing accounts to the county to be used in accordance with either other applicable ordinances or statutes or as this board directed. And in fact, on that date, May 14, 2002, the clerk seemed to indicated that he had no ability to use that interest. And so I just -- I report those things to you. I think you need to be aware of it before you vote. But our position is that the interest __ we can direct in this resolution an interest to be returned to this fund, and it would be no different than the fact, for example, that interest is returned to, I think, the building fund that Mr. Schmitt has for building permits. Now, that's by statute, not resolution, but this is board money once the board receives the donation. That's my logic, at least. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But as far as our motion goes, there's nothing here we have to be overly concerned with? MR. PETTIT: Well, I can only tell you, I just reported that the clerk's attorney disagrees -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We-- MR. PETTIT: -- with the legal consistency of that interest prOVISIOn. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show that Commissioner Henning was in opposition. Page 242 July 24-25, 2007 We have time for at least one more. Make it a good one. Item #7C RESOLUTION 2007-204: PETITION V A-2007-AR-11500, THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, REPRESENTED BY DONALD MURRAY, TKW CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC., REQUESTS A DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE OF TEN-FEET FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT 35 FEET FOR THE RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY - 6 UNITS PER ACRE (RMF-6) ZONING DISTRICT AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 4.02.01 A TABLE 2 OF THE LDC. THE 25.60+ ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS SEVERAL BUILDINGS FOR THE LORENZO WALKER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS. A NEW 3- STORY HIGH SCHOOL IS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO A ZONED HEIGHT NOT GREATER THAN 50-FEET. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 3710 ESTEY AVE., IN SECTION 1 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Oh, yes, sir. This brings us to Board of Zoning Appeals,7C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's petition variance 2007-AR-11500, the District School Board of Collier County represented by Donald Murray, PKW Consulting Engineers, Inc., requesting a dimensional variance of 10 feet from the maximum height of 3 5 feet for the residential multi family six units per acre RMF-6 zoning district as provided for in section 4.02.01A, table two of the Land Development Code. The 25.6-plus-acre tract of land contains several buildings for the Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology campus. A new three-story high school is proposed to be constructed to a zone height not greater Page 243 July 24-25, 2007 than 50 feet. The project is located at 3710 Estey Avenue in Section one and 12, Township 50 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those wishing to participate on this particular agenda item, please stand to be sworn in by the court recorder. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go through the discl os ures. Commissioner Henning, can we start with you? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Emails. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just emails. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And myself, just email. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Item -- this is item 7C. I have no disclosures. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I talked to staff about this, too. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I talked -- that's about the only thing, I talked to staff. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No other disclosures outside that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no disclosures. Nobody bothered to talk with me about this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're afraid of you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, we're all set. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess my vote doesn't count. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you can't go home. COMMISSIONER FIALA: With that beard they were thinking that you were -- MR. MUDD: Did she swear in? MR. MURRAY: Don Murray, TKW. I'm the planner with that Page 244 July 24-25, 2007 company, and also with me is Mr. Charley Guetenkunst (phonetic) with RS and HR Architecture, and Alva Hardy and some other staff from the school district as well. We'll be happy to answer any questions after a very brief presentation. This project, of course -- it's a variance of 10 feet from the maximum 35 feet height in an RMF-6 multifamily zoning district. The project's located at the Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology campus, which is just east of Airport-Pulling road and north of Davis Boulevard on Estey Avenue. The project, of course, if approved with the three stories, will allow us to incorporate all the programs for a technical high school, the Lorenzo Walker Technical High School, be placed on this campus. And the variance is minimal. Like I said, it will allow a third story for the building. The building is already required to be set back 50 feet. We are locating it 60 feet. In yellow, you can see right here at the top part where the stairwell actually jets out, that's 60 feet back from the road. This building is also being oriented north and south to minimum the visualize impact to the adjoining or, excuse me, the properties across Estey A venue by presenting the smallest area to front the road. We've also -- have it on this to go along with the clustering of the buildings on the campus that makes sense, providing the best access, as well as allowing access from the east access drive to bring buses in to pick up and drop off students and to come back out onto Estey Avenue. The other thing that I wanted to show you here real quick is this is looking -- excuse me for just a second. It's not showing up very clear. That may be a little better. This is a -- looking east -- excuse me -- looking west on Estey A venue toward that east access. The access point is right here with the drive coming in by the pole. The trees are already there and the school district will retain those trees, the mature vegetation, and the school would be behind Page 245 July 24-25, 2007 those trees. Additionally, we're proposing other trees, shrubbery and vegetation, to also soften the visual impact of the end of the building, and that is basically, you know, what makes it a minimal variance. We're setting back additional feet, it's 60 feet back. We're only going up 10 feet additional. We're orienting the building so that it's visually less intrusive. It houses all the programs that are needed for the technical school, which will allow us to have students who will take __ who may choose not to go to college but want to pursue a technical career, and this will also allow more students to come out with technical skills quicker and be able to enter the labor pool in the county as well. So I'm going to stop right here. If you have questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, if! may, the Planning Commission approved this, what was it, 6-1 ? MR. MURRAY: Six to one, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Six to one. And was there any neighbors that came out to speak in opposition to this? MR. MURRA Y: None. And we had a neighborhood information meeting and nobody showed up. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So there isn't too much concern with the immediate neighborhood? MR. MURRAY: No, I think they're in support. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have any speakers on this? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The staffwas recommending certain changes here. It appears to me that you've made some of those changes such as orienting the building in a north/south direction. You're still retaining the 80-foot setback -- less than an 80- foot setback, right? MR. MURRAY: Yes. Page 246 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you have agreed that you will put in the additional vegetative buffer -- MR. MURRAY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- in order to get that reduced setback? MR. MURRA Y: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And is there anything about the staffs recommendations that you do not agree with? MR. MURRAY: Just the 80-foot setback. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just the 80-foot setback? MR. MURRAY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. Then I think with the additional buffer, I would be willing to approve it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So that's a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. I just wanted to make sure that that buffer, when it goes in, is really a buffer and not just a little cosmetic something or another, because that neighborhood doesn't have anything that tall, and sometimes people decide to put in a buffer, but it's a tree here and a tree there and it doesn't buffer a thing. I just want to make sure that the school district does right by that neighborhood. MR. MURRA Y: Yes, sir. And we'll retain the existing tree stand that's on site as well. There's also a retention pond in the front which also helps to buffer and will have plants. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will you be do -- with that retention pond, will you be putting in some kind of a fountain or something to give it -- to make it aesthetically pleasing? Too bad. How come? MR. HARDY: It's not an upscale residential development. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You aught to try and become (sic) there. I think it would be -- it gets good irrigation. MR. HARDY: I'm Alva Hardy. It's dry retention, so it's not-- Page 247 July 24-25, 2007 it's not a wet retention area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well. That's a good reason why not to put a fountain in. MR. HARDY: It's grass and it's green. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There goes my suggestion for stocking it. Okay. We have a motion before us and we have a second. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none. All those in favor -- I'm sorry, Mr. Schmitt? We got what here? Something to be read into the record. Please do. MR. MOSS: Hi, there. John David Moss, department of zoning and land development review. I just wanted to put on the record that staff had actually asked them to put the building in a different location and they didn't want to, which is why they decided to do it perpendicular to Estey rather than in a different location altogether that would have more compatibility with the adjacent uses. We had asked them to put the building back 80 feet to maintain the existing setback that existed on the campus, which was a one-story building that was set back already 80 feet, and they decided to just do 60 feet but did offer to do landscaping to sort of soften the harsh view of the -- what's the -- the 45-foot three-story-building adjacent to the single-family homes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, isn't this the normal thing? I mean, compromises back and forth between the developer and planning? I mean, that's -- there's nothing new there. MR. MOSS: Well, when we had negotiated it, they had -- I thought they were going to put it back 80 feet, but when they came in they said they couldn't because it would interfere with their parking. They said they didn't have enough parking. But when I calculated the parking tabulations, they actually could lose 44 parking spaces and set Page 248 July 24-25, 2007 the building back 80 feet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So does that -- did you say the rest of the buildings are back 80 feet? MS. MOSCA: There's an existing building. It's a one-story building. It's set back 80 feet on Estey Avenue. That sort of defines the campus boundary. And so I wanted them to respect that existing setback and maintain 80 feet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going to pull my second. MR. MOSS: Especially since this was the tallest building that's being proposed on campus, and it's being located closest to single-family homes. The adjacent uses are multifamily and C-5, and it just seemed like it would make more sense to put the tallest building on campus adjacent to those buildings rather than the single-family homes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's get the petitioner back up here. What is what the petitioner wants and the difference between the 80 feet and what you have in mind? MR. MURRAY: The 60 feet -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can we cut this baby in half and call it 70? MR. MURRA Y: Don Murray here. I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could we -- it's 60 feet you're looking for. They're looking for 80. Can we say 70 feet? MR. MURRAY: What I've been told is actually the stairwell comes out, it's at the 60-foot mark, if that helps, that top yellow part. And then the actual building is closer to, I don't know, 80 feet. So it is close to it. What we didn't want to do is intrude into the parking area. We want to preserve parking to have adequate parking for all the programs as well as to have the bus route come in and come around here and line up to drop off students and pick up students. There's some thought from the school planners that that's more Page 249 July 24-25, 2007 acceptable. They can keep an eye on the students. It separates traffic as well. Ifwe move the building back, then we'd have to re-sign the parking and we're probably going to lose additional spaces. So they preferred to have it with this orientation with -- at that area. They've already pushed it back to the edge of the lot as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did the Planning Commission have a problem with this? MR. MURRAY: They had no problem with it. In fact, they commented that having the buildings offset looked better than having them all lined up. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have a motion because of my second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've got a light on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. It's from before. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we still have amotion on the floor. Who made the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He made the motion but I dropped my second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We still have a motion. Do we have a new second? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from Commissioner Halas (sic), and second from Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coyle made the motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second from Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Got it. Okay. Commissioner Coyle, motion, seconded by Commissioner Henning. Okay. Any other discussion? Page 250 July 24-25, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none -- MR. MOSS: I just wanted to put on the record that the Planning Commission did find the proposal consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and they were all supportive except for one commISSIoner. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, yeah, 6-1 it was. Okay, with that, all those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the motion passes 5-0. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There were some reluctant ayes there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, very reluctant ayes. Okay. You got two minutes. MR. MUDD: You've got another land use, and it has to do with the mulching issue. You're not going to finish that in two minutes. MS. FILSON: You can do mine. You can do my items. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, we can't. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's your items? MS. FILSON: Advisory board. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Advisory board, yeah. MS. FILSON: Nine. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item them would be-- we're going to continue the -- for anybody that's out there for the land use items, we're going to start that again at eight o'clock tomorrow Page 251 July 24-25, 2007 mornmg. Item #9 A RESOLUTION 2007-205: DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMISSION - ADOPTED Brings us to 9A. It's a recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Affordable Housing Commission. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. MR. MUDD: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No opposed. Any opposed? No. 5-0. Item #9B RESOLUTION 2007-206: APPOINTING MICHELE HARRISON AS AN AL TERNA TE MEMBER TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED Page 252 July 24-25, 2007 MR. MUDD: Next item is 9B, it's a consideration to appoint an alternate member to the County Government Productivity Committee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the committee's recommendation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussions? MS. FILSON: And that would be Michele Harrison. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. My understanding, that the person that's presently on there, I'm not sure why we're looking for an alternate at the present time because that person's made every meeting. So I'm concerned about -- MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, and that's why I put it in the executive summary if you wanted an alternate on there. In the ordinance there is a clause in there that says you can appoint an alternate for two years. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's ask the question. Have there been many absences on that committee or times when they couldn't meet? Is there a need for an alternate? MS. FILSON: Actually I don't have that information now. I didn't ask for that information. I only asked whether that there are going to be reappointments, but I can certainly get that information for you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait till we find out. MS. FILSON: Okay. And then I'll bring it back. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you hear that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hear who? Commissioner Coyle mumbling? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, no, no, no. Sue Filson -- the Page 253 July 24-25, 2007 question was, was there a real need for this, and then the question went out, how many times is there a need for an alternate. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I understand that. What item -- what does it hurt? Can somebody answer that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We are on 7B-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- 9B, 9B. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 9B, does anything hurt if we approve it? Are we hurting anything? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't think so. I -- the reason I asked absences was I figured that knowing Michele just a little bit, I'm sure that she would be at every meeting, and this way there would always be an alternate there in case somebody couldn't make the meeting. So I didn't see a problem with it, but I wondered how many absences there were. That was the reason I asked. MS. FILSON: I was just advised that they've never not had a meeting due to not having a quorum. MS. KINZEL: Not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the answer I think we needed to hear. MS. FILSON: I believe she attends the meeting, Crystal. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So let's go forward with the vote then, okay? Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? Page 254 July 24-25, 2007 (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show that Commissioner Halas was in opposition. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next one? Item #9C RESOLUTION 2007-207: RE-APPOINTING GARY D. LIND TO THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Let's do 9C. It's appointment of a member to the Housing Finance Authority. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the recommendation. Great attendance. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second that. Motion by Commissioner Fiala for approval, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Item #9D Page 255 July 24-25, 2007 UPDA TE ON THE PROGRESS OF THE RFP FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY RECRUITMENT SEARCH - STAFF TO SCHEDULE MEETING WITH CANDIDATES ON SEPTEMBER 12,2007- APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9D, which is an update to the progress of the RFP for the county attorney recruitment search. MS. FILSON: Do you want me to give you the update on that now? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. MS. FILSON: Okay. As you know, you directed staff to go out to bid RFPs for the county attorney recruitment services, and I believe that was done the end of June, I believe, the 27th. We -- I went to the bid closing yesterday at three o'clock. The notice went out to 25 firms; 10 firms downloaded the RFP. We received three proposals, two proposals were okay and one was nonresponSIve. We received a -- a response from the Argus Group of Tampa, the Waters Group, the Waters Consulting Group of Dallas, Texas, and the Ad Hoc Law Associates of Miami, and that's the one that was non-responsIve. Copies of the proposals and directions on how to review them in a score sheet, we will provide them to you later this week. So I'm looking for direction from you if you want to score them with a score sheet, if you want me to arrange interviews with them, and what date you would like to have that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well-- MS. FILSON: So we actually have two firms now. Do you want to do the score sheet or do you want to actually interview the firms? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you think there's going to be any other firms that's going to -- Page 256 July 24-25, 2007 MS. FILSON: Well, the deadline was yesterday at three o'clock. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. FILSON: Or you can -- or you can request that we can go out for another proposal, another RFP process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd at least like to see these people face to face. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, me too. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So can you get that done in September? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Schedule it for -- MS. FILSON: Now, do you want me to schedule it for September the 11 th or do you want me to do it like the next day, September 12th? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, the carryover? MS. FILSON: Since it's going to be a recess period, we may have a long meeting on the 11 tho MR. MUDD: We'll do it on the 12th. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The 12th. MS. FILSON: Okay. So I'll contact them and we'll have them here. I should have the RFPs later this week. For those of you that won't be here, I'll make sure that they are mailed to you, and then I'll schedule it for September 12th. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that probably concludes our business -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We could have-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I weigh in on this item? MS. FILSON : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. Page 257 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, thank you. Thanks, Sue. Yeah, I think the direction is good, but I also would like to add that the candidate selection candidates, that we include Mr. Weigel's application within those for the board to consider for the final candidate. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you're getting nods from all the other commissioners. That was -- I believe that was always the intent. I believe what you're going to see on 9/12 are the two search firms and you're going to be asking them questions to figure out which ones -- which one you want to select to go through the process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So everybody agrees with what I said so there won't be any -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- misunderstanding? Okay, great. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I just noticed, 9 continues to F, G, and H, just three very quick items. Item #9F RESOLUTION 2007-208: RE-APPOINTING LAVERNE C. FRANKLIN AND IRENE WILLIAMS (WAIVING SECTION 2005-155 SECTION 7B) TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. 9F is reappointment of the Black Affairs Advisory Committee, Laverne Franklin, Irene Williams. I vote to approve. MS. FILSON: And you'll need to waive section 2001-55, section 78. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So be it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. Page 258 July 24-25,2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, unanimous. Item #9G RESOLUTION 2007-209: RE-APPOINTING MANUAL GONZALEZ AND RENA TO FERNANDEZ TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, appointing two members for four years. I'd like to reappoint Manny Gonzalez and Ronado Fernandez. They've both had excellent attendance, and that's the committee recommendations. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd second it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, Page 259 July 24-25, 2007 indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Item #9H DISCUSS DROPPING THE LAWSUIT BCC VS. CLERK OF COURTS AS FEE OFFICER/BUDGET OFFICER; ALSO DISCUSS COUNTY AUDITOR - MOTION TO DISCUSS DURING CLOSED SESSION AT THE SEPTEMBER 11,2007 BCC MEETING - APPROVED MR. MUDD: The next item is 9H, and this is one of the items that you discussed with the attorney to give you counsel. This is 9H for the Board of County Commissioners to discuss dropping the lawsuit, BCC versus Clerk of Courts, as fee officer/budget officer, also discuss county auditor. Commissioner Henning's item. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before we go any farther, we left the option open at the beginning to be able to consider this item for the agenda or not, and we were waiting to hear from the county attorney. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We reviewed early the ordinance 2-36, which is the meetings ordinance for the Board of County Commissioners as found in the Code of Laws and Ordinances. Page 260 July 24-25, 2007 Just a couple things to say here, and one is, as Mr. Henning noted, the ordinance provides, under the aspect, the provisions of the agenda, subsection two it says, the county administrator shall prepare each agenda in appropriate form approved by the board. Matters may be placed on the agenda by the county administrator, any county commissioner, the clerk, the county attorney, and the constitutional officers. It then goes on. So what we have here, factually then, is that a matter was, in fact, placed upon the board's agenda by one of the commissioners, which is pursuant to the ordinance. Moving on, I will note that, again, under 2-36 of the code under the provision called rules of debate, it says, the following rules of debate shall be observed by the board. It goes on to state -- and I will state this -- except as otherwise provided -- except as otherwise provided questions of order and the -- and the conduct of business shall be governed by Roberts Rules of Order. So it's again saying that the rules of debate shall be as stated herein, and ifthere's something not covered as provided herein, the Roberts Rules of Order prevails. It goes on then to say that -- let's see here. Here we go. One moment. Here we are. Next comes up subsection one, motion under consideration. When a motion is presented and seconded, it is under consideration and no other motion shall be received thereafter, and then it goes on with the proviso, except to adjourn, to table, to place on the table, or to postpone or to amend, and the question is decided. So what it's saying there then, again, these are the rules that shall be followed as the rules of debate. When a motion is made and seconded, it is there until another motion -- until that is decided except for the exceptions of, to adjourn, to table, and to postpone, et cetera. A motion to adjourn and to table are to be held without debate, it further says, just as an aside. You had a motion to table earlier today, for instance, on another item. I believe looking at all of the -- at all of this portion of the Page 261 July 24-25, 2007 ordinance, 2-36, that, in fact, yes, the first part of the ordinance that I read relating to the agenda has been complied with. A commissioner has had an item placed on the agenda. It has been placed in the agenda and published and printed and came before the board. I then believe that the board, which acts by majority, and it's stated throughout, the board then has the ability as a board to determine what it wants to hear and how it wants to hear it. It could make a motion to postpone, to table, to do nearly anything including, in fact, to withdraw. The item has been placed on the agenda. This board can determine how it wishes to hear it or if it wishes to hear it at all. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then my motion earlier wasn't out of order? MR. WEIGEL: It was not out of order, but I will note that the second was removed and then you removed the motion, so there's no motion on the floor at the present time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make that motion at this time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I second it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Discussion on the motion? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion is to withdraw the item from the agenda. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't ask what the motion is. I said, discussion under the motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're getting to it right now. Commissioner Coyle is first, then we'll come right to you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I encourage you to do one thing here? It will get you to the same point. I gather that you don't want to consider this item, and what I would prefer that we do is let the item stay on the agenda and merely call the question on what you want to do with the item and -- because I think the principle is fairly well-established that we offer the courtesy to any of the Page 262 July 24-25, 2007 commissioners to have something brought on the agenda. If we don't like it, then we can vote on it and say we disapprove it, but -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is an exception. This is a case that's underway before the court. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a legal case, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's a legal case. And we already discussed it at the last meeting. We went into private session. We're back. We're going to be hashing issues of the case where we may jeopardize the case in some way with our discussion here. That's the only reason why. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That last thing I would do is cut any commissioner short. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I understand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the reason for it. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, besides what Commissioner Coyle has stated, the board is made up of five members. The five members represent the community. I was elected twice by the members of District 3. I am the spokesperson for District 3. And by removing the item, it doesn't give representation to all the county residents. That's number one. The second thing is, I have new information which has -- I have provided to the board members. I want to discuss that. I feel the board members, individually and maybe collectively, may be jeopardized by some of the actions that have happened. I provided that information. I want to talk about it. You know, this isn't anything that we discussed in the closed session. This is all new information. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anybody -- anything else? COMMISSIONER COYLE: My observation would be that if that is the case, then I think we should do that in closed session since Page 263 July 24-25, 2007 we are involved in a legal case. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have to advertise it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So when's the soonest time we could do closed session to discuss this? MR. WEIGEL: The soonest time would be the next meeting that you determine to have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, I make a motion that we discuss at a closed session at the next available opportunity. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got a -- we've got a motion on the floor. MR. WEIGEL: You have a motion on the floor with a second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I withdraw the motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll withdraw my second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then I make a motion that we discuss this in closed session at the next -- at the next -- what, the first available opportunity. Commissioner Fiala. MS. FILSON: September 11th. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: September 11 th, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question on the motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's the motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I said, question on the motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I provided the Board of Commissioners, through an email which is public record, the items that we are going to discuss, so having it in closed session is not going to do anything because it's already public record. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct, but also, too -- but our comments aren't public record, and it could jeopardize the case. I Page 264 July 24-25, 2007 think that's the reason why we're in agreement that it should go into closed session. With that, any other discussion? MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, if! may. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Under the Government in the Sunshine Law, 286.011, Florida Statutes, it provides, in fact, that it's the county attorney that shall request, make a request or advise the Board of County Commissioners of a desire to go into closed session. Noting that there is a desire -- that there may be apparent desire on behalf of the board, for the record and to be in compliance with the law, I will make the request that we have the opportunity to go into closed session at the next available meeting. And for that, I just state that on the record. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. And with that any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show Commissioner Henning was in opposition. MS. FILSON: Who made that second, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. MS. FILSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that we are adjourned -- excuse me. We're going to continue this meeting tomorrow morning, Page 265 July 24-25, 2007 eight o'clock. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned for the evening by order of the Chair at 7: 16 p.m., to be continued July 25, 2007, at 8:00 a.m. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 266 July 24-25, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, July 25, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, continued on this date at 8:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta Tom Henning (Telephonically) Donna Fiala Fred Coyle Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager Page 267 July 24-25, 2007 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mic. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, will you lead us in the pledge of allegiance. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back to the continuation of Tuesday's Board of Collier County Commission meeting. Mr. Mudd, what is next on the agenda? Item #7D RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2007-210: PETITION CU-2005-AR- 8046, JAIME AND DEMARYS OLIVA, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT N. PELIER OF BLANCO & PELIER, P.A., IS REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE, PURSUANT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 2.04.03 AND 2.03.08.A.3, IN THE RURAL AGRICULTURE-MOBILE HOME OVERLAY (A- MHO) ZONING DISTRICT, FOR "FACILITIES FOR THE COLLECTION, TRANSFER, PROCESSING, AND REDUCTION OF SOLID WASTE." THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE THE SITE FOR A HORTICULTURAL MULCHING AND RECYCLING FACILITY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 10.04 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT 1340 WILD TURKEY DRIVE, EAST OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: It's item number 7(D), sir. This item was continued from the July 25th, 2006 BCC meeting and the September 12th, 2006 BCC meeting. Page 268 July 24-25, 2007 This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be required by commission members. Conditional use 2005-AR-8046, Jaime and Demarys Oliva, represented by Robert N. Pelier of Blanco and Pelier, P A, is requesting a conditional use pursuant to Land Development Code Sections 2.04.03 and 2.03.08.A.3 in the rural agricultural/mobile home overlay zoning district for facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid waste. The applicant proposes to use the site for a horticultural mulching and recycling facility. The subject property, consisting of 10.04 acres, is located at 1340 Wild Turkey Drive, east of!mmokalee Road, in Section 26, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All people wishing to participate in this agenda item, please stand at this time and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And now let's go with our commissioners for the disclosure on 7(D). Let's start with Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have received many e-mails, telephone calls and other correspondence with the preponderance opposing this particular petition. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I have had correspondence, e-mails, I've talked with staff with this, and I also received some phone calls the last couple of days with regards to this particular item that we're about to discuss. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I have talked to staff, talked to members of the planning commission, met with members of the community, received numerous e-mails, met with the petitioner, and just about everyone else and his brother. And have had phone Page 269 July 24-25, 2007 calls and other types of communication other than e-mails. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, correspondence, e-mails and calls. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, are you here? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you make your disclosure on 7(D), please. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've had written correspondence, including a petition, a signature petition, e-mails and telephone calls. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Okay, thank you. MR. PELIER: May I proceed? Good, morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. As -- my name is Robert Pelier. I represent Mr. and Mrs. Oliva in the Oliva mulching petition. I'll be brief in my presentation, as I'd like to reserve some time for rebuttal, since I understand there's some opposition. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, go ahead. MR. PELIER: In this particular application, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, the Olivas run or contend to run a small mulching operation. It's our belief that this particular use is consistent with the Land Development Code of Collier County, and also the growth plan registered with the state. Also, since it lies in the rural fringe area, it is a permissible use. I have put up on the board the area of business related activities. And as you can see, to the east of the subject property we have Big Island excavation site, and to the south we have the Jones mine site. It's my understanding that both of those operations had been approved and that both those operations involve excavating the use of chemicals, explosives, et cetera, et cetera. This particular operation is a one-machine operation, which Page 270 July 24-25, 2007 revolves around one tub grinder machine, which I'll show to the commissioners in a moment. It does not utilize anything other than the processing of organic materials, usually being trees that are cleared from construction sites. Therefore, we believe that based on the limited impact, if any at all in that particular area, that this particular use is consistent with the Land Development Code and should be approved. Now, I'm going to move -- that's a better rendering of where the site is, to give the Commissioners an idea of where the other operations are located. I also have a list of summary -- a summary of home occupational licenses for the surrounding area. A cursory glance of these particular licenses show that there are a variety and a myriad of operations out of that area, which entail either the operation of trucks, hauling, construction services. And that's the first page. I have a second page. In total I believe there's approximately perhaps 70 occupational licenses in the area. Lastly, I have a picture of what the actual machinery is that's intended to be used by Mr. and Mrs. Oliva. This is a Mobark processor. As you can see, there's a conveyor belt on the left side of the image, and the actual machine works through that tub grinder that sits in the middle there. And it sits on four rubber wheels, to minimize the impact or the vibrations in the area. I'd like to remind the commissioners that the conditional use petition is based on a 10-acre parcel of land which the Olivas have owned since 2003. Since the meeting before the Collier County Planning Commission and my involvement in the case, we have gathered some facts that I believe the planning commission did not benefit from at the time. Namely, we conducted and hired an audio expert to conduct an audio study. And it is provided in the materials that the decibel impact that this machine has is well within the residential ordinance of the area. And again I remind the Commissioners that that particular Page 271 July 24-25, 2007 area was an agricultural area. So it more than satisfies the noise impact. Insofar as what I believe to be a non-issue, I understand that there are some folks that are opposing this. However, I'd like to emphasize that Mr. and Mrs. Oliva are willing to adopt all of the recommendations by staff and all of the conditions that the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association had imposed. In fact, there's a copy of a communication dated late in 2006, I believe it's October of 2006, whereby Mr. and Mrs. Oliva have agreed to restrict and abide by conditions both suggested by staff and suggested by the neighborhood association. There are several concerns regarding the neighborhood association. Initially when I first got involved I determined, or I tried to determine, what territorial area was encompassed by this neighborhood association. There is nothing in the Collier County records that either reflects the registration of a charter of the association and/or a plat that would indicate what geographic area the association purports to have any kind of influence or discussion about. It is further concerning that the individuals that comprise the association are not the immediate neighbors ofMr. and Mrs. Oliva. And when we're talking about this kind of operation I believe that the neighbors in the immediate proximity of the Olivas would have better standing, or better idea, as to the impact to their neighborhood. To that end, I've provided in the materials and I have for today for reference, a petition that has been signed by the 71 immediate neighbors ofMr. and Mrs. Oliva, all in support of the petition. The petition itself clearly delineates the operation hours that Mr. and Mrs. Oliva are willing to adhere to, the amount of trips. And since it entails hauling timber to the area, Mr. and Mrs. Oliva have agreed to restrict the trips to 44 trips a week. They've agreed to operate Monday through Friday within the hours of 10:00 and 5:00. And just so that the commission is aware, that machine is not a machine that needs to run at all times. It is run and operated when the Page 272 July 24-25, 2007 timber is there and when they need to process. There are no noxious fumes or chemicals or anything else involved in this. This is strictly the processing, the chopping, for lack of a better word, and processing of organic material. There was some concerns and there was an inquiry as to how much time the actual mulch would sit on premise. Based on the contracts and based on what we've researched, the mulch should not sit there for more than five days. Therefore, we believe that there is absolutely no reasonable justification to deny this particular use. Again, the consistency with the Land Development Code, the fact that it is less impactful and less intrusive to the neighborhood than the mining and excavating. In fact, I believe that there is a petition pending now by one of the mining companies to expand their operations. So frankly, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, we believe that based on Mr. and Mrs. Oliva's ability and desire to cooperate with staff and with the neighborhood association; we don't believe that there's any issue insofar as how the Olivas intend to run their business. In fact, of noteworthy importance is that throughout the time that this petition has been impending and Mr. Mudd has clearly indicated that this petition had been rescheduled on two separate occasions. Mr. and Mrs. Oliva had attempted to arrive at a consensus with the neighborhood association. And that is what led ultimately to the final summary dated October 26th, 2006 whereby Mr. and Mrs. Oliva say, okay, these are the conditions that you've wanted, that you've announced, staff has these conditions and suggestions and we agree with them and we are willing to abide by them. In fact, despite the uncertainty of whether or not this petition was going to be approved, Mr. and Mrs. Oliva have gone ahead and conducted themselves in a manner consistent with what the neighborhood association has desired which is improvement of the Page 273 July 24-25, 2007 area, improvement of the roadway. There has been absolutely no dispute by Mr. and Mrs. Oliva in the manner that they have been recommended to operate their business. There is one, not objection, but suggestion that we have, insofar as the suggestion of staff to erect a concrete wall around the operation. Based on the information that we've received from our sound engineer, our sound expect, which by the way is a retired Collier County law enforcement and has all the accreditations and credentials necessary to make this conclusion, a concrete wall would actually aggravate the sound impact by causing the sound of the machine to bounce off the concrete. We have suggested, and the expert has suggested, an earthen berm around the area which would more readily absorb the noise and sound that's generated by the machine. One last issue. We had conducted a study with Mr. Heisler, who's the sound engineer, and we have invited the members or representatives of the association, the CINA association. And they were present for the operation of the machine. And there was an issue raised as to whether or not the same machine was the one on premise that we were indicating and running. And we've provided the materials to the commission as well that shows the purchase of the machine, the finance of the machine. It's a $75,000 machine. It's a small family run business. They don't have the financial wherewithal to be interchanging and buying multiple machines so it's been the same machine, other than the fact that the machine had been painted. And in support of that, I have provided a complete file for Mr. Thomas Keegan, who is the code compliance officer on the matter, and the commissioners can read for themselves that it's the same machine, the machine's been there. There was a photograph part and parcel of the file which indicates that way back when -- you have to Page 274 July 24-25, 2007 strain your vision to see it, but it's the same machine. So in sum, Commissioners, we believe that based on what we've presented, this conditional use should be approved. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. If! may, couple of things. One, the Corkscrew Association -- you eluded to the fact that they can't identify their boundaries and they're possibly not a legal organization. I helped to form that -- I did form that organization five years ago, and I'll tell you what, I lean very heavily upon their opinions. And their opinions are not favorable towards this project. In fact, I haven't been able to find one positive response from all the e-mails I received, which are numerous, endorsing the project. Question, as far as the petition endorsing it, this was one I think that was in question. When was this petition done? MR. PELlER: It was after the planning commission, and after there was a controversy with the association. And I believe the date on the petition -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I had all sorts of complaints from the neighborhoods in the area about it was misrepresented, they wish they could restrict -- take their names back off the petition. I've heard from numerous people afterwards that they thought this petition was a sham, it was presented to them under false pretenses. They were not -- it was one of those things -- now out there today in the audience we've probably got some people to speak. MR. PELIER: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we'll hear from those people. But we have received numerous e-mails and received other petitions that date yours after the fact of yours, they're more current, that are opposed to your operation. I don't know what to tell you, sir. It's an extremely difficult thing. You try to justify the fact that you have Jones Mining and a couple other operations in the area and private businesses that are allowed out there as a reason why we should degrade the Page 275 July 24-25, 2007 neighborhood one more step with this operation. MR. PELIER: Not at all. May I respond? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I want to go one step further, too. When people come in here for a conditional use that you're looking for, generally they're approved when they can walk in here with the neighborhood arm-in-arm without a bunch of people that are going to have objections to it that live in the neighborhood. And when they do that, we're generally trying to work the best will of the people that live in that area. You don't have that goodwill, from what I could see. I just want you to know upfront, the planning commission also didn't think you had that goodwill. Yeah, I know, you did do some changes along the way. But I didn't -- I don't think you picked up the confidence of the neighborhood, not from the letters that I've seen. With that, I'm going to give it to -- MR. PELlER: Mr. Chairman, may I respond to those comments? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You certainly may. MR. PELIER: Yes. Firstly, an element of goodwill and cooperation requires both sides to be willing to do that. We have satisfied each and every condition that the neighborhood association had put in writing. Not only did Mr. and Mr Oliva do that, they went beyond that. And as recently as June 16th of this past year, I sent a letter to the neighborhood association, copying staff, and I have never received the response to that letter. Moreover, the fact that this was set and reset on two different occasions indicates my client's good faith and goodwill in doing it. What is of concern to me is that there seems to be a personality conflict between my clients and the association. At some point in time there was a breakdown in communication, and I believe that the association felt slighted because Mr. and Mrs. Oliva did not join their association and did not attend the first meeting. That should not be Page 276 July 24-25, 2007 justification for an objective analysis of this particular project. And if! may, Mr. Chairman, the petition -- that's the reason why I brought a petition here is to see that there is absolutely nothing misrepresented about what the petition is about. This was a grassroots effort by Mr. and Mrs. Oliva to go around to their immediate neighborhood to determine whether or not their neighbors had any objection to what they're doing. I don't believe, and neither does -- if I may, I don't believe that this particular operation degrades the use of the neighborhood. This is exactly what this particular area is zoned for. And the comparison that I was using with the mining and excavation and the blasting is that the running of this particular machine when it processes timber in no way even compares to the impact of what they do. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. But this -- you don't live in the neighborhood. This is a conditional use. It has to receive approval of this board. And we're looking out for the interest of the neighbors. And we're going to weigh all the these facts. Right now what we're going to do is -- how many speakers do you have? MS. FILSON: Three. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to go to the speakers. MR. PELIER: Very well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll deal from it past that point. MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Maureen Bonness. She'll be followed by P.J. Noe. MS. BONNESS: Good morning, Commissioners, Maureen Bonness. I am the chair person of the mulch committee, which we formed at the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association in response to this petition. Back in about December of 2004, somewhere between Thanksgiving and Christmas, 2004, a lot of neighbors were concerned Page 277 July 24-25, 2007 because there was a lot of noise coming out of their backyards on the southern part of our association's boundaries. And we later learned there was this mulching operation that just came in and set up shop. So since then we have -- and then eventually filed for a conditional use. So we set up a committee and we studied it. We invited the petitioners to come to those committee meetings. In fact, we had a Spanish-speaking person to translate on the committee just so that they could understand all of the elements. Our concerns have been noise, lack of interaction with our neighborhood association, future expansion, and noncompliance with regulations of the county. The issue has been brought up in front of the neighborhood association multiple times and we have voted on it and it has always come up with a unanimous opposition to the petition. On the noise, we did -- I attended their demonstration. And if what they had done initially when they were operating without permit, if their noise level was as it was at the demonstration, this probably would not have been a concern for the neighborhood. The neighborhood is very tolerant of multiple uses of land in the area. They're not opposing Jones Mining at this time. They're not in opposition to the other mining and the other uses. But this one was very loud and some of the people right next door can tell you more about that. As far as lack of interaction with the neighborhood association, they have been invited to meetings, they are still invited to meetings. They are property owners in the neighborhood and they can join. Since they initially put in their petition, there have been over 15 meetings that they could have attended at any time. As far as expansion in the future, we are very concerned of not just what it is today, but your conditional use gives them a lot of leeway about what they can do in the future, too. They could sell it to Page 278 July 24-25, 2007 somebody else who could come in and put a mulching operation as well. And as far as noncompliance, I know there have been a lot of code enforcements. They pretty much came in and set up shop and then found out they had to get permits. And there's a lot of history of them continuing to do what they can under the radar as much as they can. And we have a lot of concern about no matter what you say here and what conditions you put on them they're probably going to continue to do whatever they want to. Now, under those concerns that I told you, if you -- we are opposed to it. If you do, please give us, as a neighborhood association, some kind of mechanism to come back and do some kind of annual review or something so that we have a voice in the future as to what goes on out there. To that extent also, because noise is a big concern, we would like to see some kind of third party that they fund. And if there are complaints -- when there are complaints from the neighbors, a third party comes in and measures the decibel. Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is P.J. Noe. He (sic) will be followed by Lynn Radi. MS. NOE: Please excuse me, I'm not a public speaker. Mr. Oliva is requesting to place his tree grinding in Corkscrew, causing our neighborhood 45 hours a week of continuous diesel engine noise. These noises and vibrations of his machines are called low frequency sound waves. The dump trucks on Immokalee Road can be clearly heard at Corkscrew Sanctuary now. Fibro-acoustic disease is the detrimental consequence of long-term exposure to such low frequency waives. As you know, there are many problems connected to sound other than auditory levels. People who work or live near low frequency noise have been diagnosed with fibro-acoustic disease for years. They Page 279 July 24-25, 2007 have thickening of blood vessels and heart tissue. Test subjects who have been exposed have volunteered their own heart tissue samples. The normal range for heart tissue is 0.5. Victims with fibro-acoustic disease were 2.3. Age doesn't matter. Young and old alike are affected. The manipulation of airwaves by low frequency vibrations are detrimental even at low decibels. And certainly everyone in this room has felt the relief when someone finally turns off a dump truck or a booming car. These waves are not just an annoyance. They have been known for years in multiple studies to discourage wildlife and cause health hazards to those nearby. Diesel engines running for hours are made worse by multiple diesel engines running that are not synchronized. These sound waves travel for miles, permeate house walls and windows, expand from their source over berms and cannot be stopped by landscaping. Fibro-acoustic disease has psychiatric problems affecting those who are exposed. Think how mad you get when you're sitting next to a booming car. These waves are made worse when one cannot escape or control them. And these sounds and vibrations have commonly been documented to cause learning disabilities in children. Our residents will not be able to turn off Oliva's noise when they don't feel well or are tired of hearing it. In reply to Mark Strain's inability to find in the old or new LDC code where this facility is even allowed, County Administrator Joe Schmitt stated, quote, there would be net reduction in solid waste disposal at Collier County Landfill, unquote, if Oliva is allowed to operate in our neighborhood. This is not reason enough to sell out the Corkscrew residents to alleviate landfill problems. Yawl Brothers had to put their facility in an industrial area. Oliva has repetitively committed code violations, admitted he lets Page 280 July 24-25, 2007 others use his machinery, he can't control the sound waves or the odor, and he does not live in Corkscrew nor care about its residents or habitat. What Oliva chooses to do for a living is his choice, but to force it on the residents and wildlife of Corkscrew full time forever is just not acceptable. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Lynn Radi. MR. RADI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Lynn Radi. I live at 6670 Farm Lane. I live in close proximity to the mulching operation. I wish to let you know, this has been going on for several years now. This isn't something that just started up recently. The sound that I got from this mulching operation was equivalent to a chain saw operating at full speed. And we expected that during Hurricane Wilma, and thankfully we got it all cleaned up. But the mulching operation's continued to be noisy. We were told by the zoning board that they were not permitted to be in operation. So -- and we were to call zoning every time that we heard them that we knew that they were. Well, this worked a few times, and then we didn't get any reaction from zoning on that. Oliva works -- their property is at the end of a road that some day will be connected on through to Farm Lane where I live. And I've gone down there when I've heard the operation working. I've driven down there. And a person come out of their house with a cell phone and is watching me real closely and talking on the cell phone. By the time I got down to the mulching operation, it was quiet. So it's quite difficult even for me, and I'm sure for zoning to, you know, get down there to observe the illegal operation. The gentleman referred to when they had a demonstration on sound. I was sitting at my house on the day that this was to occur, and I was watching the clock, and I was marking down the times that each time that the chipper would work. And they were like 45,50 minutes late in starting. So then they'd come over to my house and measure Page 281 July 24-25, 2007 the sound level of this operation. Our person that was at the initial demonstration said that it didn't seem too loud to them. Of course they were grinding palm fronds, they weren't grinding large limbs of trees or tree stumps or anything of that nature. And they were told that -- she was told at the time that that machine won't cut large stumps. However, all around the perimeter of the place you could see larger mulch that was there, things that I had heard in the past. When they come over to my house, we talked by phone. We didn't have a representative on the grinder at that time. They said okay, start up. Couldn't hear it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You have to wrap it up, sir. MR. RADI: Okay. I felt that that was a farce, it was a setup, because clearly I could hear the sound prior to that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We appreciate you being here today, thank you. MR. RADI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That concludes the speakers? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, before we have you come up, Jeff, would you step up, please. MR. KLATZKOW: I'd just like to enter a few things into the record for the commissioners to view. This is an aerial of the property in 2004. You can note the canopy. This is 2005, you can see it's disappeared. I'd like to ask Susan to come down to talk about that for a moment. MS. MASON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Susan Mason, Collier County Environmental Services. As Mr. Klatzkow showed on the aerial in 2004, the property, the east side of the property was largely intact with the vegetation. Code Page 282 July 24-25,2007 enforcement had opened a case previously and that was the result of the application for the conditional use. They had posted a stop work order because some clearing had taken place. When I had gone out to do my site visit as part of the conditional use application to determine preserve location and listed species issues and the like, I observed that more clearing had taken place than what the code enforcement investigators had explained to me prior to my site visit. I did speak with two code enforcement investigators to confirm my suspicions, and the one code enforcement investigator, Kevin Halesworth, who's no longer with the county, he's moved, did inform the applicant that they had really needed to stop clearing, even after he had posted the stop work order. MR. KLATZKOW: So the clearing continued after the stop work order? MS. MASON: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Jennifer, would you tell the board what that IS. MS. WALDRON: For the record, Jen Waldron, code enforcement. I did a site visit just a few days ago, and they do have a fence on the property, which is unpermitted, and this gate also, which I could not find any permits for. That's just another view of the fence. And there's also an unpermitted structure on one of their properties. They do own four properties back there, so I'm not sure if this is the property that the conditional use is for. But it is on one of their properties, just stating that there is an unpermitted structure. And this is a view of what their attorney was talking about, placing a berm along the perimeter of the property. They've already constructed that before the conditional use with irrigation, vegetation so -- which they're not allowed to do any kind of construction on that property until their conditional use is granted. Page 283 July 24-25, 2007 So they're basically not allowed to do anything on their property, which they've already done many things and there are many code violations out there. MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, I would just add, we don't have the ability in our Land Development Code, once the conditional use is given, to take it away. If for any reason this board wishes to grant the conditional use, that one of the conditions be that this has to come back to the board at some point in time and expressly give yourself the ability to pull the conditional use, should the applicant not be able to follow the conditions we've asked on them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tell me this, though, Jeff, while I've got you right there, as far as I'm concerned this is an incompatible use for the neighborhood. Is that the correct terminology you can use for something like this for denial? MR. KLATZKOW: This goes beyond this. The point of this is to show you that they -- you can put all the conditions you want on this. They don't follow the LDC. If they're not going to follow the LDC, they're not going to follow the conditions. The planning commission, my recollection was, specifically found that this was an incompatible use. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, what I'm going to do, and don't panic, I'm going to make a motion, see if I can get a second. We're going to have some discussion. Before we vote I'm going to allow you to come up and make some counterpoints. MR. KLA TZKOW: And I think you might, just for the record, just to hear from staff. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry? MR. KLA TZKOW: You need to hear from staff, just to complete the record. MR. PELIER: Mr. Chairman, would you like to hear from staff before I respond to the point -- Page 284 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I would. Then you can respond one time. But we'll have some discussion take place first. Before we vote I'll allow you to come forward and make any counterpoints you'd like. MR. PELIER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, principal planner with the department of zoning. You have been provided considerable backup information, as well as the supplemental executive summary, and the original executive summary, staff report and the findings in support of this petition. Staff did look at the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code, finding that this conditional use, with the conditions imposed to address the illegal clearing, is consistent with the LDC provisions and the Growth Management Plan, and we are recommending approval. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for that. Okay, I'm going to make a motion at this time for denial, due to incompatible use. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I have Second from Commissioner Fiala. We'll get to you, sir. We're going to go through our question. One time. Stand back, please. MR. PELIER: Very well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll invite you up to the podium when we're ready. Okay, any discussions? Commissioner Coyle, is your light on from before? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's from before. Page 285 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can I turn it off at this time? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had a question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please, go ahead, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. The attorney said there were no noxious odors or fumes, yet the people from Corkscrew Island have said there were odors. I just wanted somebody to clear that up for me. Are there odors from this type of an operation? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Staff members? Has anyone from staff investigated that particular claim one way or the other? Or do we just have to take the word of the residents that live in the immediate area? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem again. This question came up throughout the review, and we have included a condition to address it. Because the way it's been presented to staff and in the hearings, the longer the stuff sits in a pile, it creates odor. And the applicant has agreed to move those piles around and to limit the time that the piles would be on-site. As far as diesel engines, yes, there is a diesel smell to that, but it would probably be similar to tractors and that kind of use that would come along in an agricultural use in perhaps a larger scope, such as mining or a large agricultural use. COMMISSIONER FIALA: One of the things -- this is terribly disappointing to me. It seems that regardless of what the law says or what code enforcement says, they operate however they please, whenever they please. And to me that means that everything that -- all the promises that they give mean nothing. So I just wanted to put that on the record. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's funny that Commissioner Page 286 July 24-25, 2007 Fiala should say that, because that's where I was leading to. Obviously this person or these people that want this conditional use, at the present time they don't abide by the LDC or the rules and regulations of the county. And obviously they've had code enforcement out there. That bothers me. That tells me exactly what Commissioner Fiala said, you can make promises, but if you don't adhere to it and if you're not a good neighbor, I'd hate to say what would happen after if we approve this conditional use. And I have some real concerns with that. There is some responsibilities by the people that want this conditional use that they have to abide by -- they have to have a good neighborhood policy, and I don't see that in this. And that leads me to believe that if we do give this conditional use, that all we're going to do is -- this is going to be a thorn in not only our side but on code enforcement side and also the residents that live in that general area. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, do you have anything? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you. I do have a question for the petitioner and a question for Kay Deselem. MR. PELIER: Yes, Commissioner Henning. This is Rob Pelier. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Can you tell me the adjoining properties, their uses? MR. PELIER: To the south-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: On all sides. MR. PELlER: To the north I believe we have 951. To the west we have -- and I have it documented here on the first graphic that I have. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you on Wild Turkey Drive? MR. PELIER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm looking at a residential property to the north on the map. Am I wrong about that? Page 287 July 24-25, 2007 MR. PELIER: Yes. Under the map that I have, Commissioner -- and again, my clients do not own four parcels, they own two adjoining parcels. The conditional use that's being applied for is on the 10-acre parcel. And there is no residential structure other than the Olivas residential structure in and around the area. To the north you have Immokalee Road. To the west you have Immokalee Road. To the east you have the Big Island excavation site. And to the south you have the Jones Mining site. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I think you're describing property that's far removed from the abutting property that your client owns. What I'm seeing is I'm seeing probably a sod farm to the south? MR. PELIER: Well, to the south is the entrance off of Immokalee Road of the property. And I have the map and I'll put it up on the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's quite a delay here, so it's going to be hard for me to see it right away. MR. PELIER: Ifwe can focus in on the picture. The subject site is outlined in red. As you can see -- well, around the area, and the other commissioners have the benefit of the visualizer, but it seems like the two adjoining parcels of the Olivas are nowhere near any residential structures. Also, in the surrounding area the second image and the second illustration that I had dealt with the home occupational licenses that have been issued in and around the area. So to answer your question, Commissioner, I don't believe there's any residential structures in the area. The closest operations, for lack of a better word, are those that I've identified. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Yeah, I disagree with your findings. I mean, I see the viewer what you have put on, but the identification of the surrounding properties are not what you are alluding to. Thank you very much. MR. PELIER: Okay, sir. Page 288 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, at this time go ahead and-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Deselem? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning, were you done? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I want to make sure I don't have anybody -- you have to counter somebody else. Did staff have to make one other comment? MR. MUDD: He has a question for Ms. Deselem, Commissioner Henning does. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. DESELEM: This is Kay Deselem. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is in the rural fringe; is that correct? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm looking at the Land Development Code, and I cannot find where a mulching operation is allowed. Maybe you can help me with that. MS. DESELEM: Yes, Commissioner. It is referenced in two different sections of the Land Development Code. It's in the table in Section 2.04.03, and then it's also referenced in the text on -- I'll give you the page number, it's a little bit easier to find that way. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm on the Muni. code, so the page is not going to help me. MS. DESELEM: Let me find the section. It's in the rural fringe area under the neutral lands. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Neutral. MS. DESELEM: Yes. And it is Item 3-H. And it notes as a conditional use number three identifies conditional uses that would be permitted. And H is Page 289 July 24-25, 2007 facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid waste. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I remember that. Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, I have a couple of commissioners who want to talk. I want to make sure that you're the last thing that happens. MR. PELIER: Very well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Because I don't want you to come back later and say we didn't give you a chance to counter somebody's points. MR. PELIER: Very well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just wondered, being that they've cleared all of those trees without a permit, does code enforcement have a case on the tree clearing? MR. PELlER: Commissioner, I have some information, if I -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here's code enforcement. MS. WALDRON: We do have a case on the tree clearing. We have not proceeded with it because we are waiting for the outcome of the conditional use to find out how we were going to proceed with this case. MR. MUDD: State your name. MS. WALDRON: Jen Waldron, for code enforcement. If the conditional use is not approved, there will be heavy mitigation that needs to be done on these properties. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Also, were there other code violations that have been identified on this property? MS. WALDRON: I just found the fence is unpermitted, there is another unpermitted structure on the other property. The berm was constructed also before the conditional use was approved. Page 290 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't see any more lights so I'll tell you what, go ahead and make your closing statements, be concise, be brilliant, be brief. MR. PELlER: I will try, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Fiala, I'd like to clarify some more points. I have provided a complete file from code enforcement, from Mr. Thomas Keegan who is the code enforcement officer. There has been some discussion regarding multiple code enforcement violations, et cetera, et cetera. That is simply not the case. What has occurred is the following: When there was an operation unbeknownst to Mr. Oliva that he couldn't operate the machine, Mr. Keegan came on board, told him that he had to stop, and he's since stopped. In fact, based on what the gentleman -- I forget his name, the last speaker -- he identified that there were multiple calls to code enforcement. You'll see at a cursory reading of the notes by Mr. Keegan, that he investigated those noise complaints and he determined that those noise -- the origins of that noise was not Mr. Oliva because he had not been operating the machinery. Insofar as the clearing of the land, that was addressed in the points that Mr. and Mrs. Oliva have agreed upon in adhering to. Part of this conditional use incorporates a provision to reforest, replant that particular area and restore the area before it had been cleared. Now, Commissioner Halas and yourself had concerns as to whether or not the Olivas would adhere to any of the conditions. Well, we have agreed to a revisiting of this particular situation in a year's time. We have agreed to having a third-party person come in and determine if there was anything out of the ordinary or out of the conditions to be brought back here. And, in other words, to revisit the issue and have the conditional use pulled insofar as expansion. In order for the Olivas to expand, they have to come before you Page 291 July 24-25, 2007 and seek the permission to expand their operations. I can assure you, they've got three kids, it's a husband and wife, small family-owned business. They have no intentions of expanding. In fact, the comments made by the speakers, and I understand that they want to protect the area and what have you. My client's have wanted to act in a good neighborly fashion. That's the reason why they've been flexible and they've wanted to cooperate in all of the conditions that they've been asked. So from our perspective we don't believe there's any controversy insofar as what the conditions that are being requested by both staff and both the neighborhood association. Again, I point out that there may be some personality conflict at some point. The berm that was referred to by Ms. Waldron is not the berm that I was referring to. The earthen berm is not a structure but rather the organization of the organic materials around the machine to be able to absorb the noise so that it would not affect the residents in the area. So we believe that we can fashion some resolution whereby my clients would have to abide by these conditions and the continued conditional use be contingent upon their continued cooperation. We have no problem with that. And that should satisfy the Commission's concerns as to whether or not the Olivas are making a good faith attempt in operating this in a fashion that's within the LDC, within the future growth use, and the conditions in the neighborhood and according to staff. There's nothing else that the Olivas can obviously do. They've done and agreed to everything that's been requested of them. Now what we're asking is for the Olivas to have a chance to make good on what's being requested of them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala's got one more question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, did you just say that they Page 292 July 24-25, 2007 were going to put the mulch that they grind up around the machine to absorb the sound? MR. PELlER: There's an earthen berm that's constructed or comprised of, for lack of a better word, of organic material. And this COMMISSIONER FIALA: So organic material is the stuff you just grind up, right? MR. PELlER: Well, not necessarily. There has to be -- I believe it's a different composition that would act as an earthen berm. And again, if -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you're supposed to be moving that every five days so it doesn't stink. MR. PELIER: That's right. But what we have suggested, based on what the sound engineer and sound study has recommended, that an earthen berm, for the purposes of reducing the noise, is preferable. However, my clients have no opposition whatsoever if the Commission believes that a concrete wall is suitable, they'll build a six-foot concrete wall. However, based on our research, that would actually provide a solid surface for the sound to be rebuffed off the particular concrete sound. Also, I'd like to respond to one of the comments that were made from the speakers regarding low frequency noise. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please wrap it up, though. MR. PELlER: Yes. The report that I've provided, which is a comprehensive report by Mr. Heisler, John Heisler, John Heisler & Associates, identifies both the low frequency and the high frequency noise. And it's well within the ordinance, the county ordinance for this particular area. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir, we appreciate you being here today. MR. PELIER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, is there any other Page 293 July 24-25, 2007 comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion on the floor by myself, a second by Commissioner Fiala to deny, based upon incompatibility . Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion passed 5-0. And with that, can we do anything, Mr. Mudd, in the next 11 minutes? Item #8D RESOLUTION 2007-211A: TO REJECT APPROVAL OF PETITION AVPLAT-2007-AR-11341, LOT 24, VILLA FLOREST A AT WYNDEMERE, PHASE 2, TO VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLlC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF A PLATTED DRAINAGE EASEMENT RUNNING ALONG THE EASTERL Y SIDE OF LOT 24, VILLA FLOREST A AT WYNDEMERE, PHASE 2, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST EAST, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 102-103 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND Page 294 July 24-25, 2007 BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A- ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I think you can do 8(D), okay? And this was a -- and that gentleman has been here for all of yesterday and this morning, and he was talking about having other things to do today. But this is Item 17-A, which was moved to 8(D) at Commissioner Coyle's request. The item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. This is a recommendation to reject approval of Petition A VPLAT-2007-AR-11341, Lot 24, Villa Floresta of Wynd em ere, Phase 2, to vacate the county and the public's interest in a portion of a platted drainage easement running along the easterly side of Lot 24, Villa Floresta at Wyndemere, Phase 2, a subdivision located in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, as recorded in Plat Book 15, Pages 102 and 103 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, and being more particularly described in Exhibit A. Again, the item was moved at Commissioner Coyle's request. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have to swear anyone in for this? MS. FILSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those people wishing to participate in this agenda item, please stand at this time to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn). CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, we have already made our disclosure at the time the beginning of the meeting. Do we have to do that again? Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No. If you have disclosed on this item, then your disclosure is of record. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to go right to Page 295 July 24-25, 2007 Commissioner Coyle-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask, did we really disclose on this one, being that it was pulled from the summary agenda and put onto the regular agenda? I don't remember doing that myself. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, for the better discretion, be more careful, disclose. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's do it. Let's go right down the list. Now let's start with you, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Correspondence. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, I'm sorry, this is-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: 17-A. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 17-A. No disclosures. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I had correspondence. That's the only thing. And I had a brief discussion with staff. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just had some correspondence in the file. I have not talked with anyone concerning this. And if! could -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- let me explain to you why I had this pulled off of the summary agenda. Customarily we only have things on the summary agenda that are undisputed. And in this particular case, it was clear from the executive summary that the petitioner had asked for the opportunity to make an affirmative presentation to the board. For that reason I felt it was improper that it be placed on the summary agenda without providing the petitioners the opportunity to be heard. So that's the only reason I pulled it. I have not talked with petitioners or staff even about this issue. Page 296 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, I think it would suffice to go right to them, then, correct? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, sir, go ahead. Your names for the record, please, and then -- MS. NEWLAND: I'm Phyllis Newland (phonetic), Commissioners. I'm the owner of the house we're talking about. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you pull the mic down just a little bit, please, so I can -- MS. NEWLAND: I'm Phyllis Newland, I'm the owner of the house we're talking. MR. LONGO: Hi. I'm Richard Longo, and I was also part of this plan and development of this property. Commissioners, basically we're here to try to get this approved and not disapproved. This is a very minor encroachment on an easement that in 2002 depulled with another -- Mrs. Newland did not own it at that time -- went to your county development/environmental services, and they approved the encroachment of one foot, seven inches that is existing today in a 10- foot easement. We're asking for a small encroachment of one foot. But when we got to Mr. Higgins at the department of environmental services, he said that you changed your process, you don't issue these letters any longer and that you want to vacate instead of just approving an encroachment. Now, even when this small addition will become completed, there's still 11 and a half feet of property to go on this easement for this 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe. And the main item here is that the controlling factor is the homeowner's association. This is a private club. In the first letter it states that Wyndemere Homeowner's Association will be the ones that are responsible for this, any maintenance on this storm drainage. It's not sanitary sewer or water, it's a storm drain. It's about nine foot Page 297 July 24-25, 2007 deep. And if you know anything about RCB pipe, it will be here long after this commission is gone, and many more. So we don't see a problem as far as that goes. But there's methods of construction that can be implemented to save the building and the pool with tight sheathing and other things that if you had to dig up this pipe, there's two manholes 130 foot apart. You can go down those manholes and look straight through to the lake. This is a very well constructed item. So basically we're asking, to make this design criteria work for her small addition to her family room, we need to encroach by one foot. We've done all the surveying, we've spent a couple thousand dollars on surveying to make sure that the commission sees what's going on here. We don't feel it's a problem. The homeowner's association letter has blessed the project. They have no problem with it. And we have the letter to that effect. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm kind of curious, why would you want to have this pulled off the consent agenda when it could have been approved? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it was denied. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, excuse me, denied. Forgive me, okay. MR. LONGO: Well, what happened is it was approved by Wyndemere, except that when we tried to get Collier County to give us another letter, they said well, things have changed now. You need to vacate that small piece from -- we don't really care if it's vacated or the letter of encroachment is the same as it was in 2002. It clears the title that basically says that the county understands what you're doing, but the homeowner's association is the real responsible party here. Also, Mrs. Newland, the owner of that house, will have to repair any damage to her own house it does have to be repaired and there's Page 298 July 24-25, 2007 some damage. So she's not denying that -- you know, put the onus on the county and the homeowner's association. She's agreed to this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any questions. Perhaps a solution -- if the only thing you're looking for is approval to make an extension of your house and it's for one foot, why don't you just ask for a waiver, a variance? MR. LONGO: I don't think -- see, we can't go for a variance. Weare not imposing on the setbacks. We're way off the setbacks. If we were into the side yard setback, we could go for a variance. The only reason we're here is the permits have been approved. The only item it's waiting on is the approval of the vacation. And in your ordinance it says only the commissioners can do this. The zoning and the staffers could not do this. It has to come to you, if you're going to vacate. My -- our opinion was when we started this thing was, well, you had this letter from 2002, obviously -- so we did all the plans and did all the submissions and found out that the game has changed. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, let's go to Commissioner Halas and then -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess this is a stormwater drain, isn't it, easement? MR. LONGO: Yes. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Stan Chrzanowski with . . . engmeerIng review. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And if we take away some of this stormwater drain, obviously it's going to have an effect someplace upstream; is that correct? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir. There is a 24-inch pipe that's about nine feet deep under this easement. The easement is there. If Page 299 July 24-25, 2007 anything happens to the pipe, someone has the legal authority to get into the easement to prepare the pipe. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then we become liable. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, the homeowner's association becomes liable. The easement's in their favor. The easement is to us with no responsibility for maintenance, as it is with all the easements we take. We don't want to maintain anything, but we want to make sure we have the right to get in there if somebody else isn't doing it. The pipe is down under the ground. There's nothing that -- I'm from the northeast. We do stuff with boxes and sheeting. You can go down the middle of a street in New Haven, Connecticut and not have anything cave in on you. It's easily done. It's not easily done, it's more difficult than just going and opening a very wide trench and having the thing cave in. But there's way to do it. You can jack and bore a pipe through there. You can put a line there through the pipe if it fails. But 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe that's nine feet down, probably filled with water most of the time, I doubt if it's going to fail for 50 years or so. The house will probably be replaced before the pipe IS. They're correct, in the old days we used to give people letters of no objection to encroachments into easements. The county attorney opined we can't do that anymore, that we don't have the right to do it, so they make us send them to you. And then somebody else opined that they don't like the encroachment, that you actually had to vacate the easement. And we don't like to vacate easements, because you lose that right. We'd prefer to do the letter of no encroachment. But we're stuck with conflicting opinions here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're not doing any physical harm if we were to grant it to them? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, you're not. Page 300 July 24-25, 2007 MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would for this -- and I believe that the gentleman who said he speaks for the owner, and I would make sure that you get the owner on record to concur with his statement that basically said that if that pipe does fail and they have to go in there and ifthere's any damage to her property, that she would be totally liable for that repair and it wouldn't be somebody else's concern, that she would do it. And I would make sure that you get that on the record to -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the other thing is, what happens if she -- if this person decides to sell the house and somebody else buys the property? Then what takes place? The new owner may come in 10 years from now or five years from now. MR. KLATZKOW: If the board wishes, okay, we can get into some sort of understanding and then we can record that understanding so it would be binding on all future homeowners. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, make a motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, I have a motion to approve this vacation of this piece of property. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. MR. MUDD: You talking about just the amount that she -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we need to put on record that your -- the person that owns that, that you're willing to adhere to the -- what's going to take place here in regards to ifthere's anything that-- that we need to get in there and fix something, that it's your responsibility . MS. NEWLAND: I agree totally. And I'd want it to be that way. The reason I -- and it was Stan. The first time was -- I'm a real estate agent and when I bought the house I saw the encroachment on my survey of the pool that I hadn't done. So I would definitely fix anything that was done and want it this way so that when I sell it my title will be clear. Page 301 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. We got everything we need? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd ask that the first thing is to clarify the motion. Does that motion also include an agreement that gets recorded in the public record, as Mr. Klatzkow -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: And in mine. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, good. Both the motion and the second agree. MR. MUDD: Don't forget, you got Commissioner Henning, ifhe has any concerns. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, County Manager. I'm glad somebody recognized I am a participant of this meeting. I don't have any questions, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Okay, with that, we're going to vote. All those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0. We're going to have to vacate this room for a short while. We're MR. LONGO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, is someone talking over me? MR. LONGO: No, I just said thank you very much. Page 302 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We're going to have to vacate the room for a Value Adjustment Board. I'm going to need a lot of help with this Value Adjustment Board to move this thing through expeditiously. We've got to get back to this meeting, okay? MR. WEIGEL: The meeting is recessing-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Talk very, very fast. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just for the record. Mr. Weigel, please, the legalities of this? MR. WEIGEL: Okay. The meeting of the board continuation from yesterday's meeting to today is recessing for the duration of the Value Adjustment Board meeting, and will restart immediately upon the end of the Value Adjustment Board meeting. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, so be it. Value Adjustment Board, get going. ***** (BCC Meeting reconvened following the Value Adjustment Board Meeting) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mic. Commissioner Henning, are you on the line? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I am. Item #8C RESOLUTION 2007-211 ADOPTED TO TRANSMIT 2005 GMP AMENDMENTS TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFF AIRS; PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 2005 CYCLE OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS Page 303 July 24-25, 2007 (TRANSMITT AL HEARING), ONLY TO CONSIDER REMAINING PETITION CP-2005-12, AND THAT PORTION OF PETITION CPSP-2005-14 PERTAINING TO PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN SECTIONS 29 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, CONSISTING OF 918:1: ACRES AND KNOWN AS MAP PARCEL NUMBERS 25-31: DISCUSSION CONTINUED TO LATER IN THE MEETING MR. MUDD: Commissioners, this brings us to Item 8(C). This is a continuation of the June 4th, 2007, later continued to June 5th and 22 June, 2007, public hearing for the 2005 cycle of the Growth Management Plan amendments, transmittal hearing, only to consider Petition CP-2005-12 and that portion of Petition CPSP-2005-14 pertaining to properties located within Sections 29 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of918 acres and known as Map Parcel No. 25 through 31. And I believe Mr. David Weeks, comprehensive planning, will present. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. Just a few remarks before we actually get into the presentation, that -- your typical protocol of course is to have the petitioner go first. I did want to note just a few points on the record before we get started. First, your BCC agenda does correctly state that this is a continuance from the June 22nd hearing on the 2005 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments. But in fact these petitions have been advertised again for today's hearing, as required by state law. Secondly, you're dealing with a unique circumstance here in that you have two Growth Management Plan amendments for substantially the same property. And it is not impossible for you to approve both petitions, should that be your desire. But I would suggest that it would not be appropriate. The petitions themselves are significantly different. The first Page 304 July 24-25, 2007 petition is CP-2005-12. That is the privately submitted comprehensive plan amendment to establish a subdistrict for the Hussey property. Whereas, the second -- excuse me, and it is limited in scope very narrowly as to what uses will be allowed for this property . Whereas, the portion of Petition CPSP-05-14 is part of the sending lands redesignation petition of which you've discussed the other properties prior to hearing. That's the petition wherein the petitioner is -- it's incumbent upon the petitioner to demonstrate that the property does not contain characteristics that warrant designation as sending lands. Those properties have to abut either neutral lands or receiving lands in the rural fringe mixed used district. And I would submit to you that in case 14, that redesignation request, that the applicant has not submitted compelling data and analysis to show that the property does not warrant sending designation. To the contrary, the materials submitted by the applicant and Mr. Vega's presentation to you on June 22nd acknowledges the presence of listed species habitat and in fact some listed species on-site. That is what I meant earlier when I suggested that it would not be appropriate in my opinion to approve both petitions, should you be inclined to do so. But of course you'll make that decision yourselves and of course the petitioner will want to present their cases to you. I also want to point out that the -- if you approve either of these petitions, as with any comprehensive plan amendment that you would approve for transmittal, the Department of Community Affairs for the State of Florida will review the amendment and issue their objections, recommendations and comments report. It is certainly a possibility for an objection to be raised for either of these two petitions. But because of the different nature of these petitions, the privately initiated amendment versus the sending lands redesignation request, I submit to Page 305 July 24-25, 2007 you that I believe it is a far more likelihood that the Department of Community Affairs would raise objection over petition 14 because of the test to demonstrate that there's not value to the property to warrant the sending land designation. State law provides for Growth Management Plan amendments and specifically for Growth Management Plan's themselves, that local governments are to adopt a conservation element for the purpose of protecting that for resources. And it goes on to list several different items. That includes wetlands, it includes wildlife. It also includes minerals and other natural resources. In the case of the privately initiated amendment, Petition 12, the petitioners have made some effort to balance the competing interest of protecting surface natural resources with the need for extracting the subsurface resources. And of course you have to make the determination whether they've reached the appropriate balance or not. But at least -- my point is at least they've taken -- made the effort to balance those two competing interests, whereas in Petition 14 that does not occur. That all goes back to my point that if you're going to approve -- if you're going to approve one of these petitions, staff would suggest that 12 is the appropriate one. Further, staff would recommend that if you do approve Petition 12, as you'll hear from staff planner for this petition, we have several recommended conditions of approval, and most particularly one of those is that the project be required to go through a conditional use hearing for the excavation that they propose on this site. As proposed in their amendment, it would be allowed as a permitted use. The big difference in those is the level of detail that would be necessary to be adopted into the comprehensive plan if this was adopted as a submitted use, as opposed to going through the conditional use process. And I know the board has in the past expressed some concern Page 306 July 24-25, 2007 about the level of specificity that we get into in the comprehensive plan. And the way to avoid this Petition No. 12, if you choose to approve it, would be to require a conditional use process. The other major difference is the notification process for a GMP amendment versus a conditional use hearing. Commissioners, that's all. I think now your protocol would be to go to the petitioner for item No. 12. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Wayne Arnold, for the record, with Q. Grady Minor and Associates, the land planner on the item. With me today I have several team members that are with us. I'll just mention who they are. And after I conclude my presentation, I think we'll be calling several of those individuals up to give testimony and possibly respond to any questions that you or staff may have. With us today is co-agent Rich Yovanovich and John Vega, attorneys on the matter. With me also is Dean Smith from our firm who did traffic analysis and who has been dealing with South Florida Water Management District permitting issues. We have Roy DeLottelle, who is an expert in red-cockaded woodpeckers and has been out on the site doing that inventory for some time. We have Joe Bonness, who is an earth mining operator and business owner in town. Maureen Bonness, who's a wildlife biologist that's on the team. Jim Schortemeyer, who is a biologist that's been involved in wetland issues on the site. And we have Jeff Trommer, who's a hydrologist that's on our team as well. So we've taken, I think, great pains in going through this for numerous years, collecting the necessary data that we hope is persuasive for you to recommend that this gets transmitted to the state for the proposed plan amendment. As I said, we've collected a significant amount of data since you Page 307 July 24-25, 2007 adopted the rural fringe amendments back in 2002. I mean, that's been five years ago. And much of the data that was used for that was at that time another five years old. So the data that you used is I think essentially 10 years old in many cases. And what we've been doing for four years is collecting and inventorying the site and bringing forth new information that we think is compelling that we can come in and adequately protect the above-ground resources and the red-cockaded woodpeckers that are on the site and go and mine the resource that is also critical for Collier County. Location-wise -- I know it's in your packet. I'll put that up on the visualizer. We've outlined what's approximately 950 acres, and it shows our relationship, 1-75 to the south, Golden Gate Estates largely to the north in the orange pattern, and obviously other parts of the existing and approved PUDs, just to give you some reference. Weare in the sending lands land use category of the rural fringe, and we are proposing the amendment that's very specific to the site. It would permit earth mining and asphalt batch plant, concrete plants by right, in addition to the other uses permitted by right in your sending land designation. We've agreed that we would have 350 acres of maximum excavation area with 400 acres of maximum impact on the 950 acres. We would do a native vegetation preservation equaling 80 percent on the site, which would be a combination potentially of 55 percent minimum on-site with up to 25 percent off-site. We've agreed that we would help the county establish a haul route for other earth mines in and around the area. We've committed I think very importantly to a habitat management plan that's really a vital component of what we're trying to do here. And that starts with seed money that's approximately $4 million and grows, depending on the use of the TDRs from the excavation. We've agreed that we would reclaim the lakes and put them back Page 308 July 24-25, 2007 in a condition that's environmentally sensitive and responsive to the area. We also agree that -- I think your county staff will tell you that an earth mine has no littoral planting requirements whatsoever. We've agreed that we would go in and reestablish a minimum 15 acres of revegetated, replanted littoral areas on the site. We also agreed, through the last two hearings, that the owner would not seek residential uses on the site, and we would put the balance of the property in conservation easement and establish it that way that would limit the uses to the mining and recreation open space uses. Staff has a hand-out. I'm not sure if you've seen it. But that lists the alternate conditions that -- I think we have slight disagreement with those. And as Mr. Weeks indicated, most notably the conditional use aspect of that. Because we believe we brought forward enough documentation that we can -- that we would normally have seen through the conditional use process over the past several years of the data and analysis and included wetland inventory and hydrology, traffic analyses, et cetera. So we think we've covered the bases of what you would normally see in a conditional use and we think we should be treated similarly to the Florida Rock Mine that was approved recently by you with an excavation permit in which several of those aspects were included in that application process too. But in going through this, I think it's really important to establish to me the fact that we have -- I think you've heard staff tell you on numerous occasions, we have the need for limerock in Collier County. And we do have vast supplies in the county. Unfortunately they're confined in only certain parts of our community. We've created a couple different exhibits. Everything that's highlighted in the dark brown color shows you where those large limerock deposits are found throughout the county. It's extensive, but Page 309 July 24-25, 2007 I don't think that really tells the story. Because when you really superimpose that over the balance of the various constraints we have -- it's a little difficult to see; I've tried to do a layering or ghosting pattern -- but what you see is that a large portion of that resource really already lies under your urbanized part of the county west of Collier Boulevard. It exists under a lot of the existing planned developments and projects that are built. And we think it's pretty unrealistic to think we're going to go back and try to do a viable mining operation on those urbanized lands. Another large portion of that potentiallimerock lies underneath Golden Gate Estates. And obviously we know the pattern of development that's occurred there. It's not realistic that you're going to go back in a platted subdivision and mine that resource. There are resources that lie a little bit to the east, but those are part of the Picayune State Forest. We also have rock resources that exist in the Panther Refuge. And there's another small finger, but that's part of a flowway that's in your rural land stewardship program, and going back and mining that is probably very unrealistic. So what that boils down to is an area that's highlighted in green and then our property is highlighted in red. And that literally represents what we think is only a few thousand acres of truly mineable (sic) limerock resources in the county where you can go in and establish the mining operation that would be viable because of the size of the property that you can assemble to do it. That too has environmental constraints. As we've noted, we're in sending lands. It doesn't allow mining today. And that's why we're here, trying to establish a plan amendment that has parameters specific to this property that are going to allow us to mine it and still protect the environment. So our proposal has been based on that. And trying to refine where we can get to the resource, why we can't get it everywhere else in the county, and then try to tell you why we can successfully mine Page 310 July 24-25, 2007 this property without disturbing the other environmental resources that are on the site. I think for this particular site we brought forth the experts that are going to tell you that we can successfully do that. And you're going to hear that as we evolve through the presentation. One of the other considerations we have, this exhibit shows you a little bit closer in exhibit that's colored, and it's attempting to show you that the pattern of development in and around us is pretty fragmented. What you don't have -- to the west, if you look, you have a large area that's already subdivided into ranchettes. You have five-acre, 10-acre tracts of land in there. You have the landfill a little bit further to the west. To the north in the yellow pattern that's all Golden Gate Estates that wraps in to the north, west and farther to the east of us. Highlighted in the purple pattern is an area that's partly Florida Rock Earth Mine. You also have the Apac Earth Mine that exists. And you also have the Section 20 earth mine immediately to our north. Those areas are designated in some cases receiving. And they allow an earth mining opportunity on those lands. But I think when we get to the environmental part of this, we're going to try to demonstrate to you that we're not significantly different than Florida Rock when it comes to the environmental resources that you've allowed them to go forward with and rock mine by right in that area. But I think part of staffs premise is that you've got the sending land designation that's going to allow us to have connectivity for wildlife corridors and other natural resources. And when I look at that land use pattern, I don't see that viability. Because you take a little bit different look at ownership -- took a look at some of the ownership patterns in the area, and to our east you can see that there's already a fragmented pattern of ownership with developed properties on it. And in some cases there have been some TDRs. But for the most part Page 311 July 24-25, 2007 those are already lands that are available for single-family homes to be constructed. To the east we have Florida Rock Mine that's proposed. And to the north we have other mines in Golden Gate Estates that doesn't allow this larger connectivity that seems to be one of the issues for your environmental staff. To the south, what I've highlighted south of!-75, that's part of the Picayune State Forest. So you do have a large publicly land ownership down there. But again, you're separated by 1-75 from that. And then when I look at this area to the west, I'm really urbanized, and to the east I've got a fragmented pattern of development that isn't going to want to allow me to go and mine it in a viable size that makes it economical to go dig the resource. And too, I've got other mining activities in and around me that really have the same environmental characteristics on the land that we do. This exhibit that we've prepared shows where we are in relationship, one, to the North Belle Meade area and sending lands, which are designated in orange. But it also shows you that immediately to the east and the north you have the Florida Rock Earth Mine and other mining activities that are located closer to your NRP A boundary than we are. They're adjacent to your NRP A, in fact. And you've already approved an excavation permit for them that allows mining activity within 50 feet of the NRP A boundary. So from our perspective we're further to the west, we're one contiguous piece of property. Weare less environmentally sensitive in many ways to the other properties that are also in our sending lands. And the pattern of development isn't going to be supportive of an earth mine or to me. Because of the pattern, you can't get a viable earth mine and you're not also going to get the environmental connectivity that you desire in this area. Page 312 July 24-25, 2007 I think in many respects, some of the land use designations were transposed. I understand why in 2002 when you looked at this landscaped level of detail that you can say that this area is more environmentally sensitive, because you're looking at aerial photographs. But we have monitoring well data, we've inventoried the red-cockaded woodpeckers, we've done a lot of land use analysis in here, and we believe that we have a viable site for mining and natural resource protection. One of the things that we did and addressed was the red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. This is an exhibit that's been prepared that shows where the red-cockaded woodpecker habitat and nests are on this site. Obviously they're important, and we've been monitoring them. We've also been out there. We have monitoring wells established throughout the site. That shows the property north is actually to your right on that diagram. I don't know if we can pull it back. But that just demonstrates that we have 15 monitoring wells on-site that have been out there monitoring the hydrology and some of the wetland areas on the site. We've been out and -- we've prepared listed species inventories, FLUCCS maps. Mapped probably almost every aspect of this site. And what we've come down to at the end of that, we agreed that we needed about 350 acres of mineable area. And we can define largely where those areas are. It's not precisely defined, but I can show you on an exhibit where those areas are. The mining areas were designated to be in the northern and southern portions of the site, which avoid the larger red-cockaded woodpecker areas that are primarily east and west across the site. And we agreed that there would be 400 acres of natural impact, 350 acres of lake area, and that we could end up with a situation where we have the resource protection for the lake area -- for the red-cockaded woodpecker area and the lake area. And I'll have them superimposed, Page 313 July 24-25, 2007 put those side-by-side so you can see that we are taking into consideration the RCW habitat there. The environmental assessment that was prepared was pretty extensive, and it's been ongoing, and it's been updated throughout the last two years that we've been in the plan amendment process. We took this to your EAC back -- I forget which month now but it's been several months ago because of the public hearing schedule. But they've deliberated on this issue and in fact they recommended approval, or recommended to you that you should transmit it to the state. I think our vote was 5-2. And out of that hearing, none of your environmental advocacy groups that showed up to oppose this at our planning commission hearing were in attendance. But the EAC spent a lot of time deliberating on this and recognize that we have a limerock resource need in Collier County and that we were doing a very good job in trying to balance both the above-ground and below-ground resource needs for our community. Out of that grew their recommendation. And we talked a lot about conditions. And what's embodied in the handout you have today is really a compilation of things that grew out of the EAC hearing, as well as your planning commission hearing. And at the EAC, as I said, we didn't have our environmental advocacy groups that are here locally in attendance. But they did appear at the planning commission hearing, and they brought up several issues that I just wanted to touch on those. And we have experts here who can further address those if you have questions. But there were three or four key issues that they seemed to bring up. And one talked about increased evaporation by creating an earth mine and that that was a negative. But I think when you look at the facts, if you have wetland communities or you have melaleuca forests that are existing, if we don't control our native vegetation they have about the same evaporation rates, too. Page 314 July 24-25, 2007 I think that it's also important to note that you have very similar characteristics on the properties immediately to our east that are being mined. No objections were raised to the evaporation or the ability to mine that property by those same groups. We heard that there would be reduced recharge if we dug a lake. And I think the facts support that lakes actually can improve aquifer recharge, but they didn't really address that issue on our adjoining property to the east either. We also heard that what we were doing was inconsistent with the intent of the TDR program. But the fact is that we believe the TDR program is important to this site as well, because what we've pledged to do is take some of the revenues from the TDRs and also add those to the plan that will assist for the long term against management of this property. We talked about the seed monies of$4 million, and with TDR monies we would add to that for the long-term management and create an endowment fund for that. We talked about lakes having -- we heard about lakes having a negative impact for connectivity of wildlife corridors. And I look at the land use pattern that exists of what we've already approved and what's planned to be there. I don't see the connectivity anywhere. We've allowed lake areas to be mined immediately adjacent to our NRP A boundaries. I don't see this being a wildlife corridor issue at all. And in fact, if I look at the land use pattern to the west and to the north, I think it's impossible to think I'm going to have a viable wildlife corridor. The other thing and the last thing I would touch on with regard to what I heard the environmental group say at the planning commission hearing was that this land became sending lands after the Governor's final order, and we shouldn't be changing our sending land designation. Page 315 July 24-25, 2007 But again, I go back to the fact that we were using data that was old at the time. There wasn't specific data that was reviewed on this piece of property. We've collected the data and I think we've demonstrated that we don't have the same resource issues that are present today. And in fact, when you move forward and you've already approved an excavation permit on lands immediately to the east adjacent to us, to me it has changed the character and complexion of what we have in this area. And I think what we've done, you know, we've looked at this, and I think as the plan is established we don't have too many options unless we move forward with a plan amendment to allow us to do something which we think is one of the highest and best uses for the property, which is to go and mine the limerock resource. We've looked at this, and the options include preparing the land. It's been used for grazing for the last 20 some odd years. We can continue that and continue to farm it, graze it. And we have in fact received a clearing permit for about 580 acres, I believe, of that property . And the applicant has been faced with, you know, needing to at least keep the grazing aspect of that alive. And they are prepared to continue to clear that, I guess, ifthere's no other option that exists. We think, though, however, that to limit ourselves to 400 acres of impact, that it's better for the environment to have a management plan that's long term that restricts where we can mine it and establishes haul routes that are going to be a benefit to the Golden Gate community as well than it is for us to go and clear additional land and farm it and graze it into perpetuity. Because you're not going to get the same management of the resource under agricultural than you will under this specific plan amendment in the mining plan than you would approve through an excavation permit. We held our neighborhood informational meetings. We also Page 316 July 24-25, 2007 made an outreach to Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. Mr. Bonness made a presentation to them. I was in attendance as well. I think it was clear to say that Golden Gate Estates Civic Association is very supportive of the plan amendment. I think through the neighborhood informational meeting process, we didn't have too many attendees. There aren't that many people in and around the immediate vicinity of the project. But I think I only heard one person speak in opposition to it. So I think we've demonstrated that we can be a good neighbor to our human neighbors, and I think what the evidence shows is that the environmental resources can be managed effectively as well. So with that I'll stop my part of the presentation. I know Rich may have a few comments to make and then I know we want to hear from some of our experts. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What we're going to do briefly is have Joe Bonness first talk about, you know, the need for rock and the fact that there is rock on the site. He'll be followed by Mr. Schortemeyer who will talk about the wetlands that are on-site and the quality of those wetlands on-site. He'll be followed by Mr. Jeff Trommer to address the evaporation issue that was raised by Collier Audubon in front of the Collier County Planning Commission but not raised with relationship to Florida Rock. And finally, Roy DeLottelle, who's an expert in RCWs will address how our proposed plan in fact is better for the RCWs than doing nothing with the site. After that we'll basically be done with our presentation and available to answer any questions you may have. Or we can answer any questions you may have now. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not a question, Mr. Y ovanovich, but I just wanted to clarify the fact that we are going to be breaking at 10:45. Correct, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Page 317 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we'll be coming back at 12:30 or 1:00. MR. MUDD: 1 :00, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 1:00. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We should be able to be done with our testimony by that 10:45 time period. It would probably be a good place to stop and then -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Be honest with you, if we could, if you'd bear with me, would it be at all possible to have the speakers speak now so that they don't have to come back if they don't want to? They're of course more than welcome to come back. But I'd like to give them the opportunity. Because we do have a large block of time in there where we're going to be gone. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whatever the Chairman and the Commission wants to do. If you want to hear from the public now, that's fine with us. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you would indulge us, please -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- at this point in time, I think that would be the best thing to do. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have four speakers. The first one's Nancy Payton. She'll be followed by Patricia Humphries. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. I'd prefer to wait to hear the entire presentation so that I can comment appropriately. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd be more than happy to grant that to you. Let me put it this way: Anyone that would like to speak now, with the possibility that they won't be able to come back at 1 :00 is more than welcome to do so. I just wanted to make it available to the public. MS. FILSON: Okay. I have Patricia Humphries. Page 318 July 24-25, 2007 MR. HUMISTON: I'll wait. MS. FILSON: Nicole Ryan. MS. RYAN: Wait. MS. FILSON: And Peter Gaddy. MR. GADDY: I'll speak now. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine, Mr. Gaddy. MR. GADDY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Peter Paul Gaddy. I'm here as vice president of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. And just very briefly, we did have a presentation from Mr. Bonness, and our members and our board has looked at this and I would -- you know, I think I would accurately describe the reaction of the board and the reaction of the citizens is that they are overwhelmingly in support of this proposal. Basically when you consider the entire picture, the transportation improvements, the environmental concessions and the need for the rock, I think it's a win/win situation for everyone. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Mr. Y ovanovich, would you like to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's because Mr. Bonness's lips are going to start moving here in a second. MS. BONNESS: Joe Bonness. I'm proposing to be the excavator on this property and also CEO for Better Roads, Incorporated, so I'm very heavily involved with the rock needs for Collier County. Over the, you know, last five years we have seen the depletion of the rock resources that we have in Collier County. We even went from an industry standpoint and put together a survey of Collier County to identify where the potential reserves are throughout Collier County . The Commission has all seen what we have put together on that. And unfortunately where the rock reserves are in, in Collier County Page 319 July 24-25, 2007 tend to be in the more sensitive areas, in the sending areas or underneath areas that are basically currently under PUDs or Golden Gate Estates and basically development areas, leaving us to the areas that are open to be able to do proper excavation. To find the rock is pretty much under sensitive areas. We've found some rock that is possibly even under the area of special concern way out in the eastern parts of the county. But the best rock deposits that we have found have been through the Belle Meade area. And the hardest rock that we're going to find in Collier County is going to tend to be more towards the coast. It tends to -- because of the washing of the rock, and that tends to wash out the softer material and to remineralize. So as far west as we can get in the county is going to tend to have your hardest rock to begin with. The stuff that we're going to find out in the eastern parts of the county, when we can find it, is going it be thin and fairly soft. This location, we've gone through and we've bored it several times. We've done it through different means. And we have find that we have rock deposit there that is in excess of 50 foot in depth, so that it makes it economical and probably more environmentally acceptable to do that because we're going to be using less acreage to be able to mine in this location than we would in some of the other areas of the county. Fifty foot is probably the minimum depth that we've seen throughout this site. There's possibilities of going possibly, you know, deeper as far as the equipment would be able to. As far as the needs in Collier County, historically we have seen that in -- documented from the Department of Transportation too that Collier County uses between three-and-a-halfto four million tons of hard aggregate per year. That excludes base rock and fill materials and that. The capacities in Collier County at this point have not been met over the last couple of years with the Willough Run mine being Page 320 July 24-25, 2007 depleted and the AP AC mine probably only having one or two years left in its reserves. We have had to import material for the last several years. You've seen a dramatic increase in the price of ready-mix concrete and asphalt road base, and your road construction costs have all gone up in direct relationship to that. Currently to be able to produce asphalt in Collier County we're hauling most of the material from Lee County, some Charlotte County and occasionally out of Dade County to be able to get the material here. Tremendous environmental impact that goes with that to be able to haul there. This mine, what we're seeing is -- should be able to produce about 35 million tons of stone. And what we can see is that this is a big environmental benefit to be able to have material that's this close into town. And we're literally only two miles from the interstate to be able to start accessing most of Collier County. But 35 million tons of stone at this point, if we had -- if we're not mining it in Collier County in these locations will most likely have to come from out of town. The Alico/Corkscrew mining area is the most acceptable area to take it. That ends up being about a 60-mile round trip for trucks. That represents about 1.6 million truck loads that would have to go up and down 1-75. You know, that's part of your impact that you're seeing on 1-75. Well, that's overburdened, it's because we're putting all those trucks out at 12 gallons per trip, that ends up that we're burning 19 mi llion gallons of fuel, eventually producing 400 million pounds of carbon dioxide. Plenty of environmental impact on that. Your impact on your local roads would also be in the $8 million figure, according to figures that were put together by the transportation department a couple of years ago. It's probably even more than that. So from an environmental standpoint, that's an additional haul Page 321 July 24-25,2007 that you end up and an additional impact. You're also paying -- the taxpayers and the users of the materials are also paying for that, in the transportation fees, of course. So it has a tremendous environmental impact to be able to be closer to the materials. What we see at this point is you only have one other mine that's being basically permitted. You're going to have -- AP AC is probably winding down. They may be able to move on to some adjoining property. But the more competitors you have, the better off your price is going to be. What we can see at this point is that even with this mine coming through and the ones that are proposed out there, Collier County over the next 20 years is probably still going to be in a shortfall of material. I estimated if when we get up to a million people population down here that we're probably going to be running in a deficit of 45 to 100 million tons of material that will not be here to be able to build our 2030 plan. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: Good morning, Commissioners, both those that are present, and is Tom Henning still with us? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I am. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: Good. My name is Jim Schortemeyer. I'm a certified wildlife biologist. And I'd like to take a few moments of your time. We may not have a red light here, but we'll try to keep it short, Mr. Chairman. But we would like to outline some of the issues with this property from a wildlife habitat management standpoint that are kind of keys. And one of those is the hydrology of the area. And as we all know, for the past 50 or 60 years we've made a pretty good attempt to drain the swamp so that people can live in areas like Golden Gate Estates where I'm a resident. And that has been actually a largely successful effort. But as a result, the cypress habitats and wetland habitats that wildlife depends on, even on areas just outside of some of those areas that may not have Page 322 July 24-25, 2007 been target areas, they also have been impacted. So as a result the hydro periods have been severely reduced on this property. So one of the key things that has happened is that with the development of the property, with the limerock mining operation, there will be an opportunity to do much better hydrological management. There are three things that are potentially possible with this project: One, unlike many limerock mining operations, this one would create -- and I think an earlier speaker referred to it as 15 acres of littoral zone. But as I understand the proposal, it's actually a 15 percent of the limerock area will be managed in littoral zones. What this will do is give good wetland conditions really throughout a variety of water tables. There will be some good wetland areas for wildlife to utilize basically 12 months out of every year. So that will be an improvement certainly over the present conditions. There will also be opportunities with the project to improve on-site hydrological management. But the third thing that's going to be possible, and this will take the cooperation of the other state agencies, most specifically the Water Management District, and that would be to use this area as a flowway. And there is good potential for that. And if in fact from a wildlife standpoint we can create flowways where we have water flowing into and out of deep water areas, that will create tremendous wildlife benefits. Yes, there are benefits that on this site under historical conditions there were no really deep wetland areas on this area. There's only -- that I know of, there are two natural lakes within Collier County. Lake Trafford, and we are all familiar with that and the wildlife values of that. And also another area called Deep Lake, which is also a high value wildlife habitat. So while that didn't occur naturally on this site, the presence of those, and by having water inflows and outflows of those deep water Page 323 July 24-25, 2007 habitats, that will create good conditions for wildlife. There's lots of other things with the wildlife and habitat management plan, but I'm sure we don't have time to go into those details, so I'll end it with that. And if you have any questions, we'll be happy to try to answer those. MR. TROMMER: Good morning. My name is Jeff Trommer. I'm a hydrogeologist with the firm Leggette, Brashears and Graham in Tampa. And I'm just going to speak a little bit on the effect of creating these lakes potentially on the water, ground water levels on the property. This is a wet mining operation, meaning that there's no dewatering that goes on as part of the mining process. There are two aspects of the operation that result in a consumptive use, if you will, of ground water. The first is in the removal of the material. Twenty percent of the material that's removed from the ground is water. When that rock is removed from the ground, it's stockpiled near the edge of the excavation, and 90 percent of that water then returns to the excavation. So there's really like a net two percent loss of water. What does that equate to over a period of a year's worth of mining? It's a quantity of water equivalent to 11,000 gallons per day. What does that actually equate to? If you took and put an irrigation well in the ground, an irrigated typical residential property, 11,000 gallons per day would irrigate basically three acres of residential land. So it's an equivalent very small number. Long term as the lake is being created there's an increase in evaporative loss. When you have solid dry ground, you have evapotranspiration losses. When you have open body, you have free surface evaporation. The difference in those two values depended on what type of plant species is there. In pine flatwoods, it's about six inches per year. What does that equate to when you have the full 350 acres of excavation lakes created? That comes to over a year's time equivalent Page 324 July 24-25, 2007 to 150,000 gallons per day. What does that mean in terms that we can relate to? And again, if we go to the -- put the irrigation well in the ground, irrigate typical residential property, it's about equivalent to irrigating 40 acres of residential property. So realistically it's a very small number. How does that translate then to changes to the water table surface? With those types of evaporative losses, you're really talking about at any time just a few -- less than a foot and probably a few tenths of a foot of lowering of that lake level over what would occur if it was ground. That would be in the lake surface itself. How that translates as you move away from the lake because of the very transmissive nature of that limestone, that drawdown of a few tenths of a foot is dissipated very quickly and does not radiate much more than a few tens of feet from the lake body itself. The flip side of that, and it was brought up earlier, is the potential for enhanced recharge of these lakes. Now, when you have rainfall fall on dry ground, you lose some of that to runoff, evapotranspiration. When you've got an open lake body, you're not losing anything to runoff. You're actually able to enhance the recharge that occurs. Additionally you're increasing the storage volume of water that can be held on the property by creating these excavations. So in essence during wet periods you can actually have a net recharge gain to the aquifer as a result of having these lakes in place. MR. DeLOTTELLE: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Roy DeLottelle. I'm from Gainesville, Florida. I've been working with red-cockaded woodpeckers for 27 years. I'm presently a member of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service recovery team. The scenario that we see in Collier County in terms of red-cockaded woodpeckers is more or less typical for what red-cockadeds have done on most private lands over the last 50 years. And that is most populations have declined or become extirpated over Page 325 July 24-25, 2007 that time period on private lands. And specifically along the 951 corridor there was a survey done in the early Nineties. There was approximately 28 groups of red-cockaded woodpeckers. In 1999, when I started most of my research down here and worked with DOF and other entities in the county, there were four breeding groups. So you can see a dramatic decline in woodpecker population, under essentially what I call the do nothing scenario. That doesn't necessarily mean that the cavity trees and whatnot were cut down, but the habitat was not burned, there was no management -- ongoing management activity within those existing groups, and in the process the population had declined significantly. In 1999 we started some translocation efforts. We've started installing cavities down in south Picayune. And presently because of those efforts and other efforts, there's 10 breeding groups. Four, five up in North Belle Meade and the rest in south Picayune. Under the scenario of the mine operation and implementation, there's a couple of different things that will happen under the proposed plan. Management on-site will include maintenance of cavity trees, monitoring of existing groups, regular prescribed burning programs, cavity tree maintenance, which is very important in these small populations. We have techniques for installing artificial cavities, which is very successful. There is a lot of competition from other woodpecker species and other animals for these cavities once the RCWs make them. One way to sort of get around that problem is the installation of artificial cavities. And control of exotics is a major issue. Melaleuca has been formerly talked about. All these things -- the fire programs maintain an open environment in the pine flatwoods which the red-cockaded woodpeckers require. The melaleuca and other kinds of things, Page 326 July 24-25, 2007 cabbage palms, grow up in the cluster area where (sic) the cavity trees, thereby often blocking the cavity entrance. And when the wildfire comes, and we know they come, because they've been coming every year that I've been coming down here, and they seem to get worse. Those things torch up the cavity trees because of a sap flow. So you end up with dead cavity trees, no place for the birds to roost, and eventually the clusters become abandoned because of that process. So these kind of activities will be conducted on-site with the preserve. And as you've seen with the previous exhibits, there's a large chunk of land that's going to be managed for RCW. And it's also connect. There's two clusters of red-cockaded woodpeckers out there, plus there's a cavity tree. One is entirely on the east side. The other one on the west side is partly on the mine and then partly on some private lands. But that's all connected. And what -- and in addition to off-site clusters, what we would be doing is the same kind of maintenance -- propose the same kind of maintenance activities. Also with the monies available, you could get into translocation efforts, get birds from the cooperative that's held every fall in Tallahassee, move birds and try to make the population viable. A number that the Fish & Wildlife Service uses is 10 groups. In the north part of the forest and North Belle Meade, like I said, there's only five groups. You need to get at least 10 groups up in that area, preferably more, so that birds could work across the interstate on both the North Picayune and the North Belle Meade. So you need to get more sleep, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, it's very exciting what you're talking about. MR. DeLOTTELLE: I know that. Some of us enjoy it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can you imitate a red-cockatoo woodpecker? MR. DeLOTTELLE: Sir, it's red-cockaded. Page 327 July 24-25, 2007 I cannot in no sense imitate one. I can catch 'em, but I've never been able to -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to invite everybody to the ribbon cutting that's going to take place in about 17 minutes. We're going to continue the meeting at 1 :00. (Recess. ) MR. MUDD: Commissioner Henning, are you here? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go ahead, Mr. Mudd. MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mic. VOTE TAKEN ON RECOGNIZING EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES FOR COMMISSIONER COLETTA TO PARTICIPATE VIA CELL PHONE AFTER 2 P.M. - APPROVED; COMMISSIONER HALAS TO SERVE AS ACTING CHAIRMAN IN COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S ABSENCE FROM THE BOARDROOM CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, before we begin, couple of points I need to bring up. It's 1:01 now. At 2:00, I'm going to have to leave to be able to allow for traffic. But what I'd like to do is have this commission recognize that it's extraordinary circumstances. My flight was booked six months ago. To change it, if I could change it, which I can't get a flight out to be able to get where I need to go, would be $450 just to go one way. So I'm kind of locked in. I'd like to be able to still attend the meeting by phone, and I could do it by my cell phone and a little headset. And I could mute it so there would be no background noise during that time. And I'd have all the way till 4:00 to be able to work with you, maybe even a little bit past 4:00. Well, Commissioners, would you recognize that as an Page 328 July 24-25, 2007 extraordinary circumstance? Would you be able to keep the -- that's okay, you can wrestle with this. And then I got one other thing too I need to cover. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But don't we need to elect a new -- a temporary chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we're going to do that, but first we're going to handle this. I'm just asking -- I have to leave at 2:00 to be able to make everything work. And I'm asking to be able to stay connected by to the meeting by cell phone. And I have a special setup with a mute button on it so there'd be no background noises, unless I'm going to talk. And I'd be able to stay with the meeting. But we'd have to recognize it in (sic) extraordinary circumstance to be able to do so. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But now you're not going to be able to use that phone while you're on the airplane. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, but the plane doesn't leave until a little bit after 4:00. So between now and 4:00 we'd be able to keep everything rolling forward. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ifwe elect a new chairman, we'll be finished by that time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Depends on which chairman. We saw how you chaired board this morning. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, we seen that Value Adjustment Board. That was scary as anything. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're going to give him another try this afternoon. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, actually, when it comes down to it, every organization I ever belonged to, if you didn't have another officer to step in, it was always the immediate past president that would assume the responsibility. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was your next item? Page 329 July 24-25, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, we're still on the one with the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hussey. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Hussey. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you said you had two items to bring up. What was your next item? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that was the second one. That was who would take the chair position over. You need somebody that's physically in the room to be able to chair the meeting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I think Commissioner Halas, being the past, would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's true. But with only one qualification, that it be for the rest of the calendar year. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I agree with that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, let's deal with the situation. If there's no interest for me to attend the meeting, then I need you to say so, then I won't -- we'll drop that and I can -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I don't have any problem with that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have any problem. What's -- County Attorney? MR. WEIGEL: Well, as long as a third person doesn't do that, we're in good shape. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I might. MR. WEIGEL: No, all it takes is for the Board of County Commissioners to make a motion and approve his participating by telephone based upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Halas to approve my attending the Page 330 July 24-25, 2007 meeting by extraordinary circumstances by cell phone. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd just like to qualify it with a stipulation that you will keep it on mute for the entire period of time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's already a second, Commissioner Henning. And the Chair refuses to recognize the amendment to the motion. All those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you. Let's get right back into this. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe we can get this done by 2:00. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, we can. Item #8C - CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN THE MEETING Okay, Mr. Y ovanovich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just wanted to make two quick points before I guess we'll go back -- I guess staff will come out next and then the public. We had talked briefly about the impact on the water table and the consumption of water. I wanted to point out that if we went to an agricultural use there would be a tremendous increase in the amount a of water lost, if we went to an agricultural use versus either -- versus Page 331 July 24-25, 2007 the earth mining operation. And also I wanted to point out that the combination of this earth mine with other earth mines that have already been approved and permitted, that will play an important role in addressing flood issues in Golden Gate Estates. So -- and you can confirm that with Stan Chrzanowski. But in the long run, the fact that we would dig an earth mine will assist in helping manage floods that are occurring out in Golden Gate Estates. And with that, we're ready to turn it over to staff, or any questions you may have regarding our presentation to this point. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, maybe questions to follow shortly. Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon. For the record, Corby Schmidt, principal planner with your comprehensive planning staff. Last week you received e-mail and hard copies with update version of the Exhibit A, which was part of the resolution to consider for CPO-512. Today is a hand-out. And for Commissioner Henning's benefit as well, on the visualizer I've provided another version of that so he can read along. There are changes to the version which was a hand-out today. And those are the portions of the handout that appear in blueprint. Otherwise, there are no changes from what you've seen for more than a week. The Exhibit A was provided last week to update you, given the recommendations from staff, the proposal from the applicants themselves, the recommendations from the EAC and the planning commission, the counter recommendations. There's a half a dozen different versions of this -- or I should say iterations over time in the consideration of CPO-512 that we wanted to bring you up to date. And that's why you have that version in your hands today. Page 332 July 24-25, 2007 For now, two colors of print, the green and the red, although it may seem seasonal, you can just regard that. Those are codes to staff. They may mean a bit more later. In fact, I will explain at this time, the print which is not blue simply refers to conditions which would need more attention at this time. And by more staff, before adoption and after transmittal if you were to recommend transmittal of this compo plan amendment for the subdistrict as a permitted use, and you can see by the color coding that about two-thirds of the conditions would need more attention now. The reason they would need more attention of course is because staff recommends this in our alternate recommendation. Of course our base recommendation is simply not to transmit this. But if you chose to transmit, the Exhibit A you have in your hands is our form of recommendation. And in order to transmit this as a permitted use, the number of staff to be involved is different than if you would transmit this as a conditional use in the future. And I'll get into that in some detail. But that's the reason for the colored print in your handout. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm not sure I quite understand that. You're saying that certain things in this new exhibit will require additional staff attention now. What does that mean? MR. SCHMIDT: It means, Commissioner, if you choose to transmit this subdistrict to DCA and as proposed by the petitioner as a permitted use of the land, more detail needs to be added to the compo plan amendment so it behaves like a conditional use if we're not going to have a conditional use. And many of those staff that would usually be involved in a conditional use would have to become involved almost immediately. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what would you do then? You would expand upon this and it would be brought back to our -- or for Page 333 July 24-25, 2007 our review and approval before it's transmitted? Or how does that work? MR. SCHMIDT: It is not my understanding, Commissioner, that it works like that. You have, I believe, examples in the past of direction to staff with transmittal so that those changes take place between now and adoption. And perhaps Mr. Weeks could explain further. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the comprehensive planning department. Commissioners, here's the big distinction. The petitioners are asking for this, the excavation to be as a permitted use, not a conditional use. What that simply means is that your action on this comprehensive plan amendment, if it is to approve it as requested, means the next time you will deal with the excavation of the property will be as an excavation permit, which tends to be rather technical in detail, not subjective such as a conditional use. A conditional use hearing involves, as Corby was saying, additional staff review. It also would have different notice requirements. But specific to I think your points here, very detailed conditions of approval, if that's what you were to do, with a conditional use. Hours of operation, noise mitigation, buffering, very specific identification of preserve areas of various -- of excavation, et cetera, et cetera. All those details are usually addressed in a conditional use and approved by resolution with a site plan. They're asking to bypass that process. They want you to approve the excavation as a permitted use. Therefore, we need to get into that level of detail of a conditional use now as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process. If you vote to transmit it today, staffwill be giving this a second round of review, additional staff involved, to bring back to you at Page 334 July 24-25, 2007 adoption, flushed out in very specific conditions to incorporate into the comprehensive plan. And that's the point I had mentioned earlier in the hearing, that we don't usually place that amount of specificity in the comprehensive plan. And this commission in fact has told us, generally speaking, we don't like that. Zoning department would receive the conditional use to process that and bring that forward. But several other review staff would be involved as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm somewhat confused. How is this going to effect when we transmit this up to DCA, if it does get transmitted to DCA? MR. WEEKS: I don't know that DCA would particularly care how the county goes about approving it. I don't know that they would particularly care whether it requires a conditional use or not, because that's a locally controlled process. They're simply going to review it, I believe, as any other comprehensive plan amendment, and that is evaluating the impact on all sorts of natural resources, infrastructure, et cetera. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But didn't they tell us that we had to address this when we came up with the compo plan, that we had to put this area in preserve? MR. WEEKS: They didn't specifically say that, no, sir. They did not say this area should be preserved. They did leave that up to the county to determine. And of course they reviewed that. But the final order from 1999 did tell the county that we needed to do a better job of protecting our natural resources, amongst other things, and then the county crafted the TDR program that specifically identified areas which should be protected and those that were appropriate for development; the TDR program for compensation, et cetera. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And when we sent this up to DCA Page 335 July 24-25, 2007 for final approval and this was going to be put into a sending land area, they bought this concept? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, they did. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And now we're reversing this concept, basically, if we transmit this up to them; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: Close. I'd certainly say we're significantly modifying. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And obviously in the discussion later on or whenever we're going to be discussing TDRs. And I -- I'm sure that's in the next phase of this; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. And Corby will be talking about it soon. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. So if we transmit this up, as we have it today, okay, is there going -- do you feel there will be a favorable ruling, or how is this ruling going to take place up in DCA? MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I won't hazard a guess. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, did you have any questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, maybe just a statement. You know, I don't mind submitting it up to DCA. My concern is the details should be hashed out in a further meeting as far as a conditional use. That's my feeling on it. I don't know how the rest of the board feels about that. That's it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, go ahead, Commissioner Henning. Didn't mean to interrupt you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. It's a good thought that you have there. Any comments on that? MR. SCHMIDT: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I was asking staff, Commissioner Henning. Page 336 July 24-25, 2007 MR. SCHMIDT: No, not at this time, unless -- MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, let me add one more point to make sure we're clear on this about what staff is saying. Being that this is a transmittal hearing, if you vote to transmit, that you are going to see it again, you're going to see it at the adoption hearing. And so when Corby was saying earlier we're going to have to address these specific conditions further right now, he meant now as in part of the comprehensive plan amendment process. Does not have to be today, it could be at the adoption hearing. But nonetheless, part of the comprehensive plan amendment process, not conditional use. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mine is for later. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll wait for the speakers. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one additional question. Will -- if this gets transmitted up to DCA, will they have a cheat sheet that will be attached that will come down to us in regards to whether they are in approval of this or in opposition of this? MR. WEEKS: Absolutely. They send what's called the ORC Report, Objections, Recommendations and Comments. DCA and other state and regional agencies will review the comprehensive plan amendment, all of them, as part of this package. And then they will issue that ORC Report. And from that that's where we will know where they stand, where they see any statutory compliance issue. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, one last question. This was challenged, after it was approved, to be put in our Growth Management Plan. We were talking about the rural land stewardship and the TDRs. This was already challenged in court; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Not in court, per se, but it was an administrative law proceeding, that is correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the outcome of that was they found us -- they found DCA and the county in support of what we Page 337 July 24-25, 2007 came up with? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go ahead and ask the speakers, the public if they'd like to speak at this time. MR. SCHMIDT: Oh, excuse me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me, we still have staff presentation left. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My apologies. MR. SCHMIDT: That's all right. I'd like to begin with just pointing out that it is portions of statute that allow counties to look at natural resources. And they define natural resources. And again you may have heard this a few years ago while looking at sending lands in the rural fringe mixed use district, but I'd like to go over a few points. Natural resources are those areas including air, water, water recharge areas, wetlands, water wells, estuarine marshes, soils, beaches, shores, floodplains, rivers, bays, lakes, harbors, forests, fisheries and wildlife, marine habitat, minerals and other natural and environmental resources. Another section of Chapter 163 goes on to say, the legislature recognizes the need for innovative planning and development strategies which address the anticipated demands of continued urbanization in the state's coastal or other environmentally sensitive areas. The innovative approaches should be with the goal in mind to better protect those environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and to provide for the cost-effective delivery of public facilities and services. In 9J-5 a requirement that local governments evaluate the Page 338 July 24-25, 2007 existence of natural resources for these features, such as ground water recharge areas, water wells, wetlands, habitat, coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and living marine resources. It also requires that local governments identify and analyze known sources of commercially viable minerals. So we have a direction here and suggestion to be innovative. That's why you see the recommendations that you have from staff. Certainly at face value the request, as a permitted use in sending lands, is recommended for not being transmitted. But if you would choose to transmit, the counter recommendation includes a number of innovative strategies to find that balance along the natural resources in this area. The evaluation of those uses and the protection of the natural resources part of this, including the extraction of minerals, and it considers restricting the activities that would adversely affect the endangered or threatened species survival. A number of the conditions you've read during the last week and before and in today's handout will show that. In the TDR program, it does identify in some areas earth mining as a conditional use that was there before the rural fringe mixed use district was adopted. But in sending lands where the subject property and the subdistrict is proposed, that use or that land use is no longer available. And I think that's simply why you see the applicants here today. They wanted to be the land use for this property. And this subdistrict would allow that. I would like to take some time to tell you about what brought us to this point today. I did quickly say a few minutes back that yes, there's been a halfa dozen iterations of this proposal and this language in front of us and under consideration over the last few months. So I'd like to touch on that a bit more. Today in the sending lands of the rural fringe mixed use district this property is simply a 950-acre site where earth mining materials Page 339 July 24-25, 2007 for materials is not allowed by either a permitted or a conditional use. It has an on-site vegetation preservation requirement of 80 percent. It is in the North Belle Meade overland district, or in the overlay designation. And what could they do with this property today? On sending lands like this, they're able to build housing at one unit per 40 acres or to derive TDRs at one per five acres. What did the petitioner initially propose? And some of that language is in your original staff report. A 950-acre site specific subdistrict in the rural fringe sending lands for mining earth materials, along with other land uses, as permitted uses. They also proposed reducing the on-site native vegetation preservation requirement by half, from 80 percent to 40 percent. Removing the subject property from the North Belle Meade overlay, and full participation of the transfer of development rights program. A counter recommendation from staff and stipulations discussed in front of the Environmental Advisory Council and their recommendation. What did the EAC recommend? The 950-acre site from mining earth materials, along with only asphalt and concrete batch mixed plants as permitted uses; maintaining the native vegetation requirement at 80 percent by requiring 55 percent on-site and at least the remaining 25 percent off-site at other locations; keeping the subject property in North Belle Meade overlay; prohibiting residential development; participating in the TDR program and deriving TDRs from the lake areas, with proceeds going toward a board governed endowment fund paying for the wildlife and habitat management activities. The EAC also supported requiring wildlife management plans with the enhanced sending land protections, allowing specific provisions for the mining restoration and preservation plans to be addressed at excavation permit. Page 340 July 24-25, 2007 Limiting excavations to 400 acres of the property. And that was in accordance with the map shown, and I believe you've seen that map here today. The applicant showed you something with two blue areas on the subject property where those lakes and that mining activity would take place. It also included allowances for exploring the benefits of allowing mining and setback areas where the valuable materials might be when otherwise setbacks would be required. Exploring ways to over-mitigate and over-restore, including one specific way, by creating at least 15 acres of littoral areas in the lakes when mining operations cease. Exploring innovative operating, mitigation and restoration strategies, including -- a specific here from the EAC -- including prohibiting road building during RCW nesting season and controlling or reducing the noise from the mining operation, particularly motors, engines and trucks, except that night hauling would be allowed. It was initially recommended it not be allowed by staff. Exploring other ways that the mine operator can lessen their impact and placing the 550 unmined acres in a conservation easement. That was what EAC recommendation was. What were their concerns? That the mining operation is not appropriate in environmentally sensitive sending lands, and that the method of approval would not require a conditional use. This also went to your planning commission. Their recommendation was not to transmit. However, there were additional conditions presented by staff at that meeting and that was another reason for your e-mail exhibit last week to include those other five stipulations that you have. Where does that bring us now? A 950-acre site specific subdistrict and sending lands for mining earth materials -- and again, this is staffs recommendation, like the conditions you have in front of you -- for those three land uses, mining, concrete and asphalt plants, as Page 341 July 24-25, 2007 conditional uses. Maintaining the native vegetation preservation requirement at 80 percent. By requiring 55 percent on-site and 25 percent off. Keeping the subject property in the North Belle Meade overlay. Prohibiting residential building or development. Prohibiting participation in the TDR program. Requiring wildlife management plans with enhanced sending lands protections. Addressing the specific provisions for mining, restoration and preservation plans in a conditional use. Limiting excavations to 400 acres, according to that map we've seen, except no other information should be taken or drawn from that map, including some testimony we've heard about split haul routes or items like that. Explore benefits of allowed limited mining in the setback areas. Exploring ways to over-mitigate, over-restore, including a specific version -- including those littoral areas and lakes upon restoration. And again, those innovative mining techniques, mitigation restoration strategies including prohibiting road building during RCW nesting season, particularly with motors, engines and trucks, except still allowing for night hauling, with reduced dust to dawn speed limits to protect those nocturnal animals. Explore other ways the mining operator can participate in projects that lessen their impact. Placing those 550 acres in a conservation easement. Requesting or providing that easement for future county well sites. Prohibiting peak period hauling until capacity is sufficient to accept the traffic on County Route 951. Reserving a east-west corridor for a future roadway along the southerly edge of the subject property. And if -- and this alternate condition has always been part of staff recommendation -- if the TOR program is approved -- would be approved, with that endowment fund being the controlling matter. There are two other points I'd like to go over, especially because the conditional uses are important to discuss, and the TOR program. Page 342 July 24-25, 2007 Part of the recommendation does include language from the staff that would recommend to you this proposal be adopted or transmitted as a conditional use. Why a conditional use? Why is that one of our major points? Why not a permitted use? Well, mining earth materials at this location was possible before June of2002, but only as a conditional use. But that's no longer the case. Only conservation use and some agricultural, along with residential uses, according to prescribed density limits, are now permitted. Previous uses included churches, golf courses, child care centers, a variety of other uses that were all dropped from being available for land in the sending areas when the RFMU was adopted. Categorizing earth mining and sending lands at this location as a permitted use and not as a conditional use means the details -- and I touched on this earlier -- the details typically addressed during conditional use consideration would need to be addressed at this time. Many of the typical conditional use considerations are outside the scope of the review of the subdistrict in this Growth Management Plan amendment. And those include what we would usually see in conditional uses for extraction operations: References to the current planning manager responsibilities; reference to the relevant LOC provisions; legal linkage to the excavation ordinance; linkages to the clearing permit and its sunsetted limitations; restrictions on operations when historical, archeological artifacts are discovered while clearing, operating or restoring; a schedule for which specific preservation, mitigation or restoration plans are required; the prohibitions, limitations and restrictions not otherwise prohibited, limited or restricted by the excavation permit; the depth of excavation limitations; the direction for certain plans to be submitted and reviewed by county department staff before related work begins; the requirements for obtaining clearing permits before actual clearing occurs; requirements for construction of roadway improvements; the Page 343 July 24-25, 2007 deceleration lanes; signage and other requirements that may be there; specific bonding requirements; specific insurance coverage requirements; limitations on hours and days of operations, on blasting, crushing, truck traffic and so forth; the haul route approval. All these things and more are typical in a conditional use permit and aren't addressed here and would not be addressed necessarily in excavation permit only. The major differences: Conditional use reviews are discretionary; lots of ability for every agency or group that reviews them to recommend stipulations and conditions and limitations, while an excavation permit is more administrative with less chance of making those kinds of changes along the way. Conditional use review involves much of the same staff and the agencies and boards and commissions, including yourselves, who are reviewing this compo plan amendment. Not so with an excavation permit. Conditional use permit procedure includes the full complement of public hearings. The neighborhood information meeting, in front of the EAC, the planning commission and yourselves again. Not necessarily so with the excavation permit review. That's why this is a strong point from staff that these opportunities are only available to us if this is approved as a conditional use. The TOR program. Staffs recommendation is to prohibit participation in the TDR program. The proposal from applicant is for the areas not being mined, that participation in the TDR program be allowed. Both those conditions were written into this, and you've seen them before. There's problems with the TDR program. If it were applied on this property, if the landowners or the petitioners were to get TDRs from the mining or lake areas, a permanent conservation easement must be placed on those lake areas. And those conservation easements couldn't be derived and the TORs couldn't be severed until all the Page 344 July 24-25, 2007 mining operations have ceased, until after the mining operation is closed and completed. It's more than 20 years from now. More problematic, the fact that portions of the subject property are currently subject to a valid agricultural clearing notice. The LDC provision for these notices required that a signed agreement acknowledging a 25-year prohibition on the creation of TDRs from the land cleared for agricultural operations after June 19th of2002. Such an agreement impacts portions of this property. Clearing areas of the subject property have been or are currently being cleared -- I'm sorry, certain areas of the property are now being cleared or have been. Some of the area cleared for agricultural operations may be the same areas intended for mining or mining related activities, or where the applicant proposes to derive TORs. If this turns out to be the case, then those TDRs will not be available for those acreages for some time around the year 2032. So even if you did consider the TDR program participation, there are problems. Those are the major points. I'd like to go to the colored print in the handout from today to point out the corrections or changes. The first having to do with there's a strike-through, I believe it's on Page 2. Just a strike through. There was a stipulation there for compensating for lost wetlands on the property, and making some equation between lost wetlands and creative littoral zones. And there's no connection between the two. They don't function quite the same, the areas may not be comparable and so forth. There are other requirements in the codes already. The CCME has very specific ones. When there are losses of wetlands, they're compensated for. And this phrase would not be necessary. How are they compensated for? On Page 4 where it does have to do with the restoration, native vegetation preservation and so forth, there are exceptions here from that 80 percent rule for preservation requirements on the subject property be reduced down to the 55 Page 345 July 24-25, 2007 on-site, 25 percent off-site combination. And we just simply wanted to include that did not overlook or ignore the existing requirements for Policy 6.2.5 of the CCME. So those two revisions work together. Then, Mr. Mudd, back to Page 3, thank you. This was a minor change. The stipulation was already in the paperwork you saw during the last week. However, the orientation of the roadway and the right-of-way reservations was in error. It was simply changed to show that the land area being reserved for the purpose of developing an east-west roadway corridor along the southerly edge of the property instead of what in your previous version indicated a north-south roadway along the easterly edge of the property. Simply a correction there. Those are the major points. If you would like to, I could go over the individual stipulations as you have them in front of you, or answer any of your questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was I guess pretty complete. I'm not too sure if this is what the petitioner originally had in mind. Have you gone over this with them in detail before the meeting? MR. SCHMIOT: We've gone over it were them, yes. This is -- again, the colored pages you have in front of you is a compilation of changes that both the applicants, their agents, staff have seen, meeting to meeting over the last few months. So they're aware of these changes as much as we are. And to this level of detail, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You know, I think at this point in time it would behoove us before we go to questions and everything to have the petitioner step forward and briefly go over what we just heard. I know, I use the word brief. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oon't you want the speakers? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I do. But, I mean, we just got handed something that was what, 15, 20 minutes long? It was in great detail. And I want to make sure that we understand exactly where it's Page 346 July 24-25, 2007 all going. Then we'll go right to the speakers. The speakers can address whatever situations we're up against. They'll be more informed than they are at the moment. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Commissioner Coletta, I think it was a little bit longer than the 15 or 20 minutes, but I can assure you that this document was sent to us last week. I can also assure to you we have not agreed to everything in this document. I can highlight a couple of things for you that we're still at issue on, and I can tell you one that we're no longer at issue on. It appears to me that the conditional use process is going to be the process that we need to go through in order to work out a lot of these issues. I do want to point out that somehow the commission was comfortable just letting Florida Rock go forward with a straight permitted use and deal with all of these issues through the excavation permit process, because I think in the Florida Rock situation, I think it's clear that all the environmental groups and the neighbors, as well as all your various departments got to give input on the excavation permit. But be that as it may, we'll go through the conditional use process for -- that we can add that as a conditional use on the property for earth mining. We will not agree that we have to give up our TDRs on lands we don't disturb. We can't agree to that. I don't know why we have to do that, nobody else has to give that up. We thought that taking the TDRs from the areas that were cleared was actually a benefit, because we would be giving those TDRs to the endowment. So the endowment would go from a minimum of four million to a minimum of four million plus the value of those TORs. And that's approximately 160 TDRs. And if you're right, that we'll be able to sell those for a minimum of $25,000 per unit, that would be another $4 million that would go into the Page 347 July 24-25, 2007 endowment. But if the commission doesn't want that $4 million to go into the endowment, that's certainly up to the commission. But the EAC thought that was very important that that $4 million go into the endowment, because it really was going to the environment and not going into the property owner's pocket. We can address in greater detail the other issues, but those are the major issues that we're in disagreement on as far as the TDRs go. We want to be able to the use those TDRs on areas we don't clear. We would like to use the TDRs to provide additional funding in the endowment. We will agree to go through a conditional use process to address the location of the mine, the haul route issues, all those issues through the conditional use process. We knew we had to go through the excavation permit process. We were willing to address all those issues, just like Florida Rock. But if the Commission's more comfortable with the conditional use process and staffs more comfortable with the conditional use process, we can do that. Now, we'll probably hear other concerns that we'll address, but as far as this handout goes, those are the issues of major disagreement. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Let's go to the -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Halas, did you want to go now or do you want to wait until after the speakers? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just got one quick question here. I hope it's quick. It's TOR credits. Presently if you were involved in early TDRs, you can get up to 190 TDRs, it figures out to about $14 million, and then you want $14 million -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where does the 190 come from? COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you have early entry into the TDR bonus program. MR. YOV ANOVICH: For how many acres are you calculating Page 348 July 24-25, 2007 those from? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that would be the whole sum of the property -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- 900 acres. So that's about $14 million, I think. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it would be -- that would be the whole number of acres. You took the 950 and divided by five and you came up with 190. That's the base. You'd get another 190 for the early entry. So you'd really get 380. What we're saying is we want those 380, but every portion that we clear for the earth mining, say 400 acres of that -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: On top of the rock that you're going to extract out of it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure, but we had that right -- before you adopted your plan, you could come in in ago land and develop one unit per five acres, as well as come in for a conditional use to remove the rock. You were allowed to have -- because you have mineral rights, as well as -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're just saying put us back where we were and we will give the TDRs from the excavation portion of the project to this endowment. And that endowment is going to fund the environmental protection. So yes, we want both the value of the rock beneath the ground as well as the TDRs prior or the development rights we had prior to the adoption of the regulations. And keep in mind, we had a conditional use application in prior to the adoption of the regulations. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, let's go to the speakers. MS. FILSON: First speaker is Nancy Payton. She'll be followed by Patricia Humphries. MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton, representing Page 349 July 24-25, 2007 the Florida Wildlife Federation. We urge you to not transmit these amendments that will allowing mining and related uses on this environmentally sensitive land, the designation of sending land you successfully defended in 2003 when the North Belle Meade overlay was challenged. When the North Belle Meade overlay was developed, the mining was funneled, directed to the least environmentally sensitive land in North Belle Meade. We knew that we had to have areas that allowed mining, and it seemed that areas with the least environmental problems would be the appropriate places to do the mining and also to direct the growth. And to facilitate, encourage mining in those receiving areas, some of the environmental rules were made lax. They still have to meet state and federal standards, but county standards were lax. And that was to encourage mining in the appropriate place and to protect the sending lands that were of high environmental value. And the legal challenge did support that the lands that are under discussion today have high environmental values. When the TOR bonus credits were adopted in 2005, the pronouncement from the dais was no more tinkering with the TDR program. Let's not change it, let's let it work out. We're still in the process of doing that. The bonus period hasn't ended yet. And already this is an amendment that turns that whole TOR program topsy turvy, inside out. The amendments reward destroying habitat by clearing it, and also by digging rock pits. I mean, what could be more damaging than digging a pit? And that is rewarded by giving them TDRs for destroying habitat. The TOR program was established to protect and enhance habitat, not facilitate nature-damaging rock mining. The program has a disincentive which your staff spoke about for clearing and doing things that destroy habitat. Again, this proposal, they get rewarded for doing that. They get TORs on land that on other Page 350 July 24-25, 2007 areas of North Belle Meade sending you wouldn't get. The map that you saw earlier today that was purple and yellow for North Belle Meade, to us that told the story why this land is so important to the environmental integrity to North Belle Meade, because it is a big tract that you can manage very successfully and helps provide that cohesive unit for those smaller tracts around it. So the value is the fact that it is a big tract of land that can be managed effectively for not just red-cockaded woodpeckers, but the other listed species that use that habitat. If Dr. Hussey cared about the fate of the red-cockaded woodpeckers living on the site, he would be managing that habitat now, not holding the fate of the birds and their habitat hostage to gain approval of their amendment. And I'll be very quick. It's hard to summarize in three minutes what -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead and take an extra minute, Ms. Payton. MS. PAYTON: Thank you. We caution you not to be bullied by the threats of the Burt Harris claim. In 2005 we distributed a letter to the commissioners and to staff that said and explained that you have obligations that predate the Burt Harris Act, and that's the Endangered Species Act and the Florida statutes that require you to protect the habitat of listed species. I also want to make sure that the record reflects that Collier County Audubon Society, Brad Cornell, submitted comments with five succinct reasons why this should be rejected. And also he included a letter from the Fish & Wildlife Service to Dr. Hussey, the petitioner, explaining the issue of listed species and their obligations. Lastly, I'd like again to say for the record that Florida Wildlife Federation and Collier County Audubon Society support the recommendations of your staff and the planning commission to not transmit. We acknowledge that there's an issue ofa need for rock mine, but Page 351 July 24-25, 2007 it's not to open up environmentally sensitive lands. We have to get together and deal with the bigger picture and not deal with the stopgap measures that are undermining our environmental integrity. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need you to wrap it up, Ms. Payton. MS. PAYTON: I conclude. That is it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Patricia Humphries. She'll be followed by Nicole Ryan. MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries and I'm a resident of the Estates since 1992. I also served on the board of directors for the Golden Gate Civic Association from 1996 to 2006. I wish to remind the county and the mining industry of the tremendous impact that trucks generated from the existing as well as proposed mines will have on the Estates. Weare already experiencing the negative side of sharing neighborhoods and our roads with hundreds of dump trucks and dump truck trips. Although the Sheriffs Oepartment is doing their utmost to address the traffic problems, there is only so much they can do. And code enforcement can only be as effective as the Land Oevelopment Code allows. The mining industry has to step forward and take responsibility for the impact these trucks have on the quality of the life of the residents of the Estates. Ideally they should provide a place for these trucks to park and be maintained so they are not waking people at 3:00 in the morning warming up their engines and slamming doors, and so that the truck owner's lot is not stripped of vegetation to accommodate the parking of these trucks, and so that the maintenance of these trucks does not take place on the property of the owner, and so that the owners don't allow their friends, employees or relatives to park their trucks on their property. And so that they are not dumping used oil on the ground or taking oil drums to the remote areas of the Estates and dumping it. Page 352 July 24-25, 2007 The mining industry should also give serious thought to refusing service to drivers that have multiple traffic tickets or generate complaints from neighbors because of their reckless driving and speeding. Another reason these trucks should be parked elsewhere is because the LOC is outdated. These rules were made a long time ago when the Estates was sparsely populated and there were a lot less dump trucks. Some of the above-mentioned issues are violations, but the code officer has very little enforcement power. Plus there are only two officers working the Estates areas area. These codes favor the dump truck owners rather than the neighbors. Because of these very liberal codes, in addition to the unsightly dump trucks, we are now seeing huge tractor-trailers parked in front yards, giving the impression of an industrial park rather than a rural, residential neighborhood. And it's only going to get worse. For the record, I question the overwhelming support ofthe Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association so stated by Mr. Gaddy. Thank you. (At which time, Chairman Coletta exits the boardroom.) MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nicole Ryan. MS. RYAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The Conservancy asks that you deny this comprehensive plan amendment. The applicant's representatives talk about being put back to where we were. That simply is not feasible. We have a final order that has come down and said where we were simply wasn't cutting it. Therefore, we put in place the TDR program. It was approved by the state, it was challenged, it was upheld. The county has a legally defensible mechanism for protecting areas in the rural fringe and for allowing development and land uses Page 353 July 24-25, 2007 that are appropriate and compatible. But the ability for this program to actually work and function hinges upon the county maintaining the intent and the integrity of this program. And this compo plan amendment simply does not do that. It's incompatible. Ifwe allow more intensive land uses in the receiving lands by design and we're now allowing more intensive land uses in the sending lands, the program has simply failed. And this is not a minor tweak or modification to the program. This is almost 1,000 acres of land. If this is approved, it's going to set a very bad precedent and show other landowners in the area that they can attempt to take their lands out of sending status and get away from the restrictions of sending that they don't want to abide by, while still maintaining the portions of the sending land status that they like. For example, keeping the TDRs. And it was mentioned that clearing has already occurred on this land. That land should not be eligible for TDRs for 25 years, based on the current LDC. Mining isn't allowed within the sending lands for good reason. It's intensive, it's a very impacting land use, and therefore it isn't compatible. It has both surface and subsurface impacts. So you can't do mining everywhere. It has been set aside in the receiving areas because we know we need to have mining in certain portions. Removing the Hussey property from sending status and creating a much more intensive and lenient land use category where mining is allowed would be inconsistent with the TDR program and the compo plan and resource protection. Nothing submitted in this application justifies dismantling the rural fringe program. The applicant admits this land does have environmentally sensitive habitat on it from their new data that they've submitted, and this property is used by more than just the RCW, it's primary panther habitat, you have gopher tortoises, Big Cypress fox squirrels, black bear, wood storks; a wide variety of animals use this. And I don't Page 354 July 24-25, 2007 believe that any of those species would benefit from night hauling from mining. Redesignation also would sever the connectivity, not only through the property but the sending lands to the east and to the west. And also potential rehydration and ecological restoration in the future for the entire North Belle Meade area. This is one big chunk of a very big system. So we need to keep that in mind when looking at what can be done on this parcel. There's be a lot of discussion about mining. There are appropriate areas for mining. The Florida Rock mine going through is an example. There's another mine that has been going through the county process in receiving lands. So we do have mineable rock. And I'll just conclude by saying the property was correctly designated as sending lands. The county has adopted and accepted this rural fringe program as a way to meet the needs of both development and environmental protection. County staff has recommended denial, your planning commission recommended 7-1 to deny transmittal, and we ask that you deny this. This is the county's responsibility. I know there's been talk about sending it up to DCA, floating it by DCA so they can send a negative ORC Report back. But this is the county's program. A denial needs to be here at the county level. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. Ms. Filson, is there any other speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir, that was the final speaker. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had a few questions, actually. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: If I may. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Temporary Chairman? Would it be possible to just wait a couple minutes to have Commissioner Coletta Page 355 July 24-25, 2007 call in so that he could hear the questions and the responses? He said he's going to call in. I just thought it might be -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- a little bit easier for everybody, if that's okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we take a 1 a-minute break. We'll be back at 1:07(sic). (Recess. ) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic. Commissioner Henning, are you on the line? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I am. MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coletta, are you on the line? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I am. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, we've reconvened from the recess. I'm going to start off with Commissioner Fiala, your light is on. Then I'm going to go to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I had a number of questions. The first one is, do you expect to operate day and night? MR. YOV ANOVICH: What we have committed to, Commissioner, is that -- and I guess I'll go to this one. These are the two lakes that we were addressing. And I believe what we've agreed to is that there would be on-site no activity between the north lake and the south lake at night. However-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Trucks will still be coming and going? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, this right here. At this corner, which is adjacent to Landfill Road, that is where -- because a lot of the asphalt paving occurs at night. That operation would occur at night and that would be -- that would continue to occur. But we've located Page 356 July 24-25, 2007 it in a location to where we will be away from any wildlife that is on-site. COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's that rectangle piece of property. That isn't owned by the Husseys, right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then how will the people who own that property have access to it through the water? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- well, we have not -- that is just the entire area that would be eligible for the lake. The actual lake design will have to address any access issues to off-site property owners. But that's the area eligible for the 350 acres of impact. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. When you were talking about -- somebody said that was up here -- water makes good wildlife potential. Somebody said that. And I was just wondering how large lakes and blasting and a batch plant and dump trucks could be great for panthers trying to cross the property, or bears or gofer tortoises who would drown. I just -- it just doesn't seem to make good wildlife situation. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: Obviously a lake area or deep water habitat is not good panther -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, would you identify yourself? MR. MUDD: State your name, please. MR. SCHORTEMEYER: Jim Schortemeyer, certified wildlife biologist. And obviously the aquatic areas are not going to be good terrestrial wildlife habitat. That does not rule out the possibility that other wildlife will use it and that it will be valuable to other wildlife. Just as it is within the park areas where you have artificial deep water habitats at North Collier Regional Park, for example. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But right now what we're trying to do is preserve that habitat for the animals who are already there and using it. I was just concerned. Page 357 July 24-25, 2007 Also, another statement was that the larger the water area the more evaporation. And yet somebody else was saying no, that isn't the problem. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, and we can bring our hydrogeologist back up. I think you need to put Collier Audubon's statements in context, because -- something I think you also need to also put in context is you haven't had one expert get up here and testify contrary to any of our experts. You've had people who represent environmental organizations make statements, but they're not experts in any of the fields that they made statements about. So we have a hydrogeologist that can specifically express that issue. They have not presented a hydrogeologist to back up any of their claims. MR. TROMMER: Yes, JeffTrommer. I'm the hydrogeologist. Could you ask that question again, please? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Somebody said -- first somebody said that this wouldn't cause much evaporation, yet somebody else from your team got up and said the larger the water area, the more evaporation. So contradicting statements there. MR. TROMMER: Well, there's a couple different things that we're looking at there. First is yes, as you do expand the lakes you do increase the evaporative loss from the property, okay. And when I had defined that, that was based on the current land as pine flatwoods versus a lake surface. And that increases the evaporative loss by about six inches per year in that area over a normal year. But within that normal year you have periods where actually there's an increase in recharge because the lake is able to collect more recharge during the rainy periods than a dry land surface does, so it's kind of a give and take there. The other thing that was brought up by somebody else on the team was the issue of the melaleuca treed areas. Melaleuca trees Page 358 July 24-25, 2007 actually have a higher evaporative or evapotransporative loss from the land surface than a lake surface does. So if you're taking areas that are currently inhabited by melaleuca trees and converting that to lake, you're actually in those areas reducing the evaporative loss. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. The last question, and nobody has addressed this so far, but it's a major concern of mine, major concern, and that is the impact on an already congested roadway which is 951 and also the Davis Boulevard/I - 7 5 intersection. 1-75 is not going to be widened to six lanes, no matter what. They don't have that in the plan for at least till 2030. Yet they're trying to push the Everglades Boulevard interchange through because it's desperately needed for the people in Golden Gate. So they'll have another exit out of Golden Gate Estates. And as it is, that very impaired intersection, Davis Boulevard, 951 and 1-75, can hardly accommodate what we have there right now, plus all the things they're putting on there. And this would be bringing, what is it, another 500 trucks a day in and out. I just feel that this is going to be extremely detrimental to that road system. MR. YOV ANOVICH: IfI recall correctly -- and Nick's here-- transportation staff did not raise any objections to our requested comprehensive plan amendment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here comes Nick. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And be that as it may, we did agree, and I don't know if it's in all of the color coded stuff, to restrict hauling in the peak hours that we would not haul. And we only have 10 peak hour trips. So we are willing to address those situations, even though COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that isn't only -- that intersection, that whole area is not as well -- well, go ahead. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, transportation. And I probably should be sworn in. I wasn't sure if I was. Page 359 July 24-25, 2007 MR. MUDD: No, you're fine. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have concerns with this. And if this goes forward, we would like it to go through the conditional use process so that we can evaluate the transportation in depth. We recommend that they participate with the east-west road, as Corby had mentioned earlier. Also, we'd like to see an alternative access point, as was described in the Florida Rock agreement. Florida Rock went out of their way to work with the county and staff issued roadway network and we've discussed with the petitioner different possibilities such as crossing over and tying into Beck and doing different things likes that. Things like that should be considered if it goes forward. And we support this being a conditional use application if it does go forward. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But Nick, you say tying it into Beck Avenue, and yet we're going to have a lot of the problems with Everglades Boulevard into emptying out the Estates into that area already. On an intersection that desperately needs, what, $160 million overpass but won't have it till at least 2030, don't you think this is going to cause quite a tremendous impact to that area? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It could. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Considering all the other things already approved. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. If this was evaluated in depth, if it was a conditional use, we would look into thing like that. But I don't have a quantity of vehicles coming out of this mine, if it was approved for mining at this point in time. Stipulations could be added at that point in time that would limit the amount of vehicles that could come out and where they could come out, depending on traffic impact. So I think we're at a stage where we haven't evaluated what that could be. The recommendations that come from compo planning Page 360 July 24-25, 2007 making this a conditional use application and supported by the petition allows us that safety that we can evaluate at that point in time. All those concerns: The amount of trucks, where they would come out, the timing of that, phasing, mitigation, all that could be brought forward at that point in time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if it isn't working, they've already got the permission to do this. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not sure that that's true. Not until the conditional use would be approved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you through, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Um-hum. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, do you have any questions, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, are you on line? (No response.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's on mute. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, let's keep it that way. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have any questions, but I'm wrestling with the possibility here that we put together the rural stewardship lands area and we had all the stakeholders together. I believe WilsonMiller was involved in this whole process. Was it WilsonMiller? Who was it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, what you had was you had two areas: You had the rural land stewardship area, which is the eastern portion COMMISSIONER HALAS: But they came up with the TDR program. Page 361 July 24-25, 2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, no, that was not. WilsonMiller dealt with the rural land, and that's where you have your stewardship sending areas and your stewardship receiving areas and get your stewardship sending credits. And then you had the fringe, which had its own committee. WilsonMiller was not involved in that TDR concept for the rural fringe. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Anyway, we came up with the TDR concept. We came up with the rural fringe stewardship land area. Basically it was all tied together, eventually tied together in such that the State of Florida thought that it was the right way for planning. We put together -- we had to -- went through a lot of agony in regards to how we were going to give people development rights that were going to lose them in a sending area. So we came up with TDRs. And we also then came back and said well, maybe we didn't give them enough TDRs, so then we went into what I call a stock split. We gave them some additional TDRs, okay, to try to stimulate the idea of the TDR development. I have some real concerns on where we're going with this. And I have some concerns that we may end up blowing up this whole TDR program. And so I can tell you that I'm not really in favor of what I've heard so far this afternoon, unless you can convince me otherwise. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I[J can do my rebuttal and my summary, maybe I could have a shot at that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I interrupt all of you? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, were you on or did we Jose you? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Jim, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. I have a couple of them, if I may go ahead. Page 362 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you speak a little closer to the mic on your phone there, if possible? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is this any better? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Pardon? MR. MUDD: Yes, it is better. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, couple of things. And I'm not going to hit all the issues, but I do want to go across a couple of thing. One, Pat Humphries brought up about noise (phonetic) of trucks and the trucks are going to be handled in this particular area. Is there anything to address that as far as where trucks are to be stored, parking areas, how they (static interference on the cell phone speaker)? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, we can't hear you. If you could speak closer. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, i[J could just figure out where they got the mic in this car, I'd probably do it a lot better. Is it better now? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, your first question was Ms. Humphries brought up a particular issue about truck parking and parking the trucks at quarry sites versus parking them in the Estates' residential lots. And is there anything that the petitioner can do for that. I believe the answer is that's something that you can get done during the conditional use process. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we would deal with that in the conditional use process, and we have previously stated publicly that we would accommodate parking at our mining site for dump trucks. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, did you hear that answer? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I did. I'm hearing you a lot better than you're hearing me. I'm driving in a rain storm. I know that makes it difficult, but if you bear with me, please. Page 363 July 24-25, 2007 Also about trucks, the question about trucks on the Estates roads. Is there any plans in the near future to go out onto 16 or onto Wilson? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we had agreed also at the planning commission that we would be using Landfill Road and not using Wilson or any of the other roads for our trucks. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The other question is regarding future roads, the access that's needed (phonetic) from Wilson Boulevard down to 951. What would this proposal do to help them move towards that direction? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe that Nick said through the conditional use process he'd be working on getting some right-of-way along the southern boundary of our property, which would fall in -- I believe falls into what Florida Rock is working towards, as well as, you know, going through their north-south portion. And as they head to the west, they would be coming across our southern boundary. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I know the planning commission did not give approval for this. Has something changed since then, you know, where you have addressed a lot of the issues of the planning commission, or is it still the same proposal in favor? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think there have been a lot of significant changes in what your staff has written and what we've agreed to. We had asked for a permitted use and now it's a conditional use. So I think there are some significant changes. And if we get transmittal, they'll get a bite at that during the adoption discussion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I'm right, it takes three commissioners to move it forward, but it takes four commissioners at the end to pass it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got one more question. I'm trying to find my notes here. There was reference made, and justly so, about I think the RCW, the panther, different endangered species. How would this project be Page 364 July 24-25, 2007 a detriment or a plus as far as being able to meet the needs of wildlife? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, first of all, this project's not going to be any different than Florida Rock or any other project. They're still going to be subject to the environmental permitting requirements. So the listed species will be addressed through that permitting process. In addition, if you look at the TDR program, it really doesn't provide for an adequate mitigation to address RCW s in the first place. The actual required management techniques for the RCW are very, very expensive to do. And the one extra TDR you get for addressing RCWs frankly is not worth what it's going to cost you to have to mitigate for the RCW s. So with our proposal through the permitting process we will be actively managing those areas and making it better for the RCW versus what your TDR program will do and certainly what the agricultural uses on the property will do. Because keep in mind, we haven't lost the right to agricultural uses on the property. And doing the agricultural uses on the property does not require us to manage the areas we do not impact. So the RCW and other species don't benefit at all if we decide to go with the agricultural uses versus the earth mining use. And as we've said, the property owner is not interested in the TDR program. We've gotten appraisals that say that the land is more valuable in its agricultural use than through the TDR program. And quite candidly the TDR program is in a state of flux right now. There don't seem to be too many active buyers out there wanting the TDRs in the first place. So we believe the land is better as an agricultural use as an alternative to the TDR use. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I understand where you're going. Now, let me ask one last question. Ifwe move this forward for transmittal, when it came back to us for the final approval, could we Page 365 July 24-25, 2007 impose other conditions if we so thought they were needed? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Within reason. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's something legally that says we have to accept it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, you could add other stipulations. We may not agree to them but yes, you can try to add additional stipulations. And if we didn't agree to them, you could also choose not to adopt. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate it. I may have some more questions shortly. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Should I go now? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: A lot of my points were addressed in some of the questions that were just previously raised. But I do want to address a couple of comments from your speakers. The basic argument I've heard from people is we made a decision five years ago, we're going to live with that decision, and we don't ever want to change that decision. The decision that was made five years ago was based on data that was five years ago at the time, if not older in some instances. We have new data, we have better data, and in what we're showing you based on the new data, we can and will adequately protect listed species on the site, as well as be required to address those issues through the permitting process. So I think that sticking your head in the sand and saying, you know, that's it, we made a decision, we're never going to change our mind is not the responsible thing to do in this situation. Someone said we're somehow monkeying with the TDR program. We're not monkeying with the TDR program. On the lands that we're not clearing, we would get TDRs and they would go into circulation, just like you expected. So you're not going to take those Page 366 July 24-25, 2007 TDRs out. The lands that we do clear, we would like to keep those TDRs in circulation and take all the monies we get from that and put it into the endowment. It would be -- and so there's no reward to my client for that. The reward is -- the money that's raised through the TDRs actually goes to the benefit of the environment. So there's no more money in my client's project for doing that. So I fail to see how where we're monkeying with the TDR program. All the TDRs that are expected to come from the property would still be generated and in circulation. Contrary to what your speakers say, we don't believe that the previous regulations addressed earth mining and the need for rock. Ask Stan Chrzanowski. It was just a few years ago that Stan said guess what, the regulations that we've adopted put the areas where the rock is into environmentally protected areas so we can't get to the rock. So you clearly didn't address that in any great detail when you adopted the original rural fringe mixed use district regulations. As Corby point out, you're required to protect minerals as well as listed species. You didn't do that in the plan. You provided no compensation to a property owner who has minerals below the land that they want to extract. That's a major flaw with the program. We have a proposal that will address RCWs. You've heard that, it's unrebutted. We're going to make it better for the RCWs. Up on the visualizer is, what we showed earlier, the RCW areas and the clearing permit we've already received from the county. As you can see, the clearing permit that's already authorized by the county bisects the area we were proposing to retain. So we already have authority to clear 580 acres, pursuant to our agricultural permit. What we're proposing is to create the two permits -- I'm sorry, the two lakes of no more than 400 acres of impact. So we've already -- we're proposing a better situation as far as clearing goes, versus what will happen under the Right to Farm Act. Now, people are going to tell you we don't have the right to clear. Page 367 July 24-25, 2007 That's not true. We got a letter that said make sure you address listed species when you do the clearing. And if you need to get a permit, come get a permit. Nobody has said to us you need to get a permit as far as the federal or state agencies go. We were very careful in getting our areas permitted through the county that would not impact listed species. So we have all the clearing we need, authorization we need. And as has been mentioned, of the 500 acres that's already been authorized to be cleared, about 200 of those acres have been cleared so far. A lot of what I was going to talk to is going to be addressed through the conditional use process. Now, if it gets transmitted we -- I just wanted to point out, we have provided your staff all this information since 2005, and have continually updated that information for your staff. They have elected not to review it in that detailed manner, because it's been their recommendation that they do a conditional use. It's not like we didn't give them the information. It's been there. They just -- they've elected not to look at it. I would also point out that none of these detailed regulations and safeguards are anywhere to be found in the North Belle Meade overlay for receiving lands. It seems odd to me that they're now important on the Hussey piece of property but they weren't important on the Florida Rock piece of property, when the Florida Rock piece of property had the very same issues regarding panthers, bears. And in fact, they got an authorization to clear 540 of their roughly 750 jurisdictional wetlands. If you look at our information, we're going to clear around 250 acres of wetlands. And you've heard testimony that they're poor quality wetlands. So any argument that there's been a -- you can distinguish Florida Rock from our piece of property, you can't, other than Florida Rock was cleared. And sometimes cleared land is more environmentally sensitive than uncleared land. And there was no analysis that I'm Page 368 July 24-25, 2007 aware of on that property. I think what happened, and I'm not finding fault with this, there was a discussion that occurred where the property owner said hey, I'll give you "X" number of acres of uncleared area if you'll give me "Y" number of acres of cleared area, and that's how the North Belle Meade overlay settlement agreement was arrived at. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you very close to breaking? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm very close. Essentially we've got two options at this time. You're losing your quorum. Do I keep going, Mike? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we've got two on the phone. MR. PETTIT: We need to have a quorum. We have three physically present, so we do have to stop. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, we have to stop at this point. MR. MUDD: All the microphones are still hot, just to let you know. (Recess.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hello? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, we're still -- we're just taking a break here because Commissioner Coyle had a phone call. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're back on the dais. We are now going to reconvene. Go ahead and finish up with your -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will. The concern that you'll be opening up a Pandora's box if you approve this one is not a real concern. How many other 950-acre tracts are out there that can be put together for an earth mining operation? I submit to you, based on the information Wayne's presented, it's not going to happen. So we're stuck with two options. The options are either to work with us on the earth mining option to where we believe it's a win/win Page 369 July 24-25, 2007 situation: It addresses listed species issues, it will go through a conditional use process, you'll address all your concerns regarding when we'll haul, when we won't haul and we have to go through all that process. And at the end of the day if we don't convince you that it's appropriate, you won't approve the conditional use. Or two, you can deny this and we'll go forward with our agricultural operations that are planned for the property. I would submit to you that your Environmental Advisory Council spent a lot of time on this issue. They actually went out on-site and visited the site. For some reason the environmental community didn't find it necessary to come attend that hearing and present any evidence to the EAC to the contrary to what we presented. We think the EAC did a responsible job, included a lot of beneficial stipulations, and we are requesting that you transmit our request with the changes we've agreed to today to the Department of Community Affairs for their feedback on this issue and their review of the data. And with that, we're available to answer anymore questions you may have. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a question for Corby again. Corby, could you come up to the mic? MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you tell me just briefly in about 10 words what staff recommends on this? What you've come to after you've listened to all the testimony. MR. SCHMIDT: The recommendation is as you have it in your hands in that printed material. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which is not to transmit. MR. SCHMIDT: It is to transmit as a conditional use permit with the use of no TDRs and a number of other conditions on that list. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's not -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not what it says. Page 370 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. MR. MUDD: Staffs recommendation. MR. SCHMIDT: I'm sorry, the alternate recommendation is what you have in front of you in print. Staffs initial recommendation is to deny this. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, that's what I wanted to hear. Okay, is there any questions from the fellow commissioners? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, are you still with us? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to transmit with a caveat that this will be a conditional use for all the advisory board members to weigh in. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got a second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that a second from Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Any further discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hearing none, I call the question. All those in favor, signify -- for transmitting this up to DCA with the stipulations that's been put on there by the motion maker -- signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Those opposed? Page 371 July 24-25, 2007 Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion fails -- or motion carries, I guess, in favor of not transmitting this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, the motion was to transmit. MR. MUDD: Right. So it fails. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me. Okay, what's next on the agenda. Is that the number 14? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is Petition No. CCSP-2005-14. And you are only doing portions of -- you're doing portions -- parcels 25 through 31; is that correct? MR. WEEKS : Yes, sir. Commissioners, for the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department. This is the last group of properties to deal with for this special provision that was included in the rural fringe mixed use district and the comprehensive plan for properties that are designated as sending lands that abut either receiving or neutral lands in which the property owner had the opportunity to submit data to demonstrate that the sending lands designation was not warranted. In this case we're dealing with the -- almost the exact same property as the petition you just dealt with, Petition 12. It's noted on the visualizer, the property in black. That is the property from the previous petition. There's a difference of about 30 or 40 acres of discrepancy, that this site was actually smaller than Petition 12. In staffs opinion, the petitioner has not submit accurate data, compelling evidence to show that the sending lands designation is not warranted. To the contrary, the evidence submitted by the applicant shows that the property has listed species habitat for a variety of listed species and actually contains some listed species on the site. That is Page 372 July 24-25, 2007 not just the habitat, but the actual animals are there as well, including the red-cockaded woodpecker and the Big Cypress fox squirrel, amongst others. So the staffs recommendation is do not change the designation, leave it as sending lands. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. VEGA: Good afternoon. My name is John Vega. I'm here on behalf of the petitioners, Dr. Francis Hussey and Mary-Pat Hussey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners and telephone Commissioners. I'm not going to repeat the presentation we had at the last meeting. I do want to address a couple of the questions that were posed by Commissioners. I did a little bit of additional work in the intervening time and walked through them quickly. The first observation I'd like to make is that this is not one parcel of land for the purposes of this petition, numbers 25 through 31. They can be looked at separately. And if you look at the visualizer, what I think is important is for the last two hours we've been discussing the environmental significances of Section 32. And let me show. Section 32 is the area south of this notch here. You can see it includes all the red-cockaded woodpecker nesting trees, habitat trees, potential foraging sites. The vast majority -- in fact, if you continue the line across, virtually all of the environmental significant areas are below this line. It is possible for the commission to look solely at those parcels that are in Section 29, Section 29 being the areas above this line. I think that they're going to find, and I almost wish sometimes that I had two different clients, one which owned Section 32 and one which owned Section 29. Because I think Section 29, other than the fact of common ownership, has very little in common with what's happening here in Section 32. The RCW colonies exist on Sections 31 to this side, 32 here on the border, here on the border, and then 33 over Page 373 July 24-25, 2007 to this side. It has virtually nothing to do with what's taking place to the north on Section 29. As you can see from the drilling information provided to you and the hydrology information provided to you, that's also where they are not significant wetlands and it is where there is significant rock to a very high depth. So there is a compelling argument to look at what is the south half of29, which is the northernmost about 300 acres of this property, and consider that for a neutral or receiving designation. It also does immediately abut the Florida Rock mining areas that would make a shared haul road more sensible, and it is abutting the receiving areas directly. Would not have to piggyback on any other lands in order to receive a change designation. The second exhibit in response to a question from Commissioner Fiala, we discussed the panther activity in the North Belle Meade in the rural fringe and the distinction between Texas cougars which were brought in and deposited in the South Belle Meade and the Florida panthers which were being tracked. This is an overlay from the county's data which I alluded to where the Texas cougars' telemetry readings are in bold yellow, the Florida panthers are in green. The rural fringe, at least this section of it, is laid out here. And it's a little difficult to see, but the sending areas of North Belle Meade are these areas here, and the Hussey lands are these areas here. They have nowhere close to the amount of panther activity, whether you look at Florida panther or Texas cougar, as the areas that are further to the east and further to the north that were designated as receiving and are currently permitted for rock mining. If you zoom in a little bit -- this one's upside down -- you can see that. Again, here is Section 29 with no panther activity whatsoever. Thirty-two has a smattering of activity here on its border with 33. And there's a fair amount of activity here on the lands that are Page 374 July 24-25, 2007 receiving and permitted for mines. So if the -- and my argument is that the lines were not properly drawn. If the criteria is listed species activity, there's more of it in the receiving lands than there are in the Hussey sending lands, especially on Section 29. I also think that it's important to look at the area as a whole. We are talking about even on Florida Rock's land, maybe eight readings over a 10 to 12-year period. And if you compare that to the significant activity to the lands further in the east, I think that it's fair to say that the driving environmental significance in this area should be focused on RCWs and not primary panther habitat. Because I think even a layman can look at this map and guess where the primary panther habitat is. COMMISSIONER HALAS: This information that you just presented to us, was this also presented to the planning commission, or is this additional data that has been provided to us today without the planning commission hearing all this? MR. VEGA: The oral data regarding the activity of the Texas cougars and Florida panthers was discussed with the planning commission, but no, the map was not shown to the planning commISSIon. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So this is additional new data that's being presented to us that hasn't come -- wasn't presented to the planning commission; is that correct? MR. VEGA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Can you state why it wasn't presented to the planning commission? MR. VEGA: The planning commission, I followed Mr. Y ovanovich. I was, I would say, pretty much very quickly voted out of the room. I don't think we had near the discussion. This map was part of the maps created by Mr. Hatcher for Collier County as the -- at the time of the adoption. All I've merely done is Page 375 July 24-25, 2007 taken Mr. Hatcher's data and highlighted which of the telemetry readings are Texas cougars and which were Florida panthers. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is, and I've had some other concerns, not only by you but from other people who present data to the planning commission and then come in with a new set of data to the Board of County Commissioners that hasn't been provide -- that was not provided to the planning commission, I have a problem with that. MR. VEGA: Understood. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there any -- Commissioner Henning, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't. MR. VEGA: I would like to finish up. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, I'm sorry. MR. VEGA: I wanted to briefly respond to a question that you asked on the TDRs. And I guess the overall assessment is if the TDRs are worth 16 to 20 million, why does not the landowner simply take the TDRs? Why is the landowner here asking to do something else? And the point that I wanted to make to that -- and again, in the intervening months my phone hasn't rung from anyone offering to buy them. But the problem is that -- and there have been appraisals that were before the planning commission, because there's an appraisal in my initial submission dating back to '04. There's probably a land value of around 100 million or more as a mining operation as a conditional use. And that was at zoning going back to when it was acquired in 1979. To tell the landowner that he should take 10 to 20 percent ofthat value in the form ofTDRs and give up a use that he's had for 25 years, shifts the burden of a public good, or at least 80 to 90 percent of that burden, onto the landowner and away from the public as a whole. And I don't think that that's proper. I don't think any private landowner should ever be asked to bear the brunt of a public benefit. Page 376 July 24-25, 2007 Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. Commissioner Coletta, are you on line? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Commissioner Coletta here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no questions at this time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I believe we have a couple of public speakers? MS. FILSON : Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have two public speakers. Would you like me to call them at this time? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, please call them up at this time. MS. FILSON: The first one is Nancy Payton. She'll be followed by Nicole Ryan. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. We also urge you not to transmit this compo plan amendment. And I just wanted to speak briefly about panthers. The decision as to whether this should be designated neutral or not is based on information from 2002 when the compo plan amendments were adopted. We can't look at information from last week or three weeks ago or a month ago. It has to be that snapshot. And I wanted to make several points. One, only a third of the panthers are collared, so that leaves a significant number of panthers that aren't collared that may be using North Belle Meade. Also, those telemetry hits are daytime hits, when a panther is resting, not when it's moving around. So it gives a skewed view about the habitat. And lastly, the experts that spoke for Dr. Hussey at the challenge back in 2003 acknowledged under oath that North Belle Meade, including Dr. Hussey's property, was in the home range of two Page 377 July 24-25, 2007 panthers. I just refresh your memory about that and again urge you not to transmit this amendment. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Nicole Ryan. MS. RYAN: Good afternoon. Nicole Ryan, here on behalf The Conservancy. And I won't go through all of my previous comments, but I think most of them are applicable. This was properly designated as sending land. You've had data from several years ago that have shown that. You have data today that shows that it still should be sending. So we ask that this not be redesignated. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I didn't call staffup. Does staff have anything to add to this? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, David Weeks again for the record. My comments I've already made were very brief. I did fail to tell you that the planning commission and EAC both did recommend denial as well. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning, do you have any questions at this time? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I don't. Unless we're going to take this and move it forward, I'm going to be tied up for just a few minutes while I'm going through the check-in. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Will you be available i[J see if I have one of my fellow commissioners or maybe you to make the motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I prefer somebody else make the motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, hold on. The petitioner wants to add some additional information at this time. Go ahead, sir. MR. VEGA: I just want to clarify that the data in this map is Page 378 July 24-25, 2007 from 2002 and before. It has not been updated with any information since that date. I followed Mr. Weeks' instructions and solely used the data that was before the county at the time of adoption. Second, I would like to comment on a point that Mr. Y ovanovich has made. There are about 200 acres on this overall parcel that have been cleared. They're in Section 29. If you look at the aerial, about 100 of those acres were cleared years ago. Ifwe look at Section 29 on its own, there's no real way to argue that it has the same type of environmental significance as 32. And I think the Commission has the right to draw the distinction, because there are several different parcels before it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Was there somebody said that-- Commissioner. MR. MUDD: That was the Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, go ahead? MS. FILSON: I think he's going through check-in. MR. MUDD: I think he's going through check-in- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh. MS. FILSON: He didn't mute his phone. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm sorry. Is there any other questions from -- or concerns from the Board of County Commissioners who are sitting present? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion not to transmit. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, and I'll second that. Any further discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, are you available to make a vote yet, or should we wait a few minutes? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, are you Page 379 July 24-25, 2007 available? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm always here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'll wait till Coletta gets through security or whatever he's at at the present time before we call the question, okay? So we'll just take a brief recess here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm here. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Fiala for denial of transmitting this, and a second by Commissioner Halas. Do you have any further input into this before we call the question? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have none. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Seeing no further -- hearing no further questions, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Those opposed by like sign. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, 3-2. So it's not going to be transmitted. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm taking a short break while I move through the baggage here. Okay. Item #10A RESOLUTION 2007-212: THE CONDEMNATION OF FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS AND/OR THOSE PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY EASEMENT INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY Page 380 July 24-25, 2007 IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE EXTENSION OF TREE F ARM ROAD FROM DAVILA STREET TO MASSEY STREET AND WOODCREST DRIVE FROM IMMOKALEE ROAD TO TREE FARM ROAD - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item on the agenda. I believe you've gone now through all the land use items. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I hope so. MR. MUDD: Yeah, I hope so too, sir. And we are now on -- and we've gone through paragraph nine. We are now on lO(A), the recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing a condemnation of fee interest and/or perpetual or temporary easement interests necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility improvements required for the extension of Tree Farm Road from Davila Street to Massey Street and Woodcrest Drive from Immokalee Road to Tree Farm Road-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. MR. FEDER: Commissioners, I do have -- this is Norman Feder, transportation administrator for the record. I do have some information that I need to read in. What I'd like to do, with your indulgence, is be very brief, read that into the record this one time, and let that apply to 1 a-A to 10-C and to 10-D, all of which are condemnation resolution items, so that you don't have to hear it three times from me. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. FEDER: Before you move on the items, it's important for the record of these proceedings to indicate that you thoroughly considered those statements made by your staff, by your consulting engineering firms and in both the technical memoranda and the pond-citing reports which are included in your backup information each you have with the agenda items. Page 381 July 24-25, 2007 Specially should you vote to approve any and all these agenda items and adopt the proposed condemnation resolutions, you are affirming the need to acquire the real property required to construct each project and represent the following: One, county's long-range trafficways plan and public health, safety and welfare consideration. Two, the environmental impacts associated with the construction with each project. And three, the various alternatives which are studied for the locations and alignment of the proposed improvements and the costs associated with each. If the Commission has any questions, I do have Kevin Hendricks of the right-of-way staff here with me. And I do note to you that you need a separate vote on each one, 10-A being -- and Jim was raising to you acquisition of right-of-way by condemnation if necessary for the improvements on Tree Farm and Woodcrest Drive. Are there any questions on 1 a-A? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioners, do you have any questions on 1 a-A? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not from me. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: We had a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle. Did I hear a second on that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was me, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MUDD: You have one speaker, I believe, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we have one speaker at this time. Could you call the speaker, please. MS. FILSON: The speaker is Stan -- or, I'm sorry, Scott Stonier. Page 382 July 24-25, 2007 MR. STONIER: I'm sorry I'm late to this podium. My name is Scott Stonier. I'm a resident living on Massey Street. I'm asking the Commissioners to please not adopt the recommendation of the resolution of the property. I was just speaking with Mr. Nick of traffic trying to get my concerns across. The proposal to connect Massey Street to W oodcrest, which would then directly connect Vanderbilt straight through to Immokalee Road, my perception of this -- and I apologize not having any neighbors here, but we just -- I just found out yesterday that this was going before the board -- is that this is going to become a high traffic road as a shortcut from Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt to 91. The number of families that live in this area is very limited. The W oodcrest size has direct access to Immokalee Road. The Massey Street, which dead-ends before connecting to W oodcrest has access with Vanderbilt Country Club. The county is expending a fortune in building up Immokalee Road. The extension for Vanderbilt, the Massey Street is only approximately one mile in from 951, Collier Boulevard. And it just doesn't seem to be a very sensible placement for a road that would -- by its nature should open up areas, that should serve more people than a very locked street. The Massey side on one side is completely blocked by Vanderbilt Country Club. They are not connected to Massey Street, so that whole west side of Massey Street is dead. The east side, which the families live on, are built on residences of one and a quarter acres or greater. It's nonconforming agricultural land which determines the nature and the character of the neighborhood, which is very green. The only benefit to connecting these two roads, my perception, is for the developers of Calusa, Mockingbird, whomever else is else is out there, is that it will give a construction road and access without their having to give up any of their land, any of their use and monies to form their own road through an area that is going to be a high Page 383 July 24-25, 2007 density, unfortunately, development. You're coming into an area which is green with sparse density and you're infringing on our rights by bringing in these tremendous amount of traffic. I ask you to bring your attention -- this is a map of the immediate area of Massey. We have three golf courses. There is a corridor. There are other streets further east of Massey Street where if a road was connected there might have no impact on anyone. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you close to finishing up, sir? You have three minutes and you're almost there. Can you wrap it up, sir? MR. STONIER: I'm trying to. Thank you, sir. Anyways, there's corridors, there's roads that would be better served to put a connecting road from Vanderbilt to Immokalee Road. Where it's put is just a poor location. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for your time. Either Norm or Nick, can you give us a brief history? MR. FEDER: I'll ask Nick to come up here, but I'll be very brief. As development is starting to occur basically north of Vanderbilt, both sides of 951, we came to this board and said we're going to try and establish interconnectivity on some level, and I know this word is foreign around here, but of a grid in the area to respond to some of the traffic needs. The most specific on this side, which would be on the east side of 951 north of Vanderbilt, was to establish interconnection so we didn't have a number of access points onto 951 and Tree Farm with development. And then with further development to establish a Tree Farm connection of Wood crest up to establish an alternate route, rather than coming all the way on Immokalee and down 951, provide an alternate method or more of a grid to be addressed. Once you connect up Tree Farm and Woodcrest, the gentleman is correct, that will connect Massey that exists out there today. Page 384 July 24-25, 2007 I'll ask Nick to go through. There's a lot that has come out the development community, as you're quite aware, to try to bring these projects together and try and establish this grid on both sides of 951. I'll ask him to address specifically this side. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida with transportation planning. That Tree Farm/Woodcrest/Massey project that we're working on right now is probably one of the most innovative projects we've brought to you in a couple of years. The county's not building the road, the developer is. All the right-of-way that is being provided is being donated except for three small pieces has been donated, except for three small pieces that you have in this condemnation resolution. There are no water management ponds. All the water management for the entire roadway network is being provided by the developers. It was a long process. The network is one mile east and one mile south ofImmokalee Road. It provides a perfect grid and it provides also an emergency route that's around there. We went through that in the DCA process with Summit Lakes. As a matter of fact, the county's not expending a dime and without any risk. The developer is actually building a network. It's funny, while I had some time I was reading the Golden Gate Estates master plan update in your comprehensive plan, and one of the sections I just read about two minutes says, the County shall continue to explore alternative ways to collect arterials and collectors with local roads to decrease vehicular trips on arterials and collectors. And this is the specific way we can do that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for putting that on the record. MR. STONIER: Can I say something? COMMISSIONER HALAS: You've had your time, sir, thank you. MR. STONIER: I sat here for two days and listened to people Page 385 July 24-25, 2007 for hours speak, and I get three minutes and you cut me off -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir. That's what I -- MR. STONIER: Should I hold my hands up? If I'm being robbed, I should at least taken a position of being robbed. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there -- any of the commissioners out there that are on telephone, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ready to vote. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. No questions on the dais? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. No questions, I'll call the question. All those in favor of the -- all those in favor, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Those opposed by like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion carries unanimously. MR. STONIER: Some day I may become a Commissioner. Crooks. This is shit. MR. FEDER: Commissioners, with your indulgence and with -- MR. MUDD: Hang on for just a second. Commissioner, the Undersheriff has been trying to figure out -- he's got 13-A, okay, which has to do with red light running. We've been trying to get the timing for his particular item. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's hear that now. Item #13A Page 386 July 24-25, 2007 DISCUSSION REGARDING WHETHER TO DRAFT AND BRING BACK TO THE BOARD A "RED LIGHT TRAFFIC SIGNAL CAMERA ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM ORDINANCE" TO AUTHORIZE USE OF UNMANNED CAMERAS AT ROAD INTERSECTIONS TO ENFORCE ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS OF VEHICLES RUNNING RED TRAFFIC LIGHTS - STAFF TO WORK WITH COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE - APPROVED MR. MUDD: And we can get him back to where he needs to be. This is 13(A), that the Board of County Commissioners discussed whether staff would draft and bring back to the board a red light traffic signal camera enforcement system ordinance to authorize use of unmanned cameras at road intersections to enforce ordinance violations of vehicles running red light traffic -- red traffic lights. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. Do you have anything you want to put on the record. UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Please. UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: Good afternoon, Commissioners Kevin Rambosk, Collier County Sheriffs Office, Undersheriff. Very briefly I'd like to give you a little update on some opportunities we think that we have working together with you. Our presentation is entitled Traffic Lights, Camera, Action. However, unfortunately as you are well aware, the state has been in an inactive mode for approximately two years. You have sought this implementation oflaw. We have made the request. Our local legislators have made the request to give us some authority to look at red light cameras for enforcing violations of red lights. And for whatever the reason, they just don't seem to want to grant us that. Page 387 July 24-25, 2007 However, with the advent of technology, vendors who can now provide some of this equipment and local ordinances that are being created and implemented, not only in the State of Florida but throughout the United States, is giving the opportunity for many jurisdictions to move forward. And as a representation of how important it is, I know that you get questions, we get questions from the public relative to red light running. It's a significant issue with our motoring public. It's a safety issue from our perspective and for yours for our public. And I can tell you that quite frankly, we're frustrated in the inability to move forward to deal with red light running. I've got just two short clips here, one which is going to show an accident at a red light intersection with a red light camera. No one was injured in that accident. And I guess -- are we going to get to run that again or -- it stopped? Nationwide red light runners kill 1,000 individuals. 180,000 are injured. And it costs us $14 billion. So one would think with all of those particular safety elements that government, and we're talking about state government, would look at ways to enable us at the local level to enforce. And we certainly think that that is a direction to go. Weare going to be looking at working together with you. But to give you some sense, in our community, we looked at 8,271 citations written in 2006 by all members of our agency. That's a great job by law enforcement. Because our traffic motorcycles, for example, write about 22 to 2,400 citations of all kinds in a given year. So you can see that everyone is enforcing red lights. But in a study that was done in Orlando, a nine-month study at one single intersection showed 7,500 violation of red light running at that particular intersection. And if you look at -- if all our motor officers did was write citations for that, it would take three deputies and approximately $125,000 of deputy per year to even match that. Page 388 July 24-25, 2007 And remember that we have 180 signalized intersections in Collier County. Orlando is talking about one in the study that they did. So cameras are catching on. 250 communities throughout the nation. And the interesting thing is not all states authorize their use. More and more they're seeing local authorization through a system of ordinance which is more like a parking citation fine as opposed to a traffic fine or a traffic citation. There are some states that provide an enabling ordinance which allows local jurisdictions to put that in place. We have neither. Now, we have had some pilot programs out, but we do have some local ordinances throughout the state that have been implemented that are operational, and they're charging fines and/or warning. What would help to accomplish? Very simple. We want to reduce violations. And throughout the nation 40 to 50 percent of those areas with cameras have a reduction in their red light running. Forty to 50 percent at locations. Prevent crashes. 25 to 35 percent reduction in crashes at those locations. More than anything, it saves lives and reduces injuries. And that's what we're here to let you know about. Some abnormalities. New York has a 70 percent reduction in crashes. Fairfax, Virginia, 44 percent, Oxnard, California, 22 percent. So very, very important. What we're here to ask you about and to work with you on is to support continued legislative requests. We need to continue to ask our legislature to put in place laws that would enable us to move forward, either as an enabling act or as the law itself. Go to our legislative delegation, make that request. Ifwe can find someone to sponsor a bill, do that. If it takes us going to Tallahassee, we're ready to go to make that request. That's first. Look at that enforcement alternative and work together to develop a local ordinance with you that would allow us to install and Page 389 July 24-25, 2007 implement and enforce that type of red light running option. Third, set up a group, which the manager is already on top of, looking at what vendors might be out there. We agree and fully support that. We also want to bring in our attorneys to look at that ordinance that would provide the legislation, as well as the equipment, and then look at how we might purchase or lease the equipment that we need. If none of that works, then we still think we ought to move forward and either lease or purchase some cameras, do a monitoring plan where our staff would look at the violations, identify the vehicle owner, notice them with at least a warning, and put them up on our website so that everybody can see who is not paying attention to red lights in Collier County. We think this is a good position to be in. And even our traffic hound Red says we want to stop red light running. We ask for your support. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for the presentation. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Kevin, we've been trying for years -- you've been trying for years, we have too -- to get the legislature to do something with this, and they simply don't do it. I don't think they're ever going to do it, unless their current budget shortages result in a need to generate additional revenue sources. And then they're going to do it just so they can get money in Tallahassee. What is -- what limitations are placed on us with respect to the level of fines we can assess for running a red light with a local ordinance? UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: I think that will-- and the manager can correct me, but I think we have the ability to set those thresholds and levels within the ordinance that we put together. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there are maximums that are Page 390 July 24-25, 2007 severely restrictive. And the last time we tried this, and this was four years ago, four and a half years ago, we were told by the clerk that we didn't have the authority to set fines for red light running. And I believe -- my recollection is not entirely clear about that, about the amount that we were talking about. I think we said $500. We wanted to set a $500 fine for red light running, and we were told we didn't have the authority to do that. UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: You are correct, if it's a uniform traffic citation. That is correct. We're talking about creating a local ordinance giving us authority, giving the county authority to establish a fine in much the same way you do a parking citation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Like a code enforcement violation. UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: Like a code enforcement violation that would allow us to set that fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: County Attorney, is there any maximum limit on what we can assess under those circumstances that you're aware of? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I remember the incident four and a half, five years ago in which the Clerk indicated that the statutory arrangement at the time didn't allow. He was correct. And I cannot tell you sitting here right now that what the authority may be as far as expansiveness or limitation of fine that may be set. And additionally, of course, we the county has to be very careful in the area of code enforcement which typically has been involved with issues relating to property as opposed to being in the roads that are recognized by statute as being regulated by the sheriff and not by code enforcement officers. I think that if the board wishes, obviously we'd look forward to working very closely with the Undersheriff, the Sheriff and their counsel to come back and explore and see wherever there is a Page 391 July 24-25,2007 possibility of making some inroads, pardon the pun, toward this are problem. But I think it's very difficult to tell you right now that the county itself, which is the legislators making ordinances, what you can do ordinance-wise right now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, nevertheless, I would strongly support the effort, Kevin. I think it's a great idea. Ifwe can do it with a local ordinance, I think we should proceed to do that, because I don't think the legislature is ever going to do anything with it. UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: I agree with you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The question I have, motion maker, I'm not sure if this is the proper time to put something like this in the motion, but I think that maybe we can do it when we draw the ordinance up where people cannot obscure the license plates. UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: That's state statute already. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's state statute already? UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How would you enforce this with snowbirds? I think you can do it here with people that are living here by if they don't show up for court they can't get their automobile license renewed. How would you deal with this with snowbirds that are out of the state? Do we wait till later to figure that out? UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: Yeah, I think we'd like to come back to you after working with our legal counsels to overview the operation, how it would actually work. Because there are requirements in the communities that have developed ordinances specifically on how it works. So we'd like to do that for you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we deport them and don't let them back in. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, do you have anything? Page 392 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I do, thank you. Kevin, is this a single camera taking a picture of the license plate, or is it dual camera? UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: It depends on the type and size of the location. Typically it can be done with one camera. But if you've got a very large intersection, you're looking at two different directions, you might use two. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, you're just looking to take a picture of the license plate; am I correct? UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: That's correct. And the vehicle. So that we know the vehicle and the attached license plate to give us the owner's information. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Really, Commissioners, this is a public safety issue that the board has been dealing with for many years. And I think it's -- I'm going to support the motion maker. The details of the ordinance will be coming forward and be advertised, but I think this is what the community's been crying for for such a long time. And one more question for Kevin. How many man hours will you be saving by implementation of that local ordinance? UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: Hundreds of thousands. If you recall, when I mentioned that the 7,500 violations up in Orlando, what that would take, one, two or three individual officers to do, if you multiply that by the number of cameras, it would be staggering. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to know, and I don't need it now, the effects of the implementation on the sheriffs department man hours. UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: Okay, I'd be happy to do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coletta here, Kevin. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? Page 393 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, i[J could, I have a couple of questions. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure, please go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Kevin, how can we assure that the purveyor, the person that's going to be supplying this won't abuse it by trying to set the timing in such a way that it brings in more revenue than it should. In other words, past the point where a person would be at that magic mark as far as going through a red light. UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: One of the elements of this whole process is to actually have the video or photograph reviewed by a law enforcement officer who we wouldn't be touching at all the timing of the lights. This is a completely separate camera. In fact, DOT really doesn't want anybody in their lighting systems. So it's actually taking a separate picture or video, which we can then watch and gauge to make sure that they in fact did run a red light. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other question I got is the revenue that comes in from this goes to the general fund? UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if it does that, does it in any way impede our ability as far as collecting ad valorem? Is this something that has to be used against it, or is it considered a user fee of some type? MR. MUDD: It's a fee, Commissioner. And it doesn't go against what you can raise based on your ad valorem. It's basically a fee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I can support the motion. I think it's a great idea. (At which time, the electricity to the room stopped.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're adjourned. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We just-- MR. MUDD: Let's see if we can't get -- Commissioner Henning, are you here? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm always here. Page 394 July 24-25, 2007 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We just had a power failure. Just checking. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coletta here, power failure or not. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. Are there any further questions, concerns on this? I saw Bob Tipton. Bob, did you have something to offer to this or what? MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir. MR. WEIGEL: I think perhaps for clarity, and it sounds like we're working toward the staffs and counsel working together very closely. Probably a clarification, maybe for Mr. Henning, is that I expect that we would bring a report back to the board before we would craft an ordinance and bring it back to the board, because there may be various directions that you may wish to give us before we would advertise and bring an ordinance back to you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. All I'm saying is I'm just giving this one a green light. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Yes, Bob? MR. TIPTON: Commissioner, Ijust want to explain the way the signal -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you identify yourself? MR. TIPTON: I'm sorry. Bob Tipton, director of traffic operations. And as Undersheriff Rambosk was saying, the camera is only attached to the traffic control equipment by wire that lets it know that the light has changed and they would have nothing to do with setting the amount of yellow time or red time. So they would not be able to influence more people actually running red lights than what's already Page 395 July 24-25, 2007 out there doing it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle, I believe, and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Hearing no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion carries unanimously. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us-- UNDERSHERIFF RAMBOSK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Temporary Chairman, after this item could I request that we move up Marco Office Supply to the next one after this one, or even at this one? Only because he and Steve Carnell have been -- he's been here since yesterday morning at 9:00 and still here all day again today. Item #lOK AWARD BID 07-4127 FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES TO CORPORATE EXPRESS - COUNTY MANAGER TO CONDUCT AN AUDIT VIA AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR; TO BRING BACK RESUL TS TO THE BOARD AND EXTEND THE EXISTING CONTRACT THROUGH DECEMBER - APPROVED COMMISSIONER HALAS: What item is that? Page 396 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's 10(K). COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we bring that forth right now, okay? Get that gentleman on his way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it's been interesting, right? MR. PENZO: Yes, I learned a lot. I appreciate how long you guys sit up there. MR. MUDD: If you'd just take a seat for a second. When your name comes up, you'll be called to the podium. This is 16 -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: 16(E)(6), it's not 10(K); is that correct. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And it's that the Board of County Commissioners approve the award bid 70-4127 for office supplies to Corporate Express, and Mr. Steve Carnell, your purchasing director, will present. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Steve Carnell, for the record. This is our annual office supply contract that we're asking you to award today. This has been through the competitive bid process. We sent out notices to 20 firms back in March. We had 18 bid packages that were requested, and ultimately received three bids on April the 25th. The contract is written in such a way, it's written in a very broad way. It's an annual term agreement for the use of office supplies by all county departments. And the way it's set up, the way it was formerly set up in the bid invitation was that bidders were asked to submit their retail supply catalogs and they were to give a standing discount for all items purchased under the catalog against the catalog price, each catalog item having a published price and then we get a discount against each. The bid invitation was set up to identify 119 high-end use items. This is by no means all the items that we purchased, but they are Page 397 July 24-25, 2007 among the more significant, more frequently purchased items across the agency. We received three bids, as I said a moment ago. Only one was fully or clearly responsive to the requirement and the process I just described. One other bid was deemed fully non-responsive to the process. And then the bid from Corporate Express was considered responSIve. The bid from Marco Office Supply had some issues as well in terms of that process I just described. The 119 items, 25 of the items submitted by -- pricing submitted by Marco Office Supply, we were not able to verify where they were in the catalog. In some cases the bidder did not identify the product catalog number, so we were left with really an inability to make an apples to apples comparison on those items. So what we did, however, was we went ahead and compared those two remaining bidders on the 94 items that -- where we could get an apples to apples comparison. And based on that comparison, using the estimated quantities that were listed in the bid invitation, we determined that the bid from Corporate Express was lower than the bid from Marco Office Supply. So we are recommending award of that contract. As you saw in your backup material, we received a protest of this decision, and you saw a copy of the protest and the decision from my office regarding that protest. And I'll answer any questions you have. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do we have one speaker on this? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Philip Penzo. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Phil, could you come forward to the mic here and identify yourself. MR. PENZO: Thank you. I'm Philip Penzo, president of Marco Office Supply. We're a Collier corporation, been in business 25 years, Page 398 July 24-25, 2007 and we're headquartered in Industrial Boulevard. We currently have been privileged to supply the county for the last four years their office supplies. And my main problem with this is it's true, a lot of the items when the bid went out, they said you could bid approved equivalence. We supplied 50 approved items for approval to the county, and they weren't all in our catalog, but the thing I have a problem with is you've been buying these for the last four years. Our catalog -- we're not a large enough corporation to be able to print our own catalog. Corporate Express prints their own catalog. They have a marketing strategy that allows them to print a catalog with the price and product mix that gives them maximum profit giving a discount off the list. No other supplier out there does that. Everybody else gives the best price on each item, not a discount off a list, because we don't get the same discounts on every product you buy. Some things we might give 70 off, some things 30. So my problem is the very first item on the bid was copy paper that you've been buying for the last four years from us. Now, I gave you a sample. You've been buying it four years. Our bid was 26.90, which is what you've been paying for the last two years, because it started a little less and went up. Corporate Express bid $57. Well, last year you brought 3,000 cases of copy paper. It's your number one item that you buy in office supplies. It's 10 percent of your total purchase. If you award this to Corporate Express, it's going to be 20 percent of your purchases. You're going to pay $80,000 more in one year on one item. Now, maybe it's not in my catalog, but I think the idea of the bid is to get the best price and the best service for office supplies to the county. So that was my first problem. And then when they did the comparison, I netted out items that I get better deals on in your high-use items. Well, when they did the comparison, they put 52 percent off list, because that's what I said I'd give you on the rest of the items. Page 399 July 24-25, 2007 Well, if the county has a choice to get a better price on an item, why wouldn't they take that better price? I mean, by playing this game of I'm only going to accept an item in your catalog, you're limiting what kind of discount you get and you're going to end up paying more in office supplies. Corporate Express had this big four years ago. And we proved three months in a row, we took your invoices from them, ran them using our computer and every month we saved five to 10 percent over what you were paying. I'm in a disadvantage that I can't print my own catalog. And I gave 12 incidents in there where they -- on their items, they control the list. They can say the list on letter pads is $29 a dozen. Well, nobody lists them for that. Our catalog, it's 15. So you're going to get 62 percent off of $30. You're going to pay $15 for a dozen letter pads more than anybody pays anywhere. So it wasn't a fair bid. If you look at the numbers that I bid originally, I was low bidder. So my bottom line is to say do you want to accept Corporate Express as your bidder and pay more for office supplies, or keep it to the low bidder? Just because my item wasn't in the catalog, how can you not accept it when you've been buying it for the last four years? MR. CARNELL: Let me answer that. First off, the official comparison was based on what was responsive in the bid invitation. We didn't grandfather in anybody who's had the contract, so to speak, or make assumptions. Public bidding is about making fair comparisons on paper, directly based on what you have in front of you. Now, I mentioned to you we did the evaluation with the 25 items removed. But if you put them back in, Corporate Express is still low in our calculation, when you use all of the items involved. Mr. Penzo mentioned in his protest 11, 12 items he gave examples he was low. That's out of 119. There's probably out of some others where he was low. But when you run the whole package Page 400 July 24-25, 2007 together, Corporate Express comes out lower by every analysis that we've done, when we use all of the items that we specified. Further, you just need to understand something very fundamental and intuiti ve here. Corporate Express offered a discount of 61 percent. Marco Office offered a discount of 52 percent. Even when you add in the additional discounts he's talking about, he still is not the low overall bidder. Secondly, we did not -- he was not supposed to do that. He was supposed to give one discount, for a very important reason. We operate this contract like everything else in county government. It requires effort for us to place orders, for us to process invoices with the Clerk's finance division and our operating departments. And what Mr. Penzo was doing -- if we accept his offer the way he tendered it, we would have to keep track of all these separate items priced and try to remember which ones did he give us two discounts on, which one did he give us one discount on. He was not asked to do that. He was asked to give us one leveraged across-the-board discount. The catalog. I didn't bring it with me, but it's got thousands of items in it. We took the 119 high use end items. You don't get all these additional discounts he's talking about for anything outside that range of 119 items. So that's the -- in our opinion, that is the best apples to apples fairest comparison among the bidders. Now, the issue he raised about the catalog and employing the catalog in the analysis, we set this up. We told people we were going to do this from the get-go. There was absolutely no objection to the process that we set forward prior to opening the bids. There was no concern about -- nobody calling and saying I don't have all these items in my catalog. It was never raised. And this issue did not come up until -- in fact, we even evaluated the bids and posted a modified bid tabulation that corrected -- that excluded these additional discounts, and there was still no objection Page 40 I July 24-25, 2007 raised until we announced our decision and put this agenda item on. It was originally submitted for your June 26th agenda when the protest was received. My point very simply -- and by the way, Mr. Penzo's right, I totally agree with him in one respect. They've been an excellent vendor. They've done an excellent job serving us. This is not about their service, it's nothing about Marco Office Supply. It's an objective public bidding. And when we do the numbers, Corporate Express comes out low. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, if that be the case, how did he get the bids for the last four years? MR. CARNELL: Well, he won it in previous competition. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But did you always have this catalog criteria before? MR. CARNELL: Yes. There's been variations in how we've done it from time to time, but yes, we've used the catalog in the past. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But this time it didn't work and that time it did. But one of the things I always keep thinking of is I like to stay local and support our local businesses, especially if they give us a fair or better price than somebody else. I notice that a lot of times when we award bids we'll have two companies or even three companies. Well, if you find you can save $80,000 by buying the paper here rather than there, why would you pay $80,000 more for your paper because they had a good price in their catalog when you can buy it from this guy and save us $80,000? MR. CARNELL: That's a fair question. And Commissioner, it sounds good in concept. The issue that you run into when you start splitting the bid out is confusion among the ordering departments. You've got to remember who do I go for for this, who do I go for for that. Page 402 July 24-25, 2007 And what ended up happening in the past when it's been split is we've had instances where people ordered from the wrong vendor because they were confused and they were -- and so that was the idea of trying -- the other thing too was we were trying to leverage the contract by making it as attractive as possible by giving it a single vendor award. That was the reason for that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have good people down there, though. I don't think they'd get confused over stuff like that. They're pretty darn good. Of they know the paper -- it would just pain me no end if I were working in your department to order paper and pay more for it when I know I could get it here for less. Anyway, that's my comment. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, are you still with us? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I am. As usual. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, do you have any questions, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I have one question. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Corporate Express, is it a -- do they have a local office? MR. CARNELL: They are located in Fort Myers and they have some employees who work and live in Collier County. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there going to be a delivery charge above what Marco Island -- MR. CARNELL: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So there's no additional cost. MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir, that's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, Commissioner Coletta Page 403 July 24-25, 2007 here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no questions at this time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to -- how would I do this? MR. PENZO: Do I get a rebuttal or anything? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll give you 30 seconds. MR. PENZO: I'm sorry, because I only had three minutes and he's still claiming that initially if he added all these in he's cheaper, and he's not. In my thing I was $80,000 cheaper if you took my items that you're saying you're not going to take. Now how can you say if you accept those that you're cheaper? You're not. I mean, that was an-out-and-out lie. MR. CARNELL: It's not a lie, sir. MR. PENZO: It is a lie. I have the numbers -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir-- MR. PENZO: You have the numbers in front of you, though, and you're taking his word instead of looking at the numbers. And the other problem I had is they bid HP cartridges saying they're giving you 61 percent off. And I know they can't give you 61 percent off. And all I asked purchasing to do was call Corporate Express before you award this bid and ask them to send you a letter saying they're going to give you 61 percent off HP products. Because they're not going to do it. But what's going to happen, they're going to get the bid and say, oops, we messed up on that item, we can't give you that discount. But it's too late, they already got the bid. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, there is a procedure for a bid protest. This is not it. MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir, it is. Page 404 July 24-25, 2007 MR. MUDD: You're having it. He had a bid protest. Steve basically gave his opinion. He is -- he now has the ability to appeal to the Board of County Commissioners, and he's exercising that right right now during this process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But we don't have the information. We don't have the evaluation forms, we don't have the score sheets, we don't have anything. We can't make those decisions here today. What I would like to do is to have you as the county manager appoint some independent auditor to take a look at those things and report to the board. And then we can make a decision. In the past that's what we've done. You've had someone else take a look at the way it was calculated and the way it was awarded and reach a conclusion and then make recommendations to us. We have none of that information so we can't possibly decide who is right here. So I don't know how we can possibly make a decision. We'll sit here and argue about it for another two hours and we still won't have a conclusion. So I make a motion, if you don't mind, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, please, please. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That we ask the County Manager to conduct an independent examination of the -- of the -- of bids and the evaluation and award process, and report whether or not they think it was done fairly, and then we can make a decision as to say whether or not we accept that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll accept that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we have a motion by Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Coletta; am I correct? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. MR. CARNELL: Mr. Chairman, I do need one thing from the board as direction. I need you to extend the existing contract. The Page 405 July 24-25, 2007 existing contract expires in September so I would ask you to extend it to, let's say, December the 1st. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's included in my motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that included in your second, Commissioner Coletta? Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it is. I heard him say yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: See, I told you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, are you still on the line? The reason I'm asking is we had another power failure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not having any power failures up here, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we're having them down here. Was there something that the county attorney wanted to put on the record? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess not, okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question -- County Attorney, did you have something? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I just want to make sure that County Manager and Mr. Carnell are clear in regard to who or what they'll utilize to make this study to be able to come back to the board with the information. Are you clear on who you'll use or what resource? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. MR. MUDD: You want to take an audit of this particular issue, I will grab somebody from my office management and budget office, okay, who's got a CPA and we'll do an audit. And then we'll take a Page 406 July 24-25,2007 look at the evaluation and how it proceeds and we'll come back to the board and report on that particular issue. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does that sound fine with you, motion maker? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay, good. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Have we got that on the record? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Any further discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Any questions out there from the two commissioners that are on the phone? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No questions here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, any questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to vote. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, sir. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed by like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion carries. MR. PENZO: Thank you for your consideration. Item #10B CONSIDERATION OF COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE FENCE MATERIAL, REVIEW JUSTIFICATION FOR FENCE Page 407 July 24-25, 2007 INSTALLATION, RECEIVE DIRECTION ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH PRIV A TE FENCE ISSUE FOR PROPERTIES IN THE QUEENS PARK SUBDIVISION AS PART OF PHASE 1A OF THE LEL Y AREA STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP) - MOTION TO APPROVE VINYL FENCE W/STIPULATIONS - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it brings us back to 10(B). This item is continued from the June 26th, 2007 BCC meeting. It's to recommended consideration of cost comparison of alternative fence material, review justification for fence installation, receive direction on how to proceed with private fence issue for properties in Queens Park subdivision as part of Phase I-A of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project, L.A.S.J.P. Project No. 511011. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, go ahead. MR. CALVERT: Mr. Commissioner, members of the board, thank you for being here -- allowing me to be here to make this presentation. I'd like to first read you the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Identify yourself. MR. CALVERT: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Your name, sir? MR. CALVERT: My name is Gene Calvert, director of stormwater management. I apologize. I'd like to take this moment to briefly recap the previous considerations to construct a fence between the newly constructed canal as part of the L.A.S.I.P. Phase I-A canal project and homes along the east side of Queens Park. An 80-foot wide drainage easement was created along the east side of Queens Park when the subdivision was created in 1989. The 80-foot easement was established for the express purpose to construct the canal as part of the L.A.S.J.P. project. The easement was created Page 408 July 24-25, 2007 prior to the construction of the homes in Queens Park, and the county did not take any of the back yards. Rather, the adjacent homeowners have enjoyed using the drainage easement for the past 18 years. To accommodate the concerns that were heard from the area residents, the canal was constructed to the absolute smallest cross-section to accommodate the designed 25-year storm. The maintenance access road was placed on the west side of the canal. This allowed us to preserve as much as the neighborhood yards as possible. The road surface was reinforced with Geoweb and surfaced with sod. As a result, the top bank of the canal is approximately 28 feet away from the westerly right-of-way. If no fence is constructed, homeowners can enjoy the 28 feet as part of their yard. At issue today are two considerations: First, will the county fund the construction of a fence along Queens Park. And second, if funded, what type of fence and where will the fence be built? The fence serves no purpose for the operation of the canal. The purpose of the fence is for private benefit. We've been requested by some of the homeowners, not all of them but some of them, to construct a private fence along the drainage easement, the easement that was created for the purpose to construct and maintain the canal. During the course of the design of the improvements, we looked at a number of options regarding the location of the fence. We looked at installing the fence at the top of the bank of the canal, between the top of the bank and the rural access road. We looked at installing the fence directly adjacent to the access road. We also looked at how the fence might be constructed and so if it could be taken down, if necessary. We looked at who might be responsible for removing the fence and replacing the fence, as needed. We concluded that if a fence is to be constructed along the canal, it should not be an obstruction to the routine and necessary maintenance of the canal. Page 409 July 24-25, 2007 Heavy equipment will be utilizing the access road from time to time, and with the 15 feet from the top of the bank of the canal is needed. And we concluded that the burden and cost to remove and replace the fence for routine maintenance, should it be constructed, would probably lie with the county. Therefore, if a fence is to be constructed, it is recommended that the fence be constructed no closer to the access road than five feet, allowing for the 15 feet for operation of equipment. Construction of a fence 15 feet from the top of the bank of the canal will allow the homeowners to enjoy the use of the westerly 10 to 13 feet of the drainage easement. The final fence that was considered is that that was approved and requested by the homeowners and approved by the Queens Park Homeowners Association. Within Queens Park, fences are generally not allowed, except by special approval by the association. At the request of the board, we have brought back the cost for alternative fence types: Chainlink. The executive summary itemizes the cost for the fence alternatives. As I previously stated, not all homeowners want a fence. If the fence is not built, the homeowner can enjoy the use of28 feet of the easement, compared to the 10 or 13 feet when the fence is constructed. In conclusion, the first decision needs to be made whether to construct the private fence. And secondly, if a fence is to be constructed, under what stipulation is it to be built? Within the executive summary we've outlined our recommended stipulations, and those stipulations are, briefly, that the fence be a six foot tall vinyl fence, brown in color, as recommended by the homeowners association. Number two, that the fence be located at least five feet west of the west side of the canal maintenance access road, approximately 70 feet west of the easterly lot line to allow for adequate swing of -- for swing clearance between canal maintenance equipment of any Page 410 July 24-25, 2007 obstacles. Three, that the fence shall be installed only on properties which the owners are requesting the fence. Four, the fence shall be the property of the lot owner, and the lot owner shall have the responsibility for maintenance of the fence in perpetuity . And five, the county reserves the right to remove the fence if the location of the fence restricts the use of the existing drainage easements and/or maintenance of the canal. Glad to answer any questions you may have. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. First of all, I'm sure the homeowners were very pleased to see that your recommendation is the solid vinyl fence, being that their homeowners association also recommended the same. I don't think that anybody's really had a chance to go out and see the property, how many would, but I happened to have done that. And they've -- when they had their easement, what it really meant in this easement in this case was that they dug out the property. So they can't walk on that property. Although they paid for it, I didn't even realize that you pay for the land under an easement, whether you get the land or not. But anyway -- and they've been paying taxes on it all of these years. Now, they've lost 80 feet. It gives them about 12 to 15 feet in their backyard. I don't think they have much more than that. Do you have any more than that? Okay. If they lose another five feet, they're not going to have anything left when they walk out their back screen door. It's going to be tough. So I've been checking out. I talked with a knowledgeable person to see if they have any recommendations as to what we can do. First of all, Gene had mentioned about the maintenance equipment. But the people Gene has told us most of it will be Page 411 July 24-25, 2007 maintained from the other side anyway. But they do need to keep this road that has been installed, because they have heavy equipment that might need to go in once every 10 or 15 years. But that's about all. Unless they, you know, in 15 years have new equipment designed that isn't so big and then they might not need it at all. So the knowledgeable person I spoke to said, you know what you could do to save them that backyard is put the base of the fence in only on the properties that want it. Anybody who doesn't want a fence doesn't have to have a fence. So that saves us money there. Put the base of the fence in the ground securely that the fence will sit into, and then when the time comes 15 years down the road that you need to remove the fence, you just unbolt from the inside, from the property side, unbolt the fence, move it out and use it and then put it back in for the next 15 years. And I thought that was a really reasonable suggestion. So I'd like to throw that on the -- as Jerry had said, and I have one of the residents here, Jerry had mentioned at one of their homeowners association meeting, that would give the homeowners approximately 12 more feet of their backyard. And the reason they wanted a fence in the first place is a lot of them have little children back there. And this is an 80-foot canal. And it could be a dangerous situation for families who have little ones. And this is why they wanted it. But they also would like to have some of their backyard to use. Do you like that idea about the fence posts in the ground? MR. CALVERT: Certainly it's an option. Advantages of that option is it can be removed and replaced. Disadvantages that I can see right offhand is the cost to remove and replace it. It would have to be absorbed through the maintenance issue. Another item that I don't know if it's a disadvantage or advantage, it means that when we are maintaining the slope adjacent to that property, that will have to be all maintained then from the far Page 412 July 24-25, 2007 canal, far side of the canal. Which means then we would probably have to use herbicides to control the vegetation, versus mowing. So that if I might use the visualizer, I've got a diagram here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: By the way, if they put this fence in where they're suggesting, they'd have to take out the trees back there, too. MR. CALVERT: If the fence is placed at the top of the back through there and this would then be the yard side and then the canal side, to maintain this slope it would have to be maintained from this side over here with herbicides. So if we maintain an open driveway or an access road, that maintenance can be done with using mowers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why wouldn't you -- that looks like a pretty big slope there. I know that you made it extremely long just for safety purposes. How come you can't fit a mower on there now? MR. CALVERT: It's at a slope of three- to-one, and we can't get a mower on there -- a riding mower on a three-to-one slope. Usually takes about a four-to-one slope or flatter. And so to maintain any slope that's steeper than a four-to-one, they use a boom arm with their mowers that reach out into those areas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Gene, that slope's going to be there whether you're mowing from the top or from the side. How are you going to mow if the fence isn't there? MR. CALVERT: If the fence is not there, the tractor will be running on the access road through here, and the boom arm will extend down the slope and be able to mow the slope with the boom arm. The tractor will stay up on top. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no questions. Page 413 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is -- I understand why you're coming from, Commissioner Fiala. But when I look at the cost, it's $143,000 versus $73,000. I was wondering-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I do have an answer for that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- if the homeowners would pay the difference. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, first of all, they're still paying taxes on that property. And even though they don't have any property to walk on, they are going to continue to be paying taxes on it. Because that is their property, even though there's no land left to walk on, number one. N umber two, the estimate, they -- the homeowners gave another estimate to Jerry Kurtz, which was $86,000. And Jerry's estimate -- this is from a different company, by the way, the company that the homeowners had gotten the fence from in the first place. I would think number one that would be the way to go. Part of Jerry's estimate says readjust irrigation. But the property owners at their own expense have already done that. So they figured that in there to this fence to be part of the $143,000. And then clearing additional trees. Well, if we put the fence back a little bit, we don't have to clear additional trees. And so I would think that if we just went with the company who offered the lowest price -- let me give you this. I have one for each one of you. I'm happy to give this to you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The thing is that we -- yeah, I understand where you're coming from, but I'm looking at the overall picture of where we set a precedent. And especially in this day and age when the state is after us for trying to cut all expenditures whenever we can. That's my concern. And so I'm wondering if -- I understand where you're coming from, they pay the taxes and stuff. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they pay for the land. And we're using the land now in our landfill. Page 414 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't understand how they pay for the easement, because that easement is part of the documents when they buy -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just ask the county manager. Did we pay for that land, County Manager, or did they pay for that land? MR. MUDD: I believe that was part of a developer's -- I'm going to get some attorney help on this one, but I believe -- MR. TEACH: That was part of the plat when it was -- Scott Teach with the county attorney's office. That was part of the plat. The easement was part of that when it was conveyed. And in fact it's my understanding that at the time ofthe easement the developer had in fact placed areas, targeted areas where they would actually blast to remove that fill, but that it was never done. So there was a lot of contemplation that this easement and this stormwater issue was going to be taken care of and there would be no land. And so they really benefited by about 20 years of having that actual fill there in place. In fact, it was something that had always been contemplated as being removed and excavated. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they did pay for that land there. MR. TEACH: With the understanding when they purchased that there was an easement, a stormwater easement that would go there, , yes, ma am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I feel in this case in order to be fair to the homeowners, first of all, we ought to take the lower price that's offered, not the higher one. I don't know why we always go to Mitchell and Stark instead of checking out somebody else. And secondly, I don't think there's any need to readjust irrigation or clear additional trees if we move that fence back to the -- a line further back so that they have more of their yard. Page 415 July 24-25, 2007 And thirdly, I was glad to see that our own staff had recommended paying for the vinyl fencing rather than a chainlink fence. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. I think we have three speakers? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. The first one is Frances Nadeau. (No response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: They were all here yesterday. She was here from 9:00 to 7:00. MS. FILSON: Okay, Richard Kamp? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: He was here yesterday. MS. FILSON: And Robert Caricato? C-A-R-I-C-A-T-O. Is he here? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: There were quite a few here yesterday. They're not here today. MS. FILSON: And that was the end of the speakers, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Is there any commissioners out there that are on the phone that have any questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I have no questions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I'd like to make a motion, please. I'd like to make a motion to approve the vinyl fencing, but with the company at the lower rate, which would save us about $63,000. And to put it back closer to the canal so that these people don't lose any more of their back yards. MR. MUDD: Ma'am, if you just say where that yellow line is on the slide overhead. I think that's where you want to be. And the only caveat you need to probably have with the homeowners in this particular issue is there's -- see where the red line Page 416 July 24-25, 2007 is between the red and the yellow? There's a honeycomb material that if you push down into the ground, okay, so it grows grass. But that's where the access road is. It's not gravel. They can't grow trees there. And that would defeat the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: They cannot plant anything there, right. But then we won't have to maintain that area either. They'll be maintaining it, they'll be sprinkling it and they'll be mowing it. So I think that would save us, the county, some money. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a question. If you put the fence at that location -- and the experience that I've had in my district with whether it's canals that are operated by Great Cypress Basin (sic), they end up getting trash in there. And how are we going to get back there to take the trash out of those canals? Because the people are going to complain about it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: From the other side. They're going to maintain the canal from the other side. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, you get something on both sides. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you can maintain, if you don't have high boom equipment. See all those high power lines that are on the other side? You can maintain that canal as long as you don't get something that's up there into the live wires. It's only when you have to go in with a bigger boom piece of equipment, you have to go down into that canal and dig her out that you're going to have to have a high boom piece of equipment in order to do that. And that's that one in every 15 years where you have to go in there and clean that canal out. And that's when we'd have to remove this fence in order to get in. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Anything else you want to put on the record, Gene? MR. CALVERT: That's correct. Now, if we --I would certainly suggest that we stay with Mitchell and Stark, if we go with the fence, Page 417 July 24-25, 2007 for a couple of reasons. As mentioned, we do have a contract with them. There will be a need for an adjustment probably in the cost if we come up with some type of a bolting system where we unbolt -- able to bolt the bases, or if that can even be done with the building code. But I would certainly recommend we stay with our current contractor. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even though their price is higher? MR. CALVERT: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even though their price is higher? MR. CALVERT: Well, the price, actually, as you look at the price, what Mitchell and Stark gave us for a proposal included a survey to -- you get the line 15 feet back, if you will. It also allowed that survey -- we still need to make sure that we only build the fence on those lots that people want. It also asks in the Mitchell and Stark quote was clearing of additional trees, that will not be required. Ifwe put it on the line, as you suggested. And the other one is readjustment of the irrigation. That will not be required if they're going to put it on their line as well. The reason we had the adjustment of irrigation was because the sprinkler systems, if we moved it back 15 feet they wouldn't be able to water their yards. Their yards would be on the wrong side of the fence, the vinyl fence. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to let my fellow commissioners know that there's probably going to be something similar to this that's going to be coming forward in District 2. So if we set a precedent on this particular one, then we've got some issues that are coming up in my district. So I just want to make sure that -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we'll follow your lead. You know, you'll know the district better, just as I do this one. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So is there any questions out there from the fellow commissioners that are on phones? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, has Commissioner Page 418 July 24-25, 2007 Coletta been on that plane yet? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I've got to wait another half an hour, probably. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sorry for your delay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me, gentlemen, do you have any questions in regards to what we're discussing here? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a motion on the floor. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hearing no further discussion, and I believe that we don't have any public speakers, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed by like sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, we've got -- I believe it carried 4-1. Item #10C RESOLUTION 2007-213: CONDEMNATION OF FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS AND/OR THOSE PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY EASEMENT INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE EXTENSION OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD FROM DA VIS BOULEVARD TO RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD, AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENTS AS A Page 419 July 24-25, 2007 COMPONENT OF THE LEL Y AREA STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on the agenda is 10(C). It's a recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing a condemnation of fee simple interest and/or those perpetual or temporary easement interests necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility improvements required for the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and for the construction of storm water improvements as a component to Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project, capital improvement element No. 32 and 291, Project No. 60091 and 51101 respectively. Estimated fiscal impact, $7,428,942.00. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any further discussion? MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, at great risk, I apologize, I've been asked by legal to reaffirm that on 10(A) some time ago when I thought we were doing the three of these together that I mention three particularly important items that you consider, that you reaffirm on -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Take them one at a time. MR. FEDER: First of all, that the county's long-range traffic place plan (phonetic) and public health, safety and welfare -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you slow down for the court reporter just a little? MR. FEDER: I'm sorry, yeah. That the board has thoroughly taken into consideration all of the documentation, information and in particular has taken into account the county's long-range traffic place plan and public health, safety and welfare considerations. Page 420 July 24-25, 2007 Number two, environmental impacts associated with the construction of each project. And number three, the various alternatives which are studied for the locations and alignment of the proposed improvements and the costs associated with each. And so in your action I would ask that you affirm that in fact those considerations or issues are in fact -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: In the motion. MR. FEDER: -- in the motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion-maker, they're in the motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it's in your second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any further questions out there or concerns by my fellow commissioners on the phone? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed by like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion carries unanimously. We'd like to take a la-minute break for our court reporter. She's been there since 2:00. (Recess.) MR. MUDD: You have a live mic. Page 421 July 24-25, 2007 Item #10D RESOLUTION 2007-214: AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY CONDEMNATION, IF NECESSARY, OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN CERTAIN TRACTS OF LAND IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER RETENTION AND TREATMENT PONDS REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEV ARD FROM WEST OF WILSON BOULEVARD TO DESOTO BOULEVARD - ADOPTED MR MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item, which is 10(D). It's a recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by condemnation, if necessary, of the fee simple interest in certain tracts of land in Golden Gate Estates necessary for the construction of stormwater retention and treatment ponds required for the expansion of Golden Gate Boulevard from west of Wilson Boulevard to DeSoto Boulevard. Project No. 60040. Estimated fiscal impact, $3,627,000. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. MR. FEDER: And again, Commissioners, I'd ask that the board agrees with the findings of staff and the county's consultant on the other issues I've raised previously. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. Is there any discussion by the commissioners on phone? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Any questions? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, are you Page 422 July 24-25, 2007 there? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to vote. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess he's probably -- MR. MUDD: Any speakers, Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, I call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion by like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion carries by 4-0. Commissioner Coletta is I believe locked in the aircraft. MR. MUDD: Next item is 10(E-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm here, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh. Sir, did you vote on that last one? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I did. Right with you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's a yes vote or a nay vote? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. MR. MUDD: Carries 5-0. Next -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: 5-0. Item #10E BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND 517, GROUP HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE TO PAY ANTICIPATED CLAIMS EXPENSES Page 423 July 24-25, 2007 FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,306,100 - APPROVED MR. MUDD: -- item is 10(E). It's a recommendation to approve a budget amendment to Fund 517, Group Health and Life Insurance, to pay anticipated claims expenses for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2007 in the amount of$1,306,100. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there anything you want to put on the record, sir? MR. FIYLKO: For the record, my name is Wayne Fiylko. I happen to be sitting in for Jeff Walker today, and I'll answer any questions you may have. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, do we have a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta. Hearing or seeing no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed by like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion carries 5-0. Item #10G RESOLUTION 2007-215: STATE JOINT PARTICIPATION Page 424 July 24-25, 2007 AGREEMENT (JPA) WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO ENTER INTO AND EXECUTE THESE AGREEMENTS WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO BE USED FOR THE SR84 (A/K/A DAVIS BLVD.) - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Next item is lO(G). You did 10(F) yesterday. 10(G) is to seek board approval of a state joint participation agreement, JP A, with the Florida Department of Transportation and to authorize the chairman to enter into and execute these agreements with the Florida Department of Transportation to be used for the SR84 -- a/k/a Davis Boulevard -- project. Mr. Nick Casalanguida, your transportation plan -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Do you have something to put on the record? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're moving quickly ahead, sir, and I look forward to your positive vote. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there any questions by my fellow commissioners? Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I have talked with staff about this issue and they have advised me that despite my misgivings that this is a good thing to do. I will say to you that I don't think there's any chance in the world we'll ever get reimbursement from the state, particularly in view of their current budget problems, so I'm going to be voting no on this. But it's only because I believe that the state and federal government have an obligation to do their job and we've got to quit covering for Page 425 July 24-25, 2007 them, because we don't have the funds for it. But I don't think we'll ever get reimbursed for this project. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, do you have anything to say? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, Commissioner Coyle (sic)? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call the questions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Motion was made by Commissioner Coletta and seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed by like sign. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, 4-1. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #101 AWARD CONTRACT 07-4164 FOR THE NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF) SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE (BLEACH) SYSTEM PHASE 2 INSTRUMENTATION AND ELECTRICAL RELIABILITY UPGRADES TO TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $880,199.00; AWARD CONTRACT 07-4163 FOR THE NCWRF BLEACH SYSTEM PHASE 2 MECHANICAL RELIABILITY UPGRADES TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $343,000.00; A WARD CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION (CEI) SERVICES TO HOLE Page 426 July 24-25, 2007 MONTES NOT TO EXCEED (NTE) $107,490.00 UNDER "FIXED TERM UTILITY ENGINEERING SERVICES" CONTRACT NUMBER 05-3785; AND THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT, PROJECT 739661 - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10(1). It's a recommendation to award contract 07-4164 for the North County Water Reclamation Facility, sodium hypochlorite bleach system Phase 2 instrumentation and electrical reliability upgrades to Technical Management Associates in the amount of$880,I99.00; award contact 07 -4163 for the same plant, bleach system Phase 2 mechanical reliability upgrades to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. in the amount of $343,000.00; award Construction Engineering and Inspection Services to Hole Montes, not to exceed $107,490.00 under fixed term utility engineering services contract No. 05-3785; and the necessary budget amendment. It's Project 739661. Dayne Atkinson, project manager for public utilities. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Anything you have to put on the record, sir? MR. ATKINSON: No, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great presentation, Dayne. MR. ATKINSON: Thank you, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Winning presentation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I don't. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, seeing no further questions Page 427 July 24-25, 2007 here, I call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed by like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you very much, Dayne. Item #10J RESOLUTION 2007-216: THE PROPOSED MILLAGE RATES AS THE MAXIMUM PROPERTY TAX RATES TO BE LEVIED IN FY 2008 - MILLAGE RATE SET AT 3.1469 - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it brings us to our next item, which is 10(1). It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopts the proposed millage rates as the maximum property tax rates to be levied in FY 2008. Presenter is Mr. Michael Smykowski, your director of office and management budget. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Michael Smykowski. Our objective today is to adopt the proposed millage rates as the maximum tax rates to be levied. And then we will provide these to the property appraiser by August 4th for his use in preparing the notice of proposed taxes or trim notices, as is commonly known that each property owner in Collier County will receive by August 24th, prior to the public hearings in September. The important thing to note is that the millage rates may not be Page 428 July 24-25, 2007 raised subsequent to the adoption today without some fairly onerous additional public notice and advertising requirements. So again, this is in essence the worst case scenario for the taxes to be levied by the Board of County Commissioners. There is one change I need to make you aware of. We have been back and forth with the Department of Revenue relative to the Conservation Collier millage and the extent to which that would have to be rolled back. Weare separating that millage into two component units. We noted in the -- our initial thought in the budget workshops in June was that the .25 would roll back to .2192. In fact, what we are going to do is separate into a debt service millage for the portion that is directly related to the bonds that were issued. And we will also then have the remaining operations piece. The millage for Conservation Collier, the operations piece will be .1588. The debt service piece will be .0654. That change -- well, a negative difference from what was in the executive summary is actually about $414,000.00 better than our initial thoughts if we had a rollback to the .2192. And I would also like to say that we've worked in close conjunction with the Department of Revenue staff, as well as the property appraiser staff, both Mr. Skinner and his property appraiser, Mr. Kevin Lilly, and they bent over backwards to assist us, and we appreciate his efforts in that regard. Obviously the voting public in two referendums had indicated that they wanted to pay up to a quarter of a mill for Conservation Collier for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive property. So in keeping with that, obviously we were doing our best to protect both the integrity of the referendum and the program itself. So with that change, I would entertain any questions. But this would be in essence your worst case scenario for use in the trim notices. Page 429 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what is that? What's the value that you're going to -- 3.I4? MR. SMYKOWSKI: The general fund is 3.1469. The unincorporated, .6912. I will also tell you the tax reform has also brought about what was about 40 sheets of paper to be completed has now mushroomed to 90 to 100 sheets of paper in terms of -- some levels of complexity in complying with all the requirements have more than doubled. So it's a little more of an onerous task. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for your presentation. Commissioner Henning, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm getting a lot of feedback so it was hard to understand the presentation. The only question I have, does this fit the legislative rollback that they were asking for in this recent legislation? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you get that, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who said yes, sir? MR. MUDD: Mr. Smykowski said yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great, thank you. And that was county manager. MR. MUDD: Yes, this was the county manager. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you for the opportunity. Who made the motion for approval? COMMISSIONER HALAS: We haven't made a motion yet. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make the motion for approval. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Page 430 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Coletta, you made the motion, and Commissioner Fiala seconded. Any questions? Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no questions, please go ahead. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Seeing no further lights on, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor of the new millage rate, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed by like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion carries 5-0. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Must be the noise from inside the airplane. MR. MUDD: Either that or he's got somebody sitting right next to him. Item #10L DIRECTION ON AMENDING CHAPTER 98 ARTICLE 3 CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (ALSO KNOWN AS COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE #90-9, SECTION 3) TO PROVIDE FOR ALCOHOLIC USE/SALES AT CLAM PASS PARK - APPROVED MR MUDD: Brings me to 10(L), which used to be 16(D)(23). This is a request to the Board of County Commissioners for direction on amending Chapter 98, Article 3, Code of Laws and Ordinances, Page 431 July 24-25, 2007 also known as the Collier County Ordinance No. 90-9, Section 3, to provide for alcoholic use/sales at Clam Pass Park. This item was asked to go to the regular agenda by Commissioner Coyle. And Mr. Barry Williams, your director of Parks and Rec. will present. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, would you like to address this? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I would. I asked that it be moved only because the recommendation of the staff was that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to the staff regarding this issue. You can't provide direction to the staff if it's included in the consent agenda, so I moved it to the regular agenda so the board can provide you direction. Okay? COMMISSIONER HALAS: You got anything to put to the record? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, Barry Williams, Parks and Rec. director. No, I think Commissioner Coyle has covered that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The question is, this will be restricted only to Clam Pass Park, is that what you were thinking about, or were you planning to develop something that will provide the use of alcoholic beverages at any county park? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the ordinance change would allow us to explore this at Clam Pass. And right now that's the only location that we're looking at. We have asked, though, in amending the ordinance that if the ordinance allows for alcohol use in the county parks, that we would bring -- if there were other sites, that we would bring those back for approval site-by-site. But right now we're just looking at Clam Pass. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And even with Clam Pass, it will not be a blanket approval. It must be done specifically for each Page 432 July 24-25, 2007 organization that wishes to do that -- MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- right? You're going to have certain restrictions with respect to who, how and when that is done, right? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. And that would be through board approval. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you'll bring that back to us for final approval? MR. WILLIAMS : Yes, sir. MR. MUDD: Sir, and that will come back as an agreement with Naples Grande, that hotel that basically runs the shuttle service down to Clam Pass Park. And you'll see the restrictions in that particular agreement. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it your intent that you're going to restrict it only to one organization in Collier County that can do this? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, right now they run the pavilion that's down there. So-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not their beach, it's a public beach. MR. WILLIAMS: That's true, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are other organizations that could go down there and have a party, if they wanted to, with alcoholic beverages, right? MR. WEIGEL: Mr.-- MR. WILLIAMS: Not at this-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No? MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, I'll jump in, if I may. Alcohol use, consumption and sales is not allowed in county parks generally. And so that area of Clam Pass Park that is within the jurisdiction of the county park, there is no utilization of alcohol in any way, shape or circumstance right now. Page 433 July 24-25, 2007 The Naples Grande is the successor concessionaire of Clam Pass Park and they run the park through their auspices by direction of the board. Working with your staff, management staff would set up any kind of parameters that they would have that provide alcohol sale and consumption for their purpose, as well as sales to the public, because they're the ones that administer on behalf of the county to the public. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could I interrupt for just a moment? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you done, County Attorney? MR. WEIGEL: I'm always ready for interruption, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much. I don't know how much longer before they close the door. They're going to close in a second and I'll have to shut off the phone. But there's one thing that's going to be coming up shortly, and I just wanted to mention it. It's an item you pulled, Commissioner Coyle, regarding the resolution regarding the park there and how the uses of the park could be, the tremendous changes. It means an awful lot to the residents that I represent, Everglades and of course a lot of the other people that go and recreate in that area. I hope that at that time that you all give that due consideration. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So they drink a lot, huh? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No comment. But they're my kind of people, let me put it that way. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, there's Joe Six-Pack again. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, that's it, Joe Six-Pack right here. Proud of it. Okay, I'm going to have to run, they're going to shut the door. Sorry I can't stay with you any longer. You're doing a wonderful job, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, do you have anything else to add to this? Page 434 July 24-25, 2007 MR. WEIGEL: Yes, good-bye, Commissioner Coletta. In any event -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good-bye. I'll remember that. When I get that gavel, you're in trouble, I'll tell you right now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put it on mute. MR. WEIGEL: The ordinance is going to be consistent with the special act that already provides for an ability for the county locally to provide for the potential for alcohol use and consumption in parks. It will always remain at this point a local determined activity by you through the Parks and rec. and the County Manager's people. You're going to have ultimate control and very specific control. Nothing can be done without your approval on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm finished. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Anything you want to put on the record? Do we have a motion on the floor? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going to support a motion to approve it. Naples Grande has bought a piece of property off the beach and they're looking for a way to serve their guests. Besides the fact that I don't think the county should be in the business of opening up avenues for people to drink on public property. The Golden Gate Community Center has established that in the Seventies to use for weddings. That's the only part that presently enjoys that. I -- I don't want to have it continue to spread out through all the parks in Collier County, or public property. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I need to comment to that, i[J may. I'm still here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have an opinion. You don't like my opinion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, your opinion is not correct. Page 435 July 24-25, 2007 I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning. I don't know, maybe it's the distance between us right now. But anyway, they do allow the festivals down there to have beer. They have for years. So it's not a case of yeah, it's this or that. There's a little bit more to it than just weddings. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once today. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to make a motion for approval, see where it goes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we got a 3-2. Carries. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that a unanimous vote when you're voting on alcoholic beverages? COMMISSIONER HALAS: We just did, three-two. Item #10M RESOLUTION 2007-217 SUPPORTS ALTERNATIVE "A" OF THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK'S GENERAL Page 436 July 24-25, 2007 MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: The next item is 10(M). It used to be 16(D)(25). It's a recommendation to approve a resolution that supports alternative A of the Everglades National Parks General Management Plan, GMP. This item was asked to be brought back to the regular agenda by Commissioner Coyle. And I believe his question is it needs -- he wanted some further clarification of exactly what alternative A is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I know what A is, but the general public who reads what we're saying won't have any understanding whatsoever what it is we did. All I'm asking is that we say what we want them to do, which is to make no change to their existing plan, end of story. Okay? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a motion, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Henning. Commissioner Coletta, are you in the baggage department or can you talk? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm still here. I got a good seat, but I have to share this part of the plane with the animals. I got a good rate here. But listen, I thank you so much. I think that's an excellent approach to it and I endorse it 100 percent. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Is there any further questions from my commissioners? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifnot, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 437 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed by like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion carries. Item #10N RESOLUTION 2007-218: DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SIGNING, ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY, A LIMIT A TION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AGREEMENT WITH THE EXPRESSED OBJECTIVE OF EXECUTING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) PROGRAM SEVERANCES - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: The next item is item 10(N). It used to be 16(A)(9). It's the recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a resolution delegating authority to the county manager or his designee for the purpose of signing, on behalf of Collier County, a limitation of development rights agreement with the expressed objective of executing transfer of development rights, program severances. This item was asked to go to regular agenda by Commissioner Henning. Commissioner Henning, you want to basically state what your concerns are on this? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, Statute 125.75(2) states, the intent of the legislators to grant to the county administer (sic) only to those powers and duties that are administrative or administral (sic) in nature and not to delegate any other government power to the Board Page 438 July 24-25, 2007 of County Commissioners. Are you still there? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Also, the state attorney general has written several opinions on this. And also it states in Section 163.01 (15), which in his opinion in effect prohibits the delegation of Constitutional or statutory duties of the state, county or city officers. So I'm not going to vote for delegating my authority. I think it's appropriate to bring those on the board's agenda. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I think you got a -- I understand where you're coming from, Commissioner Henning. But as you see, that we're fighting the clock and all it does is adds more to our agenda. And I feel that there's some things that I think that we should delegate out to make our jobs a lot easier so we can address issues of concerns of the citizens. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, your comments are part of the public record, I want you to recognize that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that. Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Question? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get an interpretation from the county attorney as to whether or not this is an administrative issue, or is it one of the core responsibilities of the County Commissioners. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: First of all, I'll like to give you very briefly some background, very quickly. This provision is just a replacement. Where we used to do conservation easements for the TDRs, and it was determined in reviewing these documents that the call to limitation of development rights was more appropriate. And so this was already done a couple of years ago, and we did this resolution just to cover the new title of the document. Page 439 July 24-25, 2007 But I also want to point out that in the comprehensive plan, when you talk about the TDR program it says the TDR program shall be administratively reviewed and approved requiring no further public hearing or board approval if consistent with the provision of the administrative provisions of the administrative approval. And that talks about -- so it's in our comprehensive plan already. And this was only done in furtherance of what was placed in the compo plan back in 2002. And if there's any other issues about 12576 or 16301, Mr. Weigel may wish to address that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me get an answer to my question, though. Is it administrative? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, Mr. Coyle and board, we believe it's administrative. And our office provided the Commissioners two different memos in April in quite some detail about the administrative and nonadministrative powers and duties or limitations of commissioners, citing case law. And the case law in the State of Florida actually is very broad. And so where the parameters are clearly stated -- and staff in this case, county manager staff, are merely checking to see that -- to use a phrase a round thing goes in a round hole, that there is -- they are not exercising any discretion whatsoever. It either fits or it doesn't and it's either approvable or it's not. And it's purely administrative or administerial, we believe. And the case law that we cited and the opinions we provided to you have shown that such broad parameters as significant funding from a county to a school board that merely spends the money within a general category is considered limited enough. So we really do believe that there's really not an issue here on this one. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. Page 440 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have other comments after that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Mr. Weigel, please explain to me where it says in 125.75 with a county manager's powers and duties. It says the county manager can negotiate leases, contracts and other agreements, including consultant service for the county. This item states that agreements are going to be made between the staff on behalf of the county, being the Board of Commissioners, and whoever wants to sever those TDRs. And furthermore, in the Land Development Code, if you want to transfer development rights between the urban area and another piece of urban area, it shall be a super majority of the Board of County Commissioners. MR. THOMPSON: If I could just interject for a moment, Commissioners. For the record, Joe Thompson of comprehensive planning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like a legal opinion on this, sir. MR. WEIGEL: Okay, this is Dave Weigel. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll let you have time in a minute. MR. WEIGEL: Again, I believe what we're dealing with here, and perhaps either Marjorie Student or Mr. Thompson will provide any factual assistance, if necessary, but I believe what we're dealing with here is that we have a formula in place approved by the Board of County Commissioners and that the document that's coming forward, yes, it will have -- it will deal with individuals that have certain rights or recognized rights pursuant to our Growth Management Plan, Land Development Code, in this case relating to TDRs. And that it is merely an application of the formula, a la administerial act, that is Page 441 July 24-25, 2007 occurring here, and that there is not a negotiation of any kind of term that hasn't already been approved within the limitations that the board has already provided. Now, ifI'm wrong on that, I certainly look to be corrected. But I do not believe that it is a negotiation and execution totally or even significantly apart from what the board is previously authorized with the appropriate limitations. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel, can you point out the specifics in the statutes of the county administrator's powers and duties where it allows them to enter into an agreement with? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think I can respond in the sense that if the board recognizes that this is administrative, which they have in the compo plan, and there's been a practice in place for two years using a similar document just with a different title, essentially, for identification purposes, that we have a practice in place that has been recognized by the board, previously approved by legal, and that the -- again, this would appear to be an administerial act and not something invented out of whole cloth on the county manager's side but merely the furtherance of a recognition of a transaction that is recognized relating to property rights under the Land Development Code. Again, I might ask Ms. Student to comment further, if she has any further comment. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I have one real quick one. Marjorie Student-Stirling, for the record again. I think the TDR provision that Commissioner Henning was alluding to was one that we've had since 1974. And that's another kind ofTDR that's different from the TDR program in the fringe. And that type of TDR, which I think we may have used once or twice, I think did require something to come to the board. But this is different because in our compo plan it says it's administrative. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, did you have anything to add to the record? Page 442 July 24-25, 2007 MR. THOMPSON: I was just going to actually reference exactly what Marjorie just mentioned. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would you identify yourself? MR. THOMPSON: Joe Thompson, comprehensive planning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, was your question answered? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it wasn't. But that's fine. It was attempted to be. I'm fine with the explanation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's a motion on the floor by -- MR. THOMPSON: Actually, if I may, Commissioners, just for a moment. I've got a correction for the record. In the actual executive summary in the legal considerations portion, if you look at that, the referenced LDC section is actually incorrect. I can give you the correct section for the record. It's 2.0307F .A(iii). COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, we have a motion on the floor I believe by Commissioner Coyle and it's seconded by Commissioner Halas. Any further discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, are you there? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I guess he's airborne. Do we have any further discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifnot, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 443 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed by like sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It carries 3-1. Item #llA MR. BRIDGETT REGARDING SILVER LAKES PHASE 2G MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that finishes up the action items. I think we were at public comment on general topics. Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I have two speakers under public comment. The first one being William Bridgett. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bill, would you come forward, sir. MR. BRIDGETT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is William Bridgett, 1381 Quintara Court, Marco Island. Commonly known as Ted. At this point I'm representing Conquest Development. And for the record, I would like to reference the Silver Lakes Phase 2-G plat approval. And I'd like to apologize for extending your meeting, but I was unaware that I had an e-mail -- a copy of an e-mail from Commissioner Fiala that it was put off till the 11th of September and didn't realize that we had the right to speak. With regards to the Silver Lakes plat approval, I feel that Conquest Development has basically not been treated fairly or legally on this. I fully understand that as the developer of Silver Lakes we have an obligation to the Silver Lakes homeowners to make sure that Silver Lakes is in compliance. However, from our past experience we have a legal obligation to Collier County, plus all the other agencies that are involved. Which in turn to me should satisfy any question of the homeowners and any concerns that they had. Page 444 July 24-25, 2007 With this application, as with all applications we have done in the past, I believe that we have met all the criteria required by Collier County staff. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, ifI could just interrupt you. I believe this is set for the agenda on September 11 th, if I'm correct. MR. BRIDGETT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think that might be the time to address this particular item. There's nothing we can do today. MR. BRIDGETT: Oh, I understand that. This is for the record only. I appreciate your time and I'm sorry to extend it. And all I'm asking really is questioning why their plat approval is being delayed. And I thank you for your time. Enjoy your break. COMMISSIONER FIALA: They asked for it. It wasn't my idea. The attorney for the people there asked for it. MR. BRIDGETT: Well, I understand that. And I guess my only question is why do I have to -- you know, I have to satisfy the county and the agencies, and I understand. And I think that should satisfy the homeowners. I'm sorry for your time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, I appreciate that. I just want to let you know that it's on the upcoming agenda September the 11 tho And I'll look forward to seeing you here. MR. BRIDGETT: All right. I appreciate your time. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Wayne Henuset. Item #llB WAYNE HENUSET REGARDING SILVER LAKES PLAT APPROV AL MR. HENUSET: Good evening -- good afternoon. My name is Wayne Henuset. I'm from Calgary, Alberta, Canada. And I came Page 445 July 24-25, 2007 here yesterday for the hearing for the Silver Lakes project that you postponed. I don't want to keep coming back and forth. I believe that we met all the requirements. The staff asked for this to be on the consent agenda. It was taken off the consent agenda. And for what reason and for the reason, and I'd like to clear up those reasons so that on September 11 th we can hear this and it can be approved without any more delay. And I feel that at this point in time the delays, if there is any more delays, that our obligation is not only to the county and to the homeowners, because we have met all the obligations, will be stricken from us, our obligations. I'd actually like the hearing to go on and actually be heard today, but I don't know if that's possible. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, because it's already been -- we've made that decision that it was to be continued until September the 11 tho Probably the best time to address this issue would have been prior to us approving the agenda, sir. MR. HENUSET: Yeah, we were under the understanding that this young lady -- this lady had made up her mind that it wasn't going to be heard, so there was no point in coming. So that was what was put to us by her e-mail, that it wouldn't be heard so there was no point coming. So maybe we were misinformed by Ms. -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fiala. MR. HENUSET: Fiala. But I think that was wrong. And because that was wrong and that we could have been heard and you're saying that now, that I think it should be carried forward at this point on. And I'm asking you to carry it on and make it a motion to carry it on and hear this motion. Because it has been passed by your staff, we have met all the obligations, and it should have been on the consent agenda, and I wish it to be made public now, and I'm asking for it to Page 446 July 24-25, 2007 be brought forward. We have met all the obligations to the county and to all the other regulatory bodies to make this -- to move forward as it is today. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't believe it was on the consent agenda to start with, was it? MR. HENUSET: Yes, it was. MS. FILSON: 16(A)(13). COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, I stand to be corrected. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Mr. Henuset, I don't know -- I didn't ask to speak, but I think you need to work this out with the homeowners. They've had problems over the years, and I think __ MR. HENUSET: Ma'am, I believe that this isn't a homeowner issue. This is a county issue. And we've come to the county to pass this plat. And this is a plat issue and we've met all the requirements. I'm very sorry, there's not a homeowner issue on this issue. The homeowner issue that they're asking for is something different than part of the plat. They have no questions or concerns with the plat whatsoever. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You see, sir, we've had many developers throughout this county make promises to the people who've bought into their developments, and then they haven't carried through their promises. And the people have had no recourse and they've had to then absorb the cost of doing what the developer should have done in the first place, they've had to do that themselves. And when we have an opportunity to encourage that developer to meet his obligations to the residents of that community, we try and make sure to follow through. And in this case that's exactly what we're trying to do. MR. HENUSET: Ma'am, I'm here today to state that we met all those obligations to you as the council, and I'm here to ask the council to pass this motion now. Page 447 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: We can't do that, sir. It's to be continued on September the 11 tho And that's where it stands at this point in time. County Attorney, can you lead some credence to this? Lend some credence. MR. WEIGEL: Well, the board had taken a motion and vote approving a continuance to September 11 tho And I think it's on a basis of questions that are raised. So to the extent that you may work with a commissioner or commissioners in the meantime and provide information that may take care of the issues, that is one thing. Now, this is an ex parte type proceeding, however, so any communications that you would have or that anyone else should have with commissioners regarding this would need to be of course disclosed at the meeting, just as you did yesterday, prior to that time. So again, you have the opportunity to make your points and provide your facts to the commissioners, if you wish to take care of that, which may assist the meeting on September 11 tho In any event, on September 11 th, I would expect that the matter is going to be on the regular agenda, which is a hearing, as opposed to consent agenda where there is no discussion whatsoever. So that -- whether you should have any communication with any commissioners in the meantime or not, you will have an opportunity for a full discussion to the extent that's necessary at the course of that hearing. MR. HENUSET: My concern here -- I came from Canada and my concern here is to find out why the commissioners didn't consent to it so that I can move forward and clean up any problems or issues with the commissioners on the plat itself. And that's what's at question here is the plat. And if there is none, that would be fine so on September 11 th I would understand that. But if there is some, I would like to address it between now and then so Page 448 July 24-25, 2007 that I can clear up any concerns that the council members __ the commissioners might have. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What you'll have to do is then -- I would get in contact with the homeowners association, make sure that any issues that they have, this would be a great opportunity to address those with the homeowners association to make sure that they have a clear understanding exactly what you are going to do to assist them in addressing the issues that they brought forth. MR. HENUSET: Commissioner, the issues they brought forth did not have anything to do with the plat itself. And that's what we're here and what we're asking you as commissioners to deal with is the plat issues. And so we dealt with those. There was another hearing a few weeks past and they asked us to come forward to -- that we weren't going to build them a pool and we weren't credible developers, that this lady said I wasn't a credible person. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I never said that. I don't even know you. MR. HENUSET: Oh, okay. Well, you were saying developers weren't credible. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're saying something I didn't. MR. HENUSET: You said developers weren't credible. So I'm sorry. But me as a person is credible. And we did fulfill that request that you asked for, is to come back with a price __ COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, we're going to discuss this on September the 11 tho If you could come back at that point in time. Hopefully you'll have all the problems or concerns that -- the concerns that were raised by either the constituents of this commissioner who represents that area. MR. HENUSET: So my question to you, council members, is there anything on the plat that I have to be concerned with at this point Page 449 .,--<-"--."-.,_.._..._-,-~ July 24-25, 2007 as you guys -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you have to be concerned with the residents in fulfilling your obligation to them, and we will consider the plat. And we cannot do anything more about it now. That's already been noticed to another meeting. There's no __ MR. HENUSET: Right. Well, the problem I have is that I'm trying to deal with one issue here, and I think that's what's in front of all of us here today is the plat. And that's what I'm trying to do is to fulfill my obligations. And when we talk about obligations that developers have, that is one of them. And I'd like to fulfill it. And ifI can't fulfill it, then I would like to take those obligations off of me as a developer that I will not have those obligations anymore. Because on September 11 th, if it's not passed then my obligations to the county as well as to the homeowners would be not to finish the project. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We'll discuss that on September 11th, sir. MR. HENUSET: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for your time. MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, sir. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. MUDD: Which brings us to staff, and commissioner general communications. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do you have anything to bring forth? MR. MUDD: I believe I'm going to cede my time to the County Attorney today. Page 450 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Jim. Yes, I've got a couple -- I guess a couple of matters to bring to the board. The first one is a little discussion with regard to item 10(F) that you heard yesterday, and that related to the resolution that was discussed and approved with certain language relating to the affordable workforce housing trust fund. And ifI may, I would ask Chief Assistant Mike Pettit to just go over a couple of items with you in regard to that item. Thank you. MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'll try to be brief. Yesterday we had discussion and it centered on Section 2 of the resolution, and discussion centered on the timing that donations would be made. And there was questions -- there were questions raised by Commissioner Henning about that and we had some discussion and concluded that we would leave that timing mechanism into the resolution. I went back to the law books last night, and my recommendation to you is that we drop that timing mechanism and simply say without any further reference in that section any voluntary donations received by the county for affordable workforce housing shall be deposited in the fund either upon the day of receipt or the next business day following receipt, period. And I think that makes it crystal clear that we're dealing with voluntary donations. And that's what I would recommend. And I think if we could address that, if we could have a motion for reconsideration by someone that voted in the majority, if that would be your pleasure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'll make a motion to reconsider. And to add, that was a sticking point I think for many of us. We Page 451 July 24-25, 2007 wanted to make sure it was clear. I don't know how to go about from the motion to reconsider. Do I have to first get a motion on the floor and have it approved? MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. A motion to reconsider with a second. And if that is approved, then you are back on the item in chief and you can direct which you wish to do and vote on it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Fiala for reconsideration and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Henning, do you have any questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a statement. I don't want to be right, I just want to do the right thing. And I think this is what Mr. Pettit is offering is the right thing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So Commissioner Coletta, I believe you're gone, you're out of site. Okay. I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed by like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Carries 4-0 with Commissioner Coletta airborne. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank God. MR. WEIGEL: Therefore, that motion to reconsider is approved, and now the board may in fact make a motion relative to a resolution itself. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, Commissioner Coyle, you have a question. Page 452 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think it's important that we recognize that Commissioner Henning was indeed right. And I wish we had had this legal cite yesterday and it would have saved us a lot of discussion and trouble. But nevertheless, let's do the right thing. But I think we need to go a step further and require that any of these donations be accompanied with a clear statement that -- in writing that it is purely voluntary and is not dependent upon any anticipated actions whatsoever by county government. So it's very, very clear that if somebody is giving us money, it is purely voluntary, or giving us land or anything else. Is there anything wrong with that? MR. PETTIT: My only question is would you want that included in this resolution, or would that simply be the policy for the future? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, how do you communicate the policy? MR. PETTIT: We can include it in the resolution. My only concern is I think we're then going to have to come back with some specific language we're asking for, because everybody might want to communicate the voluntary issue differently. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't you just put an affidavit format in the resolution or whatever and say fill out this form and give us the money, if you want to. MR. WEIGEL: We can do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because, you know, if there is so much concern about this, the best way to resolve the concern is to have the person making the gift certity that it is purely voluntary and not dependent upon any actions or expected actions by the government whatsoever. And if there is a problem or concern about people expressing it in a different way, just put an affidavit format and say hey, you fill out attachment A and you give us the money. MR. PETTIT: We can do that. Page 453 July 24-25,2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or whatever. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does that address your concerns, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, that's all right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, do you have anything? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Your light's on. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes, I do have -- thank you. Yes, I do have something. But after we vote on this, I just wanted to remind my fellow commissioners, all of us, that we had said a few months back -- we had directed our staff that -- to put together a report from the CCHDC to come back to us in September. And so I just wanted to remind everybody that we'll be looking for that report, the financial report from the CCHDC in September. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, we've got to make a motion on this. MR. WEIGEL: I would suggest for clarification, if you like, Mr. Pettit may want to add here, that we can create the affidavit as an attachment to this resolution so it's in the record and part of the policy. You don't have it in front of you, but we understand what you're telling us to do. MR. PETTIT: Let me clarity further. An affidavit requires somebody to go to a notary and be sworn. I don't know that you really want to rise to that level of formality. I will provide a form as an attachment to the acknowledge that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's really what I had in mind, I just used the wrong term. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, do you Page 454 July 24-25, 2007 have any discussion on this? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All those in favor, signity by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed by like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion carries. What else do you have? MR. WEIGEL: Well, one other thing, thank you, and that is Ms. Fiala, I don't know if you wish to -- it's come to my attention that in regard to 5(D) yesterday, which was the discussion on the expressway authority, that Mr. Henning had a thought about a potential change or -- in regard to resolution ofthe board. Now, by virtue ofthe fact that this is a continuous meeting and his communication has come to my attention is that the board yesterday tabled a motion waiting to hear from Lee County to find out what Lee County was going to do and come back to the board and the board was going to reconvene that the item relating to expressway authority and fifth and sixth lane in tolling at September meeting. The question has a risen as to whether you wish to instead perhaps provide a resolution of the board at this meeting today. And the commission members that are here I think all voted in the majority and could in fact if they wished to entertain a motion to reconsider. Our office has reviewed a draft resolution and has, I'll say, tweaked it or just made it a little clearer. It's very simple. And if you would like to, and again, I may turn this over through the chair, Commissioner Fiala. But if you'd like to, I can provide you Page 455 July 24-25, 2007 copies of the resolution that our office has reviewed, made a few changes to, and it does provide a specific indication of the Board of County Commissioners in a resolution forum. It's one sentence alone after you have get past the whereas's, and that is that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida do not support the tolling of the fifth and six lanes ofInterstate 75. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It actually says we don't support tolling lanes five and six in Lee and Collier County. MR. WEIGEL: In Lee and Collier County, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we really speak to what Lee County does? Should we not restrict our comments? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute, I've got a different -- we've got two different documents here. I've got one here that's in bold and it says Collier County will not support the tolling of the proposed lanes five and six on 1-75. There's nothing on this particular document saying anything about Lee County. Which is the correct document? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'm just saying that it came to our office and we reviewed it. I was thinking for clarity that we made that slight change. Now, if you want to say merely in Collier, that's fine, too. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm just questioning whether or not we should include -- MR. WEIGEL: No, I think that's an absolutely correct question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- Lee County in our resolution. Do we really have the right to speak about what Lee County does with respect to tolling? MR. WEIGEL: Well, you have the ability to speak, but I think you're right, that you may want to not do that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Question. Didn't we just put this Page 456 July 24-25, 2007 on the back burner -- MR. WEIGEL: You did. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- to figure out what the direction that Lee County was going to take? But we made it pretty clear that we were not in favor of tolling lanes five and six. That was part of the discussion -- MR. WEIGEL: You did. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- am I correct? MR. WEIGEL: You had a motion on the floor ready to go, and then Mrs. Fiala, in discussion with the board, put a motion to table, which takes precedence. And so the initial motion relating to this board's disfavor of the tolling of the fifth and sixth lanes in Collier was in fact -- we know that that's the intent of the motion to go forward. I think we know it's probably the intent ofthe board to vote on it, but it's been tabled to wait and find out what Lee County was going to do in August, I believe. COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I assist? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, please. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The board of commissioners in both counties agreed to create this 1-75 authority, transportation authority. I think it's appropriate to send a resolution or a correspondence to Lee County. Although the one that I had on the agenda did not fit the desire of the board, I believe the one that Scott Teach has crafted is appropriate. And I also believe it's appropriate to say to Lee County, since we are a part ofajoint authority, or are participants, that we don't wish to toll in Lee County either. I understand what Commissioner Coyle is saying, I just really would like to see a resolution sent to the Lee County commissioners, so they know where we stand. Page 457 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't have an objection to doing it either way. I just wondered if we might be stepping on somebody's toes and creating more controversy than merely providing a professional communication. But I really don't have a strong feeling one way or the other. I'd be willing to go whichever way the majority of the board wants to go. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I guess we need a motion to -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we should leave Lee County out and just say Collier County, don't you believe? MR. MUDD: If you're going to consider this, you've got to reconsider. You have to take a motion -- MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, we'll get them. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We already did that, didn't we? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, we haven't-- MR. WEIGEL: No, not yet. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- got to that point yet. MR. WEIGEL: So on this one, as Mr. Mudd indicates, on 5(D), I believe you made the motion to table. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. MR. WEIGEL: So that would be the action you've taken, which you -- MR. MUDD: No. Point of correction, here, please. Under 5 is a presentation, and that's not where -- MR. WEIGEL: It was not (F)? MR. MUDD: That's not where they tabled it. MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. MR. MUDD: They tabled this under 9(E). MR. WEIGEL: 9(E), pardon me. Thank you. 9(E). COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it was a 4-1 vote. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir. And 9(E), yeah, that came immediately after 5(E). Page 458 July 24-25, 2007 So the motion to reconsider to would be to reconsider the vote that was taken to table, if you wish to do that. And once that is done then you have a prior motion on the floor, which again I think you have not voted on it but if you remove the table aspect from it, it's a live motion, and so you would want to motion to reconsider that as well. Or you otherwise, whoever was the mover and the person who made the second, one of those persons could remove the second or remove the motion and it will go away. But it hasn't been voted on yet. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is that we have one commissioner that is on that transportation authority, and he is not present. And I would -- I don't feel comfortable to move in this direction. I think we ought to leave it well enough alone where we are at the present time until all commissioners are available to discuss this. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I buy that, too. MR. WEIGEL: Of course, Commissioner, and ultimately this is up for the board to decide. And by virtue of policy and decorum, I'm advising you legally what you can do, and provide any further questions or answers that I can. But it's up to you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: IfI could, Commissioner Fiala, I think Commissioner Halas is right, Commissioner Coletta feels very strongly about this and I think it is at least inappropriate that we do it when he's absent. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And 1 would like to withdraw my second and leave it tabled. And then when we have all the commissioners back together again we can consider the issue of -- have a reconsideration. Or we might be out of time, I don't know. Will we be out of time next time? MR. WEIGEL: Interestingly, you will not be out of time the next time because of the fact that we're in summer rules. Page 459 July 24-25, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we can consider it on September the 11 th when we return. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, let's do that. MR. WEIGEL: Well, you see, you're in good shape anyway that way, because all you'll do at that point is you'll bring the item up. You'll -- the matter was tabled. You remove the table. You have a motion that hasn't been voted on. You can make that motion go away, if you wish, and adopt any other motion you want. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Let's do that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got three nods. Commissioner Henning, does that help give you any comfort here? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, but the majority rules. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much for your time on this. Anything else, County Manager? MR. MUDD: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, we'll start with Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one thing. Yesterday we had a presentation to us from some consultants who provided us with probably the most worthless information I think I've ever received. It was inaccurate, outdated, and I am very concerned that whoever was responsible for having those consultants do the study didn't follow it more closely and provide a little better control over what they did. Quite frankly, Commissioner Fiala has more up-to-date information than either of the two consultants did, and I'm sure we paid them tens of thousands of dollars. So I would like to make sure that the next time we do that, that there is adequate control over what their responsibilities are, what they're supposed to be doing and what data they're supposed to provide. Because the data they provided was absolutely worthless for Page 460 July 24-25, 2007 the purpose of helping us make the decisions we were trying to make. We actually had more up-to-date and accurate information than they did. So I felt it was a waste, and I'd just like to encourage the county manager to think of some other alternatives we might be able to exercise whenever we want to have a future -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think this came out of the county attorney's office. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did it? Okay. All right. MR. MUDD: We're going to work on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, if you work on that. Because I'm really unhappy with what they did not do for us. It was a waste of time and a waste of taxpayer money. And I'd sure like to find somebody who can give us a better product. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'd like to say, kind of belated, let me see, a happy birthday message to Commissioner Coyle, but a little bit early. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm 39. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And holding. He'll be enjoying his birthday with his wonderful wife. And we'll all be on recess, so we won't be able to enjoy it with him. So I wanted to give him a little advance happy birthday. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning, did you have anything to bring forth? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I have one item, and I'm going to make it brief. I got this memo from Joe Schmitt, actually it's in regards to -- it says commissioners, so maybe all of you have gotten this. It's in regards to the recommendation of -- co-authored by the Environmental Advisory Council as a result of a vote at the July 11 2007 EAC Page 461 July 24-25, 2007 meeting by a vote of6-1. The members of the EAC directed Judy Hushon, EAC Chair, to request that the BCC consider the development of an ordinance limiting discharge of nutrients to surface waters in Collier County. Ms. Hushon brought the issue up at the EAC at the July 11 th meeting and discussed other counties municipalities the current -- and currently that have such an ordinance. She advised that at this time it's time sensitive due to the fact that the state is looking into prohibiting local governments from regulating fertilizers. She noted that the City of Naples is now requiring landscape certification, as offered through Rookery Bay. The course is called Best Management Practices, Training Session, Keeping Your Landscape Green and Florida Waters Clean. The course cost $25. I talked with Joe Schmitt on this and he says that we should -- I should bring this up in communications to give the board collectively direction to the staff in regards to developing a land development amendment and/or an ordinance, whichever is appropriate to implement these recommendations. And so I wanted to bring this forth at this time. Is there any support for this? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Comment? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, you'll find that the Regional Planning Council has much information on this and is presently dealing with this. So I think you're going to enjoy being educated on it. They've done all the work for the five counties participating in the regional council. And I think that's maybe something that you could bring back on their findings. One thing that I have learned is the experience fertilizer appliers, some might say is in this meeting, but do apply the right amount so it doesn't bleed off into other properties. But the work is done and I'm sure they would provide it to us. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion? Page 462 July 24-25, 2007 (No response.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: We should ask our representative on the Regional Planning Council to get that information and provide it to us. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I will when I attend the first meeting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It will be after -- it will probably be the September meeting. Do you have anything, County Manager? MR. MUDD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, any other discussion? Commissioner Henning, do you have anything else? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Have a nice day, or evenmg. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We are adjourned. ****Commissioner Coyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Halas and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted **** Item #16Al RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "CHANEL SUBDIVISION" Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 2007-175: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "MILANO". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE Page 463 July 24-25,2007 SECURITY Item #16A3 FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEY ANCE OF THE WATER FACILITY FOR BRIDGEWATER BAY, PHASE TWO - W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item # 16A4 FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR WAL-MART STORE EAST- W /RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item # 16A5 RELEASE AND SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR PAYMENTS RECEIVED FOR THE FOLLOWING CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS: V AN EL WAY ENTERPRISES, INC, ; E. J. PROPERTIES, LLC AND DANIEL ROBBINS - CASE NO: CEB 2003-039, CEB 2006-46 AND OSM 2005-090424 Item #16A6 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR BRIDGEWATER BAY, UNIT TWO - W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item # 16A 7 - Continued to the September 11, 2007 BCC Meeting A WARD CONTRACT # 06-3962 TO WHITE & SMITH, LLC PLANNING AND LAW GROUP FOR THE UPDATE AND RE- Page 464 July 24-25,2007 WRITE OF PORTIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A8 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (AS THE SAID BENEFICIARY) RELEASE, AND FOR THE ULTIMATE CLOSURE, OF IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT NUMBER SM222312W IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000.00 ON BEHALF OF FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORA TION AND MAINTENANCE (ERM) TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) BONUS CREDIT REQUIREMENTS; COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES FINANCIAL SURETY IN RELATION TO ALL PRIV A TEL Y IMPLEMENTED ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE PLANS UNTIL ONE OF TWO REGULA TORY CRITERIA ARE CONFIRMED AND DOCUMENTED - TO FURTHER THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE TDR PROGRAM AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCEDURAL IMPLEMENT A TION Item # 16A9 - Moved to Item # 1 ON Item #16AI0 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "VITA TUSCANA", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS Page 465 July 24-25, 2007 Item #16All BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO PREP ARE AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 10 OF CHAPTER 22 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, PERTAINING TO THE NUMBERING OF STRUCTURES, TO INCORPORATE CHANGES THAT PROVIDE FOR CLARIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES, ELIMINATING POTENTIAL FOR THE DUPLICATION OF ADDRESSES, STREET NAMES, DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS AND PROVIDING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCESS, FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT A FUTURE MEETING - FOR IMPROVED OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY Item #16A12 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE SIX, UNIT ONE, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS Item # 16A 13 - Continued to the September 11, 2007 BCC Meeting RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF SILVER LAKES PHASE TWO-G - W/STIPULATIONS Item #16A14 Page 466 July 24-25, 2007 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ACTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V COLIN S. FLINN, ET AI., CASE NO. 06-83-CA, IN CONSIDERATION OF PA YMENT OF A $5,000 CIVIL PENALTY -DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN VIOLATION OF THE BALD EAGLE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTIES ON AUDUBON BOULEVARD Item #16A15 SA TISF ACTION OF LIEN, RELATED TO IMP ACT FEES, DUE TO THE DEFERRED IMP ACT FEES BEING REPAID IN FULL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IMMOKALEE RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM, AS SET FORTH BY SECTION 74-201 (G) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES - WITH MARICELA DELAROSA AND GENARO SILGUERO FOR A HOME CONSTRUCTED AT 4704 LITTLE LEAGUE ROAD, IMMOKALEE Item #16A16 TWO BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM FUND 339 RESERVES (ROAD IMPACT FEE DISTRICT 5 - IMMOKALEE) TO FUND 339 REIMBURSEMENTS (PRIOR YEAR) IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 AND FROM FUND 355 RESERVES (LIBRARY IMPACT FEES) TO FUND 355 REIMBURSEMENTS (PRIOR YEAR) IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000. - IN ORDER TO FUND THE REIMBURSEMENT OF IMP ACT FEES PAID IN PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS Item #16A17 Page 467 July 24-25, 2007 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "SANDALWOOD", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULA TIONS Item #16A18 RESOLUTION 2007-176: A RESOLUTION SUPERSEDING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION NUMBER 2005-48, AMENDING THE PROCEDURES FOR EXPEDITING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR QUALIFIED AFFORDABLE- WORKFORCE HOUSING EXPEDITED REVIEW PROGRAM PROJECTS AND TO ESTABLISH A REGULATORY PROCESS PROGRAM; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION OF THIS POLICY AND PROCEDURES - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A19 EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BEYOND THE $50,000 DOLLAR LIMIT CONTAINED IN THE PURCHASING POLICY FOR THE REQUIRED LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) AMENDMENTS, THE ANNUAL UPDA TE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR), THE HORIZON STUDY MASTER COMMITTEE, THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA 5- YEAR REVIEW COMMITTEE AND VARIOUS OTHER ITEMS MANAGED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHICH REQUIRES LEGAL ADVERTISING - FOR AN ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE OF $27,000 Page 468 July 24-25, 2007 Item # 16A20 SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDMENT NO.3 TO THE INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES AND CHANGE ORDER NO.4 TO THE "ONE HUNDRED (100) YEAR FLOOD ELEV A TIONS FOR FIVE (5) BASINS IN COLLIER COUNTY" AGREEMENT WITH TOMASELLO CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL COSTS AND TIME INCURRED AND ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A21 RELEASE AND SA TISF ACTIONS OF LIEN FOR PAYMENTS RECEIVED FOR THE FOLLOWING CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS: WILKINSON-MEFFERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. - FOR ELEVEN (11) LIENS TOTALING $5,469.15 Item #16Bl RESOLUTION 2007-177: APPROVING FIVE (5) PARATRANSIT OPERA TORS SELECTED BY MCDONALD TRANSIT MANAGEMENT, INC., OPERATING AS COLLIER TRANSIT MANAGEMENT, INC., D/B/ A/ COLLIER AREA TRANSIT TO PERFORM PARA-TRANSIT SERVICES IN COLLIER COUNTY - PROVIDED BY TLC MEDICAL TRANSPORT, INC., LYONS TRANSPORTATION, MIGUEL BUENO (LIBERTY TRANSPORTATION), CARING FOR KIDS AND NEW PELICAN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. Page 469 July 24-25, 2007 Item #16B2 RESOLUTION 2007-178: RENAMING THE GORDON RIVER WATER QUALITY PARK, LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD AND GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y TO FREEDOM PARK - TO ASSIST IN DIRECTING THE PUBLIC TO THE LOCATION OF THE FREEDOM MEMORIAL Item #16B3 CONTRACT EXTENSION BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADV ANTAGED FOR FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $264,201 FOR THE PROVISION OF TRANSPORTATION FOR QUALIFIED MEDICAID RECIPIENTS - FOR JULY THROUGH DECEMBER 2007 Item #16B4 SELECTION OF DYER, RIDDLE, MILLS AND PRECOURT, INC., A QUALIFIED FIRM AND AWARD A CONTRACT UNDER RFP #07-4106, "NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR STUDY EAST OF CR951", FOR PROJECT NUMBER 601041 IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $748,731.36, AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - FOR AN AREA APPROXIMA TEL Y TWENTY (20) MILES FROM WILSON BOULEVARD/GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TO U.S. 41 Item #16B5 RESOLUTION 2007-179: AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION OF SCHOOL ZONE SPEED LIMIT REDUCTIONS TO 20 MPH Page 470 July 24-25, 2007 DURING SCHOOL ARRIVAL AND DISMISSAL HOURS AS INDICATED BY FLASHING BEACONS AT TWO LOCATIONS AT A COST OF $26,000 - FOR LOCATIONS AT 11 TH STREET (IMMOKALEE) ADJACENT TO HIGHLANDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND ROBERTS AVENUE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE MIDDLE SCHOOL Item # 16B6 - Continued to the September 11, 2007 BCC Meeting BUDGET AMENDMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT TO BA YVEST, LLC., AND FOR THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE SAID REIMBURSEMENT TO BA YVEST, LLC. IN WHICH COLLIER COUNTY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF $99,125.21 FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE POLE RELOCATION - FOR ENGINEERING AND THE RELOCATION OF ONE (1) TRANSMISSION POLE LOCATED IN THE HERITAGE BAY ACCESS POINT TO IMMOKALEE ROAD Item #16B7 RESOLUTION 2007-180: AUTHORIZING CERTAIN DESIGNATED COUNTY TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS TO CERTIFY DISBURSEMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 2004-76 - AUTHORIZING NORMAN FEDER, JOHN VLIET, SHARON NEWMAN AND TRAVIS GOSSARD Item #16B8 STAFF'S RELEASE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY ON Page 471 July 24-25, 2007 STIPULA TED MOTION TO ISSUE LETTER OF CREDIT AND TO PROCEED WITH MEDIATION OR OTHER ALTERNATIVES IN THE COUNTY'S PUD DISPUTE WITH LUCKY M.K., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, WITHIN THE NEXT 24 MONTHS- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16B9 AWARD BID #07-4149 "FLORIDAN AVENUE" FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ON FLORIDAN AVENUE FROM CONFEDERATE DRIVE TO BROW ARD STREET TO NEUBERT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $367,190.00 A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,391.53 (PROJECT #601201) - THIS PROJECT IS PART OF A LAP AGREEMENT IN WHICH COLLIER COUNTY WILL BE REIMBURSED BY THE FDOT AFTER COMPLETION Item #16BI0 ACCEPTANCE OF THE HIGHEST BID AND EXECUTION OF A REAL ESTATE SALES AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF A SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENCE ON 2.27 ACRES IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES TO THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF GOLDEN GATE. (FISCAL IMPACT - REVENUE $365,000.00) - LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF SANTA BARBARA BLVD. AND PAINTED LEAF LANE (5605 PAINTED LEAF LANE) FOR THE SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD EXPANSION Item # 16B 11 AWARD BID NO. 07-4161 TO HASKINS INC. FOR THE Page 472 July 24-25, 2007 CYPRESS WAY EAST AND IBIS WAY CROSSING STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS, NUMBER 510141 WITH THE BASE AMOUNT BEING $696,250.00 AND A CONTINGENCY FOR UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $746,250.00 - FOR IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK SAFETY AND TO INCREASE THE FLOW WAY CAPACITY Item #16B12 AWARD BID NO. 07-4154 TO POSEN CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE FISH BRANCH BASIN CULVERT EXTENSION, PROJECT NUMBER 510211 AND 510212 WITH THE BASE AMOUNT BEING $431,010.50, PLUS BID ALTERNATIVES OF $21,800.00 AND A CONTINGENCY FOR UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS IN THE AMOUNT $50,000 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $502,810.50 - FOR IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK SAFETY AND TO INCREASE THE FLOW WAY CAPACITY, LOCATED WITHIN THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY OF LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD Item #16Cl SATISFACTION FORA CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER IMP ACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENT; FISCAL IMPACT IS $10.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN - FOLIO #00729480008 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,785.00 Item # 16C2 RESOLUTION 2007-181: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY Page 473 July 24-25, 2007 HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN - FOLIO #56404920002 Item # 16C3 RESOLUTION 2007-182: 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 - FOLIO #65074040002 AND #62202400006 Item #16C4 RESOLUTION 2007-183: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT; FISCAL IMP ACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN - FOLIO #62202400006 Item #16C5 RESOLUTION 2007-184/CWS RESOLUTION 2007-03: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HARDSHIP DEFERRALS FOR CERTAIN SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2007 TAX YEAR. THE FISCAL IMPACT IS $18.50 TO RECORD THE Page 474 July 24-25, 2007 RESOLUTION - FOLIO #77821360004, #24830680003 AND #64510680008 Item # 16C6 RECORD SA TISF ACTIONS FOR CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER IMP ACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $28.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN - FOLIO #81625600008 AND #49530080001 Item #16C7 RESOLUTION 2007-185: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD SATISFACTION OF LIEN - FOLIO #52650680006 Item # 16C8 RESOLUTION 2007-186: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN - FOLIO #56401160001 Item # 16C9 Page 475 July 24-25, 2007 RESOLUTION 2007-187: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN - FOLIO #39209960006 Item #16CI0 RESOLUTION 2007-188: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN - FOLIO #45969160004 Item #16Cll RESOLUTION 2007-189: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN - FOLIO #45969160004 Item #16C12 A WARD WORK ORDER CDM-FT-3593-07-04 TO CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE, INC., (CDM) FOR CONTINUING Page 476 July 24-25, 2007 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE WELLFIELD RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION PROGRAM IN THE TIME AND MATERIALS NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $748,000, PROJECT NUMBER 75005 - TO MEET THE PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS OF CUSTOMERS Item #16C13 WAIVE COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS AND APPROVE A SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF VALVES TO FLUID CONTROL SPECIALTIES, INCORPORATED IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $500,000 - SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER OF VAL VES FROM DEZURIK WATER CONTROLS, CRISPIN VAL VES AND BERMAD CONTROL VALVES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA Item #16C14 THE ACQUISITION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A POTABLE WATER PIPELINE AND ACCESS ON PROPERTY OWNED BY ROSE M. BRIGGS AND DAVID A. SALINAS IN THE HENDERSON CREEK PARK SUBDIVISION AT AN ESTIMATED COST NOT TO EXCEED $4,500, PROJECT NUMBER 710101 - FOR A 300 FOOT SQUARE EASEMENT TO SERVICE THAT AREA Item #16C15 AWARD BID #06-4061R "COLLECTION AND RECYCLING LATEX PAINT" TO SCOTT PAINT COMPANY, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF RECYCLING LATEX PAINT - ENSURING Page 477 July 24-25, 2007 PROPER DISPOSAL AND FOR THE PRESERVATION OF LANDFILL SPACE Item #16C16 CONVEYANCE OF THE FIRE SUPPRESSION FACILITIES INSTALLED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT ("DISTRICT") TO CONVERT FIRE PROTECTION WITHIN PELICAN BAY FROM IRRIGATION WATER TO POT ABLE WATER FOR AN ESTIMATED COST NOT TO EXCEED $4,664, PROJECT 740231 - WITHIN THE BAY COLONY COMMUNITY Item #16C17 AWARD BID #07-4151 "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF BALED CORRUGATED AND WHITE GOODS" TO GARDEN STREET PAPER PRODUCTS FOR BALED CORRUGATED (CARDBOARD) AND MIKE ANDERSON'S HAULING FOR WHITE GOODS (APPLIANCES) - PRESERVING LANDFILL SPACE THROUGH RECYCLING, REUSE AND RESALE Item #16C18 ACQUISITION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A POT ABLE WATER PIPELINE AND ACCESS ON PROPERTY OWNED BY BORAH PARTNERS, LLC NEAR THE HENDERSON CREEK PARK SUBDIVISION AT AN ESTIMATED COST NOT TO EXCEED $12,000, PROJECT NUMBER 710101 - FOR A 845 +/- SQUARE FOOT EASEMENT LOCATED AT 1231 SKYLINE DRIVE Page 478 July 24-25, 2007 Item # 16C 19 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF TWO GRANT CONTRACTS ISSUED BY THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR FY 2007 -AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item # 16C20 WORK ORDER #UC-QE-FT-3535-07-07 IN THE AMOUNT OF $407,625.75 TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA INC., FOR PUMP STATION 312.12 IMPROVEMENTS UNDER CONTRACT 04- 3535 ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONTRACTING SERVICES, PROJECT 72546 - TO INCREASE PUMPING CAPACITY AND TO AVOID DISCHARGE OF UNTREA TED WASTEWATER AT THIS LOCATION Item #16C21 WORK ORDER #UC-QE-FT-3535-07-07 IN THE AMOUNT OF $403,006.25 TO QUALITY ENTERPRISE USA, INC., FOR PUMP STATION 107.02 IMPROVEMENT UNDER CONTRACT 04-3535 ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONTRACTING SERVICES, PROJECT 72546 - TO INCREASE PUMPING CAPACITY AND TO AVOID DISCHARGE OF UNTREATED WASTEWATER AT THIS LOCATION Item #16C22 AWARD CONTRACT #07-4081 TO CREATIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM - SMS TURBO FOR THE PURCHASE OF A SOLID WASTE MATERIAL AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Page 479 July 24-25, 2007 SOFTWARE SYSTEM; PURCHASE OF THE REQUIRED HARDWARE AND BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR $40,000. TOTAL COST IS $231,956 (PROJECT NUMBER 59010) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16Dl CONTRACT 05-3657 WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING TO PROVIDE PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING SUPPORT FOR THE CONNOR PARK EXP ANSION STUDY PROPOSAL FOR TIME AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED $15,000 AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - FOR A PARKING STUDY AND THE POSSIBLE ADDITION OF A BOAT DOCK ALONG TURKEY BAY WHICH MAY POTENTIALLY BE USED FOR A WATER TAXI SHUTTLE BETWEEN CONNER PARK AND BAREFOOT BEACH TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BEACH ACCESS Item #16D2 WORK ORDER CPE-FT-07-06 UNDER CONTRACT 06-3902 WITH COASTAL ENGINEERING (CP&E) FOR THE 1ST ANNUAL BIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF THE NEAR SHORE HARD BOTTOM AND THE POST CONSTRUCTION BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ARTIFICIAL REEF FOR TIME AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED $349,837.55 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SIGN WORK ORDER NO. CPE-FT-07-06 (PROJECT NO. 900331) - TO DOCUMENT AND REPORT CONDITIONS OF THE NA TURAL NEARSHORE HABITAT IN RESPONSE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT AND THE DOCTOR'S PASS INLET MAINTENANCE DREDGING Page 480 July 24-25, 2007 PROJECT Item #16D3 TDC CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATIONS FROM FUND 183 AND 195 FOR THE CITY OF NAPLES, THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR FY -07 /08 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $9,694,133 AND ALL NECESSARY GRANT AGREEMENTS PER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVAL - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item # 16D4 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR WORK ORDER CPE-FT-3902-07- 08 IN THE AMOUNT OF $122,624 FOR A TIME & MATERIAL NOT -TO-EXCEED PROPOSAL FROM COASTAL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING (CP&E) UNDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT 06-3902 TO CONDUCT OFF-SHORE SAND SOURCE INVESTIGATION (PROJECT 902981) - TO SUPPORT SMALL SCALE BEACH EMERGENCY PROJECTS Item #16D5 THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A SUB RECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING A $150,000 LOAN OF STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT - FOR A MODULAR HOME THAT WILL BE SOLD TO A (HUD) QUALIFYING LOW INCOME F AMIL Y IN COPELAND Item # 16D6 Page 481 July 24-25, 2007 AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF THE 2008 STATE OF FLORIDA CHALLENGE GRANT APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICE ON HOMELESSNESS - FOR ASSISTING VERY LOW INCOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY Item # 16D7 A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING A $77,000 LOAN OF STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) FUNDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT - THROUGH THE "ONE BY ONE LEADERSHIP FOUNDATION" FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AT 402 SOUTH 3RD STREET IN IMMOKALEE Item # 16D8 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MARIO SYL VAIN AND VIERGELIE THOMAS SYL VAIN (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCA TED AT LOT 7, MILAGRO PLACE - DEFERRING $19,290.73 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D9 AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE TIMELINE FOR AN EXISTING SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH THE SHEL TER FOR ABUSED WOMEN & CHILDREN, INC. USING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FOR HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR Page 482 July 24-25, 2007 TRANSITIONAL HOUSING UNITS TO BE USED FOR INCOME ELIGIBLE CLIENTS LEAVING THE SHELTER'S FACILITY - FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE (3) HOUSING UNITS USED BY FAMILIES TRANSITIONING OUT OF THE SHELTER AND INTO A TRANSITIONAL HOUSING UNIT Item #16DI0 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MARCO BAY HOMES, LLC (BUILDER) AND EL VA MORET A (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT WEST 75' OF THE EAST 150' OF TRACT 83, UNIT 62, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - DEFERRING $19,273.98 IN IMP ACT FEES Item #16Dll AN AMENDED HOME SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH BIG CYPRESS HOUSING CORPORATION, INC. TO ADJUST THE CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE AND BUDGET FOR A 55 UNIT, MUL TI-F AMIL Y RENTAL HOUSING COMPLEX FOR LEGAL MIGRANT AND SEASONAL F ARMWORKERS IN IMMOKALEE - DUE TO DELAYS IN PERMITTING AND FINANCING FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS EDEN GARDENS Item #16D12 A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH BIG CYPRESS HOUSING CORPORATION, INC. FOR $192,000 IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS TO BE USED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND Page 483 July 24-25, 2007 CONSTRUCTION OF 55 MUL TI-F AMIL Y RENTAL HOUSING UNITS FOR LEGAL MIGRANT AND SEASONAL F ARMWORKERS IN IMMOKALEE - FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS EDEN GARDENS Item #16D13 RESOLUTION 2007-190: REPEAL RESOLUTION NO. 2006-101 AND ADOPT NEW FINES AND FEES FOR COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY -AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D14 BUDGET AMENDMENTS TRANSFERRING $137,900 IN SUMMER CAMP EXPENSES, $15,500 IN RESERVES AND $153,400 IN SUMMER CAMP REVENUE FROM FUND 130 TO FUND 111 - SUMMER CAMPS PROVIDE PROGRAMS TO OVER 1400 CHILDREN AND BENEFITS ALL OF COLLIER COUNTY Item #16D15 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MARCO BAY HOMES, LLC (BUILDER) AND GARY HILDEBRANDT (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT EAST 75' OF THE WEST 150' OF TRACT 12, UNIT 79, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - DEFERRING $19,273.98 IN IMP ACT FEES Item #16D16 Page 484 July 24-25,2007 A GRANT AGREEMENT ACCEPTING ONE CONTINUUM OF CARE HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANT A WARD FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) TOTALING $35,816; AND AN ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $35,816 RECOGNIZING THE FUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH THE GRANT AWARD - USED TO SUPPORT OPERATIONS AT THE SHEL TER FOR ABUSED WOMEN AND CHILDREN Item #16D17 A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH THE SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN & CHILDREN, INC. FOR $35,816 IN CONTINUUM OF CARE FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE SHEL TER OPERATIONS - TO ASSIST WITH OPERATIONS AT THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER Item #16D18 10- YEAR CAPITAL PLANS PREPARED FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT/PASS MAINTENANCE FUND (195) AND BEACH PARK FACILITIES FUND (183) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D19 AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE TO ACQUIRE A RESIDENTIAL LOT FOR EXPANSION OF THE COUNTY'S BA YVIEW PARK AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $575,500 (PROJECT 80060) - FOR .32 OF AN ACRE AT 1812 DANFORD STREET Page 485 July 24-25, 2007 Item # 16D20 A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CCHDC) WITH A COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION (CHDO) OPERATING GRANT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,894 FROM THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAM - FOR EXPENSES INCLUDING EDUCATIONAL TRAINING, RENT, UTILITIES, SALARIES AND SUPPLIES Item #16D21 AN AWARD OF INTRODUCTORY-LEVEL GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) SOFTWARE, VALUED AT $100,000, FOR COLLIER COUNTY 4-H CLUBS - FOR PROJECTS USING GIS IN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, PUBLIC SAFETY AND ENHANCED COMMUNITY RESOURCE EDUCATION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 Item #16D22 GRANT AGREEMENT NUMBER 06163 IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 FROM THE FLORIDA BOATING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE REMOVAL OF DERELICT VESSELS - TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE ESTUARIES WITHIN THE COUNTY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING APRIL 30, 2008 Item #16D23 - Moved to Item #10L Page 486 July 24-25, 2007 Item #16D24 RESOLUTION 2007-191: SUPPORTING ASSESSMENT OF A P ASS-THROUGH USER FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF PARKS AND RECREATION INTERNET REGISTRATION SERVICE - ALLOWING CUSTOMERS TO REGISTER AND PAY ONLINE FOR PROGRAMS FOR A PER TRANSACTION FEE Item #16D25 - Moved to Item #10M Item # 16D26 A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR AN ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV) PARK ON LEASED LAND ASSOCIATED WITH A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD) - FOR A LEASE AGREEMENT ENDING JUNE 30, 2008 WITH ALICO, INC. FOR THE USE OF APPROXIMATELY 150 ACRES OF LAND UNTIL THE LAKE TRAFFORD SITE IS READY FOR A TV USE Item #16D27 CONSENT TO USE AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY (CCAA) FOR AN UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES - INCLUDING FESTIVALS, CHARITABLE EVENTS AND CONCERTS FOR APPROXIMATEL Y 305,00 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY Page 487 July 24-25, 2007 ADJACENT TO THE AIRPORT FOR A PERIOD OF TWENTY (20) YEARS OR UNTIL TERMINATED BY THE CCAA Item #16El A CONTINUATION OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR OTTER MOUND PRESERVE TO DECEMBER, 2007 - ALLOWING STAFF TIME TO INCORPORATE THE "KAREN PROPERTY" INTO THE OTTER MOUND PRESERVE INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN Item #16E2 CHANGE #20 TO CONTRACT #02-3422, "PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR NEW COUNTY FLEET FACILITY", WITH DISNEY & ASSOCIATES, P.A., TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES FOR THE FLEET FACILITY, PROJECT 52009, PHASE II IN THE AMOUNT OF $136,150 - LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COUNTY BARN ROAD OFF OF DAVIS BOULEVARD WITH AN EXPECTED COMPLETION DATE OF DECEMBER, 2008 Item #16E3 A FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH ISLANDS AND HIGHLANDS, LLC FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF AN OFFICE AND GARAGE/WAREHOUSE SPACE USED BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AT A FIRST YEAR'S COST OF $67,468.56 - FOR OFFICE, GARAGE AND WAREHOUSE SPACE LOCATED OFF OF RADIO ROAD USED UNTIL THE SPECIAL OPERATIONS CENTER AT THE NAPLES AIRPORT IS COMPLETED IN THE SPRING OF 2008 Page 488 July 24-25, 2007 Item #16E4 CONVEY ANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (FPL) FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC SERVICE TO THE NEW COLLIER COUNTY FLEET FACILITY AND SHERIFF'S FLEET FACILITY AT 2901 COUNTY BARN ROAD, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $27.00 (PROJECT NUMBER 52009) Item #16E5 AN ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE WITH ALAN AND PATRICIA BOOLE TO A & P BOOLE, LLC, CONCERNING A LEASE AGREEMENT NAMING COLLIER COUNTY AS LESSEE, WITH NO ANNUAL COST - FOR GARAGE SPACE LOCATED ON ARNOLD AVENUE UTILIZED AS THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE MAINTENANCE FACILITY Item # 16E6 - Moved to Item # 1 OK Item #16Fl APPROV AL OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS BY THE COUNTY MANAGER IS SUBJECT TO FORMAL RA TIFICA TION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. IF THE DECISION BY THE COUNTY MANAGER IS NOT RATIFIED BY THAT BOARD, THE DOCUMENT(S) SHALL BE ENFORCEABLE AGAINST COLLIER COUNTY ONLY TO THE EXTENT AUTHORIZED BY LA W IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH RATIFICATION BY THAT BOARD - APPROVED ON JULY 10, 2007 WITH FORMAL Page 489 July 24-25, 2007 RATIFICATION ON JULY 24,2007 Item #16FI-A A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JEANNE JEAN AND GRANDOIT JEAN (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 12, MILAGRO PLACE, IMMOKALEE (PUBLIC SERVICES) - DEFERRING $19,311.96 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16FI-B A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ADOLFO TINOCO AND MARGARITA TINOCO (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 116, TRAIL RIDGE NAPLES. (PUBLIC SERVICES)- DEFERRING $13,616.20 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16FI-C A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH NAOMI VALDEZ (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 147, INDEPENDENCE PHASE II, IMMOKALEE (PUBLIC SERVICES) - DEFERRING $10,177.64 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16FI-D A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH RONDA LOFTON (OWNER) FOR Page 490 July 24-25, 2007 DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 148, INDEPENDENCE PHASE II, IMMOKALEE (PUBLIC SERVICES) - DEFERRING $10,177.64 IN IMP ACT FEES Item #16FI-E A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MARIE MIDOUIN AND IN ROBERT IN BAPTISTE (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 149, TRAIL RIDGE, NAPLES. (PUBLIC SERVICES)- DEFERRING $12,143.84 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16FI-F REJECT BID NO. 07-4115 FOR "US 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL) & SR- 84 DAVIS BOULEVARD ROADWAY LIGHTING MAINTENANCE CONTRACT" (TRANSPORTATION) - STAFF TO ISSUE A SECOND REQUEST FOR BIDS Item #16FI-G A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH REGINA RHODES (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED LOT 200, TRAIL RIDGE, NAPLES. (PUBLIC SERVICES) - DEFERRING $19,372.52 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16FI-H Page 491 July 24-25, 2007 RA TIFY ADDITIONS TO, DELETIONS FROM AND MODIFICA TIONS TO THE 2007 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE FROM APRIL 1, 2007 THROUGH JUNE 15, 2007 (ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES) - MODIFICATION RESULTS FROM THE ADDITION OF INCREASED RESPONSIBILITIES AND A CLASSIFICATION CHANGE Item #16FI-I RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $913 AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) BUDGET - FROM THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL COMMUNITY SERVICE Item #16FI-J REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD MAY 22, 2007 THROUGH JUNE 20, 2007 Item #16FI-K (Adopted July 10,2007 and ratified on July 24,2007) RESOLUTION 2007-174: FIXING THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROVING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT) TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT - HELD ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 AT 5 :05 P.M. AT THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ON Page 492 July 24-25, 2007 THE THIRD FLOOR OF THE W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S BOARD ROOM Item #16F2 BUDGET AMENDMENTS - #07-418, #07-420 AND #07-461 Item # 16F3 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE SHEPHERD OF THE GLADES LUTHERAN CHURCH - TO COORDINATE RELIEF EFFORTS AT THE TIME OF A DISASTER FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS Item #16F4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST SCIENTIST - TO COORDINATE RELIEF EFFORTS AT THE TIME OF DISASTER FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS Item #16F5 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY - TO COORDINATE RELIEF EFFORTS AT THE TIME OF DISASTER FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS Item #16F6 Page 493 July 24-25, 2007 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND I HOPE (IMMOKALEE HELPING OUR PEOPLE IN EMERGENCIES) - TO COORDINATE RELIEF EFFORTS AT THE TIME OF DISASTER FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS Item #16F7 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND MARCO ISLAND YMCA - TO COORDINATE RELIEF EFFORTS AT THE TIME OF DISASTER FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS Item #16F8 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND NAPLES UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST - TO COORDINATE RELIEF EFFORTS AT THE TIME OF DISASTER FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS Item # 16F9 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR EMERGENCY SITUATIONS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND AMERICAN RED CROSS OF COLLIER COUNTY - TO COORDINATE RELIEF EFFORTS AT THE TIME OF DISASTER FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS Item #16FI0 Page 494 July 24-25, 2007 RESOLUTION 2007-192: PROVIDING FOR USER FEES FOR COLLIER COUNTY AMBULANCE SERVICES, UP-DATED BILLING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURE, UP-DATED HOSPITAL TRANSPORT BILLING AND FEES, ADJUSTMENTS OF EMS USER FEES PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 96-36, WAIVER OF EMS USER FEES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS AND A PROCEDURE FOR APPROVING HARDSHIP CASES AND PAYMENT PLANS; SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 06-222; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16Fll A WARD RFP# 07-4152, "AUDITING SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY" TO ERNST & YOUNG LLP SUBJECT TO SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS (ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR COST $560,000) - TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTES Item #16G 1 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO PURCHASE A RESIDENTIAL (MOBILE HOME) LOT AND TRAILER IN THE BA YSHORE AREA OF THE CRA AS PART OF A CRA RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT; TO APPROVE PAYMENT FROM AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO MAKE A DRA W FROM THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE CRA W ACHOVIA BANK LINE OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,000 PLUS COST AND EXPENSES TO COMPLETE THE SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY; AND APPROVE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. SITE ADDRESS: Page 495 July 24-25, 2007 3024 VAN BUREN AVENUE, NAPLES, FL Item #16G2 SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT(S) BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND A GRANT APPLICANT(S) FOR 2675 BA YVIEW DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 WITHIN THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA - IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,000 Item #16G3 PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL (MOBILE HOME) LOT IN THE BA YSHORE AREA OF THE CRA AS PART OF A CRA RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT; TO APPROVE PAYMENT FROM AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO MAKE A DRA W FROM THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE CRA W ACHOVIA BANK LINE OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $99,000 PLUS COST AND EXPENSES TO COMPLETE THE SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY; AND APPROVE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. SITE ADDRESS: 4032 FULL MOON COURT, NAPLES, FL Item #16G4 PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL (MOBILE HOME) LOT AND TRAILER IN THE BA YSHORE AREA OF THE CRA AS PART OF A CRA RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT; TO APPROVE PAYMENT FROM AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO MAKE A DRAW FROM THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE CRA W ACHOVIA BANK LINE OF CREDIT IN THE Page 496 July 24-25, 2007 AMOUNT OF $90,000 PLUS COST AND EXPENSES TO COMPLETE THE SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY; AND APPROVE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. SITE ADDRESS: 3016 VAN BUREN AVENUE, NAPLES, FL Item #16G5 SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT(S) BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND A GRANT APPLICANT(S) SAMUEL AND KASTHIA ALEMAN D/B/A S & K REALTY, LLC. FOR 2727/2737 BA YSHORE DRIVE NAPLES FL 34112 WITHIN THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA - IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,000 Item #16Hl COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE PRACC (PUBLIC RELATIONS & ADVERTISING PROFESSIONALS OF COLLIER COUNTY) LUNCHEON ON JUNE 21,2007, AT THE COLLIER ATHLETIC CLUB; $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 710 GOODLETTE ROAD N Item #16H2 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST TO ATTEND THE YOUTH HAVEN NIGHT AT VILLA VENEZIA ON SUNDAY, JULY 29, 2007, AT THE VAN HOESEN ESTATE HOME IN MARCO ISLAND; $75.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - AT 1440 CAXAMBAS COURT, Page 497 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE July 24, 2007 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Districts: (1) Cow Slouqh Water Control District: Budget FY 2007-2008; Meeting Schedule FY 2007-2008; Annual Financial Report FY Ending September 30, 2006. (2) Port of the Island Community Improvement District: Minutes of April 13, 2007; Agenda for April 13, 2007. (3) South Florida Water Manaqement District: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY Ending September 30, 2006. (4) Naples Heritaqe Community Development District: Minutes of April 10, 2007; Agenda for April 10, 2007; Minutes of March 12, 2007; Agenda for March 12,2007. B. Minutes: (1) Pelican Bav Services Division: (a) Clam Bav Committee: Agenda for June 26,2007; Minutes of June 6, 2007. (2) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board and Immokalee Master Plan and Visioninq Committee: Agenda for May 16, 2007; Minutes of May 16, 2007. (a) Enterprise Zone Development Aqencv: Agenda for May 16, 2007; Minutes of May 16, 2007. H:\DATAIFRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondence\072407_misc_corr.doc (b) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Agenda for May 16, 2007; Minutes of May 16, 2007. (3) Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Committee: Minutes of March 21, 2007; Agenda for March 21, 2007; Minutes of May 16, 2007; Agenda for May 16, 2007. (4) Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda for June 6, 2007; Minutes of May 7, 2007; Agenda for May 7, 2007; Agenda for July 11, 2007; Minutes of June 6, 2007. (5) Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board: Minutes of June 7, 2007; Agenda for June 7,2007. (6) Bavshore/Gatewav Trianqle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Agenda for May 1, 2007; Minutes of May 1, 2007. (7) Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes of May 14, 2007; Minutes of February 12, 2007; Agenda for July 9, 2007. (8) Lelv Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Minutes of May 17, 2007; Agenda for June 21,2007; Budget FY 2008. (9) Emerqencv Medical Services Advisory Council: Minutes of May 23, 2007; Minutes of June 27,2007. (10) Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Minutes of May 23, 2007; Agenda for June 27, 2007. (11) Collier County Historic and Archaeoloqical Preservation Board: Agenda for June 20, 2007; Minutes of May 16, 2007. (12) Collier County Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Minutes of June 4, 2007. (13) Forest Lakes Roadwavand Drainaqe M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Minutes of June 13, 2007; Agenda for July 11, 2007. H:\DA T A \FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondence\072407 _misc_corr.doc (14) Golden Gate M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Minutes of June 12, 2007; Agenda for July 12, 2007. (15) Collier County Public Vehicle Advisory Committee: Agenda for July 9, 2007. (16) Fire Steerinq Committee: Agenda for June 28, 2007; Minutes of May 24,2007. C. Other: (1) Public Safety Coordinatinq Council: Minutes of April 19, 2007. H:\DA T A \FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondence\072407 _misc_corr.doc July 24-25, 2007 MARCO ISLAND, FL 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 498 July 24-25, 2007 Item # 1611 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 16, 2007 THROUGH JUNE 22, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item #16J2 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 23, 2007 THROUGH JUNE 29, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item # 1613 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 30, 2007 THROUGH JULY 06, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item #16J4 ASSET DISPOSITION RECORDS FOR THE TIME PERIOD APRIL 1,2007 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 - FOR ITEMS NO LONGER SERVING A USEFUL FUNCTION OR HAVING COMMERCIAL VALUE DISPOSED OF IN COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA LAW Item #16J5 SIGNATURE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ANNUAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 218.32- DOCUMENTS THE REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR A Page 499 July 24-25, 2007 GIVEN FISCAL CYCLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA UNIFORM ACCOUNTING SYSTEM Item #16J6 PREP A YMENT OF THE CARIBBEAN GARDENS COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000 - INTEREST SAVINGS OF APPROXIMATELY $3,600 PER MONTH WILL RESULT FROM THIS PRINCIPAL PAYDOWN SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 7, 2007 Item #16Kl STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL 129 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V WEST COAST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF NAPLES, INC., ET AI., CASE NO. 06-0708-CA (SANTABARBARA BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 62081) (FISCAL IMPACT $0) Item #16K2 OFFER OF JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,000 AS TO PARCEL 168 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V THOMAS F. SALZMANN, ET AI., CASE NO. 03-2550-CA (GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y PROJECT NO. 60027). (FISCAL IMP ACT $2,246.80) Item # 16K3 SETTLEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Vs. THE ESTATE OF OMAR FERNANDEZ, ET AI., FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN Page 500 July 24-25, 2007 AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 07-0705- CC FOR $7,465.00 Item #16K4 AN AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES AND COSTS RELATING TO PARCEL NO. 134 IN THE CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V TREESOURCE, INC., ET AI., CASE NO. 02-5167-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018) (FISCAL IMPACT: $6,400.00) Item #16K5 AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR CONTRACTOR LICENSING BY COLLIER COUNTY - F ACILIT A TES UNIFORM APPLICATION AND IS BENEFICIAL FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY. FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS Item #16K6 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NOS. 114 & 914 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED CC V ELIAS VALENCIA, ET AI., CASE NO. 03-2274-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT NO. 60027). (FISCAL IMPACT $10,100.00) Item #16K7 RESOLUTION 2007-193: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE Page 501 July 24-25, 2007 COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN - FOLIO #01131800000 Item #16K8 RESOLUTION 2007-194: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN - FOLIO #01131800000 Item #16K9 RESOLUTION 2007-195: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMP ACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE SA TISF ACTION OF LIEN - FOLIO #01131800000 Item #16KI0 RESOLUTION 2007-196: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FORA SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD Page 502 July 24-25, 2007 SATISFACTION OF LIEN - FOLIO #01131800000 Item #16Kll A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE WITH PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC., RELATING TO THE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL SCALE HOUSE, CONTRACT NO. 03-3427 AND PROJECT #59005 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,020.00 WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE COUNTY Item #16K12 SETTLEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED DORIS MCDONALD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DA VID MCDONALD (DECEASED) Vs. COLLIER COUNTY, ET AI., FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 05-486-CA, FOR $1.000.00 Item #16K13 SETTLEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT FOR THE SEPTEMBER 22, 2005, UNLEADED GASOLINE OVERSPILLlDISCHARGE AT COLLIER COUNTY'S CAXAMBAS PARK. ($9,601.00) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16K14 Page 503 July 24-25, 2007 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PAY FOR MINOR SECURITY RECOMMENDED ALTERATIONS OF THE OFFICE SPACE ALLOCATED TO THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (CDES) BUILDING. ($7,000)- TO ASSURE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF EMPLOYEES Item # 1 7 A - Moved to Item #8D Item #17B RESOLUTION 2007-197: PETITION A VPLAT-2007-AR-II083, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A 15 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE COMMON BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN LOT 46 AND LOT 47, TURNER OAK HILL ESTATES, INC. - FIRST ADDITION, A SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 115 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SITUATED IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17C RESOLUTION 2007-198: PETITION: CU-2005-AR-8479 (NG) SOUTHEASTERN ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, INC., REPRESENTED BY FRED LEARNED, LA OF COMMUNITY ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL (VR) ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO TABLE 2, SECTION 2.04.03 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC). THE 1.0 H ACRE VR ZONED SITE IS PROPOSED Page 504 July 24-25, 2007 TO PERMIT A CHURCH WITH A MAXIMUM OF 4,250 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 745 5TH STREET SOUTH, IMMOKALEE, IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 47, RANGE 29, IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17D RESOLUTION 2007-199: PETITION A VESMT-2007-AR-11653, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE FOLLOWING EASEMENTS; 15 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS BEING 7.5 FEET EACH SIDE OF AND ALONG THE COMMON LINES OF LOTS 26 & 27,30 & 31 AND 37 & 38, ALSO A 15 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT "G", ALL PART OF BLOCK 106 ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF KNOWN AS TWIN EAGLES PHASE TWO B, A SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 47, PAGES 23 THRU 39 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17E RESOLUTION 2007-200: PETITION A VPLAT-2007-AR-II097, HERITAGE BAY COMMONS, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN ALL OF TRACT "L-l" AND THE UNDERLYING LAKE, DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT, AND ALSO THE TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT OVER TRACT "E", HERITAGE BAY COMMONS, A SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 43, PAGES 46 THROUGH 54 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER Page 505 July 24-25, 2007 COUNTY, FLORIDA, SITUATED IN SECTION 14 & 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17F RESOLUTION 2007-201: FINAL ROLL AND ASSESSMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION 2005-385A, CONCERNING THE PROJECT TO RESTORE THE LAKE BETWEEN 107TH AVENUE NORTH AND 108TH AVENUE NORTH WITHIN THE NAPLES PARK LAKE MUNICIPAL SERVICES BENEFIT UNIT Item #17G ORDINANCE 2007-58: AN AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTION FIVE E OF COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2001-55, AS AMENDED, TO ALLOW CANDIDATES WHO ARE SEEKING RE-ELECTION AND ARE ALREADY SERVING ON COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS TO REMAIN SERVING DURING THEIR CANDIDACY FOR RE-ELECTION Page 506 July 24-25, 2007 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:16 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECI~DERITSCONTROL JIM C ETT A, Chairman , . '1~-' ATTEST: "1 ) DWIGHT E. BROCK~ CLERK '.,;, ' '.' ~.U~*.o.c Atterl/'" to ",,;- , s 1 gnaturt' 0111 . These minutes approved by the Board on q -l \~600l as presented 7 or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 507