The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 01/15-16/08 R January 15-16,2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, January 15-16, 2008 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: CHAIRMEN: Jim Coletta/Tom Henning Donna Fiala Frank Halas Fred W. Coyle ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB) O~",\1111' , " ~ 'If \l (J/,,\.... AGENDA January 15,2008 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 PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED 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 January 15, 2008 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 IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Pastor Steve McGraw, New Hope Ministries 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. November 20, 2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Pelletier C. November 27, 2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting D. November 29,2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Watson E. November 30,2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Watson F. December 3, 2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Mazur G. December 3, 2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Pelletier Page 2 January 15,2008 H. December 4, 2007 - BCC/GMP Meeting I. December 5, 2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Watson J. December II, 2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting K. December 12, 2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting-Continuation of December II Meeting L. December 17,2007 - Value Adjustment Board Regular Meeting M. December 17, 2007 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Cunningham 3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS) 4. PROCLAMATIONS A. Proclamation for "Empowering Positive Change" to be accepted by Anthony Denson, President of the Collier County Branch ofthe NAACP; Rhonda Cummings, Co-chair of the MLK Day Parade Committee; and Dianna Perryman, Co-chair of the MLK Parade Committee. B. Proclamation for "Support Our Troops Fighting the Global War on Terrorism Day" January 15,2008 to be accepted by Romer Reiter. C. Proclamation designating January 21-27,2008 as Purple Martin Week. To be accepted by William "Bill" Dietrich. D. Proclamation to recognize and congratulate Dan Summers, Collier County Emergency Services Director, on receiving the Presidential Citation from the International Association of Emergency Managers. To be accepted by Dan Summers. E. Proclamation for Jean Merritt Recognition Day to be accepted by Jean Merritt. 5. PRESENTATIONS Page 3 January 15, 2008 A. Presentation for the Waste Reduction Awards Program, the WRAP award, to recognize businesses and institutions for enhanced and innovative recycling programs to Naples Tomato. B. Presentation of awards received from the Florida Government Communicators Association. (Commissioner Coyle) C. Selection of Chairman and Vice Chairman. D. Presentation by the Affordable Housing Commission on the Impact Fee Deferral Program as directed by the Board of County Commissioners on 9/11/07. E. This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. Presentation by Paul Mattausch and Clarence Tears on the Phase III Water Restrictions. F. Contractor Presentation - Collier County Sheriff's Special Operations Building, Project 52002; Vanderbilt Bay Construction, Inc. 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS A. Public petition request by Jorge Trincado to discuss permitting of the Martial Arts Academy at Immokalee Road and Randall Boulevard. B. Public petition request by Frank Civale to discuss citation for guest house, carport and shed. C. Public petition request by Jim Dupre, Prime Homebuilders, to discuss The Reserve at The Falls of Porto fino, a Workforce Housing Project. D. Public petition request by Alan Farrior to discuss recovery of performance bond for final layer of asphalt at Laurel Lakes. E. Public petition request to discuss water surcharge for Crystal Lake Resort. F. Public petition request by Robert and Theresa Parent to discuss Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension. (Exhibits are available for review in the Office of the County Manager.) Page 4 January 15, 2008 Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 f).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-12129 James and Ruth Kalvin, represented by Antonio Faga, requesting after-the- fact square-footage and separation Variances for an existing guest house in the Estates Zoning District. The 2.52-acre property is located at 5801 Cedar Tree Lane, in Section 20, Township 49 South, Range 26 East of Collier County, Florida. 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDZ-2006-AR-10376 Radio Road Joint Venture, represented by Michael R. Fernandez of Planning Development Incorporated, is requesting a rezone from the Industrial (I) zoning district to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for the Lane Park CPUD to allow development of a maximum of 50,000 square feet of commercial uses. The subject property, consisting of 5.27 acres, is located at the northwest corner of Radio Road and Livingston Road, in Section 36, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Appointment of member to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee. B. Appointment of member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee. C. Appointment of members to the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc Committee. D. Appointment of members to the Collier County Productivity Committee. E. Appointment of members to the Development Services Advisory Committee. Page 5 January 15, 2008 F. Appointment of member to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee. G. Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee. H. Appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission. 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. Recommendation to Endorse Code Enforcement Board and Special Magistrate Rules and Regulations. (Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director) B. This item to be heard at 2:30 p.m. To provide the Board of County Commissioners with a complete summary of the stormwater issues in the Willow West neighborhood and to fully explain staff's recommended plan of action. (Gerry Kurtz, Transportation/Stormwater Management) C. This item to be heard no earlier than 4:00 p.m. A discussion by the Board of County Commissioners with representatives of agencies that might be affected by a possible change in the BCC Resolution to reflect an amendment to Florida Statutes regarding the use of All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) on certain unpaved roads in Collier County. (Bob Tipton, Transportation/Taffic Ops) D. Review the recently completed Vanderbilt Recreational Pier Feasibility Study and obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners on how to proceed. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director) E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopts a resolution recommending Prime Homebuilders, Inc., in a private-public partnership with Collier County, as an applicant for the "Representative Mike Davis Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program" (CWHIP) for the 2008 application cycle. (Marcy Krumbine, Housing and Human Services Director) F. This item to be heard at 3:30 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to staff to develop Delasol Page 6 January 15, 2008 Neighborhood Park. (Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director) 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT A. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Investigative Report by Outside Counsel, Lawrence A. Farese, Esq., of the firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P., to the Board of County Commissioners Regarding the Olde Cypress PUD. 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Santorini Villas at Olde Cypress. The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. 2) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Mustang Island (Lely Resort PUD), roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. 3) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Majors Phase One, (Lely Resort PUD), roadway and drainage improvements will be privately Page 7 January 15, 2008 maintained. 4) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Majors Phase Two, (Lely Resort PUD), roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. 5) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Majors Phase Three, (Lely Resort PUD), roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. 6) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Classics Plantation Estates Phase Two, (Lely Resort PUD). The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. 7) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility facility for St. John The Evangelist Catholic Church. 8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer utility facilities for Classic Plantation Estates, Phase 2B 9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer utility facilities for Mango Cay. 10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a second one-year extension of the required time frame for job creation for Lucy Hair Salon, an approved participant in the Fee Payment Assistance Program and the Job Creation Investment Program and specify this as the final time extension for creating the required jobs. 11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize payment of invoices to Wm. J. Varian Construction Company, Incorporated in the amount of $20,403 for work performed at the Development Services Center. 12) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve an impact fee reimbursement for Benderson Development Company, Incorporated and WR-l Associates, Limited totaling $354,434.84, due Page 8 January 15,2008 to the overpayment of Transportation Impact Fees. 13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached three-party agreement between the First Assembly of God of Naples Florida, Inc., MDG Fountain Lakes, LLC, and Collier County, Florida, agreeing to a 24-month temporary use permit for four temporary care units to be relocated to property owned by First Assembly within the First Assembly of God PUD. 14) 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 Saturnia Falls Plat One, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 15) 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 Millbrook at Fiddlers Creek 16) 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 ofWal-Mart at Artesia Pointe PUD. 17) 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 is a recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Ave Maria Unit 17. 18) 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 Brooks Village 19) Authorization to transfer .25 FTE from Fund 113 to Fund III to allow two 35-hour positions (.875 FTE) in Code Enforcement to be full-time 40-hour employees Page 9 January 15,2008 B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1) Recommendation to approve the grant of five Temporary Easements across approximately 155.082 acres of right of way along Oil Well Road and Camp Keais Road conveyed to Collier County pursuant to a Developer Contribution Agreement previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners (Fiscal Impact: None) 2) Recommendation to approve the purchase of one (I) para-transit vehicle through the 5310 grant that only require a 10% match through the County. ($8,928.70) 3) Recommendation to award bid #08-5018 Vanderbilt Drive Pedestrian Bridges for the purchase and installation of prefabricated pedestrian bridges crossing the Cocohatchee River and one of its tributaries on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive within the existing right-of-way to Thomas Marine Construction, Inc. in the amount of $607,790.00. (Project #600331). 4) Recommendation to award Bid #08-5014 Golden Gate Pedestrian Bridges for the purchase and installation of prefabricated pedestrian bridges crossing the Santa Barbara Canal on both sides of Golden Gate Parkway within the existing right-of-way to Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. in the amount of$389,576.20. 5) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve a budget amendment to move unspent General Fund dollars that rolled from fiscal year 2007 into fiscal year 2008 within the Transportation Disadvantaged Fund (427) to the Bridge Repair/Rehabilitation Program in the amount of $700,000. 6) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcels l30FEE, l3lFEE, l32FEE and l33FEE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church of Naples, Inc., et aI., Case No. 07-3228-CA (Oil Well Road Project No. 60044). (Fiscal Impact $54,767.50) 7) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel 207FEE, in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Joseph Noel, et aI., Case No. 07-3200-CA and a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel Page 10 J an uary 15, 2008 208FEE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Pablo M. Sardinas, et aI., Case No. 07-2824-CA (Oil Well Road Project No. 60044). (Fiscal Impact $399,700) 8) Recommendation to approve the extension of commitment deadlines in three Developer Contribution Agreements (DCAs), the Davis Blvd. Projects DCA recorded at O.R. Book 4187, Page 2189 for 150 days, Heritage Bay Commons DCA recorded at O.R. Book 4162, Page 2725 for 90 days and the Mystique DCA recorded at O.R. Book 4187, Page 23 10 for 90 days. 9) Recommendation to approve General Planning Contracts with AIM Engineering, Inc. and Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, Inc. (DRMP) for Contract #07-4198 for Fixed Term MPO General Planning Services. 10) Recommendation to approve Change Order No. I to Contract No. 07- 4161 to Haskins Inc. for the Cypress Way East and Ibis Way Crossing Stormwater Improvements, Project No. 510141, in the amount of $195,316. 11) Recommendation to award Bid #08-5015 Davis Blvd. Phase II (Airport Road to County Barn Road) M.S.T.D Roadway Grounds Maintenance Contract to Caribbean Lawn & Garden of SW Naples Fl, Inc. in the amount of $71 ,354.00 (Fund III Cost Centers 163841). 12) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the selection committees ranking of a Qualified Firm and award a Contract under RFP 08-5006 for Professional Consulting Services for the 1-75 and Everglades Boulevard Interchange Justification Report (UR), in the amount of$639,819.50 13) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit to evict Maureen Moran, Inc., its principals, affiliate entities or persons, or any combination thereof, from County owned premises identified in Lease Agreement dated November 4, 1997, including but not limited to, the pursuit of holdover rent, damages, and costs due and owing to Collier County under the Lease Agreement and as otherwise provided by law. Page 11 January 15, 2008 14) Recommendation to approve three (3) funding agreements with the South Florida Water Management District for a total amount of $1,500,000 providing assistance with construction of three (3) Stormwater Improvement Projects. 15) Recommendation to approve a Settlement Agreement and Release between Collier County and Magnum Construction Management Corp. d/b/a MCM Corp. MCM) to resolve all claims and disputes arising from Collier County Bid/Contract No. 04-3653 entered into with MCM to build the Golden Gate Grade Separated Overpass and for the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners to execute the agreement on behalf of the Board (Fiscal Impact $190,589.35). 16) Recommendation To Reject RFP No. 08-4199 For Construction Manager at Risk for Oil Well Road and authorize staff to re-solicit the project, Project # 60044. C. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1) Recommendation to Award Bid Number 07-4186 for the furnishing and delivery of potassium permanganate to Univar USA Incorporated in the estimated amount of $200,000. 2) Recommendation to Award Bid Number 08-5005 for the purchase of backflow prevention assemblies and associated materials to Ferguson Enterprises, Incorporated as the primary vendor and Mainline Supply Company as the secondary vendor in the estimated amount of $540,089.64. 3) Recommendation to reject the result of Bid No. 07-4193, attained by International Baler Corporation to Furnish and Install a Horizontal Baler, for Naples Airport Recycling Center Project Number 590031. 4) Recommendation to award RFQ #2007 -0920b Collier County seasonal and year-round business How to Recycle videos to The Naples Studio in the amount of $51 ,800. D. PUBLIC SERVICES Page 12 January 15,2008 1) Recommendation to approve Grant Agreement No. 07071 in the amount of $80,000 from the Florida Boating Improvement Program Grant Program to remove derelict vessels; and approve all necessary budget amendments. 2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Alexis DeJesus and Rebecca DeJesus (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Vista III at Heritage Bay, Unit 1503, North Naples. 3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Gilberto Sanchez and Aura Sanchez (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Vista III at Heritage Bay, Unit 1507, North Naples. 4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Frangile Blanc and Ginine Blanc (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 25, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Enrique Perez Santos and Maday Enriquez (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 22, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Edwin Santaella and Rafaela Delgado (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 9, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Michel Perez Perez and Alis Hernandez Pizat (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable Page 13 January 15,2008 housing unit located at Lot 30, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Karla Campos (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 12, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Irma Roman (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot II, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Patricia Saint Germain and Faubert Coriolan (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 126, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 11) Recommendation to approve a Florida Clean Vessel Act Grant Agreement in the amount of $31,316.00 for development of a Vessel Pump Out Station at Cocohatchee River Park and necessary Budget Amendments 12) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Maria Tomas Francisco (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 21, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Melchior Antoine and Marie Antoine Moliere (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 27, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 14) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Louise Novembre (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact Page 14 January 15, 2008 fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 10, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 15) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Felipe Aguila Lopez and Lidia Najarro Bernal (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 24, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 16) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Tehelyne Metellus (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 29, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 17) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jean Cramer (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Vista III at Heritage Bay, Unit 1606, North Naples. 18) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Lazaro Rua Jr. (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Vista III at Heritage Bay, Unit 1607, North Naples. 19) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Monique Diaz (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Vista III at Heritage Bay, Unit 1508, North Naples. 20) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Luis Garcia and Judith Parra (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Vista III at Heritage Bay, Unit 1506, North Naples. Page 15 January 15, 2008 21) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Kathy Hernandez (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Vista III at Heritage Bay, Unit 1605, North Naples. 22) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jacob Hamilton and Sarah Hamilton (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Vista III at Heritage Bay, Unit 1505, North Naples. 23) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Angela Yvette Wilder (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 4, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 24) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Latoya Rene Shipman (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 18, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 25) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Christine Excellent (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 20, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 26) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Joseph Previlus and Marie Previlus (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 12, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 27) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing additional program income in the amount of$126,766.75 for the State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) Program. Page 16 January 15, 2008 28) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes its Chairman to sign amended project work plan schedules for Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) Projects and amendments to the Scope of Work for the County wide Rehabilitation portion of the DRI Grant. 29) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of $4,938.20 to recognize additional revenue received in the Services for Seniors program from the Area Agency on Aging for the State of Florida Alzheimers Disease Initiative program. 30) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an agreement between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and Senior Friendship Centers, Inc. to provide interim nutrition services for the Housing and Human Services Department, Services for Seniors Program. 31) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Daniel Munoz and Rosalina T. Munoz (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 23, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 32) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Raul Mendoza Arroyo and Lidia Aguilar Mendoza (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 24, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 33) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of the attached Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program Grant for beach dune restoration in Barefoot Beach Preserve. 34) Present to the Board of County Commissioners a summary of the Impact Fee Deferral Agreements recommended for approval in FY08, including the total number of Agreements approved, the total dollar amount deferred and the balance remaining for additional deferrals in FY08. Page 17 January 15, 2008 35) Recommendation to award Bid No. 08-5021 Expendable Veterinary Supplies Equipment to multiple vendors on a line-by-line basis and declare certain manufacturers sole sources for veterinary pharmaceuticals, with an estimated annual expenditure of$80,000 36) Recommendation to approve the amended Barefoot Beach Preserve Park Land/Use Management Plan with the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida. 37) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign the agreements between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging of Southwest Florida and approve budget amendments to reflect actual grant award for nutrition services. E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1) Recommendation to approve and execute a Resolution authorizing the Commission Chairman to execute Deed Certificates for the sale of burial plots at Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery during the 2008 calendar year. 2) To obtain approval from the Board of County Commissioners for the Final Management Plan for the Otter Mound Preserve and for the Board to give direction to the County Manager, or his designee, for its implementation. 3) Recommendation to waive the formal competitive process and approve Paymetrics XiBuy software as a sole source solution to integrate purchasing card transactions into SAP. 4) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for the conveyance of GAC Land Trust Reserved Lands to the District School Board of Collier County, Florida for the purpose of School Facilities. 5) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts. 6) Recommendation to approve a Second Amendment to Lease Agreement with Jeanne L. Noe, as Trustee of the James R. Noe II Revocable Trust, for the continued use of the maintenance garage and Page 18 January 15,2008 parking space on Arnold A venue for the Sheriffs Office, at an annual rentalof$71,700. 7) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Norma G. Hitt for 1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $27,820. 8) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Roxana Migenes for 1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $27,820. 9) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Miguel A. Torrico and Greysi E. Toro for 2 parcels totaling 2.73 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $65,290. 10) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Robert E. Natsch III, Laura A. Natsch Lepper, Gregory C. Natsch, Patricia A. Natsch Eichholz, and Helen M. Natsch Markway for 1.59 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $38,170. F. COUNTY MANAGER 1) Recommendation to approve an Agreement between The Board of County Commissioners of Collier County and Zoll Medical Corporation for the purpose of conducting a retrospective analysis of cardiac arrest data originally collected for quality assurance purposes by Collier County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for the period October 1,2003 through September 30, 2007. 2) Recommendation to approve the submittal of the attached Emergency Management, Preparedness and Assistance (EMP A) Trust Fund Project Application to the Florida Department of Community Affairs in the amount of$95,796.00. 3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida convey a Deed of Conservation Easement to the South Florida Water Management District for EMS Station 73 to be located at 790 Logan Boulevard, at a cost not to exceed $86.50, Page 19 January 15, 2008 Project Number 551501. 4) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment reducing budget appropriations in the Clerk's Fund (011) consistent with the understanding of both the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of Courts that the Clerk is functioning as a Fee Officer in Fiscal Year 2008. G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency approve a monetary sponsorship of$5,000.00 to Bayshore Cultural Arts, Inc. for the 2008 Hearts In The Garden event from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Trust Fund (Fund 187) FY08 Marketing & Promotions budget for event set-up costs, rentals, security, entertainment, printing and advertising expenses only, and declare the sponsorship serves a valid public purpose 2) To approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement(s) between the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and a Grant Applicant(s) within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment area (3929 Bayshore Drive). ($1,275.22) 3) To approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement(s) between the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and a Grant Applicant(s) within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment area (2636 Bayview Drive). ($4,932.51 ) H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the United Arts Council Arts Forum Luncheon at the Von Liebig Arts Center, Naples; $15.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. Page 20 January 15,2008 2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the Naples Press Club Annual Holiday Meeting & Luncheon on Thursday, December 13,2007, at the Collier Athletic Club; $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 3) Commissioner Fiala requests board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the Kiwanis Club of Greater Collier's Luncheon on Wednesday, December 19,2007, at Carrabba's; $13.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the League of Women Voters 2007 December Luncheon on Monday, December 17,2007, at the Collier Athletic Club; $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the East Naples Kiwanis Annual Banquet on Thursday, October 4,2007 at the Grand Buffet; $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 6) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid purpose. Attended the ENCA November Luncheon on Thursday, November 15, 2007, at Carrabba's; $21.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 7) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the GalellalSunrise Academy Lunch Meeting on Tuesday, November 20, 2007, at the Port Royal Club; $25.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 8) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending the EDC VIP Breakfast meeting on Thursday, February 7, 2008, at The Naples Hilton in Naples, Florida. $20.00 to be paid from Page 21 January 15, 2008 Commissioner Halas' travel budget. 9) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement serving a valid public purpose. Attended the December 3, 2007 Bus Trip to Sarasota Sr. Friendship Center. $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. 10) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement serving a valid public purpose. Participated in the Christmas Around the World Festival and Lighted Parade Snow Gala on December 8, 2007. $5.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. 11) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement serving a valid public purpose. Attended the David E. Bryant Annual Christmas Celebration on December 13,2007. $5.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. 12) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement serving a valid public purpose. Attending as a Celebrity Auctioneer, the Foundation for the Developmentally Disabled 2008 Gala and Auction on Saturday, February 9, 2008. $125.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. 13) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for repair of wiring at cigarette lighter to correct GPS usage in private vehicle; $135.91 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 14) Commissioner Fiala request Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the Conservancy ofSW Florida: A Private Event on Sunday, January 13, 2008, at the Conservancy Nature Center; $25.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 15) Commissioner Fiala request Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the Kite Realty Luncheon on Wednesday, December 12,2007, at Kings Lake Square; $13.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 16) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the Page 22 January 15, 2008 Marco Island Chamber Installation of 2008 President Gary Elliott & Board Members Event on Sunday, January 13,2008 at the Island Country Club; $70.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 17) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the Coastguard Auxiliary Change of the Watch Ceremony on Thursday, January 3, 2008, at The Hideaway Beach Club; $50.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed. J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners designate the Sheriff as the Official Applicant and Program Point -of-Contact for a E9ll Grant Application, approve the Collier County Sheriffs Office E9l1 State Grant Program application when completed, accept the Grant when awarded, and upon an award approve applicable budget amendments. 2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of December I, 2007 through December 7, 2007 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of December 8, 2007 through December 14,2007 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 4) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of December 15,2007 through December 21,2007 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 5) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of December 22, 2007 through December 28, 2007 and for submission into the official records of the Board. Page 23 January 15, 2008 6) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the use of confiscated trust funds for drug abuse education and prevention. ($20,000) K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit, on behalf of the Collier County Board of Commissioners, against Daniel W. Snook and/or Mary Nicole Meister in County Court Small Claims in and for Collier County, Florida, to recover repair costs incurred in the approximate amount of$5,000.00. 2) Recommendation to approve the Statement ofInsured Clients Rights wherein the County is authorizing National Interstate Insurance to retain David Howland, Esq. to represent the County in the lawsuit St. John, et a!. v. Lyons Trans., et a!., Case No. 07-752CA. 3) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit, on behalf of the Collier County Board of Commissioners, against Edward Cafone, Jr., in County Court Small Claims in and for Collier County, Florida, to recover repair costs incurred in the approximate amount of $1 ,500.00. 4) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit, on behalf of the Collier County Board of Commissioners, against Joann Estelle Pino and/or Melanie Joanne Pino in the Twentieth Judicial County Court Small Claims, to recover repair costs incurred in the approximate amount of $1,500.00. 5) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit, on behalf of the Collier County Board of Commissioners, against Felipe Hernandez in the Twentieth Judicial County Small Claims in and for Collier County, Florida, to recover repair costs incurred in the approximate amount of $3,000.00. 6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the law firm of Henderson Franklin Starnes & Holt P A and 1. Terrence Porter, Esq. to represent former County employee Bernice Forester in the matter entitled Darling Elie, et a!. v. Collier County, et Page 24 January 15,2008 al.; Case No. 07-l463-CA. 7) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a Stipulated Final Judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms and conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement for the acquisition of Parcels 717R, 917, 718R and 918R in the lawsuit styled Collier County, Florida v. Duffield W. Matson, III, et aI., Case No. 05-1054-CA (South County Regional Water Treatment Well field Project #70892). (Fiscallmpact:$55,844.00) 8) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the amount of$115,000.00 for Parcels 143FEE and 143RDUE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Rupert Terry Dupree aka R. Terry Dupree, et aI., Case No. 07-3328-CA (Oil Well Road Project No. 60044). (Fiscal Impact $77,750.00) 9) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the amount of $85,000.00 for Parcel141FEE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Carlos Alvarez, et aI., Case No. 07-2882-CA (Oil Well Road Project No. 60044). (Fiscal Impact $58,650) 10) Recommendation to authorize an Offer of Judgment for Parcels 134 and 135 by Collier County to property owners, Ronen and Leeanne Graziani in the lawsuit styled CC v. Ronen Graziani, et aI., Case No. 06-0548-CA (Santa Barbara Boulevard Project No. 62081 )(Fiscal Impact: If accepted, $180,005). 11) Recommendation to authorize an Offer of Judgment for Parcel 136 by Collier County to property owner, Vilma Patel in the lawsuit styled CC v. Ronen Graziani, et aI., Case No. 06-0548-CA (Santa Barbara Boulevard Project No. 62081 )(Fiscal Impact: If accepted, $168,157). 12) Recommendation to approve settlement prior to trial in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v. B & G Underground Inc., Case No. 07- 1595-CC, in the Twentieth Judicial County in and for Collier County, Florida, in the amount of $11 ,000.00. 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS Page 25 January 15, 2008 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 by Commission members. SE-2007-AR-1249l, DeVoe Family Limited Partnership II, represented by Sandra Bottcher ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., is requesting a Scrivener's Error correction for an approved Parking Exemption (PE-2005-AR-l 0551) to revise the Conditions of Approval to provide a four-foot wall instead of a six-foot wall along the southern boundary of the property. The 0.23 acres subject propertys address is 1397 Trail Terrace Drive, which is located on the north side of Trail Terrace Drive, immediately west of its intersection with 14th Street North, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, of Collier County, Florida. B. 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 Petition A VROW- 2006-AR-l 0761, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the Countys and the Publics interest in two 20 by 30 right-of-way areas along Alachua Street being originally a part of Monroe Avenue right-of-way as shown on the Plat known as Newmarket Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Pages 104 & 105 of the Public Records Collier County, Florida being located within section 34, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County Florida being more specifically shown in Exhibit A. C. This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission Members. Should a hearing be held on this item. all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition A VPLA T- 2007-AR-12379, Lot 9, Hawksridge, Unit One, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the Countys and the Publics interest in a portion of the 10 foot wide drainage easement along the westerly line of Lot 9, Hawksridge, Unit One, a Page 26 January 15,2008 subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 18, Pages 67 and 68 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, situated in Section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, and being more particularly described in Exhibit A. D. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an Ordinance amending Appendix A of Ordinance No. 2001-13, as amended, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, by providing for an amendment to Ordinance No. 2007-57 to correct a scriveners error in the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Rate Schedule E. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. V A-2007-AR-12005, Eugene and Nancy Zilavy, represented by Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A., request a nine-foot rear yard setback Variance for a pool screen enclosure. The subject property is located at 480 Flamingo Avenue, Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Subdivision, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. 18. ADJOURN INOUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. Page 27 January 15,2008 January 15-16,2008 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the January 15,2008, Collier County Board of Commissioner meeting. We're going to begin this meeting as we do all meetings, with an invocation by Steven McGraw from the New Hope Ministries. Please stand. Whichever one, sir. PASTOR McGRAW: Thank you. Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we thank you that we live in Southwest Florida. More importantly, that we live in Collier County, one of the most beautiful counties in the world, Father. You've allowed us to live here and work here, to play here. And, Father, we just ask a special blessing upon this meeting right now, for the people that are here ready to present and to talk to the board -- the county commissioners, and for our county commissioners, Lord, that you would give them the wisdom to make the difficult decisions, to have a clarity to know which way to go and, Father, we thank you for them, each and every one of them. And, Father, we just give you all the praise, glory, and honor. In Jesus' name we pray, amen. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, would you lead us in the Pledge. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning. We're going to start today off with a short announcement by Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's with deep regret that I'd like to report that David Branson of Naples, Florida -- he was involved in the Pelican Bay Services Advisory Board -- passed away. Page 2 January 15-16,2008 David James Branson, a CPA, 73, died unexpectedly January 13, 2008. He's the son of the late Leo and Sandra Branson. He was born January 6, 1935, in Chicago, where he lived for 65 years before moving to Naples in 1999. And it's with deep regret that our condolences go out to his family. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Mudd, changes to today's agenda. Item #2A REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA- APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES MR. MUDD: Agenda changes, Board of County Commissioner's Meeting of January 15, 2008. First item, item 2F should read December 3,2007, rather than what's on the agenda, November 30,2007. It's a Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Mazur. And, again, it's a date change. That clarification's at staffs request. Next item is to add item 4 F, and this is a proclamation designating January 27, 2008, as the Holocaust Museum Southwest Florida Boxcar Dedication Day, to be accepted by Murray Hendel, and that item is added at Commissioner Coyle's request. The next item is to move item 16A2 to lOG and that's a recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Mustang Island, Lely Resort PUD. Roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. Item is being moved at Commissioner Fiala's request. The next item is to move item 16A3 to 10H, and that's a recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of the Majors, Phase 1, Lely Page 3 January 15-16,2008 Resort PUD, roadway and draining improvements. And, again, that will be privately maintained. That is also being asked to be moved at Commissioner Fiala's request. The next item is to move item 16A4 to 101 and that's a recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of the Majors Phase 2, Lely Resort PUD. Roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. That item is being asked to be moved at Commissioner Fiala's request. The next item is to move item 16A5 to lOJ. That's a recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of the Majors Phase 3, Lely Resort PUD. Roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. Again this item is being moved at Commissioner Fiala's request. The next item is item 16A12, and it should read, it's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve an impact fee reimbursement for Benderson Development Company, Inc., rather than incorporated, and WR-I rather than WR-1 Associates, Limited, totaling $354,434.84 due to the overpayment of transportation impact fees, and that clarification is at the petitioner's request. The next item is item 17 -- excuse me -- 16F4, and it should read, a recommendation to approve a budget amendment reducing budget appropriations in the clerk's fund, 001, consistent with the Clerk of Court's assertion that the clerk is functioning as a fee officer in fiscal year 2008. That clarification is at Commissioner Coyle's request. Next item is to withdraw item 16D30. That's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the chairman to sign an agreement between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Senior Friendship Centers, Inc., to provide interim nutrition services for the housing and human services Page 4 January 15-16,2008 department, service for seniors, and that item is being withdrawn at staffs request. That brings us to the time certain items for today. First time certain item is at 9:30, and that's a presentation by Paul Mattausch and Clarence Tears on the Phase 3 water restrictions. And I'm going to go out of order a little bit, but I'm going to do it in chronological order. The next item that is time concern is item 12A on today's agenda, that's to be heard at 11 a.m., that's an investigative report by outside counsel, Lawrence A. Farese, Esquire, of the firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi, LLP, to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the Olde Cypress PUD. The next item as a time certain is one o'clock, and that's when you do your zoning issues and you'll cover 7 A and 8A at that time. The next item that's time certain is item lOB, to be heard at 2:30 p.m., and that's to provide the Board of County Commissioners with a complete summary of the stormwater issues in the Willow West neighborhood and to fully explain staffs recommended plan of action. The next item in chronological order for time certain is item 1 OF, and that's to be heard at 3:30 p.m., and that's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to staff to develop the Delasol neighborhood park. And last but not least, item 10C will be heard no earlier than four p.m. today, and that's a discussion by the Board of County Commissioners with the representative agencies that might be affected by the possible change in the BCC's resolution to reflect an amendment to the Florida Statutes regarding the use of all-terrain vehicles, A TV s, on certain unpaved roads in Collier County. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Now we're going to go to the commissioners for the ex-parte disclosure on the consent and summary agenda, and we're going to start with Commissioner Henning. Page 5 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I have no ex parte communication on today's summary or consent agenda and I have no changes to today's agenda. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have some disclosures on item 17 -- 17 -- it says --I'm sorry -- 16A18, must be, I'm sorry, regarding Brooks Village. I have a disclosure there. We had meetings previously. Item 17 A, I've also had meetings; yes, I've also had meetings on that one, and they're in my file for all to see. And that's -- I'm sorry. That's the only disclosures I have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And I, myself, on 16A 14, I've had meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone calls; 16A15, no disclosures; 16A16, I've had meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone calls; 16A17, meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone calls; and 16 -- 16A18, meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone calls. On the summary agenda, 17 A, I've had meetings, correspondence, email. I guess I've been pretty busy. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And 17B I've had meetings, correspondence. And let's just see what else we've got here. 17C, no disclosures, and 17E, I have had emails. And anyone wishing to see my file, I have it available right here. Thank you. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no disclosures on the consent agenda, the only information or disclosures that I have is on 17E, and that is in regards to emails. Page 6 January 15-16,2008 That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have disclosures for the consent agenda, 16A14. I have received correspondence and emails concerning the Saturnia Falls project. On 16A16, which is the Artesia Point PUD, I have had meetings with Rich Yovanovich, David Caldwell, Jeff Burr, and Greg Urbancic, and I have had correspondence and emails for -- from people who had comments on that particular project. With respect to 16A18, which is the Brooks Village project, I have had meetings with Bruce Anderson, I have received correspondence and emails from other interested individuals, and those are in my file. With respect to the summary agenda, 17 A, I have had meetings with representatives of the petitioner for the DeVoe Family Limited Partnership project, and I have received emails. I have also met with Mr. Bob Picar and received emails from Mr. Picar. With respect to 17 A -- 17B, the New Market subdivision, I have received emails, and I have no other disclosures and I have no further changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. And with that, do I hear an approval oftoday's regular, consent, and summary, as so amended? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Halas and second by Commissioner Fiala for approval. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Page 7 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously. Page 8 AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Januarv 15. 2008 Item 2F should read: December 3, 2007 (rather than November 30, 2007) - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Mazur. (Staff's request.) Add on Item 4F: Proclamation designating January 27,2008 as The Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida Boxcar Dedication Day. To be accepted by Murray Hendel. (Commissioner Coyle's request.) Move Item 16A2 to 10G: Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Mustang Island (Lely Resort PUD), roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. (Commissioner Fiala's request) Move Item 16A3 to 10H: Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Majors Phase One, (Lely Resort PUD), roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. (Commissioner Fiala's request) Move Item 16A4 to 101: Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Majors Phase Two, (Lely Resort PUD), roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. (Commissioner Fiala's request) Move Item 16A5 to 1 OJ: Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Majors Phase Three, (Lely Resort PUD), roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. (Commissioner Fiala's request) Item 16A12 should read: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve an impact fee reimbursement for Benderson Development Company, Inc., (rather than Incorporated) and WR-I (rather than WR-1) Associates, Ltd. totaling $354,434.84, due to the overpayment of Transportation Impact Fees. (Petitioner's request.) Item 16F4 should read: Recommendation to approve a budget amendment reducing budget appropriations in the Clerk's Fund (001) consistent with the Clerk of Courts assertion that the Clerk is functioning as a Fee Officer in Fiscal Year 2008. (Commissioner Coyle's request.) Withdraw Item 16D30: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an agreement between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and Senior Friendship Centers, Inc. to provide interim nutrition services for the Housing and Human Services Department, Services for Seniors. (Staff's request.) Time Certain Items: Item 5E to be heard at 9:30 a.m.: Presentation by Paul Mattausch and Clarence Tears on the Phase III Water Restrictions. Item 10B to be heard at 2:30 p.m.: To provide the Board of County Commissioners with a complete summary of the stormwater issues in the Willow West Neighborhood and to fully explain staff's recommended plan of action. Item 10C to be heard no earlier than 4:00 p.m. A discussion by the Board of County Commissioners with representatives of agencies that might be affected by a possible change in the BCC Resolution to reflect an amendment to Florida Statutes regarding the use of All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) on certain unpaved roads in Collier County. Item 1 OF to be heard at 3:30 p.m.: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to staff to develop Delasol Neighborhood Park. Item 12A to be heard at 11:00 a.m.: Investigative report by outside counsel, Lawrence A. Farese, Esq., of the firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P., to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the Olde Cypress PUD. January 15-16,2008 Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F, #2G, #2H, #21, #2J, #2K, #2L and #2M MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 20, 2007 - V AB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PELLETIER; NOVEMBER 27, 2007 BCC/REGULAR MEETING; NOVEMBER 29,2007 - V AB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WATSON; NOVEMBER 30,2007 - V AB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WATSON; DECEMBER 3,2007 - V AB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MAZUR; DECEMBER 3, 2007 - V AB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PELLETIER; DECEMBER 4, 2007 BCC/GMP MEETING; DECEMBER 5, 2007 - V AB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WATSON; DECEMBER II, 2007 BCC/REGULAR MEETING; DECEMBER 12, 2007 BCC/REGULAR MEETING- CONTINUATION OF DECEMBER 11,2007 MEETING; DECEMBER 17,2007 - V AB REGULAR MEETING; DECEMBER 17, 2007 - V AB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CUNNINGHAM - APPROVED AS PRESENTED Okay. Now, do I hear approval of the November 20,2007, Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pelletier. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Pelletier; November 27,2007, BCC regular meeting; November 29, Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Watson; November 30,2007, Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Watson; November 30th-- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's a correction. That was December 3rd, and I read that into the change sheet. Page 9 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. MUDD: December 3rd. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then I stand corrected on that. And that would be for which one, sir? MR. MUDD: The Value Adjustment Board Magistrate Mazur. That's F, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Mazur. And also adding to that December 3, 2007, Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Pelletier; December 4, BCC/GMP Meeting; December 5 Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Watson; December 11 th, BCC Regular Meeting; December 12, BCC Regular Meeting Continuation of December 11th Meeting; December 17th Value Adjustment Board Regular Meeting; and December 17th Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Cunningham. Do I hear a motion to that -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Fiala. 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 unanimously. Page 10 January 15-16,2008 Service awards, Mr. Mudd. We don't have one. MR. MUDD: We have no service awards. Item #4A PROCLAMA nON FOR "EMPOWERING POSITIVE CHANGE" ACCEPTED BY ANTHONY DENSON, PRESIDENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BRANCH OF THE NAACP; RHONDA CUMMINGS, CO-CHAIR OF THE MLK DAY PARADE COMMITTEE; AND DIANA PERRYMAN, CO-CHAIR OF THE MLK PARADE COMMITTEE - ADOPTED That brings us to proclamations, and the first is a proclamation for empowering positive change. To be accepted by Anthony Denson, president of the Collier County branch of the NAACP; Rhonda Cummings, the co-chair of the Martin Luther King Day Parade Committee; and Dianna Perryman, co-chair of the Martin Luther King Parade Committee. Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please come forward. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Please come forth. I feel very honored to read this proclamation on behalf of Martin Luther King. Whereas, on the steps of Lincoln Memorial, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke passionately of his dream of an America where all citizens would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin, where all Americans would enjoy the riches of freedom and security and justice, where the doors of opportunity would be open for all; and, Whereas, the celebration of Dr. King's birthday is intended as a time for all Americans to reaffirm their commitment to the basic principles that underlie our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, equality and justice for all; Page 11 January 15-16,2008 Whereas, on January 21, 2008, the people of Collier County will remember Dr. King's dream and renew our commitment to bringing forth positive change throughout our nation; and, Whereas, the Collier County Board of the NAACP will help to empower positive change in Collier County by presenting the 11 th annual Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Parade in celebration, to be held in the City of Naples on January 21,2008. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January 21, 2008, be designated as a Day of Empowering Positive Change. Done and ordered this 15th day ofJanuary, 2008, Board of County Commissioners, Jim Coletta, Chair. Chairman, I move that we approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Halas for approval and a second by Commissioner Fiala. 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 unanimously, of course. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nice to see you again. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Be seeing you at the parade. Page 12 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take a moment for a group photo. Fine. And whichever podium is suitable for you, whichever one. MR. DENSON: Good morning. Good morning. Can you hear me okay? Okay. I'd like to thank the Board of County Commissioners for this proclamation and the people and citizens of Collier County. I would first like to introduce Rhonda Cummings, who heads up the MLK parade, and I'd like to say thanks for Rhonda, thank God for her, and the way she's moved forward this parade, and helping her to a great extent is our Ms. Dianna Perryman who also contributes quite a bit to the branch itself. And our parade is the 21st starting at 11 o'clock, and you're all invited to come out and celebrate with us. It's a day of fun, peace, and we'll sit in Cambier Park and we'll listen to music, eat some good food and enjoy the entertainment provided by our local high school bands and citizens, our churches and our different organizations that contribute to the parade each and every year. So on behalf of NAACP, I would like to thank the Board of County Commissioners for this proclamation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank, sir. (Applause.) Item #4 B PROCLAMATION FOR "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS FIGHTING THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM DAY" JANUARY 15,2008 ACCEPTED BY HOMER HEL TER - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is a proclamation to Support Our Troops Fighting in the Global War on Terrorism Day January 15, 2008, to be accepted by Homer Helter. Mr. Page 13 January 15-16, 2008 Helter? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good morning, Homer. MR. HEL TER: Good morning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I like this tie. Take a look at that tie. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whereas, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, American and allied forces began conducting military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in support of the global war on terrorism; and, Whereas, more than one million troops have been deployed to the Middle East since the invasion began. Nearly 210,000 American forces continue to rotate in and out of the Middle East, and countless will be redeployed for a second or third tour; and, Whereas, local businessman, Homer Helter, recognized the hardships troops faced while deployed to the Middle East and ordered a care package initiative in an effort to show his support and to provide them with items from home; and, Whereas, since 2004, Homer Helter, local business owners, and concerned Collier County residents have donated more than 12,000 pounds of goods ranging from candy to clothing, and $20,000 worth of prepaid calling cards to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and will soon distribute more than 10,000 Beanie Babies to Iraqi children; and, Whereas, Homer Helter has personally donated more than $10,000 toward the cost of shipping the care packages overseas; and, Whereas, in addition to his role as a devoted veteran supporter he has dedicated himself to improving the community through charitable work with the Marine Corps League of Naples and is an active member on many local boards, including the Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida; and, Whereas, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners would like to express its appreciation to Mr. Helter and all Collier Page 14 January 15-16,2008 County residents who support our veterans and we join them in wishing our troops a safe return home. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January the 15th, 2008, be designated as Support Our Troops Fighting the Global War on Terrorism Day. Done and ordered this 15th day of January, 2008, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Jim Coletta, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas for approval. 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: And the ayes have it unanimously. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much for your good work. MR. HEL TER: Thank you so much. MR. OCHS: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Nice to see you again. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Want to get a picture? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Look at your troops back there. MR. HELTER: Oh, yeah. That's my guys. Page 15 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: We ought to invite them all up. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to have -- you don't want to say a couple words? MR. HEL TER: Oh, I can, but I don't -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'd love to hear from you. Would you step up to the podium. MR. HEL TER: All right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just for everybody to see, could we have all the guys in support stand up again? It was really . . ImpreSSIve. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll tell you what, come on up front. Come on up front. Come on, gentlemen. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll get another picture. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to have another picture taken, too. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Homer, we're going to put you right in the middle. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for being here today. MR. HEL TER: I don't know if -- I really have a rough time with this type of thing and me getting an award. It usually doesn't happen. Usually I'm getting beat up about something. But I could tell you without -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We understand that. MR. HEL TER: -- without the people of Collier County -- you can't believe what we get. You know, we talked about, several months ago, about how we could win this war in Iraq, and we were thinking about, how can we build a couple hundred Dairy Queens or something where both sides would like it, you know. And then we got on this Beanie baby thing. We thought, boy, I wonder if we could get a thousand Beanie babies to send to the kids. Page 16 January 15-16,2008 And we contacted the military. Matter of fact, they have three people that are going to handle this project over there, a colonel and a couple other officers. We even know their names. And we started out with a thousand, then it was 2,000. And I think we're up to about -- over 11,000 now, Beanie babies, that's going to go the first of February. And I checked with Cody, we did about $35,000 in phone cards. They love phone cards. And, hey, we're going to keep doing this until they come home. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #4C PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 21-27,2008 AS PURPLE MARTIN WEEK - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is a proclamation designating January 21st through the 27th, 2008, as Purple Martin Week. To be accepted by William "Bill" Dietrich. Mr. Dietrich? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is Mr. Dietrich in the audience? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I would suggest that you read the proclamation and we'll get it to him. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Thank you. This proclamation: Whereas, in a very short time, thousands of our very beautiful feathered friends, the Purple Martins, will return from their winter home in Brazil; and, Whereas, these birds will be searching for suitable housing to enable them to nest and rear their young; and, Page 17 January 15-16,2008 Whereas, the Florida legislature has designated Collier County the Purple Martin Capital of Florida; and, Whereas, the Purple Martin Society of Collier County is desirous of urging the public to erect proper housing for these very valuable winged creatures by placing said houses on their property; and, Whereas, during the period of January 21 st through the 27th, 2008, the Purple Martin Society of Collier County will endeavor to alert the public to how valuable these birds are in helping to diminish the insect and the mosquito population; and, Whereas, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of January 21st to the 27th, 2008, be designated as Purple Martin Week in Collier County and urge all citizens to join with the Purple Martin Society of Collier County to show their concern for these valuable and friendly winged creatures and learn to protect and preserve them. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January 21st through the 27th, 2008, be designated as Purple Martin Week. Done and ordered this 15th day ofJanuary, 2008, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James Coletta, Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, I move to approve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Henning for approval. 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. Page 18 January 15-16, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously. Thank you. Item #4 D PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING AND CONGRATULATING DAN SUMMERS, COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DIRECTOR ON RECEIVING THE PRESIDENTIAL CITATION FROM THE INTERN A TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGERS: ACCEPTED BY DAN SUMMERS - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is to recognize and congratulate Dan Summers, the Collier County Emergency Services director, on receiving the presidential citation from the International Association of Emergency Managers. To be accepted by Dan Summers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's -- Commissioners, it's another privilege to read a proclamation recognizing one of our employees that far exceeded his duties, his or her duty. Whereas, Collier County Bureau of Emergency Management, Dan Summers, earned the presidential citation from the International Association of Emergency Management for his outstanding contributions in the field of emergency management; and, Whereas, since 2003 Dan has been responsible for providing direction and administrative guidance to Collier County Emergency Medical Service, Collier County MedFlight Operation, Office of Medical Examiner, the Emergency Management, Ochopee Fire and Rescue Control District, and Isles of Capri Fire District; and, Page 19 January 15-16, 2008 Whereas, Dan has implemented numerous programs for the improvement of emergency management professionalism, including DRUs, Cablevision audio interpreted -- or interpreted programs, increasing training for -- 600-plus personnel in disaster response, and his participation and coordination of the new $56 million state-of-the-art emergency services center, to name a few; and, Dan -- Whereas, Dan has closely -- and is highly involved in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, through his membership and commitments (sic) in teams and facilities (sic), faculty and members; and, Whereas, the presidential citation recognize individuals like Dan who have successfully worked in the national and international level to improve emergency management programs or homeland security through resolution, legislation, policies, and public awareness. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners for Collier County to recognize and congratulate Dan Summers for receiving this high honor of being invaluable to the community of Southwest Florida. Done in this order, 15th day of January, 2008. Signed by our chairman. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we move this proclamation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala for approval. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 20 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0, of course. (Applause.) MR. SUMMERS: You would think I would know that routine. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Well, congratulations. Item #4E PROCLAMATION FOR JEAN MERRITT RECOGNITION DA Y; ACCEPTED BY JEAN MERRITT - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is for Jean Merritt Recognition Day. To be accepted by Jean Merritt. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hi, Jean. COMMISSIONER FIALA: She always looks stunning, doesn't she? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Doesn't she, though? Whereas, it is hereby noted that Jean Merritt is retiring from the staff of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners after 12 years of dedicated, faithful service; and, Whereas, it is duly noted that during her tenure with the Board of County Commissioners and more specifically with the Human Resource Department within the Administrative Services Division, Jean faithfully and honorably served the employees and citizens of Collier County. She also served the county well as Franchise Administrator Coordinator and Director of Public Information Office, now known as Communications and Customer Relations, before moving to Director of Human Resources; and, Whereas, it is reported that on a daily basis she worked diligently Page 21 January 15-16,2008 and enthusiastically displaying a can-do and move-forward attitude to lead the people who reported to her to the next level of growth and efficiency; and, Whereas, having vast experience with public speaking, on-camera television work and teaching advanced placement English to high school students, Jean actually created the initial PIO department and became very involved in the broadcasting of public meetings, pushing to get the county their own station and become more involved with the material being offered on this channel. She was a high pioneer in expanding coverage of the Board of Collier County Commissioner's Meetings, expanding information given to the public on a show entitled "Collier 2000" that gave highlights of the board meetings and updates on ongoing issues and public events around the county. Citizens' inquiries and requests for clarification of County's procedures and activities and so on were also responded to through this program; and, Whereas, Jean has given many hours over and above her normal workday to find solutions to employees' issues and has kept a positive attitude through it all. She initiated the new neo-govemment online recruiting program that allowed citizens interested in working for the county to electronically submit their applications for several jobs at a time as well as allowing employees to apply for internal promotions and/or job changes and led a team of very dedicated professionals through several successful initiatives to enhance employees' retention and employee recognition programs; and, Whereas, given her laudable contributions to the well-being of the employees and citizens of Collier County, it is fitting that we recognize Jean Merritt for her dedication and faithful service to the Board of Collier County Commissioners and the citizens of Collier County from March 18, 1996, to January 18,2008. Page 22 January 15-16,2008 And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that January 15, 2008, be designated as Jean Merritt Recognition Day. Done and ordered this day, the 15th day ofJanuary, 2008. Signed by myself, James Coletta, chairman. And I make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. A motion for approval by myself, Commissioner Coletta, and a second by Commissioner Fiala. 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. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for your dedicated service. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jean, turn around for just a minute. Jean, see how they honor you? We all love you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What a surprise. I wish you well. MS. MERRITT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sure we'll be talking again. MR.OCHS: Take care. Page 23 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Jean, I need you to hold this when we take your picture. I think you know how it goes. You wrote the script. Did you want to share any words of wisdom with us? MS. MERRITT: No, thank you. (Applause.) Item #4 F PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 27, 2008 AS THE HOLOCAUST MUSEUM OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA BOXCAR DEDICATION DAY; ACCEPTED BY MURRAY HENDEL- ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next proclamation is designating January 27, 2008, as the Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida Boxcar Dedication Day. To be accepted by Murray Hendel. This item was added at Commissioner Coyle's request. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Murray, would you please step forward. Or we're going to have lots of people stepping forward. Whereas, historically intolerance has opened the doors to the continued practice of genocide, resulting in the imprisonment and/or death of many millions of innocent men, women, and children; and, Whereas, the Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida and its supporters have taken a big step towards helping educate our middle- and high-school students about the prevalence of genocide and solutions to help prevent and stop such atrocities; and, Whereas, with the dedication of an authentic World War II Boxcar which has been restored and will be used as a mobile educational tool to teach our youth about the Holocaust and past and present genocides around the world; and, Whereas, on January the 27th, 2008, the Holocaust Museum of Page 24 January 15-16,2008 Southwest Florida and the Jack Nortman family dedicate this Boxcar as part ofInternational Holocaust Remembrance Day. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners of Collier County Florida that January the 27th, 2008, be designated as the Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida Boxcar Dedication Day. Done and ordered this 15th day of January, 2008, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James Coletta, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala. 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. Thank you. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all you're doing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Photo opportunity. MR. HENDEL: Commissioners, thank you very much for this high honor. On behalf of the Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida, we thank you for this proclamation. We invite you all to come to our event on January 27th, at which time we will unveil our boxcar. Page 25 January 15-16,2008 I would like to introduce a few people. Homer Helter, as you all know. He's a member of board of county directors. Homer? And we have Peter Thomas here, who's a member of our advisory board; the famous Peter Thomas. We're very pleased to have him. And our next president, or the president that is succeeding Jack and I, Bob Connors. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #5E PRESENTATION BY PAUL MATTAUSCH AND CLARENCE TEARS ON THE PHASE III WATER RESTRICTIONS- PRESENTED MR. MUDD: Commissioners, brings us to our 9:30 time certain, and that is an item -- a presentation by Paul Mattausch and Clarence Tears on the Phase 3 water restrictions. MR. MATT AUSCH: Thank you, Commissioners. Good morning. For the record, Paul Mattausch, Director of the Water Department. I appreciate the opportunity to come to you this morning and talk about Phase 3 Restrictions of water use. I also have with us this morning Clarence Tears, the Director of the Big Cypress Basin, and Clarence is going to co-present with me this morning. I'd like to just briefly outline -- I want to talk about the Phase 3 schedule, I want to talk a little bit about education and outreach, and I want to talk about the enforcement of the irrigation restrictions. On December 13th, the South Florida Water Management Page 26 January 15-16,2008 District passed an executive order implementing and -- declaring an extreme water shortage and implementing certain water restrictions on outdoor use, including irrigation, and the reason for that is to conserve our regional water supplies, and it limits irrigation to one day per week for all water sources except for 100 percent reclaimed water, and that is effective today, January 15th. And this is an eye chart. I apologize for that. But what I tried to do -- and I will make sure that we pass this out. We have distributed this internally. But what I tried to do was put everything from about a 50-page executive order that really applied to Collier County on one page so that we could distribute this to our staff that is answering phones on a daily basis. Most of the -- most of the restrictions, most of the explanation is on this sheet. But I want to go to this modified Phase 3 irrigation schedule, and this is for properties less than five irrigated acres in size. And this is primarily what affects most of our properties in Collier County. Residential properties, especially irrigation, again, limited to one day per week. Irrigation is permitted only in one or the other of two different watering windows because of certain variances that Southwest Florida Water Management District had received with previous Phase 2 restrictions. They gave us two windows to water, and that's from four a.m. to eight a.m. in the morning or -- and I want to stress that or -- four p.m. to eight p.m. in the afternoon, and it's based on addresses. And this has been published in the newspaper. We're getting it out in every media outlet that we can. We've gotten a lot of cooperation, but it's based on address. Again, there is no watering allowed on Tuesday or Friday, so nobody should be irrigating on Tuesday or Friday, and it's based on addresses. Properties greater than five irrigated acres in size, they have a Page 27 January 15-16,2008 little wider window. They have an eight-hour window to irrigate either in the morning, from midnight to eight a.m., or from four p.m. to midnight in the evening. And, again, no allowable irrigation on Thursday or Friday. Weare, as I mentioned, using every avenue that we can. And since the governing board passed this on December 13th, I've seen, I think, everybody in Collier County has seen this on the television or in some manner in the newspaper, that irrigation restrictions are going to change and what they are. We're -- we're also going to distribute through our utility bills and in public meetings and forums. Commissioner Halas, I'm with one of your groups tomorrow morning -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. MR. MATTAUSCH: -- and so we'll talk about this. And we've been doing this ever since December 13th when the board passed Phase 3 restrictions, and on websites. We -- we're going to allow -- and this is at the recommendation of the South Florida Water Management District -- a period of notice. And, again, if people are not aware of this by this time, I would be extremely surprised. But we are going to allow a period of notice from today through January 31 st, and we are going to be using public utilities division personnel, including our ordinance enforcement personnel, our meter reading personnel, water distribution and wastewater collection. And they -- they will be hanging on doors -- where they see violations, they will be hanging a Notice of Violation. After that, beginning February 1 st, we will begin issuing citations to enforce the irrigation restrictions, and we will be using public utilities division ordinance enforcement personnel, and -- and combination of code enforcement and the sheriffs office and South Florida Water Management District. Again, we would rather not issue citations. We would rather have Page 28 January 15-16,2008 people comply with the restrictions because it's the right thing to do. It makes sense for us to conserve our water resources in Collier County, and in this -- in this extreme drought, it really is the appropriate thing to do. And I would like to turn this over after -- after Clarence's presentation, I would like to give you the opportunity to ask questions, but I'd like to turn this over to Clarence Tears for his presentation. And if you'll give me just a moment to get this up, I will. MR. TEARS: Good morning, Commissioners. What I'd like to do is just go over quickly why are we -- why are we in Phase 3 water restrictions. And 70 percent of our annual rainfall is during the summer, and statewide average is about 52 inches per year. This is a U.S. drought monitor. We're in a severe drought. The projections are, it will continue because ofthe -- I think we're in a La Nina. It's -- typically we're dryer than normal, so we have some major concerns that this drought will continue. Based on data, this is probably the worst two-year period on record based on all the data that we have available. Lake Trafford, as you can see, that little spike, the blue spike is actually in 199 -- or 2005 when we had the major rain event out in the Estates. Then -- or 2006. Then you can see as we started going into the drought, the stages of the lake, and currently we're way below historical levels. And adjacent you can see some of the canals, how dry they are. This shows the cumulative total for 2007, and the line actually shows the deficit. And basically, you know, there's a lot of rainfall missing throughout 2007, roughly about 17 inches below normal. In a two-year period, we're talking in excess of 25 inches below normal. Everyone uses the same water. Even out in the Estates when you have a well. Basically our water supply is rain driven, so the majority of the users get their water from either the surface or the surficial Page 29 January 15-16,2008 aquifer, which is made up of the Tamiami Aquifer, and that's the groundwater. And basically we're all using the same water. That's why we're focusing on landscape irrigation, because roughly 60 to 70 percent of the irrigation in our community is for landscaping, and that's our main focus is reduce the irrigation needs on landscaping to protect the resource. This shows just average residential use. And here, you know, based on district averages, it's about 58 percent, but locally it's a little bit higher. We use a lot more water locally for irrigation of our landscaping. This just shows the different phases. Phase one is moderate, Phase 2, severe, Phase 3 is extreme. I just hope it starts raining in the near future and we don't get to Phase 4. But whatever you can do to, you know, support me on making it rain, you know, that's what we need. It's just a rain-driven system. We're doing fine. You know, with these conservation efforts, with these restrictions, we'll get through it. And the main goal is to protect the resource. If you look at the local utilities, we went to Phase 2 restrictions way back in April. And if you look at the groundwater levels around the local utilities, they're almost normal, so that means the phase restrictions and the approach we're taking is really working. As stated -- I won't go over this again, but it's based on your address. The last number in your address gives you the flexibility when you can water. And the reason we went to five days of watering is to support the local utilities. They were concerned the storage tanks that they had, they couldn't provide the resource to meet the potable demands for irrigation. So we listened to local utilities, and that's why we're allowing a five-day period throughout the week, one day a week watering, is to support our local utilities in the area. Another concern was people were concerned about washing their Page 30 January 15-16,2008 cars. Now you're allowed to wash your car any day of the week instead of on a specified day. In addition, all we're asking is to try to wash your car on a pervious surface. So if you have a brown spot on your grass, you know, wash your car there, you know. That way, you know, we get the water back into the ground and hopefully it will make your grass turn green. And make sure anytime you do wash your car, use a shutoff nozzle. That's real important. As we stated, reuse is 100 percent, is not under the restrictions; however, you'll hear in a little bit, you know, we have our challenges in Collier County, there's only so much reuse available. But that's a source that the county has moved towards. It's a nonrestrictive source of water, and all your efforts as a community and county have -- are really paying off alternative sources. The deeper aquifers you're using to meet the potable demand, reuse water. Currently the county is looking at storing reuse water during the wet season to meet some of our reuse needs in the dry season. I commend, you know, the county for their efforts, and I'm proud to be a citizen of this community because we are in the forefront. Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 is basically -- all we're trying to do is reduce the consumptive use by percentages. In Phase 3 we're trying to reduce our usage by 45 percent. As you know, local fines, you know, we're asking, you know, the county to support us. There's a grace period trying to give, you know, the homeowners a warning. And what's really important is education. We've done everything possible to get the word out to the community that this is severe. We've been working with every media outlet possible to get the word out, and we truly appreciate your support in this effort, and your staff has just been great. They've been great to work with, the enthusiasm and the support that we get from them is truly appreciated. One thing is, just take a look at your automatic systems. You know, rain censors are important. You know, check them. Sometimes Page 31 January 15-16,2008 they need to be replaced after 10 or 20 years, and just make sure they work. Once we do get into normal raining cycle, what's really irritating to me is we'll get a two-, three-inch rain, and you'll see somebody's yard sprinkler going off. You know, there's no reason to water, you know, when we get a good rain. These are some of the things just to drought proof your lawn. You know, basically, you know, raise your lawn mower, try to keep your blades of grass a little higher, roughly about three inches. It helps. Mulch around your landscaping. It keeps the moisture in. Reduce the turf area. And what we've been pushing all along is xeriscape planting, drought tolerant planting. Use native plants. There are some beautiful plants available that, you know, they do fine in droughts. And it just -- you know, try to plant smart. This is -- you know, repair leaky faucets, turn off the faucet when you're brushing your teeth. It, you know, saves roughly about 2,000 gallons a year. Just simple things we can do to save water as a community . There's also a water savings incentive program that we offer up to $50,000 trying to conserve water, and it's opened up to the community, local governments. And, you know, I just want to get the word out there. Take advantage of this. If you have any great ideas. Naples Women's Club presentation, Florida Gulf Coast University, Panther Posse's been helping in outreach of water conservation. There's a great opportunity to get some funding to support the local conservation efforts. We also have a 1-800 number. It's 1-800-662-8876. It's a hot line to answer any questions that the public may have. And also they can check our web site, savewaterFlorida.com. And basically it's a partnership, and everything's partnership, and it's working together. You know, we've worked together many issues, Page 32 January 15-16, 2008 and this is just one more issue that confronts us as a community, and I continue and appreciate your support and effort in supporting us to support you. Thank you. MR. MATT AUSCH: Either Clarence or I are available to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There is questions. We're going to start with Commissioner Fiala, go to Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wanted to mention -- I know you have touched on it slightly, the importance, especially in this time of year, of using that reclaimed water. It's been stressed to us, and that's important, even on Tuesdays is what I've been told. And for the general public, that reclaimed water, with so many people here in town using the showers and flushing the toilets, we've got to use that water getting it back into the ground so it can seep down and recharge our aquifers. So it's terribly important to use that water. And there are medians -- a lot of people complain about the water on the medians, but they're watered with that reclaimed water, and it's essential that they're watered so that that water gets back down into our aquifers. As well as, there are certain communities, certain developments who have contracts, and they're required to use that water. Some government facilities, certain golf courses, and parks. I just wanted you to know that there's more to the story, and you have to learn that there are people that must use that water. Secondly, something that I hear all the time -- and I just want to stress how -- I'm a great admirer of our water department, because when we took office -- when Jim, Tom, and I took office -- we had seeping water tanks out there and we had a -- we had a system that was in dire need of upgrading. It's now, in my opinion -- in my opinion it's a superior water system as far as the entire State of Florida goes. And part of that Page 33 January 15-16,2008 system is, we have reverse osmosis and desalinization. I can't tell you how many people say, why don't you have reverse osmosis? We do. We have two plants. So I just want to say with pride how good our water department has been working for us. And if we all work with that water department by saving our potable water and using the reclaimed water together as a community, we're going to get through this drought. Thank you. MR. MATT AUSCH: Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate your comments. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have two questions. I think the first question has been partially answered. Clarence brought up the fact that the levels of groundwater seem to have stabilized. And my question is then, I would assume that the wells that service the -- some of the population here in Collier County who have private wells, they should have no problem; is that what we're saying? MR. TEARS: Well, the majority of the wells that are the deeper wells in the Estates and newer homes shouldn't have a problem if they're 60 to 80 feet in depth. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. TEARS: The concern would be that the residents that-- you know, house is possibly 40 years old that have a very shallow well, smaller pipes, we'll have to see, you know, how we proceed through this drought if it continues, if the groundwater levels drop. But at this point in time, I think the measures that we've taken, we should be able to protect the majority of the wells. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other question is, that you touched on, was the censor that measures the rainfall. Has South Florida Water Management District looked at the apparatus that you Page 34 January 15-16,2008 place in your lawn and basically it measures the moisture content, and that alone will conserve a lot of water? I believe University of Florida's been doing some research on that. MR. TEARS: There are other methods of measuring soil contents that could be hooked up to your systems. It's just -- the rain censor was probably one of the easiest things to implement. And it actually, through state legislation, it was a requirement on newer homes. I think it was after -- don't hold me to the date. 199-- MR. MATTAUSCH: 2001. MR. TEARS: I think it was earlier than that. I think it was in early '90s that it was -- it became state law that -- the requirement to add that to new homes. But you're right, theres other methods. Some of your high-tech golf courses use -- you know, use soil measurement devices. But it is out there. It's just the cost. And what we find is these rain censors provide the function. You know, when you get a certain amount of rain, they get soaked and they actually turn off your system. But they do have to be checked. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I have one other question that popped into my mind -- I'm sorry, Chairman -- that is, with this Phase 3, the people can realize that there may be also a cost involved in this Phase 3 as far as the water bill goes? MR. WIDES: Commissioners, good morning. For the record, Tom Wides, the Operations Director for Public Utilities. Commissioner, as you stated, there is a financial impact to the homeowner under certain situations. First off, as you'll remember back in May of2007, we approached the board to reaffirm the surcharges at Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. At Phase 2, which is what we've been in up until this point in time, there is a 15 percent surcharge for water usage in excess of the second rate block, which is anything greater than 10,000 gallons. Under Phase 3, that 15 percent for that third block, greater than Page 35 January 15-16,2008 10,000 gallons for residential homeowners, will move to a 30 percent -- 30 percent surcharge rather than 15. That -- to answer your question. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Paul, will you tell us what percentage of total Collier County government is supplied through the reverse osmosis process? MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes, Commissioner. I do have a slide. You knew I would, didn't you? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You always do. MR. MATT AUSCH: In fiscal year 2007, our average day demand for the system was 40.4 million gallons a day. That included 13.7 million gallons a day from freshwater sources, 12.6 million gallons a day from brackish water sources, and 14.1 million gallons a day from reclaimed water, totaling 40 million gallons a day. That looks like this, okay. Freshwater supplied 34 percent, one-third of our water on a daily basis. Brackish water, approximately one-third, 31 percent, slightly less. But you can see, we are near 50/50. Nearly 50 percent of our potable water coming from freshwater sources, nearly 50 percent coming from brackish water, and 35 percent of our water, approximately one-third, from reclaimed water, making up that total demand. So 66 percent, two-thirds of our water on an average day basis, comes from alternative water supplies, not directly from the freshwater source. MR. MUDD: Paul, to add something to the slide, okay, just so some folks realize it at home. When you talk about freshwater and brackish water, those are sources that go into your water plants and come out with potable water. Brackish water is treated by reverse osmosis, okay, a Page 36 January 15-16,2008 desalinization type pallet that he's got in his plants. Irrigation quality water comes from reclaimed water which comes from your sewer plants, okay. It's not coming from your water plant. So the slide talks about different sources, but just as some clarification. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. This is very important, and I want to further emphasize it. Collier County made the decision many years ago to stop drawing water from the freshwater aquifers because they were being depleted. Our water department was very, very smart about the way they approached that. They had a choice. They could pipe in water from the Gulf of Mexico and treat that and it would have been very, very expensive because it's more expensive to treat seawater. So what they decided to do was drill deep wells, not disturb our freshwater aquifers, but to go down very, very deep and get brackish water, and that brackish water is treated through the reverse osmosis process. But because the salt content is not as high as seawater, the cost is much lower. So what they're really doing today, 50 percent of all the water consumed by residents of Collier County comes from the treated brackish water through the reverse osmosis process. Very, very smart. And for that reason, I want to make the public aware of a water workshop that the board has asked be held this month, right? MR. MATTAUSCH: It's at the end of February. COMMISSIONER COYLE: End of February, I'm sorry. MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have a date yet? MS. FILSON: The 29th. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the date? MR. MATTAUSCH: I believe it's the 28th of-- MS. FILSON: It's February 29th. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 20th? Page 37 January 15-16,2008 MR. MATTAUSCH: February 29th. COMMISSIONER COYLE: February the 29th. MR. DeLONY: It's Friday, the 29th of February between one o'clock in the afternoon and three o'clock in the afternoon. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. DeLONY: It will be right here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the 29th of February, Friday between one o'clock and three o'clock in the afternoon. That doesn't mean it will start sometime between one and three. It means it will start at one o'clock, okay. And we have invited state representatives to -- that is South Florida Water Management District representatives and others, to be present here. And I encourage you to watch that. If you can come here and see it, it would be wonderful. But I encourage you to watch it, because I think you will get a better appreciation for what Collier County government has been doing for years to prepare for these kinds of situations. We are probably in better shape than almost any other county in the entire state. So I just encourage you to be here, watch that workshop, and I think you'll be much better informed, and I think you will feel more comfortable about what Collier County and the related agencies are doing about this issue. MR. MATT AUSCH: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That doesn't mean we don't have problems. We also have to discuss some solutions there. MR. MATT AUSCH: Commissioner Coyle, well said. And I don't want to take away anything from what we are going to talk about on that day. But going back to what Commissioner Fiala said also as well, we've been in the reverse osmosis business since 1999 when we placed our first eight million gallons a day of capacity on-line. A lot of people don't know that. A lot of people are not aware of that, Page 38 January 15-16,2008 because we have been silently continuing to provide service and doing it very well with the support of the Board of County Commissioners. And I appreciate that support. But we will lay out what we have done in the past and what we're currently doing, and this slide just talks about that just a little bit. You know, the first three increments that we constructed in Collier County were freshwater. Everything since then, if you note on the right-hand side, everything has been brackish water source, and we will talk about that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you and your department. Mr. DeLony, thank you all. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to extend my appreciation too, especially to Clarence Tears and the Big Cypress Basin and the Southwest Florida Water Management District, because if it wasn't for those weirs, Clarence, I think we would be in a lot more trouble than we're in now. They've done a wonderful job of maintaining the water levels. I know there was a lot to overcome. Whenever you do anything that has to do with the water supply out there, you always get a certain amount of public criticism. But at this point in time, I'd like to give you compliments for doing the right thing; however, with that said, I do have some concerns, and I don't -- I'm not holding your department or our own water department responsible for some of those concerns, but the policy making that exists. Your board of directors, Clarence, and, of course, this commission, we have a situation that's ongoing where over 50 percent of our whole water supply used for irrigation of yards and plants, the medians, and not all of it is done with recycled water. A lot of it is our fresh potable water, comes through the system and goes there. Now, my concern, of course, is the wells out there in the area that I represent. At this point in time, the water levels have been sufficient Page 39 January 15-16,2008 to be able to take care of everybody. And forgive me. I don't just rely on your data. I checked with the local well drillers on about a biweekly basis to see if there's been any dramatic change, and they say there hasn't, that the water levels have been stable, they've been holding the -- possibly the weirs were one of the influencing factors with that. However, as we go forward, if -- we don't know how long this drought's going to last. We've got a deficiency in the system that's quite severe. Even a normal rainy season would have a difficult time replacing what's missing there. If this drought continues in the cycle and we get -- times get worse and worse, we're going to have to start coming to the realization that people cannot plant Floratam lawns to be able to maintain them. They're going to have to go to something much less demanding as far as the water demands go. Myself, my yard consists of pine needles under the pine trees, little bit of Roundup every year to keep the weeds from taking over, and the rest of the yard is native Florida grasses, which are very easy to maintain, require no irrigation, they're insect resistant and life goes on. Now, I'm not saying that people have to go to that extreme, but there are many other alternatives out there. And I think that we have to start thinking forward to the future and how we're going to handle this rather than wait till that point in time of crisis and people saying, well, why didn't you tell me ahead of time before I put the lawn in or before I did this or I did that? But the planning has to be there. I know, what was that called, xeriscape? That was many years ago. I mean, it was talked about, and I thought it was going to take over but it didn't. It's still out there without really tremendous amount of support. It may have to come at some point in time where there's going to have to be something, possibly at the water management level or the state level -- because I'd hate to think that Collier County Page 40 January 15-16,2008 would have to take the initiative totally on their own when we share the same watershed with many other governmental authorities -- to be able to say, okay, this is where we're drawing the line in the sand to be able to preserve it. Because we've got to remember, sure, I'm sure that we'll always be able to come up with the capacity to be able to meet the demands out there. I give our water department tremendous credit for that. I mean, they have got it planned out for the future so they can meet the demand; however, with that said, every time we take the next step forward -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong on this -- that water becomes much more expensive to provide. So what's happening is we're putting that water into the system and the cost is being shared by everyone out there equally, even though some people do not water vast amounts of green areas, are very conservative with what they do, but they have to pay the price for everyone else. We do have a sliding scale, but that sliding scale is inadequate to really cover the cost of new plants. We have to rethink this whole thing on a monthly basis as we go forward. And with that, we're going to go back to Commissioner Halas. Commissioner Henning, I'm sorry. Did you have anything to add? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just looking forward to the workshop where we're going to deal with a lot of these issues. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're correct, Commissioner Henning. Thank you for pointing that out. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to say that I think it's been pretty much covered that this community has stepped forward and made a large investment in this county in regards to brackish water, and there's a lot of communities on the west coast that wish that they would have taken this initiative. Page 41 January 15-16,2008 And I can assure you that there's no cheap water left, that -- in the State of Florida. What we have here is, we're going to have to make sure that we use conservation efforts to make sure that we maintain the quality of water and the quality of life here in Collier County. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. And with that, I appreciate your presentation. Any final words, Mr. Tears? MR. TEARS: Commissioner Coletta, thanks again. You know, we're looking forward to working with you. And as Benjamin Franklin -- one of his quotes I read, is he stated you truly don't know the value of water until the well goes dry. And you know, the goal here is the wells shouldn't go dry based on the efforts of this community, the county, and the South Florida Water Management are taking, and that's the whole idea is to protect the resources. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right, sir. And I want to point out when it comes to Benjamin Franklin, that Collier County follows his directives from way back when. As you know, we have adopted the turkey as our county seal. And Benjamin Franklin wanted the turkey as the -- to be the national bird rather than an eagle. Just thought I'd share that with you. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That has nothing to do with the subject. Item #5A PRESENTATION FOR THE WASTE REDUCTION AWARDS PROGRAM, THE WRAP A WARD, TO RECOGNIZE BUSINESSES AND INSTITUTIONS FOR ENHANCED AND INNOVATIVE RECYCLING PROGRAMS TO NAPLES TOMATO - PRESENTED Page 42 January 15-16,2008 MR. MUDD: -- our first presentation, which is a presentation for the Waste Reduction Awards (sic) Program, the WRAP Award, to recognize businesses and institutions for enhanced and innovative recycling programs. And this award is to Naples Tomato. And the folks here today that represent Naples Tomato are Jack Surfass, who's the restaurant owner; Christian Ercolani, who's the coastal training specialist, and Dallas McCubcheon, who's the chef. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. The mandatory non-recyling ordinance adopted by the Board of Collier County Commissioners on July 27, 2004, established a Waste Reduction Act Program known as WRAP to recognize businesses and institutions for enhancing and innovative recycling programs. The solid waste management department program is consistent with the guideline principles adopted by the Board of Collier County Commissioners on December 5, 2006. One, environmental and growth management compliance; two, airspace preservation; three, operation excellence; and three (sic), best value service. The Board of Collier County Commissioners is pleased to recognize Naples Tomato for their efforts to contribute to the greater good of all of Collier County by helping to prolong the useful life of the Collier County Landfill by reducing their solid waste stream throughout an enhanced recycling program as evident by expanding the Naples Tomato recycling program from one cubic yard cardboard recycling container to seven 96-gallon commingled recycling carts for the collections of aluminum, tin cans, glass, office paper, and plastic; placing recycling bins under the bar for glass bottles and near the kitchen to disposed of food packaging. Naples Tomato promotes waste reduction by banning the purchase of styrofoam products used for to-go containers, reducing the number of plastic to-go bags and using recycling drinking cups for Page 43 January 15-16,2008 employees. I wish McDonald's is listening right now. Initiate an extensive employee training program by posting signs on their bulletin board and kitchen areas near trash containers. The can-and-cannot list of recycling materials are both in English and Spanish used as a reminder to employees. Naples Tomato restaurant is one of several businesses located in a strip mall that has implemented a recycling system, they lead the way for all businesses in that particular strip mall to recycle. The WRAP Award program includes a certificate, a trophy, use of the WRAP logo and space under ww.Colliergov.net (sic) recycle website to showcase their waste reduction and recycling program. Therefore, the Solid Waste Department and the Board of Collier County Commissioners congratulate the owners, Jack and Nadly -- Naddy Surfass, special thanks to Christian -- and I'm sorry. The last name is? MR. ERCOLANI: Ercolani. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ercolani, and all employees in Naples Tomato for their continued support in promoting waste recycling and recycling. Their efforts and recycling leadership is a positive example to other institutions and businesses and will have a significant effect on sustaining the useful life of the Collier County Landfill. And with that, I'd offer you this particular plaque. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for what you're doing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for what you're doing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Up in District 2. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What we're going to do is -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you ever have green pickled tomatoes? MR. McCUBCHEON: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ifwe could get a picture, that would be wonderful. Page 44 January 15-16,2008 Thank you, gentlemen. Oh, I'm sorry, wait. One more thing. Forgive me. This is to display right up front by the cash register. Item #5B PRESENTATION OF AWARDS RECEIVED FROM THE FLORIDA GOVERNMENT AWARDS ASSOCIATION: PRESENTED TO JOHN TORRE, SANDRA ARNOLD, LA V AH HETZEL, CEDAR HAMES AND PETER THOMAS - PRESENTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next presentation, which is awards received from the Florida Government Communicators Association, and I believe Commissioner Coyle is going to do the honors. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be able to present to three members of our staff, along with two other individuals, the first place awards that they earned on behalf of Collier County at the annual conference of Florida Government Communicators Association, which was held in December -- in Orlando in December. These awards are judged by a group of professionals from government agencies across America. Collier County was recognized with the 2007 Crystal Award in the Internet website category. The county's new website was launched in October 2006, and traffic on the site has increased by more than 30 percent since the launch of the website. This is the second major award for our new website. Previously, the county's new website received a first place award from the National Association of Government Web Masters. The three individuals from our staff accepting the FGCA award are John Torre, Sandra Arnold, and Lavah Hetzel. Would you three please step forward. Page 45 January 15-16,2008 (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: John, this is yours. I can count up to three. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Congratulations. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What a wonderful job. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Appreciate everything you do. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not finished yet, but you can sit down, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I appreciate that, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We have to recognize two other individuals who were very instrumental in this award. The Collier County Freedom Memorial 30-second public service announcement also earned the 2007 FGCA Crystal Award first place in the video public service announcement category. You can view this public service announcement by visiting the county's website page, www.Colliergov.net. So we would like to recognize two individuals who were instrumental in making this award-winning public service announcement. Tampa-based Paradise Advertising and Marketing created and produced the 30-second public service announcement promoting the memorial. This work was done on a pro bono basis. Additionally, Paradise Advertising staff developed and hosts a website to promote the Freedom Memorial called www.Collierremembers.org also free of charge. I would like to ask Mr. Cedar Hames, president of Paradise Advertising, to step forward and accept this award on behalf of his agency. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations. Job well done. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great public service. Page 46 January 15-16,2008 MR. OCHS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're still on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: One more. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The Collier County Freedom Memorial Task Force approached Mr. Peter Thomas about producing the narration of the 30-second Freedom Memorial public service announcement. Mr. Thomas, a well-known television voice-over professional volunteered his services free of charge. Peter Thomas is also a World War II veteran. He joined the Army in 1943 and was assigned to the 1st Infantry Division in Europe. He landed on Omaha Beach on January the 2nd, 1944, the day after the World War II D Day invasion and went on to earn a bronze star, a purple heart, five battle stars, and a French Legion of Honor medal among many other medals and service awards. Something else you might not know about Peter Thomas. His name, his voice appears almost everywhere. You watch television, and virtually every historical documentary is narrated by Peter Thomas. He does a lot ofPBS narrations. If you've ever had the opportunity to use an automatic external defibrillator on a patient, it is likely you will hear Peter Thomas's voice instructing you how to do it. I call my investment company to inquire about the progress of my investments, and Peter Thomas's voice is instructing me which department to talk to. And I understand he's even -- he has a new one. Is it Burger King now? Burger King. So get out and buy some Burger Kings, folks. But I am very, very pleased to present this award to my good friend Peter Thomas. He does so many wonderful public services for the community. He's just contributed a lot for all of us. And, Peter, please come forward and accept your award. Page 47 January 15-16,2008 (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: I appreciate your help. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations, Peter. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations. MR. THOMAS: I'd like to say a word, if! could. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, Peter. MR. THOMAS: I just want to thank you for this great honor, and it means an awful lot. But really, the tribute should go to all of you for creating the magnificent memorial for generations to come to experience the heroism and dedication of our servicemen in the wars our nation has fought and the bravery and sacrifice of those brave Americans on 9/11. I'm proud to live in Collier County and be a part of your vision and dedication. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you, Peter. (Applause.) Item #5C SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN: COMMISSIONER HENNING NOMINA TED AS CHAIRMAN - APPROVED; COMMISSIONER FIALA NOMINA TED AS VICE- CHAIRMAN - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on the agenda is 5C. It's selection of the chairman and the vice-chairman. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'd like to nominate Tom Henning as our new chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala for -- to nominate Tom Henning for the new Page 48 January 15-16,2008 chair. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner -- I'm sorry, I can't hear you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like to say that we have some real challenges this coming year in Collier County with the upcoming legislative session. I think there's going to be a lot of things that are going to be handled -- handed to us. I believe there's going to be more property tax amendments come down. I believe that we're going to have continued attempts at eroding home rule. I also think that we have -- are going to be challenged with additional unfunded mandates that will be handed down to us as the state economy continues to worsen. I also believe that we have some serious growth management issues that will challenge the environment. At that, I'd say that I feel that we need someone that carries the message, and I'd like to nominate Fred Coyle. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we already have a nomination. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor of the nomination for Commissioner Henning as the chair, indicate at this -- well, I went through no comments. All those that wish to agree with that, indicate by saying aye at this time. Page 49 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show that it was 5-0. Congratulations, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And what we're going to do at this point in time -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We need to have a vice-chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER FIALA: We need to nominate a vice-chair. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I'm going to have the chair do that -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- when the chair takes over. But first we're going to do something. We're going to take a moment. I'm going to go down through the accomplishments that you have seen in the past year, and then we're going to take a short -- well, break, 10-minute, 15-minute break so that everybody can come up and congratulate the chair, and then we'll come back and the chair will take over, and we'll select the vice-chair. I think that will work appropriately. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's much better. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I appreciate that. And with that, I think we need to recognize the fact that we have been diligent and responsive elected officials. The man -- the accomplishment (sic) in 2007. As the chair of the Page 50 January 15-16,2008 Board of County Commissioners through 2007, I'd like to take this opportunity to first thank you, my fellow commissioners, Collier County citizens, and especially the Collier County staff for the honor of serving you in the past year and your support that has contributed to our success. Through 2007 we've faced many challenges, yet it was marked with numerous accomplishments I'd like to share with you now. To begin with, I am proud to say that because of the collaborative, diligent and tenacious (sic) of the commissioners, our congressional delegation, especially Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart and Connie Mack, and our County Manager with his professional staff, Collier County realized federal funding opportunities for the first time in the community's history. And at a time when revenues are in jeopardy, alternate sources are continuously challenged for the board to identify to provide the population of 330,000 with roads, water, public health and safety, and other regular services, six Collier County projects were awarded a total of $3 million thanks to the support of our congressional delegation in Washington, D.C. These projects include: Gordon Pass dredging, 1.4 million; Physicians Led Access Network known as PLAN, $327,183; this is one that's especially dear to me, the 1-75 Everglades Boulevard PD&E study, $245,000 which locked in the federal government to make sure that this needed infrastructure will be built; I-75/Collier Boulevard SR84 interchange, 490,000; emergency services center technology, 352,500; and the Immokalee Community Center received $147,000. In the Water Resource Development Act, Collier County received an authorization of $5 million for Gordon River water infrastructure to improve water quality in a $20-million -- jointly with Collier -- with Charlotte and Lee County for water supply interconnect infrastructure, also money was authorized for studies for Collier County beaches and Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon. Page 51 January 15-16,2008 Over the past two years, the Collier County Commission cut the millage rate, then reduced a total of $67 million from your taxes. We did our annual citizen survey which included surveying 710 full-time and part-time residents between March 19th and April 5, 2007, to make sure we were focused on the desires of the taxpayers we serve. The results found that Collier County residents are satisfied with the service and leadership provided by Collier County government. The county also launched, in October, 2006, the county's website redesign at ww.Collier.net (sic) which won the 2007 Pinnacle award at the year's National Association of Government Web Master annual conferences. Among county government's financial year '07 achievements: The Board of Collier County Commissioners' new 10-year strategic plan went into effect October 1, 2006. This document established long-range priorities and will serve as a blueprint for us as we address the critical issues facing our community. Six major focus areas are outlined in the strategic plan with the associated strategic goals, community outcomes and objectives. Those major strategic focus areas include: Neighborhood preservation and enhancement, growth management, community health and human services, mobility, economic development, and local government. In 2007, 10 major road projects were under construction or completed including: Golden Gate Overpass, opened on July 23, 2007. Goodlette-Frank Road from Golden Gate Parkway to Pompei Lane opened to traffic in the spring of 2007, along with the new bypass road. Immokalee Road, U.S. 41 to 1-75, Phase 1 and two, completed with traffic on new lanes between 1-75 and Airport. Work on Phase 3 Airport Road to u.s. 41 scheduled for the spring 2008 completion. Immokalee Road design/build project, 1-75 Page 52 January 15-16,2008 to Collier Boulevard, construction progress ahead of schedule. Six lanes are now open in both directions from Collier Boulevard to Northbrook Drive with contract completion date in the summer of 2008. Immokalee Road east, Collier Boulevard to 43rd A venue Northeast. Traffic is flowing on all lanes east and west from Twin Eagles to the north end. Logan Boulevard extension, which we owe a lot to Commissioner Henning for, from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road was completed in September, 2007. Vanderbilt Beach Road in progress towards completion in the late 2008. Rattlesnake Hammock Road is scheduled spring 2008 completion. Collier Boulevard from Immokalee Road to Golden Gate Boulevard is under construction and progressing well, scheduled for the spring of 2009 completion. Santa Barbara Boulevard is being six-Ianed from Davis Boulevard to Copper Leaf Lane. Construction is on schedule for the summer 2009 completion. The eleventh major road project, Collier Boulevard between Davis and 41 has been awarded and started in October, 2007. In addition, transportation road maintenance staff converted asphalting 27limerock road segments covering 19.9 miles ahead of schedule in the multi-year limerock road conversion program. Also, our countywide bus service, Collier Area Transit, known as CAT, began service on Sunday on all routes, and the BCC approved the purchase of a former car dealership located at 8300 Radio Road to serve CAT administration and operations center. In stormwater management, $15 million has been invested in stormwater capital projects during the first six months of financial year '07, and nine major capital projects will be completed and closed out in financial year '07. Page 53 January 15-16,2008 Of particular note are the Lely Area Stormwater Project, Phase 1, Haldeman Creek dredging, and Twin Lakes interconnect. Three projects will be under construction at the end of financial year '07, including the Freedom Park, formerly known as the Gordon River Water Quality Park, and 13 projects are under design. The following public facilities construction projects were completed and/or are underway in financial year '07: Courthouse annex parking garage and Emergency Medical Service station number 19, Santa Barbara and Davis, completed and opened in November, 2006. A new BCC fleet facility is on budget and ahead of schedule with planned completion by the end of January, '08. The seven-story courthouse annex is in progress for the completion expected in January, 2009. Sheriffs special operation building is on track for the expected completion in April of2008. Emergency service center construction work has begun and completion is expected by June, 2009, which is just in time for the 2009 hurricane season. The Golden Gate Library expansion started in April, 2007, with completion expected in July, 2008. The new South Regional Library construction was started this year and completion is expected in June, 2009. The Everglades City branch library relocated because of Hurricane Wilma damages, reopened in May, 2007, in the restored Everglades City Hall. Robert's Ranch restoration is at a substantial completion. The county received $9.9 million from the Florida Community Trust in June to help acquire the Gordon River green park next to Naples Zoo, which represents the largest grant ever awarded by the FCT. The important East of 951 Horizon Study is in its second phase, which includes polling and soliciting input from the residents of the study area. Our view of this important area of Collier County should Page 54 January 15-16,2008 be clearer in December, 2008, when the horizon study winds down. In closing, I would appreciate you giving -- I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to share with you a heartful -- handful of Collier County's accomplishments in financial year 2007, which, as a board, I believe we can claim as outstanding successes while facing some adversities and difficult circumstances. But with unified leadership, the professionalism of county staff and community support, the team has risen to the occasion and triumphed in many areas. It has truly been an honor and a privilege to be your chairman, and I thank you very much. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see two lights. We'll go to Commissioner Fiala first, and then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was for-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: From before? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's me. Yeah, okay. Thank you. One of the things -- I meant a number of things that you forgot and I'd like to mention. I have admired you throughout this entire year. You've always had these meetings open, you've encouraged open communication amongst everyone. You've shown respect to everybody in the room always. Your honesty, integrity have just shown through, and I'm so proud to work with you. You provide a friendly atmosphere for everybody to work in, and there is -- you added your delightful levity when it was needed. And I just want to tell you, it's been a joy working with you this year. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So at this point in time, I am going to Page 55 January 15-16,2008 turn the gavel over to Commissioner Henning, then we're going to break for about 15 minutes, and I encourage everyone to come up front and to congratulate the new chair. Thank you. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you going to change chairs? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They'll do that for us, sir. Until I hand you the gavel, I've got this spot. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Thank you. I would shorten the break. It's going to be 10 minutes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Take 15. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take your seat, please. Before we go to the vice-chair, I'd like to present to Commissioner Coletta, in appreciation of the Board of Commissioners, his dedicated leadership to the -- for the year 2007. And I just want to point out that this is mounted on the board. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. The whole thing works like this, Tom. Okay. Appreciate it very much. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll entertain a motion at this time for vice-chair. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to move to -- for Donna Fiala to be vice-chair. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second to appoint Donna Fiala, Commissioner Donna Fiala, as vice-chair. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? Page 56 January 15-16,2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, buckle up, here we go. We're going to -- we're going to hear the public petitions since we have a time certain at 11. We're going to hear the public petitions starting right after lunch, which is approximately one o'clock, okay. Next presentation, Affordable Housing Commission. Item #5D PRESENTATION BY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMISSION ON THE IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM AS DIRECTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON SEPTEMBER 1 L 2007 - PRESENTED MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's 5D, it's a presentation by the Affordable Housing Commission on the impact fee deferral program as directed by the Board of County Commissioners on 9/11/07. MR. GIBLIN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name's Cormac Giblin. I'm a member of your Affordable Housing Commission. And the Affordable Housing Commission Chairman, Ken Kelly, sends his apologies, but he is unable to make today's meeting and I was elected by the rest of the commission to attend and give you this report. A little bit of background -- and this will be a brief report because most of it is included in your executive summary. A little background is that last summer you received a public petition from a local developer seeking some clarification on the Collier County Affordable Housing Impact Fee Deferral Program for low-income owner-occupied housing. After that public petition, your staff brought you an item on September 11 th of 2007 that summarized the issue into five basic -- or summarized the situation into five issues, Page 57 January 15-16,2008 and those are detailed in the executive summary. At that meeting on September II, 2007, you directed staff to bring those issues to your Affordable Housing Commission. And over the past several meetings, we have studied all the issues in depth, gotten a lot of valuable input from the public and from developers and from affordable housing developers. And we have formulated some recommendations for you. I'd like to start with a little bit of background. I was doing a little bit of research on a different matter. Happened to run across an ordinance from 1982; it's Ordinance 82-2. It became effective April 1 , 1982. And I'd like to -- so 25 years ago almost exactly to today. And I'll read a little bit of it to you. It says, based on the following findings of fact, the Board of County Commissioners, number -- agree that, number one, Collier County is among the highest rental and purchase housing markets in the State of Florida. Number two, there is a real need for additional housing facilities, both rental and purchased, in the low and moderate income ranges. Number three, due to the shortage of affordable housing in low and moderate income ranges, local businesses have experienced difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified employees within many necessary employment classifications. Number four, that the creation of affordable housing would discourage -- that the creation of affordable housing would discourage young families presently unable to find affordable housing from moving elsewhere. Number five, that the creation of affordable housing would attract businesses to the community by stabilizing the workforce and providing affordable housing for semi skilled trade and young professional workers. And number six, that providing incentives to the private sector to provide low and low to moderate income housing would strengthen the community's tax base by keeping such projects on the tax rolls.¢ Page 58 January 15-16,2008 I found it interesting, again, as I was doing work on a different -- for a different situation, that I ran across this ordinance that's 25 years old yet we are still dealing with the same six issues that we dealt with back then. It just shows the magnitude of the problem. And the effort that your Affordable Housing Commission has been -- has been going forward all this time. Let me get to the specific recommendations on the county's impact fee deferral program as you requested. Again, over several meetings over the past few months, the Affordable Housing Commission has studied the issue in depth. Issue number one was placing a cap on the amount of impact fees that can be deferred for the rental impact fee deferral program. There was no cap on the rental side of the equation. And some of the concern was that a development could come in and essentially break the bank in one year if they proposed a 500- or a thousand-unit development. At your December 11, 2007, board meeting, you've already address this issue. You placed a 225-unit cap per fiscal year on the number -- on the amount of rental housing impact fee deferrals that may be issued in a fiscal year. That was in agreement with the housing commission's recommendation. Issue two was, should the rental unit impact fee deferral program be available to nonprofit entities such as a university or government entity, such as the county or fire district. The Affordable Housing Commission looked at this issue as well, and it was our -- our recommendation that that issue is allowed under issue one, under the general rental -- rental impact fee deferral program, those entities are not precluded from participating in the program just like any other entity would be. Again, with your passage of the amendment on December 11 th, that issue was already -- has already been taken care of as well. Issue three was, should the current cap of 50 impact fee deferrals Page 59 January 15-16,2008 per developer be lifted -- or be reduced to a lesser number? After hearing, again, testimony from several developers and several people in the industry, the Affordable Housing Commission recommends to you that the current status of allowing the 50 units per developer at a time be maintained. Issue four was that there was a -- should the board eliminate the ability to -- of the -- a developer to receive an impact fee deferral refund? We learned that this was happening when -- if a developer desired to -- to pull more than 50 permits at one time, they were given the opportunity to prepay those impact fees and then when they found a qualified buyer before the home was sold or CO'd, they would then receive a reimbursement or refund for the impact fees since they now had a qualified low-income buyer in the house. The Affordable Housing Commission recommends to still allow the issue of developer refunds should a qualifying applicant be found before the home is CO'd. We would caution a developer that this is done on a first-come first-served basis and refunds are not guaranteed, and should the program run out of money midway through the year, they are proceeding at their own risk and there just may not be money for their refund. But nonetheless, we see it as an avenue to encourage people to try to do more than the minimum that would -- otherwise would be allowed. And the last issue was providing direction on the issue of developer's utilizing multiple affordable housing incentives. And when we say that, the question was, should a developer be entitled to use the impact fee deferral program along with a density bonus, along with a down payment assistance grant to the -- or loan to the buyer along with fast tracking? Should all of these be lumped together and be able to be used on the same house or the same development, or should you just get -- should it be a menu and you can only choose one? It is the Affordable Housing Commission's recommendation that Page 60 January 15-16,2008 the layering of multiple incentives to a development and to a project or to a unit is a recognized best practice nationwide and that it's -- sometimes it does take -- many times it does take an effort of multiple sources, multiple different avenues to produce affordable housing, and we would recommend that this practice, again, still be allowed to continue. So to summarize, the first two issues have already been dealt with by you in your December meeting. The last three issues would be -- the Affordable Housing Commission's recommendations would essentially be no change to the current ordinance or the current practice. The -- we recognize that the program is, in fact -- it is performing as intended and it is appropriate -- there are appropriate controls in place to ensure that the program doesn't go over budget, doesn't commit more than it -- more than it has. There is a larger issue at stake here though, that within the framework of the current impact fee deferral program, there's the 225-unit rental cap per year, and then there is enough funding for approximately 100, maybe 120, maybe 150 single-family homes or owner-occupied deferrals per year. We recognize that as the critical shortage, or the critical failing of the program is that only 100 or 150 units per year can be served by the program. And we found ourselves -- in fact, one of the other Affordable Housing commissioners mentioned at one of our hearings that it seemed like we were -- the Housing Commission was scrambling for the crumbs falling off the table when, you know, trying to make the best with whatever could fall our way rather than look at the big picture, and especially if the county moves towards some type of mandatory inclusionary zoning ordinance where we see multitudes of units being produced every year or even voluntary people stepping up to the plate and deciding to build more than just a hundred units per year. Page 61 January 15-16,2008 We feel that it's the county's responsibility to step up to the plate on that side, too, to deliver on the assistance to make those housing opportunities become reality. And with that, that's our summary of our report and recommendation. If you have any questions, I -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions, comments from the board members? Thank you. Thanks. Mr. Camp, how long will the next presentation take? MR. CAMP: Four minutes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Why don't we go ahead. Item #5F CONTRACTOR PRESENT A nON BY VANDERBILT BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC. ON THE SHERIFF'S SPECIAL OPERA nONS BUILDING, PROJECT 52002 - PRESENTED MR. MUDD: The contractor presentation, Collier County Sheriff Special Operations Building, project 52002, Vanderbilt Bay Construction, Inc. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Should we go onto our time certain at 11 o'clock? MR. MUDD: Hank, give it verbally. MR. JONES: Excuse me. For the record, Hank Jones from Facilities Management. I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Nicholas Kieft, the Project Manager from Vanderbilt Bay Construction, who's going to give you a quick update on the status of the Sheriffs Special Ops Facility at the Naples Airport. Nick? MR. KIEFT: Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, there was going to be a small slide illustration. That's been taken over by technology. Page 62 January 15-16,2008 Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Vanderbilt Bay Construction, I'd like to present the second progress report and presentation on the construction of the Collier County Sheriffs Special Operations Building. My last report on July the 24th concluded with the information that the steel frame for the metal frame building had arrived on site and assembly had commenced. By dividing the building into three zones, Vanderbilt Bay was able to coordinate work so that the concrete and masonry continued ahead ofthe erection ofthe frame. This enabled the project to maintain the very tight construction schedule that was part of the contract conditions. Throughout August, the assembly and erection of the frame and installation of the structural steel for the mezzanine continued. And by the middle of August, work on the roofing, rafters and pilings had reached a point where below slab plumbing and electrical work had commenced. During the first week of September, the first concrete pour for the slab, the hangar offices took place. During the second week in September, we reached another milestone, and the first half of the roof was completed. This enabled us to pour the first area of the main slab, which was carried out under floodlights at four a.m. in the morning. During the second week in October, the remainder of the roof was complete and Mark Construction continued work to the side sheeting and completion of all internal bolts and extensive steel bracing. Final concrete pour to the slab took place on Friday, November the 16th. In the meantime, masons, plumbers, electricians, air-conditioning installers, framers and carpenters continued behind. The average daily count of site personnel has been in excess of 100. During November and December, work continued internally on mechanical, electrical, and plumbing. Capital equipment, including the Page 63 January 15-16,2008 fuel tank and beam crane were delivered and installed. We also received the final air-handling unit which was installed, and this enabled the end wall to be closed up. Windows and doors followed, and the glazing installation is currently underway. With the completion of the installation of the hangar doors at the end of December, Mark Construction left the site last week, and Vanderbilt Bay is now concentrating on finishing trades. Both the internal and external painting has started, and the majority of rough-in work for electrical and plumbing is now complete. The air-conditioning contractors are expecting to have chilled air by mid February. Carpeting, flooring, and all other finishes are scheduled for March. It has to be said that this project has been both complicated and challenging, but a challenge that VBC has been able to meet. Working with the county's project management team and the architect, VBC has been able to provide solutions that have enabled the project to adhere to a very tight schedule. Vanderbilt Bay has maintained accelerated progress, knowing how critical the early completion of aircraft is for the Aviation Bureau. By rescheduling and increasing resources, the Aviation Bureau will be able to relocate to their new hangar and offices ahead of schedule on March the 17th, 2008. The remainder of the buildings will be complete and ready for occupancy shortly thereafter. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board, board members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nothing, thank you. We're going to move to our time certain. Item #12A Page 64 January 15-16,2008 INVESTIGATIVE REPORT BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL, LAWRENCE A. FARESE, ESQ. OF THE FIRM ROBBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI, L.L.P., TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S REGARDING THEN OLDE CYPRESS PUD - MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT - APPROVED; COMMISSION REQUEST OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OPINION FROM THE ZONING DIRECTOR - CONSENSUS MR. MUDD: That's 12A. This item to be heard at II a.m. It's an investigative report by outside counsel, Lawrence A. Farese, Esquire, of the firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller, and Ciresi, LLP, to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the aide Cypress PUD. MR. FARESE: Good morning, Commissioners. Again, Larry Farese of Robins, Kaplan, Miller, and Ciresi, 711 5th Avenue South here in Naples. I'm here to discuss the second part of the written report that I presented last month, and this part concerns the Olde Cypress PUD. That subdivision, if you may recall, was approved in three plats by the board back in 1999, units one, two, and three. Olde Cypress unit one platted the entire subdivision but left certain tracts for future development. Plats two and three were, in essence, the replats of the tracts preserved for future development. And when you look at the first plat -- if! can ask Mr. Mudd, perhaps, to -- this is a part of the first plat, and I can't -- okay. Here's a future development tract, which we'll discuss later. It happens to be the tract that Lone Pine Lane is situated in where the Greider residence was subsequently built. And this is the designation of tract A conservation area. There's 176 acres of conservation areas, and it was clearly labeled in tract one, or unit one, I should say, that tract A is a conservation DE, meaning drainage easement. Page 65 January 15-16,2008 When units two and three were replatted, however, the designation of the conservation area was not carried forward. What this simply shows, when you read it in the exhibit in my report, is that this area here is tract A, unit one, but it does not say conservation area, and that becomes important later when we discuss the setback issues. Also, in this particular tract, there was a golf course easement along this area right here, a 10- foot golf course easement platted; however, the golf course was situated elsewhere, and there is no golf course behind this particular area. It is purely conservation wetland area. Over a period of six or seven years following the recording of these plats, permits were issued for the construction of residences in these areas. And this, again, happens to be Lone Pine Lane. The setbacks for the homes were approved by staff in accordance with the provisions of the PUD document. And for single-family homes, those setbacks are 25 feet on the front yard, five feet on the side yards, and 20 feet on the rear lot line; however, accessory uses such as pools and screen enclosures, et cetera, were permitted within 5 feet of the rear line. The permit files that I've reviewed -- and I've reviewed 17 of the ones in these areas -- do not reflect any consideration for the 25-foot preserve setback that you find in the Land Development Code. There's no mention ofthat, no evidence of any consideration ofthat. As a result of the Greider controversy -- which I'll explain in a moment -- that issue has been called into question. Ifthe 25-foot preserve setback -- that is a setback 25 feet from the lot line because this adjoins a plat area that applies -- then we have 17 residences -- I count 17 residences -- that is an encroachment upon that setback. Most of them, 15 of the 17, encroach by five feet or less, and the reason for that is, staff applied a 20- foot rear setback as provided in the PUD instead of 25-foot setback as provided in the Land Development Code. Page 66 January 15-16,2008 Two of the residences, the Greider residence and the Dunkleberger residence, encroach by more than that. Dunkleberger, 11 feet approximately, and Greider, 14 feet approximately. The reason for that is, that the side yards of those two lots -- and these are the two lots here -- adjoin the preserve area. And so if you apply the PUD document, you're only talking about five-foot side yard setback instead of the 25-foot preserve setback, and that's where they encroach more. So question number one that was presented to me as the independent investigator is, how did it happen that there were 17 violations of this preserve setback in one particular subdivision? As I point out in my report, I am not convinced that the preserve setback set forth in the Land Development Code applies to Olde Cypress in this particular case, and the reason for that is, there are two sections in the Land Development Code that provide for this 25-foot preserve setback. One is section 3.05.07(H). That provision, in my opinion, clearly does not apply because it says so. There's a provision in that section of the code that says that single-family residences are exempt from the requirements of3.05.07(H), which is the 25-foot preserve setback. What is confusing is, the other section of the code, which is 10.02.04(B) (1), does not have the express exemption and it says about the same thing, that is, 25-foot setback from preserve area. But that particular section, as I point out in my report, deals with platting requirements of the final -- for the platting, and it is, at the very least, confusing to me whether that section of the code which tells, in my view, platters what provisions have to be contained in their plats, applies to the permitting. And so the question is, does that section in the code tell the person designing the plat to set the lots back to a degree sufficient to provide a 25-foot setback, or is it saying the lots wherever they are placed in the subdivision, if they adjoin the preserve, have to be set Page 67 January 15-16,2008 back a certain distance, that is 25 feet. If you look at this next exhibit, this happens to be, at least show -- this is the Greider lot over here in this section here. This particular exhibit shows where the wetland preserve actually is, and you'll see there is some distance, although it's not specified in this particular exhibit, how far back from the lots the preserve area actually is. Sometimes it's closer to the lots than others. So I asked the question of staff to clear up my confusion, does this section of the code, section 10, in your opinion, apply to single-family residences? And I'm told by staff that they have interpreted the code to apply to a 25-foot setback to building lots whether they're in platted subdivisions or not. If that's the interpretation, then obviously, as proven by this case, it has not been consistently applied. We have 17 violations in Olde Cypress. My guess is, although I haven't looked into it, that if you looked at other subdivisions with similar preserve areas, you might find similar conditions. So our conclusion is that if the preserve setback applies, the reason that it was not enforced in this particular case is one of three. Number one, either the planning technicians did not know that a preserve area adjoined the lots -- and that was the explanation given to me by the technician who reviewed the Greider application. Angel Tarpley told me that she did not realize this particular lot adjoined the preserve area because it wasn't labeled as such. So that's certainly one possibility, and that is the explanation given to the Greider case. Another possibility is that staff knew that the lot adjoined the preserve area but didn't know about the preserve setback. And we are dealing with six or seven years, several different people. There's no evidence of any consideration given to the preserve setback, so perhaps staff didn't understand that it applied. Or third, that staff knew it adjoined a preserve area, knew of the preserve setbacks in the Land Development Code, but believed that Page 68 January 15-16,2008 the PUD document trumped that setback. Those are the three explanations that I can come up with. I can tell you, however, that it appears to me that all of these permits that we're talking about today were issued in the ordinary course of business. There were several different people, as I said, and the preserve setbacks simply were not considered. Let's talk about the Greider controversy, which I think brings this to the forefront. Mr. Craig Greider is an attorney in town. He's with the Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson law firm. They do represent developers, including Stock Development, who is the successor developer now to the Olde Cypress subdivision. Partners in that firm, particularly Mr. Y ovanovich, appears in front of you regularly, and they have, in my view, an excellent reputation in town for land development. Mr. Greider talks to Stock Development about purchasing lot 28. And lot 28 was an unusually shaped lot. If! can put back -- it's situated on a cul-de-sac. Visually it appears to look like a corner lot in the sense that the cul-de-sac wraps around two sides of the lot. And it was difficult to design a house on that particular lot, because if it's a corner lot, you have two 25-foot setbacks for the front yards and then two side yards with five-foot setback. But in this particular case, you also have a 10- foot golf course easement, which you couldn't build upon. So the building envelope for that particular lot was very small. And I also saw promotional materials dated around 1999 by the original developer which advertised this lot as a corner lot and said that the 25-foot setback had to be from the lot parameters. So if you push 25 feet back from the entire lot in the two fronts and you consider the 10-foot setback because of the golf course easement in the back, you have a small envelope. As a result of that, this lot sat there vacant for several years. It was the only lot left on that particular street. Page 69 January 15-16,2008 Mr. Greider spoke, prior to purchasing the lot, spoke and conferred by email with two staff people about the setback restrictions on this particular lot, and Mr. David Hedrich and John Houldsworth, seeking clarification as to what the setbacks would be if he went ahead and purchased this particular lot. And he was told verbally and confirmed by some emails a couple of things, number one, you wouldn't measure the 25-foot front yard setbacks from your property line, but rather you would measure it from what's called the cord line, which is an imaginary line connecting points along the front of the lot. Secondly, the golf course easement could be vacated provided the developer agreed to that because the easement was not a county easement utilized by the county for any reason. It was an easement to be used by the developer for the golf course. And if the developer leased that easement, then it would be okay from the county's point of vIew. And so if the golf course easement was released, you would have a setback of 25 feet from the cord line and the two fronts, and a five-foot setback at least for accessory uses, on the rear. On that basis, Mr. Greider purchased the lot in December 2005 believing that those were the setbacks. He went to the developer, the firm's client, asked for a release of the golf course easement. The developer granted that because it was of no use to the developer at that point, and that was released in June of2006. Greider then applied for a building permit to build a home on the lot. It was reviewed by Angel Tarpley initially, a planning technician, and she, on her own, from a visual inspection of the lot, considered it a corner lot. My understanding is that when a corner lot is determined, the policy is for two planners to review it. So a second planner looked at the application and also agreed it was a corner lot. I didn't see any discussion between those two technicians and Mr.k Page 70 January 15-16,2008 Greider or anyone on his behalf. It appeared to me that it was determined in the ordinary course of business that this was a comer lot. And, again, no consideration for any preserve setback. The setbacks were determined and written on the survey of provisions in the -- of the PUD. And as I said, Angel Tarpley told us she didn't realize that there was a preserve issue because she didn't see it on a plat. So a permit is issued for Mr. Greider to build a home that's larger than most on that particular street. His house is 3,800 square feet, where most are, my understanding, is in the low 2,000 feet range. He's set back his house five feet from the side yard, and the principal structure about 10 feet, 10 or 11 feet -- 10 to 15 feet, I should say, from the rear yard, but he has a pool that goes all the way up to the five-foot setback. His next-door neighbor, Melissa Showalter, is a part-time resident of Naples but it's kind of in reverse. She spends her time during the school year up north and comes to Naples in the summertime. When she came back in the summer of 2007, she sees a very large, in her view, very large house set back very close to her adjoining lot. She has the lot to the -- next to Mr. Greider. And she's upset because it blocks her view of the preserve. It also invades her privacy in the sense that the second story has a balcony to it, and there are several windows on the second story which directly overlook her pool area, and there's a direct line of sight into her bedroom area. So she's upset about the fact that this house is there and she complains to the homeowners association, represented by Diane Ebert, the president of that association, and also complains to her father, who happens to be -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Farese, may I interrupt you for a minute? Page 71 January 15-16,2008 MR. FARESE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I must ask you, what was your understanding what the board asked you or tasked you to do through the County Attorney's Office? MR. FARESE: The first question was, how did it happen that 17 houses exist that appear to violate or encroach upon the preserve setback, and was there any special favors given to either the developer or the individuals involved, and just how did it happen. I was not given any limitation on where my investigation would lead to. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. FARESE: But that was the first question. So the complaints are registered with the county, and several controversies have arisen with respect to the Greider lot. The first controversy is, is this a comer lot or not? Melissa Showalter's father, Tor Kolflat, apparently has an engineering background and, with a protractor, determined that the interior angle of that lot is less -- was not less than 135 degrees, which defines a comer lot. The 1991 Land Development Code defines a comer lot to include a lot on the curved street if the interior angle of the side lot lines to the foremost point of the lot is less than 135 degrees. This particular lot, before the lot line adjustment, which I'm about to discuss, was approximately 140 degrees; so, therefore, it did not meet the definition of the Land Development Code. He brings this to the attention of county staff. There's a meeting on July 17 with Joe Schmitt, Susan Istenes, Ross Gochenaur, several other people from the county, argues the county that point that this is not a comer lot, staff agrees with that and notifies Mr. Greider that this review as a comer lot was incorrect. In response to that, Mr. Greider then applies for a lot line adjustment under the Land Development Code, and to do that, he deeds to his neighbor, Mr. Dunkleberger, a portion. And I'll put this chart up, if you would, Jim. Page 72 January 15-16,2008 A portion of his -- make it a little bigger, Jim. MR. MUDD: Oh, I will. MR. FARESE: Okay. That's perfect. He deeds to his neighbor, Mr. Dunkleberger, about 170 square feet of this tail of his lot. And by doing that, the lot line then changes the angle -- this is the interior angle -- to 134 degrees to bring it within the 135 degree definition of a comer lot. That particular request was reviewed by a couple of people in county staff, including John Houldsworth and Russ Muller of the Department of Transportation, and it was approved. That lot line adjustment was approved by the county in May of2007. My understanding is that that action by the county is being appealed by Ms. Showalter as to whether that was a proper approval of the lot line adjustment. I think the issue there, which may come -- may become before you, is whether that was really an insubstantial boundary change in light of the consequences of changing that because it changes the setback, so that you may hear about that in a different capacity than you're sitting today. The second controversy dealt with the sidewalk ofMr. Greider's residence. As Mr. Greider was developing his house, he wanted to remove the existing sidewalk, which is shown here. It wraps around the two fronts of his lot and terminates on Mr. Dunkleberger's property into a grass area. He wanted to remove that sidewalk and terminate the sidewalk at this point into his driveway. That was brought to the attention of the homeowners association controlled by Stock Development and the architectural review board controlled by Stock Development. A fellow by the name of Bob Delaney received the request, and Sandy Houldsworth, who is the spouse of John Houldsworth, works for Stock Development in charge of the association affairs. They contact Diane Ebert -- because Diane Ebert is the president of the homeowners association that was turned over to the residents -- Page 73 January 15-16,2008 about this request, and a meeting occurs on Mr. Greider's lot. Mrs. Ebert cannot attend due to a death in the family, so asks Mr. Dunkleberger, who was a member of the architectural review board in the residents association, to attend, and a meeting occurs between Sandy Houldsworth, Bob Delaney, Mr. Greider, and Mr. Dunkleberger. They look at what Mr. Greider wants to do, and they agree that Mr. Greider can remove this sidewalk provided the county approved of the request to do so. If the county required the sidewalk to be extended to some degree to go into the cul-de-sac, Mr. Greider agreed that he would do so. So that was -- there was a letter written by county staff -- I think Mr. Houldsworth wrote that letter -- approving that particular no objection to the sidewalk. The sidewalk was removed. When the controversy arose in July, 2007, Ms. Ebert reported to the county that the approval by her association was not valid because Mr. Dunkleberger did not have the authority to speak for the homeowners association and the board of homeowners association did not approve of the request and, therefore, they are objecting to it and want that sidewalk restored to its original condition. Staff decided that that was not necessary, but in the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy given to Mr. Greider, they are requiring that the sidewalk be extended to the cul-de-sac and, I believe, a handicap ramp installed. And that's the current state of affairs. That's supposed to be done according to the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. But again, there may be some administrative litigation about that. The third issue, of course, is the 25-foot preserve issue. And staff has issued a Notice of Violation to Mr. Greider and Mr. Dunkleberger that they are violating the two sections of the code that I mentioned and that they will need a variance to deal with that violation. Mr. Greider has hired counsel who has written the county Page 74 January 15-16,2008 disagreeing with having to go through a variance because they don't apply, and that, again, is going to go through the administrative course, and you may be reviewing that in a different capacity. But with respect to my investigation as to whether there was anything improper, unethical, illegal done with respect to the Olde Cypress issue, my conclusions are set forth in page 22, and the answer IS no. With respect to, how did these 17 violations occur? Again, maybe they're not violations depending upon the outcome of that legal issue. But if they are violations, I find that they were oversights. There's nothing that I can see where people were excused from a violation that they -- that people knew about. And I don't see any evidence that any developer influenced the decision or any individual or any lawyer. It just happened that those people were given permits because no one really, frankly, considered this as an issue at the time. The Greider permit application, if it was not a comer lot when reviewed as a comer lot, then that was an error. It did not meet the definition of a comer lot if you apply the 1991 code to this. That technicality has been corrected if the lot line adjustment was properly approved because now it meets the definition of a comer lot because of the angle. And, again, that's been appealed. But the approval of the lot line adjustment occurred after the controversy arose, so people knew, staff knew, this was going to be an issue and, I think, called it as they saw it. They saw it as an insubstantial boundary change and approved it. The issue of John Houldsworth's involvement being a conflict of interest, we agree with that. I think John -- and he agrees as well, that he shouldn't be involved in any application that his wife, Sandy, is somehow involved in. He should defer it to someone else. He agrees with that. But I do find in this particular case, that John Houldsworth did Page 75 January 15-16,2008 not, while he was involved in all these issues I discussed, he did not act alone, and the approvals were made by several different people. So my conclusion is that even if John had recused himself and put it in the hands of someone else, I don't think we'd be in a different spot than we are today. But I think John did have a technical conflict of interest, and he's aware of that. I also, with all due respect, think that Mr. Kolflat, because of his daughter's participation in this issue, has a personal conflict of interest, and I think he should stand back and let the lawyers and Ms. Showalter litigate the matters. The issue of Mr. Greider being an attorney with Goodlette, Coleman having any influence on county staff, my conclusion is that that's not so. I didn't see any evidence ofthat. My Greider's a young attorney. I don't know how much involvement he has with county staff, but I didn't see any favoritism given to him. Bottom line is, we are where we are, but I did not see any wrongdoing or improper influence or anything else involved in the aide Cypress subdivision. With that I'll take questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions from the board? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you get involved in many land development decisions? Do you do any work of that kind? MR. FARESE: No. I'm a trial lawyer, and I don't do land use and -- I'm not an expert in that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would you be in a position to render an opinion as to whether the involvement of staff in finding alternatives to these problems exceeds the level of service they might have provided to any resident? MR. FARESE: I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understand your question. Could I render an opinion on -- say that again, I'm sorry. Page 76 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: On whether or not the staff in this case rendered far more services to this particular property owner to resolve a number of disputes than they would have provided to any other resident. MR. FARESE: Okay. I understand your question. To answer that, I think you'd have to compare what they did in this particular case with what they normally do. I would like to think that staff would react to a person's question about what are the -- if I buy this lot, what are the setbacks, just as they did in this case. I mean, I think that's -- they're public servants, and if they have the time to respond to questions, they would do so. And because I conclude that they didn't do any special favors to Mr. Greider because he happens to be a lawyer in a law office, I conclude that they handled this particular problem as they would in any other case. Conversely -- and maybe I'm overstepping my bounds -- but conversely, I think that because of who the complaining neighbor was, I think staff spent a whole lot more time on this particular issue than they would otherwise. I don't think if my next-door neighbor had a big house and I called up, I don't think I can get a meeting with the entire staff and talk about this issue. I could be wrong about that. But my impression is that there's more attention given to the problem because of who the complainant was than who the applicant was. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the provisions of paragraph 3.05.07(A)(2) are correct, exempting single-family homes from the requirements of subparagraph H, what setback requirements do you think should apply for single-family homes under those circumstances? MR. FARESE: The PUD document. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And not the plat? MR. FARESE: Well, I think the plat applies, when you're filing a plat, to make sure -- I mean, whatever the requirements are. So if Page 77 January 15-16,2008 the platting subsection is meant to tell the platter, situate the lots in a way that no building would occur within 25 feet of the preserve area -- and I don't know if they're talking about the actual boundaries of the wetland or the lot line, because as I showed you, there's a difference between those two -- you could do it that way. But if you did it that way, I don't know that it's fair to expect the planning technicians, when somebody walks in with a building permit, to research the platting requirements. Maybe that's -- maybe that's -- can be done, but I think that's asking a bit much. I think the -- whatever the setbacks are should be set forth in the PUD document. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And absent them, the 25-foot setback being in the PUD document -- isn't there a 20-foot setback in the PUD document? MR. FARESE: For principal structures, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And the Greider residence does not conform to even the 20-foot setback because of the classification of that lot as a comer lot; is that essentially true? MR. FARESE: Right. If it's a comer lot, then what was the rear is now a side, so there's only a five-foot setback. And the Greider residence is between 10 and 15 feet from what used to be the rear of the lot. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you know the genesis of the comer lot designation and its original purpose? MR. FARESE: I can't say that I do, no. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'll ask staff that question. Are you aware of any other cul-de-sac lot in this development that is defined as a comer lot? MR. FARESE: I am not. But if! might -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Has that golf course easement ever been abandoned along this property? MR. FARESE: Not before the Greider request. I don't know that anyone ever asked for it, and this is the only lot that I'm aware of Page 78 January 15-16,2008 where the owner asked for it to be vacated and it was granted. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, is it your understanding that the preserve includes only that area shown on the map as wetland preserve? You're suggesting that the wetland preserve doesn't really abut this particular property. But we have upland preserves. MR. FARESE: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the map you showed us identifies only wetland preserve. MR. FARESE: Right, right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there anything to suggest that the other property is not also a preserve? MR. FARESE: No. And I think the permit, the Southwest Florida Water Management permit probably defines the boundary of the preserve to include not only the parameters of the wetland but the boundary, and the boundary does abut the lot line. So it can -- you can read that section of the planning requirement to say that 25 feet should start from the boundary line. I'm not saying you can't. I'm not saying it's an unreasonable interpretation. I'm saying it's confusing because you have the same provision elsewhere which says it doesn't -- does not apply, so that's the confusion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there is a legal interpretation -- there's a legal definition of that preserve? That preserve is, in fact, identified somewhere, right? MR. FARESE: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the error which occurred was an error on behalf of the staff in not recognizing there was a preserve there because the document wasn't labeled as a preserve at that time? MR. FARESE: That's certainly an explanation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it not true that an error made by staff in interpreting the land development provisions is not binding? MR. F ARESE: Yes. But I -- I agree with your statement. I don't Page 79 January 15-16,2008 agree that's necessarily an error. I mean, ifthere was a 25-foot setback and staff allowed construction beyond that, then your statement is correct, it's not binding. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you're saying there was -- there's not a 25-foot setback requirement because it is now declared a comer lot. MR. FARESE: No. There are two different issues. One issue, the preserve setback applies regardless of whether it's a comer lot. What I'm saying is, I am 100 percent confident that the first section that sets forth the preserve setback does not apply because it says so. The other one, I think, is debatable, and I'm questioning, why would the county have one section and say, this setback, 25-foot preserve setback, does not apply to single-family residences if in another section it says the same thing? That's continuing to apply. I think there's an inconsistency, and I'm suggesting, apart from this particular case, someone ought to look at that inconsistency. If you intend it to apply, I think it should be more clear. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then would it be your interpretation that if an inconsistency exists in documents such as this, the most restrictive provision contained in the Land Development Code or the Growth Management Plan would prevail? MR. FARESE: Well, that gets into land use expertise. I've heard that. I also believe there's law that says, where there's an ambiguity and you're trying to prevent a property owner from doing something, that that is entitled to preference. In other words, if you want to prohibit a use, it ought to be more specific. So it's a debatable case, and I think it's probably going to come before you in a quasijudicial capacity and, perhaps, you ought to let the lawyers for both sides of this controversy brief it, argue it, and call it as they see it rather than me suggesting what the outcome should be. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, do you have Page 80 January 15-16,2008 anything to add to this discussion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think you did a thorough investigation. Did you happen to come across anything in regards to where the Greiders encroached on this preserve and South Florida Water Management told them that they had to move materials back? MR. F ARESE: Yes. I heard that while -- during construction -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you hear it or did you investigate that portion? MR. F ARESE: Well, it was already corrected by the time I got involved. I was told by the neighbors what had occurred, and apparently some fill went into the preserve area. It was reported and taken away. But all that was done before I actually saw it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you know how much the encroachment was? Did you look into that? I mean, you did such a thorough investigation. MR. FARESE: They told me how much it was. I don't remember what they told me. It was -- it was -- my recollection is -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: But why isn't that in your report? MR. FARESE: That there was an encroachment that was corrected? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. MR. FARESE: I didn't think it was material to the question of whether the county acted properly or not properly. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, there's so much other information that you brought forth. MR. FARESE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think this is part of the information that should have been brought forth to us as a Board of County Commissioners. MR. FARESE: Okay. Well, I apologize if! didn't put that in my report. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else? Page 81 January 15-16,2008 Commissioners, if you don't mind, I think we can move on. I found a lot of information. Mr. Farese, I'm not sure if you're aware of this. You read the PUD document, correct? MR. FARESE: Tried to. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm going to give you this. This is the PUD document. It's not the scrivener's error, because we all know what's in there. I want to read something out of the residential land use district, and that's section seven of the PUD. And I'm going to read the second paragraph, the second sentence in the paragraph. MR. FARESE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Actual acreage of the development tract will be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or preliminary subdivision plat approved in accordance with Article III, division 3.3, and division 3.2 respectively of the Collier County Land Development Code. Residential tracts are designed to accommodate internal roadway, open space parks, and the amenities areas, lakes, water management, and so on and so forth. Okay. This is a provision under our old Land Development Code that I'm not sure that you're aware of. In division 3,3.2, and in fact, 3.2.8.4.7(3) -- and this is a part-- the title easement, and I'll also give this to you. It says, protection of preserves and easements. A nonexclusive easement or tract in favor of Collier County without maintenance and obligation shall be provided in all subdivision plats and buildable lots or parcels subject to the abutting or projecting preserve area required to be designated in a preliminary and a final subdivision plat and shall be a minimum of 25-foot setback from the boundary of each preserve within the area with no principal structures, may be constructed, okay. So I will give you this, but I also want to go on and read in the PUD -- this is the preamble of the PUD. Three -- in section three of it. Page 82 January 15-16,2008 In A, the regulation of Land Development Code ofOlde Cypress PUD shall be in accordance with the content of the document, the PUD, planned unit development district, and other applicable sections, part of the Land Development Code of Collier County and Growth Management Plan in effect -- it's very important -- in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which the regulations related to and authorize the construction of improvements, okay. MR. FARESE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The ambiguity that you're talking about in our code came into place in 19 -- or 2004, and I have it here. It's when the board went from the Land Development Code to the Land Development Regulations, LDRs. It doesn't matter what our code says today. The guiding document -- and correct me if! am wrong -- is the PUD ordinance. It's a higher document, and whenever it is silent, wouldn't you say that the Land Development Code takes place? MR. FARESE: Yes. If the PUD document is silent. You'll hear an argument by the owner that it is not silent. It refers to other things. Again, I'm not going to argue the owner's position. But you're right and your statement is correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. I'll give you this, and it is public record. It's to abide by Section 3.2 ofthe board's 2001 ordinance, which is the Land Development Code. It's right here. But it's, more importantly, what Commissioner Coyle said. I apologize, that wasn't -- I don't believe that we asked you to interpret our Land Development Code, but I believe you did. But it is such a lengthy document. I want to provide to you in section 1 of our code, 1.03.01, in D it says, where provisions of this regulation, the Growth Management Plan or any other law regulation in Collier County imposed in -- imposes a -- greater restrictions upon the matter than any provisions of the regulation, that the Land Development Code or any other law Page 83 January 15-16,2008 regulation in effect in Collier County, the provision imposing the greater restrictions or regulations shall be deemed in control. You're aware of that? MR. FARESE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But you didn't put that in your report. MR. FARESE: The issues -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You stated there was -- there is some ambiguity in our code -- MR. FARESE: Yes. I see a section in your code that clearly, to me, says it doesn't apply. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you agree that the most stringent applies? MR. FARESE: But the question remains is, does it apply? What you've just read to me is what I read to you and quoted in my report that's in the Land Development Code. It's in the platting requirements for final plats. And the question is, does the platting requirement, as to what should be in plats, apply to building permits? If it does, what I'm telling you is, it's not consistently applied, as proven by this case. And I'm suggesting to you, it ought to be clarified. Now, maybe I'm not a land use planner, but I'm saying you've got to -- if that's the intent, you've got an issue that I think needs to be clarified because I don't see it as clearly as, perhaps, you do. But I'm not an expert in reading your code. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. In my opinion -- and maybe Susan Istenes can help clear this up. In my opinion, it doesn't matter what this code says that the board adopted in 2004. The PUD document says it will abide by the subdivision section of the '91 code, because that's what applied when it was platted, when the master plan was accepted by staff. MR. FARESE: Okay. And in the-- Page 84 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: The ambiguity came in in 2004. It was not in there in the 2001 code. MR. FARESE: Was the 25-foot setback for platting requirements in the 1999 code? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, and it fell on the ground that I read. MR. FARESE: Okay. And it says about the same thing, doesn't it, that we just -- that you just read to me, 25 -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: It doesn't -- yes, but I -- thank you for the ambiguity, but the ambiguity wasn't in the '91 code. It was during the codification of it. MR. FARESE: You're saying the exemption in the other section did not exist in the 1999 code? CHAIRMAN HENNING: There was -- yeah. There was no exemption, and I don't think there is an exemption today. I think it was an error. And, again, we'll have to have staff clarify that for us. But we're going to have to move on. MR. FARESE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I have some other questions, but I'm going to move on. Commissioner Fiala and then Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mine's just fast. I totally agree about probably an error because if every preserve setback didn't apply to a single-family home, we'd have trouble protecting all of our preserves. Just makes common sense. That's all. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you for the opportunity, Chair. I'd like to ask the County Attorney's Office if they agree with the report that we received or if they see anything in it that they find to be questionable or objectionable. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'll answer the second question first. No, Page 85 January 15-16,2008 we don't find -- I did not find in my review anything objectionable in the report. It not only attempted to determine if, in fact, there was impropriety or error in the application of the administration by staff of what had come forward, but it also, you know, as you have heard, provided a report based upon the investigation into questions of proprietor -- or potential appearance of impropriety and things of that nature. Now, one of the questions that you're dealing with right here has to do with, Mr. Farese has been responding to Mr. Henning, particularly, and Mr. Coyle to some degree, is the question of, we call it -- it's either -- you call it statutory construction or the rules of construction, the rules of interpretation of multiple phrases or provisions in a code. One of the things we are grappling with right here in our thought process is, yes, there is a rule of construction that the more specific or the more stringent may be given the application. Mr. Farese has indicated that there is another way of looking at this and that is, where there is specific language indicating that something does not apply. That's very specific and stringent as well, and that's what he's looking at. In regard to the question of -- I'll just add this. In regard to the question of the old LDC, that is the 1991 LDC as amended through the years, and the 2004, I think that's now called the UDC or the regulations, as Mr. Henning indicated, I would need to hear again, I believe, the sentence or two that Mr. Henning read from the early part of the PUD talking about the application of the LDC regulations. I was not sure as I listened as to whether, in fact, it was freezing in time, the application of the regulations, that is the LDC regulations, at the time that the PUD was adopted or if, in fact, it was indicating that the regulations that exist at the time of site development came into play, and I was a little unclear when I heard that discussion a few minutes ago. Page 86 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Mr. Weigel, I think it was freezing of time. I don't think community development, some of the community development staff agrees with me. Mr. Klatzkow and I had this conversation, and because of multiple codes, the staff has always applied the code at the time. But the residential section of the Land Development Code -- and it says it in several sections. It applies -- that the '91 code, as amended, applied to this PUD. And in fact, it said in the residential section it shall be in compliance of division 3, section 3.2 and 3.3. Does that answer your question? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think so. I was just -- as you read that, I was trying -- I had a little trouble following its ultimate statement there. It sounded like there was a bit of a topical application meaning, and perhaps it was my own internal judgment that it was indicating that at the time of site development, the rule applies at that time, and -- but I could be wrong in what I was hearing there, so that's where it left a question in my mind. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was -- it says that, you know, at master plan or Site Development Plan, and it also says at platting. Well, I mean, if you go by 3.3 and 3.2, it refers to plats and subdivision regulations. MR. WEIGEL: Right. That would appear to freeze time, I think, at that point. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to make a personal statement here, Mr. Farese. It, of course, is our responsibility to take your report and try to interpret it in view of what we believe the law allows, and that's going to be our task moving forward. But personally, I believe that your analysis has made it much easier for me to understand the events that transpired here and to place them in proper context, so I don't want you to interpret my questionst Page 87 January 15-16,2008 or remarks to reflect upon the quality of your investigation. So I think you did a good job with this, and you certainly have helped me understand this issue more clearly. MR. FARESE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Can we hear from our planning director? MR. MUDD: Susan? MS. ISTENES: Good morning. Susan Istenes. I'm the zoning director. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Istenes, can you just shed some light on the -- your understanding of this PUD and what is the controlling factor of the setbacks? MS. ISTENES: First, I -- before I answer your question, I'm going to be answering based on my knowledge to date of the PUD, not having been asked to officially interpret the LDC or any sections of the PUD. So I'm offering my opinion based on my knowledge today. Please understand that this is a complicated issue, as you've found out, listening to Mr. Farese and the questions you had. It's obvious it's complicated for us as well. It could be that somebody could come back and challenge the application of the setbacks through an official interpretation process in light of specific circumstances. So I don't want you all to -- I just would like -- appreciate if you would keep that in mind, and I'll answer as best I can based on my knowledge to date. Your question is? I'm sorry. Could you repeat so I'm sure I understood, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's question whether on-- adjacent or abutting to preserves, whether 25-foot setback applies or the 20-foot setback applies to principal structures. MS. ISTENES: My understanding, based on my knowledge of the PUD to date, is that the 25-foot setback would apply to principal structures abutting preserves in this PUD. Page 88 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- and that's based upon the PUD and the -- MS. ISTENES: Both the PUD and the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Should we ask for the official interpretation using the Land Development Code of '91 and 2004 and the Growth Management -- or the Land Development Code to get an official interpretation by the board? MR. WEIGEL: You're asking if -- you're asking if the board may ask for that? Yes, the board may ask -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, should we, in this case. MR. WEIGEL: I think -- I think that it may be a good reason to ask for it, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you like that? There's enough -- do you need any further guidance? MS. ISTENES: Yes. And thank you, that would be my recommendation as well. This is, like I said, a complicated issue. When you get into official interpretations, I have to have a specific set of facts associated with specific questions in order to interpret that it's not just a general statement. So I would need assistance either from the County Attorney's Office or whatever party the County Attorney deems appropriate in making sure I understand what your questions are and what facts associated with this you would like me to consider under. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. If I could just interject something that might make it easier for us. Our set of facts, the set of facts that we might present to you as a board, might vary from the set of facts that someone else might present to you for interpretation. The Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is going to expire Page 89 January 15-16,2008 shortly. It would seem that the occupant -- the Greiders -- of the home would want to get this resolved very, very quickly. Would it -- would it not get us to the point we want to get to if we had one of the parties ask for an interpretation, because they're going to present their own set of facts and their understanding of the facts, and we're going to be placed in a position of having to interpret whether their facts apply in this case, and we will then be asking you how your opinion would impact the interpretation. Does that make sense to anybody? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I understand what you're saying, but I think that we have -- in my opinion we have two different opinions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think we need to clear it up through an executive summary. It was -- it was written that 17 -plus homes need a variance. Now we're told that there's ambiguity in our code, and the variance doesn't apply. Although as I read the PUD document, as I shared with everybody else, that it does apply. I think that the board needs to clear this up. Let's say that we don't have somebody come forward and ask for an official interpretation, what happens to those residents that are in limbo right now? And, in fact, we have one resident there that has a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy that's due to expire. Now, he was told ifhe doesn't apply for a variance, that that TCO goes away and, therefore, what does he have for his money? I think we need to clear this up myself, and I think the board needs to do that. After -- after the County Attorney's report, may we -- after the County Attorney thinks about it, may he help guide us in the specific questions to ask the planning director to get to the solution? Would that be okay? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be a good idea. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: That's fine. Page 90 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Farese, I have some other questions. You stated that you have seen evidence that in 1999 this was a comer lot. Do you have that evidence? MR. FARESE: Ms. Ebert showed it to me. I didn't make a copy of it. It's a -- to me it appeared to be an advertising brochure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. FARESE: But, no, I don't have a copy of it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. You said that in 2004 or 2005 that Mr. Greider asked the staff -- before he purchased it, he asked the staff about the interpretation of a lot, whether it's a comer lot or a cul-de-sac lot; is that correct? MR. FARESE: That's not the exact question, but yes, before he purchased the lot, he asked about what setbacks would apply, and there were some emails to that effect as well. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let me ask you something. Do you know how the executives in Stock receive bonuses? MR. FARESE: I have no idea. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Because, you know, my understanding in the real estate -- I don't know if it applies here -- that the executive, based upon the business, how much business there is is how much bonus they receive. So I don't know ifthat's the fact or not, but since this lot wasn't purchased, it was owned by the developer, I'm not sure if a spouse of our staff received a benefit. Do you see where I'm going? MR. FARESE: I understand the question. I don't know the answer factually. If this lot that was sold to Mr. Greider resulted in a bonus to Mrs. Houldsworth or not, I don't know the answer to that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Ifwe don't have any more comments or questions, can we go to the public speakers, please, Sue? MS. FILSON: You have four speakers, Mr. Chairman. The first one is Clay Brooker. He'll be followed by Melissa Showalter. MR. BROOKER: Good morning, Commission. My name is Page 91 January 15-16,2008 Clay Brooker with the law firm ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, and I represent Melissa Showalter and Mrs. Kolflat in this matter. I do not represent commissioner -- Planning Commissioner Kolflat. It's taken an hour to get here. I'm going to try to keep my comments -- there are many, many problems that we have with this lot. You've heard some of them. I'll try to keep my comments very focused on the 25-foot setback alone. We are surprised by Mr. Farese's opinion that single-family homes are exempt from the preserve setback. With all due respect to Mr. Farese, he's an accomplished civil trial lawyer. I know that. He's not a land use attorney, he's not a professional land planner. He wasn't asked by each of you to interpret your code, and he apparently, according to his own report, didn't speak to anyone in the county's environmental department before he summarily concluded that preserves need not be protected from single-family homes. If the LDC's preserve setback does not apply to single-family homes, that would be news to me. It would also be news to your own environmental staff who had written that they disagreed unequivocally with Mr. Farese's opinion. Finally, it would be directly contrary to the community development and environmental services division's position back on October 23rd when this issue was first presented and we thought settled to the BCC. Now, Mr. Farese does admit that the 25-foot preserve setback is clearly imposed with no exemption for single-family homes in the LDC's subdivision regulations. So when the Olde Cypress lots were platted in 1999, Mr. Farese admits that the setback applied. But then he states that he's unsure whether that regulation survives, quote, post platting. Does it make sense to anyone in this room to say that when you plat the land and you create the lots for the single-family homes, you Page 92 January 15-16,2008 must apply a 25- foot setback, but then when you actually pull the permits to build on those lots, the homes can be closer than 25 feet to a preserve? It just doesn't make any common sense. Admittedly, section 3.05.07 is a mess. Not only does it seemingly conflict with the subdivision regulations, but it's also internally inconsistent. When you talk to environmental staff, they explain -- at least they explained to me -- that it was not their intention to exempt single- family homes with a 25- foot preserve setback by section 3.05.07. Instead, the intention was to exempt homes from creating preserves on each of their own individual lots and imposing conservation easements on their own individual lots. Why, they explain, because the preserves were already created at the community-wide level. The preserves were created and protected when Olde Cypress overall was permitted; therefore, there is no need to do it again at the individual lot level. Some people would call that double dipping. I've got about 30 more seconds. We've already found out 3.05.07 did not even exist when this PUD was approved or when the plat was approved. Regardless of how you interpret 3.05.07, one fact is crystal clear, the 25-foot preserve setback applies. Finally, Mr. Farese suggests that Planning Commissioner Kolflat recuse himself from even participating in this matter when it's his wife's and stepdaughter's property rights that are being violated. Again, I don't represent Mr. Kolflat individually, but to put it mildly, he is upset by the implication that he misused his position as a planning commissioner in any way. Not only do we believe Mr. Farese mischaracterizes and in many instances misstates Commissioner Kolflat's involvement in this matter, but he doesn't even mention the governing law here, which is, under Page 93 January 15-16,2008 these circumstances, Commissioner Kolflat may participant in the matter, but he simply cannot vote if and when this matter appears before the Planning Commission. That's state statutory law. Commissioner Kolflat intends to follow that law. We respectfully request that, with all due respect again to Mr. Farese, you reject his report and state, as you did back in October 23rd, that the 25-foot preserve setback applies to all homes abutting preserves in aide Cypress. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Melissa Showalter. She'll be followed by Diane Ebert. MS. SHOW ALTER: Good morning. For the record, my name is Melissa Showalter, and you might recall that I am the girl next door. My home is directly next to the Greider megahome that brought all this mess to us today and in October. I'm the girl next door that followed the law and honored the preserve setbacks. Once again, I have been forced to leave my family and fly down from Virginia to protect my property rights. I believe this matter was settled back in October, 2007, when staff asserted and each of you clearly directed that the 25- foot preserve setback applied and that the 17 encroaching homeowners must apply for variances, administratively or otherwise. I am upset that now nearly three months later there has been little to no progress. Nothing you've heard today is new. Mr. Greider himself brought up the exemption argument in August of 2007. Your staff quickly rejected that argument, and at the October meeting, your staff didn't even consider the exemption argument worth the time to mention. Now Mr. Farese, who I understand isn't even a land use attorney, raises the exemption issue again, and in just a few sentences, apparently without even talking to environmental staff, he reaches an opinion which is directly contrary to what each of you decided back in October. At least your staff is consistent. Several emails from them Page 94 January 15-16,2008 state that they disagree with Mr. Farese's opinion. I wasn't going to go into the part of his report that mentions my father, but after listening to the accusation that were made, I feel I need to make a few points. I have spent four days reading as many of 1,200 emails from county staff that I can. Nowhere in any of those emails does anything go or is mentioned and going towards my direction. Staff has come up on their own and went to Mr. Greider with this idea for the lot line adjustment, and they've done all these other ideas to protect and keep this home standing where it does, looming over me, and I resent that such an accusation would even be broached. That being said, here I am again, flying down once again to protect my property rights, and I ask, please, that each of you reject Mr. Farese's report and direct staff, once again, that the 25-foot preserve setback applies and that variances are required for the encroaching homeowners. Thank you for your time, MS. FILSON: The next speaker, Diane Ebert. She'll be followed by your final speaker, Kim Kish. MS. EBERT: Good morning, Commissioners. First thing I have to ask is, my report is going to go over. May I do my report? I'm going to need more than the three minutes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please keep it in three minutes as much as possible. MS. EBERT: Okay. For the record, my name is Diane Ebert, and I am here as a resident who lives on the same street as the megahouse that brings us here today and to rebut Mr. Farese's report. Commissioners, it was my understanding during the October 23rd BCC meeting that you asked for outside counsel to look at the possibility of favoritism, improper influences, illegal or unethical actions of any kind by county staff in the Greider case. After reading his report, I can't help but feel that in many areas Page 95 January 15-16,2008 Mr. Farese is a great writer of fiction. I do not have the time here to go into the many areas Mr. Farese failed to report on, but would like to point out a few of them to you now. On page 16 of his report, Mr. Farese states that Angel Tarpley reviewed the application and survey and concluded that the lot was a comer lot simply by visual inspection of the survey. I have been informed that the LDC does not contain visual inspection to determine a comer lot. This visual inspection shows favoritism to the Greiders. In 2007, both I and Mrs. Showalter reported to the county that Mr. Greider and -- and/or his contractor had not only removed trees and plants from the preserve, but had filled in 10 to -- 10 to -- 12 to 15 feet of the preserve with fill dirt. We were informed that Steve Nagel would go over the property with a helicopter but he couldn't get a helicopter for three weeks. We knew this needed to be addressed quicker, so we contacted the Department of Environmental Protection law enforcement. They came out within two days and ordered the fill to be removed immediately. After the state contacted them, John DeMartino came out and looked at it and said that the Greiders would be responsible for replanting the injured preserve area. To this day it has not been replanted. My next four points come from the email exchange between Joe Schmitt and Rich Yovanovich on July 18,2007. In the said email.Mr. Schmitt writes to Mr. Y ovanovich, it is now clear that this is not within the defined criteria of a comer lot and as such, the house does not meet the required setbacks. Again, no Notice of Violation was sent to the Greiders even though Mr. Schmitt confirms to Mr. Y ovanovich that his house is not a comer lot. According to Florida Statutes, the permit should have been voided. Mr. Schmitt goes on to layout three options to Mr. Y ovanovich. He says, vacate a portion of the -- vacate a portion of the Page 96 January 15-16,2008 conservation easement along the entire street so that the houses can achieve the required setback. Remove the portion of the house that is encroaching or seek a variance. I have directed staff to red tag the site until we sort out this course of action. All these three options were ignored. Not one of them has been initiated by Mr. Greider, and county staff has done nothing to force him to take action. If I or any of my neighbors who all sought variances ignored such action, we would be underneath the county jail. As to the red flag, it was issued then revoked two days later. Mr. Schmitt then writes to Mr. Y ovanovich, and I quote, the best I can do is to proceed with the TCO provided your clients proceed with the request for a variance. Commissioners, a TCO was issued on this house with a void permit at the end of August yet here we are in January and a request for a variance still has not been filed. On June 29th, Ross Gochenaur stated, it's not a comer lot. On-- three days later on July 3rd, he said we have -- it's a moot point because we have a conservation easement setback of 25 feet. I think we may have a problem. Again, county staff waited until October to come to you commissioners and ask for direction to determine what to do about the preserve setback. Does county development always wait four months to bring you problems and then seek your direction as what to do? The Greider home encroaches 14 feet, three inches into setback and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Ebert, can you start to wrap it up, please? MS. EBERT: Yes. According to Florida law, all building permits issued for the subject lot which do not apply the applicable setbacks for principal and accessory structures violate the LDC, and pursuant to Florida law, are void. Page 97 January 15-16,2008 Rather than immediately issuing a Notice of Violation, the county allowed Greider to continue building at his own risk. These two issues should have voided the building permit and thereby stopping construction, and no TCO should have been issued. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Kim Kish. MS. KISH: Good afternoon. Kim Kish, resident of Pebblebrooke, and I apologize for imposing on the Olde Cypress, but I did want to come and ask for some clarification, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, there's public comment, that's item number 11. If you want to talk about the Pebblebrooke issue, you want to come back for public comment? MS. KISH: Okay. That's fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker. CHAIRMAN HENNING: On the sign-up sheet, you'll look, the -- people need to sign up before the item is talked about, and I know that we had somebody else sign a speaker slip, but that is the board's rules. Can somebody tell me about this Florida law and setbacks? Is that in the building code? Ms. Ebert, did you see that in the Florida Building Code? MS. EBERT: It's case. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's case? Oh, it's a Florida case, okay. I mean, I have a lot of concerns about the TCO. There's no movement on this, and I want to get this thing resolved. I don't want to have to deal with this issue next year or late this year. I want to get it resolved, so we need to move on it. The TCO is to expire when? MR. FARESE: I believe February 28th, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: February 28th? MR. FARESE: I think so. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And-- Page 98 January 15-16,2008 MR. SCHMITT: 21 st. CHAIRMAN HENNING: May I ask you something about the TCO, Mr. Schmitt? Is it true that on a Temporary CO, there's not supposed to be anybody living there? MR. SCHMITT: There's -- for the record, Joe Schmitt, your administrator of Community Development Division. There are provisions -- a TCO is -- basically certifies that the house is fit for occupancy. There are limits that can be placed on a TCO. Being that this house met all health, safety, and welfare requirements, there was no reason not to allow it to be occupied from a building permit perspective. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But yet we know that it doesn't meet the health, safety, and welfare of certain parts of the building code. MR. SCHMITT: As defined by the Florida Building Code. There was a violation in the Land Development Code, not specifically in the -- from a technical perspective that one could, from a standpoint of health and safety, occupy a structure. We issue TCOs for many, many things. This was one where it was deemed that, because the violation could be cured through an administrative process, that they would then proceed through the administrative process. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Was it -- did it not have hurricane shutters as required by the code, since it did not have safety glass? Was that completed before you gave the -- MR. SCHMITT: No, that was not. That, again, was -- there was an issue there with the completion of hurricane shutters. They had plywood shutters that were not properly anchored. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: That was noticed, and that has since been corrected. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Did it not have a banister railing before the -- after the TCO was issued? Page 99 January 15-16,2008 MR. SCHMITT: All I'm familiar with, there was a correction to be made to the railing. I'm not sure --I'd have to turn to my building director -- if he is aware, but all I know is there was an issue cited with the banister or with the railing that needed some correction. I'm not sure if it was the height of the banister. That I don't know. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. So are you going to issue -- you're going to extend the TCO after the -- MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, I will do nothing unless you direct it. I was coming back to you -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do nothing. MR. SCHMITT: The situation right now is I have correspondence from Mr. -- we've issued a Notice of Violation. We are proceeding to bring this to the Code Enforcement Board. That the -- Mr. Greider -- Mr. Greider's attorney has responded in three, maybe four separate pieces of correspondence basically saying, county, you prove it. You go ahead and present my case. The only place I have, the only legal recourse I have is to proceed to the Code Enforcement Board. We were waiting for the outcome of today's presentation to decide, I mean, how does the county proceed. The issue is, again, this issue with the official interpretation, which is an issue that you would deal with, not the Code Enforcement Board. You would deal with it either as the Board of County Commissioners or as the Board of Zoning Appeals. Our problem right now is, we have an issue that calls into question the applicability of the code, and we're faced with a dilemma right now of bringing this to the Code Enforcement Board with this cloud of uncertainty in regards to the application of the code. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What's going to happen on February 28th? Are you saying nothing's going to happen? MR. SCHMITT: I am going to come back to you and ask to extend the TCO. Page 100 January 15-16,2008 us? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, you're going to bring it back to MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You know what's confusing to me, the planning director at one of our meetings wrote an executive summary, put it on our agenda, and you presented to the board-- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- in saying there was a violation of the setbacks of not only this house, but other houses -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- in Olde Cypress. Now you're not even sure. MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. I'm not sure -- that's not what I said. We are proceeding with the -- the administrative variances we're processing. We have them all in house. We've had the meeting. We've got all the applications for the administrative variances. We're proceeding with the code enforcement case. Mr. Dinkle -- Dunkleberger, the neighbor who also has to come in for a variance, he has hired counsel. His counsel was waiting until the outcome of to day's hearing before proceeding. The issue here is that I have to take this case now, and my code enforcement director will bring this case to the Code Enforcement Board. The applicant has not applied for a variance. They believe they are not required to apply for a variance and that now will have to be debated in front of the Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So -- in my opinion, if you're going to apply the code to the others with an administrative variance, Mr. Dunkleberger applied for a variance. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: He's had a preapp. meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we're going to allow one resident Page 10 1 January 15-16, 2008 not to until we have an official interpretation? MR. SCHMITT: That's not what I said, sir. The Notice of Violation is existing. It is -- it is a Notice of Violation that we're proceeding to pursue. He's in violation. We believe he's in violation of the setback. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The condition of the TCO was that he file for a variance, right? MR. SCHMITT: He corrected all the errors that exist. There are basically three that were cited. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there's no reason to come back to us and ask us for the TCO, correct? MR. SCHMITT: I'll take your direction today. I will not reissue the TCO. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm trying to understand what you're trying to say. You based the TCO on three things. MR. SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And one of them is application for a vanance. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ifhe doesn't apply for a variance, are you going to expire the TCO or are you going to ask us to extend it? MR. SCHMITT: I will -- based on what I'm hearing you say today, it will expire. I will not -- I will not extend the TCO. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it fair to the rest of the residents if you ask us to extend it? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's exactly my question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schmitt, you said you would bring it back to us and let us make a decision. My question is why? You issued the TCO with the requirement that a request for a variance be submitted to resolve these Issues. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. Page 102 January 15-16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: They have refused to do so. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why do you need to come back to us to make a decision? MR. SCHMITT: Because of the controversy of this, my only thought was to bring it back. I haven't even discussed this with the manager yet. It doesn't expire till the end of February. But it's clear they have not met the requirements to correct the violations that currently exist, and the TCO was given a six-month life. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you know what I would do if! were in your position and somebody told me that they were not going to reply -- not going to comply with your restrictions on a TCO? I would terminate the TCO immediately -- MR. SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and they wouldn't live in the place until they got a variance. End of story. MR. SCHMITT: Understand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I'd do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, you had the opportunity to do that when you found out that the shutters -- the health, safety, and welfare hurricane shutters were not CO'd. But would that be the same thing you would do for other residents? MR. SCHMITT: In a situation with hurricane shutters, yes. If there was a -- if we've noted that there was a violation or that they weren't installed correctly, we would give them time to cure the violation. We do -- it's -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All right. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've already directed Susan to come back with an interpretation, haven't we? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, we have. But this report -- you Page 103 January 15-16,2008 know, I have concerns of several things. One concern that I hadn't brought up, a planning commissioner, a resident of the community, who put his application and the board approved for him to be on the Planning Commission was told that he cannot participate and he ought to recuse himself from this issue. That is not my understanding of the law. My understanding, that a planning commissioner, ifhe has a vested interest in it, not only can ask for information, but they can participate in the discussion of that item if it comes up to the Planning Commission. The only thing that he would have to do is recuse himself from the vote, and he must fill out an application to the Ethics Commission and state why. That's no different than us. I mean, you know, my perspective, I don't want to approve this portion of the report because we really don't have a final answer, and I don't want to discourage anybody that wants to participate in government to not to because of this report. Commissioner Coyle, and Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Halas had his -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, you were first? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. In getting back to the person on the Planning Commission, we can always ask the County Attorney to check with the people up in Tallahassee in regards to, can he vote on this as long as he's not involved in any activity where it would be financially -- be a financial gain for him. So I don't think -- I think that's a moot point. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I think we all have the answer to that. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to address the issue of the report. I don't know that we're even Page 104 January 15-16,2008 supposed to approve the report. I don't know that we can approve the conclusions in the report because we need to have a hearing and have both sides thoroughly argued, and I don't think we have done that. Mr. Greider is not here, nor is he represented. So I would suggest that we -- we merely accept the report. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that's what I said. Did I say approve? I apologize if I did. I meant accept. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We can accept the report. That doesn't mean we endorse its findings or recommendations. It is information that is -- it's valuable for me in making a final determination, and I clearly don't agree with all the conclusions. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you really need a motion? Do we need a motion on that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if we're going to do anything with it, I think the most we should do is accept it, and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It's in our packet. All right. We're going to take a lunch break. We'll be back at 1 :34, and at that time we're going to public petitions, and then we're going to -- back to our regular -- yes, sir. MR. MUDD: One question. Are we going to accept the report? I think you had a motion, but I don't know if you have a vote yet, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I thought I'd stated it's in our agenda, that we're accepting it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we need a vote? MR. WEIGEL: You don't have to have a vote. You did have a motion and a second, so you may want to clarify that for the record. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, there was -- Commissioner Coletta second, but there wasn't a first. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I had suggested that we do nothing more than just accept it, and Commissioner Coletta seconded that as a motion. Page 105 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you -- that was a motion to accept? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there's a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed to the motion? Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any in favor -- everybody in favor of the motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye (sic). COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye (sic). COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: So motion carries, 3-2, Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Fiala dissenting from the motion. We're adjourned until 1:35. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Board of County Commissioners is back in session. Next item, we're going to the pubic petitions. Item #6A PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JORGE TRINCADO TO DISCUSS PERMITTING OF THE MARTIAL ARTS ACADEMY AT IMMOKALEE ROAD AND RANDALL BOULEVARD - DISCUSSED; COMMISSIONER COLETTA TO WORK WITH PETITIONER Page 106 January 15-16,2008 MR. MUDD: Next item is 6A. It's a public petition request by Jorge Trincado to discuss permitting of the Martial Arts Academy at Immokalee Road and Randall Boulevard. Mr. Trincado? MR. TRINCADO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you'd take either microphone. MR. MUDD: Either podium, sir, and just state your name for the record. MR. TRINCADO: Good afternoon. Thank you for letting me speak here. I am requesting Tae K won Do Fitness Club to be in the list of principal uses ofthe zoning department to provide permit to open business in the mentioned location; that is Immokalee Road on Randall. When I contact the zoning department for first time asking if the zoning would allow me to open that kind of business, they told me that it was okay and also they called Miromar shopping center. I was told by the staff at that time when I went there -- the place was ready. I was not given the permit because the PUD ordinance did not include a Tae Kwon Do and Fitness Club in the place of the principal use. Residents of the area are aware of the need for their children to be involved in sport activities. Healthy for their body and mind. In fact, at this moment, I have approximately 50 children waiting for that place to be opened. I'm petitioning for a permit to open the Tae Kwon Do and Fitness Club. The PUD ordinance is not included in that location. This petition is requested based on the following: The owner of the property agreed to add Tae Kwon Do and Fitness Club as one of the principal uses of the building structure. The shopping center comes with 88 parking spaces. There will Page 107 January 15-16,2008 be a van dropping off the children from their schools. During the hours of operation of the club other businesses are going to be closed. It has a beauty salon, the automotive service station, the flowers, the store is out of business already, and residents of the area are already expecting for the club to be opening the store. I attached said paper to the County Manager with the summaries of the neighbors in the area that are -- support my idea for my business. And also, I have the letter from some of the principals of the schools, Mr. Phipps. Also, other schools is Corkscrew Middle and Corkscrew Elementary, and they're dying to have some help with that kind of business in the area. The rest of the area already, the classes are planning to be small with no more than 10 children per class. And I already spoke with the parents. They can drop the children and they can leave. And according to my research in that area, I was tending for 10 days doing a search, and I did see all the time more than 20 parking spaces available. At the entrance is -- there's a pizza place, and I'm next to them, and everybody park at the beginning. But in the back, there's always about 20 parking spaces. And I checked with the closest martial arts that is about seven miles from that neighborhood, and it's bigger than mine, 2,000 square feet, and it has only eight parking spaces. So my question is, how come that space is bigger than mine and they allowed to open with only eight parking spaces, because according with PUD, is for every 100 square feet, you need one parking space, okay. I'm begging you to let me do kind of that business. That's what I do for a living, and I have a family and I live in Waterways houses. And I did send all the papers to Mr. Coletta, and as well as the County Manager. So I'd be happy if you let me just make a living, pay my taxes, the rent, and support my family, as well, my wife is doing work for Page 108 January 15-16,2008 David Lawrence helping people with mental disabilities. So I will really -- if God help me to do that, I would agree if you put some conditions, but I do whatever it takes to make this business run and make my honest business and help the community, that it's really important for them, taking care of the children, instead of playing games or being in the other things that are not healthy for them. Thank you and God bless you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I want to see ifthere's any commissioners that have any comments or questions. If you'd just stand by. MR. TRINCADO: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir. Do you own this PUD? MR. TRINCADO: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. TRINCADO: I just moved -- I'm sorry. I moved like a year and a half to Naples from Miami. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. TRINCADO: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What you may have to do is talk to the owner of the -- MR. TRINCADO: I spoke to him and he agrees with me. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what he's going to have to do is probably put an amendment to the PUD -- MR. TRINCADO: I'm aware of that, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that's probably the course of action that he needs to take to see if there could be an amendment to his PUD to address the particular issue that you're bringing forth today. MR. TRINCADO: I spoke about -- with Mr. David Eldridge. He told me that takes about nine months. Page 109 January 15-16,2008 Since I have my place ready since December the 15th, I don't know what to do because actually I'm not working because this is what I do for a living. And also they gave me a list of the principal uses that is automatic service situation -- station, barber shop, childcare center, convenience store, drug store, food market, laundry, post office, repair shop, that all of this kind of business require maybe twice the parking spaces that I will need in my kind of business. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta has a question or comment. MR. TRINCADO: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I understand where you're coming from. Wow, that's a little loud, isn't it? I just want to tell you, I understand, because I -- as a commissioner, I'm now -- I don't have any exceptions to the law myself, and I have a commercial property, and I had a tenant-- possible tenant look at it, and it was -- I had to reject them for the simple reason, in order for them to go in there, because that use wasn't that intense before, there was a question of about $34,000 in impact fees. Well, commissioners aren't exempt from any of these rules, too. I can go ahead and bring my building up to that point of compliance by paying the $34,000, of course, it's not economically feasible to do that. But the thing is I'm trying to impress upon you is that the rules and regulations that you're seeing before you aren't arbitrary to the point where we can say, we're going to exclude you based upon your particular need but we're going to make everybody else adhere to the situation. That's why there's a set plan of action that you have to follow to be able to get to it. And I understand the frustration. I mean, every person on here has been involved in business at one point in time, and Page 110 January 15-16,2008 we know sometimes with the government bureaucracy what we have to go through; however, we're the people that make those rules but we can't arbitrarily just waive them per se. However, with that said, I'm sure that if you brought it through the process and your landlord is willing to cooperate, we'd do everything we could possibly to be able to make it happen sooner than later. It's just one of those things. When they put these PUDs together, there's certain specific uses that they permit, and they list those permitted uses. And the reason being is to make sure that there isn't a whole bunch of other uses that they can't anticipate going into it. It doesn't mean that that list is perfect; however, for it to be made by this commission just sitting here today, it's not something that really would work. But I do feel your pain because I'm also suffering in the same direction, and it's just one of those things we have to work through in the government process. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, you have anything? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Susan, I have a question. Is this a PUD? Does it say anything different than it does in this GMP paper that you have on the visualizer? MS. ISTENES: No. Susan Istenes for the record. I just wanted to bring this to your attention. This is a little bit of a unique situation in that this is in the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict, which is in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and they have a set list of very specific uses that can only be allowed in this district. So not only would a PUD amendment be required, but the growth management -- the Golden Gate Area Master Plan would also have to be amended prior to a PUD amendment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, so there is a PUD. MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. Does it have any -- in the Page 111 January 15-16,2008 PUD does it have some language in there, whatever the planning directors deem comparable and compatible? MS. ISTENES: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It does not? MS. ISTENES: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It has SIC codes? MS. ISTENES: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It does not have SIC codes? MS. ISTENES: That's the language in the PUD, and it pretty much reads exactly like it does in the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But it says shopping centers-- it doesn't say real estate or any offices in there. So you would determine that offices are not even allowed in it? MS. ISTENES: Post offices and professional offices, including branch banks are allowed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But not a real estate office? MS. ISTENES: If it was deemed a professional office, which -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. ISTENES: -- it could possibly be, depending upon the scope of their work. The other thing with shopping centers, the shopping centers isn't a defined use, a land use. It is -- and I've got the definition written here. It is defined in the LDC as a group of unified commercial establishments built on a site which is plan developed, owned or managed as an operating unit. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. ISTENES: So-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Thank you. That's -- Commissioner Coletta pretty much summarized what you have to do, SIr. MR. TRINCADO: Okay. Sorry. My question was, with the person I call and answered that I was allowed to was a mistake from somebody from the department, zoning department, so they refer to Page 112 January 15-16,2008 me that way. That day when I went to get, say, I'm sorry, you didn't speak with me, Mr. Eldridge, the supervisor. But I told him, say, the person who answers the phone is also working for with your department, should be -- know all the rules for the same thing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't disagree with that. MR. TRINCADO: Okay. But I'm just letting you know, okay. So thank you. I don't know what -- should I wait for something else or do other -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be more than happy to welcome working with you on this through staff to see what we can do to explain to you what the process is and what may be done to possibly expedite it. It's nothing that's going to be extremely quick. I mean, we have to overcome several different elements, including the master plan and the PUD itself. But it's still doable. But I mean, if you're looking to open in six months' time, I don't think anything would happen in that kind of a span of time. But if you want to pursue it, I'd be happy to help you. MR. TRINCADO: Absolutely. It's ready to open the doors. The owner is available to help me. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'd be more than happy to make the introductions to the right staff people. MR. TRINCADO: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks for being with us today. MR. TRINCADO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next -- Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to say, you know, it's pretty clear that you'd like to open soon and it won't be able to be done soon. Can you ever look for another place? MR. TRINCADO: That's the problem, because the neighborhood where I live is the neighborhood that needs that kind of business. Page 113 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. MR. TRINCADO: The people are traveling like seven miles, the closest one, and they trying to avoid the traffic and also save some money and time, and they want to. So for myself and also for the community, they need it desperately, that kind of business for their children. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One last point, if I may. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. This is a perfect example of what we've been hearing for a long time now about people moving out into the eastern part of Collier County. It's not a question of they're moving out there because they like the peace and solitude of vast expansions of wilderness, they also like the services that they expect to be at a reasonable distance from their homes. And this is just one of many examples of what we're going to be seeing in the near future. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Okay. We're going to move on to the next District 5 petitioner. Item #6B PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY FRANK CIV ALE TO DISCUSS A CITATION FOR A GUEST HOUSE, CARPORT AND SHED- DISCUSSED MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's 68. It's a public petition request by Frank Civale to discuss the situation for a guesthouse, carport, and shed. Mr. Civale? MR. CIV ALE: Good afternoon. A few months ago I had a code person come by my house and he said, Frank, you don't have a permit for your guesthouse, for your shed, and for your carport. So I told Page 114 January 15-16,2008 him, I said, what are you talking about? This building is 30 years old, and plus I have a title policy when I bought the property. So he told me to go to an architect and get the paperwork drawn up. I did go to an architect, and he signed off that everything was done in accordance to code, and he also gave me a form of ordinance 44. After reading it, I went over to the appraisal's office and got myselfthe aerial shot where it was taken in 1980, and it distinctly shows that the shed and my carport and my guesthouse were existing in 1980. So I'm just wondering what my next move is. I think I'm grandfathered in, and yet when I took the plans down to the Horseshoe court, five people viewed them, they gave them back to me, and then one of the girls walked me into the impact fee room. And she said something I didn't like. She gives me a bill for $13,000. So I said, what are you doing? And she goes, well, there's an impact fee. I say, Miss, this building is 30 years old. Where do you come across giving somebody a bill for $13,000 when something was built 30 years ago? And she indicates, well, I'm just doing my job. So I went to see an attorney, and if! need one, I certainly know where to go. So I'm just wondering, I think I've done everything that I'm supposed to do, and what's the next move on my part? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Your situation isn't unique. In fact, it came up before this commission last year, was it, Commissioner Henning, about -- we were talking about grandfathering, and we came up with a basic rule that shortened the process a little bit. But it still requires you to be able to bring the building up to par to be able to prove that it was built according to the specifications that were required back at the year at the time it was built. However, my question of you, sir -- and I don't mean to be intrusive or in any way be looking like I'm against what you're doing, Page 115 January 15-16,2008 but the building that was built, was it built as a garage originally and then converted to a guesthouse? MR. CIV ALE: No. It was built as a guesthouse. It even says on my aerial shot, guesthouse, on my survey. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. CIV ALE: My architect, like I just said, he signed off on it because everything was built to code. I have signed affidavits. And I also have the 1980 aerial shot. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. The only thing is, this board's sitting here today, as we're sitting, doesn't have really the authority to be able to give you absolution and tell you to go on your way. There's numerous cases similar to this. You're going in the right direction. First, you know, a good land use attorney is a valuable asset at this point in time. Mind you, I don't work for the County Manager. I work for you. So I can only tell you what I've experienced in the seven years that I've been here. A good land use attorney can help to walk you through this process so that it can be as quick and as painless as possible so that you can bring your building up to that point. Impact fees generally are charged at the time of building, if I'm not wrong on that, right, Commissioner Henning? So I mean, if the building was built and the use was correct back at the time -- and before 1980 there were no impact fees that I'm aware if -- it would probably be zero impact fees. But once again, that's why you have a land use attorney that can give you all the legalese to be able to get you where you need to go. I'm glad you came before this commission because a lot of people don't avail themselves of it, but it's where you get to come before five commissioners, and we gain more experience from situations like this to be able to find out -- and we'll be following along as it goes forward. Page 116 January 15-16,2008 I especially would like to get a report for (sic) you as you go into the process to hear what you're running into, but your attorney is a great idea to work with. If you need any interjections to anybody from staff, I'd be happy to do that too. MR. CIV ALE: Well, I understand what you're saying, but what's my next move? I think I've done all the moves. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you have done the right thing. You got a land use attorney that will start to walk you through the process. MR. CIV ALE: I don't think I need an attorney. He's already given me advice. My architect signed off on it already. That should be enough proof. Code 44 asks for a preponderance of proof. I would think this aerial shot speaks for itself, 1980. Code 44 talks about anything prior to '97, you're grandfathered in. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's go right to the County Attorney. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm sorry. I didn't mean to jump in front of you, Commissioner Henning. MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is that this came to us initially on a Notice of Violation because there was -- there were rental units on the property, that the two guesthouses were being rented out and a neighbor complained. I don't know if that's true or not. That's just what the original violation was for. And that's the reason that the impact fees would have come up because it could have been an illegal conversion at one point in time from a garage to a guesthouse and now people are living there. So I'm not sure what the facts are. What will happen is that eventually staff will decide whether or not this warrants taking to the Code Enforcement Board. At that point in time, the defense will be before Code Enforcement Board that it's been here for 30 years, met the then current code, and the Code Enforcement Board will make a Page 117 January 15-16,2008 decision. I have a funny feeling there are a lot of facts that aren't before this board right now, and they'll come out in due time. MR. CIV ALE: One of the code people's in the room right now, Mr. Scribner. He also came out to the property and viewed it, and he can say whatever he wants to say. I think he's in here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we're going to go to Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, I was concerned that -- I asked the County Manager if he could look up some data on particular -- on this piece of property. In particular, if taxes were being paid on this. The -- Kevin Lilly of the Property Appraiser's Office came back and said that the shed was being -- taxes were being paid on that; the carport was being -- taxes were paid on that; but they have no record of you paying taxes for the property considered as a guesthouse. MR. CIV ALE: When you say tax, are you talking about property taxes? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir. MR. CIV ALE: I get one bill. I pay it at the end of the year. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the valuation is not on that tax bill saying that you have a guesthouse there. MR. CIV ALE: Again, the aerial shot-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just telling you what I -- what -- the information we got from the tax appraiser. MR. CIV ALE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're only taxing you for the shed and they're taxing you for a carport. They have nothing in there telling -- saying that they are taxing for a guesthouse. MR. CIV ALE: So let them charge me. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're going to move on. The -- we're not asking for a staff report. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Page 118 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: But if you feel that there's something that the board should hear on this item, please do so or put it on a future agenda. I just have a question. I look up the permits and I see a shed that was permitted in 2000 (sic) and CO'd made in 2004, and it has a rear setback of 10 feet. And my understanding in Golden Gate Estates, it's always been 75 feet. So my question is to you, sir, this shed on the aerial towards the rear of your property, how far away would you estimate it to be at? MR. CIV ALE: Seventy-five feet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It is 75 feet. So I wonder why the staff put on here the rear setbacks are 10 feet? Did we change the code? Michelle, do you know if we changed the code for 10-foot setback? MS. ARNOLD: I can't really address that particular setback for the accessory use. I mean, I didn't see that -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can anybody address that? MS. ARNOLD: -- that permit. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's on line. MR. CIV ALE: I only owned this property-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt? Ms. Istenes? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, for the record, Joe Schmitt, your administrator of community development/environmental services division. There's an ongoing issue right now with setbacks in the Estates in the application of accessory structures that I'm investigating now within the -- within my division. Many permits were issued over the years at setbacks for accessory structures in the Estates at 10 feet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: And, in fact, it is clear -- and it's very clear that it's 75 feet. There's no argument. Page 119 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what I thought. I didn't think we changed, but -- MR. SCHMITT: There is no change. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you going to bring this back to the board? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, we are. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you know when? MR. SCHMITT: My zoning director is investigating. There are several issues we have to bring back in regards -- one rather significant building, a 5,000-square-foot building that was constructed about 32 feet from the property line, which started -- opened up this can of worms in regards to setbacks in the Estates for accessory structures. It's been -- it appears it's been many years applied for these sheds at 10 foot from the rear property line. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm glad it's in District 5 for a change, right? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why would you be glad for that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I mean, I got Pebblebrooke and aide Cypress, you know. What else do I need? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Share the pain, you mean? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, somebody else has got to share it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I have in District 2. Since I've been on this board we've had setback problems. So it's nothing new. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, to give you guidance, I think the County Attorney has pretty much surmised it. If you don't agree with staff, there's a process about going to the Code Enforcement Board. They will hear all the evidence. We're not set to hear all the evidence on this. And I -- Commissioner Coletta gave you, I thought, some Page 120 January 15-16,2008 great advice, that you have a land use attorney to help guide you through the process. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I also think that the property appraiser may have some input in this, too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And he could testify at Code Enforcement Board. MR. CIV ALE: Am I going to get a letter from the commissioners telling me this so I can give it to the attorney? I don't know exactly what to tell the attorney. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can get you a letter from staff. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to speak out of turn. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. That's going to come from staff. MR. CIV ALE: Okay. So I'm expecting a letter next, then I'll go from there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Is that correct? If I'm misstating, you know, let me know. That's true. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One point, Commissioner Henning. Stay for a little bit more of the meeting. We're going to be having a land use item that has to do with a variance very shortly, and you might find it most informative. MR. CIV ALE: How do I find out about it? Is it -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, just sit there and watch the meeting. Please, don't leave right now. What I'm saying is, just to be a little bit more informed of how the process works on variances, which this is past that point. It just gives you a better idea of how the process works and some points of the law. But once again, your attorney is your best resource. MR. CIV ALE: Okay. You might want to talk to Mr. Scribner. Maybe he has something to add to this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to move on, sir. Way behind. We should have heard this this morning, and I apologize for Page 121 January 15-16,2008 that. Next item is- Item #6C PUBLIC PETITION BY JIM DUPRE, PRIME HOME BUILDERS, TO DISCUSS THE RESERVE AT FALLS OF PORTOFINO; A WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECT - MOTION TO HEAR ITEM #lOE LATER IN THE MEETING - APPROVED MR. MUDD: 6C, it's a public petition request by Jim Dupre, Prime Homebuilders, to discuss The Reserve at the Falls of Porto fino, a workforce housing project. Commissioners, just want to make sure that you understand there's another item -- while Mr. Dupre is coming forward. There's also an item, 10E on your agenda, okay. It's there but only if the board -- excuse me -- only if the board wants to hear it, okay? Mr. Dupre needs to have his paperwork mailed and in to Tallahassee by the 29th of this month, okay. So he's a little bit behind the eightball, so to speak, as far as his timeline is concerned. I didn't want to be premature or get out in front of the board because we don't bring CWHIP applications on the agenda until the board tells us to, okay. So I'm kind of stuck, okay. Mr. Dupre is kind of stuck. If the board decides not to hear this, then I'm going to -- I'm going to -- I'm going to ask the board to withdraw 10E because you're not going to hear the item. If the board decides to continue this item and hear it next meeting, Mr. Dupre will not meet his suspense date that's set by Tallahassee because he cannot fax his applications and signatures in. They have to be mailed. And so there's the circumstance we're in right now, but that's why you have alOE -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? Page 122 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I have no objections to doing it as the agenda item comes forward. I don't know if you'll get approval on it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's hear the petition. MR. DUPRE: Yes. Let me make a presentation. Good afternoon. I'm Jim Dupre of Prime Homebuilders. This is, like he was explaining, there's some brochures that are going out. It's got an introduction to the project, some information on the company, an aerial to show you exactly where it's located. It's an -- actually a fairly upscale project. We call it The Falls of Portofino. It's on Vanderbilt Beach Road just before you get to Collier, north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road. That's about two-and-a-halfmiles from 75 going east. This particular project, we felt because of, you know, the need in the county for workforce housing, that we would be -- it would be very good to take advantage of that CWHIP program. We're -- if we're able to get an award -- and we're not asking for any county funds -- we will be able to offer these units at 168,000. And this particular unit we sell in the 390's. So it's a substantial differential. Eight percent of the units would be workforce, 50 percent would be essential personnel. And we are in -- we have the application basically done. We're just fine tuning. It's very competitive. There's a lot of strategies that you have to include in land use, financial innovative strategies to gain the maximum number of points since we're competing with other counties in the state. The units would be restricted. Over a 30-year period they would stay within a pool limiting these units to individuals that would meet the same criteria as the initial purchaser. And I'm in the process of working with Kathy Patterson of Collier County Housing Development Corporation. She will help administer and market these units to the essential personnel here in Page 123 January 15-16,2008 Collier County. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions? Commissioner Halas, and then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. If! remember correctly, I believe you came before the Board of County Commissioners to petition that -- is this 50 units roughly? MR. DUPRE: Well, let me explain. You might-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just ask -- MR. DUPRE: This is 50 units, but this has never been presented before. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And didn't you come before the board asking that we have this put in the CDD? MR. DUPRE: No. The project itself was presented. There's two phases to this project, one is 234 units, approximately 30 acres, the project that's underway, but we are going to set aside 50 units for the CWHIP application. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. And I believe that you came before us asking permission to set up a CDD on this -- MR. DUPRE: Yes. And at that time you did not agree that it was a good thing to do. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I believe we asked about affordable housing at that point in time in there, and I believe those were being -- at that time they were going to be marketed for $400,000; am I correct? MR. DUPRE: Exactly, that's the price. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ah. Isn't is amazing. We went from $400,000 for the same -- MR. DUPRE: Well, this is with assistance of the CWHIP grant. And -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? MR. DUPRE: There is a second phase to that project. It's in the process of being site planned right now. This first phase is 234 units. Page 124 January 15-16,2008 I've been in constant conversation with Ms. Krumbine for the last few months. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle has a question. MR. DUPRE: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have to admit to some degree of confusement here -- or confusion. We're being asked to approve the project. How do we do that during a public petition process without a formerly advertised hearing? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you're not -- you're not asking to approve a project. Right now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what it says, approve the project and approve a memorandum of understanding that establishes a partnership between Collier County and Prime Homebuilders. How am I going to make a determination about creating a partnership, a private/public partnership, without a public hearing where we get the benefit of the input from the public and the neighbors and everybody else involved in this process? I know what you're trying to do and I'd like to help. I don't understand how I can approve a project and a partnership in a public petition process. MR. DUPRE: Well, you see, one way, I guess, if you look at it, is that what we're doing -- we're not asking anything -- any funds from the county, anything in particular other than for you to assist us -- if you see the Memorandum of Understanding -- in assistance in a very -- a vague way, whatever your staff can do to support us in order to market these units, to place people in these units. There isn't really anything that is, you know, a major requirement on your part. And the Memorandum of Understanding also talks about that there -- in no case will there be any monetary implications to this agreement. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that, but our responsibilities go far beyond that. We're concerned with Page 125 January 15-16,2008 compatibility. Where is it going to be built? Has there been a neighborhood information meeting? Has it been properly advertised? How do we jump ahead to approve this thing without going through all those steps? Am I missing something here? MR. DUPRE: The units will be identical to the units that are being marketed, and what we're doing is taking funds that are -- that are being offered by Florida Housing to be able to discount the unit and make it available for your people here for workforce housing essential services personnel. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm still missing a link here. Please forgive me. But has a permit been issued to build this project? Is it underway? MR. DUPRE: Oh, yes, yes, it is, it is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that what we're talking about? MR. DUPRE: It's -- there's an approved PUD, it's a Wolf Creek PUD. We have a site plan approval. We have persons already living there. There's about 20 or 30 residents. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you've gone through all that approval process? MR. DUPRE: Of course, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're not approving the project? MR. DUPRE: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that's what you said here. MR. DUPRE: Well, I didn't -- I didn't write that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The public petition -- you didn't write the public petition? MR. DUPRE: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: May I ask a question? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'd just like to clarify that. It says, please explain in detail the action you are asking the Page 126 January 15-16,2008 commission to take. Approve the project and approve a Memorandum of Understanding that establishes a partnership. I don't have any problem, I don't think -- MR. DUPRE: Well, I think it's a misunderstanding. It's obviously not to approve the project. The project's been approved. There's -- it's being marketed right now. In fact, the clubhouse is almost open. It's on its way. The restriction that we have from Tallahassee is that the units that we're going to submit can't be vertical yet, so we have land available for these units. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're looking for a Memorandum of Understanding which will permit you to establish a partnership between Collier County and Prime Homebuilders -- MR. DUPRE: Precisely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- in order to subsidize the construction of these homes so that you can offer them as affordable housing units. MR. DUPRE: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Basically that's where we are? MR. DUPRE: Exactly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. DUPRE: I think we could strike approve, because that's not -- I mean, it was in there. And approval in the general sense of the word, not approve the project, but basically support it, is what we're trying to say. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I've got my question answered. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. DUPRE: And there is one small item that -- on the Memorandum of Understanding. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. I thought you were done with your petition. Page 127 January 15-16,2008 MR. DUPRE: Well, but Mr. Klatzkow said that there's -- not right now, okay. Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I thought it was question time. MR. DUPRE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I can't approve it even though I think it's a good idea and here's why. We're circumventing the public process. The people who bought in there and the people living around there had an idea what was going to be on this land, and now we're being asked to have workforce housing and essential service housing that the public is not aware of. And I think the public is due that process. So I can't support your petition, but I'm going to call for a vote, okay? Is there somebody that wants to make a motion? Do you have a question? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll make -- I have a question -- not a question, but a statement. What we're doing is just approving to go to 10E to be able to get into a deeper discussion on it just to be able to entertain the idea, and I make a motion that we accept the petition just at face value but not in agreement and move onto 10E when we come to it on the agenda. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I second that motion. MR. DUPRE: Yes, I agree. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you want to vote on this, too? Hang on. There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. Is there any more discussion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's clarify the motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The motion -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion is to hear 10 -- yeah, 10. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All opposed to the motion? Aye. Page 128 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed to the motion? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. All in favor of the motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 3-2, so we're going to hear it later on. MR. DUPRE: Can I show you this real fast? MR. MUDD: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Later on. Item #6D PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY ALAN FARRIOR TO DISCUSS RECOVERY OF PERFORMANCE BOND FOR THE FINAL LAYER OF ASPHAL T AT LAUREL LAKES - RESIDENTS AND HOA ENCOURAGED TO CONTRACT AN OUTSIDE ENGINEERING FIRM TO EVALUATE THE DRAINAGE ISSUES AND REPORT FINDINGS TO THE BCC MR. MUDD: Later on. Commissioner, that brings us to our next petition, a public petition request by Alan Farrior -- help me when you get up to it, sir, I'm sorry. For some strange reason, I just kind of want to say Warrior, but that's okay -- to discuss a recovery of performance bond for the final lay of asphalt on Laurel Lakes. MR. FARRIOR: Mr. Commissioner and members of the commission, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to come down here today and speak with you. The purpose of my appearance today is to seek the release and return of a performance bond we posted as Page 129 January 15-16,2008 security to complete the sidewalks and final layer of asphalt in the Laurel Lakes community. I will say, as I stand here today, I'm not aware that anybody is disputing the fact that the obligations or responsibilities associated with the bond have not been met since the asphalt and the sidewalks have long been installed, completed, and inspected and accepted by the county, many, many months ago, so I'm not aware that anybody's in dispute of those facts. I will say that during all the course of all this, I was asked the question, how in the world, if you're a builder in the neighborhood, not the developer, why did you post a bond, and I'll try to shed some light on that for you. We in 19 -- I mean in 2001, entered into agreement about some finished lots from the developer of Laurel Lakes. And in our agreement, as the developer developed the lots and got them finished and accepted, then we would purchase the lots. Along about in the end of September or October of2004, the developer had completed most all of the infrastructure with the exception of the final layer of asphalt on the sidewalks, and he came to us and we negotiated an agreement whereby we would -- we would put forth a performance bond for those last items, and that would allow him to draw on his existing bond. Now, I don't know -- I'm not privileged to that because I'm not the developer. I assume that his bond was released or returned or whatever for everything with the exception of these items right here, which we assumed the responsibility for. Now, again, I'm not aware that anybody's disputing that the criteria has been met for release of the bond. I will say that somehow or another -- and I don't know how -- but somehow or another the release of this bond has been intertwined with the lakes in Laurel Lakes. And I'd like to talk a little bit about that and try to present the facts as I know them as to what Colonial is -- involvement in. Page 130 January 15-16,2008 And let me stop a second -- talking about my name. My name is Farrior, and I'm here representing Colonial Homes, which was a builder in this development. And I'm sorry I didn't tell you that earlier. But anyway, the developer, Mananas, developed the lakes in Laurel Lakes. The lakes were approved and accepted by the county at some point in time, and I'm not sure when that was. That was evidenced by the fact that they allowed -- they were permitted and CO'd houses that were built around the lakes. Our loan involvement with the lakes came at the time that we were -- we were managing the homeowner association. In our agreement with the developer to buy lots, he allowed us to manager the homeowners association, which we did up until October of2005. If you look at the criteria -- I mean, if you look at the aerial photographs and, among other things, the lakes there were in good shape and no problem in March and April of 2004, and this is evidenced by the fact that I have -- I have -- see if! can find it here. I have two walk-through inspections here done -- there's correspondence then where the inspections, walk-through inspections were done by the engineer of record, and these are memos to the developer, Mananas. I mean, it also says in here that -- it says in here that on March 24,2004, a walk-through inspection of the above-referenced site was made by Mr. Daryl Hughes, field engineer, inspector for Collier County Engineer and Service Department, Ms. Mary Gross and Mr. Dave Crosby ofBonness, who, I guess, were site contractors. And again, this is -- this is a letter written to Mananas, Inc., who is the developer of the property, and there were 25 or so items listed -- 28 items listed on that walk-through, and then there was another walk-through on April 23, 2004, same thing, the walk-through inspection above-referenced site made by Mr. Daryl Hughes, field engineer, inspector for Collier County, so and so. And there were like Page 131 January 15-16,2008 38 items on that. And I bring this to your attention because of these two lengthy walk-through lists right here. There was not one item that dealt with -- one punch list item that dealt with the lakes. So the point I'm making is that in March and April of 2004, the lakes were in good shape. The lakes were in good shape in 2005. I mean, that was evidenced by the fact that we entered into -- in October of2005, we handed over the management of the association to the neighborhood. And in doing so, we executed a mutual release agreement, settlement agreement, in October of 2005. Well, at that time -- and in that agreement there were six items identified, that the neighborhood identified that needed to be corrected prior to the turnover, and none of those six items addressed anything about the lake. So the question is now, is who is responsible for the lakes and what happened to the lakes from that time? And I'd like to address, number one, who is responsible first by calling your attention to the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for the neighborhood. Now, these are recorded documents that were recorded long before Colonial ever came into the picture. These are dated 1999 and were recorded in 1999. The then developer incorporated these documents into the neighborhood, and any buyer that bought in the neighborhood is bound by these covenants and restrictions as part of it. And if you read under Article IV where it says maintenance and it says association's responsibility, it says, the association shall operate, maintain, and keep in good repair the common property. The operations of the common property shall include, without limitation, all utilities, taxes, assessments with respect to common property. This operation and maintenance shall include but need not be limited to maintenance, repair, replacement, and monitoring of all lakes, ponds, and other bodies of water within the property which also Page 132 January 15-16, 2008 serve as part of the drainage system for the property. Now, here's what happens. The developer goes out, hires an engineer. The engineer designs a drainage plan, he designs these lakes, and these lakes are part of the problem, and then the maintenance requirement is handed off to the association. And clearly -- I mean, this is in black and white and these are public record. Another question is, what has happened to the lakes? But two things, earlier today I think there was a presentation where a gentlemen spoke up and said that we were in a two-year drought and said that the lake levels were now at a historically low level. Well, what happens when that happens is there is -- there's a receding waterline, and that leaves a naked strip of land around there which creates more facilitation and washouts and things like that. So it does create a larger burden on the homeowners association to try to maintain that. The next thing that we identified right here -- you have to excuse me. I'm losing my voice. But the next thing we identified was in some of the correspondence going here in some of the field inspections, the current manager of the association understands that it's the requirement of the association, and they did so in hiring a contractor to actually go out there and maintain the lakes. Unfortunately, the contractor that they hired actually took herbicide and sprayed all the grass around the lakes and killed all the grass which killed the vegetation, and that's evidenced by an email right here. And this is an email from a Mr. Stan Chrzanowski addressed to Tom Kuck, Daryl Hughes, Mr. Houldsworth, among many other people, said, I visited the Laurel Lakes site with Daryl Hughes last week, and in my professional opinion, the spraying of the vegetation on the lake banks is the cause of the erosion problems I saw. The herbiciding of the vegetation that was stabilizing the banks allowed the tremendous amount of erosion that I saw on site. I do not consider that to be a developer's problem. The developer did the Page 133 January 15-16,2008 excavation and stabilizing correctly. I have told Daryl Hughes to sign off on the lakes, that they are complete as far as a commitment from the developer. So, you know, I stand here today and, you know, we've identified that the homeowners association is responsible for the maintenance of the lakes, and then, too, we've identified at least two of the causes of what happened. Siltation is a big problem with lakes, and it's a common maintenance. It's a line item in the homeowner association budget. But as I stand here today, I think if you anywhere remotely think -- or remotely in your mind think that Colonial has an attachment to those lakes, I still say that that's a whole separate issue and has nothing to do whatsoever with the bond we're addressing here today, which is for the final layer of asphalt and the sidewalks, and be glad to answer any questions. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Were you -- did you come up with an agreement with the homeowners association whereby there was some funds exchanged? MR. FARRIOR: We have two agreements. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And was that -- and was the agreement such that you paid them $45,000 or something of that nature and that they agreed that from that point on that they were responsible for whatever took place? MR. FARRIOR: Forty-five was one agreement. I have another agreement for 8,000. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And the homeowners association signed off on that? Did they accept that money? MR. FARRIOR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. FARRIOR: I mean, it's -- I mean, it's a -- Page 134 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're telling us is that we need to release those funds because whatever the problem is, the homeowners association has taken on that responsibility; is that correct? MR. FARRIOR: Well, I think the homeowner association took that responsibility on in 1999 when these documents were drawn up. Those are recorded documents for the homeowner association. And again, that was long before we ever entered into the picture. All this was was a final settlement where -- this one actually right here -- where they identified six items that they wanted finalized or taken, and they're addressed in this -- in this mutual release right here, of which are none of this had -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And your obligation was to put the final coat of asphalt in this gated community? MR. FARRIOR: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. FARRIOR: We supplied an engineer's estimate of probable cost and submitted it to the county. I've got a letter here from the planning division director, enclosed find the certified check in the amount of$163,687.50 in the engineer's estimate of remaining construction cost for Laurel Lakes. And then -- and then the engineer's estimate from Heidt & Associates supports that, and this amount is exactly 150 percent -- 150 percent to the penny what the engineer's estimate is, which is what the county's requirement is. And this is -- this is for Phase 1, sidewalk-- concrete sidewalk, handicap curb, second lift; Phase 2, handicap curb ramp, sidewalk and phase -- and second lift; Phase 3, handicap and concrete sidewalk and second lift. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any others? Mr. Klatzkow, Stan Chrzanowski, and I went out there, Commissioners. It's not an issue about the lake. It's an issue about the lake slopes being eroded. Page 135 January 15-16,2008 And, Stan, you can help me out. You know, what we discovered is a drainage issue. It's not a lake issue. And what we found by -- and Stan is the engineer. He says, there's nothing wrong with the design, but the facts are, is, in between the homes, it's kind of like a point discharge going into the lake and it's eroding the lake. We also found areas that were repaired, and since none of us were there at the time of repairs, we don't know if it was repairs all the way around. But obviously there was repairs there. There was sod there. Those places didn't wash out. And what we were told is, sod did wash out. Am I correct, Stan? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. What we saw is -- Stan Chrzanowski with Engineering Review Services. What we saw was that there were -- and it's plainly evident on an aerial photo -- I can put it up -- but -- and maybe I should. There's a section where -- the photo was taken in January of2007, and what's visible on the U-shaped lake on the left, if you zoom into the upper left-hand comer of that, you'll see some shadows. Zoom in more. MR. MUDD: I'm working on it. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You can see right next to the property lines -- I'm going to point to something right now. Those shadows you see are from silt screens that were put up during repair of some washouts. And if you look, they all coincide with exactly the property line. As the rain comes off the roof and into the gutters, it flows down between the homes. And like Mr. Farrior said, the lack of vegetation stabilizing the area allows it to drain -- or allows it to erode the bank. Now, I'm an engineer. I can tell you what's wrong, but legally I can't tell you that that's the homeowners' or Mr. Farrior's responsibility to put in drains. The drains were not on the drawings for the project. We have a code that requires gutters if you're closer than 10 feet to your property line, but we don't require that the gutter go into any Page 136 January 15-16, 2008 kind of underground drain. We found a lot of these houses, homes, had underground drains from their gutters to the lake, and in those cases, there was no problem. Whether they were put in by the homeowners or by Mr. Farrior, we -- or someone else. Because Mr. Farrior apparently was not the contractor on all the homes in there. He was only the contractor on some of them. So we don't know which ones are his, which ones belong to other people. That's what the problem is, but whose solution the problem -- in whose court that sits, I don't know. That's maybe up to the attorneys. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: One of the things we've always struggled with here is who the developer of Laurel Lakes was. This is their document, and their own document refers to them as the developer. So that anytime they just say, we were just the homeowner who took over, that may be so, but that's not what they called themselves in their own documents. In my understanding, they were the developer of Laurel Lakes. And the monies that we took were more than just for the overlay. I've highlighted the exception that was noted on there. And in my mind when you put together a development and a drainage system, the drainage system ought not to continuously erode the banks. And, you know, I know what I saw. And to me it was a design defect, not the homeowner's fault. It's going to continue to erode that way until people actually take pipes from their gutters and put them underground all the way down to the lake. We can either have the homeowners pay that freight or we could have the developer pay that freight. We've asked the homeowners to get an independent engineer, present the report to this board to say whether he believes this was a development issue or a maintenance issue. And if it was a development issue, how much it would cost to fix this thing and how would it be fixed. But if these monies are Page 13 7 January 15-16, 2008 released, then it will be the homeowners' expense. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The problem that we're running into here is that obviously the homeowner's association at the time they thought everything was hunky-dory, they signed off on this, and they also took additional monies to address other issues; is that correct? MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what they have done is they basically gave up their ties with the developer at that point in time. MR. KLA TZKOW: They gave up their ties. The question is, the developer still has obligations to this county. And the question is, do we want to enforce these types of obligations. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it needs to go to a court of law. I'm not a lawyer. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, let me tell you what I was told, whether it's true or not. You pay homeowners association dues. Those homeowner's association dues goes to the HOA. At that time it was not the residents who controlled the HOA. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was the developers, and those monies went to the residents when they took over the HOA. I don't know how much money it is. I don't think that we can hold monies outside the bonding. And in this case, you can. So I would like to know -- go further and let somebody determine outside the county whose responsibility that erosion is. We can only hold one person up, and that's the person that holds the bond. Now, ifhe's not to blame for it, then I think we need to release the bond. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's where I'm going with this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But, you know, at this time we can't determine that. We need some kind of report, and I think the Page 138 January 15-16,2008 residents, from what I understand, are going to get one. Any other comments, Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. FARRIOR: I don't get a chance to say anything? CHAIRMAN HENNING: You had 10 minutes, sir. MR. FARRIOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have 2:30 time certain, but we also have residents on the public petition that's been here forever. Running real behind. Does anybody have any objections to continue the public petitions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not me. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me neither. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next public petition, please. Item #6E PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST TO DISCUSS THE WATER SURCHARGE FOR CRYSTAL LAKE RESORT - MOTION TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT A FUTURE BCC MEETING - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's 6E. It's a public petition request to discuss the water surcharge for Crystal Lake Resort. MR. CHENEY: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is William Cheney, General Manager at Crystal Lake Resort and also president of south gulf coast chapter of CAI. I've heard a lot of comments today in respect to water conservation. Speaking in respect to Crystal Lake, in 1999 we used over 50 million gallons of water in our 170-acre facility. In 2007, we reduced our water usage down to 10,500,000 gallons. We are a 490-unit residential homeowner association that is being charged a surcharge on our water bill when we use over 450,000 Page 139 January 15-16,2008 gallons of water. That only allows us to use 918 gallons of water per month per household, or cutting that even further, allows us to use 30 gallons of water a day before we pay a surcharge. I feel that's unfair. All I'm asking is that we be allowed to use what individually metered residents use, such as Pebble brooke, which is across the street, or Indigo Lakes. They're allowed to use 10,000 gallons of water before they face a surcharge. We're only allowed to use 918 gallons. Seems a little unfair. It was recommended earlier today by one of the staffthat because our PUD is commercial -- we don't have any commercial activity at Crystal Lake. It is strictly residential -- that we amend our PUD. Probably the current cost to amend PUDs, I believe, is around, 20- or $30,000. Having said, even if we did that and were then rated an RA or residential apartment or condominium, we would still only be allowed to use 60 gallons of water per unit per day. That's a little more than one washing machine load and nothing else. I think it's unfair the way the master meters are being surcharged here in Collier County. Sixty gallons of water is not very much. Again, residential, individually metered residents are allowed 330 gallons per day. We're not even allowed 20 percent of that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. John, do you have anything to say on that regard? MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, Commissioners. John Yonkowsky, Utility Billing and Customer Service Director, for the record. And I'm going to let Mr. Klatzkow go ahead and go first with it, and then I can come back and answer questions. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I just think that you need to understand the nature of Crystal Lakes in order to decide the issue. This is both a part-year resident development as well as a rental type of development. And I've taken this from their website. And what happens is that people purchase lots, and they either utilize the lots or they rent the Page 140 January 15-16,2008 lots and pay the tourist tax. They have reservation forms on their website, as well as they've had an issue with the tourist tax so that there is a notice on their website to the owners with respect to the rentals. Now, unfortunately, our ordinance doesn't quite cover this situation. But speaking with staff, it's my understanding that we've been doing it this way for many, many years where when you have multiple use where it's both residential and commercial, we just charge the whole thing commercial, and that's the way this county's been doing these and does them today. I would suggest that we amend the ordinance to make this clearer. But it has been the custom of this county to do this and the practice as well. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who's next? COMMISSIONER FIALA: John Yonkowsky. MR. YONKOWSKY: Commissioners, the question is a matter of classification, and the RV resort is classified -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas has a question. Commissioner, you want to go ahead? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll just -- I think they're just -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Want to wait? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. MR. YONKOWSKY: The question is a matter of classification. The Crystal Lakes, Crystal Lake Resort, has been classified since the beginning of the PUD as commercial. And the question in hand is, for us, if it's -- depending on the land use, is how we set the classification, whether it's commercial or residential. And a review of their ordinance, there are five land use tracts. Tract A, tract CR, tract CO, tract L, and tract R. There are no units on anything except tract A, which has a land use of park and recreational vehicle. If you look down in the permitted uses for tract A, it has park Page 141 January 15-16,2008 trailers, travel trailers, including fifth-wheel trailers, motor home, conversion vans with utility connection capability, other recreational units not specifically mentioned above that is designed to provide temporary or seasonal living quarters for recreational or travel use. Number six, storage with appropriate screening and landscaping. Tract A also has accessory uses. A caretaker's residence in conjunction with the operation of the park or accessory uses and structures customarily associated with park trailers. So as far as zoning, the Crystal Lake PUD, it's designated urban residential subdistrict in the FLUE. PUD permits a maximum of 490 TTR Y units. The LDC classification of commercial zoning districts includes the TTRBC zoning district, and since the PUD permits only park trailers, recreational vehicles and models of each, the PUD is defined as commercial. The planning director has verified that that is what this is. The County Attorney has looked at it. So long as the PUD has classified -- is restricted to commercial use, there isn't really any way that we can change our process of how we classify it. And Mr. Cheney has talked to several people in public utilities, and we've all come to the same conclusion, it's classified as commercial. Even if it were classified as residential, the cap would start at 900,000 as opposed to the 450,000 gallons; however, we do not own the -- the individual units. They're not metered individually. It's a master meter, and that was the choice of the developer to set the master meter back in 1992. MR. CHENEY: Some of the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. Under public petition, we have always allowed the public to speak, and if the board wanted it to come back, then we get a presentation. And we have a lot of things to do today. And I apologize. Commissioner Halas, did you want to bring this back or -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think what they need to do, Page 142 January 15-16,2008 if they want to change that, that they need to come forward with an amendment to their PUD. And if -- do you own this? MR. CHENEY: No, sir. I just manage the facility. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Well-- MR. CHENEY: They're 490 owners. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think what's going to have to be done is some way or another they're going to have to bring this back as an amendment. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Ifwe're going to amend this -- does this also apply the same rules as trailer parks, mobile home parks? MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, sir, it does. There are -- ifthey have the travel trailers process in them or capability, then they're generally classified as commercial. We have approximately 10 other structures or PUDs that are set up exactly like this. They're classified as commercial. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So, I mean, if we were going to change it, we'd have to change it globally rather than specifically. MR. YONKOWSKY: That's a legal question that I'm not capable of answering. The attorney would have to answer that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, I'm willing to make it come back. I don't know the unintended consequences of us changing the ordinance, the utility ordinance. But you know, I look at it as a fair -- as an issue of fair equitable payment for services, and I think the ordinance needs to be changed. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But I mean, it would apply across the board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, one of the things, Commissioner Henning, if I may speak, the ordinance, you know, if we're charging a water rate for mobile homes -- and this case here, I mean, you've got an upscale type end of the market. Obviously it's got Page 143 January 15-16,2008 to have a heck of an impact on people that are of lesser incomes, so it is something that's deserving of consideration. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And again, I don't know the unintended consequences if we do change it, but I hope staff will give us guidance. Did you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion we bring it back. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other discussion? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did Jim -- MR. DeLONY: No, sir. I'm just trying to make sure I get the guidance. Just as a clarification point, the ordinance in question is not the public utilities or the ordinance associated with our billing or running ofthe utility. The ordinance in question was the one that deals specifically with this development. So it's a matter of clarification as far as board direction. Would you like me to look at this one specifically, the other 10 or several others that Susan and I would have to look at as well? As you know, we have, you know, residential and commercial in our class of customers. That would be a question I'd have to clarify. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you clarify that in the utility ordinance? MR. DeLONY: No, sir, because it's a land use item. The land use is -- the class of customers, commercial or residential, was the only two definitions we have, come from the land use itself, the designation from our zoning director. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. DeLaNY: That's where it would be, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you clarify your motion -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I sure can. Page 144 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to direct the County Attorney's Office to bring back an ordinance? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to do it globally. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All like situations, not specifically just for this one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Start amending PUDs, it just gets expensive, and that's not really serving the public. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's obvious that a mobile home is going to take less water than a single-family residential, and less water than that -- than a commercial. So there's ways to address it, and you're wanting to address it with the assistance of the County Attorney that public utilities will come back with some kind of resolution? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute. I think that we'll have to make a Land Development Code change in regards to this. MS. ISTENES: Well-- Susan Istenes, zoning director. The issue is broader than that. I mean, you're talking about Growth Management Plan as well. So it's not just a matter of amending PUDs to change the land use classification. Anytime you amend a PUD, it has to be consistent with Growth Management Plan, and you've got land classifications within the GMP as well as the LDC. So yeah, you're talking about -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, you want to just bring it back with a full report to the Board of Commissioners? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's exactly what they're looking for. Why we should do it and what would be the ramifications, I guess, would be the big part. But I see it as more of a global issue than specifically just to this one particular development. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Weren't we just talking about Page 145 January 15-16,2008 amending an ordinance? MR. MUDD: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. This is going to have to end up if -- if they want to do it just for their park, then they had to come with a PUD amendment. Ifwe're looking at the whole thing globally, then we're going to have to come up with some major changes in the LDC and Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, I don't agree with that. The board wants to hear all the issues coming back to the Board of Commissioners at a future agenda. There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Fiala. Any more discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed to the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're coming back in the future. MR. CHENEY: Thank you very kindly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: One more. One more public petition? Item #6F PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY ROBERT AND THERESA PARENT TO DISCUSS THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD Page 146 January 15-16,2008 EXTENSION - DISCUSSED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Commissioner, item 6F is a public petition request by Robert and Theresa Parent to discuss Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead, Sue. MR. PARENT: Afternoon. I'm here to speak today due to the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. I'm petitioning you to buy my two homes that leave me up against the side of the road for my family's sake, my wife, my two children, and my parents that live in the guesthouse behind us. If Vanderbilt Beach Road extension was on the other side of the canal, I wouldn't be here before you today. But with it being up against the side of my property, I have no choice but try to sell my homes. The county saves approximately $72 million by avoiding the two golf courses and putting the road on my side of the canal. That puts us in a unique situation. Vanderbilt Beach Road extension runs 660 feet down the side of my property, where most of your takes are only 150 to 180 feet. Also, with 21 st Street being a through street now, there's another 200 feet. So I'm dealing with 860 feet of new road I never planned for when I built my home. My main house was built back in 1997 before the conception of the road was even there. Originally, in plans dated back in 1997 when we did it, we have a garage that was supposed to be built. We haven't built that yet due to my parents' health problems. I had to build a guesthouse for them. They had moved down here due to health problems. My mom's husband has only 30 percent lung capacity. They came down here for the clean air. Life changes we're going to experience is the noise from the trucks and the motorcycles, the cars, the stop-and-go traffic due to Page 147 January 15-16,2008 school buses at the new intersection that I'll be living at. I won't have that safe feeling of a dead-end road anymore. My children can't travel the road without worrying about cars coming through anymore. I can't walk my dog down to the canal to go fishing at the canals that won't be there anymore. Light pollution. Me and my son's very much involved in Boy Scouts. We love stargazing. With the new lights and all the traffic out there, we won't be able to see the stars like we used to. Concerns for my children's safety. Being so close to the road, I have to worry about a car coming crashing in through the property. The main house with the garage once it's going to be built, would be 77 feet from the road. My guesthouse is 87 feet from the road. That means I can't leave my windows open due to the noise, dust, fumes. I'll lose complete privacy that we enjoyed all these years. People go on vacation to seek peace, quiet, get away from the hustle and bustle of the noise and traffic. Well, we live in that situation at the dead-end of a road. Now I've got the hustle and bustle coming to me. We cannot live against this road. We didn't live out there originally to live on a busy road. So we're asking you that -- today that you buy us out. We have other -- other things you have done for Olivero (phonetic). You had a buy-out. He was only 98 feet. We're much closer than he was. And that was the rear of his property, not the side. Any questions? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board? Commissioner Coyle and then Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have a question for the petitioner and also a question for the board. What have you been told by the staff? You made a reference in your petition that staff had indicated -- a principal planner had indicated to you that they would be interested in buying you out. Have you heard from anyone else on the staff? Page 148 January 15-16,2008 MR. PARENT: That was the original one. He said we'd probably be bought out. After the vote went through, they took us off the list to be bought out. At that point transportation says that we're not close enough to the road to really affect our lives, the quality of our lives, which you can see it completely changes our quality of life to have traffic that used to be a mile away from us, less than, you know, 80 feet from my house now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand. So really right now you're of the opinion that staff is not going to be in favor of buying you out completely? MR. PARENT: At this point they said it's up to the commission here to make the ruling on that, and then they'll act upon that. But it's your decision. You point them in the right direction, they say. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, to the board members, I would say to you, I can't make a decision on this. You know, we have to get appraisals for property, we have to understand the financial impacts before you can make conclusions like that. And so the only thing I could suggest is that we defer it to staff and have staff come back with recommendations and then ask the gentleman to come back in at the point in time when we're actually considering this and hopefully we can work out something that makes sense. I appreciate your problem. MR. PARENT: On your other buy-outs, you've gone ahead and bought them and you put it back on the market so you're not losing the major impact like you did on the original homes that you take down and destroy. Easier to put it back on the market and it's not a full impact. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand. But you see, we're required to get appraisals on the property. We don't have any appraisals right now. We don't have any cost data. We can't make any decision right now with respect to whether it makes sense. I mean, you might want $50 million for the property. I don't know. Page 149 January 15-16,2008 MR. PARENT: Only 29. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay. So that's something we've got to work out. And what I -- my recommendation would be, let's get this process started. And I would encourage staff to talk with you, tell you whatever they want to do, but I don't know that I can make a decision on this right now because I don't have the data, all the information, so -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you are making a decision, if I may. You're making a decision to bring it back at another date. That's the only thing you do at public petitions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, no. I mean, it could come back -- it's going to come back at another date. If the staff decides to purchase even a sliver of the property, it's going to come back at another date without the public petition. So the petitioner will have the same opportunity to argue for a complete buy-out when that happens as he does right now. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The problem is at this point in time, unless something has changed since the last time I checked with staff, there is no intentions of buying even a sliver of the property. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so that's where the whole thing lies different. Either we go ahead and we say that this is something deserving to come back for further scrutiny by the commission and we ask staff to do that or, you know, we dismiss it out of hand. But, of course, we're not ready to do that, thank God. Mr. Feder, if you may, can you give us some particulars as far as the comparison between this property and the Olivero property? MR. FEDER: Yes. For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. We have a big difference here, and I think the board needs to understand that. In this case our taking for the 200- foot corridor will not touch the Parent property. We're about 30 feet away at one end Page 150 January 15-16,2008 and about 60 feet away with the corridor. The distance noted was to his property line and then to the actual right-of-way line. And then, of course, there's some distance for the actual travel lanes themselves. But in this case there is no taking, and as we've pointed out to Mr. Parent in the 30 percent and the 60 percent hearings, since we do not have a taking, we would not be working with him on acquisition of any of the property. We set an interesting precedent here if we move to look at this, because we've got many of them. And I'll let Jay Ahmad go through that, if it's your interest -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it isn't. MR. FEDER: -- up and down the corridor. The real issue here relative to Olivero is we were taking a portion of the property. In that case, you granted an exception to the process because they had, within seven feet of what was going to be our taking on their property, a facility that they were planning on using, at least from their statement, as a mother-in-law suite. But there we were taking a partial take, and what you, by exception agreed to, was a whole take. Here we're being asked to do a whole take on one that we're doing no take at all. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You know, I just feel this is opening a can of worms, quite frankly. I understand that you'd like to sell your property because of the noise and so forth. We're not even touching your property. And you're going to just start the ball rolling for everybody else that's going all the way down the line, because then they'll all say, well, I want to sell mine, too, and then, of course, the people on the other side of you will say, well, I want to sell mine, too. And I would suggest that maybe you start planting some nice, thick ficus hedges in there that's going to absorb -- MR. PARENT: That won't stop the noise. Page 151 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes it will. MR. PARENT: No, it won't. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But anyway -- MR. PARENT: But the situation is, you guys put the road on my side of the canal. If you would have left it on the golf course side, I wouldn't be standing here before you guys today. I wouldn't have the issue. But you put it on my side. You saved the county $72 million. Bottom line, you guys put it on my side of the road. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? MR. PARENT: You guys made that decision, not me. If you look at the rest of that two-mile stretch on that corridor, I'm the only house left behind standing up against the road in that two-mile stretch. There is no other house. Everyone else has 200 to 700 feet of woods buffering them. I've got nothing. I got 30 feet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Fiala touched a subject that I was going to talk about, and she did it very eloquently. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: After -- oh, I'm sorry. I need somebody to explain that fact about the -- ifhe's the only person that's impacted like this in the whole corridor and it's really unique, I think this is worthy of further consideration. Could transportation comment on that? MR. AHMAD: For the record, Jay Ahmad. I'm your Director of Transportation Engineering. There are approximately 134 homes along the corridor that -- with various differences in width, ranging between 30 to over 150, but he's not the only one. There are approximately 134 homes along the corridor on either side of Vanderbilt. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me put the question a little more specifically. Is Mr. Parent the one that's closest to the edge of Page 152 January 15-16,2008 the road? Is he the one that's most impacted for the whole corridor? MR. AHMAD: I don't have that information readily handy here. There are numerous houses similar to Mr. Parent that looks and appears close by similar to his. But exactly 30 or 40 feet, I don't have that information. MR. PARENT: How many of them are running down the side of their property? MR. AHMAD: There are quite a few of them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There is all over Collier County. And I just want to say, I don't want anybody in Collier County to be treated different unless the board adopts a policy. If you have been treating people in other areas different than Mr. Parent, I want to hear about it, or if you're treating people different in District 5 than any other part of the county, I want to hear about it. MR. AHMAD: No, sir, not to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN HENNING: If we're going to set -- if we're going to set precedent, allow the board to set a new policy. If the policy's been like it always has been, let's keep it the way it is. MR. AHMAD: The policy is what it has been. We haven't treated anybody differently. Olivero is -- came before, and you made an exception to it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody-- MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I've been asked to mention something, and actually I thought it was appropriate, to reassure you that we aren't trying to establish a different policy or treat anyone different anywhere within the county. We came to you, Mr. Olivero's as an exception, where we were acquiring a portion and would normally have acquired all, we would have rather severed a portion of that and brought to you as an exception issue. Here we're not acquiring any at all, and so we're not trying to make that further exception, and that's why our recommendation is not to proceed on it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's the wish of the board? Bring Page 153 January 15-16,2008 it back? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I, for one, would like to bring it back just to be able to get a little more in-depth conversation on it because there's other people affected. I'm sure we're not going to have 100 people show up in here. The thing is, is that, there's some issues here. Now, another issue would be, if we're not going to buy the property, what's going to be done to mitigate the noise and everything? There is an impact that takes place, and I know that we're supposed to have all sorts of studies. But what would be done in this specific case? MR. FEDER: Through our design process, which is underway, we will do a noise study in this area. Now, I don't want to mislead anyone. We've got big spacing between units or receptors in the case of noise studies, that they're called, and so the prospects of meeting the criteria under cost beneficial is probably low. But we will study. Where we find we've got significant noise impacts though, then we look at what other options there are, and some of it might be landscaping. You do have an area that's about 30 feet by 60 feet that's outside of what we needed specifically for the roadway in this whole take. That's just north ofMr. Parent, and so that may present an opportunity for us to try and respond to some of the issues in that the area. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does anybody else want to bring this back? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Parent. MR. PARENT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a time certain at 2:30. It's just about three o'clock. Can we -- are you okay? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to go ahead and hear that Page 154 January 15-16,2008 one. It's 10- Item #10B PROVIDE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH A COMPLETE SUMMARY OF THE STORMW A TER ISSUES IN THE WILLOW WEST NEIGHBORHOOD AND FULLY EXPLAIN STAFF'S RECOMMENDED PLAN OF ACTION - MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED PLAN - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This is lOB, provide the Board of County Commissioners the complete summary of the storm water issues in the Willow West neighborhood and to fully explain staffs recommended plan of action. Mr. Gerry Kurtz, Transportation Stormwater Management Project Manager, will present. MR. KURTZ: Good afternoon. Gerry Kurtz, Principal Project Manager for Stormwater Management Department. Appreciate the opportunity to present this project to you again. The project is located in the Willoughby Acres area. It is north -- north side of Immokalee Road and it is west of Livingston Road and east of Airport Road. It's the red star on the map. It's located in between two water management weirs, Cocohatchee number one and Cocohatchee number two, in the Immokalee Road Canal, and I'll allude to that in the next few slides as we move on. Recent board actions: In March we presented the project somewhat incompletely. We brought the project to you to endorse it as we originally designed to go forward with it. As a result of the brief discussion, we were directed to complete the swale work only using our stormwater funds, and the culvert issues and driveway issues and rear yard swale issues were determined to be private issues to be Page 155 January 15-16,2008 dealt with by the residents of Willow West. We came back in November at the request of Susan Thompson at a petition to reevaluate the issues, rehear the issues, and that's why we're here today. This is an aerial map of Willow West neighborhood. Its 44 home-sites and a four-lot park at the northwest corner. The red arrows are on there to show you the direction of the flow ofthe storm water in the neighborhood. It is an engineer-designed system, and the flow of the system was designed to flow from the southeast corner to the northwest corner. This slide shows you a typical depiction of the roadway sign cross-section. Worth noting on this slide is that the original design did include roadside swales eight foot wide to hold approximately one foot of water with total retainage of water in those roadside swales. The original system also included rear yard scales, two different sizes, 15-foot wide and 30-foot wide are various locations throughout the -- in between the homes and in the rear yards. Worthy of noting, on these two slides again is the one foot of water that is supposed to be retained in the swales before any discharge is allowed to leave the -- and flow out of the neighborhood at all. And the swales are located in various spots, and I can allude back to exactly where they are on subsequent slides. Also worth noting, the original design. It was constructed in 1989 with front and rear yard swales. Again, one foot of water to be held in the swales. And this is retention. This is in the detention. Retention means to retain and hold, and the only way to get rid of the water is by evaporation and percolation, and that will come into play here in a minute as I explain that further. Subsequent to the neighborhood system being put in as people started moving in and homes were built, the complaints started pretty instantaneously and just continued on through the history up to 2003/2004. Page 156 January 15-16,2008 County was very activity in servicing the complaints, trying to do a various number of things. One of the things that was tried out there is the swales were enclosed, and I have a graphic to show what I mean by that. That we know of, five sites were used to basically put the water out of sight and -- so it wouldn't have to be exposed for various reasons. Some of the front yard swales were also gradually filled because the standing water complaints were just -- it was intolerable. Driveway culvert pipes, as homes got built in there, were set at different elevations. Again, trying to deal with the standing water, trying to figure out, what was the optimum elevation to put a driveway culvert pipe in with the standing water. There was some trouble interpreting the design of the plan and different elevations were tried, and culverts did get put in at varying elevations. Continuing on. It got to the point where we evaluated rear yard retention systems throughout the county with community development, development services. There were some other neighborhoods with the same design. It's a little bit of a cheaper design. You can avoid more of a master drainage system. You put a little bit of the retention area in the back of each home. It became such a nuisance. As soon as people moved into these homes, they began filling the system in, which has a snowballing effect. And basically the retention system for the whole neighborhood starts going away lot by lot at a time. So in January of2001, we were successful in eliminating this kind of design from ever being approved by the county again. Rear yards today can be used to move a runoff, but they can't be used to hold any runoff. It can move water through rear yards as it falls off the roofs and convey it to a water management system, but you can no longer place a water management system that retains stormwater in the back of people's yards. Also worth noting, the weirs I alluded to came into the Page 157 January 15-16,2008 Cocohatchee Canal, which were desperately needed, and doing a wonderful job at staging the water off and holding the water as the precious resource that we know. But it did change the groundwater table elevation. It actually stepped it up a significant amount. We estimate four and a half feet or more. And I'll show you what that means in some subsequent slides here. Also what happened on Mentor Drive -- Willow West is two streets. Johnnycake is the south street. Mentor is the north street. On Mentor Drive, the west end, the park was built, very small, little neighborhood park. A sidewalk was put in by the county, and in order to get the sidewalk in at that location, a little bit of the swale that was originally designed and built was filled in. A mild little impact, but significant nonetheless. As everything adds up, it's all additive to the problems. This shot is meant to show you the incompatible use. There's a nice retention swale. Again, retention. That water is not going to go anywhere until it gets deeper than one foot. It's holding about a foot there. It's probably starting to discharge a little bit. But there's your foot of water in a back yard, and, frankly, people just don't like it and they don't tolerate it very well. This particular person opted not to fill their swale in, but I have examples of a lot of folks that did fill it in. Here's a graphic showing what happens when we tried to do a swale enclosure. The blue circle represents the pipe, and you can see that the pipe's put in to continue to convey the water and to maintain your connectivity, but when you bed the pipe in the earth, the embankment, you lose that whole crosshatched area of volume, which was your storage volume. And if you do several of these, the additive effect is basically taking away your water management system one yard at a time, and this is the -- in the 30-foot rear yard swale area, and we have several Page 158 January 15-16,2008 of these out there. The county actually partnered with the homeowners during that early period. I believe the arrangement was that the homeowners bought the pipe and the county installed the pipe. There's later generations of these attempts. We got more sophisticated. We actually put in infiltrators which, if you can picture that blue circle, just putting in multiples of those in an arched configuration, a bank of pipes more or less. It gave you more volume. Your impact was less, but there was still an impact nonetheless. Again, taking away the retention or the volume that's needed to protect the system and keep the system functioning well. Here's the same thing just shown in the field. There is -- behind that fence there is an infiltrator. You can't see the end of it. It's buried. But there's the real-life example of what I showed you on the previous slide. You're just -- you're just gradually filling the system in, and it's not good. It really hurts the performance. Just an example of a typical encroachment back there. We have a number of encroachments back there. There's just a photo of one. In fact, out of the 44 residential lots back there, 21 have encroached into the water management system. I wanted to show you this, just the difference of what I alluded to earlier. Willow West is on the bottom there, and that is the design system where each home shares a little piece of the water management system. It's a cheaper way to do things. You notice the developer could build on all the lots. No lots were given up like the Sawgrass development on the north. You can clearly see the area that was given up to build the master water management system to put it in a common area where it can be protected, policed, and maintained. It's a little bit more expensive. It has to -- water -- the runoff has to be piped to these lakes, but it's the better way to go, costs a little bit more, and it's the key to the problems, I believe, in Willow West. The top configuration is the more modern, little bit more Page 159 January 15-16,2008 expensive, but it's well worth the money. The bottom is very problematic as the water management systems do get filled in over the years that go on as people live there. This is just a picture of the weir. The weirs are great, especially what we've heard about the water shortage today. But it does -- you can sort of see it. It's -- the downstream elevation is 1.5. The upstream elevation is 6.5. These are the control elevations. If you picture this weir not being there as the water -- as you continued upstream, the water elevation literally stayed at elevation 1.5. So under the ground, you're stepping up the water table making the ground underneath areas in Willow West a lot more moist, a lot more wet, which slows the percolation rate down, which was a critical component to the original way that the system should have functioned. So we believe that this did add to the system's inability to get rid of the water and just aggravated the situation. But well worth -- well worth it because of protecting the water resource. Here's a picture of the sidewalk. What I'm trying to show you here is sidewalks are well deserved, well needed in neighborhoods. There's a great one there, but as you can see, you cannot put that in in that location without impacting the swale, and this was done on the south side of Mentor all the way through this Willow West neighborhood so the size of the swale was reduced. Again, all these things are additive. We've come up with a solution, and we're pleased to be able to present it to you in a more comprehensive manner. It's basically the same solution we had almost a year ago, but, again, we were not clear with you in what we were trying to do in Willow West. We have a complete system reconstruction. It's converting the system from retention to detention. Key words here. Detention means you capture it and you hold it for a brief period of time but you allow it to bleed off. That's modern water management. By letting the water bleed down, it's being purified. It's also given an opportunity to Page 160 January 15-16,2008 seep into the ground and to evaporate, but you don't -- you don't hold it and keep it there. So that's a difference. We've converted the system with our new design from retention to detention, and we believe that will really solve a lot of the flooding water nuisance complaints, the standing water complaints, excuse me. We have -- the original system was placed -- the majority of it was actually placed in rear yard swales to be maintained by the homeowners association. What we have done with this new design is we've placed the majority of the system in the county road right-of-way. It's much easier to get to, county would oversee it, the maintenance of it, and oversee that it stays there and doesn't get filled in. That's a big change in the design. And that alludes to the fact that the swales that are in the right-of-way now are a lot larger than the original eight-foot-wide swale that was in the original design. I'll show you what we have in that in a minute. It's an engineered approach. We have designed it. We've run all the numbers on it. It has been a budgeted project since '05. We've been thinking about this for a long time. This system connectivity is restored with our new design. Everything with -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Kurtz, I don't mean to interrupt you, but we also have five speakers. MR. KURTZ: Okay. I'll speed it right along here. More critically, the intent of the water management original rules are adhered to with this new design. Here's a quick depiction of what we have planned and actually what exists out there right now. The swales are all done along the roadside. They're quite -- they're six foot wide in some areas and four foot wide in other areas. This is the new cross-section, exists on Johnnycake and Mentor. On Johnnycake, the existing condition is nine driveways and culverts have been reconstructed by the owners. The owners paid Page 161 January 15-16,2008 approximately $4,500 each, and that was per your original direction back in March. All the swales are currently complete in the whole neighborhood; however, the flows are blocked to get out of the neighborhood because there's some remaining culverts that are still in the way. Here's a quick photo of the new swale on Johnnycake. On Mentor the majority of the work yet needs to be done. Mostly involves driveway culverts. Swales are completed. Again, here is the -- what we're trying to do is we're trying to get the flows to the outlet. The outlet is good. The neighborhood will drain. We just need to get the water to it. And our recommendation is to complete the project as we have designed with the work on Mentor Drive left to be done, and our approximate estimate is 310- to $360,000. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we go to speakers and then ask questions? Could you please stand by? MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have five speakers. Darrell Thompson. He'll be followed by Susan Thompson. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would just like to ask one question, if I could. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's get to the speakers, because more questions might come up after. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. THOMPSON: Hi, guys. Darrell Thompson, 37 Mentor Drive. From our last meeting, I think everyone is aware of the situation, looked at it pretty good. Couple issues that really some of the homeowners will not be satisfied pretty much no matter what you do, but I think you're going to probably want to go forward with what staff recommends. But do consider the swale sizes to some degree, possible water remaining in the ditch being excessive. And if you don't go forward Page 162 January 15-16, 2008 with it, you have the issue of at least three foot of water in these ponds that -- you know, you don't want a grandchild, you know, somebody's son or daughter in those this year when it rains. That's about it. The other thing is, the funds that the Johnnycake people -- the people in Johnnycake spent for their driveways. I would wonder about staffs estimate on the actual cost of completing the project and would ask that you consider refunding Johnnycake residents some of those monies if any is left. And that's pretty much it. You know, some people are not going to be happy with the size of the swales. I don't know if it's in realm to be able to control that. But other than that, it's a win-win for everybody. Get that water out of there before it becomes more of a problem than it already is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Susan Thompson. She'll be followed by Susan Gonwa. MS. THOMPSON: Hi. Thanks for taking our issue again. I have a couple of issues. Last meeting you guys requested that staff get together with us and go over the issues since March of '07. You asked them to negotiate with us to come up to a solution regarding swale size. The current -- let me go back. The old system required a one-inch (sic) retention. The new system is still designed at -- I'm sorry, one foot, not one inch -- one-foot retention/detention. Unfortunately, the way the swales are currently, they're still 12 inches below the top of the grate for them to run off. From Johnnycake, the water's supposed to go north to Mentor at this point, and it's not going to go there until we get one foot of water in those swales. And that's the major problem that the Johnnycake people have is the depth of those swales. I would like to see the depth be risen so that after six inches of water is retained, then it can run off and it be detained. He may Page 163 January 15-16,2008 disagree. And that's been our problem from the beginning is the disagreement with those swale sizes. Let's see. Over Halloween, we had a lot oftrick-or-treaters on our street, and there was a little girl that fell into one of the swales and basically ruined her costume. It was so deep and it was very muddy at the time. Again, I want to reiterate that I think that the cost to finalize this project is high. They don't recommend that Johnnycake be reimbursed. I want to reiterate that they should. They actually really did get this ball rolling by putting forth the effort to get something done with staff, so we would like them to get that done. But all in all, we want the whole thing to be finished, just to get it done. As you can see by the pictures, you've got the swale here and you've got the culverts here. They need to be fixed, okay? Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Sharon Gonwa. She'll be followed by Gregory Porrechia. MS. GONW A: Hi. I'm Sharon Gonwa. I'm from 30 Mentor Drive. I'm the south side. We bought our house in 2004. It was built for us. And we have a circle drive. I'm disabled and can't back out into the road. So we've got a circle drive, and we had our culverts put in per the county. They disapproved them. We had them ripped out. We had new ones put in, so we've paid for four so far, and now we're going to be paying for two more if this is my understanding of the plan. We were there after their sidewalk was in, so the county made an error in their permitting and -- for the permitting and the approvals of everything because they're the ones that said, this is where it has to go, this is the depth. All the new homes after mine that were built, each and every one of them, their culverts are the same as mine were, they were at the same depth all the way down the block. So all these homes that were Page 164 January 15-16,2008 built after mine all have the same problem. Okay. Now, my front yard is a mess because my swale's really not done. The crew hit some pipes, broke the pipes. They had to come back and fix the pipes. So this is just a mess, and I've got rocks in the back yard and everything else. But we also have a drop-off from our property. It's not 3-1. It said in the plans to get 3-to-l drop, so that goes out -- for every foot down, it goes out three feet. Ours more like goes out one foot and down three feet. Just because what the county -- what the construction people told us was, they would have had to go off the right-of-way to do it according to the plans and they would have had to cut into our property . And so by moving it back farther from the sidewalk, we've got a pretty deep ditch there. This is so people won't fall off the sidewalk into the ditch. I said, what about the kids playing in the yard? And he said, well, keep your kids off the grass. Well, that's really good. Now you've got two-year-olds and stuff and you say, oh, don't play on the grass. Most ofthese driveways also have pavers. It's a very large expense that we all paid for things that -- all homes built since 2004. These plans, from my understanding, were in the works in 2003 to change the stormwater. Well, if it was the plan since 2003, why didn't they notify the builders, notify the homeowners at that time so it could have been done right? That's what I have to say. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gregory Porrechia. He'll be followed by Marilyn Gross. MR. PORRECHIA: Greg Porrechia, 48 Johnnycake Drive. Hello. My concern is, since this is a Willow West storm water project, why has Johnnycake Drive been excluded in the most recent executive Page 165 January 15-16, 2008 summary? For example, the questioning (sic) board compensates Mentor Drive homeowners for the new culverts but not homeowners on Johnnycake Drive who have already paid out of their accounts. There has not been any adjustment in swale size from the beginning. I think we've had three meetings where even the board has addressed to work with stormwater to find a, you know, happy medium. That has not happened. None of those meetings have happened. There's been no adjustment in swale size from the beginning. I'm sure many of you have been out to the site. There is no consistency. We would like to see maybe consistency in the swale size. There's talk of six-foot swales, there's talk of four-foot swales. If we can make it consistent with the maximum being four foot, I think that will be a compensation. The six-foot is definitely excessive. This is the size -- the six-foot swale size is something that would be in front of a commercial area, not a residential lot. These are lots that are standard lot, 80 by 120 or 140. This is -- this is not in front of Wal-Mart. And I think many of the other stuff has been addressed, so that's all I'll say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Marilyn Gross. MS. GROSS: Hi. Thank you for your time. And I will reiterate what some of the prior speakers have said, that the swales that were dug on Johnnycake are huge and unsightly. Those that were dug on Mentor are still unsightly, in fact, less so, by virtue of their smaller size. And our swales -- I live on Johnnycake, 51 Johnnycake. Our swales do not conform to the size of others anywhere else in the entire Willoughby Acres neighborhood. Again, I also fail to see the fairness in charging the residents of Johnnycake thousands of dollars for driveway improvements and now more or less rewarding the residents of Mentor Drive for not Page 166 January 15-16,2008 cooperating with the project initially by having the county pay for theirs alone. It just doesn't seem -- you know, I can't make -- I can't see how that would be fair. Any reasonable person would conclude that the county should fix either all the driveways and reimburse those residents who came out of pocket originally on that issue. Fair is fair. After this water problem, which was always bad, it was exacerbated by the swales in the back being filled in, as your -- as it has been said. And the building of the park and all that has just increased the horrible problem. It's really a blight on what is otherwise a fine neighborhood. And they're really retaining ponds, you know. And if they're meant to hold water, that's really unfortunate because the rest of Willoughby Acres, you could drive around and up and down every street on a rainy day in Willoughby Acres and all the water drains, but on our end of Johnnycake and Mentor, we have retaining ponds, you know, where animals actually develop and grow. And you know, I hate to look out and see -- Greg has three tiny little kids in, you know, they're playing out front and there's really nowhere for them to play. And you know, as you know, a child could drown in two inches of water. And in closing, I'd like to say, as a Realtor of 30 years, in my professional opinion, these unsightly swales with the standing water greatly diminish the value of these properties and, you know, what is already a depressed market. So I hope we can resolve this issue in a timely manner because it's really a terrific neighborhood. But for years I had to wear galoshes to get my mail, walk my dogs, just to get out to the street. So now I could walk on my driveway, but my front yard is filled with, you know, three or four feet of water at a time. And our swales are so huge. They're six or seven feet wide. You know, they really should be uniform and the same on both Mentor and Johnnycake. Thank you for your time. Page 167 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Does anybody want to make a motion to approve with amended staffs recommendations or approve staffs recommendations? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got a couple of questions I'd like to ask. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas has a question. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this drain system that we're discussing today, is it considered a primary, secondary, or tertiary draining system? MR. KURTZ: This would be considered a tertiary system. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Don't we have guidelines in regards to a tertiary system whereby it's a cost -- basically a cost share? MR. KURTZ: We discussed some guidelines initially about how to fund various components of the drainage system, but this -- this system is -- it's a tertiary system, but it has a -- the likelihood of affecting the whole drainage in the area and easily becoming a secondary system problem, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. KURTZ: It's in the middle, and it drains, and it could possibly drain in two directions. And right now, it's just in bad shape and dysfunctional. And what we've brought forward to you, we believe, is a fine solution to protect integrity of the road and the neighborhood and -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other question I have for you, if we straighten this thing out, is there going to be water laying in the bottom of these swales? MR. KURTZ: There will be water laying in the bottom of the swales if it rains every day, but in between rain events, if we get an interruption there in the cycle, it more than likely will drain off within 24 hours or 48 hours. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are we going to have water that's Page 168 January 15-16,2008 standing two to three feet deep in these things? MR. KURTZ: No, sir. It's -- we've -- the design is engineered. It's an engineered slope from the high end to the low end. A consistent slope will be built. Right now the problem is, we've only built bits and pieces. It doesn't work at all. We've got to go through from one end to the other and connect everything up, and it will slope properly and it will flow out. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to hold you to that. MR. KURTZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other question that the residents brought up, and that is, why can't we basically compact the size of these drains? MR. KURTZ: It's very important to come up with a system ofa specific volume to meet the water management criteria requirements. We've already -- it's been reduced to the point where we're right on the edge. We cannot make anything any smaller. We would be way below water management requirements for the current codes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't see anybody jumping out of their seats to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're going to make a motion to? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Approve? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Staffs recommendations. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Staffs recommendations by Commissioner Coyle, and second by Commissioner Halas. Any more COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, Coletta. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The good looking one at the Page 169 January 15-16,2008 end. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. The good looking one is on my left. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep. Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Just a couple of questions here. Did I understand you to say that part of this problem is because many residents have actually filled in areas that were previously used to collect and/or direct off water? MR. KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And did you say that some residents inappropriately installed culverts in the driveway that impede the draining of the water, or was that an error by county staff? MR. KURTZ: I would say it was an attempt by the county staff to figure out what an adequate elevation would be to put a culvert in to make it work right. And unfortunately, when we finally figured out the whole system, nothing works right in the current condition. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the -- one of the speakers was concerned about the fact that the infall grates are higher than the bottoms of the swales. But you just said that water was not going to stand in the bottom of these swales. How do you get the water out? MR. KURTZ: Yes, sir. I failed to explain that we -- our plan does provide provisions to modify all those existing structures so that, again, from the top end to the bottom end there'll be a consistent slope, and the catch basins will be modified. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Now, I'm sort of accustomed to projects like this tending to go over budget. As you know we're having a serious problem with funding because of state imposed revenue restrictions. What assurance do we have that we're going to be able to get this done for Page 170 January 15-16,2008 the maximum amount of the $360,000 that you've specified in the executive summary? MR. KURTZ: It's clearly defined what we need to do. We know exactly what components need to be rebuilt. We've got good cost estimates, good prices recently. We've done this kind of work recently, and we know the scope is so clearly defined it's -- we're going to get a large benefit for the dollars that we have set, and I'm confident we'll stay within budget. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if we allocate the $360,000 for you, you're not going to come back and say, hey, we're 75 percent through this project, we need more money? MR. KURTZ: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You're going to stay within budget? MR. KURTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. One final comment, and this is for the benefit of the people who were concerned about the width of the swales. Are you absolutely convinced that you have created a design that represents the minimum size cross-section necessary for handling the necessary runoff? MR. KURTZ: Yes, sir, I am. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I will say to you that I am not interested in spending $360,000 and designing something smaller that is not going to work. I am not interested in a drainage system that deals with aesthetics rather than dealing with running -- getting the water off. So although some residents do not like the size of the swales if, in fact, you're right, that size is absolutely essential to move the water, and I would not be interested in spending this money doing something that has to be redone in a few years. So I would say, build them the way you've designed them. Page 171 January 15-16,2008 MR. KURTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just have a couple concerns. You answered a couple of my questions, Commissioner Coyle. But the other thing is, I'm worried about standing water, and you said there wouldn't be much of any standing water. With the concerns that we have with mosquito population and they're telling everybody how to safeguard themselves, especially with the diseases that are being carried and some of them deadly diseases, I would hope that this water isn't standing around for very long to create a mosquito problem, as well as a snake problem or other things that can happen. I'm hoping you're designing these things with the safety of these people in mind. MR. KURTZ: Yes. It's been a horrible problem. Matter of fact, before we even started fooling around with it, it wasn't working right, and they had a lot of standing water. Then we went in and we excavated the swales out, but we couldn't do the plumbing part of the job, so it actually got even worse. So what we're all used to over the period of years is this standing water nuisance issue that's really hurting us all. Real confident that if we're allowed to complete the design, it won't be a standing water issue, with the exception of -- and we're hoping for a rainy summer -- that if it rains every day, there will be -- there will be water in the swales, but it's -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That happens all over. I understand that. MR. KURTZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I understand that. I just wanted to make sure it was designed for their safety in mind. MR. KURTZ: It is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, do you have clear Page 172 January 15-16,2008 direction on this one? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. One other comment. The reason that those swales are so large, we're still within the confines of the storm water easements there, but a lot of these people caused this problem because they filled in the rear swales and caused the water not to flow. MR. KURTZ: Yes. We're, in a sense, taking it out of the rear yards and putting it in the front yards. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other comments, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none. Any opposed to the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, motion carries unanimously. Before we take a 10-minute break, we need to prioritize our agenda. We have -- how many people do we have to speak on Delasol? MS. FILSON: Eight. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have eight people, we have two public petitions. Are we going to get to the Vanderbilt Beach Pier today? MS. FILSON: I have four speakers on that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have four speakers on that. And that's about the hot topics, right? COMMISSIONER FIALA: All-terrain vehicles. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All-terrain vehicles. How many on all-terrain vehicles? Page 173 January 15-16,2008 MS. FILSON: None. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's take a 10-minute break. Let's go to the public petitions. They're paying for attorneys. MS. FILSON: Public hearings. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public hearings. We're going to-- we're going to take a 10-minute break. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take your seats. County Manager, Commissioners, here's what we're going to do. The Vanderbilt Beach Pier discussion we're going -- not going to hear that today . We're going to make that a time certain tomorrow at nine a.m. I think that we need to go to the public petitions now, which won't take long, and then we want to go right to the Delasol issue. And we're going to try to get as much done by six o'clock, and we might stay a little bit after six. Okay. So let's go to item 7 A. Item #7 A RESOLUTION 2008-08: PETITION VA-2007-AR-12129 JAMES AND RUTH KAL VIN, REPRESENTED BY ANTONIO F AGA, REQUESTING AFTER- THE-F ACT SQUARE-FOOTAGE AND SEP ARA TION VARIANCES FOR AN EXISTING GUEST HOUSE IN THE ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT. THE 2.52-ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5801 CEDAR TREE LANE, IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED W/STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS WITHOUT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF FEES MR. MUDD: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's Page 174 January 15-16,2008 variance 2007-AR-12129, James and Ruth Kalvin, represented by Antonio Faga, requesting after the -- after-the-fact square footage and separation variances for an existing guesthouse in the estates zoning district. The 2.52 acre property is located at 5801 Cedar Tree Lane in Section 20, Township 49 south, Range 29 east of Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All people wanting to participate in this public -- or this public petition, please rise so the court reporter may swear you m. (The speakers were duly sworn and responded in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, do you have any ex parte communication on 7 A? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have none, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, or Coyle, or Halas, do you have any ex parte communication? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I don't. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have -- I reviewed the Planning Commission's meeting, and I did receive a correspondence from a planning commissioner. I did speak to staff, and I did speak to the petitioner. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: None. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I haven't had anything on this item within the framework when it's been presented, but I believe we may have talked about it in the past, in the distant past in just -- in conversation? I'm talking about maybe a year or so ago. MR. KAL VIN: It's been going on two years. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I know. It's been some time, but I can recall vaguely we did have some conversation. It might have been at a public meeting, and I can't recall what the conversation was. Page 175 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta did speak to the petitioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I did, and I also spoke to staff at great length, including the County Attorney. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Go ahead, sir. MR. F AGA: Yes, thank you. Antonio Faga, for the petitioners. This is an -- request for two after-the-fact variances from the requirements of section 5.03, et cetera. Basically it asks for a 7.4-foot variance from the 20-foot separation from guesthouse from the principal dwelling, and a variance of 19 percent from the maximum 40 percent size limit of the guesthouse relative to the air-conditioned area of the principal dwelling. We had requested it before the Planning Commission, and it was our understanding in listening to the discussion that we would have a 6-0 vote at the Planning Commission. If that were true, obviously we would have been on the consent agenda. As a result of the chair's effort to request that Mr. Kalvin get his money back, the -- it did not become a unanimous vote, and as a result we're at 5-1, and we're here before you today. I'm here to answer any questions. It's not a very complex issue. I would merely point out that the requirement that it be after-the- fact seems to imply that we did something wrong here. I mean, we bought this house. The house was clearly built before 1980. It was listed on the property card as a residence, and it was held out as a home and guesthouse at the time of purchase. When -- after the discovery or after it was tagged by the Code Enforcement Board, then we applied for the variance and it moved to the system -- through the system. Been very pleased with staff. They've been more than responsive for us, and we're just here to try to get this resolved today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Motion to approve the Page 176 January 15-16,2008 . vanance. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. I just need to clarify your motion, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it staffs recommendations or the Planning Commission's recommendations. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Staffs recommendation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And you're -- and the second agrees with that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any questions from my colleagues to the right? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question. I think we need to define this more clearly because we don't address one of the issues in the staff recommendations, which is the reimbursement of the fees related to this petition. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. That wasn't the staff recommendation. That was the Planning Commission's recommendation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. The staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve the petition. If the board chooses to approve the reimbursement of the fees, then the staff recommends they also approve an applicable budget amendment. So contained within the staffs recommendation is an opportunity to do two things; one, either approve it without reimbursement of the fees or approve it with reimbursement of the fees, and in that case approve the budget amendment. I need to understand clearly what the motion says. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The motion is to approve it without reimbursement of fees. Page 177 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We have one public speaker. MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And would you call up that public speaker? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, James Kalvin. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Kalvin, do you have anything to add today? MR. KAL VIN: Only to answer -- MR. F AGA: Just to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the way it's reported -- and hopefully we could change this, then I'm going to call for a vote. It's reported on the Planning Commission's section, if the board chooses to reimburse the money, they take it out of the general fund. I would like to see in the future that not in the Planning Commission's recommendations. Ifwe do that -- the Planning Commission's recommendations are the Planning Commission's recommendations. And it was very confusing to me under the Planning Commission's recommendations because it had that, and that's why I talked to the chair -- actually emailed the chairman. But I'm going to -- I'm going to support motion. I think it's -- it will fly. Any -- I'm going to close the public hearing. Anybody opposed to the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Show the motion carries unanimously. MR. F AGA: Thank you. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman? For the record, could you actually have a noise vote of opposed and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Page 178 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MR. F AGA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next item? Item #8A ORDINANCE 2008-02: PETITION PUDZ-2006-AR-I0376 RADIO ROAD JOINT VENTURE, REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL R. FERNANDEZ OF PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED, IS REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE INDUSTRIAL (1) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE LANE PARK CPUD TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 5.27 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RADIO ROAD AND LIVINGSTON ROAD, IN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Next item is 8A, advertised public hearings. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. Page 179 January 15-16,2008 This is PUDZ-2006-AR-I0376, Radio Road Joint Venture, represented by Michael R. Fernandez of Planning Development, Incorporated, is requesting a rezone from the industrial "I" zoning district to the commercial planned unit development, CPUD, zoning district for the Lane Park CPUD to allow development of a maximum of 50,000 square feet of commercial uses. The subject property consisting of 5.27 acres is located at the northwest corner of Radio Road and Livingston Road in Section 36, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and responded in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communication by the Board of County Commissioners, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I have correspondence on this item. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have nothing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have requested more information from our staff. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no ex parte on this item. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: None, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Michael Fernandez with the firm of Planning Development, for the record. This is a rezone from an industrial land use district to a commercial PUD. It was found consistent by staff and the planning Page 180 January 15-16, 2008 commissioners with the Growth Management Plan. Transportation review found adequate roadway capacity and an actual lessening of trips. And there was an agreement to stipulations for interconnection and also some improvements if -- should they be deemed necessary at the time ofSDP. Staff in their report noted that the commercial PUD adds restrictions to the existing zoning -- are more restrictive than the existing zoning, including a reduction in building height from 50 feet maximum allowed by the industrial district to 35 feet maximum. It caps the intensity at 50,000 square feet, has increased setbacks from Livingston Road to 50 feet, and 200 feet from Market A venue, restricts number of stories to three stories, and a maximum lot coverage of 30 percent. No light poles except at entry and exits, which restricts lighting then within the site to Ballards and building lighting. No deviations area required or requested from the LDC provisions for this proposed rezone. It was reported by Collier County staff, or it was recommended by Collier County staff to the planning board. The Planning Commission voted unanimously for approval. There's an issue of a stipulation that the planning commissioners requested that a draft ordinance or draft amendment to the LDC be incorporated into this project. My understanding is that a draft amendment is going to be reviewed by this board as early as tomorrow in the first hearing. Quite frankly, in review of that, we don't believe it has direct application as it's currently written as proposed by the Planning Commission. We don't have any problems accepting it as-is with the stipulation that it could be amended or it would be subsequently amended as consistent with the LDC should the Board of County Commissioners adopt some revisions. Quite frankly, we don't have concerns about this. We do really -- do not abut residential. We're next to industrial and we've got two Page 181 January 15-16,2008 major artery roadways right next to us. So we don't see that there's going to be a conflict or we have any issues with that. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Questions? Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Fernandez, I think you just told us that you don't have any problem being held to the standards of any LDC amendments that might occur between now and the time that you are going to pursue development. Is that -- MR. FERNANDEZ: We're not concerned about this issue of the noise and abutting inconsistencies between land uses. That's what we're talking about. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, certainly you wouldn't be concerned about it. The neighbors would be concerned about it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I'm trying to clarify what you just said. It would seem to me that you said you wouldn't have any problem abiding by an LDC amendment that might come out of our pending work. MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct. Relative to this specific issue, that's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So if we put a stipulation in here that any LDC amendment which is approved, you're going to be held to? MR. FERNANDEZ: Quite frankly, I believe that if you go ahead and enact that LDC amendment as it may be modified, I think it's going to be applicable to us anyway, so I don't see that there's an issue there. Yes, I'll be -- we're happy to stipulate that, regarding this provision of outdoor noise and compatibility that, that will be subject to the amendment as it may be considered by the board in this next cycle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we make that part of the Page 182 January 15-16,2008 motion or make it part of the stipulation? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. The motion maker can, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Okay, good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me understand, if I understand correctly. If you have no objection to item number four here that the Planning Commission put forward, why are we here today? Why didn't you just not raise that objection then and you would have received a unanimous support? It would have been on the summary agenda, and we would have been done with it. MR. FERNANDEZ: No. We were happy to be on the summary agenda. Staff has a problem with it, not us, and that's because the text is in draft form and it may be problematic in enforcing it and so forth. We would be happy on the summary agenda -- being on the summary agenda today because we're willing to accept those provisions. We don't think it'll have any significant impact to us. But I'll let staff address that issue. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm not going to move this too fast forward, but I -- when the time does come, I'll be willing to support a motion that takes the Planning Commission's recommendations in whole. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wanted to hear from staff on this, if I may. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. Ms. Deselem? MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. As Michael mentioned, this would have been on the summary agenda except for the fact that staff does not support the wording of the Planning Commission's recommendation number four. We understand the concept, but we believe that it was premature to Page 183 January 15-16,2008 include this as part of this rezoning action because there's not enough information in there for staff to even evaluate it. And as recently as the 13th, the proposed text that was being reviewed by the Planning Commission to address this issue was changed yet again. So staff believes that it's more appropriate to go ahead and approve this petition as we recommended without that stipulation and make the petitioner be subject to whatever is adopted in the LDC consistent with what anyone else would be subject to. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. Now, my question is -- and I agree with you because possibly the words will get tightened up even more. What I just want to make sure of is we never have another problem like Stevie Tomatoes. Will that be written in here to make sure that the neighborhoods will be protected? MS. DESELEM: I can assure you that it will be written in here. If it's adopted as part of the LDC, this petitioner would be subject to it in the same fashion as anyone else. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And he can't come back and say, well, they already voted for my PUD, and we really don't want to do that after all. Look at how late the LDC is coming into fruition. We don't want to be subject to that anymore. MS. DESELEM: It's my understanding that they would be subject to that. I will defer to the County Attorney's Office if they have a different opinion on that. MR. KLA TZKOW: They would be subject to it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just want to make sure -- because not only is there issues in other districts, but I have some issues with some bars in my particular district that started this whole mess about three years ago. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Page 184 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I hope that we address this so that it takes care of all of these outdoor entertainment areas. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's tomorrow night, right? MS. DESELEM: I believe so, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I haven't received my book yet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We just got them this afternoon. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh. Gives me a lot of time. Kay, I have concerns about these compatibilities of use. Did you go over these uses to find out that they would work together? MS. DESELEM: Yes. Staff did evaluate those in conjunction with the County Attorney's Office, too, looking at the C-3 zoning uses to ensure that all these uses were, in fact, listed correctly, and noting that it's industrial land use adjacent to this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. DESELEM: So, generally speaking, there's not a compatibility issue. Industrial is usually deemed to be a more intense zoning district than commercial. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Is this a -- C-3 uses? MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we're zoning the C-3? MS. DESELEM: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. DESELEM: With some exceptions, and they have taken out those exceptions as were included in the GMP amendment that this particular petition mirrors. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is a restaurant -- that's part of the -- that's in here. What about a lounge, a bar that's serving -- MS. DESELEM: I would have to look through the specific uses. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Whatever. MS. DESELEM: I don't believe off the top of my head that that is an allowable use in C-3. The limit of 13, item 13 on page 2 of 8, allows eating places, and it talks about all establishments engaged in Page 185 January 15-16,2008 retail, sale of alcoholic beverages, but that doesn't specifY a lounge. And I think in my estimation, that's about as close as this would get to what you might refer to as a lounge. But a bar or a lounge is not allowed. And that has a lot to do with the percentage of income that comes from food versus alcohol. CHAIRMAN HENNING: A retail establishment would be like an ABC Liquor? MS. DESELEM: Yeah, that is a retail establishment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Would a sit-down ABC Liquor serving liquor be allowed? MS. DESELEM: I don't know that I've ever seen one of those. But from what you're talking about, just looking at it from an angle, that's usually like -- would be an ancillary use, like if they have a wine tasting or something. I've not known an ABC liquor store to have a sit-down wine thing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, ABC doesn't, but there are other establishments that has sit-down drinking establishments along with selling liquor over the counter to take home. MS. DESELEM: I think that would exceed the places operations definition and would not be allowed in this petition. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, that's in group 5812, right here. This is -- Commissioners, this is page 144 of 153. That is the uses within this commercial district. MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry. I don't have those page numbers. Can you tell me specifically; are you looking at Exhibit A of the PUDs? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MS. DESELEM: Okay. And you're looking at item 13? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thirteen, yes. MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: To me eating places is a -- is, you know, a place where you sit down and eat ice cream or a place you eat Page 186 January 15-16,2008 a sandwich, a place you have dinner. But when it continues on to say, all establishments engaging in retail sales of alcoholic beverages on premises, consumption, are subject to locational requirement of the LDC. MS. DESELEM: If! may, Susan Istenes has pointed out something to me that I missed and I stand corrected. Drinking places would be allowed, excluding bottle clubs in item 12 of that same Exhibit A. So, yes, it would allow bars. I stand corrected. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The bars would be allowed. But what is that language in 13; what does that mean? MS. DESELEM: If there are any kind oflocational criteria like day care or school, anything like that, they would be complied -- required to comply. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, is that what that means? MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All establishments engaging in retail sales of alcoholic beverages on premises, consumption, are subject to a locational requirement. And I think that applies to a church, right? MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's what that means. So it's -- so it has space criteria? MS. DESELEM: Yeah. It's a separation distance. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Okay, great. I have no further questions. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Coletta was going to make a motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, yes. I do have some questions, if! may first. On the permitted uses, number 10 and 12 civil, social, and fraternal associations. Does that mean like it's an Elks or an Eagles they'd be able to have alcohol there? MS. DESELEM: Wait a minute. I'm looking. Ten-- Page 187 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is on that page 144, Exhibit A. MS. DESELEM: Yes. It would be ancillary function of that, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it would be allowed to have alcohol, and they'd be open to like one o'clock at night? MS. DESELEM: Only in compliance with whatever regulations are adopted, if, in fact, the drinking places or outdoor establishments affects that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we really need this as a use? I'm kind of questioning that. That, and also the drinking places, group 513, including bottle clubs. All establishments engaged in retail sales, alcoholic beverage. I mean, if we struck those two right out, we'd be a little bit closer to eliminating some of the problems that existed in the past. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that -- that is what the county planning commissioners were trying to get to. There are so many uses here; it's really a management thing that the staff has to do is, is it -- is it -- is it fitting to put it on the southwest corner where it should be on the northeast corner? And I think that's -- it has so many uses, that's how they tried to capture all those uses. In other words, is it closer in towards the industrial for those C-3 uses versus something that is out by Foxfire or Briarwood? COMMISSIONER FIALA: This wording in number 10, also could this be like if somebody wanted to build a hall where you can have weddings and parties and receptions and so forth, this allows them to have this type of an establishment? Is there a way for that to happen without -- without something -- now, I understand that you're right there in a commercial area. So that would absorb any sounds. But I was wondering ifthere's anything in here that allows one without -- without making it overly disruptive to any neighborhood. MS. DESELEM: The only thing I could cite would be the noise Page 188 January 15-16,2008 ordinance. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any public speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Commissioners, Michael Fernandez again for the record. One item that I'd like to point out that the planning commissioners had an appreciation for is that this land right now is already zoned industrial and does permit lounges and other types of those types facilities, and that was one of the reasons specifically that they were insisting upon that provision about the outdoor and compatibility issues with residential even though we don't directly abut residential. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But Mr. Fernandez, didn't last year, or the year prior, you ask for a Growth Management Plan amendment on this parcel? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. I was not representing this parcel at the time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But there was one? MR. FERNANDEZ: This was one in two oh four. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two oh four, to go -- industrial to commercial? MR. FERNANDEZ: It went and provided the opportunity to do so, yes, SIr. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: And it was approved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, subject to certain restrictions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing and entertain a motion at this time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion to accept the Page 189 January 15-16,2008 Planning Commission's recommendations, including number 4, and the exclusion under permitted uses under 10 and 12. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ten and 12, okay. Is there a second to the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle seconds the motion. Now we're going to have a discussion on the motion. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Ifwe pass it in this form and the LDC amendment that eventually is voted upon and approved is more stringent than what is in four, will then -- will then we be stuck using this rather than the more stringent LDC amendment? MS. DESELEM: My understanding is yes. But, again, I'll defer to the County Attorney's Office. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can't vote for it in that form, I'm sorry . COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, hang on. I can't support it for that reason, besides it's extra work for our staff to enforce. In other words, if we adopt different policies, then-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- then you have two different policies trying to do the same thing. And ifMr. Fernandez would agree to abide by that policy if and when the board adopts it, then we'd have a more cohesive ordinance to enforce. County Manager wants to say something. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Mr. Fernandez, if you'd go to that microphone, because when Mr. Klatzkow said he'd have to abide by it, Mr. Fernandez, in my left ear, said, yes, we would. And I'd like him to put that on the record on the microphone so you can hear what he Page 190 January 15-16, 2008 said. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But -- that's fine, but that isn't what the motion says. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir; I agree. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we need to -- we need to do something with this motion if it fails. Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm confused, because I thought that was exactly what the motion said. The motion said, recommend approval with Collier County Planning Commission recommendations with their stipulations, one through four. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And one through four is what we're going to hear at a future planning -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Future -- that's right, that's right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we -- now we know it has changed in its form from what we're told by our staff. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it may be -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: It may be -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Planning Development Code may be even more restrictive. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if we go this way then we don't -- they don't have to adhere to the Land Development Code amendment. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's a loophole. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not what the motion says. The motion says that if we make it more restrictive in this next cycle ofLDC amendments, they will be governed by it. That's what -- that's Page 191 January 15-16,2008 what the Collier County Planning Commission was trying to do in their stipulations. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What about ifit-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is this not true? MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't believe so. And it's our opinion and -- that if you do vote, this is a -- this is what will govern the PUD, not what you adopt at a subsequent public hearing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. It's a loophole. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have a guarantee, at least at this particular level that we do have something, because we don't know what we're going to adopt at a future hearing. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I can tell you -- what the Planning Commission has adopted is a draft. They've already made changes to it, in part because I think it's going to be problematic for staff to enforce it and time-consuming. It is a different process. I can live with it either way. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about if we have in the motion, whichever's more restrictive, either the Planning Commission's recommendations as they've got it so worded or the new land development change that comes forward? MR. FERNANDEZ: We don't know what that text will be. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's exactly right. That's what I was saying a moment ago. MR. FERNANDEZ: But if you're silent and you don't adopt that number four, then we will be subject to it. And of course -- and I don't -- and again, if you look at the context of this particular project, we're abutting commercial and major highways across the street. You can have liquor stores in any of those parcels there. So, again, I don't see that there's a compatibility issue in this particular location and those concerns that you would have, perhaps, elsewhere. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, excuse me if I seem to be Page 192 January 15-16,2008 a little bit on edge, but after what we went through recently, what took place in Pebblebrooke -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: --I'm still very gun-shy. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle wants to go next. Are you finished, sir? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, I am. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle wants to finish up, and then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not going to try to define what the CCPC was trying to do. My reading of this indicates they wanted to apply more stringent measures to the uses specified. Now, if the County Attorney tells me that's not what they were trying to do, then I will remove my objection and I will vote against the motion. MR. KLATZKOW: The Planning Commission was attempting to avoid another Pebblebrooke situation where -- to give staff the additional tool to say, wait a second. This really isn't compatible with the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly what I thought. So what the CCPC was trying to say is, we don't want another Pebblebrooke problem. We're in the process of revising the LDC, and we want you to be subject to whatever that revision is, okay? Now, you don't know what it is now. But I can guarantee you it's going to be more stringent than what we've had in the past. So what is the problem? MS. DESELEM: If! may? Kay Deselem, for the record again. The language that was discussed by the CCPC on, I believe, the 13th, for this issue, for example, it started out saying non-compatible uses, and that was pretty basic as to what it said. And it didn't have any criteria for staff to evaluate as to whether something was non-compatible or not. Now we have what they're Page 193 January 15-16,2008 calling outdoor seating, which truly seems to more clearly address the actual issue, and there is criteria proposed in that. So even now what's proposed, as of this week with the CCPC, is, in my opinion, better than what you were looking at as far as issue number four, because that was a very early draft. And I think, you know, what we're going towards and seeing, you know, the general idea of how the county overall feels about the issue, it seems like something is going to be adopted, and it will be at least as stringent as, if not more than, item number four. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What kind of motion can be structured to clearly state that? Because that's not what this says and apparently the majority of the board thinks that is not what Commissioner Coletta said. MS. DESELEM: Right. The motion before you right now, I mean, if! may, is to approve what -- the CCPC recommendation. If you don't support that and you want to go with the other language or to make this project subject to whatever's adopted by the LDC at a future date, then you need to deny the motion you have before you now and do another motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let the motion maker make the change. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that's Commissioner Coletta's intent, isn't it, to make it tighter -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tighter. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- than it is now. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got something that we have for certain. We don't know what's going to happen when it comes to the LDC. We presume that certain circumstances of events will take place, but we don't know that for a fact. We could do another thing. We could continue this whole item until after the LDC. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Can I make -- assist you, please? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. Page 194 January 15-16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you can make Planning Commission's recommendation, and since Mr. Fernandez already agreed to any restrictive policies that's in the LDC, whichever one is more restrictive shall apply to this PUD. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I suggested that a few minutes ago, and it didn't seem to go anywhere. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know that, I know that. But if you would do that, and then -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be willing to reword my motion to say that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But also including the fact -- the removal of item number 10 and 12 as far as the places that are serving alcohol that aren't quite restaurants, items -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the petitioner has to agree to that. MR. KLA TZKOW: Yes. MS. DESELEM: If I may jump in here again. It's going to be difficult, since what you have before you as far as non-compatible uses and what we now have of outdoor seating, might be somewhat difficult for staff to discern which is the more restrictive to enforce what you're proposing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, if we don't do exactly what you suggested, but go to the LDC and just say, refer to that, then you don't think it's a good idea? MR. MUDD: No-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't mean to be critical. I'm just -- MS. DESELEM: I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- trying to reach some sort of conclusion. Page 195 January 15-16,2008 MR. MUDD: It says in there that I've got some ability, and it says, County Manager or his designees. I promise you I'm not going to make a designee on this one. I'm going to make the call. And I promise you it will be the more restrictive of the two, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But once again, what is wrong with the present motion that's been changed to be able to cover both ends of it? MS. DESELEM: Just what he was mentioning was, if it were down to staff, we would have some difficulty trying to discern what is the more restrictive use, which is non-compatible, because one is non-compatible uses. The other one's eating establishments, outdoors. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll include in my motion that -- with everyone's permission, that this be matters referred back to the County Manager to determining what is the most restrictive, and then we won't have to have it come back before this commission. I trust his opinion. And then we've got the best of all worlds. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So your motion is? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're going to make me repeat it again, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Good for you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I'll repeat it. I think it's -- I understand the motion. But Mr. Fernandez, as the petitioner, do you agree with the motion? You already agreed with whatever is more restrictive, correct, as far as the locational criteria and the Planning Commission's recommendations? MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm not sure what you mean by the locational criteria. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the one through four of the Planning Commission you said you didn't have a problem. MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct. Staff and the Planning Page 196 January 15-16,2008 Commission are on the same page with one through three. It's only item four that, I think, is out there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Do you agree with Planning Commission's recommendations? MR. FERNANDEZ: We don't believe that it actually will be applicable the way it's written down to us. So it can be -- we can accept that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Do you agree if the board adopts a policy in the Land Development Code that's more restrictive, that one will apply? MR. FERNANDEZ: If it's applicable to everybody, then yes, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Well, if it's in the Land Development Code, don't you agree it will be? MR. FERNANDEZ: Depends how you structure it, but yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you agree removing, on your uses, permitted uses, 10 and 12; is that correct, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Number 10 is civic, social, fraternal organizations, group 8641. Number 12 is drinking places, group 5813. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It says excluding bottle club. MR. FERNANDEZ: I really don't have a problem excluding number 12. Number 10, if we've got a center, we'd like to be able to have fraternal organizations there. I don't think, you know, they're some kind of evil use. I think it can be a very nice, compatible use in a center like the one we're proposing. I'd hate to exclude it. I can understand your consideration of putting a bar at the corner, and I think, you know, that's a use we can give up. So number 12, I think we can reasonably say yes to, but number 10, I'd ask you to reconsider that as being something of a concern. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If! may? I'm sorry, but I think fraternal organizations are great in the right locations, but they're Page 197 January 15-16,2008 basically bars that just exclude certain people, and they go to one, two o'clock in the morning. They have all the activities, and they might be a little more responsible as far as drinking and driving or whatever, but still, it's a drinking establishment that basically that's the main function of it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's not just a meeting hall. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have the Elks Club, is the same thing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I've got to be honest with you -- is that the one on Green? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Radio. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Radio Road. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Radio Road. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Radio Road, okay. That operation and everything probably fits right into what took place. But I've still got some concerns. There's so many uses here that I just thought it would narrow the field to the point where we could define the uses and try to protect the integrity of the neighborhood that's not even there yet. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I don't think you're going to have that in a -- again, we're industrial based. We're industrial now. We're adjacent to industrial. We've got major highways on the other two sides, and across the street we have C-5 zoning which allows bars, and across the street you have shopping centers that allow bars. So we're COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what's one more bar? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. What I'm saying to you -- well, I told you we'd get rid of number 12. I just think number 10, I'd like to have the opportunity for our client to have that as a potential tenant in a center amongst other uses there. I think it is a compatible use. You know, I think if he's going to have an establishment that big, Page 198 January 15-16,2008 they're not going to put one fraternal organization that's a drinking establishment. That just doesn't make sense. But as a tenant in a center, I think it does make sense. So I'd ask you to make that consideration. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm sorry I don't agree with you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, Mr. Klatzkow, what do we do from here? MR. KLATZKOW: You can vote on the motion. Ifhe doesn't like it, ifhe wants to take a remedy, he can; otherwise, he'll live with it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Does the second agree with the motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: No? Are you going to pull your motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Pull the second, yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Your motion fails, Commissioner, for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I appreciate the effort. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep, nope. Alternative motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll make the motion to approve with Planning Commission's recommendations one, two, and three, and with the addition at such time as the Land Development Code amendments are passed regarding drinking establishments, et cetera, that will be incorporated into this PUD. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And that -- does that include for the County Manager to interpret whether the Land Development Code is more stringent or this policy that we're about to adopt? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll include the County Manager's recommendation as to applying the one that is more stringent. Page 199 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, is there-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. For me that creates a special situation: The County Manager doesn't intervene in other applications of that nature to the best of his knowledge. Why is he making a decision concerning this particular PUD? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I could answer that. Throughout many of our ordinances, including our Land Development Code, it allows the County Manager to manage. In fact, the -- actually, the statute says the County Manager shall -- manages the board's ordinances and policies. It's just another document, such as our Land Development Code; he has a choice to delegate that to some of his staff. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But in this case you're telling him he can't. I've never, as long as I've been on the board, I can't recall anytime when we have approved a PUD that includes a requirement that the County Manager make the determination about compatibility or applicability of the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The Land Development Code should apply equally to everybody, and I don't think we should be making special arrangements in our motions for the applicability of those commissions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, let me go back and say I think the County Manager was just offering to help out because he could see that there was a situation. I'll withdraw that section of it and -- because I'm sure that our own people there are very sensitive to the issue right now and they're certainly capable of making this decision now. I don't think that -- I think that they would -- will scrutinize every single bit of it. So I'll withdraw that section of the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, there's still a motion on the floor. Page 200 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, thank you. In regard to the motion, Ms. Fiala had made the motion indicating that Land Development Code regulation would be incorporated into this PUD. I would suggest that the record reflect, if she would like, the motion to say that the Land Development Code regulation, if adopted, shall be applicable to this PUD. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's much better said. Thank you. MR. WEIGEL: And Mr. Fernan -- for the record, again, Mr. Fernandez has indicated that ifthere is an LDC regulation in this context that you've been discussing, which is a limitation or regulation concerning compatibility within a zoning district and it's applicable to everyone, including himself, he has no reservation with that. If he wishes to restate that on the record, that's fine. But I think that that might make it clear because the PUD will be the PUD, but we, I think, are aiming towards an applicability of a regulation that's quite yet to be fine tuned and approved but will be fine tuned and approved. Mr. Fernandez is indicating that they will, on the record, indicating that it is understood that it will be applicable to them as well. MR. FERNANDEZ: It's so understood, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. So change that word to applied. Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: And just -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarification, items 10 and 12 both remain in the PUD? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Page 201 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going to eliminate item 12. Thank you. MS. DESELEM: If! could, for the record, so that we're clear. When we talk about numbers, could you specifY exactly what that use is? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I believe it's a drinking -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: 5813. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Item 12, drinking places, group number 5813. Boy, he knows his codes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MS. DESELEM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know that provision. I wish I didn't. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's because he's spent so much time there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is the motion clear? Did I -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion is clear. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're going to eliminate 12? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we're going to keep in 10. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. County Manager, is the motion clear? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries, 4-1; Page 202 January 15-16,2008 Commissioner Coletta dissenting on the motion. Okay? MS. DESELEM: Thank you. Item #10F RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO DEVELOP DELASOL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK - MOTION WAS MADE TO NOT PROCEED PARK, REVISE THE PUD IF NECESSARY AND STAFF TO RETURN WITH RECOMMENDA TlONS REGARDING DISPOSING OF THE SURPLUS PROPERTY - APPROVED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now we're going to go to Delsol (sic) MR. MUDD: Delasol. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Delasol, thank you. MR. MUDD: Sir, that's item 10F. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to staff to develop Delasol Neighborhood Park. And Mr. Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director, will present. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How many speakers do we have? MS. FILSON: Eight. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have eight, okay. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Good afternoon. For the record, Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director. Commissioners, on November 27th you were petitioned by Mark Adamczyk, an attorney with the law firm of Peck & Peck, who spoke on behalf of the Delasol Homeowners Association and is a homeowner in the Delasol community. Page 203 January 15-16,2008 The petitioner requested that you direct county staff to work with the Delasol community to develop options for consideration regarding building Delasol Neighborhood Park. And your direction was for parks and rec. to work with Delasol to develop these options and bring that back, so we've done that for you. In the executive summary there were four options, and I just wanted to go over them briefly. The first option is to build the park according to the current stipulations in the PUD and the conceptual plan that we've identified as Exhibit B. The second alternative is to build the park with fence specifications identified in Exhibit C and cost share those improvements between the parks and Delasol. I just wanted to offer a visual, if! may, about that option. We have been working with the Delasol community in talking to Jim Culker and Terry King in our discussions. We have talked about the area in question. And if you can see -- if we can bring it in a little bit to show you the park itself. MR. MUDD: The park itself. MR. WILLIAMS: You can see the park, and then surrounding the park there is a fencing option that would protect some of the neighbor -- some of the homes around the park from people who would enter the public access. I may -- just to show you an aerial of that same -- MR. MUDD: That's the fence area that we're talking about. I just outlined it on the map. MR. WILLIAMS: This may help you a little bit more, too. You can see in black the area. The black line around the U shape is the park itself, and then the wings on the left and right are the ones that would be included in alternative two. So I just wanted to point those out for you. Just to continue on with the other alternatives. Alternative three Page 204 January 15-16,2008 would be the surplus or make available to sell property associated with the one-acre parcel. We have not worked towards an appraised value at this point in our discussions with the Delasol community. They do have an interest in getting independent appraisals, and I believe their interest is in knowing what the cost of what that acre would be should that be a decision to try to purchase that piece of property. However, we've not spent money on appraisals yet. We didn't want to spend that money until so directed by you to go down that road. Alternative three, though, is in that surplus, the parcel. Alternative four is one that came from the original PUD, and that would be to provide an interconnect access to Livingston Road for Willoughby Acres and Palm River neighborhoods as originally requested. This alternative, while it was originally requested, the PUD did come forward as a gated community. I'm not the best person to talk to that alternative, but we did want to identifY it as one of the four. Just in summary, staffs recommendation at this point would be to accept alternative two, work with Delasol community. We would work with them on an agreement on the cost share and move forward with building the park. So I'll stop at this point and see if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, this is a no-brainer. I don't know why we're spending time on this. You know, the community doesn't want it in most cases. Weare not in such dire straits that we have to have another one-acre park that we're going to spend $350,000 on. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: It -- neighborhood parks are not even inventoried on our Growth Management Plan. What is it we're trying to do? We're trying to save money here in Collier County. January 15-16,2008 We're not trying to look for ways to spend another $350,000. So what is the benefit to this process? Why don't we just say to the neighbors, look, you want this property, let's work out a fair deal and give it to you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please, please, thank you. Thank you. We're trying to move on. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what I was going to say, and I was going to add to it that as you see in the picture, everything surrounding it is very environmentally sensitive land that isn't going to be developed anyway. It's a difficult place for anybody else to get to a park. Let the Delasol people, if they want to, to buy this and keep if for themselves. It takes the burden off of us. We don't have to worry about a park and they'll have whatever they want. I think -- I'm all for -- you make a motion, I'll second it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion that we just get the property appraised and work with the people in the community to transfer ownership of this property to the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Question I have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We need to go to you and then Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The value of this property, how is it going to be valued at? MS. CHADWELL: It would be done --I'm sorry. Ellen Chadwell, Assistant County Attorney. Since I'm standing here, I'll answer the question. You would determine the fair market value of it. You'd hire an appraiser. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Highest and best use, whatever, right? Page 206 January 15-16,2008 MS. CHADWELL: I stood up here because I'm not sure you can effect a private transfer to these folks. So I would ask the board or ask Commissioner Coyle, whose motion it is, to maybe direct staff to not proceed with the park and to investigate what avenues we can pursue in either surplusing or transferring the property to the Delasol community . COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I understand. And I would being happy to modifY that motion. MS. CHADWELL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Certainly, we need to make a very clear statement that we've got to stop trying to ram things down neighborhoods' throats and finding ways to spend money. We ought to be looking for ways to save money, not spend money. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Of course, I guess the whole issue that's begged to be answered is what's fair value, and that's something that we have to work out. As far as making a gift of this whole thing when the needs are so great in the rest of the county. I agree with you, it's a poor location for a park. It would be underutilized for the most part. Probably the only people who would really use it would be the neighbors themselves. But we've found that out before about neighbors using parks. Remember Friends Park. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Best Friends Park. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Best Friends Park, right. Well, it didn't turn out to be Best Friends Park. It turned out to be a real sore -- but in any case, the money could be better applied at other places in the park system. We're at a time when we're not going to have impact fees coming in to cover costs. There's a great need out there that has to be fulfilled, more towards the regional park theme. But let's not get to the point and the mindset that this is going to be a give-away. Page 207 January 15-16,2008 We're responsible for the public's well-being at all ends of the spectrum. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question. I have a community in my district that their PUD was supposed to have a 3.89-acre park, and it's my understanding that PUD needs to be amended. So this PUD required a park. So does the PUD need to be amended? MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. MS. CHADWELL: Yes. The PUD would need to be amended. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, who would amend the PUD? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'll respond. The Board of County Commissioners, in a rare occasion, could initiate an amendment to the PUD, but it would certainly need the, call it, the buy-in of the property owners that are affected as well and have an interest thereto, or it could be initiated by the property owners by and through their homeowners association if so -- if so constituted with the authority to do so. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I don't think this is an insubstantial change to the PUD; therefore, it shall go through a full-blown review. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wonder if they built the park themselves, then it would still be a park except it would be their building it instead of us. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Then I have to go back -- I have another question, is, what was the intent of the PUD? Was it as a public neighborhood park? And if so, they don't want that. You see the dilemma that I have? And I want to be fair to all, but I have this problem in my community. That's the reason why I'm raising the question, that a developer doesn't want to build the park. I don't know what the residents want to do. The developer's gone in this particular case, and the residents want to get rid of the park. So we just have this dilemma. Page 208 January 15-16,2008 Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Maybe I could help solve part of it. First, in my mind, this is an issue for the convenience and benefit of the county and the other taxpayers in the county. We're trying to forego the cost of building a park that isn't going to be utilized by anybody, okay. So why don't we initiate the PUD change so that the residents aren't burdened with that. We initiate the change and the change will be limited to just that park. The risk for having the neighborhood come in for a change is that it opens up their PUD for just about anything else that we might want to do to them. And so if we could restrict it to a PUD change proposed by the Board of County Commissioners to resolve the park issue and not endanger any other part of this community, I think that's the way to do it. And I think what we have to do is probably write this off to a bad decision at the time when the PUD was approved, because creating a one-acre park within a community that ultimately became a gated community which, of course, nobody understood at the time, was just a bad decision. We should be concentrating on things that are a little bit bigger and can be used by more people. This one was clearly isolated. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on just a minute. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I don't -- I was here then. The three of us were here, and I can't remember what the issue was of a park. Were the people in Willoughby pushing the park? I know Jack Pointer was here. But I just -- I just don't remember. And I have to take a look at the minutes. Because you're giving one direction that it might affect a different part of, and I'm just not sure of the answer right now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, Willoughby has a park, I think. So, you know, they don't -- they don't need it. Page 209 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'll let the County Manager go first, and then I'll interject what I think is happening here. MR. MUDD: I'm going to --I'm going to try to refresh some memories, okay, the best that I can. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Connectivity. MR. MUDD: This -- this was going to be a community that was going to have an interconnect that was going to tie through the community and tie into Willoughby Acres, and Willoughby Acres folks didn't want the interconnect and neither did the developer. In order to -- in order to calm that particular issue so that there would not be an interconnect, they devised a plan that they would have a public park and they put it right where the interconnect would have went, okay, and that's why -- and there's an access that goes from where it dead ends down there at -- on Willoughby, and it goes straight up and goes all the way through their pond, okay, through Delasol Pond. And right now there's some proceedings that are going on through legal channels where the owner of that five-acre parcel that you, Commissioner, mentioned that it was -- that it was undevelopable. That's not the case at all, ma'am. They don't own that to the right-hand -- to the east-hand side of their development from where the park was going to be. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wasn't Conservation Collier looking to buy that? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, but you haven't made that decision yet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. MR. MUDD: Okay, nor has it -- nor has it done the -- no, not necessarily. The VC property is over here, but it would be -- it would be off our park and it would be in this area right here, and there's the parcel. There is -- part of that parcel -- this part of the parcel down here Page 210 January 15-16,2008 is wet. This part ofthe parcel is dry. And that's the one that butts up against their properties. Now, I don't know what Mr. Devesey (phonetic) wants to do with that parcel or how that's going to go, but there is one parcel there that they don't have control of that has a legitimate access issue where they could actually drive cars up into for development on that particular parcel. And if it becomes a conservation parcel, it's up to the Board of County Commissioners how you want to use passive recreation in that particular issue. But let's make sure we understand. It was going to be -- you were going to have access through -- motor vehicles through the development and you had people from Willoughby Acres and the developer had some issues with it, and the park was the solution so that it would take the access off the table in the future. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm okay with the direction that the majority of the board is going, but my concern is, if we're going to amend the PUD for this community because they don't want a park, we have to do it to others. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. What's fair is fair. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And Ijust want -- want to continue this item until we hear from our staff of the unintended consequences because of it, because I think they're huge. And I'm getting a head shake from one of the County Attorneys. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second your motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we've got a motion on the floor and a second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have a motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have a motion and a second. Commissioner Coyle made a motion-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's been so long ago, I forgot. Page 211 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to approve number three. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: To disapprove the park and to also proceed with a PUD change initiated by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you don't mean just disapprove a park; you mean then offer the land -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm saying that we're instructing staff to stop planning to build a park here, and then we will resolve the disposition of the land at some future point in time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on, hang on. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm the second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And you're okay with the second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Here's the problem that I see. By saying that we're not going to build the park, absolute final, we're not going to build it, the value of that land is zero. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's nothing more you can do with it. There's an asset that belonged to the county that we're not going to receive anything back to be able to apply where it will be appreciated and be used. That's my problem. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, yeah, but we don't know -- that PUD might have -- not have had to build all its residential parcels, and they could build houses on it. I mean, I don't know. There's a lot of unknowns right now. Commissioner Halas, you want to say something? Mr. Williams Page 212 January 15-16,2008 wanted to say something. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The other issue is that I believe when this PUD was discussed -- I wasn't here at the time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I believe at this time watching the proceedings, there was talk about some interconnectivity and then, of course, Mr. Pointer, I believe, wasn't in favor of it. But since that point in time, now there's communities that are looking for interconnectivity to get to Livingston Road. So I guess where I'm going with this, there is a possibility that if we open up this PUD, then all bets are off, I would think. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Our opinions could change. Mr. Williams, you want to say something? MR. WILLIAMS: Just given the direction the board appears to be moving in, there is another aspect of this I just wanted to point out, and that is the grant from DEP, and it's just a small piece of business. But there is a grant for $200,000 that, ifthere was a motion and approved to not build the park, if there could be some language included for us to give the money back to the state, I guess. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or transfer to another project? MR. WILLIAMS: No, it's that-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't do that? MR. WILLIAMS: -- it has to be specific to that project when you write the grant. So they'll look for their money. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you'd have to do that anyway whether we make the motion to do that or not. MR. WILLIAMS: You approved the grant, and so in part of our returning it -- and I'm sure the motion would cover that. I just wanted to point that out. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's kind of a no-brainer. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Page 213 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we haven't -- we know that we need to amend the PUD. MS. CHADWELL: I think, as Mr. Williams is pointing out is, there are a number of different consequences as a result of not going forward with the park. They're in -- I'm advised here they received impact fees credits as a result of donating the park. There's issues relative to interconnectivity, what transportation may have wanted in lieu of this agreement to dedicate the park. So I think the motion that staff come back and fully advise the board as to how to proceed with the disposal of this property is a good one. But I would ask that you keep the direction somewhat general at this point in time until -- until we can fully inform you as to the consequences. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MS. CHADWELL: So while you can -- it's fine to direct us not to proceed with the park, but we need to get back with you as soon as possible to further advise you on how to dispose of the property. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, and -- but we have a motion contrary to that and a second. And I understand what you're saying. MS. CHADWELL: Well, I've heard him restate it more than-- I've heard him restate it. First he did indicate -- he mentioned PUD amendment. The second time I believe Commissioner Coyle said that we would not go forward with the park but that staff would look into what was necessary to dispose or surplus the property or transfer the property, and so I think he can modifY his motion, or ifhe wants to insist on the PUD amendment, then you'll have to carry that as it is, but -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. CHADWELL: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, actually you've got it reversed. My most recent motion was to do -- to deal with the PUD amendment. January 15-16,2008 But I'm going to make a quick brief statement. What I see developing here is what looks to me like an attempt to punish this neighborhood for not agreeing to interconnectivity and to use this as a lever to extract something from the community that you otherwise were not going to be able to get, and I'm not going to be a part of it. Whatever happened, this community is established, it is what it is, and I'm not going to engage myself in any activity which is designed to extract concessions from them in order to get us not to build a park that they don't want anyway and that nobody is going to have access to. To me, this is very, very suspicious, and I'm not going to be part of it. So basically my motion is this: Stop trying to build the park; number two, let's revise the PUD, if it is necessary, and initiate that by the board so that it doesn't have to come from the neighborhood; and then three, have the staff come to us with recommendations about how we dispose of the property. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The issue with the interconnectivity, the park -- the purpose of the park was to interconnect the two communities, Willoughby and Delasol. It was by foot traffic, and that's why that interconnectivity -- because transportation wanted vehicle traffic across there, and the board determined -- and it was suggested that we have a neighborhood park to have that interconnectivity. And that's part of the Growth Management Plan. But be that it as it may, I'm not going to vote for the motion although I understand, because I don't know all the unintended consequences by the action of the motion. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Chair. And I totally agree with Commissioner Henning. There was no devious plan when this thing was agreed to in the past. And you know, I kind of resent the fact that you indicate that we planned this out in such a way to be Page 215 January 15-16,2008 detrimental to a future community. We didn't; however, do I disagree with the fact that the park -- it's a bad location for it now? Under the circumstances, no. However, the unintended consequences. Let me ask you one question up front. Was this park donated free and clear by the developer, or was it in lieu of impact fees? MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, public services administrator. We -- we gave impact fee credits for the land. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How much was that for? MS. RAMSEY: I believe that the acre price that they paid was about $35,000, somewhere in that range. We paid an acre price as they purchased it, without the improvements on it. So we got it for around 35,000 probably. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So in other words, if we never built the park, never bought the land -- I mean, just never got the land at all, we would have been at least $35,000 in impact fees ahead? MS. RAMSEY: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That's an unintended consequence that, if we don't deal with, we're not really playing this square. We've got to be able to make sure we understand everything that came down and make sure that we balance this ledger out. It was nothing devious that was done to get to this point. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't know that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I think we're pretty much done here. We just about burned this one out. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, we did. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Williams, do you have anything further? Oh, we have public speakers. I apologize. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, just one other thing to mention, and just to get it on the record, is, I appreciate Commissioner Coletta's point of view. We were proceeding with building the park with the budgeted money, the grant, and doing due diligence and Page 216 January 15-16,2008 processing that. The homeowners did sign an agreement, knowing and knowledgeable about the park, so it's -- this was something, as they bought properties within the development, they understood that, and I'm sure some of them would talk to that as well if they were given the chance through public speaking. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Filson, please call the public speakers. MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Patrick White. He'll be followed by Mark Adamczyk. And I'm sure I got that wrong. MR. WHITE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Patrick White, law firm of Porter, Wright, Morris, and Arthur. They're representing the Delasol homeowners association. I appreciate the motion and second. The issue is obviously one that has both an incomplete record in terms of what's being offered to you today in the sense that I think Mr. Adamczyk can supplement what exactly the proceedings were at the prior BCC because there does seem to be some issue as to the degree which there was, quote-unquote, interconnectivity approved previously. Not looking to belabor the point, I think it is -- the motion is one that I believe there's support for. I'm not sure how many of our public speakers are going to address you, but I do know that the president, Mr. Culkar, would like to do so. At this point we're essentially in agreement, I think though, with the motion with the understanding as to the disposition of the property. I think that the issue of the impact fee credits and other fair market value ones are ones that would be wrapped up in any prudent appraisal. So the only other thing I think that's worthy of commenting on today is the second part of the proposed motion dealing with the PUD amendment. There's a very limited amount of text in the actual existing PUD ordinance in section -- if I may take one section. I believe it's 6.14, and I think a simple underline, strikethrough would Page 217 January 15-16, 2008 cure that in terms of disposing of the property. It's key to understand that when the PUD was approved, this park was not cited at its present location. There was nothing in the master concept plan that suggested it would be at this present location. That occurred later in the platting process and was the result of negotiations with the developer in terms of where the dedicated one-acre tract would be located. And it wasn't -- even if the property owners who bought at the time had any idea that there was going to be a park, it certainly wasn't the notion that it was going to be where it's presently located. So we appreciate your consideration today. And at this point, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Mark Adamcyzk. MR. ADAMCZYK: Good afternoon -- good afternoon, Commissioners. Mark Adamcyzk. I'm here again today before you as an attorney speaking on behalf of the association and also as a Delasol homeowner. I've been asked today to address the interconnectivity issue which has already surfaced. I've brought -- I have the minutes of -- from the board meeting back in November 28,2000. I've reviewed them several times myself, and I'm well aware of the history behind the proposed interconnectivity which was rejected in favor of a private gated community and how it relates to the park. Page 122 of the minutes -- and I'll quote -- and this was Ms. Murray. This -- the needs of the parks and recreation department are not that the site be accessible to the public via sidewalks. This is not a vehicular access park. The issue of access is unresolved. So I think it's important to clarifY that the discussion regarding the park and interconnectivity are separate and they were clearly separate in the minutes of that meeting. We also have concerns that the county made certain commitments in the dedication agreement Page 218 January 15-16,2008 when -- with Centex Homes and the plat, that the park, if constructed, would be by limited public access only, and the 20-foot access easement granted in the plat provides essentially only for pedestrian access if it was developed. The association, therefore, believes and the -- we have polls to reflect this, that it would be highly objectionable to the community to consider the major issue of vehicular interconnect -- interconnection at this point under the decision on a small park or a, quote, tot lot bordering the community, which was never intended to be accessible through Delasol. It's also important to note that because the PUD approved-- Delasol's a private community, a gated community, there would be a consideration of eminent domain which requires a public necessity. There was voluminous testimony at the PUD hearing with experts and traffic planners and residents in Willoughby Acres themselves on how it would be a safety concern for the children residing in Willoughby Acres. We also have 270 owners and families in Delasol, and we share that concern. The only likely result of interconnection would be cut-through traffic to access Livingston Road and Immokalee Road, which we don't believe is the purpose of interconnectivity. If children from Willoughby Acres wanted to access schools on Livingston such as the one on Learning Lane, the one on Veterans Memorial and the one that's a private school, Royal Palm Academy, they would still need to use the busy Livingston Road. There's no connection between these communities at present and we, therefore, believe that the consideration of interconnectivity is not a viable option in connection with the discussion of the park. And I'll answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kelly Salmons. MS. SALMONS: I waive. Page 219 January 15-16,2008 MS. FILSON: Terrence King? MR. KING: I waive. MS. FILSON: Greg Smalley? MR. SMALLEY: I waive. MS. FILSON: Carl Schulz? MR. SCHULZ: I waive. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jim Culker. He'll be followed by Barb Black. MR. CULKER: Thank you. Thank for hearing us today. My name is Jim Culker. I'm a director and president of the homeowners association. I won't belabor the point about the polls that we've taken and the opinion of the homeowners. I think you've heard that today. Be that as it may, I would just suggest that we, as a homeowners association, would support the motion that's on the floor. Thank you. MS. FILSON : Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Barb Black. MS. BLACK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I came before you once before to commend you for your committee and policy of working with PUDs. And today I stand before you to petition you to one more time listen. I have met with a couple of you at various times, and I want to thank you for your attention. This whole issue that's come before you today began back when the PUD was first established. As you can tell there was quite a bit of controversy going from a non-gated community with a park to a gated community, and that issue was never resolved. That's why we're here today. There has been some discussion about the interconnectivity issue. But as our attorney read to you from the minutes of the meeting that was approved by you, that interconnectivity issue was basically put to rest. The citizens of Willoughby Acres had as many concerns at the Page 220 January 15-16,2008 time of the PUD as the future citizens and the developer of our community, Centex, as far as the safety concerns. If you would come to our community, you would see that if children walk from Willoughby Acres into our community, there is no way then that they can make it through our community across what is proposed as the extension from Imperil Golf Estates out onto Livingston, then across that road into -- through another community of Milano, and then to a school. There are no parents that would send their children on that route to school. It's unsafe. And to then send them to Livingston is even worse. Finally, I want to bring before you your own policies. No one has spoken to this, but I obtained a policy that you approved for parks and recreation in which our PUD is approved. It was from 1999 of -- October 12th. In your own policies you stated that neighborhood parks needed to be a minimum of three acres to five acres. We don't meet that. This is not a neighborhood park in your own policies. It also stated that children will be served within a 1.5-mile radius by a neighborhood park. Our children are within 1.5 miles of the Willoughby Acres neighborhood park. They are serviced already by a neighborhood park. Number three, and what very much concerns me, is as your citizens are addressed in the Naples Daily News by such articles opposing -- asking us not to vote on the tax abatement issue because the county definitely is needing funds and proposedly (sic) are going to need additional funds if that abatement passes, then the citizens in every part of Collier County need to question, why would you want to spend $225,000 on a park that Willoughby already has and we don't want? It just begs the question. And I support Commissioner Coyle and I would appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Page 221 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner-- MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, we have one more speaker. Thank you. MS. FILSON: No. I'm sorry. That was your final speaker. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, that was the final speaker. I'm sorry. I didn't understand that. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we just turn around and just give them the property? (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Forget about it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mrs. Black was absolutely on point. That is guidance for a policy on neighborhood parks about the spending, and the size of it is right on point. But it is what it is and we have what we have and we must move. And, again, I won't support the motion, but I agree with the concept. But Commissioner Coyle, I also think that you ought to direct staff in your motion to do a budget amendment for the PUD amendment because it will take some funds to do so. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we just forego that or -- okay. We'll pay for that and just give them the park, the land. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. That's not being fiscal (sic) responsible, I don't believe. We have -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Out of the confines of the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a motion on the floor to stop the park and also in that motion, the PUD revision initiated by the Board of County Commissioners and make the park surplus land. And there was a second. Any more discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Question if I may. Commissioner Coyle, your motion at no point in time is talking about Page 222 January 15-16,2008 a gift per se? You're looking for this to be appraised for true value? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I would like for it to be a gift, but the problem that we have is that we've already given money to purchase this property. It is taxpayer money. Well, actually it was impact fee money, which complicates things a bit. I would like to give it to the neighborhood, but I don't know that in today's environment of the financial concerns that we have that we should take that position. I think maybe we need to talk about fair market value. We shouldn't -- shouldn't be punitive in that nature -- in that matter, but we should work out a fair arrangement with the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I appreciate that, sir. I wanted to clarifY that point. I can support your motion under those circumstances. I have no problem with doing away with the park. I was just concerned about the resource and our responsibility. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to call the motion. All opposed to the motion, signifY by saying aye. Aye. All in favor of the motion, signifY by aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-1. Commissioner Henning dissenting from the motion. Next item? Item #10C A DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF AGENCIES Page 223 January 15-16,2008 THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTED BY A POSSIBLE CHANGE IN THE BCC RESOLUTION TO REFLECT AN AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA STATUTES REGARDING THE USE OF ALL TERRAIN VEHICLES (ATVS) ON CERTAIN UNPAVED ROADS IN COLLIER COUNTY - MOTION TO CONTINUE PROHIBITING THE USE OF ATVS ON CERTAIN UNPAVED ROADS IN COLLIER COUNTY; COMMISSIONER COLETTA AND STAFF TO MEET WITH MEMBERS OF BIG CYPRESS NA TIONAL PRESERVE FOR POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS AND REPORT BACK TO THE BCC - CONSENSUS MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10C. And this item is to be heard no earlier than four p.m., and that one we're dead on time. A discussion by the Board of County Commissioners with representative agencies that might be affected by a possible change in the BCC resolution to reflect an amendment to the Florida Statutes regarding the use of all-terrain vehicles, A TV s on certain unpaved roads in Collier County. Mr. Bob Tipton, your transportation traffic ops director, will present. MR. TIPTON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Bob Tipton, your traffic operations engineer and director. On October 23,2007 a presentation was made to the BCC by the traffic operations department staff in response to the board's previous direction to identifY unpaved roadways within the county on which ATVs might be allowed to operate. In order to assure safety for the A TV riders and the motoring public, the search ruled out roads which -- on which housing, mining or agricultural traffic might be present. The search resulted in identifYing three unpaved roadways with sufficient lanes to provide a location for A TV use, which were Jane Scenic Drive -- oh, here we go -- which is Jane Scenic Drive within Page 224 January 15-16,2008 the Fakahatchee Stand State Preserve, which is under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection State Park Service. The second was Patterson Boulevard, south of Stuart Drive in what was once the south blocks of Golden Gate Estates. It is now a part of the Picayune Strand State Forest under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry. The third was a segment of Wagon Wheel Road, a county-maintained roadway running east and west between Burton Road and Turner River Road within the Big Cypress National Preserve. While the roadway is county right-of-way, all lands immediately adjoining the roadways section are part of the national preserve which is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. At the board's request, these three agencies have agreed to send representatives to the BCC meeting in order to discuss A TV issues with the board and to present their views on A TV operation within or next to their facilities. Additionally, the Collier County Sheriffs Office, which has jurisdictional responsibility for Wagon Wheel Road and assists with policing on the other provide roadways, has provided a representative to discuss A TV operation issues on county roadways. First I would like to present Mr. Enzell Givens. He's the assistant bureau chief, District 4, with the division parks -- of recreation and parks, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which has jurisdiction over the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve. MR. GIVENS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for your time. Again, my name is Enzell Givens. I am the assistant bureau chief for Southwest Florida. The Florida Park Service, we acquired Fakahatchee Strand back in 1972. The purpose of this park was for preservation of natural Page 225 January 15-16,2008 resources. Inside of that park we have what's considered the best example of strand community in the nation, and we're charged with preserving that piece of natural heritage for future generations. We acquired the property -- we spent over 15 years trying to adopt it so the community would adopt that A TV sand four-wheel-drive vehicles are not allowed on that property. We finally reached our goal, and we think that we have the issue under control. Ifwe do -- if you guys do change the ordinance, allow A TVs back down Fakahatchee Strand -- Jane Scenic Drive, I should say -- that's going to set us back over 15 years. And I heard one of you -- one of the commissioners talking about the use of common sense. One of the things that's pretty evident to us, if we allow ATVs back down Jane Scenic, number one, folks are not going to stay on the road. Once folks venture off of that road, they're going to do a tremendous amount of damage to the Strand itself. They're going to disrupt the hydrology of the area, they're going to disrupt wildlife out there, and we're also going to have a disruption of the basic opportunity for folks in Collier County to have a space to come out, enjoy a quiet place in the woods. Without Fakahatchee Strand -- when you leave your door and you come out to the park, this is one place pretty close by where you can get away from most of that noise of mechanical operation. But once those ATVs are back there and it's open, we're going to lose that and it's going to be very, very difficult to close that door back, and that's one of our greatest fears. The park went through its unit management plan process back in 2000. As part of this team that made a decision about the future of Fakahatchee, we had a lot oflocal citizens on board. We had quite a few government agencies involved. We even had the county staff involved as well here for Collier County. And it was decided then that A TV s was not a compatible use for this property. And we would like to make sure that hopefully you Page 226 January 15-16,2008 guys won't open that door to allow that to happen. Right now our budget is showing that we need about $80,000 a year to maintain Jane Scenic Drive. We don't have it. Right now the staff at that park, they're maintaining that road with a steel I-beam and a tractor, and that's it. We've gone to your staff. We asked for help from the county, but due to obligations, we accept that the county can't help us with this. This is something that we're going to have to deal with on our own, and we just don't have the resources to maintain that road. I understand that you guys can't help, but we're asking the county, just don't hold our head under water because if you allow those A TV s on that road, you're basically pushing our head under the water. We can't recover. So I want to thank you guys for your time, the commission for your time. And if you guys have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, you have a question? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you know, some observations, if I may. MR. GIVENS: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Our back is bent against the wall on this particular subject for some time now. We have had numerous promises of performance that was going to take place. Many attempts were made in good faith by a lot of different agencies, including state forestry. Mike Davis was a champion of this particular cause. Mike Davis was a representative that recently passed on. I don't know if you're familiar with him. The Fakahatchee, we turned over the roads with the understanding they were going to be opened to the public for reasonable access forever. Now, you've got a budget concern that you Page 227 January 15-16,2008 can't keep them open, you come back to the county after we give you the roads in good faith of the fact they were going to be left open, and access is denied. I mean, it's only there for the very hearty person that's got a four-wheel drive vehicle, I guess, and can be able to get over that type of terrain. So there's a real access issue. They don't want the ATVs in the Picayune. We found that out. There was some attempts to put them in there. You don't want them in the Fakahatchee. You don't want them in the Big Cypress. Water Management promised us they were going to build us a park for the use of these A TV s, and that has not happened yet. The park was supposed to be done -- how long ago was it? Last summer? I forget when the temporary park was supposed to open. MR. MUDD: It was supposed to turn -- it was supposed to turn the property over in 2005, sir, October. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A lot of time has gone by. And there's been -- if! seem less than enthusiastic to the fact that you're coming here with a sincere plea, don't do this, it's because of the fact that so many promises were made by everybody and his brother that they were unable to keep, including your organization and the darn road there and the access issue to the thing. So forgive me if I'm not totally sympathetic to your needs; however, with that said, I also realize that there is a certain responsibility on the part of the users, the A TV users that want to use it. They never can go back to the days they used to have in Bad Luck Prairie, you know, when it was wide open and you could -- be able to do as you darn-well pleased, and some people still miss that. What I'm looking for is a place where people recreate, responsible people recreate in a responsible manner. Now, ifI'm not mistaken, the Big Cypress already allows ATVs under certain circumstances in the park, and I commend you for it. And you've built a lot of trails to be able to accommodate the motoring public; however, what you offer is a limited resource that Page 228 January 15-16,2008 cannot meet the needs of a lot of people. This simple little thing and how much it would be utilized, no one really knows. I mean, it's one of those things. This was a dream of Mike Davis to be able to come up with something, just an interim solution to be able to meet the needs of a certain part of our public out there. If for some reason somebody misused it, I don't think there's a commissioner up here that would tolerate it, and it would reverse their decision in a moment's notice. I realize that there's some things to be concerned about, the noise factor, the fact that they might trespass upon lands that they're not supposed to be on, but we don't know that. We're assuming that the people we're dealing with are going to be dishonest, that they're not going to follow the rules and regulations that are -- that we're going to put down and apply to them. So I just wished I could get you to keep a more open mind to try to accommodate this segment of our population that's way underserved and has been promised so many times that performance would be made to provide the service to them and just failed along the way. MR. GIVENS: Commissioner, I do respect your position on it. I do understand the plight of the people of Collier County. But one of the things that we have done, we committed to leave Jane Scenic Drive open when we received the road. We have done that. We've not maintained it to the leveled of county staff because we have park rangers. We don't have a road crew. We've park rangers that's responsible for natural areas. So I agree that we have not maintained the road to the standard that the county used to do at $80,000 a year. We have 132 properties to take care of, and we've got to break off little pieces of that money to take care of these various property . The road is open. The road is used by a lot of sight-seers, Page 229 January 15-16,2008 especially this time of the year. There's a lot of traffic on that road. Now, I think that we both agree that an average ATV user is not going to maintain 30 miles per hour down Jane Scenic Drive. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We assume. MR. GIVENS: We assume. But I'm pretty comfortable making that assumption. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We need to move on. MR. GIVENS: I really am. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We need to move on. We need to set the timer on these speakers. MS. FILSON: Okay. You just let me know how long. Do you CHAIRMAN HENNING: Three minutes, like everybody else. MS. FILSON: For presenters? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me? Well, it's a staff item but we have other agencies commenting on it, and they want to -- for the board to do other things, and they're no different than the public. Well, actually, I think the public should get more time. But three minutes. MS. FILSON: Do you want to hear the speaker who's registered now? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Tipton? MR. TIPTON: I'm sorry. I was under the impression that the board wanted the agencies to come forward to speak with the board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was that how it was set on this item? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. That's my understanding. I know what I want, but in all fairness to them, they really should express their opinion for the resource that they're representing. My opinion. It's your call, Chairperson. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not -- I'm just told something different than my understanding. This is a staff report but yet we have other government agencies trying to direct what the board does. Bottom line, it's not -- we don't work for government. We work for Page 230 January 15-16,2008 the citizens. MR. TIPTON: And I did give a report previously, and after that report, Commissioner Coletta had asked that these agencies be contacted and that they come to speak -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we'll just take a break. No, go ahead. Go ahead with the item. MR. TIPTON: And what we have is representatives of the three CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. MR. TIPTON: -- agencies here. Okay. The next would be Kevin Podkowka. He is with -- the Forestry Service Resource administrator for the Caloosahatchee Forestry Center, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry, and he is with the jurisdiction over the Picayune Strand State Forest. MR. PODKOWKA: Good evening, Commissioners. The portion is -- that was proposed was a portion of Harrison Road on the Picayune Strand State Forest. And for the record, the Division of Forestry has actually proposed at least three OHV (sic) plans to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that were, in turn, shot down each time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. MR. PODKOWKA: So we do -- we do recognize the issues that are there and we recognize the need for it. Also, the -- it's more than just a simple agreement. Picayune Strand is also a wildlife management area. In order to put A TV s on a wildlife management area, we would -- even if we -- even if, you know, in the ideal world, we get past the Corps of Engineers and get past U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we'd also have to get the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission on board with that. And the portion of Patterson that was proposed is deep within the restoration area. It's almost at the far end of where the pump stations and the canals are, so that's way at the end of the restoration area, and it's for -- and a lot of the restoration deals with estuarine rehabilitation Page 231 January 15-16,2008 and things of that nature. So there's -- again, it's going to come back to the Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And as a final point, based on our legal counsel with the Department of Agriculture, the Division of Forestry is exempted from the -- that statute. That's what I have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. TIPTON: Next will be Karen Gustin, who is the superintendent of the Big Cypress National Preserve, National Park Service, which has jurisdiction over the Big Cypress National Preserve. MS. GUSTIN: Thank you, Commissioners, for your time this afternoon. For the record, my name is Karen Gustin. I'm the superintendent of Big Cypress National Preserve. And about a week ago we did send a letter to Commissioner Coletta, and I'm just going to refer to a couple of excerpts from that letter for the minutes of this meeting. At Big Cypress, we are in the business of providing recreational opportunities to people who operate off-road vehicles. Big Cypress is comprised of about 729,000 acres ofland, and that does include recreational opportunities for off-road vehicle users. We manage this use under a Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan, and the trail system that we currently have in place is geared towards users who are looking for a leisurely travel in the back country, people who come to the preserve to hunt, and we also have extensive private landowners within the preserve itself. At Big Cypress our primary concern related to this proposal is really hinged on safety and the mixture of unregistered vehicles with vehicles that are street-legal registered and being used for transportation purposes. We currently operate the largest off-road vehicle program in the Page 232 January 15-16, 2008 National Park Service, and the vehicles that use the preserve and enter the preserve are swamp buggies, ATVs, airboats, street-legaI4X4s, and they operate under a permitted system that we manage, and we issue up to 2,000 permits per year. These vehicles are inspected, they have to meet vehicle specifications in order to receive those permits. We're concerned that A TV use on some county roads could present a safety issue, as I mentioned before, by mixing different types of vehicular use. And this could result in user conflicts and potentially encourage illegal use of A TV s into closed areas. We believe that in order to be safe, A TV s should operate on the recreational trail system that is designed for a specific purpose. And in Big Cypress' case, that purpose is to provide access for hunting, sight-seeing, back country camps and leisurely travel. Any A TV use on public roads should only be considered in connection with an established A TV trail network for the purpose of connectivity between access points. At Big Cypress we have 15 access points off of roads that provide access into the back country, and we would be open to discussing with the county certain portions of some county roads, but not Wagon Wheel. Certain portions of some county roads that might provide a safe way to connect existing access points along those county roads. So in closing, we are not supportive of just unrestricted A TV use on county roads within Big Cypress, but as I just mentioned, we would be interested potentially in looking at some way to connect our existing access points that do exist between locations along county roads. Thank you for your time, and we look forward to discussing anything that you might be interested in in the future. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has a question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast question. How many acres did you say you had in Big Cypress National Preserve? Page 233 January 15-16,2008 MS. GUSTIN: We have 729,000 acres, yeah, and about 520,000 plus are in what we call the original preserve. Those are the acres that we manage under our current Recreational Off-road Vehicle Management Plan. The other 150,000 or so are in a section of Big Cypress that are -- that's called the addition lands. We're in the middle of a general management planning process for that area, and some of the alternatives that we're looking at do contemplate off-road vehicle use on -- in certain areas in the addition, but the decision on that planning effort won't be made until mid '09. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MS. GUSTIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, Commissioner Coletta. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. That's quite all right, sir. Karen -- and I'm excited with the idea, though, that you're willing to sit down with our staff and be able to see what might be able to be worked out to be able to accommodate people in a meaningful way and a safe way. Could you elaborate on that just a little bit? MS. GUSTIN: Yeah. Is there a way I can point to this map? MR. MUDD: Absolutely. MS. GUSTIN: Oh, I guess I could. I could use a pen. I mentioned that we have 15 different access points that provide access into the back entrance of Big Cypress. MR. MUDD: Point on that. It won't show up. MS. GUSTIN: Okay. And some of those access points are along Turner River Road. We have two access points. One about right here, and then one up here, and that is at the north end of Turner River Road. We would be interested in sitting down with the county and discussing potentially connecting these two access points by allowing A TV use on Turner River Road. We would want to sit down with you Page 234 January 15-16,2008 all and look at the amount of traffic that uses that road; how many vehicles we have there. We anecdotally think that the use up there is pretty destination specific in the sense that some of those veh -- most of those vehicles are probably just coming up here to the end of this road in order to access our current ORV system in the Bear Island area. So volume-wise it might be safe to do so. So as I mentioned earlier, our primary concern with this proposal in general is related to safety, but there may be some areas where the existing use is low enough that it could permit safe travel between existing access points for people who are going into the back country. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. MS. GUSTIN: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask one more? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to know also how many acres in the Fakahatchee Strand and the Picayune State Forest. MR. GIVENS: Seventy thousand, Fakahatchee. MR. PODKOWKA: Seventy-seven thousand in Picayune Strand. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seventy-seven. Thank you. MR. PODKOWKA: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bigger than your living room. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. GUSTIN: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Tipton. MR. TIPTON: Okay. And then the last speaker would be Captain Mark Baker, a control division captain for Collier County Sheriffs Office. MR. BAKER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Mark Baker, for the record. I'd like to thank the board as well as the sheriffs office in trying Page 235 January 15-16, 2008 to do due diligence to make an effort to find a place for the A TV users to operate, because it does impact us with calls for service with people unlawfully riding the A TV s. As you know, the sheriffs very committed to public service and public safety. This being a public safety issue, we will, of course, enforce the laws as they are written and any adoptions by the county commission on the ordinance. Our concern with these three locations -- and if I'm correct in my assumption, it's not applicable to the Department of Agriculture's property, that it's not going to be permissible -- they're exempted, if! understood that correctly, from the A TV uses, which leaves us down to the two -- the two areas. It is our view, again, that we will enforce whatever the board approves; however, our concern is for public safety and our response times to these locations, as well as these locations not being optimum usage for an ATV. An ATV is an off-road all-terrain type vehicle. And considering the Wagon Wheel Road area; that's a straight gravel road. We would be concerned with parking along the road. Where do they unload the machine to ride it? Where's that going to be parked at? Will it be parked on the right-of-way? Will the right-of-way need to be maintained because the vehicle's causing potential for fire? Utilizing these vehicles on the right-of-way in the grass, will that cause potential for fire concerns for us as well as the fire service? Our response to that area should -- as we are now in the dry season, if you drive down Wagon Wheel Road, it creates such a dust that if you get several vehicles on that road, now you have dust concerns, now you have A TV s mixed in. You have a limited visibility situation. And our concern, whatever you decide, is from the public safety perspective of, is this an optimum location for this type of use, and how will it impact us for the number of users which we don't know at this time? But that will have an impact on us as far as response times Page 236 January 15-16,2008 to the area for emergency services and public safety. And I'll answer any questions that I can. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? Thank you. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. What would be a better area to do this in? MR. BAKER: Well, sir, I probably can't give the official -- I don't have an official position on that. Weare as anxious as the board to find a location for people to exercise these locations. I do applaud the park. Even in the area they're talking about, that still is a -- that still will have to be by permit, and people will have to have their machines inspected. And they have a good overall plan for ORV usage. But that is a problem that we're facing, because people in the Estates want to ride; therefore, that impacts us with calls for public service and public safety. So we're as anxious as you to find that location. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At this point in time, we have a lot of illegal riders out in the Estates in the agriculture lands, and I know it's very, very difficult to apprehend these people when they're out there. MR. BAKER: It does pose us -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I receive a lot of complaints on that particular issue, and then people come back and they say, when are you going to find a place for us to recreate. And of course, they don't go to the federal boys or the state boys. They come to the county commissioner because we're accessible. And that raises the problem. That's why we're here today. Thank you. MR. BAKER: Yes, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we go to the public speaker now? MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have one public speaker, Frank Denninger. MR. DENNINGER: I go here or do I go there? Page 237 January 15-16,2008 MS. FILSON: You can go there. MR. MUDD: Whichever one you want, sir. MR. DENNINGER: I'm Frank Denninger from Hialeah, Florida. I live here in Collier County part time at Trail Lakes Campground within the Big Cypress Preserve. It's the only privately owned and operated one there, I think. And I'm there about 80 days a year, but my main home is Hialeah, Florida. But I want to thank you all for the parking garage I parked in today. That's quite a building. Between the staff report and the attorney's report, I think the die -- I kind of have a feeling the die is cast on this issue before I talk. I hate to always be the only one on the issue on this side. But I also, just coming here, I want to thank Mike Davis and anyone else legislatively or commissioner-wise that was involved in at least getting this law amended. It will help other areas of the state maybe more than it can here because it seems like there's quite a bias against this activity, heavy bias. That's a light word to use for what's been done. And I would just -- I notice the gentleman with the D -- Mr. Enzell mentioned a lot of traffic on Scenic Drive. I was out there two to three weeks ago. It took me two and a hours to go 12 miles, and I saw five people. That was on a Sunday from 10 o'clock in the morning till four at night. There isn't a lot of traffic out there, and to be honest, I sympathize with your problem, because I know what's going on there. I'm a board member of the Friends of Fakahatchee, and we're deeply involved in trying to get the road fixed. But like he says, they've got no money. And really, right now all it's fit for is an ATV, and that's that. And the -- I know there's a lot of -- like the forestry mentioned, there was a problem with, their lawyer believes, you know, this doesn't apply to them as law, but -- and they have tried in the past to Page 238 January 15-16,2008 facility use out there mightily. Mike Long up in Tallahassee tried that, and the FWC supported him in that effort. But like he said, the U.S. Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps really overrule the state agency. So I think -- nothing against Mr. Tipton, maybe they should have been called in here, Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps to explain why A TV s aren't being allowed in the Picayune, even on a -- considering a road where Mr. Tipton considered. And the Big Cypress counts aren't a hundred percent right. The activity is out there, they manage it well, but it's a limited activity. They're close to the cap on ORVs and the -- currently the Big Cypress is not going to be able to handle much expansion on the activity. So I mean, the county -- the users, it's a shame really, that like Scenic Drive and the Fakahatchee, a lot of people like to go out there. I met a couple from Germany and other areas out of town that wished -- they won't be coming back. I mean, they agreed they might write a letter to help DEP support them on maintenance in Tallahassee, but it's just -- it's a sad situation. Thank you now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Denninger. Mr. Tipton, do you have anything more to add? MR. TIPTON: No, sir. I'm just ready to serve the board at their discretion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any direction? MR. MUDD: Mr. Tipton's recommendation is the Board of County Commissioners continue the prohibition of the use of ATVs on county roadways throughout the county. Staff stands ready to pursue the board's direction if it has decided to advertise for a public hearing in order to amend the existing BCC resolution 2006-256-A, prohibiting countywide A TV use. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, a lot of things that were said here today were true and a lot of them were -- were actions Page 239 January 15-16,2008 that people suppose are going to happen. In other words, a certain scenario of events will unfold and result in whatever. However, with that said, I do agree that there are real concerns. We -- it's an unknown. We don't know which way things will go. I would like to see, rather than say at this point in time to write off the whole effort as being unmanageable, being a bad idea, not something that will ever work, is to be able to direct staff to be able to meet with the management from the Big Cypress to see what kind of cooperative efforts can be brought forward to be able to utilize some of the resources there. Now, mind you, they already allow it. It has to meet certain qualifications. It's not exactly the A TV type of riding some people are used to. It's more of a wilderness experience. But they do have permits available, and possibly they could grow that and open up some trails so there'd be more for people that like to recreate rather than to hunt. And I'd just like to be able to explore that option further. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, my opinion, I think you ought to say you're mad as hell and you're not going to take this anymore and we're going to open up all the roads, and that way the agencies will assist us to get the A TV park where it should be. But that's my opinion, if that's the way you want to go. Is there a second to that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd almost second it. But let me ask -- if you don't mind. Am I going out of order here? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no, gosh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me ask you a question. It would be appropriate to ask Commissioner Coletta, I mean, ifhe's willing to, to talk with the people at Big Cypress National Preserve to find out what can be done with creating some riding trails there, and we can continue to study these other issues. But I think it was Karen -- is that right -- I think Karen said that there's a possibility of doing that. Maybe the commissioner for that Page 240 January 15-16,2008 area could get with them and see what could be done. Would you be interested in doing that, or is that -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so. I've already been doing it to an extent, and Karen Gustin's a wonderful person to work with, I can tell you that right now. And I would enjoy doing it with the blessing of this commission, but I'd also like to be able to have a staff person occasionally available to come with me to assess the situation as we go forward, then I'll make a report back to this board sometime in the future when -- as things start materializing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Could I just suggest a modification? As Commissioner Henning has always pointed out in the past, it's not always good to have an official vote to designate somebody to do that. But as the commissioner of this area, could you just -- would you just be willing to take this on as a special project and coordinate with them, and then come back and tell us what's possible? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd like you to tell me that I've got your blessing to do so, even if it's not by an official vote. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Commissioner Coletta is asking, does anybody oppose, being the commissioner of the district, to work with staff and the agencies to bring something back later. That's what you were saying. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But use resources of staff to -- limited. And I'm not one that would abuse that by any means. But, you know, you're kind of reluctant other than to ask questions, to ask staff to accompany you someplace or whatever. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I don't have a problem with that, certainly. What we're trying to avoid though is having an official designated committee that is then going to be subject to advertisements and Sunshine Law, and I don't know if you're going out there -- it's going to be very difficult to assemble an audience to go out with you and take a look at some of those areas. That's what we're trying to avoid. We're trying to give you a free hand to take a look at Page 241 January 15-16,2008 this, coordinate with the appropriate people, and then come back and tell us what you recommend. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But once again, this wouldn't be a prohibition upon me using an occasional staff person? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely not, no. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the other thing I would ask is that we take no actions regard -- as far as saying that we'll never allow riding on county roads, to be able to turn that ordinance over at this time. It's a little bit of a bargaining tool to be able to use to get to where we need to go even though we might never implement it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I was just going to wonder if we were going to close the loop on using A TV s on county roads. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd rather you didn't. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, right now -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right now we do. MR. MUDD: Right now -- right now it's prohibited because of your resolution that you had before. The only way you get to do it is you get to open it up with a public hearing and designate which roads that you want. But right now they're closed to A TV use. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, then if -- then if we just keep things the way they are and Commissioner Coletta can evaluate some alternatives and come back and inform us what's likely, then we can take action on what we do with that. Is that -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you agree with that, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll agree with that so long as we work with the federal government in regards to looking up -- getting additional roads in great -- in Big Cypress, and I think that's where you're going with this, right? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's lots of possibilities. Of course, they're not the -- they don't have the end say-all at this point in Page 242 January 15-16,2008 time, but they can make good suggestions to their superiors. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'm in agreement. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're not designating you. We're just honoring your -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. I got the power of authority of this commissioner to go forward and do as I choose, right? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Negative. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Until you abuse it. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings to us 9A. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have to continue this one item? MR. MUDD: No, I think we're fine. We've got guidance. We're just going to leave the resolution. He's going to come back to the board and tell you if we need to pull that resolution and advertise for a new one. 9A is appointment of members to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee. Item #9 A RESOLUTION 2008-09: RE-APPOINTING KIRK P. COLVIN TO THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER FIALA: Move to approve the committee recommendation of Kirk Colvin. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala. Is Page 243 January 15-16,2008 there a second? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Halas. Any opposed to the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, the motion carries unanimously. Item #9B RESOLUTION 2008-10: APPOINTING VICTOR RIOS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is appointment of a member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I move to approve the Marco Island nomination, Mr. Victor Rios. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to nominate Victor Rios, seconded by Commissioner Coyle. Any opposed to the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: So the motion carries unanimously. Item #9C RESOLUTION 2008-11: APPOINTING AMBER CROOKS AND TOM CRAVENS TO THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED W/CHANGE Page 244 January 15-16,2008 MR. MUDD: Next is appointment of members to the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc Committee. MS. FILSON: And Commissioners, on this one, in the objective on the top of the executive summary, I put the term would expire on June 13,2010. COMMISSIONER HALAS: 14th. MS. FILSON: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's 14th. MS. FILSON: I'm sorry, June 14,2010. Actually in the resolution, extending this committee, they added three members, and they indicated that at the appointment date of those members, the committee would be extended two year from then, so I need to correct my date to 9/12/09. Thank you. That's it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I move to approve committee recommendation, Amber Crooks and Tom Cravens. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And a clarification by Sue Filson. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coyle. Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion? SignifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motions carries. Page 245 January 15-16,2008 Item #9D RESOLUTION 2008-12: RE-APPOINTING JOSEPH B. SWAJA, JANET H. VASEY (W /W AIVING TERM LIMIT), STEPHEN A. HARRISON (W/W AIVING TERM LIMIT), BRAD BOAZ AND APPOINTING DOUG FEE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sorry. I was just going to ask about the second -- next item. And before anybody nominates anybody, could I just make a quick statement? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And the item to appoint members to the Collier County Government Productivity. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just wanted to make an observation that we've been appointing people to this committee for some time, and I am beginning to see the same names all the time every time, and I would really like to broaden the number of applicants and have an opportunity get some new names. That's not to mean that I would not vote to appoint and or reappointed some of these names. I am concerned, however, that this committee is becoming more and more dominated by people who have a special agenda, and I think the only way we solve that is to get a wider range of applicants, people with exceptional qualifications that will permit them to do what this committee is supposed to do, people who are accustomed to dealing with very large and complex organizations for the purpose of helping them operate more efficiently, rather than people who are activists in a particular area who have an agenda and want to influence that committee. I think that's dangerous to permit that to continue, and it will continue if we keep operating with the same list of names. Page 246 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree with you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So do I. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Here's the problem with this. It was advertised, and we only had one other applicant that -- well, let's see. We've got one, two, three, four, five, six -- we had seven applicants. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm not talking about the number of applicants, but they're the same people we've had before and the time before that and time before that. We're seldom getting any new blood into this applicant pool, and I would like to see us try to make another -- take another shot at it or, alternatively, I just wouldn't vote for a number of people on this list. End of story. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we've got one new applicant on here, Doug Fee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's good. You nominate Doug? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would nominate Doug Fee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, hang on, hang on. Before we take any motions, Ms. Filson, did you want to say something? MS. FILSON: And I'll take whatever direction you give me, but I just wanted to make the board aware that these terms expire February the 4th, and there's -- and it's only an II-member committee. And if we don't appoint some members so that they have a quorum, they won't be able to meet for about two months because that's really approximately how long it takes when I advertise. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we have budget coming up, too. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how many do we have to have for -- MS. FILSON: Well, it's an II-member committee, and six -- six of the members are up for -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we have five, and we only need Page 247 January 15-16,2008 to appoint two or three people -- MS. FILSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- right? MS. FILSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And in addition to Doug Fee, I would nominate the reappointment of Joseph Swaja and Janet Vasey and Stephen Harrison. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'll second that. Those would be my picks also. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Let me get it down. MS. FILSON: Okay. And then-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Joe Swaja. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Janet Vasey and Stephen Harrison. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that's one, two, three. MS. FILSON: Four. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And Doug Fee is the fourth. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Doug Fee. That's five. MS. FILSON: Okay. And-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I didn't say Doug Fee, but I'd like to vote on them separately, quite frankly, you know. I don't -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's vote on them separately. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay. MS. FILSON: Okay. And if! can just interject one more time. I'm sorry. If Janet Vasey and Steve Harrison are reappointed, you'll need to waive the two-term limit for those two. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that is implied in my motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Why don't you -- if you want to do them individually, let's do them individually. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So do you have a motion for a name? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Joe Swaja. Let's take them in Page 248 January 15-16,2008 order. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala, to appoint Joe Swaja for another -- four years? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Till February 4, 2010. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any opposed to that motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think he wants a yes. MR. WEIGEL: No, no. Voice vote. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want a yes vote? MR. WEIGEL: It helps the recorder as well to have a voice vote on the record. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next one is Janet Vasey. I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope. I'm sorry. I would -- okay. I'm sorry. I was just going to go down the list and let Commissioner Halas get his appointment. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Go ahead. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I make a motion for Janet Vasey. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the appointment of Janet Vasey? Page 249 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve the nomination of Doug M. Fee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala to appoint Doug Fee. All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No verbal response.) Any opposed? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion -- now we're going to take another motion. Commissioner Fiala, you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. What was that motion? How did it turn out? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion -- I apologize. The motion carried. MR. MUDD: 3-2. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 3-2. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll nominate Stephen A. Harrison. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. Page 250 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion for Steve Harrison by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I nominate? COMMISSIONER FIALA: We were going to skip you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. That's right. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'd like to nominate Mr. Boaz, B-O-A-Z. He's been attending every meeting. When I was on there, I was impressed with what he had to offer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's Boaz. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Boaz? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta to appoint Brad Boaz, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 251 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question at this point? MS. FILSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, Mrs. Chairman. MS. FILSON: I thought you were going to ask me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know what the intent of the board is, but I had earlier asked that we try to get some new names here rather than going down the list and appointing everybody that's on this list. Of course, if the commission feels otherwise, if they want to work from this list, there's nothing I can do to dissuade you. But nevertheless. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'd like to --I'd like to finish this up, because we do have some issues coming up that are very important for the Planning Commission. But go ahead, Sue. MS. FILSON: Okay. I need to interject one more time. We will have a full board with what you've appointed because I believe you appointed Doug Fee as a regular member. Michelle Harrison is currently an alternate member applying for a regular member. Because you didn't appoint her as a regular member, she's still an alternate member. So you have filled the committee. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh. So we've already filled all the positions? MS. FILSON : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What about -- who was the one that had to be -- MS. FILSON: Georgia Hiller was not appointed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I know that, but you said Janet Vasey that had to be unanimous? MS. FILSON: Oh, Janet Vasey and Stephen Harrison have met their two-term limits. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Page 252 January 15-16,2008 MS. FILSON: So that portion needs to be waived for the final vote. Is that what you mean? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Exactly, but there was a one vote against Stephen Harrison. MS. FILSON: Oh, I have a 5-0 for him. MR. MUDD: No, it's 4-1. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's a 4-1. MS. FILSON: Oh, I didn't get that. Who was the one? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Me. MS. FILSON: Oh, okay. Okay. Then he's not appointed because that has to be a unanimous vote to waive that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. So is there another motion? Then I'll make a motion to appoint Georgia Hiller. There's not a second to my motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then since we're on the same item, can I call for a reconsideration for one of the members? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Under the rules of procedure, a call for reconsideration can be made. The motion must be made by someone who voted in the majority. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And I'm going to ask one of the commissioners to reconsider the appointment of Stephen Harris (sic.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: I made that motion originally, so I'd like to recon -- so I'd like to motion him again or nominate him again. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. You're going to motion to reconsider -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Motion to reconsider. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Stephen Harrison as an appointee. It's a second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. Page 253 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. Now, do I have a motion to appoint Stephen Harrison? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle to appoint Stephen Harrison. All in favor? COMMISSIONER FIALA: And waive the two-year. MS. FILSON: The two-term limit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The two-term limit. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And waive the two-term limit. All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. FILSON: Okay. So we have a full-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Politics. Boy, I'll tell you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's terrible. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, at least -- hopefully it's on theI Page 254 January 15-16, 2008 dais and nowhere else. That's where it belongs. Item #9E RESOLUTION 2008-13: RE-APPOINTING MARCO A. ESPINAR (W/W AIVING TERM LIMIT), THOMAS MASTERS (W/W AIVING TERM LIMIT), CHARLES MORGAN ABBOTT, AND BLAIR A. FOLEY (W/W AIVING TERM LIMIT) TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, which is 9E. Appointment of members to the Development Services Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Make a motion that we appoint the people -- reappoint the people that -- by the committee -- by committee's recommendation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. MS. FILSON: And also when you do that, Blair-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: We also have to -- section 7B of the Ordinance 2001-55, I believe, for -- who is it? MS. FILSON: Sue Foley, Thomas Masters, and Marco Espinar. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion by Commissioner Halas, and a second by Commissioner Fiala to accept the committee's recommendations. All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 255 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries. Item #9F RESOLUTION 2008-14: APPOINTING DARCY KIDDER TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Next item is 9F, appointment of a member to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion that we go with the committee's recommendation of Darcy Kidder. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala to accept Darcy Kidder as the appointment to the Ochopee Fire Control. All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #9G RESOLUTION 2008-15: RE-APPOINTING W. JAMES KLUG, III AND KA YDEE TUFF (W/W AIVING TERM LIMIT) TO THE Page 256 January 15-16,2008 GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Next item is 9G, appointment of a member to the Golden Gate Community Ad -- Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to accept the committee's recommendation and waive all laws applicable to the -- whatever. MS. FILSON: That would be for Kaydee Tuff, section B of Ordinance 2001-55. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what is the -- oh, there's the committee recommendation. What is the committee recommendation? We have two members and they have recommended three. So -- but they did them in order. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Take the first two. MS. FILSON: Yes. What they did is they put the applicants in the order that they recommended them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, first two. All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. FILSON: Can I ask who made the second on that one, please? Page 257 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN HENNING: You made the motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I did? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I heard you. MS. FILSON: No, the second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You were the second. He was the second. MR. MUDD: Next item is 9H. Item #9H RESOLUTION 2008-16: APPOINTING DAVID WOLFLEY TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to appoint David Wolfley to the Collier County Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I second that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. He's got three seconds. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was a motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 258 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. We're going to-- why don't we continue till tomorrow. Do you have anything urgent that you'd like to get done tonight? MR. MUDD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Does the board have a problem hearing public comments at this time? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. And we have another gentleman here that was on lOG, H, I, and J, all of them. MS. FILSON: Oh, we have one, two, three for that item. We have three for public comment, and we have four for 10D. MR. MUDD: 10D-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's the board want to do? MR. MUDD: 10D the commissioner already said that he was going to do that time certain nine o'clock tomorrow morning. MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. MR. MUDD: That had to do with the pier, and he already announced that earlier. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have public comments? MS. FILSON: Yes. We have three. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Three. Do it now. How long are you going to allow them? Three minutes? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thirty seconds, yeah. Item # 11 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS MS. FILSON: Okay. Public comment? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MS. FILSON: Okay. The first one is Kim Kish. She'll be followed by Walter Bruno. MS. KISH: He's waived. Page 259 January 15-16,2008 MS. FILSON: He waived? She'll be followed by Barbara Kerby. MS. KISH: I have to open up my eyes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We do, too. MS. KISH: Thank you. I am here again -- I'm here again to discuss just some clarifications, if you wouldn't mind, on the Pebblebrooke issue. I know that's just what you want to do at this time of the day. My first point is, Mr. Henning, you commented at the December 11, 2000, board meeting that it was your understand the John DeAngeles, who is the purchaser of the property and then, along with D&D, did the building. You said that he was well informed on everything and -- regarding the changes to the PUD. And it's been noted at the recent town meeting that you requested -- and I believe you were there -- that a resident spoke directly on at least one occasion -- I believe it was either via the phone or she talked directly to Mr. DeAngeles -- that when the two-story building was being staked, she addressed it that this was never an approved area for the building to be built. And in the transcript docs we found on page -- the February 12, 2002, commissioners' meeting on page 173 and 174 a dialogue between Chairman Coletta and Ms. Karen Bishop, and I wanted to be able to read this into the record. Mr. Coletta says, well, the Planning Commission must have done an excellent job with the public. Excuse me, Ms. Bishop says. I do not need to put on the record there are some little things in the document, some references to ordinances and things that need to be cleaned up, and I have agreed to meet with -- to meet and do that with Marjorie. Now, I'm assuming Marjorie is Marjorie Student because the next speaker is Ms. Student. It's just technical stuff, so -- And then Mr. Coletta says, we really wouldn't understand, would Page 260 January 15-16,2008 we, Ms. Bishop? We won't confuse you with the plats. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. There's a little bit more dialogue there that's a little disturbing. My second point is at the December 11 th meeting, 2007, Mr. Henning set forth a motion or instruction that the County Attorney prepare the scrivener's error to be brought back at a later date. My question is, is this time frame within Ms. Filala (sic) or -- I apologize. I always butcher your name. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it's tough to say. Fiala. MS. KISH: I apologize. Can I say Donna? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MS. KISH: I love Donna. Two-month restriction, would that be a good assumption for us that within that two-month time frame that she put forth to have the town hall meetings, would then we, as Pebblebrooke residents, expect then the County Attorney to bring back to the commissioners a vote on whether to apply or implement the scrivener's error? I guess that's my question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. If! could help you out. MS. KISH: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: First of all, it's not a town hall meeting, because we don't want the town there. MS. KISH: Okay. I apologize. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We want the neighbors. We want the neighbors of Pebblebrooke there. MS. KISH: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the board voted on trying to settle this issue through mitigation of the impacts to you, especially you, and your neighbors that have impacts of that commercial area. And it was directed -- and I think you have to do this anyways. You have to do a scrivener's error, whether the developer agrees with it, with the citizens, or two scrivener's error. One that -- record and Page 261 January 15-16,2008 reflect what the Planning Commission said, and also one that the developers, and hopefully the citizens, can support. That way the board has choices, you know, to record some kind of scrivener's error. Because in my opinion, whether it would be the buffering or Stevie Tomatoes relocated or that use is defined in the scrivener's that it can't be there, it's got to be recorded; wouldn't you agree with that, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: I think that the intent is for us to come back to the board; however, I would like to exhaust the negotiations with the developer, because once we get into the scrivener's error, I think the developer will leave the table, and I would like to see if we can't possibly negotiate something to the satisfaction of the residents. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, if you agree to a settlement issue, wouldn't you want to somehow record that into the record so that is carried out in future boards? MR. KLA TZKOW: Exactly, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And what would be the mechanism for that? MR. KLATZKOW: We would probably come back to you at that same time frame as the scrivener's error would come back to you, and we would amend the PUD to conform to whatever that settlement was at that point in time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. KISH: Okay. So you're telling us then you want us to have that second community meeting to, again, try to come to some resolution? MR. KLA TZKOW: I think that you would lose an opportunity by not at least attempting that. MS. KISH: Okay. Well, I just want to, for the record, say -- and Mr. Henning, you were in attendance, that it dissolved into a basic screaming match, the first meeting, where Mr. Henning basically played trying to get everybody to come back to a normal voice, a way Page 262 January 15-16,2008 to talk. The other issue at the meeting was that there were no players there other than the residents. Everybody's attorney showed up. So again, this is in the 14th month for the residents of this issue. So I mean, I don't have a problem with you requesting the second meeting. I'm just afraid that it will dissolve into the same disaster with nothing being accomplished. My third point is, just real quick, with -- Mr. Coyle asked at the last meeting as well, the zoning director, Susan, this -- how this came about. And I was very disturbed with her response, and I wanted to address that. She started off, which she has mentioned three times today in three different issues, this is a complicated issue. You asked her how were these -- how was he able to get this outside patio area in the beginning, and she said that there were no walls removed. Well, if she had done an on-site investigation, if you look at the other end ofthe building, there is no way, without removing walls or areas of the building where Stevie Tomatoes is now, that he could have accommodated a 20-foot horseshoe-shaped bar. So I was just very, very disappointed in her to say that there were no removals of the walls and an insubstantial change. I would ask that, in your discussion earlier today you had been very, very on point in regards to the different qualifications as far as bars were coded and et cetera. I don't think we would have been in this mess if an on-site review had been done to see just exactly the impact and the short distance between the two areas of the residents and -- before the insubstantial change was allowed to be approved. I just wanted to let you know that Mr. Woods has currently removed some of the tables, and we now have a pool table and carnival games so we can listen to the people play until two a.m. And unfortunately Saturday night it dissolved into a terrible situation that I Page 263 January 15-16,2008 had to call the sheriff and ask for them to please come out and give us some help. So, again, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Barbara Kerby. MS. KERBY: Good evening. My name is Barbara Kerby, and I'm with Florida Governmental Utility Authority. A couple of months ago, representatives of the utility met with -- or came to a commissioners' meeting to discuss the deep injection well that is being installed at the wastewater treatment plant in Golden Gate, and I just wanted to give you an update of what is happening with that. Currently -- the issue was that a deep injection well will require 24/7 drilling at some points to keep the well from collapsing. Right now we are working with the neighbors. We held a neighborhood information meeting last night, 31 people attended, and everyone seemed to leave with a good attitude. I talked to a number of people after the meeting, and they all seemed happy with the information that they had received. Weare working within all the county ordinances to try to keep the noise so that it does not affect the quality of life, also the light spillage. We currently are not under a 24/7 drilling schedule. Right now they're just doing days. At some point that will probably need to go 24/7, but we're going to do everything we can to mitigate the problems to the neighborhood. And we also agreed -- Commissioner Henning graciously came to the meeting. We also agreed that we would give them monthly updates, either meeting through the civic association, holding another neighborhood meeting if we have to, or just sending out newsletters. The neighbors have all been given three different cell phone numbers where people will answer 24 hours a day, that includes mine. If they have a problem, they can call one of us and we will take care of it. Page 264 January 15-16,2008 So we're really trying to be good neighbors to the people in the neighborhood, and I think that the neighbors agree that we are doing our best. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why do you have to eventually go to 24/7? MS. KERBY: I'm not the technical expert. I may have to refer to Mr. McCullers, who's with the contractor. But when you're going down deep enough into the drilling, you need to make sure that the well doesn't collapse. And when they're putting in the casing, they need to keep doing it to ensure the well doesn't collapse, otherwise you could have a real disaster on your hands. So they need to just go slow and steady. The good news with that is that they are creating an electric drill instead of a diesel powered drill, and it is much quieter, and they're planning on having that available, which will really mitigate the noise to the neighbors. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. If I can make -- may say, I'm very proud of the citizens in Golden Gate City around that. They're very understanding of the needs and also the Youngquist well drilling gentlemen are very sincere that they're going to do the best they can to mitigate but also stay within our noise ordinance. And I guess it's the best outcome that I can -- under the circumstances -- MS. KERBY: We are very sincere. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- the best outcome that I can ask for. MS. KERBY: Sure. I mean, we really want to be good neighbors, and the project overall will benefit them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just didn't get your cell phone number. MS. KERBY: Oh, I'll give it to you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. If you would -- if you would email it to me -- Page 265 January 15-16,2008 MS. KERBY: Sure. MS. KERBY: -- I would appreciate it. MS. KERBY: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you keep it on 24/7? MS. KERBY: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just like everybody else does? MS. KERBY: Yes. I am having trouble with the battery, but I'm going to go get it fixed tomorrow, so tonight would be a bad time, but tomorrow it should be fixed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Teach, do you have to say anything on the record. MR. TEACH: No, Commissioner. We chatted before; everything's fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Teach and I had some very good discussions, along with the County Manager, and I appreciate that, so -- MS. KERBY: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. So with that -- Commissioner Fiala wants to say something. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You might not want to do this, but I was mentioning to you before, we can clip off four numbers with Mr. DeArmas, if you would want to hear him. He's been here all day. It's up to you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I'm not sure if we can though. Can we? How long -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know we can -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- five minutes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, okay. Give -- five minutes? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we clear it up in five minutes? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think so. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners? Let's go ahead. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's go. Page 266 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do it in five minutes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's go with the commissioner - Item #10G RESOLUTION 2008-17: RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF MUSTANG ISLAND (LELY RESORT PUD), ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Okay. lOG is a -- lOG is a recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Mustang Island, Lely Resort PUD. Roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. Item #10H RECOMMENDA TION TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF MAJORS PHASE ONE, (LEL Y RESORT PUD), ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT MEETING (JANUARY 29. 2008) - APPROVED Now, I can tell you that 10H, which used to be 16A3, basically says the same thing about roadways (private) and drainage improvements, but this is the final plat of Majors Phase 1 in the Lely Resort PUD. Page 267 January 15-16,2008 Item #101 RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF MAJORS PHASE THREE, (LEL Y RESORT PUD), ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT MEETING (JANUARY 29. 2008) - APPROVED 101, which used to be 16A4, basically talks about roadways being maintained privately and drainage improvements for the final plat of Majors Phase 2 in the Lely Resort PUD. And again, another item that Commissioner Fiala brought. Item #10J RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF MAJORS PHASE THREE, (LEL Y RESORT PUD), ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT MEETING (JANUARY 29. 2008) - APPROVED The next item is IOJ. It's a recommendation -- I'll just read it again. The recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Majors Phase 3, in the Lely Resort PUD. Roadway and drainage improvement will be privately maintained. And so those are all four items that have to do with the Lely Resort area and basically granting the final approval on roadways Page 268 January 15-16,2008 (private) and drainage improvements. MR. DeARMAS: Yes. For the record, my name is Ed DeArmas. I work for SandCastle Community Management. I represent the Mustang Island Homeowners Association, Mustang Island Roadway Association, and Majors Homeowners Association. The reason I'm here is because I am representing the associations, in particular for Mustang Island Homeowner Association. I have that from my board of directors that they are going to sign and receive a road, that's the issue here. But in particular, Majors, they would like to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just stop you, Mr. DeArmas. MR. DeARMAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So with the Mustang Island, your board of directors is okay with that? MR. DeARMAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I make a motion to approve item number 16G. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay? MR. MUDD: lOG. COMMISSIONER FIALA: lOG. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does anybody want to speak on lOG before we vote on it? MS. FILSON: The four speakers that I have listed all four items. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Go ahead and call them. MS. FILSON: Excuse me. Blain Spivey? MR. DeARMAS: Spivey. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, he's gone. MS. FILSON: Rich Yovanovich? CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's gone. MS. FILSON: Keith Gelder? Page 269 January 15-16,2008 MR. GELDER: I waive. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Eduardo DeArmas. MR. DeARMAS: That was me. MS. FILSON: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, the other three that he's talking about are the Majors, and they haven't come to an agreement with that. And Mr. DeArmas is asking that we would -- is that -- to give him two more weeks until the next meeting with his board of directors to talk to the board of directors for Lely Resort to straighten it out. The Lely Resort people would prefer not to do that. That's what they were going to say. I'm inclined to say, let's give them two more weeks just so that they can straighten this all out, and we won't have some of the things that we always have. So I'm inclined to go with the community . MR. DeARMAS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question with that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a problem with the road, the road maintenance, or the drainage for Majors? MR. DeARMAS: Yes. There are some issues about the road, about the drainage. That's why we wanted to have some meeting with Page 270 January 15-16,2008 Stock Development, who's the developer, to finalize that and finally ask them to design (sic) the road. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It's not about other issues other than the roads? MR. DeARMAS: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the drainage? MR. DeARMAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He showed me pictures. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So do you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to make a motion to take items -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Continue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- they originally were 16A3, 4, and 5, now, 10H, I, J, and continue them till the next meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coletta, motion by Commissioner Fiala, to continue these items. Now, please call the speakers up. MS. FILSON: I did, and they were gone. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, you had one that waived. MS. FILSON: Oh, do you want to speak, sir? MR. GELDER: I don't know if it will do any good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're too gracious. MS. FILSON: Keith Gelder, was it? MR. GELDER: sure, I'll speak. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I take that back. MR. GELDER: For the record, Keith Gelder, Stock Development, responsible for all our land development activity, including this final punch out, we call it, for some of our older communities. Page 271 January 15-16,2008 We have gone through all the proper channels for this community. We have had inspections with staff, we've had engineers on this project, and no one has raised an issue. The only issue that has been raised came to my attention this morning when I was here. And I spoke with Mr. DeArmas. He showed me a picture of one pooling area of water. Now, I can tell you, I know specifically the area he's talking about because I walked every -- every linear foot of roadway of that subdivision. And I think it's just -- it happens to be just a case where we didn't have a rain event the day before inspection. So that area was an area that pooled and it wasn't visually -- everything was visually acceptable. So I'd be happy to address that issue or any other issues, you know, in the Majors community, but we've gone through all the proper channels, we've received our sign-off of staff, we've had engineers look at this thing, and I don't believe there's any issues present. But as I said, I'd be happy to handle any issues that are outstanding. So if you want to move -- if you want to move to continue, I'd be ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oo the 29th board date. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Motion-- MR. GELDER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call for the motion. All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. Page 272 January 15-16,2008 We're going to continue this January 15th meeting to January 16th starting at eight a.m. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Eight? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nine a.m. All right, nine a.m. I tried. And the first item on the agenda is the Vanderbilt Beach slash Halas pier, right? MR. MUDD: No, sir, it's 10D. CHAIRMAN HENNING: IOD. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:27 p.m. Page 273 January 15-16,2008 (The Collier County Board of Commissioners reconvened on their second day of meeting, January 16,2008 at 9:00 a.m.) Item #10D REVIEW THE RECENTLY COMPLETED V ANDERBIL T RECREATIONAL PIER FEASIBILITY STUDY AND OBTAIN DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON HOW TO PROCEED - MOTION TO CONTINUE STUDY AND STAFF TO EXPLORE GOING FORWARD WITH RESTROOM FACILITIES AND SNACK BAR, AUTHORIZE $12,000 FOR ADDITIONAL COSTS AND TO BRING THIS ITEM BACK AT A FUTURE MEETING- APPROVED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. The Board of Commissioners are back in recess from yesterday's meeting, and the first item is -- we have a time certain for 9:00 a.m., and that is the review of recently completed Vanderbilt Beach Recreational facility studies and obtain direction from the board of commissioners on how to proceed. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Mr. Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director will present. I want to make sure that you're aware of why we're doing what we're doing. Okay. Staff has been criticized sometimes by the board for getting out of -- out in front of the board and starting the vetting process with the public before we even got the -- the concept issue briefed to the board of county commissioners. So, instead of going to the Coastal Advisory Committee and starting that process, we decided that we -- we hopefully get it right. Now, we've also been criticized from the public in recent e-mails Page 274 January 15-16,2008 that why didn't we have a public meeting before you're bringing this to the board. So, I guess we're getting a little bit of you're darned if you do and you're darned if you don't kind of issue, but -- but let's try this one on for size. What we're asking today is if you don't think it's a good idea, kill it and let's not spend any more time doing this. If you think it needs to be -- it might have some opportunity, maybe good thought, and you want us to go vet it with the community, tell us to do that. We do not want you to approve the project. That's not what we're asking the board to do today. We want your direction if you want us to proceed and go forward with it in its concept phase. How would you like us to vet this with the public? But we wanted to make sure that you got the first chance to look at this and -- and the first time the community's got a chance to look at this was when we put it in this agenda and put out on the web page. So, I want to make sure that you're aware of that. And it wasn't to short cheat the public, okay, as far as trying to push something through, or sneak something through. That wasn't the intent at all. It was to give you the first shot at it for you to take a look at it, not to approve it, but to tell us how you want to vet it in the future, and if you want us to kill it, tell us to do that today and it's done. And outside of that, there's where we're at. And that's the only -- those are really the only two options that you're -- that we're asking you to make the decision on. And with that, Gary? MR. McALPIN: Thank you. For the record, Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management. In June of last year, as the County Manager has said, you authorized the study. The study now has five components to it. It's a pier and facilities. It's a facilities only portion. It's the traffic study, a parking study and, lastly, an analysis of the Naples Pier from a crime Page 275 January 15-16, 2008 incident point of view. What I'd like to do is just kind of go over the brief points that are contained in the -- in the executive summary and then open it up for your questions. The first piece is the pier study itself, and that study, if you'll look on the -- on the screen there, is a pier, which is approximately a thousand feet in diameter. With that, we have -- that pier will be completely -- the pier will be completely encapsulated. It will be completed contained in the public right-of-way at the end of Vanderbilt Beach. The pier will be a thousand feet. It will be 22-foot wide for emergency vehicle use. It will be 20-foot high off of the -- off the water, and with that, we'll have parapets on the outside of it for fishing and we'll have an observation deck on the backside. Included with this is about a 5400 square foot facility. That facility -- that facility will include offices, critically needed bathrooms, a kitchenette, restaurant, snack bar area and then an observation deck. These facilities -- this pier can be completely -- this project can be completely separated. The pier portion could be built independently of the facilities portion. The facilities portion of this project is located directly over Vanderbilt Beach turnaround. So, if you bear with us for a minute. This is the Vanderbilt Beach turnaround, as you see right here. This is the walkway that currently exists out of Vanderbilt Beach Park. This is the existing bathrooms that we have right here. And then this footprint would be where the facilities would be, and then this footprint right in here would be where the -- where the -- the new pier would be. You could see this is the property line, so within -- complete the property line within the Vanderbilt Beach area. Page 276 January 15-16,2008 To look at it from the side view, you can see that, the turnaround area, the facilities portion and then the pier. So, with that, we have a functional design. We have -- with this design, we know that the permitting is possible. Permitting for this job will take approximately two years to get. The permitting will go about -- approximately 380 feet over existing hard bottom. That will complicate the permitting process, but permitting is doable. The last six piers that have been built in the State of Florida have all been permitted. Some of them have required administrative hearings to go through, but we have been successful with that. They have been successful with that. We know that mitigation will be required from this, although we'll try to -- to spot the pier in ways that does the -- has the least significant impact on the environment going over the 380 foot of hard bottom. We will -- we will be required to mitigate that. We've allowed $1,250,000 worth of mitigation dollars in there. That is an estimate on our part. We believe that that is sufficient based on the recently completed one acre artificial reef that we've done as a result of the recent renourishment, beach renourishment project. This pier will require rezoning. Currently, it is -- the area is zoned residential, RT, and it will have to be rezoned to public use. The cost for this facility will be $8.6 million. That's broken out to the engineering and construction management, about $800,000. The pier itself will be four million. We'll have facilities engineering and permitting for the facilities portion of $280,000. And then the restrooms will be about 2.3, and the mitigation, $1,250,000. This will be used for beach park facilities, will be used to fund this, and so we will not be using revenue funds to -- to fund this -- this source. Page 277 January 15-16, 2008 The next portion of the study we looked at was a phasing approach. And that would be what if we just built the facilities now and then we planned it so that we could add the pier later, if that was the board's wishes. So, because we've designed it as we've showed before so that they could be split, we could in fact build the facilities now, which would be the office, the -- the snack bar, restaurant, the bathroom facilities and the observation deck. That is critically -- that's a critical piece for us because right now the existing Vanderbilt pier bathrooms, or the existing bathrooms at Vanderbilt Beach that were built in 1993, and they are completely worn out and they definitely need to be upgraded and replaced. So, whether we build the facilities now as part of the pier or whether we come back to you in a year from now, if you'll less not to -- it will be -- we need to build and add to the facilities, this portion of the community. Ifwe elect to do a standalone project to build bathroom facilities, they'll have to be elevated to conform now to FEMA guidelines, and we estimate that that cost could be approximately a million to a million and half dollars. We don't want to throwaway any costs. We think that building the facilities now, it allows us to move towards the master plan and at the same time get those facilities for the public. If we did that approach, we're looking at something in the range of $2.6 million. This and -- and a year for permitting and a year for construction, we would not -- this would be a revenue generator or at least revenue neutral with -- when you consider the snack bar and the -- and the -- the restaurant associated with it. And we would add no additional staff to man this because we have existing county parks and rec staff which -- which -- which monitor this beach now. When we looked at the traffic study, and again this would be funded with 183 funds, which is beach park facilities. Page 278 January 15-16,2008 When we looked at the traffic study, Johnson Engineering conducted the traffic study for us and the concurrency segments and the nonconcurrency segments they concluded will operate at acceptable levels of service and that the county's minimum standard level of DEEP would not be compromised. So, when we looked at this from a build-out point of view in 2009 when the pier was operational with the current road infrastructure that we have, the roads, the traffic would not -- will not change the rating on our road system. We also looked at this from a parking point of view with the Vanderbilt Beach parking lot. We looked at it since the parking lot had opened and on average the parking has been maxed out four times a month. Typically, it only stays closed for a 30-minute period of time. That typically -- and -- and then it reopens again. And during the months of April and May, it seemed to be the largest with about 13 to 16 closures. The last thing we -- we -- we looked at when we did this study to try to address the concerns that if we added a pier, that it would bring additional crime into the neighborhood. The citizens the surrounding community was concerned about that. We went back for the last three years and looked at all the incident reports from the City of Naples relative to their existing pier, and our information and the incident reports just did not bear out that level of concern. They're included in the report. Last year there were 95 incidents at the pier. The vast majority of those are fishing infractions for fishing with more than one pole, but there have been some -- some issues and we wanted to present that to you, too. So, that's the -- that's the highlights of this study. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them at this point in time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas has some Page 279 January 15-16,2008 questions, so does Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. You're saying that this would be financed by funds 183. And, basically, could you be more specific on what funds 183 are? MR. McALPIN: Sure. The Tourist Tax Development funds is broken up into two components or the beach portion is broken up into two components. One is for the beach renourishment, which gets about two-thirds of the money that we receive, and then the rest is beach park facilities, which gets a third of the money received. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. McALPIN: Currently we have $1.9 million in reserves in-- on the beach park facilities' 183 fund. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other question I have is, if for some reason we decide just to go with the upgrading of bathrooms and restaurants, snack-bar type of affair, are we building this building so that it is behind or beyond the coastal setback area, the construction setback area? MR. McALPIN : We -- we will -- we would need to get a permit from the State of Florida, which is a coastal construction control line permit. And -- and -- but we -- we'd been consistent with all of the rest of the development to the north of us, and that's the reason we laid it out the way we would be, so that we would not extend any further out into the beach than the existing facilities that are there right now, commISSIOner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So, we'll follow the guidelines and we don't need any variances in regards to where the placement of this building would be within the confines of the footprint of the turnaround circle then. MR. McALPIN: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Would this turnaround circle in your pictorial that you had -- it looks though as though the Page 280 January 15-16,2008 turnaround circle will be -- the diameter of that circle be the same or will it be reduced? MR. McALPIN: Our -- our intent, until we get into the actual design, we will not know. Our intent is to have the diameter the same so that people can continue to use the turnaround so they could come underneath these facility -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Handicap. MR. McALPIN: -- and drop people off for -- to use the beach. So, that's the intent. And I'm sure we could work that -- that out in terms of the building layout, commissioner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My other -- last question here is that whether there will be a ramp provided or some type of elevator system so that the handicapped could use this if we decided to go this way? MR. McALPIN : Yes, commissioner. If you'll look here, what we would be doing is we would be providing a ramp in that location right there. We do not plan to put an elevator in it at this point in time. But that could be change during the -- during -- during the definition portion of this project. So, we would have ramp access to this facility. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, you said this was a revenue generated. Could you be more specific? MR. McALPIN: Well, commissioner, what we -- what the intent would be is that if we had a snack bar-restaurant area there, that it would generate, it would -- you know, there's a number of possibilities on there, but that would generate revenue for the county whether it was contracted out to a third party or done internally with the county. So, the -- the -- that we would look, that that would be a revenue event or at a minimum a revenue neutral. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So, it wouldn't be a burden on any type of ad valorem taxes to maintain the soft operation of this? Are you -- are you sure of this? Page 281 January 15-16,2008 MR. McALPIN: Yes. We have discussed this. We have -- you know, whatever we would do, if -- if we planned on doing it with county staff, it would be revenue positive. If it was contracted out, it would be on a percentage coming back to the county. We currently have county staff. We would not add any county staff to maintain this facility. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Total cost is 2.6 mill. MR. McALPIN: Approximately, commissioner, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. McALPIN: I think we have -- MR. MUDD: Phase one. MR. McALPIN: That would -- the -- that would be for the phasing period of this. That's 2.6 million, if you look at the first phase of the project, which is -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. MR. McALPIN: -- the facilities and the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bathroom. MR. McALPIN: -- pier itself, that's 8.6, commissioner. Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. I appreciate it. A couple questions. I am very interested in what's coming forward and what this proposal is. The Naples Pier, one of the biggest attractions for that, of course, is the fishing. Do you see this would be something similar to that? I know I'm -- the Naples Pier, an average citizen can go there and fish. They don't need a fishing license. It's exempt from the rules and regulations. Would this pier also be? MR. McALPIN: You know, I can't comment on whether we would require a fishing license or not. That's something that we did not look into. I will say this, that we tried to design this pier in such away that it Page 282 January 15-16,2008 would be a recreational pier and it could be used for fishing and other uses. So, it's just as important that we have something for the community can go out there, stroll on the pier, enjoy the sunset, and we've -- we've put the fishing parapets off to the side so that we could -- they could fish and not necessarily be in the way of main pier traffic. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The --I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If! could, there's -- in your research that you see, would you say that Naples considers their pier to be a positive or a negative for the community? MR. McALPIN: I think that if -- in -- in some of the documentation that I provided to you, I have letters in there from the City of Naples mayor and the vice-mayor and in those letters they clearly state that they view the pier as being a tremendous asset to the community, and it is -- and that they've -- and that the -- the problems have been very minimal. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And, of course, access to the beach is -- is a big thing in Collier County. I realize this doesn't give us more access, but it enables us to better utilize the access that we do have. Is there any other plans that you know of in Collier County for us to get more beach access or is this about the only thing we have to offer as far as increasing the amenities for beach access? MR. McALPIN: I -- I don't think we're -- Marla would be more competent to answer that question, but I -- I don't believe that we're -- you know, that the possibility of additional access is -- is something that's eminent at this point in time. We looked at this as a way to get more people to the coast to enjoy the facilities. So, additional facilities for people to enjoy the Page 283 January 15-16,2008 beaches and the -- and the atmosphere of the beaches. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And has this been vetted through any of our advisory organizations including the TDC? MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, no. That's one of the things that -- that County Manager Mudd talked about. We're bringing it to you first for your direction and guidance on how to do it, whether you want us to go to the TDC or the CAC or directly to the community groups. We would like to solicit. You tell us how to -- how to -- how you'd like us to proceed. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for the excellent job of preparing this summary agenda. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Gary, I'd -- I'd like to just emphasize one thing, that there's a cost for construction of the entire package, the pier and the restaurants and -- and restrooms. And -- and you -- you gave a cost of a little over one million dollars or what really is, I think, just planning and permitting, I believe. You gave a number of figures; $12 million, you gave a million dollars for -- for mitigation. What -- what is it that you would be looking for guidance to spend today from the Board of County Commissioners? MR. McALPIN: I'm not looking -- well, what I'd like the county commissioners to do is direct us to how to proceed, if you would like us to -- to vet it in the community, who would you like to vet it to? Would you like us to focus on the main pier of the facilities in terms of taking it to that next phase, or would you be more allow -- would you be more willing to have us just focus on the facilities and -- and just look at the facilities, commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I understand that, but before you take it to the public, we need to have a clear understanding of the total costs. Page 284 January 15-16,2008 But, more importantly, you're -- you're explanation of the use of tourist tax money is very important. That is significant. Right now we are engaged in a struggle with respect to property tax revenues. The public is -- it's going to be hard for the public to understand how we would be thinking about spending money for something like this if we're also saying that the county can't continue operations as it has in the past if we have to incur substantial cuts in property tax revenues. I know the answer to that question and you do, too, that this has nothing to do with the property tax expenditures. And -- and as a matter of fact, there -- there apparently is no planned reduction whatsoever of the tourist tax revenues and, so, there appears to be sufficient money there to fund this process. Is that a fair assessment? MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, there is -- we have $1.9 million in reserves right now that are uncommitted for beach park facilities 183 fund. With what we would expect to receive this coming year, we would have enough money to build the facilities portion -- engineer, build, permit the facilities portion of this, which is the 2.6 million. On the pier -- the -- on the major pier itself and the facilities, we would need to in -- if it was to -- if it was the commissions' wish to move this forward in that direction as part of this next phase of study, we would need to look at where that revenue to build this would be coming from, how we would -- how we would do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And that also includes the mitigation costs. Mitigation costs are not going to come out of general fund revenues. MR. McALPIN: That -- that is -- that is correct, commissioner. The $8.6 million includes 1,250,000 for mitigation costs. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, just one other point of Page 285 January 15-16,2008 clarification, because I'm very sensitive to the issues of costs as -- as the other commissioner are also. The public is likely to ask the question. If you have a million and a half dollars in revenue in this particular fund, why can't you use it to help us on the general fund side, on the property tax side? Well, that's illegal. We can't transfer it from one account to the other. So, the money is there. It's for use for a specific purpose. If it's not used for those specific purposes, it can't be transferred anywhere else and used for anything else. MR. McALPIN: That is correct, commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. 1-- I just want to make sure that -- the public naturally finds that very difficult to understand, and I find it difficult to understand many cases myself, so -- is there any inefficiency associated with building it in stages? MR. McALPIN: Ifwe do the proper check, job of planning and engineering this, no. We have the space there that we could build it in phases. We could build the facilities now and then the pier or we could build the pier now and then the facilities. We would propose that we build the facilities now because that would eliminate the need to refurbish, rebuilt, reconstruct the existing Vanderbilt Beach restroom facilities that are in desperately poor shape at this point in time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So, those have to be done anyway. MR. McALPIN: That is correct, commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is just no alternative to -- to that. And that's going to cost one point-- MR. McALPIN: If -- if we would -- if we would go-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- two point million dollars? MR. McALPIN: Ifwe would go in and strictly just give them a facelift, that will cost us a couple hundred thousand dollars, we believe. Page 286 January 15-16,2008 If we went in there and expanded those facilities and to the proper amount, because this area has gotten a lot more usage over since 1993, we anticipate that would cost between a million and a million and a half dollars. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So -- so, you're -- you're suggesting that it would cost a million to a million and a half dollars to build -- to renovate the current facilities to current standards and requirements. MR. McALPIN: Well, we would not renovate them. We would have to -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Rebuild them. MR. McALPIN: Ifwe did anything, we'd have to rebuild them, and they would have to be elevated, commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. McALPIN: So, we would have to then basically site clear what's there and build them so that we could conform to the FEMA guidelines. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. And, County Manager, you -- you had something you wanted to say? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And just in that piece, I mean there's a cost avoidance of about $1.2 million if you're going to do it right. Now, if you wanted to do this sneaky, okay, and, you know, sometimes folks, when they get to the coastal construction, they could do it. The key here is as long as you don't refurbish more than 50 percent of your facility, you don't have to elevate. So, if -- if we had to talking the present facilities and when he says it could be a couple hundred thousand dollars, okay, if we just renovated what was there, we have to do it in steps over a series of years, okay, because once you break the 50 percent rule, you've got to elevate. And, so, a lot of folks do it that are close to the beach so that they Page 287 January 15-16,2008 don't break the 50 percent, they don't get themselves into that scheme, but the minute you elevate, you get into a bathroom facility that we're looking like at the north end when we're -- on Blue Gill where we have to elevate, the -- the bathrooms have to have an elevator in order for the handicapped to get to it, by then it's gets to your expense, and that's what he's trying to relay to the board. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. Well, I would like to commend you on the -- on the -- the approach you're taking on getting this to the public. Too many times we all get too far out ahead and the public thinks something's be approved and it really hasn't, so I -- I think this is an excellent way to proceed. I'm sorry for taking so much time, but I'm finished. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. The -- this is going to require a rezone whether it's phase one or phase two? MR. McALPIN: That is correct, commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What is the purpose of putting the restaurant there? Whose idea was that? MR. McALPIN: I think that that was a -- a desire that we saw that would be a valuable asset. We had -- and looked at this relative to facilities, and that there had been in the past no -- no facilities where people would come get a coke, get a snack, get a hot dog, and we thought that that was something that would be amenity that the public would like. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I answer -- maybe add to that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that when we lost the Vanderbilt Inn, that was a huge gathering spot for people to go in and buy a $6 hamburger and whatever their libation was, coke or water, lemonade. Page 288 January 15-16,2008 Anyway, that amenity has been lost and the only places that are available have probably $85 cheeseburgers, and I don't think people want to pay that kind of money when they go to the beach to get a hamburger. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I don't think we're going to find a $6 hamburger on the beach. It's just -- it's just -- you know, if you're talking about a revenue generator and that's -- that's not going to be a $6 hamburger, it should be subsidized. Before I -- before I go to Commissioner Fiala, the bathrooms are at the end of Vanderbilt Beach Road? MR. McALPIN : Yes, commissioner. The existing -- MR. MUDD: I'll get it. MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, these are the existing bathrooms that are there right now, and you could see that this is the location where we would -- we would propose that they be. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What -- what's structurally wrong with the present bathroom structure? MR. McALPIN: The -- the bathroom -- the bathrooms there are built in '93 and they -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: And so is my house, so I would hate to -- my wife to hear this, that we need to tear it down and build her a new house. MR. McALPIN: I -- I think that the biggest issue with the bathrooms, commissioner, they're all -- they need to be refurbished and they need to be expanded. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there anything wrong with the structure of that building? MR. McALPIN: I can't comment on that right now, okay. We would -- that would be part of -- of the next phase if you would like us to take a look at that relative to, you know, structurally if they're adequate or not. That was not part of our decision. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, but you're recommending Page 289 January 15-16,2008 replacing it, so there -- I'm thinking there must be something structurally wrong with it, why you're making that recommendation. MR. McALPIN: I'm -- I'm recommending replacing that from the point of view, commissioner, that -- that with the usage that you have there, a -- a urinal and a commode for the mens' room with the volume that you have in there is just not adequate, and the same thing for the -- for the -- for the women's bathroom. So -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: They need to be expanded. MR. McALPIN: Yeah. Minus urinals. I'm sorry, commissioner. Say that again, please. CHAIRMAN HENNING: They -- they -- they need to be expanded because of the use. There may not be something wrong with it structurally. It's-- MR. McALPIN: We could refurbish the building if -- and do it in phases, as County Manager Mudd had said -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. MR. McALPIN: -- and -- and take a modest approach over a five-year period of time if we needed to. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now I understand why your recommendations are. It's -- it's the frequency in the -- in the facility. MR. McALPIN: That is correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not that they're old and need to be replaced because there's something structurally wrong with it. MR. McALPIN: It is the frequency in the facility. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Could you tell me how the length of this proposed pier corresponds to the length in -- in the one in Naples? MR. McALPIN: Yeah. The one in Naples is approximately a thousand feet. This would be the same. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. Page 290 January 15-16,2008 THE WITNESS: This pier would be a little bit higher. This-- the Naples Pier is 12 foot off the water. This would be 20 foot off the water. And we would do that to conform to the new FEMA regulations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've noticed that whenever I go walking on the pier there is so many people that meet there to fish together. It's -- it's like a meet and greet place for fishermen. Oh, my goodness. And they all know each other and help one another. I think it's lovely. Around the little restaurant area there, they have morning cloches that were -- retirees will gather in the morning and have their cup of coffee even in the cold. There was a picture of them in the newspaper the other day. It was really cool. And -- and it can be a place, a gathering place, where people -- right now with the way our community is built, there's so many walls and so many gates and so many fences, and it is a gathering place, especially for retirees. And -- and my guess would be that would be the same thing that would happen at -- at a pier like this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Thank you. Should we go to the public speakers now or is there any more questions? Miss Filson, will you call the public speakers, please? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Dave Trecker. He'll be followed by Ed Staros. MR. TRECKER: Is this the right side? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. MR. TRECKER: Okay. Good morning. My name is Dave Trecker. I'm president of the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association. Page 291 January 15-16,2008 This is a group made up of some 3,000 households of Pelican Bay. And as I'm sure you're all aware, Pelican Bay is one of the communities that would be impacted by the proposed Vanderbilt pier. I'll be very brief. I want to make two points. The first -- and this is a reiteration of discussion already made by some of the commISSIoners. We feel it's -- it's vitally important for the residents in the communities that would be impacted by this pier. To have an opportunity to fully review -- the day of the report just came out, of course. To have an opportunity to formulate questions and to make reviews known; in other words, take a sounding of -- of the community. I assume you've -- you've planned this. To this end, we have offered the use of the Pelican Bay Community Center, which I think would be a very good venue for an informational meeting of this sort. The day it opened -- we could certainly talk about other dates if this one does not work out. It's February 19th, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Talked to Commissioner Halas about this, to Deputy Manager Ochs, and I urge you to avail yourself of this -- this opportunity. The second point I -- I want to make relates to the parking and traffic analysis made in the report, and I would -- I would certainly commend you, Gary, you and your -- your colleagues in the preparation of this report, which I think by and large is really a very good one. But I think the parking and traffic analysis understates, maybe significantly understates, the impact that the pier would have on the surrounding communities. The model used for the traffic study was -- was the Naples Pier, and I think, as we all know, to get to the Naples Pier, you have to wind through neighborhood streets. It's not difficult to get there, but -- but you have to have a mind to do it. There certainly is no straight shot. Page 292 January 15-16,2008 The access to the proposed Vanderbilt pier, on the other hand, would be -- would be much easier, straight shots through major community roads and highways. My point here being that the traffic accessing the Naples Pier is probably going to be much less, maybe significantly less than the traffic that could get to the proposed Vanderbilt pier. So, I think there's -- I think there's a shortfall in the analysis there. Also for whatever the reason, the impact of traffic within Pelican Bay was not considered. There will undoubtedly be shortcuts taken through Pelican Bay. For example, people going down Seagate, cutting through West Boulevard, going on Pelican Bay Boulevard, and then exiting the Vanderbilt Beach Road on North Point Road. How extensive the traffic would be, how big the impact would be, we're not certain, but that's certainly something that we would urge you to take a look at. With regard to the parking, the study made compared instances where the garage was full and the garage was not full. Here I am, I'm talking to the county parking -- about the county parking garage near the proposed pier. The -- if the garage was 98 percent filled, I believe we have 340 parking spaces there, so suppose 338 of those spaces was taken by normal beach traffic, and the pier generated an additional, let's say, a hundred cars, not very many of those cars would be able to get in the garage and would have to find parking on city streets and driveways and so forth. And that would obviously create a problem in the surrounding neighborhoods. So, there, too, I would -- would urge you to revisit the study and take this into account. I would suggest what's really needed here is a proper loading study on the garage, not just simply a comparison of garage full, garage not full. Page 293 January 15-16,2008 Those are my comments. I hope they're helpful. And I thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ed Staros. He'll be followed by Bob Naegele. MR. STAROS: Good morning, commissioners. I'm Ed Staros. I'm the Managing Director of the Ritz Carlton here in town, and I'm here representing my company and my 1,542 employees. That's an exact number. I want to tell you what a five-star hotel is. I run a five-star hotel. There's 30 five-star hotels in the United States. There are only two five-star hotels larger than 300 rooms in the United States. Normally, the -- the criteria is so high that it normally gravitates towards the smaller hotels because it's, if you will, easier to provide product and service excellence when you have a smaller box. A good example would be the Inn at Little Washington outside of Washington, D.C. It's an II-room hotel. It is a five-star hotel. I'm a 450-room hotel. And the only other large hotel in the whole country that is five star is the Broadmoor in Colorado Springs, Colorado. To run a five-star hotel, it's not only products and service excellence, but it's the facility itself and it's the whole setting of the facility; where it's located, et cetera, and what kind of amenities and access do you have from the hotel. I can say this because I was raised in Pensacola and my first job was in Panama City. If you were to take my hotel and somehow transport it and plop it right down in Pensacola Beach or my hotel and plop it right down in Panama City Beach, I don't think I would be a five-star hotel, because it didn't meet the image of being a five-star hotel. As much as I love Pensacola, it just doesn't have the -- the -- the pristine setting that Naples brings to -- to this location. Page 294 January 15-16,2008 I'm very concerned about it. I hope this goes away, and I'm afraid that the pier might add a less than desirable location to what is already known around the world as one of the most pristine cities in the world, and I get guests from all over the world to come here for that. I'm also -- I -- I don't -- I read the entire thing. I -- I think that the potentially parking is flawed. I think potentially the traffic is flawed. But more importantly, I think the pricing is flawed. If you, Mr. Mudd -- I don't know if that picture of the pier is still available, but from that original picture, you can see my little beach house that I built with your help, thank you. However, that little beach house is 3,000 square feet and it's very plain. I don't know if you've been in it. It's just a very, very simple Florida beach house with restrooms and a elevator, two elevators, excuse me, and it was north of $4 million. And that was in pricing of two years ago, not today's pricing. So, A, I think you need to look at your pricing; B, I encourage you, if you will, to use the words of -- earlier today of potentially killing the project. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bob Naegele. He'll be followed by Sandra O'Dell. MR. NAEGELE: Thank you very much. It's Naegele, for the record, pronounce the last e. My name is Bob Naegele. I live at 7993 Via Vecchia. Today I'm here representing the Pelican Bay Foundation board of directors. I'm the chairman ofthe Pelican Bay Foundation, and we have approximately 6500 homeowners in Pelican Bay. And when I was first informed of the idea -- I think we read it in the paper that Commissioner Halas had an idea for this. And, so, the overwhelming response from my neighbors, our constituents, was that what a lunatic idea, with all due respect, Page 295 January 15-16,2008 Commissioner Halas. That was their thought of the idea. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about opening up your three miles of beach, sir? MR. NAEGELE: Is that on the hearing today? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Just one speaker at a time. Please continue. MR. NAEGELE: Thank you very much. So, the -- I wrote a letter to -- to Commissioner Halas, I copied all of you, saying that we were -- we didn't think it was a good idea and we pointed out a number of reasons why we didn't think it was good idea. That opinion hasn't changed to date. Now, we just received this study yesterday and, so, we'll take it under advisement and look at it, and I know that you're going to give it the proper analysis. And I would like to know regarding the process what the time -- what the time line is. I mean, is it 30 days of study or 45 days of study? And then we have -- we -- then we come back together or the public hearings, and so that's what I'm interested in the process, because we need to analyze it and then look at the -- look at how we can effectively study it. Just a couple of things. In the study itself, I noticed on page -- on the executive summary, on Page 4 of 119, the -- and I thought this is -- be fair to Mr. McAlpin. He said the advisory committee recommendation. No advisory committees have had a chance to -- to look at this, so I trust that we're going to have that opportunity. And I know that the County Attorney has not studied them. And the fiscal impact, I think the questions have been raised on that. Can you do that for eight and a half million dollars and is the timeline to get the permitting more like five years rather than two years, which, I think, is pretty optimistic in light of getting permits in the State of Florida today. Page 296 January 15-16,2008 So, anyway, I -- I want to thank you for taking the time and the consideration, and we'll be in touch. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Sandra O'Dell. She'll be followed by Robert Gunn. MS. O'DELL: Okay. I'm going to be very brief, but for one thing I don't think you can compare the two piers in town because the other one has very limited parking. This has mega parking and I'd like to know when the feasibility study was done, in the middle of June, July or August when no one was here, there's no traffic or very little, or was this done during season? Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you -- ma'am, just for a clarification, are you talking about the traffic impact study -- MS. O'DELL: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- or the parking garage? MS. O'DELL: Well, really both. I mean, if you're there, you can see the traffic backed up on the cape as you know. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we'll get that answer. Thank you. MS. O'DELL: Okay. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Gunn. He'll be followed by James Hoppensteadt. MR. GUNN: My name is Robert Gunn and I'm a resident of 9051 Gulf Shore Drive which, if you look at the picture, will share a common boundary with the proposed facilities and the pier. Weare the next condo to the north -- or to the south, north of the pIer. MR. MUDD: Is it that one, sir, that I'm pointing to on the -- on the -- MR. GUNN: I'm sorry. I'm a little deaf. You have to -- oh, Page 297 January 15-16,2008 okay. There it is. Y eah. Well, look at the pier and I might comment that the pier while -- what is it, 300 feet? That's three football fields, which is -- makes at a pretty significant thing. So, we will be directly impacted by this and I'm afraid that my view at the moment is unfavorably impacted, as I'm sure will change my quality of life, living where I do, not for the better. And I'm afraid it will affect the value of my condominium, and so you can guess how I feel about it. The first point I wish to make, I have briefly three. The first is what is the need of this pier? I mean, why we have the pier? Is the Naples Pier overcrowded? Is there a desire for more fishing? We have fishermen on our beach every day. They cast from the shoreline. Of course, some of their area that they use is right near the public beach, of course, because it's not accessing the other units down there. How will it benefit? Has there been any study made of any increase in tourism that will be brought on by this pier? Evidently Naples likes it, but we don't know. And I think you should look into that aspect of it before you get into the cost. What is the benefit of this particular pier to Collier County? I also probably should have said this earlier. We received this report at approximately -- or I did personally -- approximately 10:00 o'clock last night. So, some of the statements I make probably won't be as well thought out as they would be otherwise. The other point I wish to address myself to is the alternative approach, which would construct critical public restrooms, offices and snack restaurants facilities to accommodate the future pier construction. First, that is scheduled to be a two-story structure, as I understand it, which means it will overlook our pool area or recreational area that Page 298 January 15-16,2008 is between us and the beach. I don't view that as a particularly happy result. The second thing is that there are presently four restaurants within walking distance of the circle that's there, plus one snack bar. And if Commissioner Halas would like to have me buy him a hamburger considerably under $25, I will delighted to do it and chat more about what we're talking here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I can't take you up on that, sir. I can buy you one though. MR. GUNN: Well, I do like them as you can probably see. But, anyway, the last point I would like to make is that the -- my experience is it's easier to get a building than it is to maintain it. There is no part of this report that I could see, and you understand I just got it last night, which addresses the amount of money that it will take to maintain this facility either directly or indirectly. By that, I mean, directly, that is jobs which go along, you know, the restaurant. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, can you wrap up your comments. You're over your time. MR. GUNN: Okay. Well, I thought I had the same three minutes the others have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You did. MR. GUNN: Okay. That -- so, I think that you should in your report give a direct budget for maintaining it, and also this is something Commissioner Halas mentioned -- I believe it was the night before last in his talk -- there seem to be tax cuts that will affect -- and this new property bill which will affect Collier County. I presume the Sheriffs Department was mentioned there. I believe that this will require more use of the Sheriffs Department, and I believe that should be considered in your review. Again, thank you so much for your time. Page 299 January 15-16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is James Hoppensteadt. MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Thank you, commissioners. James Hoppensteadt. I'm the president of the Pelican Bay Foundation, resident of 2150 Kasia Pointe. The issue before you today is what to do next, as put forth by Mr. Mudd and Mr. McAlpin. What I would ask is that the commissioners request staff to put more effort into the report. While we agree that the engineering report is -- is very well done, the issues that have been already discussed; the traffic study, the baseline for projecting traffic and trip generation being done off of the Naples Pier, Second -- Second Street and 12th avenue, does not make good common sense, particularly compared to the major east-west connector that Vanderbilt Beach Road is, the size of the population that that connector serves, and the size of the parking that serves both areas. We talked about the parking. February, March and April, 36 days out of90 had displacement. That's well over 30 percent of displacement regardless of the time. The question is, where does that traffic go? What congestion does it create? Again, the -- the cycle -- the turnover rates within that parking garage look to be, in season, between two and two and a half times. That's a tremendous amount of traffic volume in that area, certainly much greater than what is generated at the Naples Pier. Security was the third element of the report. That was relegated to a one-page sheet from the Naples Police. And then the two e-mails between politicians was used where the county's own law enforcement chief and the nationally recognized expert, Don Hunter, was apparently not consulted on this issue. Commissioner Coyle referenced the -- the funding. The building Page 300 January 15-16,2008 of it will be from fund 183, but the ongoing costs will come out of the general fund. There is no prospectus on this. There are on no revenues, there are no other expenses generated either from maintenance, police protection, staffing of a restaurant. The -- there's is no alternative considerations. If you're looking for fishing or recreational uses, there's no concern of a jetty. The impact of the usable recreational space, the beach area, we talked about beach access, how much beach space will be taken up by the footprint of the pier, the shadow that it casts. You will actually have less beach access. You'll have -- the pier will take up some of the space that's currently beach and used by the beach users, and there will be more competition for the parking. The last issue is the construction cost. Ed Staros relayed to you that his building cost $4 million. The foundation just spent over $2 million just replacing our boardwalks. So, I would ask you to ask for a lot more information before anything else is done with this report. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Then we go to -- MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. We're going to go to Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think one of the things that -- there were a lot of things said. One of them was to talk with the community beforehand. I think that's a good idea, but I think we ought to talk to the entire community, because we're planning for the future here. And there's a lot of people that were here that were -- were very fortunate. You live right on the beach and you can get there easily. There's a lot of people who can't and they deserve a right to go to Page 301 January 15-16,2008 the beach as well. And -- and I think they should be included in the community talks. The second thing somebody mentioned was cutting through Pelican Bay to get there. Well, heck, if I'm going to something like that and I'm traveling down U.S. 41, I'm certainly not going to veer off and take a circuitous route where the -- where the miles per hour dropped dramatically to get to something like that. Why would I want to do that? I'd just take the straight route to get there. I thought that maybe he was going a little bit -- you know, he was -- he was reaching a little bit there. I think it would be probably take some of the pressure off of Pelican Bay Beach rather than put it on, because now you've got a gathering place rather than people wanting to go to Pelican Bay Beach. You've got another place for people to go and they'll leave them alone, to the gentleman here, and I understood what you said about second floor. Maybe design work can -- can take care of some of your privacy there. I know -- I have a girlfriend that lives two doors from the Naples Pier. And in her backyard -- she has a gorgeous place, one of the old, old homes from Olde Naples, absolutely magnificent, and she has a botanical garden right there in her yard, right there, two doors from the Naples Pier. It's marvelous, and she enjoys the thing -- the benefits from the pier in that, for instance, when they have the fireworks on Christmas -- or New Year's Eve, she invites friends over and we all enjoy the fireworks at the same time. You can -- you can make it a plus or you can make it a minus. It just depends on -- on your own attitude. Page 302 January 15-16,2008 And then, lastly, they were talking about the location of Naples Pier -- or this pier, and they were saying -- I think it was Mr. Staros that said something about it would reduce the values and so forth. Well, heck, Naples Pier is located right there in the heart ofOlde Naples and -- and it has done nothing at all to harm Aqua Lane Shores, Olde Naples or Port Royal. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, I think their property values are extremely high. I don't know how the pier has ever hurt them, and I have never ever, ever, ever heard a complaint from anybody in any of those areas regarding the pier, the traffic, the people, nothing. So, those are my comments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'm not sure if Gary could answer this question. When the traffic study was done, why wasn't there any emphasis put in regards to Pelican Bay Boulevard and North Point? MR. McALPIN: We did the -- we -- we used Johnson Engineering, who was -- we thought was the best that the county had in terms of traffic studies. We left it up to their judgment in terms of where the traffic would come from. Certainly, we can consider any and all input that we get from the community and revised look at the traffic study again, commISSIoner. I would also say that the traffic study was done in the middle of November of '07. So, it was not during -- done during the summer, but it was getting up to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Tourist. MR. McALPIN: -- the heavy period, so -- and the other comment that I would make is that maintenance of the pier would be done with -- TDC funds category D, and we would set up category D funds for pier maintenance. Page 303 January 15-16,2008 That's allowed in our charter, so we would have a continuing source to move forward in terms of maintenance. COMMISSIONER HALAS: One of the questions that was brought up was, have you done some type of analysis, whether it's just a -- a study that you've taken from other areas that have piers in the State of Florida in regards to the cost of upkeep? MR. McALPIN: No, commissioner, we have not. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do you have any thoughts on what the -- the upkeep would be? MR. McALPIN: I would like to -- no, I do not at this point. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. THE WITNESS: And I'd like to that in, and if we come back to you, if you want us to come back to you with that, we could certainly come back with a follow-up. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. And those funds would come out of -- MR. McALPIN: Tourist development funds, it would be category D. COMMISSIONER HALAS: D. Okay. But I think that's something else we need to put on the -- the list so that we make sure that we cover all areas. And then if you have some type of design criteria that we haven't got, if we decide to push this forward, so that the people that are next to this project have an understanding that we will make sure that we take in their privacy is the utmost. MR. McALPIN: Okay. Commissioner Coletta and then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you. I -- I just -- I want to comment on -- Commissioner Fiala, you said a lot of great things. There was one thing that I was very impressed with, is the fact that is not a small problem or a small consideration to be made just by the people that would live by the Page 304 January 15-16, 2008 affected pier and the amenity it's going to offer to anyone. This is a community situation, that the beach is not ownership -- does not belong to a select group of people. It belongs to the public at large. So, my suggestion would be when we get ready to vet this out in the public domain, that we do it globally, that we do not just limit it to meetings that take place in the -- in the area of the -- where the prospective pier would go, because it's not going to be something that's an amenity just for the neighbors that live there. It's going to be for everyone. And, so, I would suggest that we take this on the road, take it to the different civic associations to be able to make people aware of what this is, to give them all the pluses and all the minuses that may come up with it, too, and let them weigh in on it, so when the time does come the decision be made, we'll be able to get it across the whole county, get a global perspective on it. MR. McALPIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'd like to emphasize that what we're really doing here is not trying to design a pier or a proposal. We're trying to make a decision as to whether or not you should go forward with the concept and seek the public's input. And -- and -- and much of the discussion has related to how much it's going to cost, what is it going to look like, when is it going to get down, how long does it take, how do you maintain it? Those questions are very important questions, but they are premature. When we take it to the public, we're looking for the public's suggestions. Is the public going to overwhelmingly reject it? Are they going to provide us suggestions about how to improve it? Are Page 305 January 15-16,2008 they going to provide us suggestions about buffering? What's going to come out of that public input? That's what we're really interested in doing right now. To -- to have you go out and complete a full engineering study on a concept that you have developed in somewhat of a vacuum, I think, is the wrong way to proceed. It's going to be changed. Otherwise why ask the public? If we're going to ask the public to provide us input on -- on what needs to be done, how it needs to be done or if you don't need to do anything at all, then we don't need to waste money on completing engineering studies and those kinds of things at the present time. So, I would suggest that what -- and I'm going to leave this -- this up to the -- to the commissioner in whose district this project is going to take place. But -- but I -- I would certainly support moving this to the -- to the public, letting them have input on all of these things, and -- and then bringing it back and having another public hearing so that we can -- we can work out the details. And, yes, I'd be willing to bet that many of the speakers are right. These costs are going to go up. The prices I've seen here are a real bargain. I think we're going to find that -- that they could be substantially higher. But let's get the public input. That's -- that's my feeling. Let the public be heard on this. This is the right way to do it. For people to assume that because you had an idea or Commissioner Halas had an idea, that it's been approved, is just simply wrong. And -- and they start arguing for or against the proposal before it's ever been vetted through all the committees. It is -- it is simply the wrong time and the wrong place to do it unless you're just trying to kill the idea before it gets started and that you don't want public input on it. Page 306 January 15-16, 2008 So -- so, my -- my feeling is, let's get public input, see where we are, and with that, I'll leave it up to Commissioner Halas because it's his district. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It's my turn next. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would like to have more information. The combination of restroom and office will require in dedication parking spaces for those uses. That's what you're going to find out in the -- in the rezone process. So, I'm assuming those parking places are going to come out of the parking garages -- the garage. What -- so, what will be left for the general public that doesn't want a hot dog or a coke or a beer or whatever at the restaurant, and I hope that the restaurant -- restrooms are not the attractor of some of the public. The -- the traffic study didn't base it upon those uses of office and restaurants. It was based upon the use, the attractor of the pier. And -- and I don't think that's going to really change the level of services, but we need to be honest and open to the residents. I would like to see that come back to the board first. A parking garage was built for the people going to utilize the beach, and I think the public needs to know that there's going to be adequate space for them for their continuing use of the beach. That's what I would like to have first before we decide, you know, what venue it goes to the public or what advisory boards and so on and so forth. Is that fair? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. But I also in that included would be -- we can get any information on the traffic through Pelican Bay and it would be interesting to know how many spots presently are taking up -- are taken up by staff, which I think is very minimal, and I Page 307 January 15-16,2008 don't think -- probably be about the same, maybe one or two vehicles more. And that's probably, I think, what Commissioner Henning is after here. But I would like to make -- also, I'd like to make sure that we have some idea of if you have a conceptual drawing, maybe a little more detail, and in regards to making sure that we address some issues with the people on the beach. And at that, I'd like to make a motion that we continue this -- this study. We also -- if we can bring this back to the board, and I'd like to add in this motion that I think we ought to go forward with the restroom facilities and with the snack bar. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion by Commissioner Halas, there's a second by Commissioner Coletta. ClarifY the motion; you wanted to come back to the board with more information before you go out to the public. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. But those two -- those couple of issues and then what we're going to do is then after we get that information, at this point I'd like to move this out into the public, but I'd like to also give staff direction that we look seriously at the restroom facilities and at the -- the snack bar there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I -- excuse me. I think that's going to be direction once we get more information on how it's going to impact our existing facilities. And then -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I -- I don't think the impact will be that great. We'll see when it comes back. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. We'll see when it comes back. MR. McALPIN: Okay. No, that's fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. McAlpin. MR. McALPIN: That answered -- that answered the question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And -- and just for my perspective, I think that what we're going to see is the presentation, the Page 308 January 15-16,2008 recommendations from the CAC, the Tourist Development Counsel. If it -- if it goes this far, naturally, we're going to have to get it from the EAC, Environmental Advisory Committee, and the Planning Commission. Wouldn't you say that's a -- a good assumption? MR. MUDD: If this concept goes -- if you're doing the CAC and you're doing the TDC and you're homeowners groups, might be the Vanderbilt Beach homeowners group, Pelican Bay group, we even talked to the City of Naples. I would talk to Bonita and bring it to them and then I would go further -- and I would go further out east. They have a couple there. So, we're talking about a dozen, a dozen advertised meetings. We're going to talk about money here because that $29,000 you gave him, that -- what you got here is pretty -- he used the 29,000. He did a lot of work with 29,000. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, he did. MR. MUDD: But it's gone. And, so, it went to this concept. We developed the concept with the money that was allocated by this board, and that was told not to exceed, and -- and there where we are. So, I'm going to ask the board with this thing, if we could increase this pot another 10,000 so it would cover the advertising costs for -- for the thing, any -- any zoning work we need to have in that particular issue, but I -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think you're going to need more than that for -- for rezoning, but I -- it's a simple calculation of a square foot of the restaurants, how many seats, and how much parking you're going to need for those two other facilities. But you -- the traffic study is going to have to be updated, because it didn't include the restaurant and -- and the -- MR. MUDD: Well, commissioner-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no. MR. MUDD: -- before we -- before we go down this road, okay, Page 309 January 15-16,2008 I would like to have the plethora of -- of suggestions that are there and from the public vetting to say, here's what we got, here's what we didn't have, here are the good ideas, here are the bad ideas, and then ask the board -- and then kind of look at those ideas and try to put a cost to them for future study. What we don't want to do, and the reason I went back to talk to Norman, I said, Norman, how much money do we spend extra for answering the questions for engineering for the overpass? He said, it was $600,000 outside of the initial engineering in order to answer all the questions for the community over that two-year period of time. Now, this is a pier and that's an overpass, and I understand the difference. But the appetite for more information has a tendency to cost you more money is all I'm trying to get. And, Norman, in his wildest imagination, never thought that he was going to spend another $600,000 to $750,000 extra for engineering to answer questions from five different firms. Okay. Just to make sure that -- that folks -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I understand now. So, you want to put that in the motion to budget an extra $10,000? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to -- yes, I'd like to budget another -- make that $12,000 just to make sure that we have adequate, so they don't have to come back again. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is that good for the second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. All right. Any other discussions? Commissioner Coyle, you have something? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- I -- I am confused. I have heard talk about getting aboard DSAC and advisory boards and all that sort of thing, and -- and that's not what I thought we were Page 3 10 January 15-16,2008 doing. I thought we were going -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no. I-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to the public. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I said we're -- I'm envisioning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, sure. I mean we have to go through that process. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But -- but right now what we're-- what we're talking about doing is going to the public, soliciting the public's input on the need for this, the benefit for this, the design for it, whether or not you build the facilities, the restroom and restaurant -- restroom and restaurant facilities first, and then consider a pier, or are you going to do all the engineering and design for the pier and try to take that to the public? That's a lot of money and a lot of time. And in order to provide them accurate costs, you're going to have to consult with somebody who builds piers and -- and have them give you some idea how much it's going to cost. I think we're -- we're getting way beyond where we're want to be, because we're going to get in trouble here. And I think what you want to do is to get it out to the public and say, hey, guys, what do you think? Do you need this? If you do, which part of it do you need the most? When do you need it? You can -- you can do a traffic impact analysis considering two alternatives. One is just the restroom and the restaurant. The other is adding a pier. You don't want to take the traffic analysis that includes a pier and take it to the public and say, here's what we think the traffic is going to be for a restaurant and a restroom. You understand what I'm saying? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. Page 311 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so, let's be very clear about what we're doing. And -- and I'm not clear. I -- I don't know. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the motion. The motion I made was what that we give direction to look at the -- the restaurant and bathroom facilities, and then we can figure out later on what the pier costs are if we decide to go that way, what the public wants to go that way, but I think at this point in time, just to get a restroom facilities that is better than what is down there at the present time, I think is probably the utmost. When you look at that area, there's very little restroom facilities that are adequate for the public. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And -- and I would support that motion. I don't have a problem with that. I would ask that -- well, of course, you'd -- you'd include your $10,000. COMMISSIONER HALAS: $12,000. COMMISSIONER COYLE: $12,000 cost allocation. But, I think when we talk with the public, we must be honest and -- and although we present the -- the restaurant and the restroom facilities as the initial step -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- we must tell them that there is a proposal perhaps to build a pier that they need -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: A long range program. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that they need to consider, too, so that they don't think we're trying to hook them and reel them in on this thing. So, we need to be honest with them so they can -- they can use that information to make their decision about whether or not they want to proceed in the first place. So, with that, I would support the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Are we clear in the direction? Page 312 January 15-16,2008 No other discussion? All in fair of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. MR. McALPIN: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I want to make sure there -- that there's no more than $10,000 to be spent on additional efforts right now. Okay? CHAIRMAN HENNING: $12,000. COMMISSIONER FIALA: $12,000. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was -- the motion was 12,000. MR. MUDD: Okay. Got it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we take a 10-minute break before we get into the next item, and that would be 12A. I'm sorry. lOA. MR. MUDD: lOA, sir. lOA. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're going to take a ten-minute break. Be back at 10:27. (A recess was had.) Item #10A RECOMMENDATION TO ENDORSE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AND SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RULES AND REGULATIONS - MOTION TO CONTINUE - APPROVED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please. The next item is lOA, a recommendation to endorse the Code Page 313 January 15-16,2008 Enforcement Board and Special Magistrate Rules and Regulations. MS. ARNOLD: Good morning. Michelle Arnold for the record. I'm here to provide you the rules and regulations for the Code Enforcement Board and the Special Master. The Code Enforcement Board has presented their rules to you in the past, and what's on the agenda today is revisions. They do an annual review of their rules and regs and update it as needed. And also the Special Magistrate's rules, this is the first time you'll be seeing -- the rules for the Special Master. What happened was the Code Enforcement Board and Special Master had a joint meeting together to review the rules and what they should be for both bodies. There are some similarities and some differences, and they felt that they needed separate rules so that it would be easy for the public to understand which rules apply to them when they went to the respective venues. The rules are -- are being presented to you for your endorsement. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I have several questions, but let's go to the other commissioners. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just -- just one. Under legal considerations you -- it was saying that the two sets of rules aren't necessarily redundant, but they do not address nuisance, abatement for proceedings, and I was just wondering why. MS. ARNOLD: That's a valid point. The nuisance abatement board is also function -- the Code Enforcement Board also functions as a nuisance abatement board. The rules have not included regulations for that board. That's an oversight that they probably will consider at their next meeting. March of each year is when we typically do the annual review. So, that's something that I will bring up to the -- the board so that they can include provisions for that. Page 314 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I think they did a fine job and -- and these are the things -- these are the rules that they know so well, and I know so little, and I was glad to see that they went through them so thoroughly and I agreed with everything. I just had that question. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anybody else? Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. If you would, please, one more time. Explain what the difference is between the Code Enforcement Board and Special Master. Who is it that goes to whom? MS. ARNOLD: Okay. The Code Enforcement Board and the Special Master both can look at violations of the codes oflaws and ordinances and the Land Development Code. We have made a distinction in our office to -- to have those more simple, quick cases go to the Special Master, things that are easily fixed. The things that are a little bit more complex, such as things related to PUDs and, you know, ifthere's -- there's a review process that needs to take place, those things that are a little bit more complex typically go to the Code Enforcement Board. The Special Master also has additional authorities to hear contested citations. That does not apply to the Code Enforcement Board, so there is a distinction right there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there anything that -- that you see in this document, that change that would enable some people that had a hard time communicating with either the Special Master or the Code Enforcement Board to be able to communicate in a more effective fashion? MS. ARNOLD: I -- I think that the -- the idea of consolidating their rules was -- what was brought up, that was a concern that the -- the County Attorney's office had, and they felt that it would be better Page 315 January 15-16,2008 -- better for the public to have them separate, so that there's one rule that they can apply, refer to instead of having to kind of go through the rules and -- and figure out which portion of it applies to the Special Master or the Code Enforcement Board. They tried to make it so that it's understandable for the public. The rules are sent to them -- you know, to each member of the public that has a hearing, and they're also provided at the hearings themselves, so that ifthere are any questions, they can raise them at the hearings. I don't know if I answered your question or not. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you did. I mean, I -- I still -- and I'm -- I'm not -- I don't think we're not going to be able to address the full situation. I this it's ongoing at all times, not only in your particular department or in this particular case, but when it comes to government and how they communicate with the public, we'll never get it perfect, but it doesn't mean we can't -- we ought to stop trying. MS. ARNOLD: Right. We -- we always try to improve upon how we serve the public, absolutely. CHAIRMAN HENNING: David, do you have something to say? Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Oh, I was thinking a little bit, Mr. Coletta's question in regard to making things more understandable for the public and the people that come before the -- people that come before the -- either the code board or the Special Master. And -- and there is some ongoing work that -- that is in kind of a parallel fashion that will come forward apart from these specific rules, which have now been kind of unified and clarified. And that will -- the additional information that would look to come before the board in the future will pertain to providing some foreign -- foreign language translation of such things as these rules and the notices of violation and citations and things of that nature. And -- and this will be coming back and provide some further Page 316 January 15-16,2008 assistance to the public in that regard. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. How can we un -- remove this unnecessary redundancy that is referenced by the county staff? MS. ARNOLD: That's something that the County Attorney's Office feels that -- I think that is in their legal consideration? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. It -- they've made that observation. The question is apparently this particular revision doesn't reduce redundancy. Is that a fair statement? MS. ARNOLD: It's staffs opinion that it's not unnecessary. I think the redundancy is there so that the public has an easier review of the rules that apply to them. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Is there a disagreement from the County Attorney's office? MR. KLATZKOW: No. My primary -- my primary issue with this is that I've spent my life litigating, trying to figure out which court I should be in for my client to get the -- the best shake for my client. The Special Magistrate and the Code Enforcement Board share jurisdiction on notice of violations. Citations just go to the Special Magistrate. When we start having separate rules between the two of them and they start going their different ways, my fear is that down the road the public must perceive that staff brought it to one and not the another to take advantage of a particular rule. I'm not saying staff would ever do that. It's just a possible perception that I would like eliminated. And that's my primary concerns. It's one more perception rather than actuality. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how do we solve that? What would be the best way to -- to deal with it? MR. KLATZKOW: That when it comes to notice of violations anyway, they have identical rules. Page 317 January 15-16,2008 MS. ARNOLD: And they do. They're the same. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no. They don't actually. I mean, for one thing if I'm in Code Enforcement Board, I get 20 minutes argument for it, from the Special Master, I get ten. Now, the Special Magistrate could extend it and maybe she doesn't. So, what I'm saying is that as we go down -- as we go on and we continue to have these two entities now promulgating different rules, you're going to get more and more of a divergence of their rules. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And why is that a difficult problem to resolve? Why would it not be possible to have the same rules for both organizations? MS. ARNOLD: They're -- they're pretty much the same with the exception of the time that is provided for to speak at the meeting because, as I explained, at the Code Enforcement Board the cases are a little bit more complex. People tend to have attorneys representing them at the Code Enforcement Board as opposed to the Special Master. And, so, they felt that the types of cases that they looked at warranted additional time. The -- the Special Master temple has simple cases, you know, people parking on their grass or, you know, parking related cases or quick litter case that could be resolved in a day. It's not necessarily to have 20-minute discussions for those types of cases. If -- if there is something a little bit more complex, there is discretion on both sides to grant additional time to speak. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, could -- could I make the suggestion then that what we do is -- is ask the staff -- that the County Attorney's Office and the code enforcement staff to get together and -- and identify these conflicts or redundancies and then maybe bring them back for us to make a decision on next time? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And I agree with that. And I Page 318 January 15-16,2008 -- I'll definitely support it, but -- and they -- they need to be the same. MS. ARNOLD: And I would then invite the Special Master and the Code Enforcement Board members, because these are their rules. This is not staffs rules. These are theirs. And I'm just simply bringing them before you because that's what they adopted. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So, you're going to bring them back to those two bodies and -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir. But -- but I want to -- if I can interrupt, sir, just for a second? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And I'm not done yet, but go ahead. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Look it, both those -- that -- the Code Enforcement Board, you've basically given them jurisdiction over the particular things. The same thing with the Special Magistrate. They work for you, okay. And if -- if their rules are different and -- and it's a -- it's an issue offaimess, okay. This board has every, every opportunity and every right to say I want them to be the same, especially when it has to do with the public comment and public defense times and things like that in that particular issue. So, I understand Michelle's point and I understand where she is. She's between a rock and a hard place, okay. She's trying to give you a vetted policy, the first time this has ever gone in front of the board, I believe. MS. ARNOLD: No. They've seen this -- the Code Enforcement Board -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: For a year. MS. ARNOLD: -- rules -- no. Several times. They've -- they've adopted rules for the past three years at minimum. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And this is the first time for Page 319 January 15-16,2008 the Special Master. MS. ARNOLD: The first time for the Special Master. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So, I'm just trying -- and we're trying to get it laid out so that you can see it, and ifthere's any problems with it, we can get it resolved and addressed. And I think maybe some advice from the board of county commissioners would help us to get over some of the hurdles that we've got placed -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think if you just identified them for us so that we could understand the magnitude of the problem and -- and make some determination, then that would maybe make them the same, unless there's a -- an argument that suggests they shouldn't be the same. But I'd just like to have -- have these discrepancies identified for us so that we can make a decision on. That's all I need to do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And, personally, I'd like them the same, but does anybody have anything else before I go to my questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just add one thing if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that is when -- when people are presenting, I find with us if -- if we give them five minutes, they'll take all five minutes. They begin to waffle along that. If we give them three minutes, they get right to the point, say what they have to say. They're better prepared and say what they have to say. In this case, if they're presenting, if Mr. Homeowner is presenting before the Special Magistrate, possibly wouldn't need as much time, but if it has had to go all the way to the board, then he might need more time because he has to bring in defense. Maybe that's the reason for the two differences. But, anyway, I just threw that in. Page 320 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, yeah. Let me say, I'm -- I'm not sure if that's apple to apples. The public comes before us, wants us to take action on a certain thing. In -- in these two bodies, the Special Master and Code Enforcement Board, the government is saying you've done something wrong and you need to correct it. And -- and in my opinion, they need to have whatever time they -- they have, and it's up to that body, if it's redundant, you know, the Code Enforcement Board is great. And I know the Special Master controls her room. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't mean to shorten it at all. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I meant was it -- I think they need the ten minutes for the one and twenty minutes for the other -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- only in order to present, but it does keep people on track. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Miss Arnold, you're asking us to approve these rules and regulations. Is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Endorse them, yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it approval or endorse? MS. ARNOLD: Accept them, I guess. Approval. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: Subject to your approval. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's an approval. Okay. There's -- there's two iterations of this Code Enforcement Board. Which iteration are you asking us or are you going to bring back to us? Is it the underlying strike through? MS. ARNOLD: The underlying and strike throughs is just there Page 321 January 15-16,2008 to show you what changes were made, so they're the same version. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I see. MS. ARNOLD: The -- the one that is not crossed on, the line is just taking out those cross two wording and adding the underlined version, and that's the document that was signed by the code board members. (Commissioner Coyle left the room.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Page 2 of the Code Enforcement Board rules and regulations. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Section 4B, this is a conflict to another the resolution. MS. ARNOLD: Section 4B. CHAIRMAN HENNING: B. If members miss two of the three successive board meetings without satisfactory here or may be forfeit the appointment. It needs to roll in with -- I forget which ordinance it is, but it's dealing with advisory boards. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. So, it's actually 5B under attendance? CHAIRMAN HENNING: 4B. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 5B. I'm sorry. Yeah. You're absolutely right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why does it need to be the same as other advisory boards? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we appoint the -- the Code Enforcement Board under this ordinance, just like any other -- other one. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I question that only because maybe they put that in there because they have more of a problem and, so, they wanted to make sure that they had one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. This -- these rules cannot be Page 322 January 15-16,2008 different than an ordinance which is the higher document. And the County Attorney, I'm sure, can say something. MR. KLATZKOW: I agree with that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It has a simple majority vote instead of a super majority vote, I'm taking, and that's the way it's always been. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. That -- that -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- has always been in there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Section 5. No, I'm sorry. Section 6B, wouldn't -- wouldn't it be better to say -- I mean, the personal interest, it would have to follow -- it would have -- definitely follow 112 of the statutes, but I'm not sure if it has to follow the Ethics Ordinance. Does the Code Enforcement Board go under the Ethics Ordinance, the gifts policy? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It does? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I think it needs to reflect the statutes and -- and the Ethics Ordinance. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. Which section was that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was Section 6B, as in boy. Each member present casting a vote of the board, any member has a personal interest in the matter, I think we just refer to the Ethics Ordinance in the Florida Statute. They -- they have to file a -- a disclose -- or their income. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Financial. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Financial. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Financial form? Is that correct? They have to file -- Page 323 January 15-16, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, and they do. Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Then they follow under 112 then. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then Section 9 should actually -- shouldn't that be incorporated, or in Section 6B, shouldn't that move down to Section 9 so it kinds of flows? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I think that the -- that was an addition that occurred with this revision and the board wanted to express that. They're subject to those rules and all applicable rules in the sunshine. So, you're suggesting combining it with six? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I -- it would flow better, I think. And on Page 10, Michelle, Section 5, the second paragraph, I -- I don't know what it means, so if you could clarify it for me. For all orders imposed, these fines should be rendered after April 16th, 1999. MS. ARNOLD: Each. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: Page-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Actually, it's two sections. Article-- Article 5. MS. ARNOLD: Article 5. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's the -- it's the page previous to the signature page. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it says -- in my book, says, Page 10. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Section 5. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. It's Section 5, not article. Okay. Okay. Section 5, the board, and it's at its discretion that -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second sentence, for all orders Page 324 January 15-16,2008 imposing fines and liens. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. That is related to -- that was previously in the rules, and that was relating to giving the order of the board super priority status, so they -- when we -- when they file a lien and there's a foreclosure action or some other action, it's kind of equivalent to that bank note that is held by the mortgage -- for the mortgage. And it's also giving -- no, not mortgage. I mean, for the taxes. So, it's giving the lien equivalent status as thees. And the reason why this is all underlined is that was moved from one article to another article. It just was reformatted. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not looking at the underlined verSIOn. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What I heard you say is the underlined version just shows the changes, and I'm assuming the one that doesn't have the underlying strike through is -- is what you're asking to us adopt. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I don't need that answered now. Can you send me an e-mail with that -- what that means? MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. The last one for the Code Enforcement Board, miscellaneous, it's my understanding that you cannot -- okay, that's affirmative vote. I'm sorry. It's Section 6, one section down from the one we just talked to. It's my understanding that we cannot foreclose on a lien on homesteaded property. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that correct? Page 325 January 15-16,2008 MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So, that isn't what it says here, because the no lien imposed pursuant to -- to this article shall continue more than 20 years. I think that's just on homesteaded property; right? MS. ARNOLD: On all -- all of our liens are only good for 20 years. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. That's what that's saying. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. But you can't foreclose on homesteaded properties. MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's not stated in here. Does it need to be stated in here since you have this part? MS. ARNOLD: I don't think it's necessary but, I mean, I guess I'll have to defer to the County Attorney's office. What we typically do, and maybe it will be helpful if I explain the process. Once the board takes action or the Special Master takes action on any of their cases and they file an order, the order is recorded on the -- in the public record and then there's an imposition of fine process. If there are fines that have been accrued for failure to timely comply or if there's operational costs or court costs associated, and they didn't pay it timely, we impose a lien on their property in a separate public hearing process. After a three-month period, after that has been filed in the public record if payment is not yet received, the document is forwarded to the County Attorney's office for their review and handling. If it's the homesteaded property, the County Attorney's office knows not to foreclose on it. If it's a small enough amount, you know, that is something that we can send to the collection agency, that's what typically is done. Page 326 January 15-16,2008 If it's a larger amount, the County Attorney's office tries to make contact with the property owner and tried to obtain compliance if that's something that has not yet been done and try to look at the fine in relationship to what the violation is. And you have had several items on your agenda where the County Attorney's office, along with my office, has brought matters back to you after compliance has been made and there's negotiation of the fees. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. So, you let us know if it needs to be in here or not. MR. KLATZKOW: A lot of this is already in our ordinances. They're just taken from the ordinance and put into the rules. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Can we move on to the Special Master, please? Page 3 -- or five. Section 3. The office of Special Master shall assign case numbers to each case and schedule a hearing. Doesn't your -- your staff assign a case number. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, and that's what it's being referred to, as the office of the Special Master. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: When it -- when it says office of the Special Master, it's referring to our office in charge of the Special Master process. When it says just simply Special Magistrate or Master, then it's referring to that individual. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you put a definition in there of office Special Master, because to me it appears that the Special Master, who is under contract with the board of commissioners, her office or herself is the office of the Special Master. Do you know what I mean? Is it -- is it clarified in the ordinance? MS. ARNOLD: I don't have it in the front of me but I think it is. Page 327 January 15-16,2008 I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Well, my concern is -- is that it will change and -- and the Special Master would do all this, which would cost a lot more if it's coming from an attorney in this case. So, we just have some kind of definition what the -- what the office of Special Master is. MS. ARNOLD: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Page 6Q, in the event of violation is the -- it is a violation described under Florida Statutes. The Special Master shall notify the local government body. That's -- that's us -- MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- correct? Which will make a reasonable repair required to bring this property into compliance and charge the violator for the reasonable cost. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's what happens on -- on nuisance abatement? MS. ARNOLD: That happens when there are violations that can be cured by the county and I'll give you an example. Ifwe do have a litter case and the Special Master or the Code Enforcement Board requires them to remove the litter, and they don't do it within the timeframe afforded them under that order, they -- both bodies can notify the county and say if it's -- the county finds it reasonable to do, the county can go ahead and abate that violation and assess the costs to the property owner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So, that -- that -- those items Come to the board? I've never seen one. MS. ARNOLD: They go to the County Manager. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Shall notify the government body. Page 328 January 15-16, 2008 We're the government body. So, if it goes to the County Manager, can -- can we clarify that also, please? MS. ARNOLD: So, rather than the local government body, you want it to say the County Manager? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who does it go to? Does it go to -- I mean, it doesn't go on our agenda. We're the governing body of Collier County Board of Commissioners, not the County Manager. And we're not the County Manager. MS. ARNOLD: I'm just --I guess I would -- if you want it to come to you, we can modify -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does it now? MS. ARNOLD: -- the process. No, it doesn't. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I've got enough to do. Do you -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't need to read any more. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't need to read anymore, no. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I agree with that. Okay. And we -- we covered that, this one thing under -- under that. That's the only thing I have. MS. ARNOLD: And 1'11-- I'll make that change in both the Special Master and the Code Enforcement Board rules because that paragraph is exactly the same. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. County Manager? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir. I just -- under miscellaneous, I'd like to clear up one thing real quick, okay? There's things in there that either says the Special Magistrate Page 329 January 15-16,2008 and/or the Code Enforcement Board can make changes that are -- that -- that -- so that they keep their processes in keeping with ordinances that you should either change or pass new ones and/or Florida Statutes. I just want to make sure if it's not in there, that it's understood that when those processes are changed by a vote of the board and/or of the Special Magistrate, that the changes come back to this board soon after so that you can see what they are. So, because you're -- you're either approving and/or affirming these rules, and if they change, you know, and -- and all ofa sudden they've changed and they've been enacted with a change for two years and you don't see them again and then all of a sudden the question comes up, I don't want you as the to be taken back, so there needs to be something in here that says, if that's going to happen and it's going to change, then the board needs to be notified at a board meeting soon thereafter. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. If the board adopts these rules, they can't be changed without the board to add or subtract anything out of the rules and regulations. Is that correct? MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is that sufficient enough direction? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir. We can make that change. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'll entertain a motion to continue this item. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any discussion on the motion? All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 330 January 15-16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Item #lOE RESOLUTION 2008-18: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PRIME HOMEBUILDERS, INC., IN A PRIVATE-PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP WITH COLLIER COUNTY, AS AN APPLICANT FOR THE "REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DAVIS COMMUNITY WORKFORCE HOUSING INNOVATION PILOT PROGRAM" (CWHIP) FOR THE 2008 APPLICATION CYCLE- ADOPTED COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, that would -- that would give us 10E, which is a recommendation, and you kind of heard this at the public petition piece, and -- and it was approved three to two that this be heard, 10E, and that was done yesterday. 10E is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopts a resolution recommending Prime Home Builders, Inc. in a private-public partnership with Collier County as an applicant for the representative, Mike Davis Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program, CWHIP, for the 2008 application cycle, miss Marcy Krumbine, your Housing and Human Services Director, will present. MS. KRUMBINE: Thank you. F or the record, Marcy Krumbine, Director of Housing and Human Services. I'd like to take a couple of minutes just to explain what we're Page 331 January 15-16,2008 looking for here and what this application is all about. This is a CWHIP application. The State of Florida has made available $62.4 million for this year to fund workforce housing projects. They have divided the state into several districts and several types of needs. Weare in the south district and we have been designated tier one for being a high cost county. And along with us we are competing with those dollars with Martin, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Monroe County . They -- there's several districts in the state and they have guaranteed to fund three projects in high cost counties and one definitely in the south project -- in the south region. And the awards are going to be made in July of2008. We've also been designated in tier two as a high growth county. We're number three as a high growth county, and so IPP's projects in tier one are not scoring high enough, then they'll go to tire two as well. And three projects will be funded in that category. And then, lastly, they will score and award projects in the category of innovation, so they're going to be categorizing them based on projects for high costs, projects in high growth and innovative projects. And awards may be for more than one project per county or last year Sarasota and a couple of other counties, Palm Beach County, got two awards in a year. I just want to put this in the category of why this is a good idea for Collier County. And the recommendation of the staffis to approve the application for this developer to apply for CWHIP funding. That's all that we're asking for is you to say, it's a good idea, go ahead and apply for it, and then it would be up to the state to decide whether or not this scores enough to fund it. First of all, the affordable housing commission has endorsed it, and then there's a couple of key items that I want to bring to your Page 332 January 15-16,2008 attention, because these are some things that the board has in the past asked for these types of projects. This is an inclusive, mixed income community, meaning that there's market rate, there will be these that will be designated by income, and by job opportunity or -- or how they serve as essential serVIces careers. The product is upscale. It all looks the same. There's no differentiation between one or the other. It's in construction now, okay, so there are units that are already built and these will be designated for brand new units that have not been built yet, but the -- the -- the project is completely through all zoning, all -- it's got the go ahead everywhere else. This reaches essential service personnel. You'd ask for that in the past, that we start expanding who we provide housing for. The developer has already made a contribution. They've given up their developer fee. They're selling these at cost, and then taking $100,000 per unit right after that and that is direct to the owner-occupant. And -- and our favorite is that there are no county dollars attached to it. (Chairman Henning leaves the room.) MS. KRUMBINE: This is your opportunity, commissioners, to get $5 million from the State of Florida into the county for an affordable housing project. And, so, that's why the affordable housing commission is recommending and staff is recommending that you approve this as a memorandum of understanding and a resolution so that the builder could go ahead and apply for the CWHIP funding. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Marcy, everything you went down through the list to -- I can't see a possible objection. We don't -- we're not actually competing with our other CWHIP Page 333 January 15-16,2008 program that's out there. We're competing globally across the whole state. MS. KRUMBINE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if for some reason if this -- if the other program did fail, this one may succeed, you know. MS. KRUMBINE: Right. And/or both of them could succeed and we could bring $10,000,000 to Collier County from the state. The two things that I also want to just remind you of is this money is available this year. We keep talking about the state of funds and the -- what's going on. Well, all of my state and federal programs are being cut as well in grants, so this is money that's available this year. There is no guarantee that this program will be opened and available for next year. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is one of the easiest things we've had in the last two days. I make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion. I was going to make a comment also. It almost feels like a little bit of inclusionary zoning, and from the things I could see and the things that I've read, I thought people would be proud to live there. How great it is that people don't have to hang their head and say, oh, I just live there. I -- I'm just very pleased with what you're doing, and so my second is a strong second. Do we have any further comments? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just going to say that you cleared up a question that I had. I did want to make sure that it wasn't in direct competition with the other CWHIP program that we have here. MS. KRUMBINE: They're all competing together for scoring. And, you know, I -- I just want to kind of suggest to you that you take it out of your hands and just let the state score it and decide what they want to do with it. Page 334 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. KRUMBINE: It could bring you money or not. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Any further comments? All those in favor, signify -- (Chairman Henning entered the room.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. Can we have -- what is the motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: The motion is to approve it -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and a strong second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Strong second. I'm not going to support the motion again. I -- I think the -- the public needs to -- to know and have at least the chance to say -- I mean, this is a different animal than when it came through a few months ago for zoning. MS. KRUMBINE: Would I be able to respond to that, commissioner? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Please. MS. KRUMBINE: And -- and I'll also defer to Joe Schmitt, too, and that is that this project has been for all the public bidding and it -- and there's no changes in the project. The -- what's being built is exactly the same. It's home ownership. It's exactly the same. The only difference is, is that now they're going to take 50 units and income qualify people who could purchase them or qualify them based on where they work. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MS. KRUMBINE: And I would turn it around to think, now, let's say next year I might be coming before you with a project that the state has said for maybe community physician innovative project, and they're thinking, well, there's not enough physicians coming to Page 335 January 15-16,2008 Florida, so we're going to designate X number of dollars to now bring physicians to Florida. And, so, another builder comes to me and says, well, I'm going to designate these units for -- for physicians for this project, and we want to put that grant in. And, so, the question is, you know, are we going to vet that to the public, too. It's all just a matter of who's buying the same units. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you know the stigma associated with it. I mean, it's -- it's out there, and there's nothing that we can do for it. But the public is just, you know, not included into this process. That's all. MS. KRUMBINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And, you know, I probably would support it anyways, but it's not about me anyways. I think it's about the public. That's my feelings. Okay. No other discussion, all in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? Aye. The motion carries three to one. MS. KRUMBINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we're done. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I just want to make -- I just want to make sure, and Marcy, come on back here for just a second, please. I understand the motion and I also understand what the staffs recommendation was, and there is a resolution to be approved and there's a memorandum of understanding also to be approved and signed by the chairman as far as that motion is concerned. I just want to make sure that's done. Page 336 January 15-16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was that the motion to sign the MO-- MS. KRUMBINE: That's -- well, that was the staffs-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and the resolution? MS. KRUMBINE: -- recommendation. That's part of the approval process to -- MR. MUDD: Just asking. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. MR. MUDD: I just want to be clear. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's -- that's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the second, was that a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess that's -- that's it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, and that -- we're done outside of Staff and Commissioner General Communications. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. You're first, right? You want to be second? MR. MUDD: That would be an interesting change. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel, do you have anything for County Attorney's Communications? MR. WEIGEL: Just two. Thank you. I'll give one and Mr. Klatzkow will give the other. You have become aware, some of you, commissioners, of being individually served with amended complaints in a lawsuit called James and Sherry Marshall versus Collier County. Michelle Arnold, Jeff Letourneau now includes the Code Enforcement Board as well as the Code Enforcement Board individual members and the board of county commissioner individual members. Page 337 January 15-16,2008 By virtue of there being so many individual persons now being sued in this lawsuit, the County Attorney office, of course, is reviewing all aspects of this very carefully. It would appear based on the type of complaint filed, what we believe are deficiencies in the complaints, in the complaint that's been filed, that the County Attorney office and current counsel already approved will be able to file appropriate motions in response to the -- to these amended complaint that's now being served upon you. There is the possibility most probably it would come back at the next board meeting to indicate to you if in fact there was a need pursuant to the board's policy for individual counsel to be provided for both board of County commissioner -- commissioners and Code Enforcement Board commissioners. At this point, I don't think that's going to be necessary but, of course, in part that will depends upon how the Court responds to our response to the initial complaints that have been served upon you. I just want to inform you of that at this point in time. If, in fact, there was something untoward between now and the next board meeting that required us in the defense of and the protection of board of county commissioners, individual commissioners, and Code Enforcement Board individual members, the County Attorney would, with your approval or nod today in fact take whatever action is necessary to secure counsel. We don't think that's going to be necessary, but I wanted to inform you and perhaps get, I'll call it preliminary approval if that -- if the required circumstances came into effect before the next board meeting. So, if you -- if you have any questions? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala is shaking her head yes. Commissioner Coletta? Yes. Commissioner Halas. Page 338 January 15-16,2008 You have a majority. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Fine. And thank you. And I'll turn it over momentarily then to Mr. Klatzgow. MR. KLATZGOW: Yes. On Old Cypress just to make sure we're adhering to the board's directive, we will be preparing an official interpretation. It will be whether or not all the residential lots in Old Cypress must comply with the 25 foot preserve setback, including the Greiders. If we're incorrect on that, you know, we'd like to know, otherwise that's how we will be proceeding. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I think you're asking for all residents on the preserve -- MR. KLATZGOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- not all residents in Old Cypress. MR. KLATZGOW: Yes. Everybody bordering a preserve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Yeah. That was my understanding is we want some kind of official interpretation. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Official interpretation, would it come from the County Attorney or community development? MR. KLATZGOW: It's coming from community development. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I thought. Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And you have enough citations of the board's laws to ask the question? MR. KLATZGOW: Yes. I believe we're fine now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So, you're going to use the PUD, the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan? MR. KLATZGOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And is there a timeframe when that's coming back? Page 339 January 15-16,2008 MR. KLATZGOW: That I would defer to the zoning director. She'll be writing the opinion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: And there is a -- there's an advertising requirement for the opinion, so -- so, I'd say you'd see it within the next three months, or sooner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But we're still going forward if -- if no action by the -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we are for TCO. CHAIRMAN HENNING: TCO. MR. MUDD: No action, we're -- we're going to extinguish TCO as of the 21st of February -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: -- but that's when it falls off. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Anything else? MR. WEIGEL: That's it from us. CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have -- Mr. Ochs sent each commissioner an e-mail that basically talks about the Florida government utility authority. Miss Kirby was here yesterday and spoke during public participation basically about the neighborhood information meeting that they had at the Golden Gate Community Center on Monday evenmg. Just to make sure you're aware, there was a letter that was sent by the Youngquist brothers to -- and it was titled Folley on the top, that basically where they -- they withdraw their petition to go 24 seven. There's been a legal opinion that says by right, by -- by -- because they're a government entity, that they have that right. I think some concessions were made at that in meeting with Florida Government Utility Authority to have meetings on a monthly Page 340 January 15-16,2008 basis, bring DEP in to talk about the drilling aspects of the permit at the next meeting. So, there's where we are on that particular issue. And we'll keep monitoring that one for any complaints that we get from the community . They still have to abide by our noise ordinance. And I believe Miss Kirby yesterday mentioned that they were bringing in an electronic grill instead of a diesel, engine grill, and that should help significantly. The next item, I -- I gave every commissioner a copy of this on Monday. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at it. This is the Public Service Announcement from the Florida Association of Counties. I reviewed all four of these. I -- I find them of no real use to the public. It raises -- it raises angst and concerns and then sends them nowhere. It never really addresses what the issue is, where -- you know, what's on the ballot, never talks about that stuff. And it -- they -- they gave it to us -- I know there an e-mail that floating around because F AC had -- had sent that they were -- they were going to do these. My -- my recommendation as the manager to the board is we not play these on our TV channel. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. All it does is it adds more confusion. MR. MUDD: That's my recommendation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I agree. I -- I didn't -- I saw no value in it, but I would like to -- I know that you're going to be -- you and Commissioner Coyle will -- will be in a panel discussion tomorrow evening, and I'm sure that the county will be -- will be videotaping it anyway, and possibly after your review, that would be a good thing to be running on our channel real quickly so that people Page 341 January 15-16,2008 can -- can take a look at it and -- and form their own opinions, but it's going to be a pro and con panel. Is that correct? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Ab Skinner and I are going to layout the facts and the Lieutenant Governor and Commissioner Coyle are going to talk -- Commissioner Coyle is going to take the con and the Lieutenant Governor is going to take the pro. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. So, I think that might be an excellent thing to run because we do need to be running something so that the public can -- can take a look and form their own opinions. MR. MUDD: If that's the board's desire, I can tape the whole thing and put it on the TV channel. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commission Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The only thing that I would want in the beginning and the end, that it's not the desire of county government to stear you on a vote. We just want you to be an informed voter. MR. MUDD: Sir, we can -- we can have a disclaimer at the beginning that basically says that this not -- this is not the opinion of the county government -- of the board of county commissioners, this is being provided as a public service. I think that's what you're getting at. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Put the word "necessary". Not necessarily the opinion, because it may the opinion of some of us individually. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'm going to get with Mr. Torre to make sure we get it worded correctly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Paid political ad by for campaign account of -- Page 342 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Being that you have both opinions, it should be clear to the audience. MR. MUDD: The other -- the other item that I -- that I need to -- to at least bring you up to speed on, the next meeting I am going to bring something to the board of county commissioners that talks about a buyout program for some employees. We're not getting the -- the reduction to employees from attrition that we had planned for. We're -- we're close along. I'll bring that whole plan to you. I -- I understand this is not a give-away. This is modest, and this is government. And I will make sure that I confine it into -- into those particular categories, but I just want to make you aware that I'm going to bring something to the board of county commissioners, to you at the next meeting. So, if somebody says something, you know they're doing this, I don't want you to -- yeah, we're talking about it, okay, and we're working out the options and I'm also laying out on all the facts. The last piece that I've got is we've taken a look at -- let me -- let me -- you have my preamble just a little bit better. I got ahead of myself just a bit. The last couple of years, may it be the chairman or other -- another commissioner, have gone to Washington, D.C. to talk to our representatives and senators and their staff about particular priority needs for this county for the federal program. We have not brought you that priority list yet. We're still working on it. We're still getting all the -- and we're going to do that. But for planning purposes, and the board needs to decide if any board member is going to go, if you just want me to go, how you want that to work, and I need to focus in on the date, okay, because it's important because where we would normally go, they're on break, but they don't get back from break quick enough to get your wishes put into sample legislation to move forward. Page 343 January 15-16,2008 We've got a cutoff of 1 March, and they -- it just so happens they take -- they take their break prior to that date. And then you also to worry about when we have board meetings and -- and other issues. My recommendation is -- and my wife will shoot me again, because every year I've always -- I've either taken her birthday, and now I'm taking away Valentine's day, so she's not going to be very happy, but it's okay. She understands. It goes with the job. Her birthday is the 29th of February. I'm going to be able to do that this year, but I won't be able to do Valentine's Day, so we made a trade off. But my recommendation is we fly out on the 13th in the afternoon or the evening, we work our meetings with our two Congressmen and two Senators and their staff on the 14th, and depending on what the flight arrangements could be made the night of the 14th that we fly back on the night of the 14th or first thing on the 15th. So, I just wanted to talk about those days. Why? Congressmen and Senators have a tendency to come to Washington on Monday and they have a tendency to leave for something on Friday, so you've got to get business done that Tuesday to Thursday while you've got them and their staff. I mean, you can get their staff and you say, yeah, we'll bring it to him or her, and we'll see if we can get it on. But it's nice if the Congressman or Senator are there and they're telling their Chief of Staff or their Chief of Legislative Affairs this is what I want to have happen. And then you cut down the confusion and you don't get stuck in somebody's inbox, and all of a sudden, they -- they forget about you. So, we -- we have two Congressmen, two Senators to meet. I believe we can get that all done on the 14th, and get that resolved, and then get our wishes so that while the members are gone, their staffs are Page 344 January 15-16,2008 working on the one suspense of 1 March with -- with our lobbyist and -- and our staff. What's the board's desire? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I -- when we went last year, I got to be totally honest with you, I thought you were one of the most effective representatives I've ever seen for the county in my life. You knew everybody. I mean, I -- I couldn't believe it. You walked down the street, it was like you were going back to a small home town. Everybody seemed to know you. It was unreal. Without a doubt, you need to go. It's absolutely no doubt about that. I don't know if it's really necessary, and I'm going to leave that to my fellow commissioners for anybody to have to accompany you. I feel like our local representatives that I interface with them on a continuous basis for the level that I can work with a man. What you can do in Washington, especially with the lobbyist, I think that in some cases that a commissioner, myself or another commissioner, might be a bit of an anchor around you, because I -- I seen you move from spot to spot, too, and you told me about how important it is that you cover a great distance in a short period of time to be able to fit as much as you can into a day. And I can tell you by the end of that day or two days that we worked together, I could just barely walk. It was -- it was -- it was quite remarkable. And I'm sure that I slowed you down in some ways. So, my feeling is that it's an absolute essential part that you go. If somebody has to go with you, that's -- that's something else altogether. MR. MUDD: Can I -- can I respond to that, sir? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, it's -- I understand that I'm -- I'm good at that, okay, that aspect. I'm going to argue with that point, but I've had a lot Page 345 January 15-16,2008 of practice in one of my previous lives. But I will tell you it's absolutely important that an elected official go with me because you have elected official talking to elected official and I can't bridge that gap. I just can't. I'm not an elected official, and there's a connection that transpires between that that opens doors. If it's just me, I might not be able to see the Congressman or Senator, that it will be his Chief of Staff. And I'm not sure we'll be as effective getting your priorities across. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm done. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I was going to suggest if you had somebody, I didn't know if it was Jim Coletta or Frank Halas, but if you had somebody that you went up with on a regular basis, it's good also for them to see familiar faces, not -- not rotating. So, I would suggest either Commissioner Halas gone up with you. I know that he -- he's a very good representative for us, or Commissioner Coletta. I think either one would be excellent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll volunteer to go ifno one else would like to. I think we've established a good relationship up there with our two Congressmen and our Senators. I know that just recently Congressman Max's people stopped in the office and wanted to know if I was going to be coming up there this coming legislative session. So, ifthere's no one else that would like to go, I would like to accompany County Manager. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you would be excellent to go. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The chairman of the board is the spokesperson of the board of commissioners. It was when Commissioner Halas was the commissioner, it was when Page 346 January 15-16,2008 Commissioner Coletta was commissioner, when all of us are commISSIOners. And what is being suggested, Commissioner Fiala is -- is not in keeping of -- of policy of the board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but I -- I think that we should -- I think people who recognize them regularly -- you always feel a more familiar warm welcome when somebody, oh, good, it's good to see you again, when that -- when that continues, and I -- I -- I really -- I really would like to see Commissioner Halas continue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Comment if! may. Last year when I got ready to go, I realized that Commissioner Halas had bridged some gaps that I -- the year before, so I included him in going with me, and it was a tremendous help having him there because the recognition was something. I'm not saying that you shouldn't go, but I think Commissioner Halas would be -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I'm not going to go ifanother commissioner is going. That is very problematic, if that's what you're suggesting. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it was -- it was a thought, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's -- there's no way that that flies with the Sunshine law. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, in that case, then just -- just to try to keep some -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Continuity. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- continuity to the whole thing, then would I suggest that Commissioner Halas be the point person to go. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think that fits the ordinance Page 347 January 15-16,2008 though. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. What ordinance? CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- the county commissioners' ordinance. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- I couldn't tell you. You have to ask the County Attorney. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's the policy been in the past with the board? MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Policy is one thing, ordinance is another. The ordinance that we would be referring to or the motion, the procedures ordinance before the board of county commissioners and its operations in the boardroom such as here, but if there's been a policy or a practice in the past, the board, of course, can determine on the floor, such as now, what the policy -- recognize what the policy has been and determine what action our policy shall be in the future. You're always subject under the procedures ordinance to a motion and vote to determine what the activity of the board or board member may be in the future. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commission Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The most important thing about this trip is to be effective, and -- and that's what I'm basing my entire . . opmIOn on. I want to be effective. I want to bring home the most bacon, if you will, and I want to make the best impression. And I don't think a revolving door of people can accomplish that. So, I stand nominating Commissioner Halas to go up there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will make it a motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Second. And I'm not going to support the change of this policy. I think-- Page 348 January 15-16,2008 always think that the chairman is the spokesperson of this board, whether it's here or in town, and it's the -- the will of the majority of the commissioners what the chairman says. And I -- I am appalled that -- that we're changing it. Yeah, and I think it was Commissioner Fiala -- or Commissioner Halas' opening comments when we're appointing chair, and I don't think this is right. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just -- just a couple of quick comments. I don't want you to take offense at anything, but there's some of us that have abilities that far exceed others and one of them is like Commissioner Coyle. He's going to be representing viewpoints maybe that aren't everybody's here, but when it comes to the debate tomorrow night. I mean, we just absolutely recognize the man with his gift and talents to be able to get up there and to be the person we'd like to have to speak a viewpoint. But, now, getting back to it, can the County Attorney tell me how problematic it is for Commissioner Henning to not go on this trip? MR. WEIGEL: Your question is to tell you how problematic it is ifMr. Henning does not go? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. Does go. In other words, if he does go. What would be -- what would be the implications of this, that it would be so negative that we couldn't have two representatives of the county in Washington at the same time. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I have -- I have counseled the Board of County Commissioners, this board and prior board members, for years that there is a potential for a problem or a violation of the Sunshine law when you have two or more commissioners together with -- with discussing business or matters that reasonably foreseeable come before the board in the future. Now, these things can be handled by what I call platooning, and Page 349 January 15-16,2008 that is that, for instance, if you have two commissioners going into an office, whether it's in Tallahassee or Washington, that one commissioner go in and the other commissioner not be in the office at that time or that there is certainly an understanding that only one commissioner speak to avoid potential issues of violation of the Sunshine law. In the past, to the consternation of commissioners from time to time, prior board -- prior board members than you sitting here, I have in fact counseled against traveling together, particularly long distances, where in fact there may be a perception of impropriety by the public who doesn't know that even in a crowded four-seater airplane such as the county used to have, that it was almost impossible to talk because of the noise inside the cockpit. But to the extent that two people are sitting together and outside of the purview of the others and they are board members, it can be problematic. And, so, from that standpoint where perception often rules over the facts, one must be cautious in regard to the situations of two or more commissioners coming together. The -- the case law and the Attorney General Sunshine manual talk about the fact that commissioners can be together at social events or golf or all kinds of things as long as they do not talk about matters that foreseeably come before the board as board business. So, it can be done, but it's -- it's a cautionary tale in regard to conducting oneself in the presence of another commissioner over distance. And that's all there is to it. MR. MUDD: And to help the board just a little bit if I can interject in that regard, the items that are going to be discussed are going to be approved by the board of county commissioners, okay, at a previous -- you know, a meeting that precedes the visits, so that's number one, so that you already know that the agenda that you've got has been discussed with your board and it's been done. Page 350 January 15-16,2008 And in regard to what happened last, because Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Coyle and a councilman accompanied, we had nine tasks. It's kind -- David, you and I talked about this a little bit. Each commissioner talked about three items. It was the same three items with each, the representative of the Senator, and ifthere was any discussion in that regard that went outside the presentation that was being made, the questions were addressed to me and the answers were given by me and that was it, so that there was no cross dialogue between the -- the representatives of Congress and the Senators and the commissioners and/or Congress or councilman that went. So, we -- we tried to limit that at great length. And if there was -- and in one particular regard a -- a Congressman understood the issues because of the mixture of who was represented, and there was a future item that he had concerns about, and he asked the two commissioners and the councilman to step outside. And you remember that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Very well. MR. MUDD: And I -- and I -- and I had to discuss the item with the Congressman in that regard. But we took measures to make sure that we didn't violate anything in the Sunshine law in that particular visit. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And would I ask again that Commissioner Henning keep an open mind on this and that he accompany the Henning -- or, excuse me -- the County Manager and Commissioner Halas, and that they work as a team under the guidelines of what the County Manager and the County Attorney have just discussed to be able to make it a -- a sure thing as far as a nonviolation of the Sunshine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I'm going to respond to that. There are pictures with local elected officials together with Page 351 January 15-16,2008 federal officials. There's an AGO where Senator Nelson, then Congressman Nelson, asked the State's Attorney, General Attorney's office, can I meet with a -- I think it was then city council in Washington, D.C. and over lunch to discuss business? Not only that can't be done, but meetings are not allowed outside of the jurisdiction of the board. I'm not going to put myself into it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That's fine, Commissioner Henning. I was just trying to find some grounds that make everybody comfortable. It's probably not one of those possible things to do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, before the question is called, I would like not to vote on this issue and leave -- stay neutral in regards to whether I should go or not go. I wish that Commissioner Coyle was here. That way I'd feel more comfortable. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, you don't have the -- you do not have the personal decision making to decide what -- what to vote on or what not based on comfort or other reasons. Only if you have a conflict would you be able to not vote, otherwise you're statutorily required if present to vote. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we continue this then to the next meeting? MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I'm just trying to -- if somebody's going to go, whoever it is, I'm just trying to give them a heads up about the date for travel, because it's easier -- it's cheaper to get it now while we're 30 days out, than it would be if! waited and got it closer up, then -- then the price goes up. And that's -- I learned about it yesterday -- well, within the last Page 352 January 15-16,2008 couple of days. I think Friday is when we really got tackled into it a little bit as far as the discount is concerned and members were going to be out and when their staff are going to around. And I thought it would be better to talk about it now so that if the board, whatever the board's desires are, at least we could book an airline ticket to try to get the cheapest rate. That's all I was trying to do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Do you want to vote on the motion or do you want to pull your motion or your motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm ready to vote on if -- if it can be done that way. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you going to keep your second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any more discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? Aye. The motion carries three to one. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I didn't vote. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you can't do that because, I mean, that's -- that's a Sunshine law problem right there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. I'll vote yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So, the motion carries three to one. MR. MUDD: That's all I have, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you. The item I wanted to talk about is, well, tomorrow is the Regional Planning Council meeting. It will be my last day as the chair there, but I still remain as the chair of the legislative committee for the five county -- seven county area. Page 353 January 15-16,2008 The reason I'm bringing this up is that we had not, only here but throughout all of Florida, there's been quite a bit of a breakdown of communications between the state level of government and the local level of government. What I'm proposing, and it's going to start with tomorrow's meeting, a little bit of an outreach to try to mend some of those bridges that we seem burned behind us last year over some of the Issues. We -- I think Commissioner Henning put it very well back about a meeting ago, that he made disagree with some of the policy to take place. It's better to deal with it in private meetings than in the public to try to beat up on each other and keep the animosity going to the point that solutions are never reached. And it's going to take a lot of work with members of not only our local delegation, but members of the -- of Governor Crist's cabinet to be able to move our issues forward in Collier County. So, starting with tomorrow's meeting, I'm having different members of the state legislative body, the Governor's cabinet, and also extending invitations to our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. to come to the meetings to meet with the membership and to try to repair some of the damage that's been done over the past year which has been substantial. At the meeting tomorrow is going to be Lieutenant Governor Codecamp, and he's going to be talking about several issues and meet with the membership, and I'm hoping to continues this over the years, that anyone that would like to attend the meeting and take part in this, they're more than welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. And you're not asking for anything. You're jut giving a report. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a report, commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commission Fiala. Page 354 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have nothing to report. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only thing I can say is congratulations on being the chair this year and hope -- I look forward to working with you and the staff. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wow, that's promising, Commissioner Coletta -- or Commissioner Halas. That's -- that's very nice of you to come and -- coming from you looking to work together for the people in Collier County. I just want to recognize the board hasn't endorsed Commissioner Coyle as the spokesperson tonight? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, they haven't. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or tomorrow night, his views or his views. And I just want to clarify that on the record. And we are adjourned. Thank you. ****Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted **** Item 16Al RESOLUTION 2008-01: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF SANTORINI VILLAS AT OLDE CYPRESS. THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item # 16A2 - Moved to Item # lOG Page 355 January 15-16, 2008 Item #16A3 - Moved to Item #10H Item #16A4 - Moved to Item #101 Item #16A5 - Moved to Item #10J Item #16A6 RESOLUTION 2008-02: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF CLASSICS PLANTATION ESTATES PHASE TWO, (LEL Y RESORT PUD) THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A7 FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST CATHOLIC CHURCH - LOCATED AT 625 111 TH AVENUE NORTH. NAPLES Item #16A8 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR CLASSIC PLANTATION ESTATES, PHASE 2B - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item #16A9 Page 356 January 15-16, 2008 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR MANGO CAY - W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item #16AI0 A SECOND (AND FINAL) ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE REQUIRED TIME FRAME FOR JOB CREATION FOR LUCY HAIR SALON, AN APPROVED PARTICIPANT IN THE FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND THE JOB CREA TION INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND SPECIFY THIS AS THE FINAL TIME EXTENSION FOR CREATING THE REQUIRED JOBS -LOCATED AT 331 ADAMS AVENUE, IMMOKALEE. FL Item #16All PAYMENT OF INVOICES TO WM. 1. VARIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,403 FOR WORK PERFORMED AT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CENTER - DUE TO PROCEDURAL ERRORS THAT OCCURRED IN THE CDES DIVISION Item #16A12 AN IMP ACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT FOR BENDERS ON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. AND WR-I ASSOCIATES, LIMITED TOTALING $354,434.84, DUE TO THE OVERP A YMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IMP ACT FEES - FOR THE GATEWAY SHOPPES AT NORTH BAY Page 357 January 15-16,2008 Item #16A13 THREE-PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF NAPLES FLORIDA, INC., MDG FOUNTAIN LAKES, LLC, AND COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AGREEING TO A 24-MONTH TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR FOUR TEMPORARY CARE UNITS TO BE RELOCATED TO PROPERTY OWNED BY FIRST ASSEMBLY WITHIN THE FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD PUD - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A14 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF SA TURNIA F ALLS PLAT ONE, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULA TIONS Item #16A15 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF MILLBROOK AT FIDDLER'S CREEK - W/STIPULATION Item #16A16 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF WAL-MART AT ARTESIA POINTE PUD - W/STIPULATION Item #16A17 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF AVE MARIA UNIT 17 - Page 358 January 15-16,2008 W /STIPULA TION Item #16A18 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF BROOKS VILLAGE- W/STIPULATION Item #16A19 TRANSFERRING .25 FTE FROM FUND 113 TO FUND 111 TO ALLOW TWO 35-HOUR POSITIONS (.875 FTE) IN CODE ENFORCEMENT TO BE FULL-TIME 40-HOUR EMPLOYEES - FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE SPECIALIST POSITIONS TO IMPROVE THE OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS AND THE EFFICIENCY OF THE DEPARTMENT Item #16Bl FIVE TEMPORARY EASEMENTS ACROSS APPROXIMA TEL Y 155.082 ACRES OF RIGHT OF WAY ALONG OIL WELL ROAD AND CAMP KEAIS ROAD CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY PURSUANT TO A DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (FISCAL IMP ACT: NONE) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item # 16B2 THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) PARA-TRANSIT VEHICLE THROUGH THE 5310 GRANT THAT ONLY REQUIRE A 10% MATCH THROUGH THE COUNTY ($8,928.70) - FOR THE ELDERLY AND PERSON'S WITH DISABILITIES PROGRAM Page 359 January 15-16,2008 Item #16B3 BID #08-5018 "V ANDERBIL T DRIVE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES" FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF PREFABRICATED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES CROSSING THE COCOHA TCHEE RIVER AND ONE OF ITS TRIBUTARIES ON THE WEST SIDE OF V ANDERBIL T DRIVE WITHIN THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THOMAS MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $607,790.00. (PROJECT #600331) - PART OF A LAP AGREEMENT WITH FDOT REIMBURSING COLLIER COUNTY UP TO $510,000 UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT Item #16B4 BID #08-5014 "GOLDEN GATE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES" FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF PREFABRICATED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES CROSSING THE SANTA BARBARA CANAL ON BOTH SIDES OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY WITHIN THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $389,576.20 - PART OF A LAP AGREEMENT WITH FDOT REIMBURSING COLLIER COUNTY UP TO $262,500 UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT Item #16B5 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO MOVE UNSPENT GENERAL FUND DOLLARS THAT ROLLED FROM FISCAL YEAR 2007 INTO FISCAL YEAR 2008 WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED FUND (427) TO THE BRIDGE Page 360 January 15-16, 2008 REP AIR/REHABILIT A TION PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $700,000 - ALLOWING REPAIRS TO THE BRIDGE OVER CHOKOLOSKEE BAY AT CHOKOLOSKEE AND REPLACE THE BRIDGE OVER THE GOLDEN GATE MAIN CANAL ON WHITE BOULEVARD Item #16B6 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCELS 130FEE, 131FEE, 132FEE AND 133FEE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V EMMANUEL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF NAPLES, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 07-3228-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044). (FISCAL IMP ACT $54.767.50) Item #16B7 STIPULA TED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL 207FEE, IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V JOSEPH NOEL, ET AL., CASE NO. 07-3200-CA AND A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL 208FEE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. PABLO M. SARDINAS, ET AL., CASE NO. 07-2824-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044). (FISCAL IMPACT $399.700) Item #16B8 EXTENSION OF COMMITMENT DEADLINES IN THREE DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS (DCAS), THE DAVIS BLVD. PROJECTS DCA RECORDED AT O.R. BOOK 4187, PAGE 2189 FOR 150 DAYS, HERITAGE BAY COMMONS DCA RECORDED AT O.R. BOOK 4162, PAGE 2725 FOR 90 Page 361 January 15-16,2008 DAYS AND THE MYSTIQUE DCA RECORDED AT O.R. BOOK 4187. PAGE 2310 FOR 90 DAYS Item #16B9 GENERAL PLANNING CONTRACTS WITH AIM ENGINEERING, INC. AND DYER, RIDDLE, MILLS & PRECOURT, INC. (DRMP) FOR CONTRACT #07-4198 FOR FIXED TERM MPO GENERAL PLANNING SERVICES - TO PROVIDE PRODUCTION SUPPORT TO THE MPO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES AND TO MEET FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CRITERIA Item #16BI0 CHANGE ORDER NO.1 TO CONTRACT NO. 07-4161 TO HASKINS INC. FOR THE CYPRESS WAY EAST AND IBIS WAY CROSSING STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 510141, IN THE AMOUNT OF $195,316 - TO INCREASE THE SCOPE BY ADDING APPROXIMATELY 520 FEET OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SOUTHERN TRIBUTARY OF THE PALM RIVER Item #16Bll BID #08-5015 "DAVIS BLVD. PHASE II (AIRPORT ROAD TO COUNTY BARN ROAD) M.S.T.D ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CONTRACT" TO CARIBBEAN LAWN & GARDEN OF SW NAPLES FL, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $71,354.00 (FUND 111 COST CENTERS 163841) - FOR APPROXIMA TEL Y TWO (2) MILES OF LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION Page 362 January 15-16,2008 Item #16B12 SELECTION COMMITTEES' RANKING OF A QUALIFIED FIRM AND A WARD A CONTRACT UNDER RFP 08-5006 FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE 1-75 AND EVERGLADES BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE JUSTIFICATION REPORT (UR), IN THE AMOUNT OF $639,819.50 - AS DET AILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16B13 COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT TO EVICT MAUREEN MORAN, INC., ITS PRINCIPALS, AFFILIATE ENTITIES OR PERSONS, OR ANY COMBINATION THEREOF, FROM COUNTY OWNED PREMISES IDENTIFIED IN LEASE AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 4, 1997, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE PURSUIT OF HOLDOVER RENT, DAMAGES, AND COSTS DUE AND OWING TO COLLIER COUNTY UNDER THE LEASE AGREEMENT AND AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW - FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COUNTY ROAD 92, GOODLAND AND USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OFF-SITE PARKING FOR THE BARGE MARINA AT GOODLAND BRIDGE Item #16B14 THREE (3) FUNDING AGREEMENTS WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1,500,000 PROVIDING ASSISTANCE WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THREE (3) STORMW A TER Page 363 January 15-16,2008 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS - FOR THE LASIP ROYAL WOOD LAKE INTERCONNECTS (NO. 511011) PROJECT, THE FREEDOM PARK (NO. 510185) PROJECT AND THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (NO. 518031) CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE 1 Item #16B15 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND MAGNUM CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CORP. D/B/A MCM CORP. ("MCM") TO RESOL VE ALL CLAIMS AND DISPUTES ARISING FROM COLLIER COUNTY BID/CONTRACT NO. 04-3653 ENTERED INTO WITH MCM TO BUILD THE GOLDEN GATE GRADE SEPARATED OVERPASS AND FOR THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD (FISCAL IMP ACT $190.589.35) Item #16B16 REJECT RFP NO. 08-4199 FOR "CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK FOR OIL WELL ROAD" AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO RE-SOLICIT THE PROJECT. PROJECT # 60044 Item #16Cl BID #07-4186 FOR THE FURNISHING AND DELIVERY OF POT ASSIUM PERMANGANA TE TO UNIV AR USA INCORPORATED IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $200,000 - USED IN THE TREATMENT OF RA W WATER CONVERTING IT INTO POTABLE WATER Page 364 January 15-16,2008 Item # 16C2 BID #08-5005 FOR THE PURCHASE OF BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS TO FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED AS THE PRIMARY VENDOR AND MAINLINE SUPPL Y COMPANY AS THE SECONDARY VENDOR IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $540,089.64 - REQUIRED TO MANAGE AND MAINTAIN COUNTY OWNED POTABLE WATER SERVICES Item #16C3 REJECT THE RESULT OF BID NO. 07-4193, ATTAINED BY INTERNATIONAL BALER CORPORATION TO FURNISH AND INSTALL A HORIZONTAL BALER, FOR NAPLES AIRPORT RECYCLING CENTER PROJECT NUMBER 590031 - TO REDUCE THE MANUAL LABOR REQUIRED TO OPERATE WHILE PRODUCING MORE BALES OF MATERIALS PER WEEK Item #16C4 A WARD RFQ #2007-0920B COLLIER COUNTY SEASONAL AND YEAR-ROUND BUSINESS 'HOW TO RECYCLE' VIDEOS TO THE NAPLES STUDIO IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,800 - TO ENHANCE MANDATORY BUSINESS RECYCLING OUTLINED IN COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2004-50 Item #16Dl GRANT AGREEMENT NO. 07071 IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000 Page 365 January 15-16,2008 FROM THE FLORIDA BOATING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANT PROGRAM TO REMOVE DERELICT VESSELS; AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - FOR PRESERVING AND ENHANCING WATERWAYS AND ESTUARIES BY REMOVING THE FORTY-EIGHT KNOWN DERELICT VESSELS WITHIN THE COUNTY Item # 16D2 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ALEXIS DEJESUS AND REBECCA DEJESUS (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT VISTA III AT HERITAGE BAY, UNIT 1503, NORTH NAPLES- DEFERRING $19.411.65 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D3 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH GILBERTO SANCHEZ AND AURA SANCHEZ (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FORAN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT VISTA III AT HERITAGE BAY, UNIT 1507, NORTH NAPLES- DEFERRING $19.411.65 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D4 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH FRANGILE BLANC AND GININE BLANC (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 25, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.52 IN IMPACT Page 366 January 15-16,2008 FEES Item #16D5 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ENRIQUE PEREZ SANTOS AND MADAY ENRIQUEZ (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 22, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.52 IN IMPACT FEES Item # 16D6 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH EDWIN SANT AELLA AND RAFAELA DELGADO (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 9, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $13,616.20 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D7 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MICHEL PEREZ PEREZ AND ALIS HERNANDEZ PIZA T (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 30, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.52 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D8 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH KARLA CAMPOS (OWNER) FOR Page 367 January 15-16, 2008 DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 12, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES- DEFERRING $13.616.20 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D9 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH IRMA ROMAN (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 11, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES- DEFERRING $13.616.20 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16DI0 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH PATRICIA SAINT GERMAIN AND FAUBERT CORIOLAN (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 126, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.52 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16Dll FLORIDA CLEAN VESSEL ACT GRANT AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,316.00 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A VESSEL PUMP OUT STATION AT COCOHATCHEE RIVER PARK AND NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - TO ENABLE BOATERS TO HAVE THEIR HOLDING TANKS PUMPED OUT A T THE COCOHA TCHEE RIVER PARK Item #16D12 Page 368 January 15-16,2008 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MARIA TOMAS FRANCISCO (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 21, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D13 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MELCHIOR ANTOINE AND MARIE ANTOINE MOLIERE (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 27, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.52 IN IMP ACT FEES Item #16D14 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH LOUISE NOVEMBRE (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 10, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES- DEFERRING $13.616.20 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D15 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH FELIPE AGUILA LOPEZ AND LIDIA NAJARRO BERNAL (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 24, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.52 IN IMP ACT FEES Page 369 January 15-16,2008 Item #16D16 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH TEHEL YNE METELLUS (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 29, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19.372.52 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D17 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JEAN CRAMER (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT VISTA III AT HERITAGE BAY, UNIT 1606, NORTH NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,411.65 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D18 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH LAZARO RUA JR. (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT VISTA III AT HERITAGE BAY, UNIT 1607, NORTH NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,411.65 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D19 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MONIQUE DIAZ (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT VISTA III AT HERITAGE BAY, UNIT 1508, NORTH NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,411.65 IN IMPACT FEES Page 370 January 15-16,2008 Item #16D20 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH LUIS GARCIA AND JUDITH PARRA (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT VISTA III AT HERITAGE BAY, UNIT 1506, NORTH NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,411.65 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D21 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH KATHY HERNANDEZ (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT VISTA III AT HERITAGE BAY, UNIT 1605, NORTH NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,411.65 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D22 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JACOB HAMIL TON AND SARAH HAMIL TON (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT VISTA III AT HERITAGE BAY, UNIT 1505, NORTH NAPLES- DEFERRING $19,411.65 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D23 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ANGELA YVETTE WILDER (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 4, LIBERTY LANDING, Page 371 January 15-16,2008 IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.52 IN IMPACT FEES Item # 16D24 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH LA TOY A RENE SHIPMAN (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 18, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.52 IN IMPACT FEES Item # 16D25 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH CHRISTINE EXCELLENT (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 20, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19.372.52 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D26 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JOSEPH PREVILUS AND MARIE PREVILUS (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 12, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.52 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D27 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL PROGRAM INCOME IN THE AMOUNT OF $126,766.75 FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) Page 372 January 15-16,2008 PROGRAM - TO BE USED TO ASSIST ADDITIONAL QUALIFYING RESIDENTS Item # 16D28 AN AMENDED PROJECT WORK PLAN SCHEDULES FOR DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE (DRI) PROJECTS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE COUNTY WIDE REHABILITATION PORTION OF THE DRI GRANT - DRI GRANTS TOTALING $2.339.882.00 Item #16D29 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,938.20 TO RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL REVENUE RECEIVED IN THE SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM FROM THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE INITIATIVE PROGRAM - USED TO PROVIDE INCREASED SERVICES TO SENIORS IN COLLIER COUNTY Item #16D30 - Withdrawn AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SENIOR FRIENDSHIP CENTERS, INC. TO PROVIDE INTERIM NUTRITION SERVICES FOR THE HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM- PROVIDING HOME-DELIVERED MEALS SERVED TO SENIORS IN NAPLES. IMMOKALEE AND EVERGLADES CITY Item #16D31 Page 373 January 15-16, 2008 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH DANIEL MUNOZ AND ROSALINA T. MUNOZ (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 23, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D32 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH RAUL MENDOZA ARROYO AND LIDIA AGUILAR MENDOZA (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 24, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D33 AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF THE ATTACHED PRE- DISASTER MITIGATION PROGRAM GRANT FOR BEACH DUNE RESTORATION IN BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE- PROJECT COST ESTIMATE OF $188,184 FOR A 10 FOOT WIDE SEA OAT DUNE BUFFER, REPLANT ERODED DUNE SYSTEM VEGETATION AND REMOVAL OF 32 ACRES OF EXOTIC VEGETATION Item #16D34 A SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL IN FY08, INCLUDING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS Page 374 January 15-16,2008 APPROVED, THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT DEFERRED AND THE BALANCE REMAINING FOR ADDITIONAL DEFERRALS IN FY08 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D35 BID NO. 08-5021 "EXPENDABLE VETERINARY SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT" TO MULTIPLE VENDORS ON A LINE-BY-LINE BASIS AND DECLARE CERTAIN MANUFACTURERS SOLE SOURCES FOR VETERINARY PHARMACEUTICALS, WITH AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURE OF $80,000 Item #16D36 AMENDED BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE PARK LAND/USE MANAGEMENT PLAN WITH THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D37 AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT ACTUAL GRANT AWARD FOR NUTRITION SERVICES - FOR ADMINISTERING THE SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM Item #16El Page 375 January 15-16,2008 RESOLUTION 2008-03: AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE DEED CERTIFICATES FOR THE SALE OF BURIAL PLOTS AT LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY DURING THE 2008 CALENDAR YEAR - LOCATED ON LITTLE LEAGUE ROAD IN IMMOKALEE Item #16E2 FINAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE OTTER MOUND PRESERVE AND FOR THE BOARD TO GIVE DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION - A 10-YEAR PLAN MANAGED BY CONSERVATION COLLIER FOR A 2.46 ACRE URBAN PRESERVE LOCATED IN SOUTHWESTERN COLLIER COUNTY ON MARCO ISLAND Item #16E3 WAIVING THE FORMAL COMPETITIVE PROCESS AND APPROVE PA YMETRIC'S "XIBUY" SOFTWARE AS A SOLE SOURCE SOLUTION TO INTEGRATE PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS INTO SAP - THEREBY REDUCING DATA ENTRY REDUNDANCIES AND TO STREAMLINE THE ENTIRE PROCESS Item # 16E4 ANAGREEMENTFORTHECONVEYANCEOFGACLAND TRUST RESERVED LANDS TO THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FOR THE PURPOSE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES - FOR TRACTS 136 AND 137, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 78, CONSISTING OF 11.47 Page 376 January 15-16,2008 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON 8TH A VENUE NE Item # 16E5 REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 20, 2007 THROUGH DECEMBER 20, 2007 Item # 16E6 SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH JEANNE L. NOE, AS TRUSTEE OF THE JAMES R. NOE II REVOCABLE TRUST, FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF THE MAINTENANCE GARAGE AND PARKING SPACE ON ARNOLD AVENUE FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AT AN ANNUAL RENTAL OF $71,700 - LEASE EXTENDED TO NOVEMBER 30,2008 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3535 ARNOLD A VENUE Item #16E7 AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH NORMA G. HITT FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $27,820 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 65 (WINCHESTER HEAD MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT) Item #16E8 AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH Page 377 January 15-16,2008 ROXANA MIGENES FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $27,820 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE EST A TES, UNIT 65 (WINCHESTER HEAD MUL TI -P ARCEL PROJECT) Item #16E9 AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH MIGUEL A. TORRICO AND GREYSI E. TORO FOR 2 PARCELS TOTALING 2.73 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $65,290 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 65 (WINCHESTER HEAD MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT) Item #16EI0 AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH ROBERT E. NA TSCH III, LAURA A. NA TSCH LEPPER, GREGORY C. NATSCH, PATRICIA A. NATSCH EICHHOLZ, AND HELEN M. NATSCHMARKWAYFOR 1.59 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $38,170 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 65 (WINCHESTER HEAD MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT) Item #16Fl AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY AND ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF Page 378 January 15-16,2008 CONDUCTING A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF CARDIAC ARREST DATA ORIGINALLY COLLECTED FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE PURPOSES BY COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1. 2003 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2007 Item #16F2 SUBMITTAL OF AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, PREPAREDNESS AND ASSISTANCE (EMP A) TRUST FUND PROJECT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS IN THE AMOUNT OF $95,796.00 - FOR A RADIO TOWER TRAILER SYSTEM SUPPORTING THE DEPLOYABLE MUL TI-AGENCY COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATING SYSTEM Item # 16F3 A DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR EMS STATION 73 TO BE LOCATED AT 790 LOGAN BOULEVARD, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $86.50, PROJECT NUMBER 551501 Item #16F4 A BUDGET AMENDMENT REDUCING BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS IN THE CLERK'S FUND (011) CONSISTENT WITH THE CLERK OF COURTS ASSERTION THAT THE CLERK IS FUNCTIONING AS A FEE OFFICER IN FISCAL YEAR 2008 Page 379 January 15-16,2008 Item #16Gl A MONETARY SPONSORSHIP OF $5,000.00 TO BA YSHORE CULTURAL ARTS, INC. FOR THE 2008 "HEARTS IN THE GARDEN" EVENT FROM THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE TRUST FUND (FUND 187) FY08 MARKETING & PROMOTIONS BUDGET FOR EVENT SET-UP COSTS, RENTALS, SECURITY, ENTERTAINMENT, PRINTING AND ADVERTISING EXPENSES ONLY, AND DECLARE THE SPONSORSHIP SERVES A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - TO BE HELD FEBRUARY 14,2008 AT NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDEN Item # 16G2 A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT(S) BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) AND A GRANT APPLICANT(S) WITHIN THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA - IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,275.22, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3929 BA YSHORE DRIVE Item # 16G3 A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT(S) BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) AND A GRANT APPLICANT(S) WITHIN THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA - IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,932.51, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2636 BA YVIEW DRIVE Item #16Hl Page 380 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; ATTENDED THE UNITED ARTS COUNCIL ARTS FORUM LUNCHEON AT THE VON LIEBIG ARTS CENTER, NAPLES; $15.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 585 PARK ST., NAPLES Item #16H2 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; ATTENDED THE NAPLES PRESS CLUB ANNUAL HOLIDAY MEETING & LUNCHEON ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13,2007, AT THE COLLIER ATHLETIC CLUB; $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 710 GOODLETTE ROAD N., NAPLES Item # 16H3 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; ATTENDED THE KIWANIS CLUB OF GREATER COLLIER'S LUNCHEON ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2007, AT CARRABBA'S; $13.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 4320 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH. NAPLES Item #16H4 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC Page 381 January 15-16,2008 PURPOSE; ATTENDED THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS 2007 DECEMBER LUNCHEON ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2007, AT THE COLLIER ATHLETIC CLUB; $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 710 GOODLETTE ROAD N., NAPLES Item #16H5 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES KIWANIS ANNUAL BANQUET ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2007 AT THE GRAND BUFFET; $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 2700 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES Item #16H6 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PURPOSE; ATTENDED THE ENCA NOVEMBER LUNCHEON ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15,2007, AT CARRABBA'S; $21.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 12631 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES Item #16H7 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR A TTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; ATTENDED THE GALELLA/SUNRISE ACADEMY LUNCH MEETING ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20,2007, AT Page 382 January 15-16,2008 THE PORT ROYAL CLUB; $25.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 2900 GORDON DRIVE, NAPLES Item #16H8 COMMISSIONER HALAS' REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; ATTENDING THE EDC VIP BREAKFAST MEETING ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008, AT THE NAPLES HIL TON IN NAPLES, FLORIDA. $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES Item # 16H9 COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; ATTENDED THE DECEMBER 3, 2007 BUS TRIP TO SARASOTA SR. FRIENDSHIP CENTER. $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETT A'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item #16HlO COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; PARTICIPATED IN THE CHRISTMAS AROUND THE WORLD FESTIVAL AND LIGHTED PARADE SNOW GALA ON DECEMBER 8, 2007. $5.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item #16Hll Page 383 January 15-16,2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; ATTENDED THE DAVID E. BRYANT ANNUAL CHRISTMAS CELEBRATION ON DECEMBER 13,2007. $5.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT 215 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH. NAPLES Item #16H12 COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; ATTENDING AS A CELEBRITY AUCTIONEER, THE FOUNDATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ALLY DISABLED 2008 GALA AND AUCTION ON SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 9,2008. $125.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETT A'S TRAVEL BUDGET - AT THE HILTON NAPLES, 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH. NAPLES Item #16H13 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR REPAIR OF WIRING AT CIGARETTE LIGHTER TO CORRECT GPS USAGE IN PRIVATE VEHICLE; $135.91 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - WORK PERFORMED BY MASTER TECH IMPORTS, NAPLES Item #16H14 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; ATTENDED THE CONSERVANCY OF SW Page 384 January 15-16, 2008 FLORIDA, A PRIVATE EVENT ON SUNDAY, JANUARY 13, 2008, AT THE CONSERVANCY NATURE CENTER; $25.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRA VEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 991 2ND AVE N, NAPLES Item #16H15 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; ATTENDED THE KITE REALTY LUNCHEON ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12,2007, AT KINGS LAKE SQUARE; $13.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED OFF DAVIS BLVD., NAPLES Item #16H16 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; ATTENDED THE MARCO ISLAND CHAMBER INSTALLATION OF 2008 PRESIDENT GARY ELLIOTT & BOARD MEMBERS EVENT ON SUNDAY, JANUARY 13,2008 AT THE ISLAND COUNTRY CLUB; $70.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 500 NASSAU ROAD, MARCO ISLAND Item #16H17 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; ATTENDED THE COASTGUARD AUXILIARY CHANGE OF THE WATCH CEREMONY ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 2008, AT THE HIDEAWAY BEACH CLUB; $50.00 Page 385 January 15-16,2008 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 250 SOUTH BEACH, IN MARCO ISLAND Item # 16I1 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 386 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORESPOPNDENCE January 15,2008 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Affordable Housing Commission: Minutes of January 12, 2006; February 9, 2006; March 9, 2006; April 13, 2006; May II, 2006; June 8, 2006; July 13,2006; August 10,2006; September 14, 2006; October 12, 2006; November 9, 2006; December 14, 2006; January 11,2007; February 9, 2007; March 8, 2007; April 12, 2007; May 10,2007; June 14,2007; July 12,2007; August 12, 2007; September 13, 2007; September 26, 2007; October 17, 2007; October 31, 2007; November 8,2007; December 19, 2007 2) Bavshore Beautification MSTU Advisorv Committee: Agenda of September 12, 2007 Minutes of May 9, 2007; July 11, 2007 3) Bavshore/Gatewav Triangle Local Redevelop Advisorv Board: Agenda of September 4,2007; September 18, 2007; October 2,2007 Minutes of September 4,2007; September 18, 2007; October 2,2007 4) Black Affairs Advisorv Board: Minutes of January 23, 2006; February 27, 2006; March 30, 2006; June 26, 2006; October 23,2006; January 22, 2007; February 26, 2007; March 26, 2007; September 24,2007 5) Collier Countv Citizens Corps: Agenda of October 17, 2007; November 21,2007 Minutes of August 15,2007; September 19, 2007; October 17, 2007; November 21,2007; 6) Collier Countv Coastal Advisorv Committee: Agenda of January 11,2007 Minutes of April 12,2007; January 11,2007; September 13, 2007 7) Collier Count v Code Enforcement Board - Form 1: Minutes of October 25, 2007 8) Collier Countv Planning Commission - Form 1: Agenda of December 6, 2007; December 13, 2007; December 20, 2007 Minutes of September 20,2007; October 4,2007; October 15, 2007; October 16, 2007; October 18, 2007; October 18, 2007; October 18, 2007 9) Contractors Licensing Board: Agenda of December 19, 2007 Minutes of October 16, 2007 10) Development Services Advisorv Committee: Agenda of May 9,2007 Minutes of May 9,2007; October 10,2007; November 7,2007 11) Emergencv Medical Services Advisorv Council: Minutes of October 30, 2007 12) Environmental Advisorv Council: Agenda of December 5,2007; January 7, 2008 13) Floodplain Management Planning Committee: Minutes of September 10, 2007; November 5, 2007 14) Forest Lakes Roadwav and Drainage Advisorv Committee: Agenda of November ]4, 2007 Minutes of October 10, 2007 15) Golden Gate Communitv Center Advisorv Committee: Minutes of February 6, 2006; Apri] 2, 2007; May 7, 2007; August 6, 2007 September 4, 2007; October], 2007; November 5, 2007 16) Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc Committee: Agenda of December 17, 2007 Minutes of September 12, 2007; October 8, 2007 17) Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board: Agenda of December 19, 2007 Minutes of November 21, 2007 18) Immokalee Beautification Advisorv Committee: Agenda of March 15, 2006; September 26,2007 Minutes of June 27, 2007 19) Isle of Capri Fire Control District Advisorv Committee: Agenda of January 4,2007; November 1,2007 Minutes of January 4, 2007; November 1, 2007 20) Land Acquisition Advisorv Committee: Agenda of December 10, 2007 Minutes of October 8, 2007 21) Lelv Golf Estates Beautification Advisorv Committee: Agenda of September 20, 1007; November 15, 2007 Minutes of August 16,2007, October 18, 2007 22) Librarv Advisorv Board: Agenda of December 12, 2007 Minutes of October 23, 2007 23) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisorv Committee: Minutes of February 12, 2007; March 12, 2007; October 8, 2007 24) Parks and Recreation Advisorv Board: Minutes of January 18, 2006; Apri] 18,2007; May 16, 2007; June 20,2007; August 15, 2007; October 17, 2007; November 28, 2007 25) Pelican Bav Services Division Board: Agenda of December 5,2007, December 19, 2007 Minutes of December 5, 2007 a) Budget Committee: Minutes of October 23, 2007 b) Clam Bay Committee: Minutes of October 17, 2007, November 21,2007 26) Public Vehicle Advisorv Committee: Agenda of December 3, 2007 27) Radio Road Beautification Advisorv Committee: Agenda of November 20, 2007 Minutes of October 16, 2007 28) Utilitv Authoritv - Form 1: Minutes of March 26, 2007 B. Other: 1) Collier Countv Legislative Delegation Meeting and Public Hearing: Minutes of November 28, 2007 2) Fire Service Steering Committee Meeting: Agenda of November 29, 2007 Minutes of October 25,2007 3) Port of The Islands Communitv Improvement: Minutes of October 12, 2007 4) Public Hearing, Special Magistrate Collier Countv: Minutes of October 5, 2007; November 2,2007; November 16, 2007 January 15-16,2008 Item # 1611 DESIGNATING THE SHERIFF AS THE OFFICIAL APPLICANT AND PROGRAM POINT-OF-CONTACT FOR AN E911 GRANT APPLICATION, APPROVE THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE E911 STATE GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION WHEN COMPLETED, ACCEPT THE GRANT WHEN AWARDED, AND UPON AN A WARD APPROVE APPLICABLE BUDGET AMENDMENTS - FOR TECHNOLOGY RELATED EXPENDITURES FOR THE NEW EMERGENCY SERVICES CENTER Item #1612 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 1,2007 THROUGH DECEMBER 7,2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item # 1613 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 8, 2007 THROUGH DECEMBER 14,2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item #16J4 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 15, 2007 THROUGH DECEMBER 21,2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item #16J5 Page 387 January 15-16,2008 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 22, 2007 THROUGH DECEMBER 28, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item #16J6 THE USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS FOR DRUG ABUSE EDUCATION AND PREVENTION ($20,000) - BENEFITTING COLLIER COUNTY'S YOUTH AND FAMILIES Item #16Kl COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT, ON BEHALF OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST DANIEL W. SNOOK AND/OR MARY NICOLE MEISTER IN COUNTY COURT SMALL CLAIMS IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RECOVER REPAIR COSTS INCURRED IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $5,000.00 - AS THE RESULT OF UNPAID DAMAGES TO COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY Item #16K2 STATEMENT OF INSURED CLIENT'S RIGHTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY IS AUTHORIZING NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE TO RET AIN DAVID HOWLAND, ESQ. TO REPRESENT THE COUNTY IN THE LAWSUIT ST JOHN, ET AI. V LYONS TRANS.. ET AI., CASE NO. 07-752CA Item # 16K3 COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT, ON BEHALF OF Page 388 January 15-16,2008 THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST EDWARD CAFONE, JR., IN COUNTY COURT SMALL CLAIMS IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RECOVER REPAIR COSTS INCURRED IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $1.500.00 Item #16K4 COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT, ON BEHALF OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST JOANN ESTELLE PINO AND/OR MELANIE JOANNE PINO IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL COUNTY COURT SMALL CLAIMS, TO RECOVER REPAIR COSTS INCURRED IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $1,500.00 Item # 16K5 THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT, ON BEHALF OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST FELIPE HERNANDEZ IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL COUNTY SMALL CLAIMS IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RECOVER REPAIR COSTS INCURRED IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $3,000.00 Item #16K6 THE LAW FIRM OF HENDERSON FRANKLIN STARNES & HOLT PA AND J. TERRENCE PORTER, ESQ. TO REPRESENT FORMER COUNTY EMPLOYEE BERNICE FORESTER IN THE MA TTER ENTITLED DARLING ELIE, ET AI. V COLLIER COUNTY. ET AI.; CASE NO. 07-1463-CA Page 389 January 15-16,2008 Item #16K7 A MEDIA TED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 717R, 917, 718R AND 918R IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA V DUFFIELD W MATSON, III, ET AI., CASE NO. 05-1054-CA (SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT WELLFIELD PROJECT #70892) (FISCAL IMPACT $55,844.00) Item #16K8 A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $115,000.00 FOR PARCELS 143FEE AND 143RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V RUPERT TERRY DUPREE AKA R. TERRY DUPREE, ET AI., CASE NO. 07-3328- CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044) (FISCAL IMP ACT $77,750.00) Item #16K9 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,000.00 FOR PARCEL 141FEE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V CARLOS ALVAREZ, ET AI., CASE NO. 07- 2882-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044) (FISCAL IMPACT $58,650) Item #16KI0 AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT FOR PARCELS 134 AND 135 BY Page 390 January 15-16,2008 COLLIER COUNTY TO PROPERTY OWNERS, RONEN AND LEEANNE GRAZIANI IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V RONEN GRAZIANI, ET AI., CASE NO. 06-0548-CA (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 62081) (FISCAL IMPACT IF ACCEPTED: $180,005) Item #16Kll AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL 136 BY COLLIER COUNTY TO PROPERTY OWNER, VILMA PATEL IN THE LA WSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V RONEN GRAZIANL ET AI., CASE NO. 06-0548-CA (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 62081) (FISCAL IMPACT IF ACCEPTED: $168.157) Item #16K12 SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V B & G UNDERGROUND INC., CASE NO. 07-1595-CC, IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL COUNTY IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN THE AMOUNT OF $11.000.00 Item #17A RESOLUTION 2008-04: SE-2007-AR-12491, DEVOE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II, REPRESENTED BY SANDRA BOTTCHER OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., IS REQUESTING A SCRIVENER'S ERROR CORRECTION FOR AN APPROVED PARKING EXEMPTION (PE-2005-AR-I0551) TO REVISE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO PROVIDE A FOUR-FOOT WALL INSTEAD OF A SIX-FOOT WALL ALONG Page 391 January 15-16,2008 THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY. THE 0.23 ACRES SUBJECT PROPERTY'S ADDRESS IS 1397 TRAIL TERRACE DRIVE, WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TRAIL TERRACE DRIVE, IMMEDIA TEL Y WEST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH 14TH STREET NORTH, IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17B RESOLUTION 2008-05: PETITION A VROW-2006-AR-I0761, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN TWO 20' BY 30' RIGHT-OF-WAY AREAS ALONG ALACHUA STREET BEING ORIGINALLY A PART OF MONROE AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT KNOWN AS "NEWMARKET SUBDIVISION", AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGES 104 & 105 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING LOCATED WITHIN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA BEING MORE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A Item #17C RESOLUTION 2008-06: PETITION A VPLAT-2007-AR-12379, LOT 9, HA WKSRIDGE, UNIT ONE, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 10 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 9, HA WKSRIDGE, UNIT ONE, A SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGES 67 AND 68 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SITUATED IN Page 392 January 15-16, 2008 . SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" Item #17D ORDINANCE 2008-01: AMENDING "APPENDIX A" OF ORDINANCE NO. 2001-13, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-57 TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMP ACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE Item #17E RESOLUTION 2008-07: PETITION V A-2007-AR-12005, EUGENE AND NANCY ZILA VY, REPRESENTED BY RICHARD D. YOV ANOVICH, ESQUIRE, OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN, AND JOHNSON, P.A., REQUESTING A NINE-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A POOL SCREEN ENCLOSURE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 480 FLAMINGO AVENUE, CONNOR'S VANDERBILT BEACH SUBDIVISION, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :40 a.m. Page 393 January 15-16,2008 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TOM HE ATTEST: ~~ ~t)C. IGl!{T E. R K, CLERK Attest II to OM 1 MIIIt , I' onature on 1 · These minutes 'Pproved by the Board on 0- I a- - 300<6 , as presented v or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS AND ROSE MARIE WITT, RPR. Page 394