Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/22-23/2008 R April 22-23, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, April 22-23, 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: CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning Donna Fiala Jim Coletta Fred Coyle Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Sue Filson, BCC Executive 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) 0,,"\ 1/'1' ~ ~/'!; r '." - .". (J/:.",,"'" AGENDA April 22-23, 2008 9:00 AM Tom Henning, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 3 Donna Fiala, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice-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 April 22-23, 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 VERBA TIM 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) 252-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Reverend Mary Jane Wallace, Everglades Community Church 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and summary agenda.) B. February 29,2008 - BCC/SFWMD Workshop C. March 18,2008 - BCC/Fire Review Task Force Workshop D. March 25/26, 2008 - BCC/Regular Meeting E. April I, 2008 - BCC/Airport Authority Workshop 3. SERVICE A WARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS) A. 20 Year Attendees Page 2 April 22-23, 2008 1) This item to be heard on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Lynn Evans, Fleet Management 4. PROCLAMATIONS A. This item to be heard on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Proclamation designating the week of May 4, 2008 through May 10, 2008 as Drinking Water Quality Week. To be accepted by Paul Mattausch, Water Department Director. B. This item to be heard on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Proclamation designating April 20th through April 26th, 2008 as Administrative Professionals Week. To be accepted by Saundra Lockwood, Member of the Naples Chapter ofIntemational Association of Administrative Professionals (IAAP). C. This item to be heard on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Proclamation recognizing April, 2008 as Harmony Month. To be accepted by Ron Timmerman. Immediately following the presentation of the proclamation, the National Anthem will be performed by the Paradise Coastmen. D. This item to be heard on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Proclamation recognizing James A. McTague for his civic and business leadership in Collier County. To be accepted by Mr. McTague's daughters: Jo Atkinson, Suzy Goldman and Jeanne Manuri. E. This item to be heard on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Proclamation designating the week of April 27, 2008 through May 3, 2008 as National Volunteer Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Marcy Krumbine, Director of Housing and Human Services; Sharon Downey, RSVP Project Coordinator; Anna Galdames, 4H Extension Agent/University of Florida IFAS Extension; Mary Margaret Gruszka, Volunteer Coordinator/Collier County Museum; Joann Wannemacher, Volunteer Coordinator/Collier County Public Libraries; Meryl Rorer, Volunteer Coordinator/Parks and Recreation; Kathleen Drewe, Volunteer Coordinator/Domestic Animal Services and volunteers for Collier County. F. This item to be heard on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Proclamation to recognize April 2008, as Sexual Assault Awareness Month. To be accepted Page 3 April 22-23, 2008 by Maria LaRocco, Executive Director of Project Help, Inc. G. This item to be heard on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Proclamation to recognize May, 2008 as Mental Health Awareness Month. To be accepted by Petra Jones, Executive Director of The Mental Health Association of Southwest Florida. H. This item to be heard on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Proclamation to recognize May 11-17,2008 as Tourism Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Jack Wert, Executive Director Tourism Department. 5. PRESENTATIONS A. This item to be heard on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Presentation of the Advisory Committee Outstanding Member Award to John F. Barlow, Jr. of the County Government Productivity Committee. B. This item to be heard on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Presentation of the Waste Reduction Awards Program (WRAP) award to the Ivey House Bed and Breakfast, The Doubletree Guest Suites, The Inn at Pelican Bay, and their common management company Guest Services, Inc. C. This item to be heard on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Presentation of awards to the winners of the Recycling Art Contest; Rachael Doty, Palmetto Ridge High School; Angela Vasquez, Manatee Middle School; and Tiffany Shadden, Corkscrew Elementary School. D. This item to be heard on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. An update by Paul Mattausch, Water Department Director, on the return to South Florida Water Management District-imposed Phase II Water-use Restrictions effective April 18, 2008. 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS A. This item was continued from the April 8, 2008 BCC Meetinl!:. Public petition request by James Walker to discuss impact fees for a commercial site in Immokalee, FL. Page 4 April 22-23, 2008 B. Public petition request by Carl Kuehner to discuss PUD rezone for Esperanza Place, Immokalee, Florida. C. Public petition request by Markus Weatherwax to discuss sign permits for Athletic Club of Naples. D. Public petition request by Nancy Colina to discuss construction and warranty issues with Designers Home Group, Inc. Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted. 7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be proyided by Commission members. ADA-2007-AR-12714, Saundra Clancy-Koendarfer, represented by Ben Nelson of Nelson Marine Construction, Inc., is requesting an appeal ofBD-2007-AR-12154, denied by the Collier County Planning Commission on December 6,2007. Subject property is located in Section 5, Township 48, Range 25, Collier County, Florida. B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. V A-2007-AR-12477, Gregory W. and Beverly J. Schuelke, represented by Christopher 1. Thornton, ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, Attorneys at Law, LLP, are requesting variances for a project to be known as the Schuelke Variance. The variance petition seeks approval of a side yard setback for encroachment of a pool deck/wall, pool screen cage, and concrete pair of stairs. The subject property is located at 496 Flamingo Avenue, in the Connor's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 3, Lot I, Block U on 0.27 acres, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. C. This item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CUR-2008-AR-12955 SR-846 Land Trust Earth Mine, Mining Venture, LLC., represented by R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel & Andress, is requesting a review of the approved Conditional Use Resolution 2007-274 for earth mining in the A-MHO Agricultural zoning district. The subject property, consisting of 2,576 acres, is located east of Page 5 April 22-23, 2008 Immokalee Road (CR-846), approximately 2 miles north of Oil Well Road (CR-858) in Sections 35 & 36, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, and all of Sections I & 2, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Less Road Right-of- Way for County Road 846, Collier County, Florida. S. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Collier County Intersection Safety Ordinance to authorize use of unmanned cameras at road intersections and to enforce Ordinance violations of vehicles running red traffic lights. B. This item to be heard at 4:30 p.m. This item was continued from the AprilS, 200S BCC Meetinl!:. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reconsider the Land Development Code Amendment addressing the calculation of the maximum number of wet-slips when a shoreline is in a Conservation Easement. (William D. Lorenz, Engineering & Environmental Services Director, CDES) 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Appointment of a member to the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. B. Appointment of members to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board. C. To adopt a resolution authorizing preliminary alternatives of the "Addition Lands" general management, wilderness designation and off-road vehicle plans being developed by the National Park Service (NPS) for the management of the "Addition Lands" annexed to the Big Cypress National Preserve. (Commissioner Coletta) D. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the County Attorney Employment Agreement with Jeffrey A. Klatzkow and authorize the Chairman to execute same. (Commissioner Henning) 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT Page 6 April 22-23, 2008 A. Recommendation that the Board approve a Resolution adopting the Collier County HUD One Year Action Plan for FY 2008 - 2009 for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships (HOME), American Dream Down-payment Initiative (ADm) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Programs and authorize transmittal to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing and Human Services) B. This item to be heard at 10:30 a.m. Recommendation from the Pelican Bay Services Division that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Pelican Bay Services Division to prepare, sign and submit the Clam Bay Management Plan to the Federal and State Agencies. (John Petty, Pelican Bay Services Division) C. Recommendation to accept the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) FY08 5307 grant in the amount of$I,978,706.00. (Diane Flagg, Director, Alternate Transportation Modes) D. That the Board of County Commissioners provide direction regarding a request by the Economic Development Council of Collier County to amend the Fee Payment Assistance Program to help defray the cost of impact fees for an existing Collier County company which is considering relocating and expanding their manufacturing facility from Western Collier County to Eastern Collier County. (Tammie Nemecek, EDC Executive Director; Amy Patterson, Impact Fee/EDC Manager, CDES) E. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve changes to a current interlocal agreement with the City of Naples for funds earmarked for Pulling Boat Ramp; give direction considering a funding policy for capital improvements and operations/maintenance at municipalities for Parks and Recreation programs. (Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation) F. Recommendation to approve an Administrative Plan for the distribution of funds for the Collier County Single Family Rehabilitation Program funded by the Florida Department of Community Affairs Disaster Recovery Initiative grant program. (Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing and Human Services) Page 7 April 22-23, 2008 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT A. This item to be heard at 11:15 a.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals reject the recommendations of the Special Magistrate pursuant to the alternate dispute resolution process resulting from the denial ofthe conditional use for the expansion of a church. (Petition CU-2004-AR-6384 - Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc.) B. Notice is hereby l!:iven that pursuant to Section 2S6.011(S), Fla. Stat., the County Attorney desires advice from the Board of County Commissioners in Closed Attornev-Client Session on TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 200S, at a time certain of 12:00 noon in the Commission Conference Room, 3rd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Buildinl!:, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. In addition to Board members, County Manager James Mudd, County Attorney David C. Weigel, Chief Assistant County Attorney Jeffrey A. Klatzkow and Assistant County Attorney Jacqueline Williams Hubbard will be in attendance. The Board in executive session will discuss: Settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures in the pending litigation cases of Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC. v. Collier County Code Enforcement Board, Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Case No.: 2:07-cv-4Il-FtM-29DNF, now pending in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division and Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC., Brennan, Manna & Diamond (Reg. Agent) v. Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Appeal Case No.: 07-2035- CA, Lower Tribunal CEB No.: 2007-35, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, in the Administrative Appeal Division of the Circuit Court. C. For the Board of County Commissioners to provide direction to the County Attorney's Office as to settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures in the pending litigation cases of Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC. v. Collier County Code Enforcement Board, Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Case No.: 2:07-cv-4Il-FtM- 29DNF, now pending in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division and Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC., Brennan, Page 8 April 22-23, 2008 Manna & Diamond (Reg. Agent) v. Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Appeal Case No.: 07-2035-CA, Lower Tribunal CEB No.: 2007-35, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, in the Administrative Appeal Division of the Circuit Court. 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) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility facility for Del Mar Retail Center. 2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer utility facilities for Fiddler's Creek - Phase 3, Unit 2. 3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer utility facility for Fiddler's Creek - Phase 3, Unit 2 - Stage 3. 4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance ofthe water and sewer utility facilities for Fiddler's Creek, Phase 2A, Unit 3. 5) This item was continued indefinitely from February 26, 200S BCC meetinl!:. Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Augusta at Pelican Marsh (Pelican Marsh PUD) with the roadway and drainage Page 9 April 22-23, 2008 improvements being privately maintained. 6) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Saturnia Lakes Plat One (Rigas PUD) with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained. 7) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Saturnia Lakes Plat Two (Rigas PUD) with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained. 8) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Sussex Place, (Lely Resort PUD), the roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. 9) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Tuscany Cove with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained. 10) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Saturnia Lakes Plat Three (Rigas PUD) with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained. 11) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item, all participants are reauired to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Artesia Naples Unit One. 12) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: 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 Cameron Commons Unit One, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. Page 10 April 22-23, 2008 13) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item, all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Tract 5, Golden Gate Estates Unit 44 Replat, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 14) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item, all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Tract 6, Golden Gate Estates Unit 44 Replat, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 15) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopts a Resolution to formally dissolve the Collier County Fire Review Task Force as established by Resolution No. 2007-105. 16) To obtain approval for the annual expenditure of funds, if necessary, beyond the $50,000 dollar limit contained in the Purchasing Policy for the required legal advertising placed in the Naples Daily News. 17) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a Job Creation Investment Program Agreement with the March Group, LLC, d/b/a March Performance, Incorporated, consistent with the provisions of the Job Creation Investment Program and the company's approved incentive application. 18) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a Job Creation Investment Program Agreement with Advocate Aircraft Taxation Company consistent with the provisions of the Job Creation Investment Program and the company's approved incentive application. 19) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Reflection Lakes at Naples Phase IA (Walnut Lakes PUD) with the roadway and drainage Page 11 April 22-23, 2008 improvements being privately maintained. 20) Recommendation to grant final approval of the landscape and irrigation improvements for the final plat of Reflection Lakes at Naples Phase IC (Walnut Lakes PUD) with the landscape and irrigation improvements being privately maintained. 21) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfactions of Lien for payments received for the following Code Enforcement actions. 22) Recommendation to approve South Florida Water Management District Local Government Agreement No. 4600001351 for partial funding of the County's LiDAR acquisition through the Florida Department of Emergency Management contract. 23) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item, all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Classics Plantation Estates, Phase Three Replat of Lots 18 through 45. B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1) Recommendation to approve a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) agreement between the State of Florida Division of Emergency Management and the County for a Wind Protection project and approve the associated budget amendment. ($29,997.00) 2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve one (1) Adopt-A-Road Program Agreement with two (2) roadway recognition signs at a total cost of$150.00. 3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve budget amendments to recognize revenue from a developer contribution for Split Cycle Offset Optimization Technique (SCOOT) system expansion, Project 601724 Fund (313), and permanent count stations, Project 601727 Fund (313), in the amount of $90,000. Page 12 April 22-23, 2008 4) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman of the Board to execute the attached Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Equipment Support Grant and the applicable documents. ($66,000) 5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a Resolution superseding Resolution No. 2007-230 and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Local Agency Program (LAP) Agreement FPN: 422165-1-58-01, which Agreement was unexecuted by FDOT following BCC approval on September 11,2007, as Agenda Item 16B II, and approve a new agreement superseding and replacing the aforementioned unexecuted agreement that increases FDOT's share of funding, for the construction of a sidewalk on Roberts Avenue and North 9th Street from $704,375 in the original agreement to $732,268 in the proposed agreement. 6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a Resolution superseding Resolution No. 2007-231 and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Local Agency Program (LAP) Agreement FPN: 422164-1-58-0 I, which Agreement was unexecuted by FDOT following BCC approval on September 11,2007, as Agenda Item 16B 12, and to approve a new agreement superseding and replacing the aforementioned unexecuted agreement that increases FDOT's funding for the construction of a sidewalk on I st Street North from $170,625 in the original agreement to $177,381 in the proposed agreement. 7) Recommendation to approve the purchase of improved property (Parcel No. 142) which is required for the construction of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project. Project No. 60168 (Fiscal Impact: $607,475.00 ) 8) Recommendation to approve an Easement Agreement for 0.12 acres of unimproved property for a non-exclusive easement for Pathways and Public Utilities along Immokalee Road. ($55,000) 9) Recommendation to recognize fare-box revenues collected from October 1,2007 through April 10, 2008 for Collier Area Transit and to approve budget amendments. Page 13 April 22-23, 2008 10) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to the October 22, 2002 Sabal Bay Development Contribution Agreement for Road Impact Fee Credits extending the duration for five (5) years and approval of the Second Amendment to the October 14,2003 Companion Agreement providing for a change in land conveyance means for portions of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project. (Project No. 5110 II) C. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $88.50 to record the Satisfactions of Lien. 2) Recommendation to approve as ex-officio the governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding/Charter, establishing the Lower West Coast Utility Council. 3) Recommendation to approve the addition of $1 00,000 to increase the annual limit to $600,000 for the existing fixed term contract 05-3792 "Fixed Term Utility Specialized Legal Services" for de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. Attorneys at Law, representing the interests of Collier County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, in utility specific litigation and regulatory matters, and approve all the necessary budget amendments in the amount of $400,000. D. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Recommend approval ofa Resolution ofthe Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to formally oppose allowing access to a Federal Sand Source off the coast of Sanibel Island to any counties other than those counties adjacent to Sanibel Island, specifically Collier and Lee Counties. Page 14 April 22-23, 2008 2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Andres Mateo and Maria Mateo (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 107, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Ritha Mercure (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 41, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 4) This item was continued from the April 8, 2008 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to approve and execute a Lease Agreement with Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida, Inc. for space to accommodate the Housing and Human Services Senior Nutrition Program at the Roberts Center, located at 905 Roberts Avenue in Immokalee for an annual cost of$12,000. The cost of this rental will be paid from Older Americans Act grant funding. 5) Recommendation to approve the Summer Food Service Program Grant in the amount of $588,400 for FY2008. 6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Carmeta Prime (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 110, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Kristy Brodbeck (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 1403, North Naples. 8) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign the amendment between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging of Southwest Florida, Inc. and approve budget amendments to reflect the actual award amount for the Older Page 15 April 22-23, 2008 Americans Act for 2008. 9) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of $200,000 from the Park and Recreation Impact Fee Reserves to pay for an impact fee study update and the refund of impact fees to various developers. 10) 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. 11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Monica Newhouse (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 1408, North Naples. E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1) Recommendation to ratify an addition to, a modification of and a deletion from the 2008 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan made from January 1,2008 through March 31,2008. 2) Recommendation to approve a Statutory Deed for the conveyance of GAC Land Trust Reserved Land required for a pond site for the Oil Well Road Expansion Project that will provide revenue in the amount of $200,000 for the GAC Land Trust Fund. 3) Report to the Board of County Commissioners concerning the sale and donation of items associated with the County surplus auction held on March 29, 2008, resulting in gross revenues of $487,526.50. F. COUNTY MANAGER 1) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of the attached Assistance to Firefighters Grant application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the purchase of 30 evacuation Page 16 April 22-23, 2008 (stair) chairs for Emergency Medical Services in the amount of $62,850. 2) Review of quarterly report on activities in the Collier County Tourism industry. 3) Obtain approval for an $11,000,000 prepayment on the Caribbean Gardens Commercial Paper Loan Number A-32-2. G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1) Approve a budget amendment for $628,800 to increase budgeted revenues and budgeted expenses for the sale and purchase of aviation fuel at Marco Island Executive Airport. 2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Boards Chairman to execute an amendment for a time extension to the Rural Infrastructure Grant Agreement # OT-05-136 from the Florida Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development for the Immokalee Regional Airport/Florida Tradeport Storm Water Management/Retention Pond Proj ect. H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner attended the Coalition ofImmokalee Workers "Human Rights Heroes in our Backyard" on April II, 2008; $50 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. 2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement serving a valid public purpose. He will attend the Collier County Medical Society Annual Dinner Meeting, May 3,2008; $100 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. 3) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement serving a valid public purpose. He attended the PLAN Steering Committee breakfast, April 3, 2008; $5 to be paid from Commissioner Page 17 April 22-23, 2008 Coletta's travel budget. 4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. She will be attending the Youth Haven 4th Annual Frances Pew Hayes Child Advocate of The Year A ward Luncheon on Thursday, May 8, 2008 at the Naples Sailing and Yacht Club; $75.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 5) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement serving a valid public purpose. Will attend the Leadership Collier Class of'08 Graduation on May 9,2008; $50 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. 6) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement serving a valid public purpose. Will participate as guest speaker at Golden Gate Kiwanis Club Breakfast on April 30, 2008; $7 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. 7) Proclamation thanking The Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart for his extraordinary service to Collier County. 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 approve a document for Twelfth Year State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) Grant Funds. 2) To obtain Board approval for the disbursements for the period of March 29,2008 through April 4, 2008 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of April 05,2008 through April II ,2008 and for submission into the official Page 18 April 22-23, 2008 records ofthe Board. 4) Recommendation to approve a request by Sheriff Don Hunter to officially recognize the name, the "William J. McNulty Communications Center" for the Sheriffs Office Communications Center located within the new Collier County Emergency Services Complex. K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to approve the proposed Agreement for Delivery and Reuse ofIrrigation Quality (IQ) Water between the Collier County Water-Sewer District and the Pelican Marsh Community Development District. 2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve the Proposed Joint Motion for an Agreed Order Awarding Costs Relating to Parcel 143 in the Collier County v. Charles R. Wilson, et a!., Case No. 02-5164-CA, Immokalee Road Project #60018. (Fiscal Impact: $4,000.00). 3) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel Nos. 135/40, 135/40.1, 136/41, 136/41.1 in the lawsuit styled CC v.Timothy Maloney, et aI, Case No. 92-1508-CA. (Golden Gate Wellfield Expansion Project) (Fiscal Impact $3,600) 4) Recommendation to Approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcels 862,962 and 963 in the Lawsuit Styled Board of County Commissioners of Collier County v. Grand Cypress Communities, et a!., Case No. 05-1053-CA. (South County Regional Water Treatment Plant Reverse Osmosis Wellfield Expansion Project #70892)(Fiscal Impact: $43,070.00). 5) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel 170RDUE in the lawsuit styled CC v. Jorge A. Romero, et aI, Case No. 07-2681-CA (Oil Well Road Project No. 60044). (Fiscal Impact $15,830) Page 19 April 22-23, 2008 6) Recommendation to Approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the Amount of$43,850.00 for the Acquisition of Parcel I 57RDUE in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County, Florida v. Christopher Link, et aI., Case No. 07-4218-CA (Oil Well Road Project #60044). (Fiscal Impact: $9, I 00.00) 7) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel No. 159A in the lawsuit styled CC v. H.A. Street, et aI, Case No. 03- 2873-CA (Immokalee Road Project # 60018). (Fiscal Impact $6,900) S) 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 in the amount of $130,000.00 for the acquisition of Parcels 121 FEE and 121 TDRE in the Lawsuit styled Collier County, Florida v. Christopher Link, et a!., Case No. 07-4218-CA (Oil Well Road Project #60044). (Fiscal Impact: $82,317.50) 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI- JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN. A. This item continued from the March 25, 200S BCC Meetinl!:. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider approving a Settlement Agreement and Release with Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC (owner of the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development) to settle alleged claims, including an alleged Bert Harris Act claim purportedly arising from denial of an amendment to the Cocohatchee Page 20 April 22-23, 2008 Bay PUD to modify the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC v. Collier County, Case No. 05-967-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, as well as amended Cocohatchee Bay PUD Document with attached Bald Eagle Management Plan. B. This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item, all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition A VESMT-2007-AR-12562, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the Public's interest in an access easement over, along and across the north 30 feet and the west 15 feet of the property described in Official Record Book 4014, Page 0235 ofthe Public Records of Collier County, Florida being located within Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida being more specifically shown in Exhibit A. C. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance repealing Collier County Ordinance No. 89-69, as amended, which created the Lethal Yellowing Disease suppressIOn program. D. This item was continued from the March 11, 200S BCC Meetinl!:. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2007-AR-11394, The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, represented by Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress, is proposing a Conditional Use of the Commercial Professional and General Office (C-I) Zoning District with a SR29 Commercial Subdistrict Overlay (C-I-SR29-COSD) and the RSF-3 (Residential Single-Family) Zoning District for a Church/Place of Worship, pursuant to LDC Section 2.04.03, Table 2. The 16.8-acre site is located at 635 State Road 29, in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida. E. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2006-AR-9337 Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP, represented by George L. Varnadoe, Esquire, ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP; and Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, are requesting a Conditional Use of an earth mining operation and related processing and production of material within a Rural Agriculture with a Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning District, a portion of which Page 21 April 22-23, 2008 is located in a Stewardship Sending Area 9 (BCI/BCP-SSA-9), pursuant to Section 2.04.03 of the LDC, for a project to be known as South Grove Lake. The subject property, consisting of 169.57 acres, is located in Sections 17 and 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. F. Request that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Naples, Florida, approve Sheriff Hunters recommended Offender Registration Fee Ordinance to establish a policy for the collection of administrative registration fees for the initial registration and re-registration of individuals required by Florida Statute to register with the Sheriff as a career offender, convicted felon, sex offender or sexual predator. G. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance No. 97-82, as amended, which created the Bayshore Avalon Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit; Amending section two (2) to delete the word Avalon from the name of the MSTU; Amending section six (6) to increase the membership of the Advisory Committee from five (5) members to seven (7) members and to delete the word Avalon therein; Amending section eight (8) to reflect an increase to the number of advisory committee members necessary to constitute a quorum; Providing for conflict and severability; Providing for inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances; and Providing for an effective date. H. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve and adopt CPSS-06-01 Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMP A) petition to the county wide Future Land Use Map for the purpose of expanding Activity Center #18 by an additional 7.3 acres. I. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider adopting an Ordinance amending the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, which is Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, by incorporating the directed changes to the Charitable Organization Impact Fee Deferral Program. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383. Page 22 April 22-23, 2008 April 22-23, 2008 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Welcome to the Collier County Board of Commissioners' April 22, 2008 Regular Meeting. Today's invocation will be delivered by Mary Jane Wallace from Everglades Community Church. Would you all rise, please. REVEREND WALLACE: Let us pray. Father, help us to pray for our government and community leaders throughout our towns, cities, states, and nation, especially here in Collier County. Give these who are in authority in our own county wisdom in every decision, help them to think clearly, grant them discernment and common sense so they will be strong and effective leaders, help them to lead and govern with integrity, give them insight to guide them and keep them on track in their deliberations, for their decisions have a great impact on our lives. Be their defender and protector and keep them always on guard, encourage and strengthen them, give them the wisdom they need for this day and all the days to come. Amen. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Marcy Krumbine. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning, County Manager. Would you please walk us through today's change list. Item #2A REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA- APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES; ITEM #8C IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE MAY 13, 2008 BCC MEETING - APPROVED Page 2 April 22-23, 2008 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners' meeting, April 22, 2008. The first item is to withdrawn item 6B. It was a public petition request by Carl Kuehner to discuss a PUD rezone for Esperanza Place, Immokalee, Florida, and that withdrawal is at petitioner's request. The next item is to withdraw item 6A. It's a public petition request by Markus Weatherwax to discuss sign permits for Athletic Club of Naples. This item was withdrawn at the petitioner's request. Next item is item 7A. Under considerations of the executive summary, the last part of the first sentence should read that the provisions of the previously adopted LDC shall apply "in the event," rather than "even," of such a conflict. Also page 65 of 69, the August 31, 2008 date on Brad Schiffer's letter is incorrect. The letter would have been written sometime between March 26th and April 8, 2008. And those corrections are at Commissioner Fiala's request. The next item is 7B. The resolution for this item was omitted from the printed agenda packet. Copies have been distributed and made available for review. That correction's at staffs request. Next item is item 8A. Section Five (b), of the ordinance should read as follows: Plus an additional, cross out $150 and replace it with $50, appeal fee, and then the $150 crossed out again and replaced with the $50 fee, may be amended by resolution of Board of County Commissioners. Section Seven ( e) of the ordinance shall read as follows: Plus an additional, cross out the $150 and replace it with $50, appeal fee. Those corrections are at staffs request. The next item is 9C. The first sentence under considerations should read: The citizens of Collier County and the general public desire to use the additional lands as such lands. There was too many two's in there. And that correction's at Commissioner Fiala request. Next item's to add on item 9E, and that's a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve filling a vacant position in the board's office as an exception to the current county Page 3 April 22-23, 2008 policy to not fill open or vacated general funds positions. That add-on's at Ms. Filson's request. Next item is to add on item lOG, and that's a recommendation to approve presenting to the U.S. Congress for consideration in the 2008 Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, two proposed Collier County water quality projects, including Clam Bay Estuary improvements and a Naples Bay conservation initiative entailing a system of 10 aquifer storage and recovery wells along the Golden Gate Canal and a City of Marco Island project request for Hideaway Beach erosion control and beach re-nourishment. And that add-on is at staffs request. We have another add-on, and that's item 10H, and that's a letter to the Florida transportation secretary regarding April 24, 2008 Alligator Industry Forum. That add-on is at staffs request. Next item is to move item 16C2 to 101, and that's a recommendation to approve as ex-officio the governing Board of Collier County Water/Sewer District to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding/Charter establishing the Lower West Coast Utility Council, and that item is being moved at Commissioner Coyle's request. Next item is to withdraw item 16Hl, and that's at Commissioner Coletta's request, the board approve for reimbursement serving a valid public purpose, will attend the coalition of Immokalee Workers Human Rights Here in our Back Yard on April 11, 2008. The $50 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. This item is being withdrawn at Commissioner Coletta's request. The next item is to move item 16H7 to 41 and will be read on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. It's a proclamation thanking the Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart for his extraordinary service to Collier County, and that item is being moved at Commissioner Coletta's request. The next item is item 17D. Exhibit D, development conditions Page 4 April 22-23, 2008 for conditional use 2007-AR-11394 that appears in the agenda packet is incorrect. The correct Exhibit D has been distributed and made available for review, and that correction's at staffs request. Item 17E, the resolution for this item, was omitted from the printed agenda packet. Copies have been distributed and made available for review, and that's at staffs request. The next item is move item 171 to 8C, and that's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider adopting an ordinance amending the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, which is Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances by incorporating the directed changes to the charitable organization, Impact Fee Deferral Program. That item is being moved at Commissioner Coletta's request. And we have a series of time certain items for today, Commissioners. First, all items on paragraph 3, service awards, all items on paragraph 4, proclamation on your agenda, and all items on paragraph 5 on your agenda, presentations, will be heard starting on Wednesday, April 23, 2008, beginning at nine a.m. That's tomorrow morning at nine a.m. Next item is 7C to be heard at two p.m. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte be provided by commission members. It's CUR-2008-AR-12955, State Road 846, Land Trust Earth Mine Mining Venture, LLC, represented by R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel & Andress, is requesting a review of the approved conditional use resolution 2007-274 for earth mining in the A-MHO agricultural zoning district. The subject property consisting of 2,576 acres is located east of Immokalee Road, County Road 846, approximately two miles north of Oil Well Road, County Road 858. We are basically thinking about this particular item as the Jones Mine. Next item is item 8B to be heard at 4:30 p.m. This item was continued from the April 8, 2008 BCC meeting. It's a Page 5 April 22-23, 2008 recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reconsider the Land Development Code amendment addressing the calculation of the maximum number of wet slips when a shoreline is in a conservation easement. The next time certain item is item lOB to be heard at 10:30 a.m. today. It's a recommendation that the Pelican Bay Services Division, that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Pelican Bay Services Division to prepare, sign, and submit the Clam Bay Management Plan to the federal and state agencies. The next time certain item is item 10E to be heard at 10 a.m. today. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve changes to a current interlocal agreement with the City of Naples for funds earmarked for Pulling Boat Ramp; give direction considering a funding -- funding policy for capital improvements and operations and maintenance for municipalities for parks and recreational programs. Next time certain item is item 12A to be heard at 11: 15 a.m. This is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals, reject the recommendation of the special magistrate pursuant to the alternative dispute resolution process resulting from the denial of the conditional use for the expansion of a church. It's petition CU-2004-AR-6384, the Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. The next time certain item is item 12B to be heard at 12 noon. This is a shade session. It's, notice is hereby given pursuant to section 286.011(8) Florida statutes. The County Attorney desires advice from the Board of County Commissioners in closed attorney-client session on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 today, at a time certain of 12 noon in the commission conference room. The board, in executive session, will discuss settlement negotiations and strategy relating to litigation expenditures in the Page 6 April 22-23, 2008 pending litigation cases of Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC, versus Collier County Code Enforcement Board, Collier County Board of County Commissioners, case number 2:07-cv-411-FtM-29DNF; and there's another case, same particular issue with Bonita Media Enterprises, and that has to do with the case in the 20th Judicial Court for Collier County, Florida. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Mr. Klatzkow, do you have any changes, comments? MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta, do you have any changes to today's agenda or any ex parte on today's consent or summary agenda? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning. First let me go through my -- declare what I have on the consent agenda and the summary agenda. On the consent agenda, 11A, I've had meetings; on A12, I've had no disclosures. Bear with me here. On the summary agenda, 17B, I've had correspondence; 17D, meetings, correspondence, emails, phone calls; 17F, no disclosures. But there's two things that I need to bring to the commission's attention. One, I made an error. Very often when we're making our calendars up and we're reviewing them, we miss something. Item 16H1 that I asked to be withdrawn because I didn't attend, I find out I did attend. It's the same as your schedules. You know, you go to so many different events, all of a sudden you look at it and you have doubts that you were there. And then when you start to review it, you realize you were. So with your permission, I'd like to add that back on the agenda. And the other thing, too, is that I appreciate the fact that we moved 171 to 8C; however, with that said, I talked -- had a discussion yesterday with our County Attorney, and -- about the item itself and Page 7 April 22-23, 2008 there's some concern not on my part but his part about the legal sufficiency, and I would like Mr. Klatzkow at this point in time to address that because I'd like to continue this item for one meeting to make sure that we have covered that. There's a couple other reasons, too, but this is the -- MR. KLATZKOW: The primary issue that Commissioner Coletta brought to my attention is, what happens if we do a deferral to a charitable entity and the federal government then changes its mandates so that they're then required to service everybody irrespective of citizenship or residency, would the county at that point in time -- could the county foreclose on a property? And I told Commissioner Coletta I didn't have an answer for him. I just don't know what the answer is now. I'd have to do that research before I could answer his question. And-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there anything else, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's it. Could we continue that one item? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I want to address both of your Issues. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta wants to put back on the agenda the travel he had in Immokalee. MR. MUDD: 16Hl, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And also wants to continue the ordinance of -- the affordable housing ordinance. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one is that? MR. MUDD: That was 171 moving to 8C. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually it's not affordable housing. It has to do with non-profits getting a -- not a waiver. Page 8 April 22-23, 2008 MR. MUDD: The Charitable Organization Impact Fee Deferral Program. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Commissioner Coletta wants to continue that, doesn't want to move it to the regular agenda. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no. I want to continue it. It doesn't matter what part of the agenda it's on. I want to continue it to the next meeting. I don't want it to go away. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. Is there -- I mean, I would love to have full disclosure on the item to -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, based upon what the County Attorney said, it appears to me that the Board of County Commissioners has to provide guidance to the County Attorney of what our intent should be. The County Attorney can't resolve that question that was posed without guidance from us. As an example, there was never any intent in my mind that property would be foreclosed on if the federal government made some change in their regulations. It just means that we wouldn't grant any more deferrals for future property if the county -- if the federal government created a requirement that these deferrals be applied to illegal immigrants. So I don't know why we can't solve that today. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there's two other issues too, sir, why I'd like to have it continued, if! may. One of them is the fact that when this issue first came up, as you know, I was in disagreement with my fellow commissioners on that, which is a healthy thing to do, by the way. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's not really. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I mean, you being the one exception, of course. But the whole thing was is that I requested staff to give me sufficient warning before this came back so we could be prepared. Page 9 April 22-23, 2008 I received no warning and became -- I found it on Sunday when I was reviewing the agenda. There's people out there in the community that want to interact with this, and they had no time to be able to come to this meeting with the short notice that was made on this. So with -- there's been quite a few different failings on this going forward. I really think in all fairness to myself, I'd grant this same request to you ifit was made. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you have other issues other than the ones you originally -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do, more than one. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I don't have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does anybody -- any other of the commissioners have a comment on continuing this item? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, before you do that, let's get your agenda on and approved, and then after you've done that, let's go to continue this particular item with the separate vote; and this way you've got your agenda and it's already been locked down, just for advertising purposes, to make sure we've got this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, do you have anything else? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that takes care of it. Thank you SIr. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just wanted to ask, this doesn't in any way harm any of the funding that we're to be receiving, right? MR. MUDD: No, we're fine. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you. Yes, I do have many, many things. On the consent agenda, 16A 11, I've had meetings, correspondence, emails, and calls, Page 10 April 22-23, 2008 and I can name those people if you'd like, but I do have them mentioned on my agenda sheet here and -- for public viewing. Also, 16A13, I've had phone calls on this one; 16A14, I've had phone calls on that one; 16A23, I've had correspondence and emails. On the summary agenda, on 17E, I've had meetings and phone calls. The meetings -- this is on the mobile home overlay zoning district stewardship area. I've met with George Varnadoe, Tom Sansbury, Kevin van Asdorp (phonetic), BCC/RLSA, Rural Land Stewardship Area Advisory Board, Tom Conrecode, Tom Flood, and Bruce Anderson, and I've gotten calls from Tom Conrecode. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there anything else? COMMISSIONER FIALA: One other thing -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and I'd just like a moment sometime maybe at the end of this portion of the agenda, just to bring up a fast item, shouldn't take but a second, but this way I can give direction to the County Attorney. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: With your approval, of course. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have no ex parte on today's summary agenda. I have correspondence, email correspondence with staff on 16A20, and I have no further changes to the agenda. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Thank you very much, Chairman. Whoops. Good morning, thank you very much, Chairman. On the -- today's consent agenda, I have no ex parte. On the summary agenda, I'd like to say at this time that -- an item on the agenda, on the summary agenda is 17 A, it's the Cocohatchee settlement agreement, and I would like to say that I want to thank all the neighbors that were involved in this process, probably starting over two years ago working with the developer, coming up with ideas and concerns that directly impacted the PUD and the people in that Page 11 April 22-23, 2008 area, and I'd like to say that I want to thank staff who worked so diligently and, of course, a real special thanks to the Planning Commission. They had many, many meetings on this. And I believe what we have here is a product that everyone should be proud of, and I want to thank, again, the Planning Commission. They had numerous meetings on this item. And today we've come to resolve this particular item, and thank you very much. And at that, I have no other ex parte on the summary agenda. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have no further recommended or requested changes to the agenda. I have no disclosure on the consent agenda. And with respect to 17E on the summary agenda, I did have meetings with the petitioner and the petitioner's agent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Filson, do we have any public speakers on today's agenda? MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a public speaker for two items on the consent agenda. John McCormick. He would like to speak on 16A19 and 1620. Mr. McCormick? MR. McCORMICK: Good morning, Commissioners. On 16,20 and-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record. MR. McCORMICK: Oh, John McCormick. On 16, 19 and 20, these are just routine bond releases. We have -- we have no doubt that this work's been done and signed off on; however, what we have noticed, there's been a lot of changes after the fact, and what's happening is, these bonds are getting released, it's going back to saying privately maintained. Well, that's our HOA dues that pay for that. All we ask is that, in the original spirit, intent of the commissioners' letter, I think this commissioners' letter was designed Page 12 April 22-23, 2008 to say that, hey, there is eventually going to be a turnover. When the turnover happens, at least some homeowners need to acknowledge it. The developer's already in bankruptcy, he's already defaulted on a DCA. We see a trend here; we're going to be left holding the bag. And every time one of these bonds gets released, there goes any protection we might have at this point. So all we're asking is, not that the bond doesn't get released, we're asking that we're there for the inspections. And we know that Stan Chrzanowski's office actually invites the homeowners to be there for these inspections; however, the developer's reluctant to let us go to the inspections, and we think that's a little bit unfair. We've asked for engineering reports; have been denied. We've repeatedly asked to see what's actually being turned over and what we're actually paying for, and we have been denied. So we -- if you look at the letter that I originally signed off on, my intent of signing off on that was that if I didn't sign off on it, maybe a less savvy homeowner would have signed off on it. And I think that the letter's very clear what the commissioners' sample letter says, is that they want us to be there and be a part of this, because we're going to inherit that. And what I would like to do is, on these two items here and any future bonds for this developer that come up, is we acknowledge that we actually have been there for the inspection, not just that, okay, it's okay to have your bond released. And I think that's fair. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm confused. We've got -- 19 is a recommendation of final approval for road -- private roadway drainage improvements for the final plat for Reflection Lake. MR. McCORMICK: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And then the other one is -- okay. They're both Reflection Lake plats. MR. McCORMICK: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, did you Page 13 April 22-23, 2008 have a question; did I see your hand? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You didn't, but I do have a question. I'm concerned that just allowing your presence there will not necessarily solve a conflict ifthere is one. We can certainly, I think, take action that would permit you to be there during inspection, but what happens then if you have an objection to the outcome of that inspection? The action we take on your part to allow your presence will not solve any conflict if you disagree with the inspection. MR. McCORMICK: You're correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I think that it might be more appropriate if we also continue these two items until an appropriate arrangement can be made to protect the interests of the homeowners' association. MR. McCORMICK: That's all we ask, Commissioner. We just want to be present for it. And if you look at paragraph 2 on the commissioners' sample letter, we'd like those requirements to be met some way. We're going to be paying for this when they get this bond back, and we just want to know what's happening and that it's actually happened, especially on 20, that -- if I get permitting to build a roof and then I turn around and as soon as the inspector leaves I change the roof, well, I'm in the wrong, and that's exactly what's happening on the landscaping irrigation requirement. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? MR. McCORMICK: These could be substantiated. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to say a similar thing. I would like to see this continued until we work out some kind of way that we can enforce whatever these things are. But I'm delighted to see that you're here. So many times these things pass by and nobody knows, and you did, and you took this effort. And we've had problems along this same line with other areas. So I certainly want to bring this back as well. Page 14 April 22-23, 2008 MR. McCORMICK: Yes, Commissioner. And I think that's why that letter came out to begin with, because there has been historical problems. A lot of people are in default right now, and we just don't want to be caught -- they're already in default because of the bankruptcy. We just don't want them walking away and we don't know what's going on. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you know how many more bonds there are out there on this PUD? MR. McCORMICK: The -- based on the information I have right now, you're looking at a total of $6,777,948.70 worth. Now, these are insurance bonds. It doesn't represent real money; however, there's 10 bonds. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Yeah, I believe we should bring this back for further discussion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree. COMMISSIONER HALAS: To bring this back so that we protect the people that are going to inherit this community. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve today's agenda as amended, including continuing 16A19 and 20. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that would include 171? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I was going to get there before the motion, but -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- I guess unless there's an amendment to the motion, we'll have to hear another motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think the suggestion was is that we do the motion and then bring it second -- that'd be a second motion. Page 15 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: I understand. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I believe that's what it was. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg 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. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I'd -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: 171. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. Motion -- 171 or 8C, whatever we want to call it, motion to continue it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that is a -- the next agenda, which is -- MR. MUDD: 13th of May, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- 13th of May. Just a procedural matter, we approved the agenda with this item on there. We can go ahead and do that? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta; second by who, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. Page 16 April 22-23, 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. Weare going to today's public petitions, and the first public petition is -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, the item -- this item was continued from the April 8, 2008 BCC meeting. It's a public petition. Commissioner, I think we need to slow down just a second. You finished with today's agenda with the continuances and stuff. I think you need to do 2B, C, D, and E before we go to 6. Page 17 AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING ADril 22. 2008 Withdraw Item 6B: Public petition request by Carl Kuehner to discuss PUD rezone for Esperanza Place, Immokalee, Florida. (Petitioner's request.) Withdraw Item 6C: Public petition request by Markus Weatherwax to discuss sign permits for Athletic Club of Naples. (Petitioner's request.) Item 7A: Under "Considerations" of the executive summary, the last part of the first sentence should read, ". . . . . that the provisions of the previously adopted lDC shall apply in the event (rather than "even") of such a conflict." Also, page 65 of 69, the August 31, 2008 date on Brad Schiffer'S letter is incorrect. The letter would have been written sometime between March 26 and April 8, 2008, (Commissioner Fiala's request.) Item 7B: The Resolution for this item was omitted from the printed agenda packet. Copies have been distributed and made available for review. (Staff's request.) Item 8A: Section Five (b) of the Ordinance should read as follows: "plus an additional ORe lumdred aRd fifty dollars ($1511.1111Lfifty dollar fiftv dollar ($50.00\ appeal fee. .." "The $1511.1111 $50.00 fee may be amended by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners." Section Seven (e) of the Ordinance should read as follows: "plus an additional ORe lumdred aRd fifty dollars ($1511.1111) fiftv dollar ($50.00\ appeal fee. . ," (Staff's request.) Item 9C: The first sentence under Considerations, should read, "The citizens of Collier County and the general public desire to use the Addition lands as such lands..,." (Commissioner Fiala's request.) Add On Item 9E: Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve filling a vacant position in the Board's Office as an exception to the current County policy to not fill open or vacated General Fund positions. (Sue Filson's request.) Add On Item 10G: Recommendation to approve presenting to the U.S. Congress for consideration in the 2008 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) two proposed Collier County water quality projects, including Clam Bay Estuary improvements, and a Naples Bay conservation initiative entailing a system of 10 Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) wells along Golden Gate Canal, and a City of Marco Island project request for Hideaway Beach erosion control and beach renourishment. (Staff's request.) Add On Item 10H: letter to Florida Transportation Secretary regarding April 24, 2008 Alligator Alley Industry Forum. (Staff's request.) Move Item 16C2 to 101: Recommendation to approve as ex-officio the governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding/Charter, establishing the lower West Coast Utility Council. (Commissioner Coyle'S request.) Withdraw Item 16H1: Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement serving a valid public purpose. Will attend the Coalition of Immokalee Workers "Human Rights Heroes in our Backyard" on April 11 ,2008. $50 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta'S travel budget. (Commissioner Coletta'S request.) Move Item 16H7 to 41 and will be read on Wednesdav. ADril 23. 2008: Proclamation thanking The Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart for his extraordinary service to Collier County. (Commissioner Coletta's request.) Item 170: Exhibit 0, Development Conditions CU-2007-AR-11394 that appears in the agenda packet is incorrect. A correct Exhibit 0 has been distributed and made available for review. (Staff's request.) Item 17E: The Resolution for this item was omitted from the printed agenda packet. Copies have been distributed and made available for review. (Staff's request.) Move Item 171 to 8C: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider adopting an Ordinance amending the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, which is Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, by incorporating the directed changes to the Charitable Organization Impact Fee Deferral Program. (Commissioner Coletta's request.) Time Certain Items: Item 3 Service Awards: Item 4 Proclamations: and Item 5 Presentations will be heard on Wednesday, April 23. 2008 beainnina at 9:00 a.m. Item 7C to be heard at 2:00 p.m. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CUR-2008-AR-12955 SR-846 Land Trust Earth Mine, Mining Venture, LLC., represented by R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel & Andress, is requesting a review of the approved Conditional Use Resolution 2007-274 for earth mining in the A-MHO Agricultural zoning district. The subject property, consisting of 2,576 acres, is located east of Immokalee Road (CR-846), approximately 2 miles north of Oil Well Road (CR-858) in Sections 35 & 36, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, and all of Sections 1 & 2, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Less Road Right-of-Way for County Road 846, Collier County, Florida. Item 8B to be heard at 4:30 p.m. This item was continued from the April 8, 2008 BCC meeting. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reconsider the Land Development Code Amendment addressing the calculation of the maximum number of wetslips when a shoreline is in a Conservation Easement. Item 10B to be heard at 10:30 a.m.: Recommendation from the Pelican Bay Services Division that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Pelican Bay Services Division to prepare, sign and submit the Clam Bay Management Plan to the Federal and State Agencies. Item 10E to be heard at 10:00 a.m.: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve changes to a current interlocal agreement with the City of Naples for funds earmarked for Pulling Boat Ramp; give direction considering a funding policy for capital improvements and operations/maintenance at municipalities for Parks and Recreation programs. Item 12A to be heard at 11:15 a.m.: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals reject the recommendations of the Special Magistrate pursuant to the alternate dispute resolution process resulting from the denial of the conditional use for the expansion of a church. (Petition CU-2004-AR-6384 - Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc.) Item 12B to be heard at 12:00 Noon: Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Section 286.011(8) Fla. Stat., the County Attorney desires advice from the Board of County Commissioners in closed attorney-client session on TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 2008, at a time certain of 12:00 noon in the Commission conference room. The Board in executive session will discuss: Settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures in the pending litigation cases of Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC. V. Collier County Code Enforcement Board, Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Case No.: 2:07-cv-411-FtM-29DNF, now pending in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division and Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC, Brennan, Manna & Diamond (Reg. Agent) v. Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Appeal Case No.: 07-2035-CA, Lower Tribunal CEB No.: 2007-35, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, in the Administrative Appeal Division of the Circuit Court. April 22-23, 2008 Item #2B, #2C, #2D and #2E MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 29, 2008 BCC/SFWMD WORKSHOP MEETING; MINUTES OF THE MARCH 18, 2008 BCC/FIRE REVIEW TASK FORCE WORKSHOP MEETING; MINUTES OF THE MARCH 25-26, 2008 BCC REGULAR MEETING; MINUTES OF THE APRIL 1,2008 BCC/AIRPORT AUTHORITY WORKSHOP MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Entertain a motion to approve February 29,2008 BCC/South Florida Water Management, or SFWMD, Workshop; and March 18,2008 BCC/Fire Review Task Force Workshop; March 25 and 26, BCC Regular Meeting; April 1st, BCC/ Airport Authority Workshop. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas, 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.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. Item #6A PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JAMES WALKER TO Page 18 April 22-23, 2008 DISCUSS IMPACT FEES FOR A COMMERCIAL SITE IN IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA - MOTION TO GRANT REQUEST - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public petitions. This item was continued from the April 8, 2008 BCC Meeting. It's a public petition request by James Walker to discuss impact fees for a commercial site in Immokalee, Florida. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Walker? MR. MUDD: State your name for the record. MR. WALKER: My name's Jimmy Walker. Hi. I've got some backup material here that we made some copies of that I don't think were in the package that was submitted. If you want, I can hand them to you all, and you can look at them between now and the next time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. WALKER: There are several packages there. I'm a partner in FDE Immokalee, LLC, and we're building a Family Dollar store, and a small1,200-square-foot retail building right next to it out in Immokalee. And we found this piece of land, and worked out the deal with the owner, and then we confirmed on the county website and with a call to the county on January 28th of'07, that the property was zoned C-5. Then we went to the pre-app. meeting with the county and -- on February 13th of'07, and staff there confirmed -- and in your pile of stuff there, there's all the people that were at the meeting -- and they all confirmed that the property was indeed zoned C-5 and would fall under the C-5 rules for the zoning and the site planning and the construction. So we went ahead and did our full site engineering. That includes, of course, the building and the parking layouts, surface water Page 19 April 22-23, 2008 retention drainage, road access, utilities hookups, building footprints, all those things that go into the civil engineering part of the project; and we based, of course, all this on the C-5 zoning that we had heard from the county now several times. On April 17th as we were getting towards completion of our site engineering and getting ready to submit for our final site approval, we called again and we talked with staff member David Hedrick, and he, again, confirmed that the property was zoned C-5 and was not in any existing overlay district. When our civil engineer called the county to discuss formal submittal of the plans on April 19th, staff member Christine Willoughby mentioned to the engineer that the site might be, indeed, part of this Immokalee Main Street overlay district zoning, which is just over a small part of downtown Immokalee. Now, this zoning overlay district required a whole different set of rules be followed as to the layout and construction of the project. She sent it up the ladder, and on April 23rd, the zoning and land development planning manager, Ross Gochenaur, confirmed that we were, indeed, inside of this Immokalee Main Street overlay district. He also confirmed that his staff -- and there's a copy of the notes for this -- that his staff had made numerous mistakes in telling us that the property was in C-5 zoning. He apologized for the error, and he offered to refund any money that we had spent on applications up to that point. Now, while that was nice ofMr. Gochenaur to admit the mistake as well as offer the refund, by this time we were pretty committed to this site in that we had already paid for environmental reports, surveys, soil borings, legal fees, civil drawings, non-refundable deposits on the land, and we'd spent over $75,000 by this time. We also had an executed lease with our tenant. So we decided to go ahead with the project, but we had to start over from the beginning with an entirely new set of civil plans. All Page 20 April 22-23, 2008 those disciplines that I mentioned before had to be redone and re-drawn. And we went through the process again, and this time we did receive our permit; however, by the time we received our permit and could apply for our building permit, this was March 5th of this year. And when we applied for our building permit, we found out that the county had increased the impact fees for that area as of January 1st. Now, this resulted in an increase to us of $47,387.47 over and above what it would have been on December 31 st. Now, if we hadn't had the delay caused by the necessity of redesigning the whole project because of the incorrect zoning information we were given several times, we would have been submitted for this building permit -- I did all the math backwards and everything -- and we would have been in there 83 days before and -- or on or before December 13,2007 and we would have paid those lower impact and saved $47,000. So what I'm requesting or what we're requesting is that the commission allow us to pay the impact fees that we would have paid on December 31 st had we not been bumped back because of the mistakes. That's it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Questions from the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would make a motion that we approve his request. I think he's absolutely right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I absolutely second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we have a motion by Commissioner Coyle to grant the request, second by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. While I'm very interested in what he has to say, I'd like to be able to hear from staff before we vote on this, because these types of things shouldn't happen. But I'd like to be able to find out what did happen and if everything is just the Page 21 April 22-23, 2008 way it was supposed to be. Is Mr. Schmitt or someone from staff here that can -- there we go. Mr. Walker, we appreciate you being here today-- MR. WALKER: Yes, sir COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and taking advantage of our public petition process. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator of Community Development/Environmental Services Division. Mr. Walker told you exactly, or at least from his perspective, what took place. And in fact, there was an error in the GIS map, which -- the area where his development was going to be placed, the Main Street overlay district, it wasn't clearly represented, and was informed on March 23,2007 which the overlay was going to impact-- basically the overlay required parking to be in the rear of the building rather than the front, so it was -- it was a redesign of the site to allow the building to be placed closer to the street. The -- and I've got -- let me just put those dates on the visualizer. The -- though I don't argue the situation Mr. Walker was in, he could have submitted for simultaneous review for his building permit on the first of March -- I'm sorry, the first of November. Simultaneous review allows for a building permit to come in upon second submittal of plat or plan, and that certainly would have locked him in for the date for the building permit prior to the impact fees. The impact fees were approved in July, 2007, and there was a six-month delay in the implementation or the effective date of those impact fees till January 1,2008. I had no request from Mr. Walker or anybody on his team to allow this permit to come in. It certainly could have come in after the first of November to beat those impact fee dates, and in fact, I've had several requests from other developers to try and get applications in to get the building permit dated prior to the effective date of the impact fees. Page 22 Apri122-23, 2008 So I understand the development -- or the predicament that he was in, and I understand fully what it may cost him, but the facts are, he could have submitted for a building permit in November, and that would have locked him in on a date prior to the implementation or the effective date of the impact fees. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you can get a building permit before your site plan is approved? MR. SCHMITT: Simultaneous review allows for submittal of building permit at second submittal of site plan. So, yes, he can submit for his building permit or his building plan review upon second submittal of site plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Was Mr. Walker made aware of this, that this was available, or has this ever come up in discussions? MR. SCHMITT: That -- I can't answer that. I don't know. I don't know ifhe was aware of the option for a simultaneous review. I don't know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It doesn't seem likely that he would have passed up the money on the table ifhe was made aware of the fact that these particular elements were coming into play seeing -- MR. SCHMITT: I know he's an out-of-town developer and may have not been aware of the simultaneous review process. It's normally discussed or at least is brought up during the pre-application. I looked back at the notes. I could find nothing to confirm that, in fact, he was advised of option for a simultaneous review. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Most of the questions were answered by Joe. And I guess the bottom line is that, had this gentleman requested this, to have the permit prior to December 31 st, he could have had that building permit; is that correct? Page 23 April 22-23, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: Well, he wouldn't have had the building permit, Commissioner. He would have been able to submit it and have it dated prior to the effective date of the impact fees. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then he would have been covered? MR. SCHMITT: And the impact fees are based on the date of submittal, not on the date of approval. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1; Commissioner Halas dissenting in the motion. Next public petition, please. Item #6D PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY NANCY COLINA TO DISCUSS CONSTRUCTION AND WARRANTY ISSUES WITH DESIGNERS HOME GROUP, INC. - MOTION TO PLACE ON A FUTURE BCC AGENDA - WITHDRAWN MR. MUDD: Commissioner, as per the change sheet, petition 6B and 6C has been withdrawn by the petitioners. We are at 6D. It's a public petition request by Nancy Colina to discuss construction and warranty issues with Designers Home Group, Page 24 April 22-23, 2008 Inc. MS. COLINA: Good morning, Commissioners; good morning, everyone. My name is Nancy Colina. And if that could be given to Mr. Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. COLINA: I am here because my family's grateful for the opportunity given to petition the county commissioners. I'd like to see if there's someone else here in the community that has also been a victim of Designers Home Group or any other corporation. My suggestion would be to contact the commissioners' office and they will try to help you with your problems. I am very well aware that I'm not the only one that had problems with this corporation. I have sufficient evidence to back up everything that I'm about to say. My husband and I decided to build our home here on our land in Collier County, and we visited several developers prior to making a decision and we selected to have Designers Home Group, Inc. build our new home. My husband and I signed a residential contract March 3,2003; Exhibit A. Construction of our new residence began, and work was performed according to builder's schedule. Permits and inspections were apparently done. Certificate of Occupancy issued March 26, 2004; Exhibits Band C. The keys to our new home were given to my husband on May 5, 2004. We started to bring some of our belongings gradually on weekends because we still had our existing home in Miami. Our problems started toward the end of May, beginning of June, 2004. My husband arrived with furniture and to stay for the weekend when he realized that the front bedroom carpet was soaked. Somehow water was seeping through the front bedroom and living room area. Here is when our nightmares began and our new home became a living inferno. Page 25 April 22-23, 2008 I contacted the builder right away regarding the problem my husband had encountered and was told that someone would come and check to see what the problem was. I would make arrangements with the office to have someone go and meet me at the house, and no one ever showed up. I made numerous phone calls and sent several faxes confirming the time I would be at the house, and it was all a waste of my time. Prior to the one-year period, we are entitled to, under warranty from Designers Home Group, Inc. against defective workmanship and material. Considering the construction standards for our property in Collier County, I sent a certified letter to Designers Home Group, Inc. and the Office of Inspector General; Exhibits D and E. I waited to see if I would get a reply regarding the letter. The builder did not make an attempt or comply with the issues. Once again, I sent yet another certified letter, Exhibit F. I was hoping to finally have problems resolved. Needless to say, I did not get a response. I decided to file a complaint with the Department of Business and -- excuse me -- and Professional Regulations sent certified mail; Exhibit G. I contacted several roofing companies in the area to come to my home to see if they could tell me what -- the problem with my home. The first company to arrive was Kelly Roofing on June 25, 2005. We now know what was the cause of the problem. They told us and showed us that the valley in front of our home had never been finished. We pursued this issue with legal counsel; Exhibit H and I. We also encountered yet another problem that we were not aware of until hours prior to Hurricane Wilma threatened our area in 2005. The shutters to the back were the incorrect size, too short; Exhibit J. I sent another complaint form to consumer complaints due to not having proof of the problem along with the mold analysis report; Exhibit K. Page 26 April 22-23, 2008 Conclusion is that we ended up with water damage in the interior of both areas, severe damage due to roofleaks, mold contamination in our home. Solution to our mold problem would be remediation. Remediation started August 10,2006. While work was in progress, we were forced to move out of our home. We could not leave the premises due to all my animals and my husband's equipment. We had no other choice but to rent an RV and place it in the back of the home. I had a very difficult situation with my 78-year-old mother. She suffers from dementia, Alzheimer's, and is confined to a bed. Having to care for her in the R V was very stressful and difficult. We stayed in the RV for three weeks only because it had been resolved previously. The next week and a half we stayed in a screen porch because we still could not go inside our home. On September 12, 2006, we were finally able to have access to our home; Exhibit Land M. Finally, we received judgment in our favor on December 20, 2007 signed by Circuit Court Judge Cynthia A. Ellis; Exhibit N. We honestly believed the county is responsible for all the problems that this has brought our family. Ifthe inspector had not signed the approval for the roof and had advised the builder to finish the job, we would not have encountered any of these problems. We had to take a line of credit to pay for all the unexpected expenses. This affected us in a negative way, my relationship with my husband of 25 years. As a result in constant arguments, mental anguish, depression, we were to a point that we almost lost our home. Finally, I have -- all the information that I have provided is because I do not wish any other family in this county or any other county have to go through what we have been because it was a living nightmare. Thank you. Page 27 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Questions? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Let me get -- understand the time line here. I believe you said that around May, 2004, is when you got a CO for your house; is that correct? MS. COLINA: We got the Certificate of Occupancy in March 26, 2004. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay. And you moved in in May and found the problem? MS. COLINA: We were given the keys May 5, 2004. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And then what took place after May? Was there anything done to the house between May of 2004 and June of2005 to stop the water from coming in? MS. COLINA: We did not know what the problem was. Unfortunately, they would claim, oh, it's probably your window is not correctly closed. They would never show up and -- honestly, we had no way of knowing where the water was coming from because we couldn't see. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But it was -- started leaking in 2004; is that correct? MS. COLINA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So in June of2005 is when you -- what'd you do, finally get -- have somebody come out to take a look to find out what was going on? MS. COLINA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And then what was the time line in September of 2006? What took place in 2006, September? MS. COLINA: Excuse me. In September, 2006, is when the remediation had already been finished in my home, meaning they had already taken apart breaking the walls, taking apart the roof and everything was fixed. It started August 10th. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now, it's my understanding Page 28 April 22-23, 2008 from staff -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that you had the ability to take some monetary restitution on this, and I believe it was like $18,000 and you turned it down; is that true? MS. COLINA: I was never told what the amount would be. And unfortunately, the gentleman that was doing the remediation, he told me that his fees would be approximately $15,000. That's not taking into consideration what the reconstruction would be. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, all right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions, comments? Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Coyle then. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So just to try to sum this up so that we can put our arms around this, what you're saying is that the lack of full inspection on the roof caused the leaking to take place? MS. COLINA: That's correct, because the roof was never finished. The valley portion, it was completely bare. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Schmitt, can I get you to address this? MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt. My staff has been working, at least Mike Ossorio from contractor licensing, has been working with Ms. Colina since August, 2006. We met -- Mike met with her, or at least with the contractor, the provider -- or, I'm sorry, the qualifier, Pablo Hernandez, and negotiated a settlement of $18,000. That money was turned down. I believe what Ms. Colina was looking for was an award for pain and suffering as well, and that is something we cannot do. That has to go to a judge. And I know this went to court. And also it was June 2005 that we note that Kelly Roofing went out and cited the problems with the roof, and it wasn't until August, 2006, that the repairs were conducted. She -- the issue here is from an inspection standpoint; our inspectors inspect for compliance with the Florida Building Code and not a quality control type of inspection, meaning going over the entire Page 29 April 22-23, 2008 roof. That's the contractor's responsibility. So I think the issue here is, what is the responsibility of the building department in regards to conducting inspections and what is the responsibility of the contractor? This was clearly a contractor installation problem, which we confirmed. We negotiated a settlement; that settlement was refused. That settlement -- and then we -- it went to civil court, filed for breach of contract. But unfortunately by that time the contractor was out of business. The qualifier basically filed for bankruptcy, and now the only recourse is to seek damages through the recovery fund, the state recovery fund. Mike has also been in contact with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, which is where these kind of complaints go if it's a state-certified contractor. And we've been working on trying to assist in trying to get recovery money out of the state recovery fund as well. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I can understand why she might have -- even if she was aware of the -- what was it, $15,000? MR. SCHMITT: $18,000, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- $18,000, $13,000 of it was going to be taken as processing fees by a person that was handling it. That's totally unrealistic, you know. Why would anybody want to accept that? But never mind that. I appreciate the fact that you're stepping in and you're trying to act on the part of our resident to reach some sort of agreement for settlement. The problem goes back to the very beginning. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The roof itself, is there some way when you inspect roofs that you're supposed to be able to certify them to be sound when your inspector goes out? MR. SCHMITT: Let me -- from a technical perspective, let me Page 30 April 22-23, 2008 turn to my building director, because he can -- he can cite in the building code. MR. SCHMITT: Bob? MR. DUNN: Hi, I'm Bob Dunn, building director, Collier County . COMMISSIONER COYLE: We shouldn't be doing this. MR. DUNN: We're required by the Florida Building Code to do a giant inspection. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a background noise in here someplace? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner, if we want to put this on a future agenda for a staff report, there needs to be a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to put it on a future agenda, because I would like to have more information. And I agree with you, we shouldn't be trying to put the whole item before us right now. MR. SCHMITT: But the issue here is, it's a claim against the county, and that's -- that's why I need to turn to the County Attorney, because we're going to adjudicate something. MR. MUDD: Stop. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Stop. Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The question that we debated last time about hearing something that was a legal issue and subject to a court of law decision, we would not take action on, we would not Page 31 April 22-23, 2008 discuss. Now, in the form that was filled out, the question is asked, is this subject matter under litigation at this time? The petitioner has said no, but yet the petition itself is a request for a judgment against the city -- I presume you mean the county -- for damages for all the pain and suffering. Now, it is clear that this is a legal issue, and anything we do to discuss this in this venue at this point in time jeopardizes the taxpayers of Collier County because that's where any money for restitution would come from. Now, the thing that hasn't been pointed out -- Commissioner Halas did get to it -- but the thing that hasn't been pointed out is that 13 months elapsed from the time the owner moved into the house until they called a roofing contractor to inspect the source of the leak. Now, how much damage was done in those 13 months? We certainly are not responsible for that, nor can an enforcement -- or a code enforcement officer or a building inspector look at a roof and guarantee that it doesn't have a leak in it. It just isn't possible to do that. So I would suggest we not discuss this. If the petitioner wishes to pursue this in court, then they should have a lawyer, they should file the papers, and our attorney should be reviewing it. This is not the right place to deal with this issue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Before I go to Commissioner Coletta, I want to say that the meeting after that, I can't abide by that unless the majority of the board through resolution or ordinance where an issue may be in the court or may be a code enforcement issue, you know, that would have to be ordered by the Board of Commissioners through a vehicle. But I understand what you're saying, but I just want to recognize that I didn't agree with that. Commissioner Coletta? Page 32 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I think this is very healthy discussion. Yeah, the -- one of the things I was concerned about -- now, I'm not trying to advocate a settlement at this time. The only thing I'm trying to do is establish if the way we inspect homes has a shortfalling to it. What do we need in the future? If there is a way to be able to prevent something like this from happening, if there's something that the inspection is being done that's falling short, that's what I would like to know. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then you add fire to the legal issue that undermines the rights of the taxpayers of Collier County. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, also, what about the rights of the individual? COMMISSIONER COYLE: It can be done in a different venue. You can have -- you can have the staff report on that at any point in time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm lost on that. In other words, bring it back for a staff report? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. What you have in a motion, to bring this issue back on a further agenda, and what Commissioner Coyle responded to is what you said, is you want to -- some information on how staff does inspection, is there a better way to do it. And that's a reason for his comment. Okay? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got some very serious concerns about this. If this goes forward and we, as a Board of County Commissioners, agree on this, everybody in the whole county who's got a leak in their roof or whatever else is going to be here looking for restitution, and I got a problem with this. I got a problem with it when a person has a home for this length of time, as I brought up earlier, for over a year, without addressing the problem. Now, I can tell you if I had a brand new home, I would be to my Page 33 April 22-23, 2008 wits end to figure out where the leak was, and it would be done very shortly. It wouldn't take 13 months to figure out that I got a leak in the house. CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. It's the law in Florida that the county is not liable for the negligence of an inspector, so that if the inspector even committed negligence -- I'm not saying negligence was done here -- but if the inspector even committed an act of negligence here, we are not responsible for that leak. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. MR. KLATZKOW: If the issue is staff coming back explaining the inspection process, how they do it and whatnot, I think that's a fine discussion. But to bring this issue back, in my mind, is irrelevant because this board can't do anything for this particular person anyway as a matter of law. We have no legal liability here, which is why I believe she's here and not in a court forum at this time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll withdraw my second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The seconder withdraws the second. Commission Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If! may, there's one more question. If I may address that question to you. Why was there a lapse of so many months before you repaired the roof? MS. COLINA: Because I continued calling the builder and setting up appointments, and he would tell me, okay, I'll be there this weekend at this time, and he would give me dates. I'd be there, and he was never there. Mind you, I still lived in Miami. I would just come over on weekends. And he would break up every single date he would give me. I would be rushing here from my work in Miami just to meet him, and it was useless. I would take my vacation, and I'd be sitting at the house waiting and waiting and waiting. No phone call. Nobody Page 34 April 22-23, 2008 would show up, nothing. That's when I decided to have someone, you know, take a look at my roof to see what the problem was because water started -- water marks started showing up in the interior of the roof. That's when I called in the roofing company because I was not aware that the roof had never been finished until they came. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you for being with us today. MS. COLINA: Thank you. Item #9 A RESOLUTION 2008-116: RE-APPOINTING JERRY P. MORGAN TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to move on to item 9A. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's appointment of a member to the Collier County W ater/W astewater Authority. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion. We have one applicant, Jerry Morgan, a re-applicant from District 2, for the water-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas, 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. Page 35 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. Item #9B RESOLUTION 2008-117: RE-APPOINTlNG KAREN L. BEATTY AND CHARLES H. GUNTHER (W/W AIVER OF TERM LIMITS FOR EACH) TO THE BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Next item is 9B, appointment of members to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board. MS. FILSON: On this item, Commissioners -- sorry -- I need to point out two things. On the -- under the objective, I have the term expiring in May 22, 2011. That should be 2010, two years from 2008. And then if you choose to reappoint the two members, I need to waive both their terms. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I make a motion to approve both of the committee recommendations, both members for the committee recommendation, and also to waive their -- how do you say that? MS. FILSON: It's waive section 7B of ordinance 2001-55, their term limit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Waive whatever she said. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala with a clarify (sic) by Sue Filson to appoint the two members, reappoint the two members. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second to the motion by Commissioner Coyle. Page 36 April 22-23, 2008 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. Next item is? Item #9C RESOLUTION 2008-118: AUTHORIZING PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES OF THE "ADDITION LANDS" GENERAL MANAGEMENT, WILDERNESS DESIGNATION AND OFF- ROAD VEHICLE PLANS BEING DEVELOPED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS) FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE "ADDITION LANDS" ANNEXED TO THE BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: 9C, to adopt a resolution authorizing preliminary alternatives of the addition lands, general management wilderness designation and off-road vehicle plans being developed by the National Park Service for the management of the addition lands annexed to the Big Cypress National Preserve. Commissioner Coletta asked that this item be on the agenda. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta's asking us to approve the resolution. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second the motion. Discussion on the motion? Page 37 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Really, myself, I don't, but I think we have a speaker. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. Is there any commissioners' discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please call up the speakers. MS. FILSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wish to waive if you -- MS. FILSON: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I have two speakers. Frank Denninger. He'll be followed by Wayne Jenkins. MR. DENNINGER: Hello. Frank Denninger here with Jetport Conservation and Recreation Club and the Big Cypress Sportsman's Alliance, a recently formed group about a year ago. And I just want to say, it's a pleasure to be here before you and see that you all are considering a resolution like this. And also I'd like to thank, like Mr. Jenkins here, also supported it with Mr. -- our vice-president, John Cameron in our club, the jetport club, and Mr. McCanless, the president of the Big Cypress Sportsmen's Alliance and some local residents like Jack Schooley at Trail Lakes Campground, and Mr. Arthur Skip Freeman in Everglades City, and Mr. Bellman in Ochopee. And it's just really a pleasure to see the county taking concern to protect this cultural community and just help access to everywhere in Collier County so the traditions and heritage can be carried on. Thank you now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Wayne Jenkins. MR. JENKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Wayne Jenkins. I'm president for the Collier Sportsman Conservation Club. I would just briefly like to say thank you very much for your support of this. It's a great part of our tradition and culture and early Page 38 April 22-23, 2008 history of Collier County. The Everglades has been a lot of what made Collier County what it is with the interaction and the use of the facilities. There was very bad proposals to end this addition act so far as going to making parks of Plantation, around Everglades City, and some of that area as proposed designated wilderness where even a motorboat couldn't be used in the area that's been used traditionally since the beginning of motorboats, I guess, in this area. Also, as an avid sportsman, we appreciate the support of putting the National Park Service on notice that we do want the Enabling Act of the 1974 legislation of the -- that created the Big Cypress that recreation was to be in this area. Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I'd also like to recognize in the audience we have Mayor Sammy Hamilton and his wife Brenda. Sammy Hamilton, the mayor, and the City Council of Everglades City have been very supportive of reasonable access to the addition lands, and I appreciate him being here today, too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, this is nothing more than to support the sportsman that -- in regards to the additional lands that may come about in Great (sic) Cypress area, that those people will be able to recreate on that land; is that correct? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And the end result is still going to be up to the park service; is that correct? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct also. Page 39 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, 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. We've got a time certain Item #10E CHANGES TO A CURRENT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR FUNDS EARMARKED FOR THE PULLING BOAT RAMP; GIVE DIRECTION CONSIDERING A FUNDING POLICY FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND OPERATIONS/MAINTENANCE AT MUNICIPALITIES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS - MOTION TO BUDGET 1 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE CITY OF NAPLES ' PARKS AND RECREATION FOR TEN YEARS, AND STAFF TO BRING BACK AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE BEACH PARKING AND PERMITTING AND TO INCLUDE AN INDEXING METHOD - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We have a time certain item, and it's at 10 a.m. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Page 40 April 22-23, 2008 Commissioners approve changes to a current interlocal agreement with the City of Naples for funds earmarked for Pulling Boat Ramp, give direction considering a funding policy for the capital improvements and operations and, slash, maintenance at municipal -- at municipalities for parks and recreational programs. Mr. Barry Williams, your director of parks and recreation, will present. MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, good morning. For the record, my name is Barry Williams, parks and recreation director. Mr. Chairman, I had a brief presentation, if I may, to provide context for your discussion. Commissioners, with your direction, in the March, last March meeting, we brought back the existing interlocal and have redrafted one that reflects your intent, and you'll have the opportunity to approve that today. The interlocal seeks to rescind the current agreement that you have with the city and provide for the use of $700,000 for either of the Pulling project or Fleischmann Park as reimbursable amount. And finally, a portion of the interlocal stipulates something that already exists, and that is that fees charged by the city at Fleischmann would be the same for the county residents as well as the city. Just to provide you with a description of the Pulling property, and on the visualizer you can see the area outlined in yellow. That's the area in dispute. The city still maintains the property to the north. And there have been discussions about the use of that property as part of the Gordon River Greenway. And there's still plans, although in talking to the city staff, not in the next fiscal year for that to be developed, but there are plans in the future for that to be developed. The Pulling property in dispute, the area in yellow, our understanding, the city is still involved in litigation with the Pulling family. There have been some discussions about that project becoming Page 41 April 22-23, 2008 a county project; however, that's unresolved and we don't have anything significant to describe to you about that today. But I did want to outline the Pulling property. Just in looking at Fleischmann Park, very popular park, and there are a number of improvements that have been made the last -- this past fiscal year. And as you can see from the visual, they have done extensive work in redoing the ball fields. They've added sports lighting. You can see along Goodletle-Frank Road there have been some improvements made with parking. The skate park they've improved by approximately a half a million dollars, so they've made some major improvements this year. And certainly, the -- in approving this interlocal, that money will go to good use being reimbursed -- reimbursing the city. Just to move away from the interlocal, if I may. According to your direction, we've also met with representatives of the City of Naples, Everglades City and Marco Island to discuss their capital improvements and operating and maintenance needs for the respective parks and recreation departments. Historically the Board of County Commissioners has provided funding for capital improvements with those three cities both -- and some examples are in the slide. We've also been involved, from park and recognize standpoint, in money that was provided to Everglades City for the city hall restoration. I've added a slide, and I just wanted to describe, this is the 2008 contribution to regional parks. And if you can see on the slide the contribution, the FY-'08 contribution is $260 million from the unincorporated area as well as the city. The $55 million contribution from the City of Naples represents 21 percent. The percent that is used from ad valorem for parks in FY-'08 through our management budget office is approximately 1.9 percent. So you can see that the park's portion of ad valorem applied to the contribution the city has made is approximately a million dollars Page 42 April 22-23, 2008 for the City of Naples, 700,000 for the City of Marco, and then $8,000 for Everglades City. In providing an assessment of operating and maintenance as well as capital improvements, let me just start with the City of Naples. And in discussing with the city officials, they indicated that for the most part their park system is built out, and their needs focus on capital improvements of existing properties. The city has provided data on current usage of Fleischmann Park. And the park, as you're aware, is close to several regional attractions, most notably the Naples Zoo and Coastland Center Mall. This central location attracts a large number of regional visitors to this community park. As the city has made several capital improvements during last year with their current community center, the city has also provided data that 3,400 city residents, 7,700 county residents, and 1,600 outside of Collier County residents use Fleischmann Park. There is a question about how seasonal residents are taking into effect, but the City of Naples has a software program that they use when people are entered into programs, recreational programs. They take into account where they're living, their address, and so they're able to call that number out by zip code. So the numbers that they are providing we feel are fairly accurate. The city has taken steps in the last year to mirror the current fee schedule that the county has adopted, and these user fees offset the maintenance and operating costs associated with running the parks departments. The ideal user fees offset has a cost recovery of 100 percent of operating and maintenance; however, in municipalities, counties, that percentage varies greatly. For Collier County Parks and Recreation, for example, we have certain cost centers that come close to 100 percent. The water park, marinas, summer camp, for example, but many are subsidized due to the fee structure. Page 43 April 22-23, 2008 Just to provide you a sense of the City of Naples cost recovery, I've added -- and this comes from the City of Naples FY-'08 budget. Fleischmann Park, for example, in their recreational pursuits, their cost recovery is fairly healthy, 42 percent. Athletics and school site activities, which include some activities at Fleischmann and their skate park, the skate park, healthy 87 percent. So they do a fairly good job of cost recovery. To switch a bit, Marco Island relayed that most of the amenities were used by residents at Marco Island, and they have a tiered fee structure for those non-city residents at the racquetball and community center. In terms of capital needs, they indicated that there's a lO-year master plan for revamping MackIe Park, and city residents have voted by referendum to acquire Veterans Park, which is a seven-acre parcel, and they are in the process of developing that park. In addition, they discussed acquiring other parcels of land primarily for athletic fields. There's a dearth of athletic fields on Marco Island. When we visited Everglades City and talked to Mayor Hamilton, they had a much lower cost recovery schedule. As a small city, they have two major recreation-- MR. MUDD: Get your slide here. You're behind a little. MR. WILLIAMS: As a small city they have two major recreation areas, McLeod Park and the Everglades City Community Center. These two areas are used, by Mayor Hamilton's count, by 98 percent of individuals outside of the city, primarily Chokoloskee and Plantation Island. The city identified a number of issues related to upkeep of these properties, including new fencing, park benches, skate park improvements, in particular, the community center. They described how the equipment the kids use for skating is outdated and certainly could be improved, and we've also received a letter from Mayor Hamilton on other needs that the city has for their park and rec. components, including new ramps for the children's skate park.l Page 44 April 22-23, 2008 In considering funding for municipalities -- I am behind -- there are several considerations that we'd ask and -- ask you to look at. User fees for recreational programming, and recreational programming, and throughout the State of Florida with the tax reform legislation, more and more the need for recreation programs to pay for themselves to get to that 100 percent. Collier County and the City of Naples -- the City of Naples has adopted a fee schedule that's very close. We're, all practicalities, close to the fee schedule Collier County has, and we think that's important. We do feel that there has been historically a need to fund requests for new parks repair and replacement of existing facilities. The Parks and Recreation Board has been a vehicle for your purposes where recommendations made through that board are certainly available in a good process to take those requests and bring them forward. But specifically we have two recommendations. The first to authorize the chairman to amend the interposal agreement, which should be interlocal, to include Fleischmann Park. And we'd ask you to do that, and certainly the improvements made at Fleischmann Park have benefited many of the people in the county. But we also wanted to seek direction. You do have this method of taking these requests, bringing them through the Parks and Advisory Board, and those requests brought forward to the budget process, but we did want to get your direction this morning on how you would like to proceed. So with that, I will end and see if there's questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Here's the lineup: Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Fiala, and then Commissioner Henning, and then Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Barry, we're not -- we're not going so far as to try to reach out past what the agenda item is today, other than possibly giving you directions. Of course, Everglades City is meeting a tremendous need of the surrounding Page 45 April 22-23, 2008 communities. I think sometimes the assumption is is that that's a very wealthy area of the county. It is not. There's a lot of very deserving children there that recreate as a regular base in Everglades City. No place else to go. They'd have to travel all the way to East Naples over about, what is that, about 30 miles of road before they'd be able to recreate at a park. So it's not practical for them to try to reach a county facility through the isolation. And the Everglades City city council should be recognized for their generosity in the past. We need to be able to come up with sort of a long-lasting plan that will ensure the fact that Everglades City will be able to maintain these amenities for the county residents. That's a side issue that we're going to have to deal with during the budget cycle, and I hope my fellow commissioners agree that it's an item worthy of discussion. The other thing dealing with the exact issue of what we do with the money from what was designated from the Pullman boat ramp. That thing's in flux right now. We have no idea if it's going to go forward. There's a lot of side issues, I understand, that may impede our ability to be able to spend the money there; is that correct, just in summary? MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. And we know that the city is talking -- or there's litigation with the city and the Pulling property. There have been some conversations with the city, but we don't really have anything to bring forward at this point. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So we have these funds that are being unspent on a possible future boat ramp which is fairly isolated, and you'd have to travel quite a distance from that point to reach the Gulf. Meanwhile, we have tremendous needs over in Bayshore Park. We're buying properties there, and I understand that there's still parking problems over at that park for the recreators, the boats -- the people that like to recreate on the water and trying to find Page 46 April 22-23, 2008 places to park, and the fact that you have to park on the road leading into the park quite often. Where are we with that program, and how is the funding for that? MR. WILLIAMS: I'll let my boss talk to that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, but don't go away. MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, public services administrator. Commissioner, just recently we purchased two additional lots in that particular area to put in some overflow parking. I believe that we have exhausted the funds that we had set aside at that point in time. I think we got some from Heritage Bay and some others that we had put toward it. So as we move forward, I think the number of lots that we have is sufficient at this moment to make some improvements there. In order to do that, we'll have to come in with a conditional use in order to put the parking lot in. And I have Gary McAlpin working on that project to help with the parking issue at Bayview. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, do you have the funds available now to be able to take the lots, and are they continuous to be able to offer some sort of meaningful parking? MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. I think that the plan that we have currently right now looks at maybe 35 or 40 parking spaces. We're also looking at a plan inside the park to reconfigure so that we can add maybe another 15 or 16 parking spaces inside the park for boat parking. You know, they're the 40-foot length ones, so -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: -- we're in the process of redesigning that so we can resubmit to the state for a permit there. So between the two of them, we'll have about somewhere around 50, 55 additional parking spaces. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So this can be done with your present budget money? Page 47 April 22-23, 2008 MS. RAMSEY: No. We would have to put it into some out years, because right now we're in the design element of it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. MS. RAMSEY: So we really don't need any funds for development at this moment in time, and there probably are some savings. We've had some savings in some other projects that we probably could pull down a little bit to help with the design elements that we're going through to design and permit. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Maybe I'm asking the question the wrong way. In other words, you're saying there's no need for these parking spaces, that there's no over crowding, there's nobody that's getting refused, there's plenty of parking room, and we meet the future needs with what we've got and the immediate future with what you've got? MS. RAMSEY: I would not state it that way. I would say that-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, that's what I'm trying to get to. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm trying to plan this out so there's enough boating access for the public out there. We're talking about taking money from one entity, taking it totally away and reapplying it in another direction. Meanwhile, I'm trying to assess if there's a need at the Bayview Park for more parking. And, you know, I got a whole bunch of answers, and I'm still trying to put them together. In other words, you don't need money for parking, that we have plenty of parking available, that there is not a need at this time; that's not correct, right? MS. RAMSEY: Well, I wouldn't say that I don't -- I don't need the money for development at this moment in time. I do need it for design, and we're working that process. We have not put into a project the full amount of funding that will take care of design, permit, and Page 48 April 22-23, 2008 build of that project, because as you know, it's a two-year project so -- or even longer, when we go through the permitting process. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me try to get right to the meat of the whole thing. You have ample funds to be able to take you to that point? MS. RAMSEY: No. I do not have ample funds-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MS. RAMSEY: -- to take us to that point. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I wanted to know. Now, the other question I got -- and Jim Mudd, if you can help -- you can give me a little bit of help with this. The City of Naples at this point in time -- now, I'm a tremendous supporter of what the City of Naples does for the county. They're one of the biggest benefactors when it comes to the beach access. They're also a great benefactor in the fact that their parks are used by a tremendous number of residents, and I have approved all sorts of funding for these parks in the past and I will do it again in the future. What are we spending now with the City of Naples as far as like beach stickers? What do we give them for the beach stickers? MR. WILLIAMS: If! may, just -- we budgeted remittance back from our 3.2 million that we get for '01; it's approximately $400,000. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So you got $400,000 there. What other funds do we now direct on a regular basis? I'm trying to see ifthere's some way we can come up with a -- what do you want to call it -- a guaranteed funding source year by year that would be able to allow some sort of future planning for the City of Naples and Collier County in general. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I will tell you -- Jim Mudd, for the record. Let's be fair to the City of Naples. And I -- and Barry and Marla fight like cats and dogs to make that amount of money for beach parking be as small as it possibly can, okay. I'm going to make sure Page 49 April 22-23, 2008 you understand that. The City of Naples in the same just, you know -- and we had Ann -- Anne Marie Ricardi (phonetic), I believe was her name, finance director from the city come by, and their -- they believe their fee for city parking should be someplace around $650,000, if my memory serves me correctly. And so every year we're in a dialogue with the City of Naples. And I remember when Mayor McKenzie, God bless her soul, was the mayor and there was -- you know, the then city manager was Kevin Rambosk, basically looking and saying, hey, you're a year in arrears paying the city for beach parking, okay, and we're working through that issue and, you know, talking to staff and saying, why? And every year we are in a debate, audit, how many parking spaces, how many you converted, how many you didn't, how many are maintained? So I would say to you, I believe, that the fair cost of the parking spaces, around a half a million dollars for our conversation right now on the dais, best that I can ascertain. You have some other issues. In 2006, the City of Naples came forward with a request during your budget time that led to this Pulling dollar amount being allocated, and then the million dollars for the bridge, if you remember correctly, coming out of Conservation Collier. In 2006 they came forward and basically said, the cost to the county -- and you had a matrix in your executive summary that talked about the 200 -- 2006 usage report. And with that usage report, the City of Naples came forward with a request for about $460,000 on a reoccurring basis to basically fund maintenance and operation of their parks because of the usage by city -- by county residents in those parks. So if you take the beach parking and you take a look at that request, you're right now sitting around a million dollars a year. And I will tell you over the years, at least since I've been the County Page 50 April 22-23, 2008 Manager, this beach parking has always been a bone of contention between the two organizations, and I don't know if it's been -- if -- and I understand staff should communicate, but I'm not too sure we get to the communication side of the house besides it almost being a fight. In the tune, we've even had the Clerk of Courts in the middle of this at some times during the audits of the usage. There's got to be a better way. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's got to be. What would be a round number maybe where we could have everybody agree to it and that would be the end of it for a number of years to come so we don't have to go through this long process and them threaten to cut off the residents of Collier County's access to the beach because we're trying to hold back on it, cut back on the budget? What would be a fair way to be able to do this so we could get to where we need to be and still be able to hold back this money for boat access? MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, I think -- I think we come could up -- well, first of all you remember numerous years ago -- and I don't want to be unfair to other municipalities, okay. So let's make sure we understand what you already have on the table and an agreement. And there was a city manager at the time named Bill Moss, and he's changed his job and he's sitting over there in the second row on the left -- on your right-hand side, left-hand side to me, in the audience at this particular juncture. But we had an agreement with the Board of County Commissioners with the Marco city council for a million dollars a year, okay, for 15 years, if you remember correctly, and that was to basically get at some of the road maintenance issues and other issues that they had in the city because of impact fees different -- the way that they were collecting the impact fees, and that was quite different than the City of Naples. And I believe the dollars that we provide to the City of Marco Page 51 April 22-23, 2008 Island are flexible enough that the manager and the city council there can use those dollars to basically address their needs, i.e., for roads or any other thing that the city has at the City of Marco. My recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners at this juncture, based on past experience and issues, if this board decided to come to an agreement with the City of Naples for the tune of a million dollars a year for a five- or 1 O-year period of time and basically cover beach parking, recreational maintenance of their particular parks and any other particular issue that the city manager or the city council wanted to do -- and I believe you could work that out, and I think it would cut down a lot of the friction between the city staff and the board staff in this particular thing. One of the slides that Mr. Williams put up on his slide show was the fact that that 1.9 percent of the general or ad valorem revenue that he receives total, if you look at the percentages that the City of Naples gives, it's about a million dollars. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We still have Commissioner Fiala-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm sorry -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- just one more thing and I'll give up the microphone. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know you haven't been talking that much. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. Thank you for recognizing that, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Others have. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. -- the only thing I'd add to that is that I would like to have the city council recognize one little issue out there that still needs to be resolved, and that's the -- what we charge to -- the city charges nonresidents to launch boats. Nickels and dimes compared to what I'm proposing that we do, what Mr. Mudd just recommended. That's an issue that I'd like to see Page 52 April 22-23, 2008 some sort of quality coming across the board on. Thank you, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, he stole my thunder, so -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no. You did it in such a graceful, wonderful way. That's good. I just hope that -- no, I won't even make my comment. I'm in agreement. That's it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: If the lawsuit is successful by the Pulling family and if the Pulling family is still agreeable to -- for the county to build a launch facility, do you have the funds for that? MS. RAMSEY: I do not have the funds for that, given the impact fees -- the state of the impact fees as they are now in the Manatee Park that I have on the books that I'll be bringing forward in a couple of board meetings to you. I wouldn't have the development funds but, you know, we might be able to find design funds to start. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where are these -- where is this $700,000 coming from? MS. RAMSEY: It's coming from an ad valorem account. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ad valorem in 101 or Ill? MS. RAMSEY: Well, in mine it's a 306 fund; I think that's where it's coming from. But there is a general fund transfer into that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's a general fund transfer? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta took a while to get his answer -- his question answered on the Bayview, so I'm going to expand that. I know it has nothing to do with this issue, but I think there's some questions that need to be answered. And here's the question. Specifically, the funds to purchase those properties, is it 101, 111, or TDC funds? MS. RAMSEY: For purchasing of the property, I've been using Page 53 April 22-23, 2008 impact fees. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: And a developer contribution. CHAIRMAN HENNING: My last question --I think this might be a legal question. Can we create one parks and rec. department in Collier County to take care of the municipalities and the unincorporated area? MR. KLATZKOW: I think you're going to need an interlocal agreement with the municipalities for that, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It would take cooperation. This is an issue for the last seven years, over seven years that I've been up here, and it's not going to stop whether it's beach parking, parks facilities, boating access, it's not going to stop. It's never enough, and it needs to be controlled by one entity oversight by the people in my opinion. By the way, we forgot Bonita Springs in the presentation. They are partly in Collier County. Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Halas -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- was next. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I had you down next. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, did you? Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But you can give it to Commissioner Halas if you'd like. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not going to cede my time. I'd like to put this in a little perspective. Let's face it, we are not going to have enough money for all the programs we want to have no matter what we do, okay? Whether we give Naples some money or not, Naples is not going to have enough money to do what they need to do no matter what decision we make. So that is largely irrelevant. The issue here with respect to the municipalities is the same as Page 54 April 22-23, 2008 our issues with respect to the state government. We send money up there, we don't get it all back. We don't even get a good portion of this back, and that upsets us because it's collected here, we need it here, and we'd like to use it here. The City of Naples would like to get some of their money back. And we haven't given them that $700,000, so let's quit trying to pretend like we have given the City of Naples $700,000. We took it and put it in reserves and said, you can't spend it yet. So we haven't given them that kind of money. They're paying over a million dollars a year in their property taxes for park and recreational facilities in the geographical limits of Collier County. Now, I doubt seriously ifthere are that many children from the City of Naples going out into the Collier County parks, but I don't think they mind paying a fair share as long as they're treated fairly in return. And the fair way to deal with this is to give some of that money back to the city without all these strings and conditions attached to it. It's their money. They ought to get some of it back if they're going to support Collier residents. And the evidence is clear, a lot of Collier residents use that Fleischmann Park. So why are we concerned about letting them have a little money to improve the park that is used by Collier residents -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I could answer that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- which helps us? CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- but I won't. I'll let Commissioner Halas go first. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the bigger problem is that what we are doing countywide, including the municipalities, is we are overspending on recreational facilities because the county does not consider these recreational facilities in the city as being available to county residents. So the city spends money building the facilities, the countye Page 55 Apri122-23,2008 spends money building facilities, and we wind up with more facilities than our level of service would normally require if we took an inventory of all of the recreational facilities in Collier County. The staff has taken the position that they cannot include in our AUIR or in our inventory any recreational facilities that are not owned and controlled by Collier County Government. I do not think that the regulation supports that conclusion. There are ways to deal with that, and I think we ought to start dealing with it. But nevertheless, the issue is, are you going to give the City of Naples some of their own money so that they can improve parks that service Collier County residents? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, and then we're going to take a 10-minute break for the court reporter. Is that okay? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, I think Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Coyle hit the nail on the head. These people in the City of Naples pay taxes, so why don't we just come up with an agreement where -- for the next 10 years, that we give them a million dollars a year, and they can do what they see fit in regards to how they want to address the issue. If it's dealing with Fleischmann's park or figure it's dealing with a boat ramp, that's up to them, or if it's dealing with doing some intersection improvements, that they -- they're not -- we're not tying their hands. They can do what they need to get done in the city, and I feel that that's the direction we should go. Now, as far as getting money from Tallahassee down here, the only thing that we get is unfunded mandates. So obviously that's going to have a big effect on our pocketbooks, and we know that we're going to be addressing that very soon. But I really believe that instead of tying their hands and saying, okay, you can only use this $700,000 -- and really we've got it tied up. They can't do anything with it right now. And I think the best thing to do is unleash that and say, we're going to give you a million dollars a year for the next 10 years and do what you see fit. That's where I Page 56 April 22-23, 2008 stand on this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're going to take a 10-minute break. (A brief recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, and everybody take their seats, please. We're going to go to public speakers now. Sue, if you could call the public speakers. MS. FILSON: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have two speakers, Doug Finlay. He'll be followed by Penny Taylor, vice mayor. MR. FINLAY: Doug Finlay. I'm a City of Naples resident, and actually I've spoken to the commission at least twice before on this issue. Once I believe was at a joint meeting with City of Naples City Council. It is often forgotten that the residents of City of Naples pay property taxes to Collier County. And, in fact, we pay about three times the property taxes to Collier County that I pay to the City of Naples. As you -- was pointed out by Barry Williams, a portion of that tax does go to the operation of Collier County Regional Parks, Sugden and North Collier Regional Parks. Fleischmann Park, with its very heavy draw of county residents, functions as a regional park yet it does not receive county support. And there have been -- this kind of alludes maybe to what Commissioner Henning was saying because there have been some people that have said, well, why not give Fleischmann and all those city parks to the county to operate? But first of all, that would be giving away millions of dollars of recent investments by city taxpayers to improvements at Fleischmann Park in particular and the skate park, and also I'm not so sure why the county would want Fleischmann or the city parks simply because they Page 57 April 22-23, 2008 operate collectively at a $1.5 million deficit. Fleischmann Park alone operates at a $600,000-a-year deficit. It does make a whole lot more sense for the county to give back some of the money that we pay in to Collier County for parks and recreation, and to return that money to us, as Commissioner Coyle has mentioned. County use of Fleischmann Park often exceeds 75 percent and, in fact, the skate park membership is only about 10 percent city kids. As the county grows, the burden gets ever increasing on the incorporated communities and level of service issues. So I do hope that each of you will consider support for Fleischmann, be it the $700,000 or something a little bit more far-reaching down the road as Mr. Mudd has proposed, that will assist the incorporated communities of the county. So thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Vice Mayor Penny Taylor. MS. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. And I wondered if you wouldn't put that piece of paper on the visualizer, too. Thank you very much. Thank you -- first of all I want to thank you on behalf of the mayor and the city council for even putting this on the agenda and having such a frank and candid discussion. I don't think we always agree as bodies, but as long as we can come together and talk about it, that's progress. I don't think we have to agree on everything. I'm reminded -- and Marla Ramsey, I'll never forget, when the City of Naples citizens decided to tax themselves to buy the Naples Preserve, it was the county that stood back and said, okay, we'll partner with you to get more funding from Florida preservation, right, the Florida preservation lands? MR. MUDD: Communities Trust, ma'am. MS. TAYLOR: Florida Communities Trust. MR. MUDD: Communities Trust. Page 58 April 22-23, 2008 MS. TAYLOR: That kind of cooperation is still there. I don't think it's gone. And that was just in, what, 2002, 2004. We have now in front of you the cost of what it takes to operate our parks. And just as a side line, Cambier Park, in -- both Fleischmann and Cambier Park have about 70 percent usage by the county. So right now we're operating Fleischmann at an -- almost a million-dollar debt. And right now Cambier is about $389,000 in the red. We're doing what we can. We love the county people. I think in the city -- you know, I think the city's most important product is their children, and I think the city's most important product is children everywhere. We have fabulous programs for kids, and we want to keep supporting families and children throughout the county. We do not want to have this -- the county here and the city there. And we welcome county residents to use our parks. And I'm not going to talk you out of what you're going to with a million dollars. I'm not here to do that. I mean, we're so grateful for this. And this will be a start of cooperation that I can see moving into many, many other areas. If there's any questions about boat ramps and whatnot, I have Dave Lykins and our city manager, Bill Moss, here, and they would be more than happy to be on the record for any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to speak to Ms. Taylor? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I was just going to say something to Ms. Taylor, but it doesn't have to be to Ms. Taylor, but I'm so glad you're here anyway, Penny. I love this idea of dedicating a million dollars a year to the parks. I know from the East Naples parks anyway, we only have one park that has a community center, so there's only one park that has a director. And so -- and even that community center is very small. It doesn't have a finance center or anything. Page 59 April 22-23, 2008 So our kids are more apt to use your parks than our own parks because there are more things available to the children, and even your skate park is just so outstanding. MS. TAYLOR: And so much fun. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And with the room that you have in there for the teens, and then you have a lot of programs for the teenagers. So our kids, which are right over the bridge, are more apt to use your park. So I agree that we do a lot of -- we offer a lot of use in your parks, and I would love to see us pay for that or pay into the park system for that. MS. T AYLOR: Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, did you have a question for Ms. Taylor? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I did. Thank you for the opportunity, Chairman Henning. Regarding the boat ramps, this has been an issue with some residents. It's a nickel/dime issue really when we get down to it. But still, it's an equality issue among many people that we represent in the county end of the spectrum for access. Could we talk about that a little bit? MS. TAYLOR: Yeah. And I'd like to bring Dave Lykins up, who's infinitely more familiar with the -- what is -- what exists now and what we were proposing and what we're willing to do. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. LYKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. Dave Lykins, community services director, for the record, City of Naples. Our boat launch fees -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Before you continue, Marla, would you please pay attention to this because I may ask some questions. I'm sorry. You were in conversation. I didn't want you to miss this. Page 60 April 22-23, 2008 MS. RAMSEY: I'm here. Right at the dais for you, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You've got to be kidding. MS. RAMSEY: Right at the dais for you, sir. MR. LYKINS: We sell an annual permit for the use of the Naples Landing for the boat launch ramps. It's a little less than what the county's current fee is. I think the county kind of indexed their fees just a little more consistently than we have in the city. So it's just a little bit less than what the county's annual permit fee is, but that will be adjusted as we go through our budget process, and certainly be identical, just as the rest of our user fees are. We've been working with Barry Williams and Marla and her staff to make the city park usage fees, participant fees, as consistent and identical across the board as possible. Same would hold true for the annual permit for the Naples Landing. We currently don't charge an annual or an every-use-Iaunch fee for vehicles and boats that use Naples Landing. That's something that we have identified as something we want to also bring consistent with the county's fee structure. I think it's currently $5 fee for individual use. That's certainly something we have no issue with and is something we were looking forward to in our budget process, and it would be identical to what the county's fee is as well. So again, we would provide consistency in that fee structure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, you have one place down there now -- and forgive me. I've never been there, I've heard about it -- where you have to feed quarters into a meter to be able to -- MR. LYKINS: Well, that's in lieu of people who want to purchase an annual permit fee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. LYKINS: So that's something -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's the same for residents or non-residents? Page 61 April 22-23, 2008 MR. LYKINS: Same fee, doesn't matter. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine. That's what I'm looking for. MR. LYKINS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next speaker? MS. FILSON: That was -- MS. TAYLOR: May I just add one more caveat? CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, you give a politician more minutes, and they just never end. The -- MS. TAYLOR: All right. Just-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your three minutes are up. MS. TAYLOR: Oh it's up? Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It is. MS. T AYLOR: All right. So you're not going to give the politician more minutes? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think the residents have more say-so than any politician, actually probably better guidance. Next speaker? MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to -- to budget one million dollars a year to the City of Naples for their use in their park system and actually wherever else they need that million dollars to be used. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Timeline? MR. MUDD: Ma'am, does that -- does that include beach parking? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that definitely includes beach parking and -- MR. MUDD: How about direction to the staff to come back with Page 62 April 22-23, 2008 an interlocal agreement so that this board and the City of Naples board or council can approve and put -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for your help, Mr. Mudd. Yes, we should definitely put together an interlocal agreement between the city and the county for a 10-year period of time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion and a second on the floor. Discussion? Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Coyle -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll let Commissioner-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Coyle go first. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's an excellent way to proceed. I would ask that you give the staff flexibility to evaluate the possibility of indexing that. You know, a flat amount would be wonderful this year, but five years from now, because of the cost escalation, would probably not be. And since it is, in essence, a refund or partial refund of taxes paid by the City of Naples, maybe what we should do is index it to the relative level of taxes paid by the City of Naples over those years, and that way it would keep it meaningful; otherwise, we're going to be back negotiating something. We like -- we want to do that with our gasoline tax indexing with Tallahassee, and they've never permitted us to do that. So we want to do that with the funds that we get, and I think it would be appropriate to do that with the funds that the City of Naples gets. Now, I would -- I would question something that was raised earlier, and that is, that they -- that they be allowed to use it for intersections or whatever. I don't know that that's appropriate because what you're doing is you're taking a portion of the parks and recreationm Page 63 April 22-23, 2008 budget, aren't you, and allocating that to the city; is that what you're suggesting, County Manager? MR. MUDD: No, sir, that's not what I'm suggesting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: I'm suggesting that you're already allocating an approximate value about a half-a-million dollars to the city, okay, for beach access parking on an annual basis. You increase that another half-a-million dollars, they can use the money for their parks and rec., and what you don't do is you don't tie the City of Naples down to what they can use the particular funds for. If all their facilities are up to speed this year and they're -- and they're doing quite well and -- but they have another need that they want to use, this way they have the ability to do it based on council's approval on how they want to use those dollars. But it is giving back to them to try to satisfy their needs and their operation for their particular services that they provided to residents within the city and I and the county residents that go into the city. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it still-- I'm still asking if the motion maker and the seconder will give the staff sufficient flexibility to at least negotiate with the City of Naples an indexing method that makes sense. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I will definitely include that in my motion as they form this interlocal agreement. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, in regards to -- I just want to inform you -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta's next, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm the second, and I was just trying to explain to Commissioner Coyle here that, since I've got a second on this motion, that indexing could go in the opposite direction, too. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It could. Page 64 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So just want to make sure you understand -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep, I do. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And this is a very bold move that we're making at a time that our budget's going to be under severe constraints. I might suggest, just purely for discussion purposes, that the indexing start in year three and it be based on year two, and that gives us a little bit of recovery time to be able to go forward, and that also would allow ifthere's any kind of negative backward slide, which is unlikely for the City of Naples, by the way. The other issue would be, when it comes time to finding this million dollars, I would like to see that $700,000 that we have set aside at this point in time for the Pullman (sic) boat ramp, that no more than $200,000 of it go to offset the first two years, a $100,000 the first year, $100,000 second year, and the other $500,000 be applied towards the improvement of boat ramps other places in Collier County. That would be a suggestion. Now whether we'd have to do that now or at budget time, I don't know. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm next. And we're forgetting the other municipalities. We're dealing with one. And one of the speakers said -- commented on what I said. I never said for the county to take over parks and rec. So I apologize for the misunderstanding, Mr. Finlay. I said it should be one. And you know, I think this is a slippery slope. I'm not going to support the motion. It's not fair to the other municipalities, including Marco Island and Everglades City. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Marco Island already does get Page 65 April 22-23, 2008 a million dollars a year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: For parks and rec? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, for use at their discretion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may speak on behalf of Everglades City. I can assure you that when we get through the budget process, their needs are nowhere near what the City of Naples' is. The county's been doing a good job of meeting them in the past, and they're going to be stepping forward to do it in the future. I don't think we could ever solve that within this particular motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other discussion on the motion? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you'd permit me to make a statement to the City of Naples that doesn't bear directly on this, but it has some implications here. What I would request of the City of Naples is, you're going to find times when you need to make capital improvements to your park facilities just as you have in the past. And you've had some difficulty getting funding from the county to support that. I would recommend that if you're going to look to the county for funding over and above this for any reason that benefits the county, try to get us involved at the beginning of the project, and that way we can evaluate the benefit to the county as a whole and then make a decision as to whether or not we wish to participate in the funding. It's very hard to do that once the project has started and you've expended money. So if you can -- if you can do that for us, it will make the job a lot easier to get cooperation among all the commiSSIoners. And the other thing is that impact fees are an important source of capital funding, and if you would keep those impact fees updated, even indexed -- we found that indexing is very, very helpful because it goes up a little bit every year rather than seeing huge rises about every four or five years, and that will help you a lot from the standpoint of Page 66 April 22-23, 2008 capital improvements and will probably minimize the debates that we get into with respect to what we should be paying and what we shouldn't be paying. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? Aye. Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner Henning dissenting. Item #lOB RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZE THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION TO PREPARE, SIGN AND SUBMIT THE CLAM BAY MANAGEMENT PLAN TO THE FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES - MOTION FOR A NEW FIVE YEAR PERMIT TO MAINTAIN THE HYDROLOGY AND ESTUARY OF CLAM BAY AND FOR PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION TO PREP ARE, SIGN AND SUBMIT THE PERMIT TO FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES ~ APPROVED We have a 10:30 time certain. How many speakers do we have on that? MS. FILSON: Ten. Page 67 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ten speakers, okay. MR. MUDD: Some might waive, sir, is what I've been told. This is lOB. It's a recommendation from the Pelican Bay Services Division that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Pelican Bay Services Division to prepare, sign, and submit the Clam Bay Management Plan to the federal and state agencies. Mr. John Petty, your director or Pelican Bay Services Division, will present. MR. PETTY: Good morning. I'm John Petty, the administrator for Pelican Bay Services Division. And what you have seen in your summary is the basis of what I wish to present. After 10 years of working on a Mangrove restoration program in north Collier County, we are proud to come to you today and say that we can claim that that is a conditional success. The only condition that we have on the success story is that it is going to include additional maintenance. The corrective action is a hydraulic flow that was increased by cutting hand-dug channels, some with the different elevations of approximately 12 inches. These can fill up rapidly due to storms or sand or other material. If they do clog up, we are finding that these go right back to the stress state and that we see damages within the trees. So we are looking to maintain them in the same fashion we have done so for the last 10 years. But we want to come here tonight and tell you that we have done what we consider to be a marvelous recovery of Mangroves in that section of Collier County. And the effort put forth by Pelican Bay with the help of Collier County and the Pelican Bay Services Division therein, is a huge success, and the people appreciate it in Pelican Bay. We're asking to move forward. We know that there are other issues. We know that there are other communities that have needs that are addressed in the coastal zone management. We have been in discussion with these groups and with other county staff. Page 68 April 22-23, 2008 In particular, we have been with coastal zone management for the last, oh, year and a half, I believe, and we do believe that their issues are real and they need to be considered and put into a practical form. We don't know that it works good for our permit though. We'd like our permit to be focused on the Mangroves themselves and other issues pertaining to water quality of specific areas with surface water runoff or other conditions going into the bay be addressed by separate permit conditions. Our current permit may hinder that effort. So we do want these communities to have a fair voice, and we have talked with a county administrator who's considered an expert in these matters when it comes to permits, since he's the one that wrote a lot of these, or certainly administered most of them. So we have taken his advice, and we think we can structure the permit to be very specific to the Mangroves and the hydraulics, which is where our focus needs to be in Pelican Bay for the next 10 years. We believe we can do that in a different type of permit that doesn't conflict with any of the efforts that we've heard spoken to date on any other application for permits, correction or permit improvements that would affect coastal zone and the Clam Bay system. So that's a short summary of why we're here. We hope you're happy with the results of the last 10 years, and we hope that you can help us go on to the next 10 years. If you have any questions, I stand ready. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Actually, do we really need to go out and get a full-time permit for the Mangroves, or can we get a permit as needed when there is a problem? MR. PETTY: That's a very good question, and we are in discussions with the county administrator on that. It appears that there Page 69 April 22-23, 2008 can be a one-time application that can cover a period of years. It may not be a 10-year period. It may be a 3-, 4-, 5-. It's something that we hope to negotiate based on our expertise and that of the county administrator to get the best mechanism we can that is not in conflict with any other improvement that the county wishes to do in coastal zone management but allows us to focus on Mangroves and the hydraulic preservation, which is keeping those Mangroves alive. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Presently the permit is -- covers a wide spectrum. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think what we're trying to do is make sure that we address all the issues on the permit that's presently -- that presently is there, and I think we've got one more item that needs to be addressed, and that's channel markers in Clam Bay, and then we would like that to disappear. That's my understanding. MR. PETTY: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that your understanding also, Mr. Petty? MR. PETTY: Yes, sir, it is. We know that the county has been working with various groups on their vested interests in those navigational signs, which we acknowledge. We have been talking with the state agencies and the federal government as far as our permit requirements for the signage, and we have gotten back a response verbally that says that we are currently in compliance. So it doesn't appear that we have to do anything more in that regard, but we do understand that the county's response to these people is appropriate. And since our permit is out there, it may be the only vehicle to get the signs in. So if it is something that the county wishes to do, it is certainly something that we were going to have to talk to the county outside of Pelican Bay Services about when it came to funding since a lot of this issue goes back to when the boardwalk was put in. We kind of Page 70 April 22-23, 2008 inherited those issues as well when we went out for the Pelican Bay permit. So I don't think we have a conflict there, sir. I think we can resolve this issue within 30 days or less to everyone's satisfaction. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Petty? Sir, you're saying instead of renewing the permit as is, that you'd revise the permit for 10 years to take care of the Mangroves and finish up the marking of the bays? MR. PETTY: No, sir. We're proposing to handle the navigational signage issue -- which there's still one left to do -- before the permit expires. Mr. Chairman, we have a one-year extension that we are going to be getting -- granted by these agencies, so we do have a period of time to fix this before it expires. We should be able to accomplish this before the new permit application. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you -- I'm trying to figure out what the agenda item -- you know, what I hear, that the agenda item is changing. MR. PETTY: No, sir. We're still looking for -- we're asking for the commissioners to follow -- we're trying to follow the same protocol we did for 10 years, which is authorizing Pelican Bay Services Division of Collier County to prepare for the permit, to sign for the permit in the county's name, and to manage it thereafter and submit it to the appropriate agencies. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. PETTY: That's basically what we're asking for today, and I think what we're doing is fine tuning what our intentions are with the permit. Our current permit is a 404E, which only your county administrator can explain properly. And I do believe that what we're going to be going after is a different numerical sequence on the permit, which will be, I do believe, a one-time event, sir? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. What you basically have is you basically Page 71 April 22-23, 2008 want to do habitual maintenance on the particular issue and make sure that the flushing is there. You're narrowing the permit scope to deal with where are you right now, a success with the Mangrove recovery, you want to maintain it and keep it, and so your permit doesn't have to be as vast or as broad, and it cuts down on some of your liability issues as far as success and failure are concerned for the future. And so that's my recommendation. You basically let this Collier County particular permit after we get the navigational markings done, you let it sunset, and we go after a new permit that basically goes after Mangrove maintenance and the flushing issues that are, in particular, of concern to the Pelican Bay residents. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Further questions? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that isn't what this executive summary says. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, that's -- was my point. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That is not what this executive summary says, but I believe that's what I've got from Mr. Petty's presentation to the board. MR. PETTY: I don't see -- ifthere's a problem with this, it escaped my attention, and we'll be glad to make that adjustment. If you could point me in a general direction though. I didn't see anything different in here that we asked than what this suggestion discussed today would bring. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, your permit is a broad-based permit. MR. PETTY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, it's dealing with the pass. It's dealing with a whole estuarine system. MR. PETTY: The style of the permit basically puts us in a superior position -- the 404 basically puts us in a superior position. Our intentions were always Mangrove, restoration, the hydraulics. Page 72 April 22-23, 2008 We left open several other alternatives as we did trial and error on the corrective action. Keep in mind Mangroves have never been restored like this before. This is the first time it's ever been done. We now know that in Clam Bay it is due to the hydraulic characteristics. And as I stated, we've done corrections in shallow channels as shallow as 12 inches or less. So in our case, for the maintenance going forward, we don't need the what-if scenario part of our 404 permit that we had before. We now know what we need. If we continue with a 404, we may be in conflict with other issues from other communities or other county objectives. So we are taking from the county administrator's expertise, the concept of applying to the state agencies, not for a 404, but for whatever number is appropriate that gives us a tailored permit allowing us to maintain and focus our attention on the Mangroves and the hydraulics. And I'm pretty sure the summary says that. I do reference the 404 in the past, because that's what we currently have. Our new permit would be very similar into nature since our new permit would be focusing after Mangrove and the hydraulics, which the first permit did as well. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, I didn't mean to interrupt you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's okay. I don't know that I'm going to understand this until I hear the staff's presentation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I didn't know the staff had a presentation on this. I think we had a written correspondence on it. Am I wrong? MR. MUDD: Mr. McAlpin will help you -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, before Mr. Petty goes away. MR. MUDD: Mr. McAlpin -- Mr. Petty is your staff. Page 73 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yeah. MR. MUDD: Just, you don't see him often, that's all. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can wait? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let's cut through the fog here, okay. Now, we've got an executive summary here that was prepared by Mr. Petty, who is, in fact, a county employee. We have another document that was submitted to us as backup information from the staff taking issue with this executive summary. I want to hear somebody stand up and tell me why they take issue with it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management. Mr. Chair, the -- a little bit of background. The -- on the permit and staffs comments and maybe some alternatives. The permit that was issued 10 years ago was for a very large overarching, complete estuary permit. It included two pieces; one was the work to alleviate Mangrove die off and the rest of it was for a management plan for the entire estuary. And there was no question that Pelican Bay Services Division did an outstanding job relative to the Mangrove recreation, the restoration of the Mangroves, and also the water quality issues relative with -- to their property. However, there's a larger issue here that the original permit took into -- into account, which was the entire estuary. The City of Naples has been excluded from this process for a variety of reasons. They've come to us in the past and said that the permit is in violation, of which it is, and they would like to work with us to get these items corrected. We did an investigation, Mr. Chair, and we determined that there is a number of issues that needed to be addressed from a larger scope point of view. What Mr. Petty has done is he is now looking to narrow the scope of the new permit that is for -- and put a new permit in for strictly Mangrove restoration. Page 74 April 22-23, 2008 I have had conversations with DEP, and as clarifying points to what Mr. Petty has said, let me offer these clarifying points. DEP believes that the existing permit can be closed out as Mr. Petty has said, but they also believe that no new long-term permits should be issued. What they're looking to do is have us issue new permits that are very -- for very specific work activities that can be managed by community groups like the Mangrove Action Committee. Those would specifically be in Collier County's name because Collier County is the legal permit holder. There would be some level of oversight by Collier County staff on those work groups. So with the understanding that these permits would be very specific in nature, they would be short term in duration, they would be issued to Collier County, Collier County would have some level of oversight working with the Pelican Bay Services Division on that, and that we would continue to work to address the rest of the issue, estuaries countywide wherein we would be very supportive of this. And the issue is, is that the scope of the work Pelican Bay is not looking to move forward with is very much tailored down, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So -- first of all, on this report that Pelican Bay wrote, it barely mentioned that we were participating. Have we been participating -- in fact, it didn't mention at all in the first couple of pages. It just said something about Pelican Bay doing all the work. Have we participated with them? MR. McALPIN: For the first lO-and-a-halfyears of this, Commissioner, we have not participated to any large extent. We've participated financially. About half the money has come from Collier County. From a work product execution point of view, we have not participated. The county got involved in this when the city of -- residents from the City of Naples brought it to our attention that the permit was in Page 75 April 22-23, 2008 violation and they couldn't get some of their issues addressed. MR. PETTY: May I respond, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So can they apply for two permits? Can we apply for one for Pelican Bay to continue what they've been doing to continue to rescue and invigorate that Mangrove section so that they will never -- it will never go backwards again to where it was and, of course, help that estuarine area as well? Meanwhile, can the city and -- the City of Naples and the county apply for another permit to address all of the other issues that need to be addressed aside from the Pelican Bay Mangrove area? MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, we could apply for as many permits for specific work tasks as we want, and we could apply for specific tasks for Mangrove maintenance or for water quality or for anything else. They would be short in duration and they would be very specific in scope, not a large 10-year project. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we could be working with the City of Naples again, another agreement with them so that we can agree on those issues that affect them as well as those that affect the county area? MR. McALPIN: We could work with the City of Naples, Commissioner, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Yes, please. MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, if I could. The one thing I do want to clear up is, we are Collier County. Pelican Bay Services Division has the face of the residents of Pelican Bay. We are Collier County. So we have been working out there. How much has Collier County been participating? It is not 50 percent. It is 100 percent. Pelican Bay does not have assessment capabilities nor does it have taxing capabilities. All of the money comes from Collier County. Keep in mind though that Pelican Bay is a donor community and they understand that their tax bills, when they Page 76 April 22-23, 2008 pay them, just like we all do -- so they understand that a lot of the money is theirs anyway. We have always worked under the benevolence, if you will, or under the powers of the county at Pelican Bay Services Division. So when Gary asks for participation by county staff and the permit process, they have always had that ability, always. We're not asking for any independence increase here. We're looking to do the same stewardship job that we did in the first 10 years and the next 10. Certainly, if the county has issues, particularly with Gary and your county administrator's expertise in these matters, of course, we keep that door wide open. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Mr. Petty, you have done a marvelous job on those Mangroves. MR. PETTY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a marvelous job, and all we can do is commend you for that. MR. PETTY: The residents have done well. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Just to try to shorten this up for timing issues and future speakers, the request is to extend this permit for how many years? MR. PETTY: Sir, it is to prepare, sign as a member of Collier County, and submit to the appropriate agencies for the longest degree of time we can get, and that's -- hope to be multiple years, but it's called a single-use permit. We wouldn't go past the lO-year limit. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So in order to make a motion, it would be for as many years as we can? MR. PETTY: Not to exceed 10, which is our current limitation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So Pelican Bay, or the MSTBU, is asking for -- to continue to maintain the Mangroves and address the hydrology system in the estuary system, Clam Bay -- MR. PETTY: Mr. Chairman, we're currently doing that, and we have a one-year extension that recommits us for that. What we're Page 77 April 22-23, 2008 asking for -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just for the Mangroves. MR. PETTY: This is for the Mangroves. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. PETTY: We're looking for the next lO-year period after this one-year extension, which is really preparation time for, are you guys going to stay involved. We're looking for the next 10-year period or the next three-year period or the next five-year period, the best we can get. So we want to stay involved with maintaining the Mangroves. So we're looking for the county commissioners to authorize us as a county division to prepare, sign, and submit the Clam Bay Management Plan for the future to the federal and state agencies. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there a motion on the floor? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion on the floor to come up with a new permit that takes care of the Mangroves and of the hydrology in that area, and that's where we stand at this point in time for a period of time of five years. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion by Commissioner Halas to renew the permit for the hydrology and the Mangroves. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not to renew. This would be a new permit. The old -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: It is a new permit. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's a new permit for the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks for the clarification, Commissioner Halas, and I'll second the motion. MR. PETTY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And before we -- do we have any discussion on the motion before we go to the public speakers? Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe I should wait till after Page 78 April 22-23, 2008 public speakers. Why don't I do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me, too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Me, too. MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Marcia Cravens. She'll be followed by Alice Kay Potter. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I must remind everybody, we have a time certain at noon. So if I can ask the next speaker to line up, and you're allotted three minutes. If you can make your point and let the next speaker move on. MS. CRAVENS: Yes, sir. First off, thank you, Commissioners, for doing the right thing today and supporting conservation in the long-term management and stewardship of the Clam Bay natural resources protection area in which the Mangrove forest resides. It's a great start in reaching out to the Collier County community to demonstrate that you do value unspoiled nature. Thank you for listening to your citizens' voices when we say, no more development projects within this area. We would like to just mention that there are too few and precious Mangrove habitats, quiet beaches, and calm undeveloped waterways, and that's what makes our area so special. The Mangrove Action Group would like to call upon our coastal communities such as the North Naples coalition memberships within the Vanderbilt Beach communities and environmental activists to be proactive rather than reactive about issues that affect our communities and our coastal areas. I do have to comment on some suggestions and things about Florida Department of Environmental Protection. I, myself, have had many, many, many conversations with many departments ofFDEP. I have spoken with the office in Fort Myers and Tallahassee, and I must interject here, that they welcome long-term management plans for the Mangrove system and the Page 79 April 22-23, 2008 estuary . They are not asking any governmental agencies, local or otherwise, to have short-term plans. They very much would like to see long-term plans. And I do believe that 10 years is certainly something that they would welcome. They actually have a way for us to submit management plans for even longer than 10 years. So I would ask that you not limit a management plan to five years and make us go through this whole process all over again in that short period of time. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Alice Kay Potter. She'll be followed by Mary Bolen. MS. POTTER: Good evening, or -- goodness gracious. I'm so nervous. However, I must tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that I do share something that you are now going through. Years ago in Virginia, I served on the town council. It was -- I was elected, and I do know the heavy burden that you bear. I know it's often emotionally draining. And so when I tell you that, I understand and I also know that you do have our interests at heart. I know it's hard to resolve conflicts when they come from good people. But I will tell you that Mangrove forest is a treasure, that once we lose it, we will never again get it. The people in Pelican Bay have -- we've had a hard time learning what to do. We planted so many Mangroves that immediately dried up in the hot summer. Alas, we do know what to do, and we've been rewarded by beautiful, thick, green forest. Please, let us continue to do what we so enjoy doing. You know, a Mangrove forest is God's gift to us. It is His bridge between the Gulf and the land. That watery, soft earth and those Mangrove roots are the nursery and the home to the tiniest of God's creatures. And when they get sufficiently strong, they go back out to the Page 80 April 22-23, 2008 ocean, and that is where most of our commercial fishing comes from. They say that you shouldn't give advice until you have worked -- until you have walked a mile in the other person's moccasins. Well, I have walked a mile in your moccasins, and I do know that when something is successful and people want to continue to do it, it's best to let them do it. And there's an old saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And I appeal to you, Honorable Commissioners, to let us continue to take care of the Mangroves. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mary Bolen. She'll be followed by Penny Taylor. MS. BOLEN: I am Mary Bolen, a resident of Pelican Bay, a member of the Mangrove Action Committee and a volunteer naturalist for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I sent all of you an email over the weekend enumerating the many essential benefits that the Mangrove estuary system at Pelican Bay and other areas provide. The efforts at protection and restoration as overseen by the Pelican Bay Services Division have been groundbreaking and successful by any measure. The report released months ago of an independent study commissioned by you, the Board of Commissioners, verifies this. The past 10 years have been a success. It's still an ongoing work, and it still needs help. Please approve the recommendations of the Pelican Bay Services Division to prepare, sign, and submit the Clam Bay Management Plan to the state and federal agencies. And thank you for your cooperation. The Mangroves mean everything to us. They're very important. But they're not only important to the residents of Pelican Bay, they are very important to the residents of Collier County and the State of Florida. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Penny Taylor. She'll be followed by Coleman Page 81 April 22-23, 2008 Connell. MS. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. County Commission, I'm speaking on behalf of the mayor and city council. Weare not suggesting that the Mangroves be ignored, but we are supporting your staff, not the consultant's concept of the management of Clam Bay. We have been involved in Clam Bay since 2006 when our natural resources manager and his assistant snorkeled outer Clam Bay to find out that there were dead sea grasses. There is some issue -- whether or not it's true we don't know. There's not enough scientific data -- but maybe what we're doing here is affecting there, and the health of the bay is being affected. And in the area where we snorkeled, it really is adjacent to part of the City of Naples. What we would suggest is not to piecemeal this ecosystem but to look at it as a whole, to follow your staffs guidance on this, not to ignore the Mangroves, not to undo the great work that the public services division has done -- the Pelican Bay Services Division has done, but instead to look at the entire system as a whole. We as a city are going to budget money towards this process. Weare going to be looking at it, I'm assured by our natural resources manager. He's going to come before the city council for a request for money to help in this process. So as you deliberate, please remember these comments, and thank you for your time. MS. FILSON: Coleman Connell. He'll be followed by John Domenie. MR. CONNELL: Thank you, Commissioners. I'm Coleman Connell, and I'm with the Pelican Bay Services Division, and I chair that board. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak with you this morning on a subject of the utmost importance, not only to Pelican Bay, but to the community in general. Page 82 April 22-23, 2008 In July of this year we will have completed 10 years of the permit which delegates to the Pelican Bay Services Division the responsibility for managing the well-being of the Mangrove forest, as well as water management within the defined area of Pelican Bay. The effective stewardship of that responsibility was borne out with the results of a scientific study commissioned by Collier County. Weare now being directed to delay the submission of the renewal application for another 10-year permit pending the formulation of an expansive plan for water management within a much greater area beyond the area defined in the existing permit. What is the problem? Well, in one word, uncertainty. Uncertainty as to the scope of activity and responsibility as contained in an eventual conjoined agreement and permit. That uncertainty will only compound the adverse affecting -- the adverse forces affecting property values now at work in the marketplace. The Mangrove forest, as has already been said, is the crown jewel of Pelican Bay and the total community. It is a key element in sustaining property values. For the past decade, its restoration and day-to-day maintenance had been willingly funded by the taxpayers living in the Pelican Bay community. On the other hand, proceeding with a renewal of the existing permit should not in any way hinder or delay the issuance of another permit which will describe the scope of activity resulting from the work of the Clam Bay estuary improvement study group. Pelican Bay applauds that effort, has participated in it and hopes to be invited to continue to do so. So to repeat, we respectfully ask that you authorize the release of the permit application to the appropriate governmental bodies. With me this morning -- I've already -- you've already heard from John Petty, who has supported in a scientific manner what we're saying. And thank you very much for listening to me. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Dominie. He'll be Page 83 April 22-23, 2008 followed by Estelle Fishbein. MR. DOMINIE: Good morning, Commissioner. My name is John Dominie, a 21-year-round resident of Pelican Bay, past board member, Mangrove Action Group, last seven years, board of Pelican Bay Services Division, and recently reappointed as chair of the Clam Bay Committee. I ask you to permit us to apply without delay for a new permit to manage the 580-acre county-owned Mangrove Preserve within Pelican Bay. Today is Earth Day, and appropriately, our request is to continue to restore, protect, and maintain this precious asset. In fulfillment of the Pelican Bay Services Division obligations under the present permit, we prepare and distribute to county, state, and federal regulatory agencies four annual reports. Such reports have been prepared yearly, and we have never received any challenges from any regulatory agency about our work or results. I would just like to highlight a few facts. Pelican Bay has a two-and-a-half-mile dam or dike we call the berm. It separates the upland freshwaters environment from the saline Mangrove preserve. All stormwater which falls on the Pelican Bay neighborhoods is funneled through six systems containing 46 retention and filtration lakes before reaching east of the berm. From east of the berm, storm water is slowly released into the Mangroves through a system of weirs and weep holes. Dr. Tomasko states that historically there were 1,206 acres of Mangroves in the area which extends from Vanderbilt Beach Road down to Banyan Way. Today, again, according to Dr. Tomasko, there are only 429 acres of Mangroves, all in the county-owned Pelican Bay Mangrove Preserve. This includes 50 acres of Mangroves the services has rehabilitated. Seven hundred seventy-seven acres of Mangroves have been destroyed to make way for homes, Venetian Village, and condos. This will not happen in the county-owned Mangrove preserve. Page 84 April 22-23, 2008 Some comments have been made that the water quality in the Mangrove preserve is not pristine, yet Dr. Tomasko himself has stated that it is highly unlikely to attain pristine waters in the Mangrove preserve due to the tannin which flows down from the Mangroves. The tannin darkens the water, which in turn blocks sunlight. Yet in winter with less rain and cooler water, the dissolved oxygen levels rise to nearly seven milligrams per liter, 40 percent above the minimum five milligrams per liter desired level. Do you want Mangroves with possible less pristine waters, or do you want pristine waters and no Mangroves? Please permit us to go ahead to manage the county's unique Mangrove preserve for 10 years. We have been good guardians and will continue to provide county, state, and federal authorities yearly with reports. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. DOMENIE: Thank you. MS. FILSON: -- Estelle Fishbein. MR. DOMENIE: May I ask -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your-- MR. DOMENIE: -- will somebody cede time to me? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your time's up, sir. MR. DOMENIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I wish you would have said that before you started. MR. DOMENIE: Oh, sorry. Thank you. MS. FILSON: She will be followed by Doug Finlay. MS. FISHBEIN: Good morning. My name is Estelle Fishbein. I'm the secretary of the Mangrove Action Group. And I think that you've heard a lot of factual information about our permit and so forth and what's been accomplished in 10 years, and Page 85 April 22-23, 2008 I do not aspire to be more eloquent than the lady of the Mangroves, who is Kay Potter. And it was Kay Potter who, some six years ago when I moved to Pelican Bay, got me interested in Mangroves. I knew nothing about Mangroves. And I've been her student. My purpose in addressing you is very simple. I want to make a point and -- that it is very important that whenever permit or application for a permit is submitted to any authority, that the permittee, authorized entity, be identified exactly the same way as it is under the current permit, and that is Collier County: Pelican Bay Services Division, and that's terribly important because we want the services division to be the responsible entity for seeing the action of any -- that's required by anything in the permit to be taken. That is the responsible authority. And I believe that in keeping the Pelican Bay Services Division name on the permit, it will aid the review and approval by any federal and state authorities and will accelerate that approval. Changing the identity of the permittee, either by deleting the services division name -- I think, will be detrimental to the quick approval of the permit. Because, as has been pointed out, particularly by Mr. Petty and -- well, others as well, that it is the services division that has shepherded the recovery of the Mangroves and has proven the ability to do it in a responsible and a successful way. Thank you very much for your time. MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Doug Finlay. He'll be followed by Ted Raia. MR. FINLAY: Doug Finlay, City of Naples. I kayak in this system about 12, 13 times a year. In fact, I kayaked in it this Saturday from the south end to the north end completely. So I've also been interested in it. I attended my first Pelican Bay/Clam Bay Meeting in November of 2006. It was, without a doubt, the worst public board meeting I had Page 86 April 22-23, 2008 ever attended. I was so dismayed that I ordered audio tapes of the meeting and sent copies of those tapes to the Florida FDEP and the Army Corps of Engineers. I believe Mr. Ochs also received a copy. It made me question Pelican Bay's objective stewardship of the estuary. Please keep in mind that Pelican -- that the nearly 600 acres of Clam Bay is Collier County property. And although access is limited except from the south, the estuary has the ability to be enjoyed by all the residents of Collier County; those in Golden Gate, Lely, Naples, as well as Pelican Bay. And whereas, the Mangroves will always be a major, if not, perhaps, the most important part of the management plan in the next 10 years, or whatever years it might be, other broader issues must be a part of the equation. Our future is not necessarily our past. The Pelican Bay Services Division is not being eliminated from the management of the estuary, but they do need to share responsibilities with the county and even the city. Your County Manager and Gary McAlpin are doing exactly what the permitting agencies will demand, which is to broaden the scope, not allowing anyone to rush anything through, and bring all interested parties together. The permit application that is being sought by Pelican Bay should not move forward, and I really don't think the agencies are going to accept it until the entire estuary is addressed. The one-year permit extension is the way to go with a new, longer, more comprehensive permit or permits to follow later, after the science and all of the great discussion group work that Mr. McAlpin has set up is completed. And there was a comment made by the Pelican Bay Administrator in the last Pelican Bay Services Division Meeting that may be of interest to you, and it was stated that if Pelican Bay were to incorporate Clam Bay, which was a part of the original PUD, would become a part of Pelican Bay. And this is a major reason why I feel Page 87 April 22-23, 2008 the county staff recommendations should be followed. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ted Raia. He'll be followed by Ted (sic) Buser. MR. RAIA: Good morning. My name is Ted Raia. I'm a member of the Pelican Bay Services Division and served on the Clam Bay Committee. I think it is imperative that you do move ahead and approve a very specific permit that will take care of the Mangroves that belong to the county. People bring in incorporation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Mangroves. As far as I understand, if there's incorporation or no incorporation, that is county property and will remain county property, and we would like to continue taking care of it no matter what happened to government. The important issue here is that people who dedicate their time and effort to improving a natural resource of county should be rewarded by continuing the efforts of what they are doing. I can understand the concerns of the city, but the city really brought on these concerns themselves when they destroyed all the Mangroves put in Seagate road that cut off a linkage of flow of water from the south to the north. We want to cooperate with them to fix that. Weare not saying we don't want to fix that. We want to fully cooperate with any other permit that the county commissioners decide to pursue. You can count on that. But please let us take care of the Mangroves. It appears they belong to Pelican Bay. They are in Pelican Bay, but it's really your property to steward. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, the next speaker is registered twice. He wants to read something in the record for someone else. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Three minutes. MS. FILSON: David Buser. MR. BUSER: For the record, David Buser. I am the president of the Seagate Homeowners Association and also serving on the Collier Page 88 April 22-23, 2008 County Coastal Advisory Committee. I'd like to put an overhead up for view, if possible. I've been asked by City Councilman John Sorey to read a sealed statement. I have not been able to view it myself at this point, so I'd like to read his comments first as the first speaking opportunity, if that is okay with the chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have three minutes, total of three minutes. MR. BUSER: For both? CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have three minutes. MR. BUSER: I've registered for two slots, one for John Sorey. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have three minutes total. MR. BUSER: Okay. For the record -- this is John Sorey's statement. First, for the record, I am John Sorey, 220 Gulfshore Boulevard North, Naples, Florida, and these comments are from me individually, and I'm not representing the Naples City Councilor the Coastal Advisory Committee. Thank you for allowing this statement to be read into the record. Pelican Bay Services Division is requesting to have Pelican Bay Services Division prepare, sign, and submit the Clam Bay Management Plan to the federal and state agencies. I endorse the position taken by the staff document from Mr. Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management, and Ms. Colleen Green, County Attorney's Office, dated April 14, 2008. It is essential that we view the Clam Bay waterway as a whole versus the two elements of Mangroves and stormwater. I congratulate the Pelican Bay Services Division on the progress they have made in these areas, but it's time to move to a more conclusive status. Since the lower portion of Clam Bay is within the City of Naples, the city and its citizens must be involved in this restoration. With this request comes both a funding and involvement responsibility. Page 89 April 22-23, 2008 Based on my discussion with a number of citizens in this area, it appears they're committed to do their part in this effort. I've had the honor to be part of a broad-based work group considering Pelican Bay -- or considering Clam Bay. At what point -- at one point we had an agreement with the Pelican Bay Services Division to extend the existing permit for one year and allow the work groups to address the nine items that were identified and required analysis and recommendations. Unfortunately this decision was changed to make an immediate request for a new 10-year permit. It would appear that this is not the appropriate action based on the facts that have been determined. Please support the staffs recommendation and do not allow the Pelican Bay Services Division to go forward on the permit renewal. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Since I only have three minutes, I'll try to be fast. Personally I feel this is a Trojan horse. This is the county beach under the current hydraulics management. And when the term hydraulics is addressed by Mr. Petty, it's continuation of this state of management for county citizens, okay. What I would propose is that the county commissioners pass a resolution to direct county staff to work directly with the Pelican Bay Services Division Board to make Mangrove restoration a focal point of any new permit but not give Pelican Bay Services Division Board the permit to hold. If Pelican Bay does incorporate and is their own city, you, County Commissioners, will be going to Pelican Bay, the City of Pelican Bay meetings asking for a request to manage that beach differently, and that's unacceptable. I, once again, would like to request additional time since I did sign for two speaker slots, please, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know. Next speaker? We need to move on. We have many time certains. We have an 11: 15 that I Page 90 April 22-23, 2008 guess we're going to have to get to this afternoon. What is -- who's the next speaker? MS. FILSON: He's the final speaker. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Buser. Commissioner Coletta, you had something, and then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I'd like to know -- and I'm not too sure who to address the question to. Possibly our staff if I may. MR. PETTIT: Which staff, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN HENNING: County staff, thank you. I mean other than Pelican Bay. No offense. My concern is how we're going to do this thing fairly and equitably for everybody in everybody's best interest. The last speaker, I had met with him previously, so I had the full benefit of his presentation, and he left me with great concerns after that meeting as far as the beach and the condition of the beach. He also pointed out how the -- and I can't remember the terminology that was used, how the sand builds up outside of the pass there and how, if it's not managed properly, it will cause the beach to deteriorate, and he raised all sorts of concerns. From what you've heard, does that raise concerns for the county and our right to be able to manage a public amenity? MR. McALPIN: One of the issues that was not addressed in the first lO-year permit was management of the sand bypassing in the ebb tide shoal so we could put sand on Clam Pass, the county park, the Clam Pass beach park. We will -- as -- when we move forward with this, Commissioner, we will -- what we will do is we will apply for our own permit, the county's own permit, to manage the ebb tide shoal to manage the past. We will do that in conjunction with the rest of the estuary so that we maintain the proper hydraulics for the flow and the estuary, but we Page 91 April 22-23, 2008 would intend to move forward, work out an agreement so -- with the state so that we could -- we could control the pass and the sand bypassing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, help me a little bit with this, too. This past 10 years that this permit's been in effect, did we accomplish the goals that that permit was for as far as the restoration of the Mangroves? MR. McALPIN: The restoration of the Mangroves and water quality has been very successful. The water quality has been through stormwater runoff relative to the area of Pelican Bay; been very successful. Pelican Bay has been good stewards on that. The issue is that if you apply for another 10-year permit, it's larger than just those two items. There are another -- there are a number of other items that need to be addressed; however, what we're looking to do is -- what I heard County Manager indicate, we're looking to narrow the scope of that permit so that the scope of the permit would just address maintenance of the Mangroves, and that's fine. There could be a county permit issued to whomever to manage the scope of those permits, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, why is the permit issued to the county but Pelican Bay Service Division gets to manage it? MR. McALPIN: The original permit was applied for 10 years ago. I can't deal with the specifics on why that it was issued to Collier County/Pelican Bay Services Division. That would not be the way that we would choose to manage that -- the issue of -- that permit would be issued at this point in time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the present motion we have before us is to issue that permit in whose name and who would be controlling it? MR. McALPIN: Our recommendation from the county staff, from a direct county staff point of view, is that the permits be issued in Page 92 April 22-23, 2008 Collier County's name and that we would work with the local community, the Mangrove Action Committee/Pelican Bay Services Division, and that they would work to execute that work task with some level of involvement by the county. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, the Pelican Bay Services Division -- and please, bear with me a few minutes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We've got another four minutes. Do we -- can we finish this item up, or do we have to go to our 12 noon -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. We can finish this item up, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then go into the closed session. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Take your time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. The Pelican Bay Services Division is a local entity that's solely contained within Pelican Bay. They can't represent the interest of the City of Naples? MR. McALPIN: You know, I can't comment on that. I would ask our County Attorney to comment on that, if you would. MR. PETTY: I could do that, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd rather hear from the County Attorney, to be honest with you. MR. MUDD: They're a division -- they're a division of Collier government, just like any other division that works under the County Manager. Now, there's some differences based on an ordinance specifically that the board basically gave some powers to the Pelican Bay Services Division in the last update. But for all practical purposes, they're a division of Collier government under the County Manager. They have a separate board that has some powers that you gave them as a board that I don't have in other divisions, but that's okay. You -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then what you're saying Page 93 April 22-23, 2008 is that they do have the ability to be able to make decisions independent of the county commission, or would everything have to come back? MR. MUDD: No, sir. Their budget comes to you, everything comes to you. If you want to designate them as your agent for this permit, you can do that. Just like Mr. DeLony applies for a permit after he comes to you and asks you for permission to apply for that permit. They're applying for that permit in Collier County's name in order to get that done. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So-- MR. MUDD: You cannot -- you cannot give up that right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. So we have final control over anything that takes place. They can't act independently to go forward with any particular direction no matter what the permit says or whatever? In other words, we set the parameter for what can be done? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. They come and apply for that permit, and when that permit gets done, it will come back here for your review to make sure it's what you want it to be, and then -- and then it gets signed off. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So why is staffs recommendations to have it directly under the county rather than under -- MR. MUDD: You make that decision. You have a coastal zone manager, okay, and it's Gary McAlpin, okay, and we've set that up at the request of your Coastal Advisory Committee. So he would look at the entire coastal estuary system and the beach aspects of Collier County, and that's what he does for a living at the request of Coastal Advisory Committee and the board's direction to add that particular position. So Gary's got some say to it, and I believe he'll work with Mr. Petty in this particular regard to make sure it gets done. Page 94 April 22-23, 2008 You also have an item on your agenda which is lOG. And one of the items is the Water Resource Development Act submission for Clam Bay Estuary water quality improvements, because what we're trying to get at -- what Dr. Buser had talked about, what Councilwoman Taylor had talked about, and what Mr. Finlay had talked about earlier, is there's a big issue here, okay. It's a big area, and there are some water quality issues, especially down in the southern end of the bay that need to be addressed, and it's going to cost money, and that's why we want to try to get an authorization so that you in the later years can go for an appropriation and get the federal government to help you cost share with the county and the municipalities and whoever else wants to join in order to get things resolved. So we're not just saying it's just going to be done with the Mangrove. There's a whole particular look at this in a holistic aspect, and we're going to take it on in digestible doses in order to get it resolve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that it? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's it, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'd like to emphasize that every speaker and every member of staff and all of the commissioners have exactly the same goal in mind, and we have to remember that. Our goal is to protect the estuary and the Mangroves. It impacts Pelican Bay very, very directly. It impacts the City of Naples. It impacts the entire county, because we have a responsibility to make sure those things are done. My problem is that there is nothing here to vote on. There is no program, comprehensive plan for us to vote on here. We have a proposal by the Pelican Bay Services Division that says, we want to get a 10-year extension or any other amount of an extension that you'll Page 95 April 22-23, 2008 give us, but up to 10 years. We have a proposal by another department that says, no, we don't think an extension of this -- this restoration plan is necessary. No new management plan or long-term permit is needed, nor should it be applied for. Execution of the new work-specific tasks and permits can be accomplished through local community organizations like the Mangrove Action Committee with some degree of oversight by Collier County, and so forth. We have two documents from our own organization specifying two different ways of doing this. We can't vote on this. This should have been resolved before it ever came to us. What should have happened is that we should have a comprehensive management program presented to us for approval that would cover all of the issues in this estuary and involving all of these stakeholders in this process. But if we make a decision on the proposal submitted by the Pelican Bay Services Division, it's going to piecemeal it. It's not going to be a comprehensive process. Ifwe take the contrary recommendations, there really is no plan or organization identified to do what the contrary recommendations would suggest. So we're sitting here expecting to make a decision that is not going to make anybody happy and I think will be quite destructive if we make a decision. So I would suggest to the commissioners that we direct our staffs to go back and sort this out. We've got two divisions within our County Manager's purview who should be able to sit down and work this thing out and come back with a comprehensive, coherent proposal about how this is done. And I would also say that I think it makes us look terrible to the people who have been working on this project for a long, long time. After not participating actively in helping do anything with these -- saving these Mangroves, we are now acting like, now that it's finished, we want to take it away from you and we're going to do it. That's not Page 96 April 22-23, 2008 what is going to happen here, and -- at least it's not what I'm going to vote for. So I think we need a comprehensive management plan, Mr. Chairman. I know there's a vote -- or there's a motion on the table, but I could not support it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Fiala, then I'm going to go. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what we're trying to do here is not only protect the county, but we're trying to protect the citizens of Pelican Bay in regards to addressing the issue of only the Mangroves and the hydrology that's in the back there. If we expand this permit that we're discussing today to make it as widespread as it has been for the last 10 years, then I think that we get ourselves in a tremendous -- the possibility is that we could get ourselves in a tremendous problem here. I think what we need to do is address the issue of the Mangroves in Pelican Bay today, and then what we need to do is find out if we really have a problem with the rest of the estuary system along with the WRDA that we're trying to address, and I think that we can work together with all parties involved to address the other issues. But I don't think we want to tie in the Mangroves and tie in everything else because then I think we're --we, as the county, could be in serious jeopardy because of the fact that we are the ones that sign that permit, and we're responsible for what happens back there. And I think that's where we're trying to go at this point in time. Am I right, County Manager? I'm asking you for some guidance here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just short, please. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the permit's been a success. We have some outliers where we, as staff, we as -- and we have some disagreement. Mr. Petty, in his conversations with FDEP have said that the Page 97 April 22-23, 2008 markings on the navigational canal are fine. Our conversation with FDEP says the markings aren't fine. Mr. McAlpin is working on the last piece of compliance on this permit, and that has to do with the navigational marking in the channel, and he's getting with a Pelican Bay Services Division and he's also getting with the City of Naples in order to try to resolve where those markers should be. With that, we have satisfied this permit, and it has been a long journey. And that's where we are in this particular regard. I believe there's a lot of work that needs to get done here, there's a lot of stormwater issues that need to get resolved here, and I believe there's going to be a significant expenditure of funds in order to get it right, and that's why I've tried to include that into WRDA so you can get some comprehensive issues. But I believe if you keep this permit on board without solving some issues that are out there right now for stormwater runoff from other parts of the community that go into this bay, you are going to have some serious problems with water quality issues based on the permit as it stands, and you'll be out of compliance, and you'll get a consent order or two. And I'd suggest to you that you let this permit expire and start working on those particular issues with some help with some federal dollars. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Now, that's about what you said, wasn't it, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's the way I understood it. And what I said in the beginning is, I think there ought to be two permits. This one, because Pelican Bay has already done a marvelous job in cleaning up the estuary, but there's another job that needs to be done that hasn't been done so well, and I think we ought to apply for Page 98 April 22-23, 2008 that permit along with the City of Naples, work together to clean up the rest of that bay area. Isn't that something that we can do? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. We're trying to do that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good. You -- and then Commissioner Coyle after me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't -- I like the motion because the citizens always had a special interest in Mangroves, and there's no reason why government needs to be all to all, and let the citizens of Pelican Bay deal with that issue as it states on the motion. There are so many things happening in and around Pelican Bay that upsets that community. Why not the county commissioners give them a piece of something, and let's move on with that. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two points. And number one, what has been motioned is not what the staff has said, okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is not what the staff -- Gary McAlpin has said in his memo to us, okay. Secondly, I do not believe that you can deal with the hydrology of Clam Bay and the health of the Mangroves without taking the rest of Clam Bay into consideration. You can't play around with hydrology and expect it only to impact Mangroves, okay. So when you -- when you involve -- when you have a permit that says, okay, all you're going to do is deal with Mangroves and the hydrology in Clam Bay, but you're going to let somebody else deal with some other portion of the same Clam Bay, how you going to rash -- how you going to work that out? Suppose the people who are responsible for the hydrology where the Mangroves are do something that is harmful to the rest of the bay? It's not likely, but you can't separate these things. You've got a bay; Page 99 April 22-23, 2008 you've got an estuary. You can't parcel it out and say, okay, you manage this part and somebody else manage that part and somebody else manage this part, and you don't even have a plan to do that here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think you can. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, it's really -- it really doesn't make sense. You really shouldn't settle for a piecemeal approach. We should have the staff go back and give us a comprehensive plan to do the job for the entire estuary, and then you can parcel out the tasks to whoever you want to. But to just give somebody a permit to go out and do something without creating a comprehensive management plan is irresponsible. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other discussion before the motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a short note. I've listened to this argument go back and forth, and believe me -- and I come to the conclusion, everybody's right. I think you could probably approach it either way and you'd still get there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the simplest thing is, is for the past 10 years it's worked well as far as the management of the Mangroves. Why change that at this point in time? Just as long as the cost is going to be realistic. But then again, on the other hand, we do have to make sure that we bring all the rest of the players in to be able to preserve what's there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 100 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner Coyle dissenting in the motion. Item #12B IN ADDITION TO BOARD MEMBERS, COUNTY MANAGER JAMES MUDD, COUNTY ATTORNEY DAVID C. WEIGEL, CHIEF ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY JEFFREY A. KLATZKOW AND ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY JACQUELINE WILLIAMS HUBBARD WILL BE IN ATTENDANCE. THE BOARD IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL DISCUSS: SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN THE PENDING LITIGATION CASES OF BONITA MEDIA ENTERPRISES, LLC. V. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CASE NO.: 2:07-CV-411-FTM-29DNF, NOW PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, FORT MYERS DIVISION AND BONITA MEDIA ENTERPRISES, LLC., BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND (REG. AGENT) V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPEAL CASE NO.: 07-2035-CA, LOWER TRIBUNAL CEB NO.: 2007-35, NOW PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT - CLOSED SESSION CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to go into our closed session. We have to come back out at one o'clock, sir? MR. KLATZKOW: We don't have to come out at one o'clock. Page 101 April 22-23, 2008 We will-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we're going to convene and do our closed session and return at II -- or I: II. MR. KLATZKOW: 1:11? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or 7-11, whatever. MR. KLATZKOW: Just for the record the-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, go ahead. MR. KLATZKOW: The closed session involves a discussion of negotiation strategy related to litigation -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you quiet down in back, please. MR. KLATZKOW: - related to Bonita Media Enterprises. In attendance of this will be the board members, County Manager James Mudd, Chief Assistant County Attorney Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Jacquelyn Hubbard. We expect it to take approximately a half hour, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. (A closed session was held during the luncheon recess, and the proceedings continued as follows:) Item #12C BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS TO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN THE PENDING LITIGATION CASES OF BONITA MEDIA ENTERPRISES, LLC. V. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CASE NO.: 2:07-CV-411-FTM-29DNF, NOW PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, FORT MYERS DIVISION AND BONITA MEDIA ENTERPRISES, LLC., BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND (REG. Page 102 April 22-23, 2008 AGENT) V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPEAL CASE NO.: 07-2035-CA, LOWER TRIBUNAL CEB NO.: 2007-35, NOW PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT. - MOTION TO DIRECT ST AFF TO AMEND THE COUNTY SIGN CODE TO MAKE IT CONSTITUTIONAL - APPROVED; MOTION TO HAVE CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLY W/COURT ORDER AND NOT ENFORCE PROVISION OF SIGN CODE - APPROVED; MOTION FOR COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO MOVE FORWARD TO REACH SETTLEMENT, INCLUDING MEDIATION IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURT UNLESS A SETTLEMENT IS REACHED AT WHICH TIME IT WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Board's back from its Closed Session and lunch. We're going to do 12B. MR. MUDD: 12C, sir, it would be 12C. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 12C. MR. MUDD: For the Board of County Commissioners to provide direction to the County Attorney's Office as to settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures in the pending litigation case of Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC, versus Collier County Code Enforcement Board, Board of County Commissioners, case number 207-cv-411-FtM-29 delta, N -- excuse me -- DNF, and there's also a similar case in the Circuit Court, and that's 12C. Ms. Jack Robinson will present -- Hubbard. MS. HUBBARD: Hubbard, thank you. MR. MUDD: I'm sorry. Page 103 April 22-23, 2008 MS. HUBBARD: Yes. At this time I'm asking on behalf of our office for direction particularly as it pertains to going forward with our sign code. And I would ask that the board entertain a motion directing staff to revise, delete or meet or amend the sign code to conform to the first amendment dictates as expressed in the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Steel. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a motion to do so? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to do so. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that the intent of the motion? Aren't we also going to direct the County Manager to stop enforcing the sign code unconstitutionally and to enter into mediation concerning -- do we want to include all these or you going to do them one at a time? MS. HUBBARD: Well, I'd like to do them separately-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: You would. MS. HUBBARD: --- because that one that I just mentioned I'd like to file a copy of that with the Court upon acceptance by the board. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Coyle. Yeah, but -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: He made the motion? CHAIRMAN HENNING: He did, he did. He spoke up. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: To direct staff to amend the sign code so it would fit the first amendment right, free speech and also direct the County Manager not to enforce -- MS. HUBBARD: No, just the first motion. Secondly, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. HUBBARD: To amend, delete, or add to the sign code to make it constitutional. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. Discussion? Page 104 April 22-23, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg 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. HUBBARD: Second motion that we're requesting is that the county code enforcement authorities comply with the Court's order and not enforce the provisions of the sign code as to Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC, as described in the Court's order. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And actually that would be a direction to the County Manager. MS. HUBBARD: Correct, sorry. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coyle. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all those 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? Page 105 ApriI22-23,2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. MS. HUBBARD: Thank you. And the third motion, particularly in response to Commissioner Coyle, is that the Office of the County Attorney be instructed to move forward in attempting to reach a reasonable settlement of this case including using, if necessary, mediation in the federal court and state court matters. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle to give direction to the County Attorney's Office to go to mediation to settle this lawsuit. MS. HUBBARD: Unless we can reach a reasonable settlement with the opposing counsel, which we would bring back to the board for your approval. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct, and that's a part of your motion. MS. HUBBARD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the second. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 106 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. MS. HUBBARD: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to go to our 11:30 -- II: 15 time certain. Item #12A - Tabled to later in the meeting RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SITTING AS THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS REJECT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PURSUANT TO THE ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS RESULTING FROM THE DENIAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE EXPANSION OF A CHURCH FOR PETITION CU-2004-AR-6384 - GOLDEN GATE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC.- DISCUSSED AND THEN TABLED TO LATER IN THE MEETING MR. MUDD: 11:15 time certain. That's item 12A. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals reject the recommendation of the special magistrate pursuant to the alternatives dispute resolution process resulting from the denial of the conditional use for the expansion of a church. Condition CU-2004-AR-6384, Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah Witnesses, Inc. Ms. Marjorie Student, principal from your County Attorney's Office, will present. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we go into the discussion on this, if my colleagues don't mind me saying, I don't want to deviate from what the Special Master Brousseau has suggested to the Board of Page 107 April 22-23, 2008 County Commissioners. I think that we should try to settle this issue. Is that okay, or do you want to go into presentation? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm more interested in hearing the speakers than I am having the presentations. I've heard them before. But then, again, maybe the public might want to hear them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what you're saying is you want to abide by what the special magistrate said? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. But there's two things, what the special master said. One thing, he gave direction to either buyout the neighbor. So we need to know if that has been discussed, and was there any resolution to that? And the second thing is amend the Site Development Plan. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Right. The resolution on the church's buyout of the neighbor, as far as I know at the meeting that was discussed, and it was not -- they both to succumb to fruition. You may wish to address that, Mr. Fox? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Cox (sic)? MR. FOX: Good afternoon, Chairman Henning, Members of the Commission. We did discuss this issue extensively with the adjoining property owner, Mr. Jeff Raimer, and another adjoining property owner, Mr. Cranale (phonetic), who does not live there but has a lot nearby. Our discussions were not fruitful, so I requested of Judge Brousseau that he come in and meet with the parties and personally attempt to work out a settlement. He graciously did that at our mediation, and we were still not able to reach a -- any kind of resolution. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is Mr. Raimer here? Is he part of -- is he one of the speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. Page 108 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, did you have anything? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, I'm waiting to hear from the speakers before I move on this. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: One of the things that I would just like to point out -- and I'm going to ask Mr. DeRuntz, the planner that was involved, to step up. I believe it is on your visualizer, however -- the enhanced site plan that was recommended by the special magistrate which involves moving the parking area toward the county park, enhanced buffering, a wall with buffering outside of the wall between the wall and the property line. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Can you call up the speakers, please? MS. FILSON: I have two speakers. Mike Casady. He'll be followed by James Fox. MR. CASADY: Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thank you for hearing us. This is a very important project for us. We're talking about building a small building approximately 4,000 square feet, which is not relatively a large building. Probably a little bit larger -- just a little bit larger than this room in itself, a single-story building painted the colors of earth tone colors that blends in with the landscaping. We have met several times and have made several things that we put before the neighbors' concessions, and have bent over backwards. And as you see from the site plan, the buffer has changed, has really increased largely on the south side of the property, including on the east side of the property where the neighbor lived. And we've incorporated a wall in the project for the concern about noise. And we did a study, sound study, which came up very positive for us, that there was no issue, and we followed the standards, the sound standards of Collier County. So we have done a lot of things, you know, to try to work this situation out. Page 109 April 22-23, 2008 Just a little bit about our meetings that we have there. We have our meetings, and it's -- we feel it's a great benefit for the neighborhood, for the people in the area. It builds good families, our meetings. It helps our children to be respectable children in school, they excel in school. Many are providing good grades and are on the honor role. So there's many good things. Good businessmen come out of our meetings, and we just feel that if you could, we appreciate a favorable vote to allow us to build this project. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is James Fox. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: One thing -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have anything else, Mr. Fox? MR. FOX: I have a couple things I would like to say, in may. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All Right. I didn't mean to interrupt Marjorie. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I neglected, I wanted to mention at the outset, because of resolution 709, this requires a supermajority vote, so that's what I wanted to put on the record. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. So we have no one speaking in opposition, from what I gather. You have no other speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Pretty amazing. And the reason for us to go through this process is many years ago, as you can remember, Commissioner Henning, it used to be in Golden Gate Estates you could do these types of things just by permitting. It was the first master plan that put together the necessary thing to make these conditional uses so we can meet the needs of the residents. I know it's been a long and laborious process for the people that have been involved, but there's been a good reason for it. Page 110 April 22-23, 2008 With that, the fact that there's no one here raising objections and we have reached out to touch the people and let them know about this meeting taking place today in many ways and they're not here to speak against it, so I no longer have any objections. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Fox? MR. FOX: Okay. I will be very brief, Chairman Henning. Again, I'm Jim Fox with Roetzel and Andress. We represent the petitioner. I just want to make one point. We advised our client about the available option after the BZA turned them down which, of course, includes a lawsuit, Bert Harris action, a petition for cert.; and our client, being a church, wanted to try something new. This LUDRA petition is a new thing in the legislature that allows us to sit down and try and work out our problems. And we did that; we chose Judge Brousseau, who has some 25 years on the bench and a lot of experience with land use, to sit down. And the two -- at end of the day there were two concerns that the property owners had. One had to do with sound, and the other had to do with sight lines. I just wanted to briefly point out what we've done. We've moved this -- this was, where the arrow shows here, is where the wall used to exist on the boundary, and we've moved it some 140 -- about 50 feet back. We hired a sound engineer to determine what kind of sound that would then emanate from the property as a result of that, and he said that once we did that, the sound reaching the adjoining property would be less than it is now. It would be quieter. The other concern was that, well, my sight lines are going to be -- Mr. Raimer said, my sight lines were going to be destroyed by this wall, and so by moving the wall 40 feet, at a considerable expense, we were able to provide a natural barrier, and we committed to filling that in so that he has a nice, natural look of 40 feet of trees. This new plan went through the county staff. It was approved by Page 111 April 22-23, 2008 the county staff. It was recommended by Judge Brousseau. I'm happy to answer further questions, but I don't want to belabor this, and thank you for giving us this time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, but we also need to have the staff inform the board exactly what the changes are and exactly what is going to stay in the conditional use. But I -- MR. DeRUNTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, do you have -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Basically that was it. I would like also to be able to point out where the home residence is now in relation to the map and the buffers that are being put into place. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. For the record, my name is Mike DeRuntz. I'm a principal planner with the Department of Comprehensive Planning. I was the principal planner in Zoning and Land Development Review at the time this land application came forward. We have -- this plan has been amended from what the Board of County Commissioners had seen previously in June 26, '07, when you moved to deny this request. This -- the buffer -- this is the house here of Mr. Raimer on the west side of this -- of the subject property. And the buffer -- they had a wall that was along the side, like it was explained, and a minimum of a 25-foot buffer, landscape buffer along here. Now they have a full 50-foot-wide buffer here, and the wall is on the back side of that landscape buffer area. It runs the length, the eastern side here, along then to the south here, and there was also a 25 -- a wall was along the roadway here of I st Avenue Southwest, and that wall's been moved back. And this entire area has a varying width of some 50 to 75 feet back in this corner. So that is one of the revisions that has been made, so they have increased the buffering area and moved the wall. By moving the wall, Page 112 April 22-23, 2008 it puts the wall adjacent to the parking area and the driving area which, as it was suggested from the sound study that was mentioned, it's going to reduce a lot of the noise. They've reconfigured the parking area. This area to the south here had a lot of parking, and they moved that entire area down here. If you would, I'm going to flip to the previous site plan and you can see how they had a lot more parking over here on the south side of the property, and this area here was just -- you know, is open, and they flipped that parking into this area here. You see how narrow the buffer was along there in here, and you could see by reconfiguring the layout of the parking, they've gained a lot of additional green space and buffering. There's a lot of existing trees that are along that area. I could flip -- show you some photographs I've taken there. One of the concerns that they had at the Planning Commission and was reflected from the fire district, that there was only one access- way here to the site. And the fire district wanted an additional access- way which has remained on the site plan, and that will be controlled with a gate with the fire district having a key so they could have easy access into the site. Ifthere's any questions, I'd be more than happy to address those. We would need to --like I say, there was some conditions that would need to be modified from the original conditional use permit, and the major one would -- that it would need to reflect that the conditional use would be based upon this revised site plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has questions, Commissioner Coyle has questions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Can you tell me who is going to maintain that buffer, the -- including the water, the electricity, mowing, planting, and so forth? MR. DeRUNTZ: That would be the church's responsibility. It's their property. Page 113 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: And if they don't maintain it, then? MR. DeRUNTZ: Then it would be -- could be a code violation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The -- can someone tell me why the staff recommended that we reject the special magistrate's findings? There was no justification for the rejection mentioned in the executive summary . MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes. It was my opinion that we had -- that we could win the cert. case if it proceeded to a petition for Writ of Certiorari, and also, the board had addressed concerns about the number of congregations and the number of days that the congregation might meet in the original discussion in June of'07, and that was not addressed by the special magistrate. So those were part of the reasons. The board is free to do whatever they wish, however. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The original motion for approval restricted the use to four days a week? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that something that the staff is recommending, or what is the recommendation here? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That was not -- that was not part of what the special magistrate addressed was the number of meetings. It was his opinion that this revised site plan would take care of the issues that the board had for the project's impact on the neighborhood. But you are free under the law to either accept, accept with modifications, or reject the special magistrate's recommendations. So you are free to add whatever conditions might be able to be agreed upon. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I understood that, but what I'm uncertain about now is if we merely accept the special magistrate's recommendations, what other factors are we leaving out? How about Page 114 April 22-23, 2008 traffic impacts; are there any problems there with respect to traffic in the neighborhood? I guess we need to have some answers from staff on that. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I believe the special magistrate found that there were none, but I can defer to staff. Originally, I believe, that there -- it was found that there were none, but I'm going to -- MR. DeRUNTZ: Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida with transportation. There were no detrimental impacts. It was off-peak hours and it was four days a week, and the restrictions that were there did not pose a traffic problem. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the petitioner's representative is saying that four days a week doesn't apply. He's shaking his head about four days a week. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it's six days a week, because of the nature of the church, the issue of transportation was access, and that wasn't really a traffic impact issue. It was more the residents did not want them to access I st Street. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you said it's off hours. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's off hours, the use of the church, compared to peak-hour traffic. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Based upon what, four days a week use or every day a week use? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Even every day, from the hours they presented in the original traffic impact statement, it was not during the a.m. peak rush or the p.m. peak rush. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, Commissioner Halas's motion at the time was for approval with the stipulation that they only be allowed to meet four weeks -- or four nights a week. Okay, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. Page 115 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Other questions? I have a question. If the board approves the Site Development Plan or this modification, does the other stipulations from the Planning Commission or staff -- is still adhered to? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I don't -- I don't think that they necessarily do, but I think you can make that part of your motion. And I don't think anybody would have any objections, so I think you're free to make that part of your motion, and we could bring back that conditional use with the site plan and the stip -- original stipulations. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, let me ask another question. MR. FOX: Mr. Chairman, if I may, just with respect to your last question. The revised site plan does incorporate all the recommendations of the staff and all the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The changes were those that Judge Brousseau specifically wanted to increase the buffers and reduce the sound. There was also a change to put in a no right turn at the exit and entrance so that cars couldn't go out I st Avenue, which was a concern that's been expressed before the board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Planning Commission's recommendation that a six-foot wall be on top of a three-foot buffer. MR. FOX: And that's the wall that we said has been moved. There will be a three-foot berm and a six-foot wall. It's just been moved so it's now 50 feet inside the property to provide a nice, natural buffer and to, according to our sound engineer, to send the sound off into the stratosphere. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioners, County Attorney did receive a message that the neighbor, Jeff Raimer, objects to the property owner -- well, objects to the settlement. Now, staff cannot amend this Site Development Plan? Because it says in here the director of the department of zoning and land Page 116 April 22-23, 2008 development may approve minor changes to location of sighting, heights, and building. If we approve the Site Development Plan, does the director have any ability to move buildings around or any other thing on the Site Development Plan? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That is standard language because the site plan is usually conceptual. And I would say there's probably really not much ability to move the buildings with the parking and so forth shown where it is and the wall being closer in and the buffering. But I think -- and Mike, you can maybe address this a little better than I. I think that's just to allow for just minor little things that aren't really going to affect where the buildings and footprint and so forth appears on the plan to that great of an extent. Isn't that correct? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, ma'am, that is correct, that is standard language for conditional uses so that when they come in for an SDP, that it can -- these can be tweaked a little bit. But the buffering would need to stay there. If it just -- if we're off a foot or something along this line, it gives them a little latitude. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're saying that a minor change would be a foot to move the building or any other structures or improvements; is that -- is that the definition of minor? MR. DeRUNTZ: It would be insignificant. And I just said a foot. But Ray, do you want to address that, please? MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon. For the record, Ray Bellows with zoning and land development review. The idea is to allow, at the time of Site Development Plan, if the engineer or -- has to accommodate a different water management area or slight building configuration, that it doesn't trigger the conditional use having to come back before the Board of Zoning Appeals. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, being that we're settling on a particular site plan, I want to know if it's this much, this much, or Page 117 April 22-23, 2008 this much (indicating). I think that has to be maybe in the motion. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We can include that, that there's no more than a foot margin of error. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm willing to go ahead and make a motion for approval. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Just one other comment. We can also stipulate that any change to this concept plan would require it to come back. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that would be included in my motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Close the public hearing. Commissioner Coletta, if I understand, makes a motion to approve the special master's recommendations, the revised site plan. All the stipulations still stay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And those stipulations would also include four days a week. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the -- is that your motion, in your motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I believe -- why, is there a problem with that? MR. FOX: Yes, sir. That was not a stipulation, as Ms. Student testified, of the special magistrate's position. And I would be -- I would have to speak with my client, but I would advise my client about not entering into an agreement with the government about when it could hold worship services and when it can't. That was not in the Planning Commission. It wasn't in any of the other. So we are more than happy to accept all of the Planning Commission recommendations, all the recommendations of the staff, the recommendation of the special magistrate, which we spent a lot of Page 118 April 22-23, 2008 time and money to meet, and to go back through site development process. When we proposed this plan and made sure it was okay with the staff, one of the things we wanted to do was to avoid the site development problem. But we are stating on the record, of course, that we -- if there are site development problems, that we are willing to work those out. But when they can worship and when they can't, that is not something that's acceptable. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I remember correctly when we were -- when this discussion came up before, previous meetings, where it failed by a lack of a supermajority, you were in agreement with it then, but you're not now? MR. FOX: I would have to take time to confer with my client on that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the permission of the chair. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, most definitely we can do that. Actually, we can probably even table this, do something else, and come back to it. But let's formulate a motion -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- first. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That motion includes the limitations to four nights a week for service. And what were some of the others? I'm trying to recall. It's been a long time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that pretty much -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Covered it? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pretty much handles it. The -- now, would this be -- your motion to include, improve -- to approve for the Golden Gate congressional-- Congregational Jehovah Witnesses and its members' use? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Absolutely correct. In other words, limit it -- I'm at a loss. Page 119 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: The only reason I'm saying that, I have a church right down the street from me that is a conditional use for a church that has several other churches meeting in it. And I just want to make sure that it is a petition for this congregation to meet. And is it in your motion that it's for this congregation and no other churches? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Absolutely. I think that was understood before when this came before us. MR. FOX: Mr. Chairman, I was just advised that at the last -- I was not present at the last meeting, but I was advised that that issue was discussed but it was not formally a part of the motion because the adjoining property owner wouldn't agree to it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Agree to what? MR. FOX: To four days. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Oh, okay. MR. FOX: So it was not a part of the previous vote. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What we're going to do, Mr. Fox, is we're going to have a motion and a second, and then we're going to table this. You talk to your client, and come back to us, if you don't mind. MR. FOX: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you. MR. FOX: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does that formalize your motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It does unless there's something I missed along the way. MR. KLATZKOW: During the last discussion, the motion was for four nights, and the petitioners did agree to it on the record. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second the motion. And now we want to give Mr. Fox and his client time to discuss the motion before we take finalize (sic). So we're going to table 12A. Page 120 April 22-23, 2008 Pardon me? MR. DeRUNTZ: Excuse me. Mike DeRuntz again. Did you want to include that statement that any revisions to the site plan would be required to come back to the board? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought we did. MR. DeRUNTZ: I didn't hear that, but I just wanted to make sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I include that in the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's a part of the second. Mr. Klatzkow, are we okay to table this? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're tabling 12A. We'll move on to another item. Item #7 A RESOLUTION 2008-119: PETITION ADA-2007-AR-12714, SAUNDRA CLANCY-KOENDARFER, REPRESENTED BY BEN NELSON OF NELSON MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF BD-2007-AR-12154, DENIED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 6, 2007. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 48, RANGE 25, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. - MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Brings us to 7 A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's ADA-2007-AR-127 14, Saundra Clancy-Koendarfer, represented by Ben Nelson of Nelson Marine Construction, Inc. is Page 121 April 22-23, 2008 requesting an appeal of BD-2007-AR-12154 denied by the Collier County Planning Commission on December 6,2007. Subject property is located in Section 5, Township 48, Range 25, Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if I could just ask for everybody 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: Is there any further ex parte communication besides what we had the last time we heard this? Commission Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Meetings -- or, no. Correspondence, emails.it.s the -- I believe it's same as the last time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Correspondence. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Myself, I briefly talked to Mr. N elson, and I watched the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Only thing I had, it's probably a continuation of the last meeting, and that was correspondence and emails. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I had correspondence concerning this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I -- maybe -- I might be able to get through this quite -- in a rapid pace. The Board of Commissioners asked the Planning Commission who voted to deny it the reason why they denied it. It is on page 65 of 69. And what I see -- and staff can correct me if I'm wrong -- is because of the ability of the property owner to put a boat lift on there, which is in our ordinance by right. And, also, it says, if the intent was to request to support for a larger vessel, it should have been noted in the application. Looking at Page 122 April 22-23, 2008 the primary and secondary criteria, I see that that does not fit the part of the criteria whether they could put a boat lift in it or not or whether they put -- what size vessel they want. Did I miss anything? Who's the staff member who is the -- assigned to this? MS. CASERTA: Ashley Caserta, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. I have the same memorandum from Brad Schiffer, and I -- I'm not able to give a reason for him. But I can just read, the request to design reached out further into the water greater than necessary, and the 20- foot by 10- foot deck is excessive. Those were clear reasons why he gave. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm going to make a motion to approve the application. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any speakers? MS. FILSON: No, 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. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #7B Page 123 April 22-23, 2008 RESOLUTION 2008-120: PETITION V A-2007-AR-12477, GREGORY W. AND BEVERLY J. SCHUELKE, REPRESENTED BY CHRISTOPHER 1. THORNTON, OF CHEFFY, P ASSIDOMO, WILSON, AND JOHNSON, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP, ARE REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE SCHUELKE VARIANCE. THE VARIANCE PETITION SEEKS APPROVAL OF A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR ENCROACHMENT OF A POOL DECK/WALL, POOL SCREEN CAGE, AND CONCRETE PAIR OF STAIRS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 496 FLAMINGO AVENUE, IN THE CONNOR'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, UNIT 3, LOT I, BLOCK U ON 0.27 ACRES, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. - ADOPTED W /STIPULA TION MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 7B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's variance 2007-AR-12477, Gregory W. and Beverly 1. Schuelke, represented by Christopher 1. Thornton ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, Attorneys at Law, LLP, are requesting variances for a proj ect to be known as the Schuelke Variance. The variance petition requests approval of a side yard setback for encroachment of a pool deck/wall, pool screen cage, and concrete pair of stairs. The subject property is located at 496 Flamingo Avenue in the Connors Vanderbilt Beach, Beach Estates, Unit 3, Lot I, Block U ofa .27-acre lot, Section 29, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All wishing to participate in this item, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. Page 124 April 22-23, 2008 (The speakers were duly sworn and responded in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Ex parte communication from the board members. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Meeting with Rich Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had a meeting scheduled but cancelled with Rich Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN HENNING: None for me. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've had emails and phone calls from the attorney on this, Christopher Thornton. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have no disclosure on this one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Thornton? MR. THORNTON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Chris Thornton with the Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson law firm representing Greg and Beverly Schuelke today. This is a Vanderbilt Beach pool and pool screen cage encroachment issue. The house and pool have been in the same place since they were built in 1985/1986 time frame by Mario LeGrasta. Mr. LeGrasta sold the home to individuals named Kleiner in '89, and my clients, the Schuelkes, bought the property in 1997. The pool itself and the retaining wall for the pool have not changed since they were built 22 years ago. In 2004, a hurricane knocked down the existing pool screen cage. We did obtain a permit to put the cage back. Due to some code issues, we needed to build a new stair and screen off the old stair, and we got permits for those. At the time of CO for those new improvements, we discovered Page 125 April 22-23, 2008 that the property line wasn't exactly where everybody always thought it was, and it turns out that our pool retaining wall, our new cage and our new stair and the old stair encroach somewhat into the side yard setback. Because this is a corner lot, it's got two fronts and two sides and no rear. So we're not dealing here with an issue you might be familiar with where if your wall is a certain height, you have to meet a 20- foot rear instead of a 10- foot rear. This isn't that. This is just a corner lot that only has fronts and sides. So we have numerous Letters of No Objection. We have a staff recommendation of approval. When the Planning Commission considered this item on March 6th at their agenda, we did get an 8-1 favorable recommendation of approval from that Planning Commission. The only holdout was Donna Caron, and her issue had to do with the fact that she would have preferred to see the old stair removed rather than bless it where it sits. If we're going to get all of our new improvements, get the old pool, get a variance for the old pool, get a variance for the cage, get a variance for the new stair, let's get rid of the old stair. And we are willing to commit to doing that if that's the direction of this board as a condition of the variance approval for the other items. And any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. What's interesting here, as you look -- read through the agenda, you find out that this developer didn't go and obtain a final CO on this property. He built this particular house and all the pool deck and so on, and it was never fully inspected. Now we have a third owner that's involved in this process, and the only way that they got caught in this mess was when Hurricane Charley took down their pool cage, and this started this whole fiasco. Page 126 April 22-23, 2008 It's amazing that, as you see, we've got four different variances on here just because of this whole scenario, and nothing was ever caught in this whole transition of one property attorney to another. So now we have someone that's -- was caught in the web here, and here we are. And this particular person is going to remove the stairs at some point in time, like 60 days or 90 days or something of this nature? MR. THORNTON: Ninety days is acceptable, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. I make a motion for approval on this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Halas, and seconded by Commissioner Fiala to approve the variance. Is there a question by commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: No questions? Okay. Oh, County Manager has a question. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I just want to make sure, in that motion, the removal of the stairs, and 90 days is included? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my motion, 90 days to have the stairs removed. MR. THORNTON: That's the old westerly stair. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the old westerly stairs, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 127 ApriI22-23,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. I don't see 12A back, so we need to move on to another item. Item #8A ORDINANCE 2008-22: APPROVAL OF THE COLLIER COUNTY INTERSECTION SAFETY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE USE OF UNMANNED CAMERAS AT ROAD INTERSECTIONS AND TO ENFORCE ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS OF VEHICLES RUNNING RED TRAFFIC LIGHTS - ADOPTED W /CHANGES MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to -- we can start on this one, but I don't think we're going to get there before the two p.m. time certain, but it's 8A. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Collier County intersection safety ordinance to authorize use of unmanned cameras at road intersections and to enforce ordinance violations of vehicles running red traffic lights. MR. MUDD: I believe Undersheriff Rambosk is here, and Mr. Tipton, Bob Tipton, is here, your director of traffic operations, can also help. MR. RAMBOSK: Good afternoon, Commission, Chairman. In 2007, we came before you to look at how we could better enforce red light violations in Collier County. As we made you aware, we had a very active and progressive program and issued thousands of violations per year for violations of red light running. As you also know, the state had been looking at the potential for an opportunity to create state statute that would allow for installation Page 128 April 22-23, 2008 of detection cameras, more simply known as red light cameras, to assist in enforcement. And we provided you that overview and made a request to work together with your staff to bring back an ordinance that would allow us, at a local level, to put an enforcement procedure in place, which is what we've done. The Collier County Sheriffs Office is currently and continuing to work on a comprehensive approach to reduce red light violations, and it really is a combination of safety information and public participation, engineering recommendations, and then enforcement by the Collier County Sheriffs Office as well as other law enforcement in Collier County. One of the elements that we believe will assist in our enforcement, and particularly for the purpose of reducing violations of red light running, is that of the installation of unmanned cameras for enforcement. In the ordinance we are asking for your consideration in three areas, that the ordinance sets forth the ability for us to issue -- us meaning the designee as the Collier County Sheriffs Office -- to issue notices of violation or violations of red light running. Two, that violations may be appealed to a special master and utilizing the same process that is used for parking citations currently in Collier County and that the civil fine for this violation be $125. A simple review of what this would allow us to do is that we would also ask, if approved, to prepare a request for proposal for the installation of cameras, which would be brought back to you at another meeting. Once installed, the cameras would have a specific procedure, and in every incident, would be reviewed by a law enforcement officer to ensure that a violation had been committed, that that Notice of Violation would be provided to the owner of the vehicle, who would be currently responsible for who was operating their vehicle, and that Page 129 April 22-23, 2008 there would be an appeal process much like there is in traffic court to allow people who believe they were not involved in the running of that light the opportunity to pursue that element. It also allows for exemptions that can be petitioned to this appeal process. With that said, I would ask that the County Attorney provide you information on the specifics of the ordinance. We have our attorney here as well, and really open it up to you for any questions that you might have about the process, about the ordinance, and about our role as law enforcement with regard to this request. CHAIRMAN HENNING: For the record, that was Collier County Undersheriff Kevin Rambosk. You want to ask a question now or you want to wait for Colleen Green to give the legal -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Either way, either way. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. MS. GREEN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Colleen Green, Assistant County Attorney. We're here today to present this ordinance in conjunction with the Collier County Sheriffs Office. The ordinance has been drafted. As drafted, it is legally sufficient. It's been advertised, so it's ready to be passed today. There is one change to the ordinance that did not make the change sheet that I would like to bring to your attention, and that is under penalties. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Page? MS. GREEN: It's page 4 of 8, section 5, subsection B, under appeal fees and costs. The appeal fee was previously changed on the change sheet from $150 to $250. Actually this needs to be rewritten to take out the language that includes the appeal fee because the language that says, plus all prosecutorial costs incurred by the county and/or the special magistrate will encompass any necessary appeal fee. So the language Page 130 April 22-23, 2008 referring to the $50 appeal fee must be deleted from the ordinance. This also appears in the last sentence of subsection 5B, and one place in section 7E. But, again, the only thing we're changing is striking the $50 appeal fee. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have several questions, but I'm going to go to Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. My questions are for UndersheriffRambosk. The first thing is on -- oh, gosh -- on page 3 of 8, or 6 of II, whichever way you want to look at it, under section 3, item A, and it talked about running a steady red traffic light. And the driver of the vehicle shall not allow any portion, any portion of the front-most part of that vehicle to encroach over a vertical extension of the nearest part of the intersection, intersection line, crosswalk line, or stop here on red line. Now, that causes me some concern because I just drive a regular vehicle, not an SUV or anything that's very tall. And when I'm nearing a light and I've got a truck in front of me, I can't really see that light until he's gone through it. And if I find that it's red, I'm going to stop, but probably the front part of my vehicle will be over the line in some way. So that means then I would get a ticket even though I couldn't see the light and I'm stopped. MR. RAMBOSK: Commissioner, that's where the review by a law enforcement officer really comes into play. Where we see something that would cause you, in that situation, to be yet over the line but have not entered or gone through the intersection, a Notice of Violation would not be issued. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. The second thing, people might be concerned that they're going to get too close to the line and they wouldn't even know that their bumper might be over the line even though they're, you know, rolling to a stop without even having to be told to do that. Page 13 1 April 22-23, 2008 So you see this all the time where people will stay way back from the line then and, of course, then they don't trigger the light. That could also cause a problem. I don't know what to do about it, but -- MR. RAMBOSK: Well, the failure to trigger the light would require the vehicle to just move forward until it does. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. RAMBOSK: Again -- again if the light were -- say the light were to malfunction and a vehicle had waited a sufficiently safe period of time, looked through the intersection, determined it was clear to move forward as malfunctioning, that would have been recognized and reviewed by the officer. And while technically a violation, certainly that's where the judgment of observation would come in and, there again, would not issue a Notice of Violation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we have people actually now not pulling up to the light. I've actually had, on occasion, and not just once or twice, had to get out of my car and knock on their window and say, would you please pull up to the light so you can trigger that thing because you're sitting there waiting, and by the time you've gotten through two lights and they're just sitting there wondering what happened. So I was just concerned with that wording. And the last question I have for you is, have we considered trying one light, one major light, say, Airport and Pine Ridge, and just activating a camera there to see what reactions we're going to have and how it works before we put it in other intersections? MR. RAMBOSK: Well, we certainly would like to select an intersection or two. This ordinance would allow us to do that, and we would review the results of that at the six-month mark and then at the one-year mark to determine whether it's accomplishing what we believe it will. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And would you review it with us? MR. RAMBOSK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Page 132 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I understand some of the concerns that my fellow commissioner related to, but I can tell you that four years ago red light running was very sporadic. Today it's almost in epidemic proportions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: This morning, as an example, I was traveling eastbound on Pine Ridge and I had stopped to make a right-hand turn to go southbound on Goodlette. The light for people on westbound Pine Ridge had turned so that they could head southbound on Goodlette. The light changed in their direction. The light in my direction going southbound had turned green, and five cars went through that light. And it's getting to the point where, as long as the cars are making a left-hand turn, that traffic is moving, it's like, you're going to wait for me because I'm coming through that light. And I believe that an ordinance of this nature is something that needs to be addressed. And it's not only at that intersection. It's at every major intersection. And it's becoming, as I said earlier, an epidemic proportion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. RAMBOSK: And Mr. Halas, the simple element of the law which is existing, which we sometimes forget, is that a yellow signal -- even if you look at a green signal. A green signal should be approached with and run through in a cautious manner. A yellow signal let's us know that we need to be prepared to stop, and more often it does the opposite of that. And certainly, a red light says that we need to stop before that stop line or that crosswalk. So it's really the simplicity of trying to gain compliance and change driver behavior, but it really does require all the elements that we've discussed in our future plan. This is but one of them. Page 133 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question, several questions, and then I'm going to go to Commissioner Coyle. On the ordinance, page 4 of 8, section 5, paragraph A, or parenthesis A, it goes down -- well, it says, civil fee and appeals fee, but it's $125 fee shall be assessed against the owner. Why doesn't that say fine instead of fee? It almost seems like you're giving -- somebody pays $125, you give them a permit to run a red light. MR. RAMBOSK: And I think that would be appropriately answered by the attorney. MS. GREEN: Commissioner Henning, it is a penalty for violating the red light, and $125 is consistent with the statutory fine assessed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But it says fee, not fine, and it's throughout the whole document. It says fee. MS. GREEN: Certainly, Commissioner, we may relook at that and see whether fine would be more appropriate. It is a penalty. It is the charge assessed for running the red light. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it a charge to run a red light or is it a fine to run a red light? MS. GREEN: It's the penalty. It's the fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's a fine. So is it appropriate to change this to fine? MS. GREEN: Yes. We could change it to fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Throughout the whole document? MS. GREEN: Where it refers to that $125 amount, yes, it could be changed to fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, let me ask my next question. Is it the ability of the special master to apply civil fines? MS. GREEN: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. GREEN: This is within the jurisdiction of the special master to enforce ordinances in the county. Page 134 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Through a fine? MS. GREEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Civil fine? MS. GREEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next question is, you corrected a piece of the legislation eliminating $150 and eliminating plus all prosecutorial costs? MS. GREEN: What was changed was to remove the amount of the appeal fee. So if you're reading the sentence, it would read, the vehicle's owner must pay the civil fine, and then strike, plus the $150 appeal fee, and continue reading, plus all prosecutorial costs incurred by the county and/or special magistrate. That would include the actual cost of bringing the appeal to the special magistrate. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if the special magistrate finds that the prosecution has failed in its deliverance, would they still have to pay that $50 fee? MS. GREEN: No, Commissioner. We would be in compliance with the way the code enforcement challenges are brought before the special magistrate. And if the person appealing prevails, they would not be awarded that fee. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. In the exemption, can you give to a quasi-judicial judge the ability to enforce an ordinance that gives her the ability to make good-faith judgments? MS. GREEN: Commissioner Henning, I'm not sure in understand your question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, here we have in H -- and if we go to exceptions. MS. GREEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It says in H that we -- if the appeal is based upon any other valid reasons for the vehicle owner to be -- in good faith believe justifies the special master voiding (sic) the Notice of Violation or -- Page 135 April 22-23, 2008 MS. GREEN: Commissioner, this is the way that, for example, parking violations are brought before the special master, special magistrate, and she is able in this case to hear evidence and make a determination. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, she has to base it upon the board's ordinances, and the only question that I have is, the exemptions, in my opinion, are not enough because there are other circumstances that a person needs to violate this ordinance. Like you and I discussed, there's an exemption in here for emergency vehicles not to -- they can violate this ordinance because they're going to an emergency. But if I'm in front of them, in get out of their way, that doesn't exempt me from this -- from this law. MS. GREEN: Well, Commissioner Henning, I understand your concern. And in fact, it's something that the undersheriff addressed before. A law enforcement officer will watch these videos and make a determination as to whether it is appropriate to issue the ticket. It won't be automatically issued by this traffic control device. It will be reviewed and evaluated by a law enforcement officer. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm done with my questions. MS. GREEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who else? Commissioner Coyle, I'm sorry . COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. We've been trying to do this for six years now, and I'd like to thank Undersheriff Rambosk and the sheriffs agency for helping us get this done. People told us we couldn't do it when we first started out here, and we appear to be right on the verge of doing it. So thank you very much for your help. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The only problem that I have is, do we have the legal ability to do it? Because remember when Commissioner Carter was a commissioner, it was one of our priorities to get the legislators to give us the ability to do this, and nothing has really changed in the statute. Page 136 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think -- I think the County Attorney would advise us that, yes, we can do it in the form of a civil penalty. So we're really making it a local violation collectable by the Sheriffs Department but collected through a special magistrate so we get the money rather than the state getting the money. So I think that there is good argument to do this. In fact, it's being done in other counties in the State of Florida, isn't it? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. This is not the first time this is happening. Other communities are doing this. This is an extension of the home rule power. Am I going to tell you that if the Supreme Court of Florida looked at this they would uphold it or deny it? I don't know. I think they would uphold it. I would hope they would uphold it under the home rule powers. MS. GREEN: And Commissioner Coyle, in answer to your question, there's several municipalities in the State of Florida that have had this enacted since the year 2005. And just recently in March of 2008, Hillsborough County is the very first county to enact an ordinance substantially similar to the ordinance which we've presented today. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good. And by the way, I would not mind at all if you ticketed Commissioner Fiala for crossing the crosswalk and failing to stop. In fact, you should even ticket her for getting out of her car and harassing the drivers in front of her. MR. RAMBOSK: Well, I know that she would make sure that crosswalk was cleared one way or the other, so she wouldn't be in violation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You might be able to give Commissioner Fiala a badge to wear? CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have how many public speakers? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I do have one more issue. Page 13 7 April 22-23, 2008 I'm sorry. I had to lead off with a little humor. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is for the County Attorney, Mr. Klatzkow. Suppose this becomes, what do you want to call it, obnoxious in the way it's being handled and we have numerous citizens' complaints, some of the issues that we brought up today? At that point in time, could we bring a stop to this particular action and address it -- MR. KLATZKOW: This is your ordinance. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- readdress it? MR. KLATZKOW: This is your ordinance. You can change it at your leisure, at your pleasure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. RAMBOSK: And, Commissioner, that's exactly why I believe it is very important that we return to you and provide information specifically on how its operation is affecting driving habits and any other issues, or not, that we might find, and come and make recommendations to you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one other question, sir. When these are activated, is it going to be a short period of warning period, or is it just automatically going to go into the fine mode? MR. RAMBOSK: No. There is a period, a 60-day period of notice. What we would prefer to do, again, is we are rolling together, along with this, a comprehensive red light effort, and the first part of that effort is public information and education well in advance of what we're seeking at this time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, then we go to the public speakers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Just a simple one. Ifwe approve this today, when do we get these things operational? MR. RAMBOSK: We would have to come back to you with an Page 138 April 22-23, 2008 RFP, and it would have to go through the RFP process, so we're still several months out before returning to you with that element. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have three speakers. Mr. Victor Ortino. He'll be followed by Ed Kant. MR. ORTINO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Victor Ortino, and as a sheriff candidate for this upcoming election, I feel compelled to express my opinion on this matter. At a debate on April 7, 2008 in this same room under the representation of the Collier Republican Executive Committee, of which most of you attended, this topic arose. I responded at that time stating I was generally against having red light cameras because of the big brother approach to law enforcement but that I would have to conduct some research on this matter so that I would be better informed to make a more proper decision. After that meeting I was contacted by a number of citizens who expressed their concerns and was told that other states are now banning red light cameras due to safety issues. Then I read Mark Strain's article in the April 18th issue of the Collier County Citizen of which you may have read. According to this article, two major studies, a 57-month study of the Urban Transit Institute of North Carolina, and a 72-month study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council both stated that traffic accidents were increased up to 50 percent due to the cameras. I did a little more homework and found that researchers in Florida conducted vigorous and rigorous studies that clearly show that red light cameras do not work. A report released last month by USF, University of South Florida, College of Public Health, further stated that improving motorist safety, red light cameras significantly increased crashes and are higher -- or ticket a higher insurance premium. In addition, Governor Crist and the Florida Department of Page 139 April 22-23, 2008 Transportation do not allow red light cameras as enforcement tools on state highway systems, so that would include any intersection with U.S. 41. Further research found that last year Minnesota Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras stating this program -- this program offered the accused fewer due process protections and created a new type of crime: Owner liability for red light violations. As a legal investigator I can foresee the potential for lawsuits against the county due to this knowledge. Please note that I am strongly against red light runners and I feel that the Sheriffs Office should do everything within its powers to prevent red light violation; however, it is very clear and evident that the use of a red light camera system would be in place solely as a revenue-generating tool and is not in the best interest of the safety of Collier County citizens; therefore, I'm asking you not to support a county ordinance in favor of using the red light camera system. Respectively submitted, and I have copies, please. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ed Kant. He'll be followed by John Mincigly (sic). MR. KANT: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mr. Rambosk. As I'm looking around the room, I think with the exception of Mr. Tipton, I'm probably the only one in here who can say I'm a little bit of an expert on this subject, and I say that with -- very lightly, because I don't consider myself much of an expert on anything these days. I had written to you, and I would like to repeat some of the things which I had written now for the public consumption, in an email over the weekend. Basically I'm concerned with the proposed ordinance, and I'm not sure you've received good advice, technical or legal, with the practicality of implementing this proposal. But I'm not an attorney, so I'm not going to discuss the legal implications. Page 140 April 22-23, 2008 One of the things that you have to be aware of and that the public needs to be aware of is that all traffic control devices must be vetted by the FDOT and must be put on the approved products list. I've had a number of conversations since I found out about this proposal with FDOT central office in Tallahassee, and they had nothing now approved that would be permissible to be placed within the state or local highway system within the right-of-way. Their -- these devices called traffic infraction detectors, is the technical term -- and it may be clever or innovative to call a proposed ordinance a civil infraction enforceable by the Code Enforcement Board or some other such board via a citation from the sheriff. The fact remains that the equipment must be placed such that it may be within the public right-of-way if it is to function effectively. If so, the equipment and the poles upon which it is mounted must be placed outside the clear zone. The clear zone's a technical expression which is further defined in the Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards and the Florida Plans Preparation Manual. And the potential costs and possible technical issues that may be encountered have not been investigated, as far as I'm able to tell. I know that according to what I hear from Mr. Rambosk, they have talked with some manufacturers and that they have -- to prepare a proposal, but we don't know what that proposal's going to be saying or what they're going to be proposing. And as Mr. Ortino pointed out and saved me the time of doing so, there was a recent study in North Carolina and in Virginia that questioned the efficacy of these devices. I want to be clear, I am not either a proponent or an opponent of these devices. In my work as an adjunct professor at the University of Florida in safety education, we look at these things, and our emphasis is on education. And I want to get to that point in one second. My concern is that I don't believe -- may I ask your indulgence, please, for another minute or so. Page 141 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you could wrap it up, I'd appreciate it. MR. KANT: I will. My concern is that I don't believe this proposal has been well thought out nor has it reviewed -- has it received adequate technical analysis, and apparently has not received any public review prior to this meeting. If the proposal's meant to be a revenue source for the county, that's sad. This technology, when properly applied, may yet prove to be a way to improve the safe operation of the highway network but it should not be looked upon as any type of a cash cow. There are currently two bills in the Florida legislature, House Bill 351 and Senate Bill 816, and this is probably as close as the legislature has ever gotten in the last 10 years to getting a bill like this through. And if they do, a lot of what we might be doing down here is going to become moot. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Kant. MR. KANT: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Mincigi (sic). MR. MINCIELI: Mincieli. MS. FILSON: Mincieli. MR. MINCIELI: Hi, thank you. I'm John Mincieli at 4188 Skyway Drive. Thank you for hearing me. I would like to, first of all, agree with Mr. Ortino, first of all. And next thing -- first I would like to say, as a lifelong resident, this whole camera idea is a big step in a big-brother agenda. Another way to extract even more money from the people. This is being presented to you as a way to generate revenue. It was not presented in the name of public safety, simply because the statistics show that once these systems are installed in an intersection, there's a big increase in the amount of accidents, particularly rear-end accidents, from premature breaking due to paranoia of being ticketed. These accidents often lead to serious injury or death. Page 142 April 22-23, 2008 Next, our rights and freedoms are being taken away as we speak. Go to or talk to anyone from England -- and I don't mean their police department, government, or media, I mean the people. You'll find that these cameras that they have installed over there are only the first step in a 24/7 surveillance and the people do not like that. See, when it's eventually reported that these cameras are doing such a good job and there are no more red light runners, let's add some more monitors to speed the traffic -- you know, to -- for speeders or other traffic habits. Eventually, the result is 24/7 surveillance. Sound like freedom? Amsterdam had this system and eliminated it, along with what else you heard before. I am a law abiding citizen, and I abide by the laws because I choose to, which gives me my sense of freedom. Remember when the seat belt law was presented? Now I'm an avid believer and a wearer of seat belts and I have been before the law was ever introduced. I firmly believe in them. But remember when it was presented? It was not going to be a primary reason to pull you over, so we bought it. And what I mean by that is we said that you could -- you know, if they pulled you over for speeding or whatever the other infraction is and they found that you weren't wearing a safety belt, we could ticket you for that. Twenty-some-odd years later, it's click it or ticket. So I don't wear seat belts because it's the law. I wear them because I believe it's a good idea. I don't need law enforcement to tell me to do so. The point is, you see how our freedoms are slowly being taken away? We're handed one thing under one guise and then, you know, years later it gets shifted, and that is my concern. The law in this country -- the laws in this country were placed as a guideline. I don't know of one perfect driver, including myself. Heck, just last week I went to change lanes and almost cut someone off. I was so shaken up by the realization that someone could have Page 143 April 22-23, 2008 been hurt, I was shaking. I waved and immediately apologized to the driver. Believe me, I learned a lesson. I didn't need a camera or ticket to learn it. I even watch many deputies make mistakes in their driving. But when you add cameras to the equation, you get a ticket every time, no freedom. As taxpayers, we are taxed on our income, our gas, sales tax, my house, and property. We don't need the sheriff also covertly extracting money from us. Whatever happened to public service or serve and protect? All I see is them looking at a way to extract more money for us. I have like three more lines. And for the budget that -- and it creates an us-and-them mentality, which is a mentality that serves no one. The Sheriffs Department needs to cut spending instead of trying to figure out ways to spend more dollars. This is a big step in the wrong direction. We need less government, not more. As my representative in this matter, meaning you, the county commission, I strongly urge you to vote no to any cameras anytime. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, may I just set the record straight? CHAIRMAN HENNING: You may. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Just-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You don't -- you stop before the stop bar, is that what it is? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just to set the record straight. This wasn't activated by the sheriffs office. This was activated on this commission years ago when the first -- I think it was the father and son who were killed by the red light runner, and we were -- we just felt something finally needed to be done. Page 144 April 22-23, 2008 So we started checking into this to see -- and then we were told that Tallahassee probably wouldn't go along with this. It had nothing to do with money. Then when the mother -- the pregnant mom was killed by a red light runner, again, we spoke of this. Never, ever, ever has it been motivated by money. It's always been motivated by the safety of our residents. We're trying to save lives. That's all. And nobody has to pay a buck if they don't run a red light. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Commissioner Halas, the discussion -- did I miss you? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, you did, a couple times, but that's all right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, well go ahead, please. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, go ahead. Finish your sentence. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you. I'll be honest with you, I took a few minutes to do a little bit of research on the Internet, and I can't find anything that does not say that they do not cause accidents. Every article that I'm coming across indicates that there's been an increase in accidents due to the red light cameras. Now, I'm more than willing to put this off for a week to be able to get more research done, possibly you may wish to do the same. But I find it very disturbing. Normally you find conflicts within the Internet one way or the other. In other words, some that in favor of something and some that are opposed to it. In this case, everything that I've seen -- and I've been through like 60-some different articles -- are all saying the same thing, that they are causing accidents. Knowing what I know without more time to be able to research it or maybe have staff look into it, I don't know if I can support this. MR. RAMBOSK: Mr. Chairman? Page 145 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you done? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want to -- I had a discussion with the County Manager's Office -- or the County Manager, and he said for two years each traffic intersection is going to generate a million dollars to the Board of County Commissioners, so I really question what this ordinance is all about. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if people obey the stop lights, the traffic laws here -- and this isn't just a problem here in Collier County. This is statewide -- we're not going to generate any income, and that's what the main reason is. When the light turns green and people are still running through that light that -- on their side -- remember, now, there was an amber light and then it turned red, and then in my direction it's turned green and five and six cars go through that intersection, that's what I'm concerned about. And I just -- I don't believe that it's going to generate that many more accidents. If anything, that tells me that people are in too much of a hurry to pay attention to what's going on in front of them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I really think that you have to be realistic about these studies. I can get a study that will show just about any conclusion I want to get. These studies are absolutely worthless unless they are controlled and they also have a study at the same intersection at the same -- over the same period of time with the same traffic volumes and a calculation of the number of red light running accidents that were caused. I don't think they have any of this information. I think, you know, you just look -- follow the money, and I think you'll find out why the state is trying to discourage us, why FDOT is trying to Page 146 April 22-23, 2008 discourage us; other people are trying to discourage us because they want the money. You see, if we collect it here, it doesn't go to Tallahassee, so everybody wants to discourage you from doing something like this. And not a one of them, to the best of my knowledge, has produced a study that shows the effect upon red light running and red light running caused accidents and the severity of those accidents. There's absolutely no reason why any safe driver should have a problem if someone suddenly stops at a red light. You're supposed to maintain an appropriate distance behind vehicles so that you can stop at the speed at which you're going. If people are having accidents, they're violating the safe driving habits. And the only way you're going to teach them is to do this. This is the worst community I have ever seen in my entire life as far as red light running and stop sign running is concerned. And I've said this before. I have lived in II states and 22 cities in the United States alone, and I have never seen anything like what we've got here in Collier County. We either have the worst drivers or we have people who just don't care. And the only way you're going to get their attention is to hit them with a fine, and I wish we could do a $500 fine for it, and I think -- I'm fully behind you, and I think this program will payoff in lives saved and accidents prevented. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Rambosk? MR. RAMBOSK: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points. The first thing is with regard to dollars generated. As you all know -- and I want to make sure that the public knows -- the Collier County Sheriffs Office does not receive any dollars from state statutes other than a $2 communications fee, nor would they receive it here. That is not our intent. Our intent is to change driving behavior with this as only one of many things, including a commitment that we're going to be asking from the public to abide by the existing law. We're not talking about Page 147 April 22-23, 2008 generating something new. We're talking about enforcing a law that is existing on the books today. There are a number of studies that are available, Mr. Coyle appropriately reviewed the questions amongst them. We've been told that the University of South Florida study is a comprehensive study. I would vehemently disagree with that. It was excerpts out of other reports. So you've got to be very cautious about what the study relates to, whether it is the same intersection, the same type of intersection. And I will tell you that the studies don't do that. So that is a dilemma. Is there the potential for increased rear-end accidents? Rear-end accidents in Collier County are our number one problem. But, again, you must always have your vehicle under control with the ability to stop even in an emergency condition. So, again, all we're asking for is that people abide by the existing law. There is, from the Insurance Institute, there is, with the initiation of a program such as this, the potential for an increase of rear-end accidents up to 15 percent, but the longer-term result -- once you've changed the driving behavior, the long-term results are a reduction of accidents. So, one last thing. The Virginia study, which has stated that they're not in favor of this. I'd like to read you the recommendation from their report, their final recommendation. Because they appear to meet three tests, technical, fiscal, and operational feasibility, and because they show some indication of improving safety, photo red programs in Virginia should continue, and they make several recommendations. The first is, to continue red light programs in Virginia. These programs have the potential to improve safety in the State of Virginia. So while there are some initial negatives, what they're saying is that the long-term effects will ultimately become safer drivers. And I agree with the gentleman that spoke and said, you know, we as drivers not only have the responsibility, but we should not violate the law, and Page 148 April 22-23, 2008 sometimes we do. We make a mistake. That's going to happen. But with this particular issue in Collier County, there are too many people that are involved in deliberately proceeding through a red signal, and that is what we're trying to stop. So with that information in mind and the fact that we've got to come back before you with a proposal on how a camera would work, where it would be located and ensure to you that it would be in compliance with the law, we ask your consideration in approving this today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Entertain a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas to approve the ordinance. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the motion carries 3-2; Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Henning dissenting in the motion. Do we need a break before we go to our time certain? Mr. Fox? COMMISSIONER COYLE: She says yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't see Mr. Fox. Let's take a Page 149 April 22-23, 2008 lO-minute break and be back at 2:47. (A brief recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think Mr. Fox is ready to go back to, what is it, 12C? MS. FILSON: A. Item #12A - Continued from earlier in the meeting RECOMMENDA TION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SITTING AS THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS REJECT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PURSUANT TO THE AL TERNA TE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS RESULTING FROM THE DENIAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE EXPANSION OF A CHURCH; PETITION CU-2004-AR-6384 - GOLDEN GATE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC.- MOTION TO ACCEPT MODIFIED SITE PLAN AND BOTH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS - APPROVED MR. MUDD: It's 12A, sir, and this has to do with the Board of Zoning Appeals and the reject recommendation from the County Attorney on the Special Magistrate's basic recommendation pursuant to the alternative dispute resolution. Again, it's 12A, conditional use 2004-AR-6384, Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah Witnesses. Mr. Fox? MR. FOX: Thank you. Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, we seriously considered the motion. It took us a lot of time. There's Page 150 April 22-23, 2008 extensive discussion. Ultimately a call had to be made to the church's headquarters in New York, and the decision was that the church cannot agree as to limit when they can worship. And with all due respect, sirs, I'm a Roman Catholic. Holy week for me is Ash Wednesday, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Vigil, and Easter Sunday, and that's five days already. What's good for me as a Roman Catholic, what's good for us all in this country is some law that applies equally to everyone. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas had something. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I was thinking this over during the break. And my concern is, what about funerals and weddings and any other type of ceremonial activities that your church may be involved in or the church that you're representing? MR. FOX: Oh, that's very -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I have a problem with limiting worshipping four days a week or whatever. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Let's talk about this just for a minute. Originally some time ago when we were in discussions in previous meetings, we brought this up. Because you've got to remember, unlike your church which was zoned properly for where it was, this was something that went into a residential neighborhood with the idea that it was not going to impair the ability of the people to enjoy what they consider the peace and tranquility of a rural environment. Your church most likely was placed in a place that it was accepted, it was part of the zoning process and the neighborhood built up around it. The original agreement that was made with the church was for X number of days of use. The conditions of time and everything was supposed to be such and such. And my understanding -- now, I don't have everything in front of Page 151 ApriI22-23, 2008 me going back to day one -- was that the church did not adhere to the original agreement. So, of course, the neighbors were quite upset. Even though there's few, they were quite upset. The discussions that pursued from that point forward had to deal with, how could we make everybody live together in peace and harmony? And one of the suggestions that came forward that I believe -- and you correct me, Mr. Klatzkow -- was the fact about four days a week, which was not objectionable before, but now it is. And I'm not too sure why. When it comes to weddings and everything else, four days -- four evenings a week. Didn't say anything about during the day. All sorts of activities could take place then. This was something that was acceptable before but it isn't now. Why is that? MR. FOX: Okay. I think there are two issues you're speaking to, Commissioner Coletta. The first one, with respect to the original conditional use which was granted in 1996, you are correct that there were a number of conditions that were discussed; however, none of those conditions was formally a part of the conditional use and, therefore, as a matter of law, the congregation was free to use the property. And with respect to why the congregation went there, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, before it was amended in 1997, was designed to attract churches to these very transitional areas between parks and residential neighborhoods. It was a decision that this county made that these are the kinds of institutions that we wanted in this place, and so the church came there for that very reason and they built just on the northern half of the property. So I think it's fair to say that they were following the law and they were well within the law, which is why they got that original conditional use without any conditions for hours and times. That's your first one. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, going back to that Page 152 April 22-23, 2008 again. Did the conversations that took place within this room, wasn't it something that we were leaning to that the church said that's something they could live within before it got refused at that point in time? MR. FOX: You're talking about the four days now? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. I mean, that's the whole issue, isn't it? MR. FOX: Yeah. It has been pointed out to me by the County Attorney that that was agreed to by Ms. Stuart. My client has informed -- who was representing my client at the time. My client vehemently denies that he ever agreed to that or that Ms. Stuart had his authority to agree to that. That's all I can tell you, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, my concern is -- and you're right, before '97, before the master plan came in effect, that master plan is what helped to establish a balance in the Estates once and for all whereby conditional use had to be brought before this commission. It couldn't be issued at the permitting department. But even with that said, they have not followed the directives that were agreed to in the original time they came before the commission to be able to go forward. There was all sorts of complaints that came forward. There was violations of the understanding. So my concern is to try to come up with some way to be able to assure that even though there's only maybe one or two residents in that whole area that is going to have to carry the brunt of any extra noise of late-hour use, that they are protected in any possible way that they can be protected. So you can understand where I'm coming from. This is a concern. MR. FOX: I do understand where you're coming from, Commissioner; however, I must say that as a lawyer and as a citizen, I only know what the law says, not what was discussed before a law is passed. I know of no violations by the code enforcement that were even alleged against the property. I don't think they've been in Page 153 April 22-23, 2008 violation at all, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And you as a lawyer, I can understand about how you have to follow certain codes and ethics and everything, but I'm an elected official, and I represent the people that live in that area, and I want to make sure that their rights are protected to the letter of the law and to whatever's reasonable. And that's the reason why I'm looking for some sort of limitations on that. Did you have some compromise you wanted to make? MR. FOX: No, sir, I don't. I would say to you, however, that there is a difference when you are sitting in a legislative capacity and when you're sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. I have a court case I'd be happy to quote from for you, but essentially it says; when you sit in a quasi-judicial capacity, you are acting as a judge and you must follow the law. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I got a County Attorney that's telling me that the recommendation's not to approve this and she can easily handle -- or reasonably sure she can handle it, so you know -- and that's in the court of law, also, sir. MR. FOX: Well, I don't want to get into that. Suffice it to say -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, what I'm saying is there's-- MR. FOX: We will. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- counterpoints to everything you have to say. But the whole thing boils down to one simple common denominator, and that's the people that I represent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, may I point out something? This is -- there's a motion and a second on the floor with limitations. The -- Mr. Fox, representing the church, is stating that he cannot live up to that time. I can tell you when this country was founded there was a separation of church and state, that whole argument, and the reason for that is the king of England wanted for everybody to go to his church. And I'm afraid you're stepping -- if they don't agree to it and it fails, Page 154 April 22-23, 2008 we're going to be in another court of law because of constitutional Issues. There is nothing in our code that states in conditional uses, church or worship services, the time of services. I understand where you want to -- where you want to be with there (sic) in protecting the residents around there. But I have fear when government says where you have to worship and how long you have to worship. So I would strongly recommend that you amend your motion at this time. It is your motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, once again, I want to remind you how we got to where we are today. We had all sorts of problems with living up to the intent of the original guarantee, and that brought on numerous complaints in that particular area, and that's why we are here today and why I have some reservations about this thing going forward. I compliment them on working with the neighbors in that area. In spite of the fact they worked with them, there's still one out there that has objection that isn't here today to be able to express that objection. However, with that said, this has nothing to do with the rights of religion. It has the rights to do (sic) with the people and the personal enjoyment of their property. But in any case, I got a motion on the floor. I believe you're the second. Who's the second? MS. FILSON: Commissioner Henning is the second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Henning is the second? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I thought it was Commissioner Fiala. I'm going to withdraw my second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And that was going to be the suggestion I made. Now you can have a motion that either gets a Page 155 April 22-23, 2008 second or it dies for the lack of a second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Entertain a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, wait. Announce the fact that it is -- either ask for the second or the fact that it died. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It did die. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Technicality. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It did die because I removed it. Is there another motion on the floor? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve this. Let me get back on the right page here. Motion to approve that -- their new Site Development Plan and also the special issues that they brought forward in regards to a wall, or conditional use that was presented to us today. And this is in regards to petition CU-2004-AR-6384. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will second that if you will add just one thing, and that is, if it becomes -- because there are so many congregations meeting in these two buildings all week long, as we've been told, if there -- if it becomes problematic to the community surrounding them, that they have a place to go to try and remedy that. Is there something that they can do? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think that they should, they being the congregation, should realize that there are other neighbors around the area and that they need to make sure that they do not step on their rights. But I don't feel that I'm going to dictate in my motion the time and place that they can worship. I think that should be left up to the parishioners of that church. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. That didn't have anything to do with time and place of worship. I just wanted to make sure -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I know where you're going, and that is I'm hoping that these people realize that they can't impact their neighbors, and that if there is an issue, that whoever the pastor is, that he would sit down with the neighborhood and work through that issue at the time. Page 156 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would that be the only place that they would have to turn would be to their pastor? MR. KLATZKOW: It depends on the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I just -- I didn't even know where somebody could go. Yes? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if it's noise, you've got the Code Enforcement Board. If it's noise at night, you've got the same problem -- issue. They already -- our transportation department has already told us there's no transportation issue, so it can't be a problem with traffic. So it appears that the only potential source of irritation to the other neighbors is noise, and the noise ordinance would govern under those circumstances. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Just for clarification, we're accepting the magistrate's recommendation of taking the modified Site Development Plan together with the Planning Commission recommendations and staff recommendations? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct, County Attorney. MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second holds. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Marjorie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I have one other item. You had said earlier, if there are any modifications at all to the site plan, that it would come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Is that still part of the motion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my motion. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that in your second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other discussion? Page 157 April 22-23, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner Coletta dissenting. MR. FOX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now we have another time certain. Item #7C PETITION: CUR-2008-AR-12955, SR-846 LAND TRUST EARTH MINE, MINING VENTURE, LLC., REPRESENTED BY R. BRUCE ANDERSON OF ROETZEL & ANDRESS, REQUESTING A REVIEW OF THE APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE RESOLUTION 2007-274 FOR EARTH MINING IN THE A-MHO AGRICUL TURAL ZONING DISTRICT. SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 2,576 ACRES, IS LOCATED EAST OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR-846), APPROXIMATELY 2 MILES NORTH OF OIL WELL ROAD (CR-858) IN SECTIONS 35 & 36, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, AND ALL OF SECTIONS I & 2, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, LESS ROAD RIGHT -OF - WAY FOR COUNTY ROAD 846, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. - MOTION TO CHANGE CONDITION OF USE TO ALLOW FOR 2 DAYS PER WEEK OF BLASTING AND REVIEW IN 6 MONTHS ON THE SUMMARY AGENDA AS AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING - Page 158 April 22-23, 2008 APPROVED MR. MUDD: You have a time certain, sir, and that's 7C. This item to be heard at, again, two p.m. or a little -- we're running a little late. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by the commission members. It's CUR-2008-AR-12955, State Road 846, Land Trust Earth Mining Venture, LLC, represented by R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel & Andress, is requesting a review of the approved conditional use resolution, 2007-274 for earth mining in the A-MHO agricultural zoning district. The subject property consisting of2,576 acres is located east of Immokalee Road, County Road 846, approximately two miles north of Oil Well Road, County Road 858, in Section 35 and 36, Township 47 south, Range 27 east, and all of Sections I and 12, Township 48 south, Range 27 east, less road right-of-way for County Road 846, Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All wishing to participate in this discussion, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and responded in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have to give ex parte communication on this one? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's -- Commissioner Coletta, I'll start out with you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. Meeting with Damon Jones, Bruce Anderson, Don Barber, tour of Jones Mine, phone calls with David Prudy, numerous other people, many, many, many, emails. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I also have met with Damon and Bruce Anderson, Don Barber, Chris Thornton, Jones Mining neighborhood, I've gone out to the site, I've gotten emails, phone calls, Page 159 ApriI22-23,2008 correspondence. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I met with the owner of the property and its representatives and received an email. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've had meetings and many, many emails the last time that we discussed this particular item. Recently I haven't received that many emails, and I also received phone calls. I had the opportunity on December 13th of '07 to tour the mine with Professor Charles Dowding and Bruce Tyson and Bruce Anderson in regards to witnessing some charges that were set off at two different depths, and also had teleconference this past weekend with Bruce Anderson and Professor Charles Dowding. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have also a file of phone calls, emails, correspondence, dating back to 200 I on this issue, although nothing very recent. I have also had a meeting with Bruce Anderson and Bruce Tyson and representatives of the petitioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I believe it's Mr. Anderson. Do you go first? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bruce Anderson from the law firm of Roetzel & Andress, and here on behalf of the applicant. The purpose of the hearing today is to comply with the requirement that the ongoing mine operations were to come back for a review by you approximately six months after you approved the expansion of the mining area. The mine has not yet expanded into the larger area that you approved in September of 2007, but they are pursuing an excavation permit which will allow them to expand into the new area. As your staff report states, the mining operation has met all the conditions of approval. Weare requesting that you accept the report Page 160 April 22-23, 2008 and approve the staff recommendation that no additional stipulations are necessary from the county's perspective. Weare requesting two modifications to the conditions of approval. One of the modifications concerns conditions number 12 and 13. They presently limit blasting or blasting activities to 18 times a month. Eighteen times per month could mean 18 separate days of blasting or it could be half as many days, nine days of blasting, or some other number. My client would propose to modify that language to eliminate any ambiguity by stating that blasting activities shall not exceed eight days per month, period, instead of the 18 times a month. The rationale for this modification is that my client has been attempting and wants to continue to reduce or eliminate the feelings of the blasts by having a series of smaller blasts instead of several larger once. Damon Jones, the manager of Jones Mine, is going to tell you more about that ongoing effort. The other modification that we wanted to request is really a clarification about when we need to come back before you for another review. That's condition 13. Blasting was first approved for this property in June of 2006, and at that time the commission added a requirement that this project needed to be reviewed at least on an annual basis by the staff. We filed that annual report, and the internal staff review was conducted, and it was wrapped into the application that was pending and that you ultimately heard in September 2007 that expanded the boundaries of the mine. As the conditions are currently, it would require us to come back before you again in September of this year. Now, although we do enjoy your company, we would like to go back to the original schedule of having the annual reviews in June of each year. That would mean this product would come back before you in June, 2009. The manager of the earth mining operations at Jones Mine is Mr. Page 161 April 22-23, 2008 Damon Jones, and I'm going to turn the podium over to him so that he can share with you the efforts that he has made for community outreach and to reduce the amount of blasting that people feel. MR. JONES: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, fellow commissioners. My name's Damon Jones, representative of Jones Mining. We came in September to discuss -- to acquire expansion. Again, as Mr. Anderson stated, you guys requested that we come back in six months to -- with a -- for a time period to see how we've done, how we can change the blasting, and coordinate and communicate with the neighborhood. Since September, you know, our industry's kind of followed the economy as a whole. It wasn't necessary to blast extensively through the end of the year. I believe we only blasted approximately six times. Starting at the beginning of the year, and in February, the market has picked up slightly. But more importantly, we saw the initiative to start collecting data and, most importantly, we wanted to work on that no-blasting zone. In September we had created -- the commissioners approved this no-blasting zone, which approximately limits us to more than a half a mile around the perimeter that we wouldn't blast. What we did in February is start blasting along this southern line, and we blasted all that up to date, and now we're working along this eastern line and doing our second cut there. The intent there was to sever that lower rock layer in order to help prevent and, you know, lower the vibration levels that the residents to the south and east would feel. The other reason was to create a water feature that we hope will also -- have been told by engineers, that that will also help with the vibration levels as we dig that out and create a lake essentially around those eastern sides. So moving forward, we continue to blast and operate and Page 162 April 22-23, 2008 excavate from that eastern corner to the northwest and away. It's important, as we blasted now, that essentially in -- closest that we're going to be to those neighbors to the south and to the east. When we started up in February, we tried a different procedure in order, again, to lower -- those, the feelings or the vibrations that neighbors would be feeling. What we worked on was doing multiple blasts as we called them, instead of shooting 80 holes at one time, which we were permitted to do. What we tried to do was detonate two 40 holes, wait a time period in between to let the seismographs reset, just long enough for them to reset, and then finish the detonation of the next 40 holes. A couple we broke it up into 20 holes, all in an attempt, again, to see if that would -- and lower those vibration levels, and we had good effects, good results. The data -- our numbers have been increasingly low. This graph just reflects -- and just to reiterate, with the vibration and the sound levels, it's the number of holes and pounds per delay, how much explosives are you putting in those holes. This graph shows you historically how those number of holes, how we've lowered that number of holes per blast and the pounds per delay that we've been using on those. Again, with good data, with good effects, with good low vibration levels and low decibel levels. Historically, our vibration levels, especially since September, we've averaged a .05 PPV or peak particle velocity. The county has stipulated in September that we not exceed a monthly average .2. This graph is from the test house, which is located on the south side of the mine where we have one seismograph. As you see, we haven't even exceeded the .2. Again, our average is roughly around .05. They've ranged from .033 to .115. But again, as you can see, we haven't even reached that monthly average. So it is working. This is -- this is a graph, our seismograph located on the east side of the property. As you can see there, those readings have also been Page 163 April 22-23, 2008 extremely low and well below any of the permitted levels. This last one is the seismograph on the north side of the mine. As you can see, there isn't -- the seismograph didn't even trigger on the north side of the mine, that the vibrations were that low that it didn't even trigger. Again, you know, all good results. We still are maintaining the test house. Professor Dowding of Northwestern University is -- actually was able to be here today. They are conducting an independent study outside of what we have Geosonics doing. They've set up their own independent research, have their own equipment there, and he'll be here to share some of him and his colleagues' research and results that they've discovered. Professor Dowding's one of the country's foremost authorities on this subject. And I guess -- and the primary concern is how does all this translate into complaint? I would -- I would -- it's safe to say that I think the communication between all the shareholders involved has drastically improved. We've been taking a much more proactive role. We now have a -- I now have a blast calendar on our web site along with the no-blast zone. We try to post that as far -- as many days in advance, so anybody who wants to see when an upcoming blast will occur -- I also have an email notification list, so any neighbors who would like me to email them ahead of time. That list is currently five or six people that we email out when I post it on the calendar. The big thing, I think, that's come up is just -- is communication and cooperation. In cases where people have contacted me, we've immediately responded. We've gone out. You know, I've met with people. You know, we've taken pictures. If they haven't had a pre- blast inspection done by Geosonics, we've done a few of those, had them come out and create that baseline. But moving forward, again, with that -- with better education, better communication, I think the results have been what -- have been what we've expected them to be. You know, do we still get calls? Page 164 April 22-23, 2008 Yes. A lot of them people, you know, are people that I tell to call me. I encourage them to notify me if they feel a blast. What I like to do is get with the blaster, we mark where that came from, we look at how we blasted that day, what depths we were at. If they want me to come over, if they believe they've -- there's some kind of damage, we'll go over there, and those numbers have been far and few between. You know, I would assure you that someone couldn't say that we haven't tried to address their concerns. One of the stipulations was that we form the Neighborhood Engineering Selection Committee. That's been done. They've chosen two firms, Forge Engineering and W.J. Johnson, so that's -- that is now readily available. If -- again, that first line of communication is contact me, let us talk about it, let us resolve it. I stand by being a good neighbor and what we've done. And you know, there's a few neighbors out there that, I believe, you know, if they had the time, could be here to state that, you know, we've gone above and beyond -- you know, above and beyond the call of duty. But, again, it goes back to -- it needs to be a cooperative effort. We understand our role out there. We understand, you know, people's lives and their property and their personal property, and it's their homes, and we're fully aware of that. My partners, from the landowners to the blasters to, you know, consultants to the engineers are all on the same page, that this needs to be a collaborative effort, and the first concern is, how can we do our -- how can we go about our business out there and still keep the neighbors happy and it be a cooperative effort. Again, to reiterate, you know, the remedies are in place. You know, if anybody has concern that first line that -- that first remedy is to contact me, and people are doing that, and I think they're meeting that with satisfaction. Page 165 April 22-23, 2008 You know, if we can't resolve it, like I said, the engineering committee has now picked the firms, we'll sent the engineer out there of their choice, and we've said, we'll abide by whatever the engineer says and even beyond, above that, we've still addressed issues. You know, beyond that, we still have our state blasting bond that's there if we can't work something out. Both the mining company and the blasting company carry million- and two-mill ion-dollar liability and hazard policies. How do we move forward and guarantee that we'll keep this effort up? You know, it's my livelihood. You know, it's that important that if we don't -- if we don't do right by the neighbors, if we don't work cooperatively and reach out, that we won't have an operation out there. And I think it's important from, you know, from the county's economic standpoint -- you know, we employ up to 20 employees directly. We -- there's upwards of 50, you know, truckers in there daily. There's the outreach of the value that's saved by mining that material locally for local road projects, local commercial projects, local residential projects. You know, with the rising cost of fuel, you know, trucking costs have skyrocketed. You know, and to bring that material here, you know, from other locales is not cost effective. So there's larger ramifications here and, you know, and it touches pretty much everything. But, you know, any kind of assurance would be, you know, that this is important to us, and I think we stand by our good neighbor policy. I believe that's all I have. If there's any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not right at this point in time. Thank you, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Melissa -- I think Melissa Zone. MS. ZONE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Melissa Zone, Page 166 April 22-23, 2008 Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. We are here to review this continual use. On September 25, 2007, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved Resolution 07-274, which is conditional use 2004-AR number 6904 for an earth mining activity in the rural agricultural mobile home overlay. Weare here today to come back to -- staff has reviewed the conditions of approval, and to determine if the applicant has met those conditions. From the documentation that has been provided by the applicant, from the individual departments, engineering and services administration, environmental services have reviewed, transportation services have also reviewed this, and have found that they have met the conditions currently that are in place. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them. There are other staff here from the divisions that have conditions in place. And all of the conditions that had documentation, I have made sure they are in the main file of this earth mining operation, as well as with the different departments that would be doing that individual monitoring. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. The level of blasting that they're using now, I think it was .05; is that correct? MS. ZONE: That's what they showed us, correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. How can we be assured that they won't go back to high levels of explosives in the future, maybe just for the sake of expediency or to hold down costs? I mean, what kind of guarantees do we have in place, and what kind of action could we bring if they did? MS. ZONE: Well, what we have in place with their conditions of approval are sort of like their own little regulations that they have to meet in addition to the blasting requirements that are in our ordinance that's for excavation. Page 167 ApriI22-23,2008 Here they have regulations that they cannot exceed a certain level. This being .20 inches. We -- we have -- from the engineering services department, they have a staff person who comes out to monitor the blast, and the monitoring report is then presented or given to staff to look at, so they're not only there, but they also have the report. If they do go over the limit that you have put on their mining operation, that gives them enough authority to stop the operation and do an investigation. So far they haven't exceeded, but we watch them. They have to contact staff, county staff, before any blast is going. They have to let them know so staff is there as well. So there are mechanisms in place that allow staff to monitor along with them. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine. Stan, maybe you can answer a question. We've seen a graph put up or a map of the property, and it showed where they were excavating, it looked like an inverted L, to try to draw a barrier between their property and the residential property. Is this an effective means of being able to control vibrations is by opening up something like that? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good afternoon. Stan Chrzanowski with Engineering Review. I don't know. They have blasting experts here. Whether or not the blast would travel through the water and through the groundwater, I don't know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, sir. I thought maybe that might be one of your expertise. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And we do have an inspector out every time that they blast, and so far they've had no problems. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Go to public speakers, please. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have 12 public speakers. The first one is David Purdie. He'll be followed by Truman Gay. Page 168 April 22-23, 2008 MR. PURDIE: Dave Purdie, 4860 14th Street Northeast. I hope I don't run out of time. Mr. Halas, you were talking about December 13th when you were on site when they did a blast. I had just recently had some type of construction done to my house. I didn't notice it right away because the holiday season was upon us. There was a crack the entire width of that concrete pad. Now mind you, they did offer to tear it out, rebuild it. I said absolutely not. I did not want to look at that mess again. They did reimburse me for the concrete. I want to go public in saying that. That is one of the requirements that they have to do, either replace something or repair it. But what doesn't sit well with me -- and if it wouldn't have caused an argument between me and my wife, I would have ripped that check up and mailed it back to them, because I'm not going to start selling off bits and pieces of my home. The other thing is, I was home April the 10th, it's about two weeks ago. About II o'clock they blasted. It's not as bad as when the previous blaster was there, but the second shock wave that come through -- I sit on that committee, I read the engineer's report. And just for the record, those engineers are not officially hired by that committee yet, okay. When I read his report, I could go with the fluff that he sent out there. Now, I'm probably the least-educated person in this room. But if you're going to sit here and tell me I don't know the difference between thunder, a door slamming, and a space shuttle coming in, now, I ain't that dumb. I was home. What came through the bottom of my house can do damage. Now, from what some of my neighbors are telling me, it's not always like that, so maybe they need to be a little more consistent in what they're doing, okay? There are people here today -- that aren't here today that just couldn't make it. Economy's bad. They don't have the luxury -- I Page 169 April 22-23, 2008 wouldn't say the luxury. I'm in a different situation where I'm allowed to be here. They can't be here because that might be the difference between them not having a job tomorrow, but they still have a house to pay for. If anything, if there's anybody in this room that wants to give these guys an A on their report card, it would be me, okay. Because I'm tired of coming up here and I'm tired of fighting with them. And as long as they're blasting and as long as people are complaining, I'm going to keep coming up here, until I sell the house or I have to foreclose on it, however it goes, and that's the brutal truth of what today really is. Thank you, and have a good day. MS. FILSON: Truman Gay. He'll be followed by Terri Burket. MR. GAY: Good afternoon. I'm not very good at this, but what I say is the truth. I've been in concrete for about 44 years. And it don't matter whether it's blasting, sun is shining, no blasting, or whatever it may be, concrete will crack when it wants to, whether it's hot or cold, daylight or dark. And I talked to one man out there -- I feel sorry for the people that has problems with their homes. But I talked to one man, he told my wife and I that he didn't have any problem, and then a man told me that he told him that he had problems, so I don't know -- and I have a friend that lives there and lives on 18th Street and 4 7th Avenue, and I asked him about it. And he said, yeah, it shook the shit out of the house a couple of Sundays ago. And, sorry, but that's what he said. And I said, well, did you have any damage? And he said no. He said, the only cracks in my house, he said, they was there when I bought it. They're stucco cracks. So other than that, I just hope that it works out for the best for everybody. I know Jones Mining, I've talked to them, and they worked with me real well. I went up one time when they blasted. And when they set the charge off, I didn't feel anything. All I heard was just a puff, Page 170 April 22-23, 2008 and that was it. No vibration, none of that. So they're working on the problem. Like I said, again, I feel sorry for the people that's got problems, but that's the truth. Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: Terri Burket. She'll be followed by David Garrett. MS. BURKET: Good afternoon. I do give a kudos to Damon Jones. I have been in contact with him, and he is working with me on my house. There are a lot of cracks on my house, but it's not from the blasting. It's from the vibrations there are in the ground. I've done a couple of cheap man tricks to find out just how bad it was vibrating my ground. One of them is a plumb bob that you can get at any hardware store. And first it was hooked to a tripod. And every time he blasted, or the mine blasted, it would vibrate it and it would move. One of my friends was like a scientific whiz, and he said, hang it from the ceiling instead because you'll get a true thing of what it did. So I decided to hang it from the ceiling April 10th. They've blasted twice since then, the 10th and the 17th. Since that time I have had the most wonderful sand cycles in my little thing, because when this thing moves, it just starts going around in circles. I sat on the floor April 4th. I was on vacation, and I watched every blast he did, and they were seven to eight minutes apart. Each one of them moved this. Now, my floor is vibrating, my walls are vibrating, and what's happening is that they're calling it settlement cracks, and it's going to be settlement cracks. When your house shakes, the dirt vibrates underneath it and the dirt comes out the sides. That's causing your house to continue to settle over a period of time. He was real good about sending Forge Engineering to my house. He came out there -- and like Dave Purdie said, we got him as a trial. We wanted to see if we felt comfortable with what they said. He came Page 171 April 22-23, 2008 out there, and it was all probably, maybes, and said that there's no way he can determine whether the damage is caused by the blasting, and he didn't think anybody could. He was saying that although in 10 to 15 years these cracks would probably happen, they may have been accelerated by the blasting. That's not the type of answers we want to hear. I've already talked to Damon Jones about this. He's waiting for the report from Forge Engineering. And all I can say is that a review every six months is a good idea because it keeps everybody on the up and up of what their blasting levels are. I'm asking them to keep the blasting levels at what they were at the beginning of February; they were very low. December 13th was strong and April 4th, 10th, and the 17th were strong levels. They shook my house more. They rattled the windows. And all I'm asking them to do is keep it down. I know a blasting permit will never be pulled. It conveniences everybody. Like he's saying, as far as costs go and everything, it's better for our county that way. But they need to be -- they're concerned about us, but they need to be a little bit more concerned about the blast levels and keep them down. The only question I have of you is, there was a thing in the report about a biannual thing for neighborhood improvement. I want to know who's in charge of that and what it's supposed to entail, because it's not real clear in the 26 -- the things in here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we get that answer? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And Commissioner Halas has a question. I wrote it down. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How close do you live to the mine? MS. BURKET: The state fire marshal said it was 1,250 feet from the property line. I'm not sure exactly where they're blasting, but it's 1,250 feet from their property line. Page 172 April 22-23, 2008 And they did -- Damon Jones was great, he sent a seismograph out there so they could take the readings. And like I said, the ones toward the end of -- or in April, I just call them squiggly lines. They're pretty squiggly. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. In that diagram that they had up earlier, I'm not sure where it is, in that L-shaped area, are you in that vicinity of the -- where the blasting is taking place at the present time? MS. BURKET: I live almost at the end of 20th, off 47th. The blasting was occurring at the end of 20th. I'm not sure where it goes as far as the diagram. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could someone kind of give us some orientation on this? MR. MUDD: Immokalee Road is over here, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. MUDD: As best I can see on the diagram. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, in relationship to where her home would be. MS. BURKET: Where's 47th? MR. JONES: That is the -- this is Damon Jones. This is the actual property. This is the actual property line. 47th is approximately 1,300 feet from that property line. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you take your pen and basically show us about where the proximity is? MR. JONES: This is 47th right here. She is between -- just past 18th. She's right here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And where is that in relationship to the diagram we have up on the -- had up on the wall there? MR. JONES: The no-blasting zone is right there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that the L area that was -- the shaded L area? Page 173 April 22-23, 2008 MR. JONES: 47th sits here. Here's the no blasting. COMMISSIONER HALAS. Okay. MR. JONES: It's four sections of no blasting. The no-blasting zone stops -- starts about right there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. She lives -- Ms. Burket lives approximately right around there, just down on 4 7th Avenue. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Neighborhood improvement fund? MS. ZONE: Excuse me. Melissa Zone, again, Principal Planner with Department of Land Development. We have here on the monitor, you will see that the county was given a receipt that there -- they have started a biannual fund where each year the applicant provides $20,000 for neighborhood improvements. There isn't a clear direction as to when or whom can draw on that fund. Staff feels that that would be something that would come in front of the board to make those decisions when -- but, again, if it's something that you want to direct to the neighborhood committee, staff certainly supports your direction on that. The applicant has gone ahead and has with -- the fund is established in their attorney's office. And if the direction of the board is to have, when the money is drawn, to come in front of you prior to that fund being drawn on, then staff will, you know, make sure that's the case. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Probably for another day. MS. BURKET: Is biannual twice a year or once a year or -- I know what semiannual is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two. MS. BURKET: So when this says biannual $40,000 a year and it's been seven months already, that's what's in the account? CHAIRMAN HENNING: $40,000-- April 22-23, 2008 MS. BURKET: That's what this paper says. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- a year? MS. BURKET: Biannual. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Biannual. We'll have to get Mr. Anderson to answer that question. MR. ANDERSON: We put in the -- my client put in the $20,000 last month, and it was a six-month time then. If another 20- is due, they'll put it in within the next month. We're required to do that as long as the blasting is going on. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas? MS. BURKET: And just to you, Mr. Coletta, I did -- I wanted you -- or after your meeting, everything said and done, take a look at the jars that I gave to the lady that's in there. They are soil samples from my property. They have been vibrated to the fact of, well, they were packed really good, wax was poured on the top of them. They have been vibrated 12 times for 10 minutes, which doesn't even equal the amount of blasts for the time they blasted. And the dirt has separated to more than a distance of this from the wax, and the dirt has no place to disburse to, like is does underneath a house. So I just wanted you to take a look at that because there has never been a soil test done in East Florida -- West Florida. The last soil test ever done anywhere was in '78 in Miami-Dade. So I just want you to take a look at those because, like I said, it's a cheap man's thing to try to show you what's going on with the houses out there and -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're a very creative person. MS. BURKET: Oh, I did a -- there's another one, triangle-shaped weight. I set it on a pile of sand; when they blast, it's actually sinking into the sand and the sand's disbursing out the side. I mean, I don't have a big degree like these people sitting over here, but basically it's telling you that the dirt underneath the homes is vibrating, and that's Page 175 April 22-23, 2008 what's causing house settlement. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We need to move on. MS. FILSON: Next speaker is David Garrett. He'll be followed by Don Cox. MR. GARRETT: Hello. I moved there in '93. I live probably 1,700 foot from the blasting zone which is there now. I like you all's talk about the church and how you all didn't want to disturb any neighbors. I'd rather live by a church than a rock pit blasting. And I don't think there's a time limit on how many hours they can work a day or how many days they can work a week, because it was 6:45 yesterday when they finally shut down and had some peace and quiet. They work, you know, pretty much all day on Saturday and some Sundays. So we need to address on some hours for the working hours. They've had some blasts. To me it seems like the blasts are still vibrating the house. Not for any kind of blasting. I'm not against Jones Mining but, you know, when they first started, I let them go ahead and do their pit because I figured that's their property, they can do what they want to. Now I'm looking the other side of it. This is my property. The noise level, I can hardly go outside in the evenings on the weekends or whatever. The noise level is too great. They work too many hours. So it's invasion of privacy, you know. And I reckon that I'll let somebody else talk now. But I wish you all would reconsider of this blasting permit because it is pretty aggravating having to listen to all this is. MR. MUDD: Sir, just state your name for a second, who you are. MR. GARRETT: David Garrett. MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir. MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Don Cox. He'll be followed by Page 176 April 22-23, 2008 Charles Dowding. MR. COX: My name is Don Cox. I live at 232 60th Avenue Northeast, have since 1980. Basically the ground is very unstable in that whole area. It changes very much within 50 to 100 feet. I physically watched the whole area completely change in the period of time I've lived there. I really don't have a lot to say, but I think most of it's already been covered from the last two people that have spoken, you know. It really needs to be something done because the homes are very settling quite a bit, and I thank you for the time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Charles Dowding. He'll be followed by Jose Gutierrez. And I know I got that wrong. MR. DOWDING: My name's Charles Dowding. I'm a professor of civil environmental engineering from Northwestern University, and I'm pleased to be here. I can sympathize, you know, with your concerns about your homes shaking, and that sympathy has induced me to develop the gauges that I am showing here on these PowerPoint slides. These gauges are able to measure crack opening and closing to a number of differing phenomena, basically long-term phenomena caused by climatological change, and the short-term vibration phenomena caused by blasting and ground motion. So this same gauge across the same crack then can measure both these phenomena as well as that vibration caused by human occupation and other climatological phenomena such as thunder. So we have affixed these gauges to three different cracks. The first gauge I showed you was on the outside on the stucco. This second crack is on the interior of the home between two different building materials. That on the screen on the left is concrete masonry units. That on the screen to the right is the interior drywall and wall studs. And so Page 177 April 22-23, 2008 those two differing materials, as they expand, contract thermally, then have caused that particular crack. And then lastly, this is another crack on the south facing side of the home. It's hidden behind the hot water -- the water softener, and that's a -- a crack on the exterior stucco. So what I've prepared here are several comparisons now between these various climatological responses. Remember I said, there were three cracks, and each has a color. So the red is crack five, the first one I showed; the green is crack seven, that's on the interior; and then the blue is crack nine. That's on the exterior behind the water softener. The three -- see if I have a -- I don't have a scribe here. So these three groupings here now are three different types of weather responses of all three cracks. Here's crack five, crack seven, and crack nine to the maximum daily temperature effects. You can see the height of the bar now is given the intensity or the amount of crack opening and closing caused by one daily temperature cycle. The small responses over here, here is the response on the test blast on December 13th. You can see the relative amplitude of those responses. Remember, this is from the same -- across the same crack with the same gauge, measuring two different phenomena with the same physical principle. So you can see by the relative height here that the weather-induced change and opening and closing of those cracks far, far exceeds that of the blast-induced change. That's it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. DOWDING: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner-- MR. DOWDING: I'm available for questions if anyone else needs to ask. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know, but if we keep on doing that, asking questions of the public, we'll never get done. MR. DOWDING: Well, I'm happy to leave. Page 178 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no. I'm speaking to my colleagues, sir. MR. DOWDING: Oh, I see. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But it's whatever the board wants to do, but Ijust remind you that at a certain point we have to call it a day. MR. DOWDING: You have everybody else speak, then if there are questions for me, I can come back. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. You're a public speaker and we need to treat everybody equal. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think he represents the petitioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Anderson, is that true? MR. ANDERSON: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No? Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. MR. DOWDING: I'm not a lobbyist. I cannot sign that -- I'm not allowed to lobby for the university and I'm not being paid by them. So this is -- these funds come from the federal government for us to develop techniques for communicating with people about these relative effects. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jose Gutierrez. He'll be followed by Roger Nunez. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Nunez is coming up. MS. FILSON: I think -- oh, you're Jose. MR. NUNEZ: He had a dental appointment. MS. FILSON: Okay. So you're -- and then he'll be followed by Maggie Kemy (sic). MR. NUNEZ: Hello. My name is Roger Nunez, and I'm the blaster with Jones Mining. Since day one I've been working with Damon Jones and the Jones family, and ever since we've been there, we've made a lot of Page 179 April 22-23, 2008 adjustments. We've cut our pounds per day in half, our holes per shot in half. And just looking at the readings here, you can tell, I mean, we've made a big difference. And we continue to do that on a daily basis. I work for Damon here and there, and he's done everything he can do to keep this from getting any deeper, we try. I've been blasting in Collier County for almost 20 years now. I've done a lot of residential blasting as close as 350 feet from homes, and we've always had to adapt, make adjustments. And we've always had good results. I mean, if you look at our track record, I mean, we haven't had any claims. We assure you we do a good job because that's our livelihood also. That's all we have ever done around here. The economy's slow, so we can't do -- we've got to make sure we do a good job. That's what supports my family and my company. So I can assure you we do that on a daily basis. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Maggie Kemp. She'll be followed by Ken Courts. MS. KEMP: Hi. My name's Maggie Kemp. I live at 2179 47th Avenue Northeast, which is near 22nd Street, which is down where the majority of the blasting is going on. I bought my home two years ago basically at the top of the market. And when I got the notification that they were going to be doing blasting a couple weeks after I moved in, I was not happy. I went to the neighborhood meetings where the Jones Mine met with the neighborhood. The first meeting, I heard a lot of issues from the residents, and I was very concerned. The second meeting where Mr. Barber presented to us, he had listened to what was said in the first meeting and he had really addressed a lot of the issues. One of the big things that changed my mind in basically being okay with what's going on was an aerial map that was shown where they were implementing the no-blast zone. Page 180 April 22-23, 2008 And I'm sure you can't see it, but essentially with that perimeter around, they showed another chart where there were dots notifying where the complaints were -- identifying where the complaints were. If you kind of eyeball where that no-blast zone would have been imposed over the complaints, you would see -- and it's not showing there -- you would see that most of the complaints wouldn't exist with the implementation of that blast zone. That made me feel a lot better. It also made me feel a lot better that the business is making a huge concession financially by implementing that area. When they talked about the reduction in the size of the blasts, I've been home for about the past year and a half about five different days while they're doing the blasting. My perception is, it is definitely not as bad as it was. I was home sick about a month ago, in about 10 minutes there were three or four blasts. If it would have been raining, I would have just expected it to be thunder. I've gone to several local meetings lately. Commissioner Coletta, you were at one a couple weeks ago, where they were talking about the crime in the Estates, the vacancies in the home. And interestingly enough, that meeting didn't seem to get the reception that this did, and I think that that's a neighbor issue as well. So I'm just kind of wondering why there wasn't such great participation by some of these other folks. What disturbs me more about the value of my hone is not the vibrations. It's about seeing the negative news about our neighborhood in the newspaper. That's going to keep my home value down a lot lower. And the other thing that I think was interesting that Mr. Barber mentioned in the meeting in September was with the three-second blasts over the time period of five years, it would have equated to about 24 minutes. If I'm not comfortable in my house for 24 minutes over five years with vibrations, I better not sit in my house during a Page 181 April 22-23, 2008 hurricane. And I think they've done a good job in interacting with us. I've called many times, and this really odd thing happens, a human answers the phone. So I think they're making an effort. I'm pro business, not pro blasting. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Ken Courts. He'll be followed by Kathy Raimondi. MR. COURTS: Hello. I'm like the gentleman back there, not very good at this. But my name's Ken Courts from A&A Truck Brokers. We're Aggregate Haulers, and I'm here representing myself, my business, and a lot of truckers that work for me. And the truckers that are in Collier County, for example, living -- most of them live out in that area, from the Estates area. And besides the fact that it's very important to these people, you know, having this mine here, it's very important in my opinion to Collier County in general because, you know, everybody likes their favorite restaurant being built or the new mall and -- or a new house or whatever, and they've got to realize that that stuffs got to come from someplace. I know mining, just like trucking, it's kind of a bad word but, you know, we're good people, and I do know that -- Jones Mining. I've been associated with them for quite a while. They do a very good job. We do business with a lot of different mines around in Lee County and stuff, and these people do -- I'm not going to say the best job, but they do very, very well. They do one of the best jobs of anybody around. And they do care about the people. So thank you. MS. FILSON: Kathy Raimondi. She'll be followed by Timothy Nance. MS. RAIMONDI: I would appreciate you giving me a couple seconds and then start your three minutes. I'm not a good public speaker. I already have two minutes and 45 seconds. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you like for somebody else to go first prior to you -- Page 182 April 22-23, 2008 MS. RAIMONDI: Doesn't matter. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to give you time? MS. RAIMONDI: As soon as I get up here I get nervous. So if you could start the three minutes when I start talking, I'd appreciate it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you like me to come down there and stand next to you? MS. RAIMONDI: That would be fine. It doesn't matter. I'd just appreciate if you'd set the clock back because I don't even have three minutes right now. Thank you, Jim. My name is Kathy Raimondi, I'm at 4290 8th Street. Technically I'm not supposed to be close enough to the mine to be concerned. I do hear the blasts. At the last Board of Commissioner meeting I asked you to vote no for Jones Mining expansion based on the following risks: They had conflicts of interest that there were six blasts being increased to 18 a month; 10 feet to 45 feet depth but wanted 65 feet; a public meeting was scheduled only under pressure from you, thank you; another meeting was billed as being public but they sent out private letters to selected people by invitation. There were comments by the Planning Commission and county engineers that the blasting causes vibrations no matter what. To my understanding, there's never been a hydrologist. At the end of the meeting, you appeared sympathetic with the homeowners, but you voted yes against the opposition with a set of conditions. Also you indicated that if there are still complaints from residents, you may reverse your approval; therefore, I want to bring forth the following issues: The mine blasting quit for nearly five months, which seems very questionable despite the real estate market falling. As this meeting became closer, blasting reassumed but they were baby blasts in my opinion, yet were still heard and felt, which still Page 183 April 22-23, 2008 resulted in unneeded, unnecessary, and vehemently unwanted for our homes. As for the second provision in your set of conditions, this has not been met, and they stood before you today and said it has been. It has not been met. We have never approved an engineer, and I would like to have a few minutes to read the minutes that I took at our meeting at the Jones Mining Committee in which Damon Jones agreed that we have not selected an engineer and it's open for further engineers. If I have time, I would like to read that, and I have a tape recording to prove we have never approved an engineer. Three, despite the fine -- the fact that the mine is not taking responsibility as of yet for any damage, they are paying people, selective people, for the damage to their home to keep them quiet. I, therefore, am asking that this commission set another provision that the mining company should provide full exposure to whom they are paying. They are paying to whomever speaks out. I would ask you to give me a couple more seconds. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please wrap it up. MS. RAIMONDI: All right. The people who have received money from the mining committee absolutely now have a conflict of interest and should recuse themselves from the committee. If they don't take themselves off, they should be removed. That's not ethical to get money from the committee and stay on the committee. In summary, the complaints were due -- no complaints were due to no-blasting. Condition of the approved qualified engineer is not met. There have been payoffs to keep people quiet. Please ask them to open -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. RAIMONDI: -- their books and also to provide funds so that we can -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Page 184 April 22-23, 2008 MS. RAIMONDI: -- get more people on a good committee. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. RAIMONDI: I would also like to say that some of the people are up for reelection. We like our commissioners. I would love to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. RAIMONDI: HENNING: -- support our commissioners. They're respectful, kind people. Please -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. RAIMONDI: -- give us your support. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker, please. MS. FILSON: Timothy Nance. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're okay, Tim? MR. NANCE: I'm good. You can come over there though. I'm offended. I'm Tim Nance. I'm the president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. The commission has a very complicated and difficult decision to make on this one. There's significant proximity of the mining operations to homes. There's been a multitude of complaints over many years, and according to the information I have, there's been -- over 100 requested inspections have been performed of people's residence -- residences that are obviously concerned about the blasting. There's been some suggestions of payments or settlements that indicates damage has, indeed, occurred. There's bound to be a significant increase in blasting from the three blasts that occurred between September and February 13th in the information that was sent out prior to this meeting, and the eight days per month that are going to go forward over the next five years if the petition is granted. My recommendations and hope from the commissioners are that the staff reviews the process and concerns of the citizens' engineering Page 185 April 22-23, 2008 selection to provide a little more formal oversight and to put this into the official record. I hope that significant stipulations will be attached to any approval going forward until the controversy can be resolved. I recommend that you maintain a very frequent review going forward. And in summary, I hope the county will provide a proactive oversight approach from the county staff to protect existing citizens and residences from loss. Obviously it's unacceptable; however much we need engineering-grade fill, it's unacceptable to have loss and damage to people's homes. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wow. I've been taking notes. There's a whole bunch of things that I've heard from a number of people, and I appreciate the fact that they all showed up. I took the time and the liberty to send everyone that I had an email address for that expressed any interest in this subject, an email of this agenda item to try to draw everybody out of the woodwork we could. I think it's very important that we get public participation for something like this. Going through everything that I heard, I hear things where there's still a considerable amount of citizen concern out there. They like what they see to a degree, the fact that they believe that there's positive action being taken place. But I think Tim Nance just about summed it up, there's still the unknown out there. Where is it going to go from this point forward? Now, it sounds like Jones Mine is doing a sincere effort to try -- moving these things forward to try to keep everything on the front burner to be able to answer the complaints; however, with that said, my concern is, what happens when this is approved? Page 186 ApriI22-23,2008 I have to, one more time, have it explained to me what kind of oversight this commission has, what kind of oversight the county government has, and what kind of oversight the state has to be able to interject themselves at some point in time if they go back to do blasting at a rate that's totally unacceptable to pre -- these pretest blasts that they've been doing in the recent past. MS. ZONE: Commissioner Coletta, you have the regulation, and it was one of your concerns which we put as a condition of approval, that the applicants had to come back six months after the initial approval and then a year from there, and then every two years. With that in place, the mine operator, Jones Mine, their representatives will have to come in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals every other year and report to you if they are meeting these conditions. And staff will continue to document if there are phone calls, address the issues, contact those residents who've called, as well as to make sure that the traffic counts and any other improvements are being met. And with that being said, you also have the authority, if at any time they are not meeting these conditions, you can revoke that condition -- conditional use for the blasting, if they are not meeting the requirements that are set forth in your resolution. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now just to make sure, I heard you say six months, then I heard you say two years. MS. ZONE: How you have it -- and I'm going to take you to that page. It's number 3 of the conditions of approval. It's on page 6 of your packet. And it says, the conditional use approval shall be reviewed by staff and brought back to the Board of Zoning Appeals after six months from the date of this conditional use approval, on the first anniversary of this conditional use approval and every two years subsequent to determine whether additional stipulations or mitigations are necessary. Page 187 April 22-23, 2008 So -- and it goes on further, but it's basically saying that they had to come back. This is their six-month review. Then they have to come back. It would be September of'09, and then -- or of2008, and then every two years from that to come in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would it make more sense to shorten up that time for review just in case there was concerns? My problem is the fact that this whole thing is supposed to be completed in five years -- MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- in understand correctly, and that's one of the parts of the agreement. Okay. If you got it every two years, you know, and you're going six months into it, you're only going to get two reviews in there. MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And at that point in time it might be a little bit difficult to be able to react to it. Tim Nance was right, you've got to have sufficient government oversight. Now, what I would suggest, to try to keep it so that it's as user friendly as possible for all parties concerned, is that there's a mandatory six-month review if it moves forward by complaints, in other words, if we receive substantiated complaints that activity exceeding what it was agreed to is taking place, and it would come before the commission directly on the regular agenda. Or if it's not, it would be on the consent agenda where somebody that may not have had a chance to interact would be able to come before this commission when it was on the agenda, have it pulled for regular discussion, and we'd be able to handle it. Where, if they do their job and there's complaints and they're good neighbors and they can keep this thing flowing, it would be on the consent agenda every six months. MS. ZONE: Correct. We would-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if there is complaints, then, Page 188 April 22-23, 2008 of course, we would be before this commission with the possibility that we'd be pulling their permit. MS. ZONE: Staff is, you know, of course, willing to comply with the wishes of this board. I would just suggest that if we are going to go forward with the six-month review, that we make it so that it's very clear what will trigger them to be an open discussion as opposed to a consent agenda. So it would become an advertised public hearing or consent agenda item and make that very clear. One of the things -- and I'm not saying that -- to alleviate a cost burden to the applicants, but every time they come in front of you, they have to advertise, notify the residents, which staff, you know, definitely wants them to do. They have to put up, because of the length of their property, four very large public hearing signs. There's a lot of detail involved in this. So just to say, I had a phone call, someone said they heard blasting or they have vibrations in their home, does that one phone call give it a full public hearing, or do we have to have -- so I think we need something that's more measurable. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. I understand what you're saying. But first what we have to do is establish the level of the blast that's permittable. And obviously the type of blasting that they're doing now with the low levels is bringing in a minimal amount of complaints compared with what it was before. MS. ZONE: Certainly. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Somehow we've got to be able to arrive at the number, whatever it is. And I want to make sure that that number is correct. If they exceed that for any reason, that would trigger it being on the regular agenda. MS. ZONE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As far as the signs go, couldn't they use the same signs over and over again and just put on -- a sticker Page 189 April 22-23, 2008 on it with the new date that it comes before the commission? MS. ZONE: Well, that would be my suggestion to them. But I'm just saying -- and if they had to get new signs, I'm certainly fine with that. I'm just saying, we want to have something more measurable for -- that's going to trigger the public hearing so that we know and staff has enough time to prepare to bring in front of the board the proper documentation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, I'm sure I'll have more, but I'd like to hear from my fellow commissioners on this. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: What surprises me is the concerns that we had today from the residents in that area, and I really haven't gotten any emails in the last couple of months. And prior to that, back in December, there was a number of emails that I was getting on this particular item. So I'm concerned in regards to the amount of people that are right now being affected and how many people are not being affected that live in that general area. And so I guess what I'd like to have is some kind of a base to tell me how many people now do not have any problem, or it's minimal, okay, because, as I said, the emails just doesn't -- they're not there compared to what I heard today. And I'm not sure how the other commissioners, if they -- how their emails were. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Couple other things. Somebody brought up who and when -- who and when can they draw from that fund that they have, and that was never determined that I know of. MS. ZONE: Well, staff had felt that it should come in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals since you are reviewing this, to Page 190 April 22-23, 2008 determine when and if you are going to be going back and having them come every six months to review this petition, that would probably be an excellent time to then say these are -- this fund can be drawn from. I just want the commissioners here to know that that $40,000 is not improvements to a home. There is a bond set up that the blasts -- the mining operators have, and that would also have to come in front of the board for approval to disburse those funds. The $40,000 was set up for neighborhood improvements, and I believe that that would be something that either Commissioner Coletta would want to address with the residents or in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals, which staff had recommended, feeling that, you know, it would be a collective vote. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I have another couple questions. Who and when are the -- rather, what are the hours of operation and what days? Somebody mentioned that. MS. ZONE: The hours of the mine operation are seven a.m. to six p.m., Monday through Saturday. The mining operation for blasting is nine a.m. to four p.m., Monday through Friday. There is a stipulation in your conditions of approval, it's on page 9 of your report, it's number 22, and it says, hours of pit operation shall be limited to seven a.m. to six p.m., Monday through Saturday, which is consistent with all mining operations in the county. But it says, if there was a complaint from the surrounding residents, that -- for the rock crushing activity -- because that seemed to be what was, at one time, the largest complaint. Wasn't so much the blasting, but the rock crushing because it was so loud and it was constant. Then it would be limited to seven a.m. to six p.m., Monday through Friday, seeing that most people are home on the weekends. And, again, we can implement that through your action. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, one gentleman said that at 6:45 it was still going on. Who does he contact to report that? Page 191 April 22-23, 2008 MS. ZONE: That would be going through the code enforcement, would be the proper channels, because they have the authority to go investigate to ensure. Of course, certainly they can contact myself, who I would direct -- make -- you know, contact code enforcement. They could contact the engineering department. If you want someone specific, one particular department to make sure that that's where the calls will be directed, then we follow your direction again. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Last question. One of the privileges they were asking was to blast eight days a month, not to exceed eight days a month. Of course, there was no limitation as to how many blasts. You could -- you could do 180 blasts on one day, eight days a month, and that's a lot of blasting. Right now they're limited to 18 blasts. MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Possibly if they're blasting just on eight days, they can use reduced blasting and not impact the neighborhood as much. I don't know if that would happen or not. But I would think that whatever we do, we should see them again. If we permit something like that to go on, we should see them again in September just to see how the neighbors feel about all of that and how it's impacting them; is it a lesser impact now that they were able to blast more times in a day? MS. ZONE: And we received the reports. Geosonics provides us the reports of the blasts, Jones Mines provides us, as well as engineering department staff do monitor them. So we have those reports and can provide them to you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: One gentleman was up and talking about they were blasting on a Sunday? MS. ZONE: I wasn't sure, and I know I couldn't address them, and that would definitely be violating their conditional use approval. And you know, I haven't heard -- that was the first of -- I heard of it. Page 192 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: What was the discussion? That gentleman was up and they were talking about -- maybe they -- I just want to make sure that there is no blasting out there on Sundays. MS. ZONE: Their blasting is limited Monday through Friday from nine to four, so they shouldn't be blasting at all on the weekends. The pit operation is limited from Monday to Saturday. So Sunday there should be no activity at all. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just wanted to follow up on that statement, that's all. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, just a couple more questions, if I may, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure, yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. One, the committee that they have now that's supposed to be working that was originally designed to bring on an engineer? MS. ZONE: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that if at all possible and if they're willing to do it, I'd like to see this committee continue, and maybe as we get into it, offer us a report every six months when these things come up of where it is. In other words, you heard mentioned about the lack of emails. Well, I did receive emails and some phone calls; not a lot, about -- probably about five or six from the residents down there over the last three months. You know, it's not necessary for people to have to send a measurable amount of emails to be able to have a serious concern. I mean, the fact they're here today means more to me than 2,000 emails, I'll be honest with you. But with that said, this committee could offer a report independent of everyone else back to us of what they're seeing, going Page 193 April 22-23, 2008 through the whole thing, agree to the report, you know, what the majority wants, and just keep it going forward. Now, I'm not saying they have to do it. They're volunteers and they only belong to this committee because they care enough about their neighborhood to make sure it happens. Also I'd like to hear feedback from this committee when we get a sizable amount of money in this pot to see about such things as some neighborhood improvements, possibly bus shelters or whatever else they deem to be appropriate for the neighborhood. MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Another issue that came up was the presentation that was made by Professor Dowding regarding the expansion and the contraction. The thing he didn't deal with, even though he dealt with the cracks, was the fact that the ground could settle. And so -- or would that have been directly tied into it? Maybe the professor could tell me. Is the professor still here? Yes, he is. MS. ZONE: Yes, he's still here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I, Commissioner, Chair Henning? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MR. DOWDING: Well, we've not made any measurements of that particular -- that particular issue. We've been merely monitoring the effects that the cracks cycle open and close. I could show you time histories of these that might elaborate. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Let me put the question back to you. Would these be an accurate indication about the ground settling? MR. DOWDING: No. They would not give information about that. They're merely comparing the opening and closing of the cracks to all effects. They wouldn't filter out one or another. So they're measuring all of the long-term effects and, therefore, we're merely Page 194 April 22-23, 2008 comparing the blasting part, which is very small. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, I'll tell you where I am with this, and this hasn't been an easy one. And God knows we put Jones Mine through the ringer on this, and they about died on the stake a couple of times. It's been close for you, Gentlemen, I'll tell you that. Could you do better? Yes. I don't think anyone ever reaches a level of performance that we can call perfection around here. Need to do even better. You need to work more with the residents in that area. You need to maintain those seismographs that you have at the different locations. You need to be able to keep staff and the commission apprised, along with the neighbors. You need to keep your web sites open. You need to keep your phone lines open, because what's going to happen is every six months we're going to be looking over your shoulder with the greatest of care. And with that, I make a motion to approve with the conditions that I mentioned as far as a review every six months, the committee being kept in place, the monitoring moving forward, and I'd like to also, too, see if -- and I hate to do this to you out in the open, but you're a public figure, see in can get Tim Nance to sit on that committee, but that's up to him, and it's just purely an invitation. I'd like to -- Tim's very involved in the community, and I think he might be able to shed some more light on what's taking place and even give -- help us with better direct. But that will be up to that committee to decide. Hopefully an invitation comes forward and hopefully you accept. Now, what am I missing here, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you want to include their request to blast eight days a month? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or just keep as it is? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know.- Page 195 April 22-23, 2008 Commissioner Halas, you're the engineer. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the concern is that when I was out there observing these explosions -- now, I don't believe that they salted the mine, as such, but I couldn't really differentiate that much between the explosion that was at the mine itself and then at their test house. So -- and then looking at the proximity pickup, which the professor pointed out there in his explanation, in his presentation, the -- I thought they were also doing some work with accelerometers buried in the ground. Has there been some of that work done where they were going to plant accelerometers or velocity pickups down in the ground? MR. JONES: Damon Jones, again. Yeah, that's one ofthe reasons the professor's down. We've been waiting for the tenants to move out. So they've recently moved out, so the professor's coming and that's -- and Geosonics are all in discussion of what additional equipment they want to set up at the house. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, this may have a big answer. In six months if they are allowed to -- or get access to this home where they can plant instrumentation that's in the ground, that may answer some questions in regards to some of the issues that were brought forth by some of the residents of the settling, because then they'll be able to measure directly, hopefully in the rock bed or whatever, that they decide how far they decide to go down. If they go down to the rock level, then that would be equal to the mine, and that way they should get some idea of what the vibration is that's being transmitted up through the ground in those pads. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The question we're still at is how the blasting sequence should take place. Should it be more blasts in one day? Then again too, that's not really an engineer's question. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not going to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know. Is there a report Page 196 Apri122-23,2008 from the committee? Is there one person that represents the committee that could speak on this? MR. MUDD: I will tell you, Commissioner, if you limit the number of blasts, okay, you're at risk of having the blast be more in magnitude as far as pounds of TNT increase, okay. And so, you know, he was telling you how he was trying to use smaller blasts using 20 holes, holding down the TNT, and then waiting a time before he does the next one, each one of those smaller blasts could be counted, okay, against the maximum number of eight, and you run that risk. So just make sure that you understand that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And, once again, what's staffs recommendations on that? MS. ZONE: Well, you know, I'm -- not being an engineer on vibrations and levels, I would -- MR. MUDD: There's Stan. He's right there. He's been so silent. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. I'm a civil engineer, but I'm not a geologist. You might be better off asking one of them. But basically I think the County Manager was correct. The type of explosive they use is a low-velocity explosive, right-hand flow, something like that, not a high velocity explosive. You're talking 3,000 feet per second detonation velocity as opposed to something with maybe 20- or 30,000 feet a second detonation velocity. If you have a smaller charge, you can set off more of them a day without causing any damage as opposed to one massive charge which is going to shake the ground and cause damage. If it were me, I'd set off a bunch of them very small within a half hour or something. I don't know how the residents would feel about that though. But you know, from an engineer point of view I would prefer many small charges as opposed to a few large ones. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Stan, the whole objective is to try to come up with something that would be the least obtrusive for the residents that live there. And, you know, I'm just trying to figure out Page 197 April 22-23, 2008 what's the best way to formulate this. The way you're doing it now, is these small, little blasts that are multiple blasts; is that correct? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I assume eight times a month is meant to give him twice a week, and if he wants to produce a certain amount of flow, he has to blast so much to stay ahead of it. So I would guess that that is the measure of how much you're going to blast every day? MR. JONES: We're still limited to -- Damon Jones, again. We're sti11limited to the 1,680 holes per month, so we won't be blasting any more holes than we are now. The thought process was the -- if we can break them down into smaller blasts. But again, instead of asking from 18 times a month to 36 times a months to do that, we think it's simpler and it takes out the ambiguity of, just give us two days a week, essentially, eight days a month. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion that -- include eight days a month in the motion, but let's leave this up to -- I mean, if all of a sudden we start to get a flood of calls where this is a real problem where we might be able to address this in short order to be able to go forward -- MR. JONES: That's definitely the intent. You know, if we get feedback -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't want to do something that's going to make it worse than it has been. MR. JONES: Right. Ifwe get feedback from the community that, you know, they don't like the three or four a day, then, you know, we can still adjust accordingly. I mean, it's always an ongoing process with the community. And that's why I said, I always encourage that feedback so we can plot where we've been, how we've blasted, where we've blasted, if we got a call, and then we can look at the data, and that's what -- we're always constantly, me, Roger, you know, the Geosonics, we're always in constant communication about how we can do this and do it better. Page 198 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And, of course, my motion would include any stipulations that were previously put on you for every -- transportation, water retention. MR. JONES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Just to clarify the motion, are you talking about six months for the board members to have a written correspondence to our office? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In six months' time, it would appear on the consent agenda for approval ifthere was no objections out there, then the people would still have a right to pull it. It would go in six-month segments right on through the remainder of the -- of the project. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Five years. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It wouldn't necessarily be a hearing like this. Hopefully if it's on the consent agenda -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it will. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- it wi11 stay on the consent agenda. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll sti11 hear it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we could pull it and address it, but we don't have a year and two years between times that we can really act to bring down the hammer. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How about a year time, you know? It's -- this is -- we're married to this. And, you know, I'd love to see this issue less than my wife, you know. And here it is 4:30, we've still got other issues and we're continuing tomorrow. I may see my wife tonight before she goes to bed. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, then if I may suggest? The petitioner had no problem with six months. Let's stick with the motion and the second and go with it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, but we have to deal with it Page 199 April 22-23, 2008 every six months, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe need to. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How about you deal with it in your district every six months. And if you find a need for it to come to the Board of County Commissioners, put it on item 9 and let the board discuss it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning? We've just changed some of the requirements here, and that is that now we're telling them they can blast eight days a month, but we're not limiting them. Before they were limited to 18. Wouldn't we want a report as to how this change is affecting the neighbors? And maybe we won't have to come back again. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have -- please, we must have order or I must ask you to step outside. We have less days that are blasting. Is that better or worse? No, I don't think it's less days, is it? It's 18 times a month. That's the requirement now. MS. ZONE: Correct. It's 18 blasts a month, which would make CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to eight days a month now. So is that less intrusive or more intrusive? MS. ZONE: According to the applicant, that it would be less intrusive, but -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, could I -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- help shed some light on this? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't know, okay. The level of effect of the explosive is going to depend upon the amount of explosive that you put in each hole -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Absolutely. Page 200 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and the number of holes that you detonate simultaneously. That's going to result in a single blast shock that is going to cause some vibration. You don't know what that vibration is unless you keep track of the amount of explosive you use, the number of holes you detonate, and then how many times a day you do that. When you go to eight or four -- two days a week, eight days a month, it means you can do 210 holes per day. Now, there's nothing wrong with that if you use a relatively small charge and you don't detonate all 210 at the same time. So the thing that I think we should get out of this is, let them go to two days a week blasting. That means the people don't have to worry about blasting the other six days -- five days of the week. That's right. I keep getting confused because there are eight days a week in our schedule. But look, it's a perfect opportunity to arrive at the optimum charge level and the optimum number of detonations to be -- to be handled in each event. So let's keep track of them, they monitor the effect on the community, they come back in six months, they present the results of this, and if they have arrived at a charge level per hole and a number of holes that can be detonated on a daily basis without causing any difficult, then we don't have to review it every six months, okay. So let's give it a try for six months and then evaluate what the results are. Then if the results are good and the people are not having any more problems, then we'll review it in another year or two. MS. ZONE: They have to come back in six months per their conditions of approval anyway. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right now they have to come back in six months. MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there's no reason for them to Page 201 April 22-23, 2008 come back six months after that. MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So if they come back in six months, we evaluate the results of these tests, and I'm sure they're going to vary these things to find out what's best, and then we'll know. And at that point in time, we'd go for a one- or two-year review process. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that they've already said the maximum amount of holes that they're going to blast per month, so there's the -- there's the caveat for limiting how many times they're going to blast and how long. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're missing this. We're apples and oranges here. We're talking about bringing it back within six months, bringing it back in a year or two. We've already been through the discussion on how many holes and what the blast was. We just don't know if they're going to be able to do what they say they're going to do. You know, the proofs going to be in the performance over a period of six months. Let's do this. Let's get it back here in six months, possibly on the consent agenda if nobody has a problem. If they do have a problem, then we have a chance to be able to open the whole thing up again and then decide where we're going to go from there. I'd still like six-month review from now till the end of five years. MR. MUDD: Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whatever it's going to take to get this through. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hold on. Is the motion clear? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Restate the motion. County Manager, what is your understanding what the motion is? Page 202 April 22-23, 2008 Let's -- MR. MUDD: Basically everything on it. And the only issue that's contentious is the six-month review. I just want to make sure that -- Melissa stated it, and so that -- if you caught it or not. The first year of this you get reviewed every six months. You get six months after you review it. This is that six months. And then you have an annual review that happens at September of 2008, okay. So you've got it coming back to you in six months. The only issue that you've got that takes place in September is, the next time to review based on the agreement you did is two years hence from September. And if you want it to be more frequently, you can decide that in September or whatever you'd like to based on what you hear in September as far as the feedback is concerned. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's just what I said. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I'll amend my motion to say that. Six months, a year, and then from that we've got a chance to be able to reevaluate it. You don't want it back in six months or a year? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I said six -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I'm talking to -- Commissioner Henning's shaking his head no. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The audience wants to get up and talk again, and I was responding to them. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I thought you were talking straight to me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So what is the motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The motion is what the standard procedure is at this point in time, comes back in six months, comes back in another six months, which is the year review. At that point -- I'm sorry. Did I miss it? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Y eah. You said what the standard Page 203 April 22-23, 2008 procedure is, but we just changed it to eight days a month. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're talking about a review. We're not going to review this every eight days. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry, blasting. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I try this? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're ready for a break. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to have another review in six months from today. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to permit no more than two days of blasting each week. They will still be able to blast 1,810 or 8 -- MS. ZONE: Sixteen hundred. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- 1,600 holes per month, they will evaluate the results of this blasting program over the next six months, come to us with the results, we will review them, assess the impact on the residents. And if it is acceptable, then they will not have to come back for another year. MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. ZONE: Then we really will only be revising the conditions of approval, which I think our County Attorney should address, would be number 12, which would be the two days per week. Everything else is sti11 in place. We're still on schedule. And then, again, as the County Manager said, in September, if we need to revise or alter these conditions, we can do so. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. MS. ZONE: But do we need a -- I guess I would ask our board to address the County Attorney about revising condition number 12, and would we need a resolution for that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just want to make sure what the Page 204 April 22-23, 2008 motion is. MS. ZONE: Also number 23 mentions 18 times a month as well, which reflects number 12. MR. KLATZKOW: I think I understand the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You --would you -- don't repeat it back, but would you -- let's see. That should be a resolution then? MR. KLATZKOW: We're going to need a resolution. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Bring that back -- MR. KLATZKOW: They're coming back in six months. Bruce, keep your signs because you're going to need them. It's going to be a noticed hearing. It can go on summary, and then it can get pulled, but can't go on consent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. ZONE: And we would be modifying -- sorry, Commissioner -- number 12 and 23 -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MS. ZONE: -- to make it so that it's eight times a month, two times a day (sic). COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Plus we're going to -- MS. ZONE: Or two times a week, I mean, I'm sorry. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Plus we're also going to keep the committee going forward. MS. ZONE: Right. And that's set forth in there. And what I'm going to do is I'll push a little harder with the applicants to provide that information from the meeting so I can have it to the board for your review at the next review. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. Page 205 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. Let's take a -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Forty-minute break. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Take a 15-minute break. (A brief recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next item is the 4:30 time certain, Commissioners. We have 830 -- 18 speakers. Just asking the board if -- we have some other members of the public on other issues, is this going to be the last item that we speak on tonight? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, be wonderful. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, okay. And then we are continuing tomorrow morning at nine o'clock with the awards, proclamations, and presentation. MR. MUDD: And then whatever items that we don't get to, finish up nine and go to 10. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And all the other ones. Okay? Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, what about 8C? That was a four o'clock time certain. Are we going to let that go to tomorrow? Didn't we have a four o'clock time certain? MR. MUDD: No, sir. We have a 4:30 time certain, and that's 8B. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh. Page 206 April 22-23, 2008 MR. MUDD: 8C was 171, and the board voted this morning, 5-0, to continue to until 13 May. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And let's announce the next item. Item #8B RECONSIDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT ADDRESSING THE CALCULATION OF THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF WET -SLIPS WHEN A SHORELINE IS IN A CONSERVATION EASEMENT - MOTION TO REDRAFT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS PUBLIC ACCESS AND OTHER CHANGES AND TO GO THROUGH LDC CYCLE - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This item was continued from the April 8, 2008 BCC Meeting. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider the Land Development Code Amendment addressing the calculation of the maximum number of wet slips when a shoreline is in a conservation easement. And Mr. Bi11 Lorenz, your Engineering Environmental Services Director for Community Development's Environmental Services, wi11 present. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we go to Mr. Lorenz, Commissioner Fiala has something that she wanted to do in the beginning of the meeting. So if you would indulge us for just a minute. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. I had spoken a long time about, what is that, vagrancy ordinance? What do you call that? No camping? MR. KLA TZKOW: Anti-camping ordinance. Page 207 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anti-camping ordinance. And I've talked with the County Attorney, and he said it's very outdated and woefully inadequate, and he was hoping to update that, revise it, and bring it back to us, and I was just asking if my fellow commissioners would let him do that. Just simple. You can just say yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have one no -- one yes, one no, two no's and two yeses. So, yes, I guess the answer is yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But you might want to put it on the agenda for us to discuss it before you advertise. MR. KLATZKOW: It wi11-- you'll see a draft before it gets advertised. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. This next item, I would like for everybody who is going to participate to be sworn in. So if you have any public speakers, including staff, they need to be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and responded in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Engineering Environmental Services Director. The objective today is to reconsider the Land Development Code amendment that addresses whether shoreline and conservation easements should be excluded from the shoreline used to calculate the maximum allowable wet slips pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan. The board may recall that it was about a year ago that staff presented the board a presentation where we noted that staff had understood the application of the criteria of the Manatee Protection Plan to exclude any shoreline in the calculations that was within conservation easements. Page 208 Apri122-23,2008 At that time we also noted that neither the Manatee Protection Plan nor the Land Development Code specifically addresses shoreline and conservation easements. At that point the board directed staff to prepare a Land Development Code amendment to bring through the process that would exclude the shoreline and the conservation easement from the calculation for maximum allowable wet slips, and that would be for the ability for the stakeholders to provide information through the public hearing process. During the public hearing process, various issues, of course, were brought up, and the board rejected the amendment on February 12th. We're here today subject to a reconsideration by the board on March 11 tho If the board chooses not to proceed with the amendment, staff would respectfully request that we receive guidance as to how we should be applying the calculations, and that's really my goal, is to receive direction from the board so that we can sufficiently implement your policy directives. Just a few observations on my part in terms of trying to maybe pull together some information, at least I've heard through the process, the public hearing process. The calculation that we -- we're talking about affects wet slips only. So it's -- so then there was some discussion about boat ramps or dry storage. It doesn't affect boat ramps or dry storage. It just affects the maximum amount of wet slips that a particular property could have subject to the Manatee Protection Plan rating criteria. Also note that the calculation -- and the calculation simply provides for that maximum number of slips. It doesn't guarantee that those slips can be applied on a particular property. That will depend upon the property's site specific characteristics, where there's proper location or depth, or whatever restrictive requirements that there may be that would actually allow for or, through the permitting process, to get permitted for the number of wet slips. Page 209 Apri122-23,2008 So, again, the calculation provides a maximum number for Manatee Protection Plan purposes but, of course, it doesn't guarantee it, and that's subject to permitting processes in the future. And just in terms of just the spectrum of the options, if you will, that the board would have -- and I'm going to just briefly talk about the impacts of two options on the spectrum. The least restrictive, if you will, with regard to a property owner in terms of getting the maximum amount of wet slips would be, of course, if the application was that all of the shoreline is utilized for the calculation. That would generate the maximum number of wet slips as opposed to some other type of restriction. And as I said before, those wet slips can only be used along the shoreline that would be allowed for within -- with regard to what the property has either in zoning or in easements. For instance, if you have a portion of your shoreline that's in a conservation easement and that conservation easement precludes you to put water structures, such as boat slips, within that conservation easement, of course, you would not be able to locate your wet slips, your multi-slip facility within that particular area. So, again, even though you're calculating total maximum wet slips, that if you do have a situation where you have shoreline that's in a conservation easement, you're not going to be able to physically locate those there. You have to locate the number of wet slips in areas that would not -- would be un-encumbered by that kind of restriction. And the other thing to note that, if -- when you have the -- all the shoreline that would be used for that calculation, that essentially sets up a fairly simple process in terms of expectations. You know, you've got this amount of shoreline. It's this amount of wet slips that you can make your calculation for, and in -- and over time that will not change, because I want to contrast that with, the other alternative which you're looking at, would be the shoreline, take -- to exclude the shoreline within conservation easements from your Page 210 April 22-23, 2008 calculation. So let's take a look at that. Obviously that lowers the total number of maximum allowable wet slips that that property owner can have, and it's proportional -- that lower number is proportional to the shoreline that's in the conservation easement. So the rationale there is, if you've got shoreline in the conservation easement and that conservation easement does not allow you to put your boat slips in that area, you've reduced the maximum amount of wet slips proportionately along those lines. However, one thing to note, again, even under that situation, you're only going to be able to put the calculated wet slips in those areas that -- that are un-encumbered from those conservation easements. And the number that you can put in those areas is also subject to other agency restrictions, so it doesn't -- that still doesn't even guarantee you that maximum amount, but it does reduce the maximum first off. Another point I think that came up, at least from my listening to some of the testimony and further discussions, is that over a period of time, if you -- especially with the agency permitting, if the agency permitting starts to put as a permit requirement of them granting you a permit for wet slips, for some type of multi-slip facility, typically the agency wi11 then require conservation easements to be placed on your property in a shoreline. So over time you could see the number of maximum allowable wet slips when you exclude shoreline in conservation easements to decrease over time. And I bring that up because one of the issues that the board raised and debated on was access, whether it's public access or private access. So you can see that alternative excluding shoreline within conservation easement could have an effect over time, total amount of wet slips that you can actually calculate starts to decrease, especially in redevelopment scenarios and situations. So I just wanted to make that as an observation. Page 211 April 22-23, 2008 Another observation is just in terms of administering the process. The most simplest way of administering the process would be for the shoreline in total shoreline. We don't have to, if you wi11, worry about what part of the shoreline is in conservation easements. In fact, during the discussion, when we had the -- raised the issue of the Goodland, the county project at Goodland, my staff wasn't aware that there were conservation easements placed on that shoreline through previous permitting. So just getting that information is somewhat difficult. So administrating that process is more difficult with conservation easements to be excluded from that calculation because we have to ensure ourselves where those conservation easements are. Now, that particular example is, in effect, the county's or the -- it sti11 came in as much more wet slips than what the county staff is proposing, but there again, that's a point that I just simply want to make in terms of administering a process, that we would have to ensure that we gather that information, and we understand what conservation easements are in place in the shoreline and what was the nature of those conservation easements. Sometimes the conservation easements are written a little bit differently, and there's maybe some nuances there that we have to evaluate. Indeed, that is one of the comments that was made as the project moved forward back in 2006 from the County Attorney's Office where the advice to staff was, well, wait a minute, you need to look at the conservation -- the nature and language of the conservation easement. And that was in Fisherman's Creek. So that's -- those are some observations that I just wanted to make -- provide for the board that, through your deliberation -- and as I noted before, however -- however the board's policy direction goes, we're -- staff simply is interested in making sure that we have -- we're able to administer it according to what your directives are. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, this is Page 212 Apri122-23,2008 your item. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The reason I asked that this be reconsidered is that essentially the board took no action whatsoever last time except to reject the staffs recommendations. That left us in the position where you sti11 had the same LDC requirements and you had the same decision-making processes that you had before. We didn't provide you any guidance as to how you should proceed from that point on. And there's been too much controversy over the way it has been applied in the past. At our last meeting there were people alleging that the staff really had not been consistent in applying it the way they said they had been applying it. The staff said, of course, they had. There were some allegations that -- supporting the position that it would eliminate or reduce our ability to provide public access to the water, and there was no substantial evidence submitted to the contrary at that point in time. So that's the reason I felt it was essential that we get this back and get it solved; otherwise, we're going to have this same problem every single time. So I would -- I would prefer to hear from the public speakers, and then I will have a -- what I think is a reasonable solution to the problem. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Does anybody have any staff -- questions from staff, or you want to just go to the public speakers? I do but I'll hold off. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So some of the allegations that were brought up in the last meeting, which I had to leave early, weren't true; is that what you're saying? Or were misinterpreted? MR. LORENZ: Well, some of the examples that were used weren't applicable to the Manatee Protection Plan, which I think I've illustrated in the -- in your executive summary. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you for that Page 213 April 22-23, 2008 clarification. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have 18 speakers. The first is Gigi Bensel. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker? MS. BENSEL: Susan Snyder is taking my time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who is? MS. FILSON: Susan Snyder. She's the second speaker. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. She has six minutes. MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by Nicole Ryan. MS. SNYDER: For the record, I am Susan Snyder, a retired middle school science teacher, co-author of 150 science textbooks, and the University of Florida certified master naturalist. At the commissioners' meeting in February, Commissioner Henning, you asked for the intent of the Manatee Protection Plan. Since that meeting I've researched that plan. I've discussed this issue with Patti Thompson, one of the original members of the MPP committee, and I've researched government documents on line. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 designated the West Indian manatee as an endangered species. In 1978 our state passed the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. This law established Florida as a refuge and sanctuary for manatees. Mandated objectives for county manatee protection plans by the FDEP include reducing the number of related manatee mortalities, achieving an optimal sustainable manatee population, protecting manatee habitat, promoting boating safety, and increasing public awareness of the need to protect manatees and their environment. The 1995 Collier County Manatee Protection Plan that you asked about was prepared by the Natural Resources Department and it states that the purpose of the plan is to provide countywide protection of the West Indian manatee. To effectively provide manatee protection, this plan contains criteria for marine and boat facilities sitting shoreline Page 214 April 22-23, 2008 and submerged land development, manatee/human interaction, habitat protection, educational programs, law enforcement, and intergovernmental coordination. The August, 2000, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bureau of Protected Species Management Boat Facilities Sitting Guide -- quite a title, a proponent -- excuse me -- a component of the Manatee Protection Plan and the commission-approved countywide plan addresses expansion of existing and the development of new marinas, boat ramps, and other multi-slip boating facilities. It specifies preferred locations for boating facilities, development based on an evaluation of natural resources and manatee protection needs and recreation and economic demands. The main goal of the boat facilities sitting criteria is to minimize the amount of interaction between manatees and boats. Part of this goal is also to evaluate impacts of boat facility developments on manatee habitats. In 2003, Florida Statute 370.12 called the Marine Animals Statute was amended to include mandated manatee protection plans. By reference, attachment K -- I don't know whether you want me to put this up or not -- but it states the purposes of the MPPs. And this became part of the statute. This document states that to increase manatee protection in any Florida county, there needs to be identification of land acquisition projects to increase refuges, reserves and preserves for manatee protection. Commissioners, my opinion is that it isn't logical for the federal and state governments to identify conservation easements and for the county to set aside preserves and then allow overdevelopment of these identified areas by permitting marinas to maximum size of the marinas and count preserves and easements in their calculations for permitted wet slips. According to a document published by the Florida Fish and Page 215 April 22-23, 2008 Wildlife Conservation Commission last year, 2007, there were 16 manatees killed in Collier County. Here's that. Thirty-eight percent of these were caused by boat injuries. That's the highest percentage of manatee deaths caused by boats in the entire state. I compared all of them, and the list is right here. By allowing large marinas to be built near preserves and conservation easements, we can expect these numbers of manatee deaths to increase. This past December 5th, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission adopted a management plan that will guide the state's efforts to recover the species. Commissioners, my research shows that the intent of the 1995 Collier County MPP, the 2003 Florida Statute 370.12, and the 2007 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, is to have a management plan to protect the endangered manatee. The amendment you're considering today for the LDC would be a major part of Collier County's management plan. And in addition to helping manatees, this amendment will assure that the little guys in our county will continue to have access to these waters for canoeing, kayaking, boating, fishing, and enjoying the solitude. This amendment wi11 help assure that these areas are protected and available for future generations of people, both residents and vacationers, to enjoy. This amendment will not affect the little guy who wants to build his or her own private dock. It wi11 prevent overdevelopment of marinas adjacent to preserves and conservation easements. And remember your definition of a marina is more than 10 or more docks. Isn't it timely that we're discussing this amendment on Earth Day? Those of you in the audience who came because you're in favor of this amendment, please stand. Commissioners, I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of everyone here who's Page 216 April 22-23, 2008 standing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nicole Ryan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you're speaking for everybody who stands, then have you more time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it means they can't speak. MS. SNYDER: I timed it. It was five minutes. Maybe it was a little longer, but five minutes. I only needed -- MS. FILSON: Six. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it was six minutes. If you're speaking on behalf of them, then you have more time, but they need to Waive. MS. SNYDER: Do you have questions for me? MS. RYAN: You didn't see me wave. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Please. MS. FILSON: Nicole will be followed by Bruce Burkhard. MS. RYAN: Thank you. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I think your staff summary really gave a good overview of the issue, and Bill gave some good examples of the spectrum of options. But I think we need to bring this back to what started this. And it was almost a year ago to the day that staff brought all of those menu of options to you, and the option that you selected through a unanimous vote was a motion made by Commissioner Coyle to state that the shoreline in a conservation easement is not to be allowed for the calculation of boat slips. And that was the language, that's what was seconded and voted on. So staff was simply bringing back what you asked them to bring back. We also need to keep in mind that this language, these provisions when we talk about how the shoreline is calculated, isn't something new. It isn't a new policy, it isn't a new direction. It's simply codifying how staff has been applying this provision in the past. Staffs bringing Page 217 April 22-23, 2008 it back at your request. Now, during the public hearing process in January and February, some other issues were brought forward, some other concerns dealing with the government-owned parcels and the marinas that would be open to the public. There was also concern about how this would impact the little guy. I believe that staff has dealt with some of those specific issues on how it would or would not impact the smaller property owner, and it does need to be pointed out again that when we're talking about the little guy, the MPP is only applied to the marinas and for the residential boat docks of 10 slips or more. The importance of having this language adopted deals with the fact that staff needs your direction to be able to consistently apply the provision. They want to have that codified. So we need to get something in place and passed this evening, and we thank you very much for bringing this back for reconsideration. As a way to try to move this forward, at the February hearing it seemed that the controversy was really about the -- should the government exempt itself from its own provisions and how do you make sure that 100 percent public marinas that would be exempted are not finding some loophole and not being those 100 percent public marinas? A suggestion that I would make, the Conservancy would make, is that the four items that you're going to be dealing with be decided and, perhaps, voted on separately. The first being the definition of shoreline, the second being, should shoreline be within the conservation easement and county-required preserves be used for calculating wet slips, the third item being those government-owned parcels, and the fourth item been the 100 percent public marinas. We would ask that you adopt the first two, the definition of shoreline and making sure that they -- the conservation easement and preserve areas aren't exempted. Dealing with the government-owned Page 218 April 22-23, 2008 lots, that's something that you need to make a decision on and for those marinas that are going to be open to the public, potentially having that come back as a conditional use case-by-case basis. But because they are at least three really separate issues here, we'd like for them maybe to be parceled out so that we don't lose everything because you're concerned about one or two of the items. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bruce Burkhard. He'll be followed by Jim Snyder. MR. BURKHARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Burkhard, and I am the zoning committee chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. And I'd like to point out that it's very seldom that a group of citizens gets excited enough to take time to closely follow a proposed change in an LDC amendment cycle. Today's rehearing is, indeed, something to get excited about. The entire world is finally waking up to the fact that overdevelopment, especially in sensitive areas, has been causing great damage to the environment that we all are charged with protecting. Both the county and the state have recognized this and have attempted to mitigate some of the destruction the development inevitably causes. The concept conservation easements was developed for just that purpose. Typically, developers have agreed to set aside land, often wetlands with little value in them in order to be granted development rights or greater density for their uplands projects. Essentially, a social contract is made, and the populous would expect the terms of that contract to be followed. What this amendment is meant to do is to protect the environment from large-scale developers who want to bulldoze through promised conservation easements and use other easements to more densely pack their development with unforeseen private, Page 219 April 22-23, 2008 exclusive marinas which contribute nothing to the public at large. Opposition to this clarification of the code is really not about helping boaters get a little more access to Florida's waters. It's about helping developers have their cake and eat it, too. The amendment should be all about preserving and protecting a few relatively small undeveloped areas, areas that we apparently naively believed were set aside and protected. The citizens that we represent believe that your development staff and your Planning Commission have spent countless hours reviewing all aspects of this issue, as it is their job to do. And they have come up with reasonable conclusions. It makes no sense whatever to aid and abet denser development as some would have you do. Make no mistake about it, this is exactly what you will be doing should you overthrow this amendment and the practices implemented to protect us and our environment, actually since 1995. Common sense and justice say that this amendment is absolutely the correct course of action. For the good of the majority, we urge you to pass this amendment and not count the shoreline within conservation easements. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Jim Snyder. He'll be followed by Susan Stiefel. MR. SNYDER: Good afternoon. I observed you folks on TV, and you do put in eight days a week. I was tired just watching you. My name's Jim Snyder, and I'm a Florida licensed electrical contractor. I volunteer for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I am a boat captain, and I do their electrical maintenance problems pro bono. I'm also a resident of Collier County. I highly favor this amendment. It would help protect a species of animal that's been on this earth for five million years. These harmless animals draw huge Page 220 April 22-23, 2008 crowds wherever they appear. Their single biggest threat to their existence is the human race. A huge part of this is boating and the threat it poses to the manatee's existence. The fact is that many manatees are now identified by the scars on their backs, the propeller scars. Almost all boat slips mean more boats sitting above or in the water, all boats, almost all boats except ours at the Conservancy which are electrical. We have long extensions cords that -- almost all boats pose a threat of leaking oil and gasoline through seals or gaskets. More boats suspended above or are left floating in our waters mean more hydrocarbons that can leak into our already fragile aquifers. This endangers habitat by affecting vegetation upon which manatees and other aquatic animals depend. Our preserve areas should have extra protection. This amendment would address that need. While volunteering at the Conservancy last year I pointed out a manatee that was in our lagoon to a nine-year-old girl. She was thrilled, and I told her about manatees. And I said, you know they are mammals and do you know you're a mammal. And she looked at me very indignantly and said, I'm not. I'm Irish. Well, I had to keep her mother from falling off the bench. The population ofIreland, by the way, is not endangered. By last count, there were over four million Irish people there, and I suppose I'm of Irish extraction, and maybe many of you are, too, but certainly they're not endangered there. By last count I heard there're about 36- to 3,800 manatees in existence. This is hardly a sustainable population. The Irish will survive. The manatee may not. Please consider your decision study can help, and I emphasize, just help, determine that this species on animals continues to exist on our planet. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Susan Stiefel. MS. STIEFEL: I'll defer to the statements already made. Page 221 April 22-23, 2008 MS. FILSON: B.J. Savard-Boyer. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: I do the same. MS. FILSON: Lew Schmidt? He'll be followed by Tim Hall. MR. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I am Lew Schmidt. I live at 405 Pine Avenue in the Vanderbilt Beach area. I do not own a boat, but when our children and grandchildren come to visit we rent a boat and we go boating and fishing up on -- in Water Turkey Bay area and in the estuary to the north of Wiggins Pass. That's always a good day, and if we bring home some fish that we can eat, it's a great day. Anyone who lives in Collier County or visits Collier County can enjoy this beautiful area and this experience. They can rent a boat or they can launch their boats at the county boat ramp that's in the area. This is a special Collier County attraction for all of us residents and visitors, and it may be in jeopardy. As I understand it some years ago you and your predecessors had the foresight to enter in negotiations with landowners and developers to exchange higher density allowances on buildable uplands for a promised conservation easement, county conservation easement. That seems like you made a fair deal. We can measure the financial benefit to the landowners and developers, and I'm confident that it would show that your allowances were very generous. So what did the county get? No public access to the conservation area has been granted or promised. As an example, one of the early PUDs for one of these developments shows a boardwalk through the conserved area to an overlook of Water Turkey Bay. The access to this boardwalk is inside the gated community and not available to the public. I don't have a serious problem with that, but we should understand we did not get that benefit. So what did we get? I think we got three things. We being the people of county or -- Collier County, Page 222 April 22-23, 2008 excuse me. One, is the delightful view of the conservation area from the adjoining waterways. Two, is wildlife has a free access to the conservation area, and that includes manatees. The natural vegetation and plant life has been preserved. I think the exchange may have been challenged or will be challenged in the future. I understand -- and there has been a motion presented or a plan presented -- did I start my five minutes over too soon? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. You have three minutes, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I ask you to wrap it up. MR. SCHMIDT: The landowner has asked for or will be asking for boat docks to be built on the navigable waterways. They will be entirely on submerged lands. Not only do they want what the LDC calculations would allow them for the navigable shoreline, they want a credit for the entire conservation shoreline. The docks will not be offered to the general public. They will be excluded and expensive. If granted, I want to show you what happens. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your time is up, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: May I use one of the other two? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Whoever is next who hasn't waived or MS. FILSON: Lee Lyar, L-Y-A-R (sic), looks like? MR. SCHMIDT: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: I would like you to just look at this, and I'll leave it for you. That's what happens. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker? MS. FILSON: Lee L-Y-A-R? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Lee Lyons (sic), L-Y? Page 223 April 22-23, 2008 MS. FILSON: It looks like L-Y-A-R. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Lyon? MR. LYON: That's Lyon, L-Y-O-N. MS. FILSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then after Mr. Lee Lyons? MS. FILSON: Butch Morgan. MR. LYON: Tim Hall was supposed to be first. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Tim Hall? MS. FILSON: We put him last because he called and said he was on his way. Do you want him to go first? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MS. FILSON: Okay. Tim Hall. Followed by Butch Morgan. MR. HALL: I apologize for being a little disorganized here. I did catch some of Bill's initial statements and all, and I would agree with most everything he said as -- in terms of our discussions that we've had since the last commission meeting. I'd also like to take this time to apologize to staff. The last time I was up here I said I was not aware of any projects where this policy had been -- had been enacted on those. Since that time I was given one example where it was actually discussed in the conversations; however, it wasn't actually applied because the easement was being voided. It was to a non-existent third party, and so there was clarifications being made. I'd like to start just with, the objective of this is to -- is to have the board give the man -- the County Manager or his designee direction as to the manner for calculating available wet slips when a project shoreline is within conservation easement. A lot of the examples that I had given and the reason I said we were unaware of any projects that had had this applied was because every project that goes in should be -- is subject to a Manatee Protection Plan review. And this, in my opinion, would apply to all of those, even those projects which are proposing less than the 10 slips. Page 224 April 22-23, 2008 The objective is to say, how many slips could be done there? And this policy, as it was originally proposed, would affect that number. And if I'm reading it right, as long as you propose nine or less, it doesn't matter what this says. But if you propose that one extra slip and try to have 10 and your entire shoreline's under an easement, you couldn't do any. So taking this to the extreme, I guess any project in the future that came in could propose nine slips and not be subject to this at all. That doesn't apply for the smaller marina facilities where you have maybe only one or two slips being proposed. Because they're defined as a marina the policy is applicable to any of those projects, not just ones that are over 10 slips. The 10 slips is a designation for residential -- residential slips. So that was kind of one of the issues we had. As Bill said, one of biggest concerns is that over time this is just going to result in a net reduction of slips that are allowable within the county and would limit the public's access. Even though it's through private properties, the people that live there are sti11 part of the public and it will limit their access to the water. I think -- I see they have 15 seconds left. I guess I can stop right there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Butch Morgan. He'll be followed by Frank Donohue. MR. MORGAN: Hello. My name is Butch Morgan. I'm a full-time resident and member of the Marine Industries of Collier County . To go back a little bit, I first appeared -- well, not first. But I appeared in front of this same commission in 2003. And say-- everybody was the same. And the -- expressed dissatisfaction on two issues that relate to this amendment. The first was a dock moratorium that was proposed by Fish and Page 225 April 22-23, 2008 Wildlife because of some overzealous pressure from the Save the Manatee Club. There was a resolution issued by this committee and adopted on the 14th of January. One of the first sections in it says that Collier County affirms the worth of all fish and wildlife and the rights of property owners and the marine building industries. Section three said that Collier County believes it will be irresponsible to implement proposed regulations without the necessary scientific data to support the intended goals. We achieved the solutions in that issue as the dock moratorium was lifted. The second issue was Collier County environmental services interpreting the Manatee Protection Plan on their own accord pertaining to water depths at that time. What we did achieve on that issue was the direction from this commission that implemented a review of the Manatee Protection Plan with involvement of stakeholders. The letter I received prior to that process from Commissioner Halas wrote about -- thanking me for writing about my comments about this issue and stating that the boating issue is a key economic engine in our area and recognizing this and the need to have all parties involved. What we achieved was creating a stakeholders meeting. That was brought up in the beginning of this meeting. It was also brought up last meeting of this -- on this issue by Frank Donohue where those stakeholders meetings were. The State of Florida and Fish and Wildlife recognizes stakeholders should be comprised of local government officials, environmentalists, industry representatives, fishermen, water skiers, and boaters when reviewing the Manatee Protection Plan. What appears to be happening is environmental service, in conjunction with the opinion of some environmental representatives are taking it upon themselves to issue their own opinions in order to change -- and I want to make that clear -- to change the Manatee Page 226 April 22-23, 2008 Protection Plan. You can walk in the back door of the house, but it's the same house. This is the doorway way of changing it. Every time that we seem to get a clarification from environmental services, it seems like the boaters and the fisherman boating industry always end up on the short end of the stick. I'll ask you to include the total shoreline in the boat slip matrix. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Frank Donohue. He'll be followed by Phil Osborne. MR. OSBORNE: Somehow or another, I apologize, but Lee Lyon got put out of order. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good afternoon. MR. DONOHUE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you. My name is Frank Donohue. I'm a resident, recreational boater, and I've worked in the recreational boating industry in Collier County since 1972. I also serve as the vice-president of Marine Industry Association for the entire State of Florida and on the Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. I'd endeavor to address this board on a proposed change to the Land Development code concerning using conservation easements and measuring shoreline. Staff is requesting that the conservation easements not be used to measure shorelines to determine credits for the number of slips allowed to be constructed at that location. I firmly believe that no change be made to the present code where these easements are now included in determining the shoreline as is set forth in the Manatee Protection Plan and in the Land Development Code. Why? Changing the code to eliminate this measurement credit adversely affects all future marina development and construction in this county. In a time when water access is at the thrust of the Page 227 April 22-23, 2008 forefront, why would we throw another roadblock up? Affecting a person's property rights is another reason not to change. Boat slip rental costs also come into play here as well. Building less slips means higher rental costs to the end user. The marina owner costs for securing a permit, whether it's 100 square foot to 75 square foot, they're the same soft cost. Yes, you would have a lower construction cost, but most other costs would still be consistent with the original slip plan. Who pays in the end? The boater. Not to mention the trickle-down effect of building less slips, i.e., less visits to dock builders, boat sales, service companies, fuel vendors and the like. In these economic times, we should be helping people accomplish their goals, not throwing another roadblock up in front of them. You've been handed out a marina structures permit flow chart. In this handout, it shows that you now have to traverse through and secure permits to 23 different agencies, all of multiple parts to their permits. I would think there's already more than enough environmental oversight to construct a marina or any kind of marina structure. On the marina plan review, manatee plan review, if the manatee plan needs fixing, let's call a real stakeholders meeting and get down to work and do something with it. Mr. Lorenz alluded to meetings about this in the past year, and I'm one of the stakeholders in the original plan and I never was notified. In your executive summary the staff has an option D. It's leave it as it is. I would leave it like that. Thank you very much, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. MS. FILSON: Lee Lyon. He'll be followed by Phil Osborne. MR. LYON: Commissioners, pleasure being here. About 18,20 years ago I stood before you all again on the Manatee Protection Plan. Page 228 April 22-23, 2008 My name is Lee Lyon. I've been an officer of the Marine Industry Association both of Collier County, State of Florida, and on various other commissions. About 18 years ago the state mandated that 13 counties formulate a Manatee Protection Plan, and that had to be approved by them. Collier County was one of those 13. After a couple years ofa long period of trying to reach an agreement with DEP, Collier County Commissioners voted at that time to turn the issue of the Manatee Protection Plan over to your attorney to try to get them to settle the case. At this meeting several of us requested permission to try to come to some agreement with DEP and Collier County. The commissioners then appointed several of us to an ad hoc committee representing Collier County, and gave us 90 days to get an agreement that we could all live with. As one of those members of the ad hoc committee, along with a couple of others in this room, we worked many hours at our own expense, we made several trips to Tallahassee, met with the Federation of Wildlife, the Conservancy, the Save the Manatee Club, the Audubon Society, the City of Naples, and the City of Everglades. We all worked together after many months and came up with a Manatee Protection Plan we could all agree with. We then met with DEP and negotiated the final plan. It was presented to Collier County Commissioners at that time and DEP, and we were issued the final approval. At this time there was no mention or regard given to the question at hand. It was not in the Manatee Protection Plan regarding the conservation easement or preservation areas. We realize that with all the changes in administration since the plan was enacted, it would be impossible for each of you to go back and read all the past minutes of all the meetings and you must rely on staff to keep you informed. Unfortunately, the one staff member that Page 229 April 22-23, 2008 was involved with all of our meetings is no longer in this department. It's also unfortunate the staff has appeared to misinterpret the intent of the Manatee Protection Plan as it was written. It's unfortunate that some of our counterparts whose agencies are also a part of the original Manatee Protection Plan have chosen to ignore what they originally agreed to. The plan was formulated not only to protect the manatee, but also more importantly, it was a plan best for all the people concerned and not just a few. We would hope that you would all reconsider the Manatee Protection Plan and enforce it in the intent in which it was written and not the way the staff has interpreted it. If the Manatee Protection Plan is to be changed, it should be done in the proper procedure and not for personal development or in a fashion that will be best for all concerned; not only for the present, but also the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Phil Osborne. He'll be followed by Rich Y ovanovich. MR. OSBORNE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Phillip Obsorne. I represent my company, Naples Boat Mart and its officers, the residents, and the boaters of Collier County. I'm here to speak to the continued assault on the $41 billion industry that makes up the marine industries -- that the marine industry provides for the State of Florida. It should be no secret that the economy itself has made it very challenging for even well-run and managed boat dealers and marinas. A recent article that ran in the front page of the local paper in its business section spells out clearly the actual, tangible losses that have been incurred, as well as jobs lost. Even our own local boating industry, previously believed to be immune from national economic pressures, has lost four of its businesses serving the boaters of Collier County in just the last year Page 230 April 22-23, 2008 and three months. So with real tangible problems facing folks that have made the boating industry their chosen livelihood, we certainly don't need to make up or dream up additional pressures that may encourage people to pass on the great family benefits of boating in the most attractive areas that boating has to offer. It should be noted that many, many people, boaters, have chosen Collier County to reside for its obvious benefits that this area provides. It's been made clear earlier by the authors and the founders of the 1995 Manatee Protection Plan as to what the intent and the interpretation of this passage was. It should not be allowed to be twisted, misconstrued, to place additional unwanted pressures on an already hurting boating industry, especially ones I've outlined earlier. We have enough real problems to address. We all know full well that Collier County, over the last few years, has lost six of its eight public access marinas and dry stacks. These facilities have all converted from public access paid by the foot by the month to private-club-type condo style upscale places. The average Collier County Resident Earnings Research established annual incomes of about $45,000 cannot afford to keep a boat in a country-club-style facility that charges upwards of 250,000 or more for average-size boat slips; therefore, it becomes that much more important for you to not succumb to this staff interpreted or misinterpreted property punishment. We have already lost too much, so please, let's not invent ways to further punish our industry that contributes greatly in many ways to Collier County and its resident boaters. Please allow this code to stand as it was originally written and has been outlined by some of the original authors that you've heard from earlier. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Rich Yovanovich, Kit Sawyer. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good evening. For the record, Rich Page 231 April 22-23, 2008 Y ovanovich. I pulled off your website today the Manatee Protection Plan to make sure I had the current version, and this is it. And nowhere in this document does it say you don't include the shoreline if there's a conservation easement across that property. Your staff acknowledges that in their executive summary, yet they somehow come up with the interpretation that you don't include the shoreline, although it's never mentioned in the definition of shoreline that their interpretation is correct. At the last meeting we had asked that they provide us examples of when this interpretation first began to be applied to particular projects. We had thought that some projects that we cited it had been applied to, and we later found out that it did not -- it was not applied to them. I reviewed your executive summary and I can't find any examples yet where it's been applied. It may have been applied in Fisherman Vi11age, but I'm not really sure. And based upon my conversations with Mr. Schmitt, it's really not when it was first applied, and that happened sometime in the year 2002/2003. I think that date's relevant to a lot of people who had property rights that they allegedly gave up through the PUD hearing process, namely -- and it was referenced many times at the last hearing -- the Dunes project. One of your staff members mentioned that Commissioner Henning, in the year 1998 -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Hancock in the year 1998, only approved that PUD with the representation that there would never be docks. Well, if you go back and look at the hearing minutes from that -- and I'll enter them into the record -- what the motion said was, is that docks for the Dunes project would go through a conditional use process. They never gave up the right to construct docks. So they always believed that they had the riparian rights to have docks. In the year 2000, there was a PUD amendment that, again, went Page 232 April 22-23, 2008 through the hearing process, and in both the Planning Commission and the BCC hearing, there was extensive discussions regarding the boat dock issue. At that time it was determined that they would go through whatever the PUD -- whatever the LDC process was for boat docks. If they needed a boat dock extension, they would go to the Board of County Commissioners. If they didn't need a boat dock extension, they would follow the LDC provisions. And, again, I'll enter all of that into the record. But what the board asked then at that hearing -- and I'd like to put this on the visualizer so there's no mistake that the issue came up in the year 2000. And he asked Mr. Griffin the question -- and it was Commissioner Carter who asked that question, and he asked -- and I'll read it to you for those of you that can't see it. It's Chairman Carter, well, I guess I would like the principal just to step to the microphone and make the commitment that you would do that and it will be a part of the public records so that there's never any confusion. And what Mr. Griffin responded was, Jerry Griffin, Signature Communities, yes, we'll do that and we will limit it. If we ever do get them to 60 -- that would be boat slips -- and we will -- and we wi11 put covenants that we will never go into Turkey Bay Lagoon. So Signature Communities at that time was very clear that they were retaining their rights for boat docks, and the representation that they had given that up at the last hearing is not an accurate reflection of what occurred. And thank you for your time. And difficult to get all that in in three minutes. I'll just register extra speakers next time so I can make sure I can get some more time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you going to leave that for the record? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, I will. I'll leave all that. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kit Sawyer. He'll be followed Page 233 April 22-23, 2008 by Don Malarchik. MR. SAWYER: Hi, Commissioners. Sorry I'm here again. Last time I was here I asked you all to look at this, that I was really worried that this would affect me as a landowner, as a marina owner. Been here all my life. I sti11 feel that this could affect me. I had staff tell me it wasn't Friday before the meeting, and then I game to the meeting, had some problems after the meeting, and what I'm still scared of, that this is going to affect me. You guys say 10 boats or less. I have copies in here of 13 boat slips, 14 -- 15 boat slips, and I want to keep growing, and I don't -- if it's due to Mangroves, I want to be able to go through Mangroves. Right now I'm just doing a ramp and a pier because I can't afford to go any further, but when I want to go further, I want to go further. I bought the property to be -- have a marina. That's been my dream. I think you've heard a whole bunch of people here -- and somehow I need to back -- way back up and see the real true intent to the Manatee Plan. I don't know how else you guys can do it. But I -- last time here I saw three of you guys ask staff questions and never did really get an answer, and that worries me again, that you're just told pieces, and I think I was just told pieces, too. So please look at this and finish this, get this thing taken care of, because something's wrong here, and I thank you all very much. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dan Malarchik. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And? MS. FILSON: Clay Brooker. He'll be followed by Rachel-- MS. LOIACANO: Loiacano. MS. FILSON: Thank you. MR. BROOKER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's Clay Brooker with the law firm of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson. I'm here on behalf of Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC, which owns a Fisherman's Village parcel. That's a parcel that abuts Page 234 April 22-23, 2008 Haldeman Creek. It's been cited in your package. It's been referenced today. The only reason I'm here today is our existing conservation easement expressly contemplates docks both within and adjacent to the conservation easement area. It's in the easement itself. That easement was created in 1993 before the Manatee Protection Plan even came into an existence. So what -- in my conversations with Bill Lorenz on the phone, it's my understanding that that particular conservation easement is not going to be affected by the proposal as drafted in your documents today. And that would be my only request, that whatever comes out of this process, make sure that our conservation easement isn't caught up in the net, so to speak, because we specifically and expressly in our conservation easement are allowed docks. Thank you. MS. FILSON: And your final speaker is Rachel-- MR. LOIACANO: Loiacano. My name is Rachel Loiacano. I'm with RL Opportunities. I'm an independent consultant. I've been blessed in the last few years to represent many marinas throughout Southwest Florida, one of whom is a relatively large marina down on Marco Island, Cedar Bay Yacht Club. While they are a dry slip marina, they are actively involved in the Clean Marina Program as well as the -- being involved with the Conservancy and Rookery Bay. They've asked that I come and speak, and I was going to come and speak regardless of my client's request, because I would like for the board to not approve this recommendation from staff. I believe that it will detrimentally affect the Marina Industry (sic) Association. I work with many marina owners who are struggling in this economy right now. It is just a fact that it is very hard for marina owners today to maintain and grow, to maintain their business. The little man that was referred to earlier by some of the other Page 235 April 22-23, 2008 members of this committee here, as a little man, I have to say that we rely on marinas to be able to have boats and boating activities. Those of us who live in the uplands and are not graced with the ability to live on the water will not have any other access if, in fact, marinas cannot grow. I believe that in my experience with permitting for marinas, that the DEP and the South Florida Water Management District do a very good job at regulating the maximum number of slips allowed to a site based on environmental research and criteria, and I do not believe that the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan should be altered in any way to additionally include limits for maximum number of boats because of conservation easements. I think many of my clients would be reluctant to dedicate some of their property towards conservation easements if they thought, in the long run, it would decrease the overall property value that they have. Thank you. MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I have a question. I have an exhibit that the board passed back a couple years ago, I think it was, and that is the boat park in Goodland. And you can see the docks, the fishing platform, and another platform, and potential docks in the back, but all around this site, if you really zoom in that, it has preserves. Now, the way I read -- Mr. Lorenz, you can correct me if I'm wrong. The way I read the Land Development Code, any preserves that you have, you have to put a conservation easement over it Is that correct? MR. LORENZ: That's currently correct, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's currently correct. Okay. MR. LORENZ: The reason I say currently is because we are, through the EAR-based amendments, the Growth Management Plan amendments, we are bringing forward a set of Land Development Page 236 April 22-23, 2008 Code amendments to determine when a conservation easement is to be placed upon a county preserve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. If it has a conservation easement over it, then that would prohibit any future board, or even this board, to put more docks than what was contemplated with the conditional use unless we have a -- an exemption for government. MR. LORENZ: Correct. If -- once you put a conservation -- the way the language proposed in the Land Development Code amendment, proposed amendment is, is once you put a conservation easement over that shoreline -- and at the moment whether it's a state conservation easement or a county conservation easement, that that -- and that conservation easement doesn't prohibit -- doesn't specifically prohibit boat docks, then that shoreline would not be utilized in the calculation for your maximum allowable wet slips. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- and if anybody has an existing shoreline conservation easement over it, whether it be state or whatever, but still -- let's say the criteria -- if we dredge a pass, I mean, that's -- I think that's the way you're presently applying it, where the depth is over four feet, then you get a more preferred rating than if you had a two-foot draw; is that correct? MR. LORENZ: Yeah. The rating criteria of preferred, moderate, and protected is dependent upon the adequate water depth, and the adequate water depth is, right now, is the four-foot depth. So if you -- if you were able to dredge -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Dredge. MR. LORENZ: -- dredge your channel to that adequate water depth, that brings your rating up for the Manatee Protection Plan. So you could go -- and I'd have to have the code in front of me, but you would -- the concept is, is getting that adequate water depth and everything else being appropriate, you could increase your rating level to go from, for instance, 10 boat slips per 100 feet of shoreline -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: To 18. Page 237 April 22-23, 2008 MR. LORENZ: -- to 18 boat slips per shoreline. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And let's say that you had a protected rating, you dredge the area, and now you qualify for a preferred rating but you have a conservation easement over it -- over the shoreline, but you can't count that. MR. LORENZ: That's right. The conservation easement over the shoreline would be excluded from any of the -- any calculations for any of the ratings. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's why I have a problem with it. You're limiting the people's access to the water, and not all people golf. I don't. But I sure love the water. Can't afford a dock. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. The criteria that the state presently uses, is this the same criteria that we've been using? MR. LORENZ: The state -- the state uses the county's Manatee Protection Plan, and they will request from us a statement as to whether a particular project or application is consistent with the county's Manatee Protection Plan. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So in the past, or even at the present, if someone came in and wanted particular boat docks in an area that was a conservation area, does the state look at that differently than just looking at it as open waters? MR. LORENZ: Well, for purposes of consistency with the Manatee Protection Plan, they will -- the state wi11 ask staff, is it consistent or not, and then we'd provide that information back to the state. In my executive summary of a year ago, I do have a listing of the state's evaluation criteria, and it's somewhat complicated in terms of the state's criteria because they will look at a conservation easement for purposes of vegetation protection. That may not be the same Page 238 Apri122-23,2008 conservation easement that limits or restricts what they call in-water structures, and that's why, in the documentation when we reviewed the Fisherman's Village example back in 2005, the County Attorney's Office, in reviewing and working with staff, said, well, wait a minute. You need to look at that conservation easement because the wording of that conservation easement is important. That's why in this Land Development Code, this proposed Land Development Code amendment, we have the language in there that doesn't say just simply because it's a conservation easement, but whether it's a conservation easement that -- I'd have to look at the exact language, but that does not allow for boat docks within it. So that's where we're trying to make that discernment as well. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So when you were drawing up this LDC amendment, was the amendment -- how much change was there in this amendment versus what we were using for criteria in regards to addressing the manatee protection program? MR. LORENZ: The amendment -- let me make it a point in time, which is about 2005, June, 2005, when the County Attorney's Office worked with us on the Fisherman's Village project. Before that, our advice and our application, as the best we understood in terms of when a project came in, is that if it was in a conservation easement, we would not include the shoreline in that calculation. When Fisherman's Village came through and the County Attorney's Office looked at our application, they said, well, wait a minute. You have to look at -- and they were the ones that pointed out that we don't have that discernment within the Manatee Protection Plan nor the Land Development Code. They said, since it's absent there, you need to look at your conservation easement language. And within that conservation easement language, if it prohibits the presence of docks, then that's appropriate to apply the conservation easement exclusion in that situation. Page 239 April 22-23, 2008 And that's the example that Clay Brooker just came up with in terms of looking at that analysis, and that's why in the proposed Land Development Code amendment we have that condition, that caveat that says, unless it's not -- unless boat slips are not prohibited in that conservation easement. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have another question. You're familiar with the Dunes project. MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does that have a conservation easement over it restricting boats, boat docks? MR. LORENZ: As I understand -- as I understand it, they are-- they have proposed a conservation easement. We're reviewing it. Our initial review doesn't -- does not look like it's consistent with what we understand is the PUD. The PUD shows a preserve that also includes the water in addition to the Mangrove and other areas. So if that's the case that the -- that the PUD preserve area would contain all of the shoreline, then under this amendment and the way we would be -- have then applied it in the past, it would get zero wet slips because of -- there is no shoreline outside of what would be a conservation easement. So that would be the impact of it if, indeed, the PUD is requiring all of the preserve area to be -- all of the shoreline to be in that preserve area. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's not consistent, what you said just a minute ago. You said Fisherman's Village had a conservation easement over it and that won't be affected. MR. LORENZ: Fisherman's Village -- the wording in Fisherman's Village is, at least being represented by -- from Clay -- and I haven't read it myself, but he is indicating that the conservation easement does allow for boat docks. In other words, there's language in there that envisions boat docks to be in that particular conservation easement. Page 240 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So you're saying that the Dunes did not provide for boat docks, the conservation easement? MR. LORENZ: Well, my understanding -- and I haven't gone through, myself, the record. But my understanding is the preserve area in the PUD is all of the shoreline. Now, if that's -- if that's the case and we were to -- and we were to put a conservation easement within that whole area and that conservation easement also precludes boat slips, then that's correct, and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Based upon the PUD? MR. LORENZ: Based upon the PUD. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me read November 14,2000. Dick Lydon. Do you know Dick Lydon? MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's a gentleman up in North Naples. He was there for the amendment of the Dunes PUD. They own all of Turkey Bay. They have considerable frontage. Now the Land Development Code as -- we have provisions that says that every 100 foot linear of the linear waterway, you're entitled to many boat docks within a multi-slip project; however, it's still consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code and -- in that no docks and no dock configurations may protrude over 20 feet. I don't know -- understand how the citizens in 2000 understood there's going to be 60 docks at the Dunes but now in 2008 nobody understands that. And I know where -- I think we all know where this is targeting. In fact, there's even a web site stating what the citizens across Turkey Bay need to do, letters to the editor and come to the board. We all know what this is all about. I know what the end as a result is going to be if we count shoreline conservation easements. It's going to be another challenge in the courts. And it just doesn't seem to end. And the taxpayers is always at risk. Boaters' rights are being depleted by this development and by this amendment. Page 241 April 22-23, 2008 Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just ask a question, and that is, you mentioned the Dunes. And they already have preserve area. There's no conservation easement on it now. With the property as it sits, how many boat docks can they build? MR. LORENZ: Well, my -- the working assumption that I have is that if all of the preserve area contains all of the shoreline with this amendment, and the conservation easement to be recorded does not -- does not prohibit -- or prohibits the water boat docks within that conservation easement, then this amendment would then translate into having no boat docks for the Dunes, if all of those conditions are met. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Even though it's in the PUD? MR. LORENZ: Well, Commissioner, that's what I'm saying. If the -- if the point is the PUD, if you read the PUD and the PUD is allowing for -- is allowing for boat docks specifically, then I think the conservation easement that would then come into the county should allow for that and, therefore, the proposal in terms of the Land Development Code proposal would fit to that level of allowance, so to speak. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So what does the PUD say? MR. LORENZ: Well, that's -- I'm not an expert on the PUD language. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but the lawyer is. MR. SCHMITT: And I'm going to turn it over to Rich. But ma'am, it's not in the PUD. It's an accessory use. They can come in and apply under the SDP process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. Okay. MR. SCHMITT: If, in fact, it is not -- if it meets the criteria in the LDC, if it exceeds the 25 percent protrusion or the 20-foot extension, then they have to go through the boat dock extension process. So it's an accessory use, but their attorney can certainly answer April 22-23, 2008 that as well. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it was always intended that we would follow the county's permitting process to implement that accessory use and now we're being told that -- and, frankly, we intend to submit a conservation easement that specifically says we can use the preserve area for purposes of calculating the number of boat slips. I fully expect that -- and that's what we did with the -- at the state level. The state basically says to you, you use all of this area, you come up with a number of slips. You can never use that area again, and that's what their conservation easement says. We would follow the same process with the county. We would calculate the number. It wi11 far exceed the 60 that was committed to on the record, and we would come in and ask for a multi-slip facility for 60 slips, and then the conservation easement would say we will never be able to use that area again to exceed the 60. That's the way the state does it, that's the way -- we would expect the county's easement to mimic the state's easement. I don't know if we'll get through your staff review of that easement, but that would implement the accessory use provisions of the PUD, which would get -- which would get us around the LDC language, as long as our conservation easement says we can do that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sounds a little bit like Goodland where it had all of the preserves around there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Commissioner, Mr. Klatzkow wanted to say something, Commissioner Coyle wants to say something, Commissioner Halas did. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know if they're allowed to put in the boat slips as we speak. I just don't know. What I will tell you is that if they have the present legal right to put in those boat slips and we take that right away with this LDC amendment, okay, that is Bert Harris and we will be writing a check. Page 243 April 22-23, 2008 Now, I don't know that they have that right, okay. That's to be determined. But if they do, I caution you, not carving out a vested rights exclusion in any LDC amendment would be a hazardous thing to do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I absolutely agree with that. And I'd like to explore some cause-and-effect relationships. And by the way, if I have to choose between Irishmen and manatees, it's going to be Irishmen every time, okay? Now, I've been UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How about Germans? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I like Germans, too. No French. But you know, I'm a boater. I own a boat. And until I became a commissioner I used it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's true. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't use it anymore. It's a bird sanctuary now. But for -- I've been boating in Florida for over 50 years, and so I understand what has happened in our boating industry, but some of the reactions, I think, are incorrect. I think we all view boating as something that we should encourage everyone to engage in and provide opportunities for them to own and dock boats. But I know for an absolute fact there are more boats in Collier County today than there were in 1958. The nature of our boating community has changed. We've lost our working waterfronts. We've lost our working waterfronts not because of government regulation but because of the failure of government to do something to preserve them, okay. So I want to dissuade you from the fact -- from the assumption that government rules have caused the problem we're faced with. Government rules did not force the sale of Boat Haven or Turner Page 244 April 22-23, 2008 Marine or any of the other facilities that we enjoyed in Collier County and that provided facilities for us. Had the government required that some of those boat slips had to be used for public access, we would still have public access on those waters. We don't -- in those areas. We don't have public access there. It's very hard for the average person to get to the water nowadays. So it is not government regulation or this Manatee Protection Plan that has caused problems for boaters. There are more boaters here than we've ever had in history. It's just that it's changed and it's different. It's more expensive, and it's more expensive because private corporations or developers buy up the waterfront because it's valuable and they use it for private purposes, okay. Now, what we're trying to do here is to do three things. Maybe just two. Protect the manatees and Irishmen and to provide public access to the water and the opportunity to have docks or boat storage facilities or something. And this is an irrelevant point, but there is absolutely nothing about the length of waterfront that has anything to do with how many boat slips should be built there. If it's not navigable space, why would you have a boat slip there anyway, but it's an irrelevant point now. But what I'm -- what I'm suggesting here is we have to do something to protect manatee. We have to do something to encourage the retention of waterfront property and boat slips for the public, and we have to respect private property rights, in particular those people who have vested rights to boat docks. So here's what I would propose. I would propose that we go with potential option B which is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, and it would exclude shoreline within county-required preserve areas and state and federal conservation easements which do not allow wet slips within their conservation easements, okay, when calculating the maximum allowable number of wet slips. And then I would add, except where public access is going to be Page 245 Apri122-23,2008 provided, and that should be a conditional use so that we could have the flexibility to permit more boat docks if you provide more public access and you have fewer boat docks if you don't provide more access. And what that does is, it encourages people who buy up this waterfront property to set aside a reasonable portion of those docks or docking facilities for public use rather than converting it all to private. So it gives the opportunity for the entrepreneur to make some decisions that would maximize their gain, their profits, and at the same time serve the interests of the public. So that is my proposal. Had we had such a rule in place before, we would never have lost all of that -- all those docks that we have lost in Collier County through conversions and developments. So that's my proposal for the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd like to ask Commissioner Coyle a question. When you say public, does this mean that Joe Six Pack wi11 have the ability to go into a gated area and use a dock if it's available to them? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ifhe's Irish. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifhe's Irish, okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, look-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that's the purpose of the conditional use. We have to evaluate the ease of access by the public. If a developer is going to buy up this land and say, okay, we're going to have -- we want to build 100 slips and we're going to have 10 of them available for the public and -- but they've got to -- got to go through security and everything to get into our property, well, maybe we won't approve it, okay. But if they say, look, we'll make 50 percent of these available to the public and they'll have direct access to these things, they won't be Page 246 April 22-23, 2008 harassed, they won't make it difficult, then, you know, you'll approve more boat docks under those circumstances because it serves a public purpose. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask, first the County Attorney here. I wasn't sitting on the Board of County Commissioners at the time that this PUD came before the Board of County Commissioners. It is my understanding that when this PUD was addressed for an amendment, that the developer went out and purchased additional land and then was able to move the density off of that land and put it into the uplands. Now this same piece of property is being negotiated for boat docks. Would this be classified as double dipping? MR. KLATZKOW: If at the time the LDC said something about this issue, Commissioner, or the PUD said something about this issue, then yes, but if it was silent as to this issue, okay, then he's just exercising whatever property rights he acquired. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think -- and I don't know this for sure -- but I think that one of the promises they made was that they wanted to increase the density. And so they said that if you'll allow us to strip that of development rights, we will then put that property in perpetuity as a preserve, conservation easement, and that they would take care of it. That was my understanding. But at the time I wasn't as connected as I am today, and that's just one of the reasons -- one of the things that I wanted to ask. The other thing that bothered -- bothers me that when developers came into this community, they bought up a lot of these working marinas. And what bothered me is that I see the outpouring of the marine industry. And when we had a marina that was up for rezoning from commercial to residential, there was nobody there fighting for the 500 boat docks or the 500 storage areas for the people. And all of a Page 247 April 22-23, 2008 sudden now we've got a crisis on our hands. And, of course, when Turner Marine went down, I don't think that there was that much outcry about that because the end result was that we could make -- privatize that and we could sell boat slips. That really took out the working person that likes to boat, and so they lost that opportunity, and then we had Boat Haven we lost. So I'm hoping that if there are any other marinas out there, that we look very carefully at that and that we have the outpouring from the marine industry to jump on board to say, we can't rezone these areas. That's my concern. I have some problems, as I said, that I wanted to know if this was double dipping. And the motion that Commissioner Coyle made, I have some concerns that we're just -- we're only looking at one part of the aspect of this, and that is that we're here to address this particular issue on a particular area of the county which really doesn't have any other effect on other parts of the county because this borders on outstanding Florida waters, this whole area. And that's one of the concerns that I have. I don't believe it's going to affect other areas of the county, as has been brought out here earlier. And I think that's one of the main things that people here are concerned about, is to make sure that we protect this area. We're not saying you can't boat in this area because it's a very pristine area. It's the idea of the proliferation of big, huge marinas, or whatever else that may take place here, if we don't address the issue at hand. And I -- and I didn't think that when we -- this amendment was addressed. It was aired pretty heavily by the Planning Commission. I believe they had three or four hearings on this thing, and I don't believe that there was any intent here of taking anybody's rights away. It was the idea, is to try to protect an area so that we didn't have -- end up with where you could put maybe 60 boat slips in, that you couldn't Page 248 April 22-23, 2008 -- that you were going to end up with 4- or 500 boats in there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you done? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The question to your answer (sic) about outstanding waterways doesn't apply to Manatee Protection Plan. That was stated in the last hearing on this, but -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I wasn't here for the whole hearing, excuse me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it was a direct answer to your question, but if you're still concerned about it, if I can so suggest, make all docks in outstanding waterways non-conforming, and that way you can really get to the issue to clean up the water. But the motion and the second on the floor is no different than the amendment of the Land Development Code. Docks are not conditional use. Multi-docks and marinas are not conditional uses. There is a section in our Land Development Code, 5.06, I believe, 5.03, that spells out how you do that. And the last issue is, can any of the board members show me in the Manatee Protection Plan to where it states that conservation easements will be a part of the calculation? Because I've done word searches, I've visually looked at it from the front to back to the back and front. I can't find it. Okay. So if you want them public docks, I can tell you this amendment will make them public docks, but it's going to cost a hell ofa lot of money. Is there any more discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The -- you know, we can change land development codes and definitions. It can be an accessory use, it can be a conditional use. We can define that however we wish in order to achieve the goals we want to achieve. Let's not let definitions get involved or to complicate the process of reaching a solution. Page 249 Apri122-23,2008 So -- but you deserve an answer to the question about where and why has the staff applied this exclusion for preserve areas. I think the logical answer is essentially this, if it's a preserve area, why do you want to develop it? CHAIRMAN HENNING: That wasn't my question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's what you asked. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I didn't. Not at all. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You asked, where does it say that the staff would use those criteria for determining the number of boat docks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I didn't. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want to read it back? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. Let's read it back. (The court reporter read back the requested statement.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, do you want an answer to your question or not? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I would like not -- not the way you asked it. I asked -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: You ask it then. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I asked in the Manatee Protection Plan where conservation easements on shorelines is applied or is stated. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly what I said earlier. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well. Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: Yes. The -- or no, there is no place in the Manatee Protection Plan or in the Land Development Code that talks about shoreline to exclude shoreline within conservation easements. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait, wait. I haven't finished yet. Then tell me why we've been doing it. MR. LORENZ: That was the discussion we had with staff back in the mid '90s of looking at, well, what do you count as shoreline in Page 250 April 22-23, 2008 terms of generating yield for boat slips when there are conservation easements that would not allow for that to be consider, and that was application through the discussion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it was a rational determination that when something is a preserve or conservation area that it shouldn't be used for calculating development? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. That was at a staff level that was not verified by the -- with the board until we came to the board a year ago. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you've been operating under that assumption or that interpretation for a long, long time? MR. LORENZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. There's a motion on the floor, if! remember correctly, by Commissioner Halas, for item D, allow all shorelines to be used in calculating the maximum allowable number of wet slips pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan. Well, we just got through saying that the Manatee Protection Plan doesn't address this, right? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wasn't it B? COMMISSIONER COYLE: D, not B. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, it was D. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: B. Oh, I was going to say, D's a great idea. Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I just ask a question, and hopefully it can be answered simply. This B, how wi11 it affect people like Kit Sawyer, how wi11 it affect people like the Dunes? CHAIRMAN HENNING: If -- Mr. Lorenz, you could help me out. If Mr. Sawyer is going to build a boat ramp, if the county or nobody else requires him to put a conservation easement over his Page 251 April 22-23, 2008 shoreline, then he can build over what he said, 13 slips, I think he said he was going to build. MR. SAWYER: Thirteen. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thirteen to 15. But if there is a conservation easement, all he can do is build nine. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. The boat ramp -- the boat ramp wouldn't enter into it. But what you -- but what you ended up with is correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. LORENZ: If the conservation easement that he has on his shoreline and that conservation easement is specific and does not allow for wet slips, then the -- then the calculation of number of wet slips would be based upon the shoreline outside of the conservation easement, whatever that number times his rating number is would be the allowable boat slips. And, of course, I don't know the exact number at the moment, but it could have the potential of limiting his number of boat slips below which he would like to propose. But I don't know what his proposal is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion on the motion? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a quick point in elaboration of that. Under my proposal, if he was going to provide access to the public, he would have the opportunity to provide more boat slips, right? MR. LORENZ: As I understand the -- your proposed wording. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, just to make sure we all understand where this is going, this is going to require four votes, as I understand it, for it to pass. If it doesn't pass, the staff has the same language they have before and the same interpretation of that language that they have before unless we tell them to interpret it differently. That's going to take three votes. So either we agree on this language or we're then going to have Page 252 Apri122-23,2008 to debate about whether or not we're going to direct the staff to change their interpretation of the existing Manatee Protection Plan. And if there are not three votes to tell them to change their interpretation, they'll keep interpreting it exactly the same way. Is that not correct? MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you see our choices are this: We can agree on making the modification with an opportunity for conditional use or accessory use, whatever you want to call it, for greater public access, or we reject the staffs proposed changes, and then we've got the problem of how do we change the staffs interpretation of the unchanged Manatee Protection Plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: And, Commissioner Coyle, do we want a vested rights exclusion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely, absolutely. Vested rights have to be protected. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: How do we determine how much public access -- if this motion passes, how are we going to determine the amount of public access, real public access, and not just the access from a gated community? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's why it comes back to us. It comes back to us and we listen to the petition and then people tell us what they're planning to do, how easy it's going to be for the public to get in there, how much of it's going to be available to the public, and then we get to make a rational decision based upon public input. And if it makes sense, then we vote to approve it. If it doesn't make sense, we vote to deny it or we choose some solution somewhere in between. But you see, the reason I suggest doing it that way is, we can't Page 253 April 22-23, 2008 write a rule that governs all those variables, and it gives us the opportunity to hear the petition and make a decision based upon the best interest of the public. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the other part of the equation here is, how do we protect areas that should be protected, or don't we -- aren't we going to take that into consideration? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we're already saying we're excluding areas where conservation easements exist which do not allow wet slips. So if the conservation easement exists there and it doesn't allow wet slips, we're not going to count that at all. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we're not going to count the conservation easements when it comes to -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: If they do not allow wet slips. There are some conservation easements that don't have that specific exclusion. We will have the opportunity to make that decision. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I think, Mr. Schmitt, you need to clarify for the board the process of a marina or a multi-slips, which is nine, or over nine. Does it come to the Board of County Commissioners? MR. SCHMITT: Currently right now -- for the record, Joe Schmitt. Currently under the LDC, it only would come to the -- it only goes to the Planning Commission if it involves a boat dock extension. And for 10 slips or more, then it kicks in the Manatee Protection Plan. It only -- it involves a boat dock extension if it is 25 percent protrusion or greater into the channel width or 20 feet, whichever is greater or less, David? Greater. So it's -- so other than that, if it falls in the criteria under the LDC, then it's an administrative process approved as an accessory use, normally either to -- if it's listed in the PUD as accessory use on residential, or if it's commercial it can be approved through the administrative process. I think is -- that basically answers your question? Page 254 Apri122-23,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. So what Commissioner -- MR. SCHMITT: It's not a conditional use. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not a conditional use, and -- MR. SCHMITT: Unless specified in some form or fashion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you know what, it ought to be in the Land Development Code, and that is not what's on the table today. So just for the record, so we don't get a whole bunch of petitions coming to the Board of Commissioners, we're not changing that process. That has to go through several committees and then ultimately the Board of Commissioners, okay. So we're not going to make the determination whether it is public or semi-public or anything. All right? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't understand, but go ahead. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you said when the application comes through as a conditional use, we would make that determination when we get that application. We don't do that, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Okay. You see, I don't care what term you use to describe it. All I'm suggesting is that if somebody wants to build a wet slip in an area where there are conservation easements, and they want to provide public access, I want them to come before us so that we can make a decision as to how much public access they're going to provide in order to get the number of slips in there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that would be a Land Development Code amendment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, whatever it is. You know, our job is to create the law that achieves the objectives that are in the best interest of the public. I'm not going to let the -- let the semantics and procedures interfere in getting an appropriate solution to this thing. We haven't had a solution to this for a long, long time, and we Page 255 April 22-23, 2008 can leave it like it is now and continue to struggle with it and achieve no results or we can try to do something that makes more sense. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any more discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to -- I just want to make sure I have this straight in my mind. If there's -- how is this going to affect conservation easements again? I just want to make sure I've got this clear in my mind and the audience has it clear. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there are two kinds of conservation easements. There are conservation easements that do not exclude wet slips and there are conservation easements that do exclude wet slips. If they do exclude wet slips, if they say that you can't have wet slips there, then they're not going to be included in the calculation at all, right? Are we straight now so far? Okay. Now, ifthere are preserve areas where wet slips are possible, then we can make exceptions to that if there is public access. Okay? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Got it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so that that's what I'm suggesting. And what that does is it -- it keeps someone from taking the property and using it exclusively for private purposes. It requires public access if they want to build X number of slips, or if they want to build any slips in a required preserve area. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you have explained it several times, and I am going to ask staff one more time. I got some questions I'm going to ask directly to them. Bill, I guess you'd be the person. At this point in time we did have areas out there that have been specifically separated from the rest of Collier County and identified as preserve areas. I mean, that -- where wet slips aren't allowed, if I understand. MR. LORENZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A limited number of places that Page 256 April 22-23, 2008 exist today under present law? MR. LORENZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. LORENZ: There are conservation easements that exist-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. LORENZ: -- that would exclude wet slips. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Ifwe did nothing today, those things would still exist? MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe try to change anything in here, there's nothing in here that addresses changing those areas that are already prohibiting it, that have been part of the Land Development Code since God knows when? That would all stay status quo, would stay where it is. MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're talking about the rest of the lands out there that are preserve lands that do not have this attachment to them saying that they're prohibited from being applied towards using for boat docks. That particular land is the land we're talking about using for the -- to be able to figure out how many docks could go into place, or did I say that? MR. LORENZ: Well, I'm parsing out -- parsing your language here. When you're saying there are preserves, if those preserves through, let's say a PUD amendment process, have excluded use of boat docks, then a consistent conservation easement to go along with that preserve would also exclude boat docks. And so -- and so at that point staff would review it against the proposed conservation easement language against the preserve requirements that are in the PUD. If those -- if the PUD allows for some degree of boat docks -- and I think that was a discussion here with regard to the Dunes -- then a conservation easement could be crafted consistent with the preserve Page 257 April 22-23, 2008 PUD requirements for that particular situation, in which case the wet slip or wet slip calculation would be allowed, and that would be an instrument that would work for the future. I'm not sure if I answered your question. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you did to a point. We're dealing with an element that wasn't originally contemplated in this whole thing, and that's the troubling part. We've had people speak from both sides. I don't know how this particular issue would fit into any of their needs, pro, con, or what, and that's a little troubling. Now, if this is approved here today, this has to be crafted into legalese and then brought back to us one more time? MR. LORENZ: Speaking with Joe Schmitt, that would be certainly staffs intention. I'm looking at the County Attorney also. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: At least one more time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Through an ordinance? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I think we're probably treading on thin ice because you have in front of you an advertised amendment that deals specifically with one portion of the LDC. If you want to expand this, I think we're going to have to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm -- MR. SCHMITT: -- we're going to have to provide what it is, then go back through the advertising process, go through the process, hopefully work with some folks to craft language to come back to you that is acceptable to at least working with the industry and whomever. We can craft something that seems to be -- meet the direction of the board, once we get the direction of the board. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think Commissioner Coyle's onto something. I just can't get my hands around it this quick. If we could have this thing drafted and brought back. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Doesn't bother me. I think the more exposure it gets, the better off we are. Page 258 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're removing your motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. What I would do is revise the motion to provide guidance to staff to bring us back a proposal in an advertised meeting, which includes the issues that we have discussed, and we'll make sure it's properly vetted. I don't have a problem with that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the clarification of your motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would it have to go back through several committees before it came to us or -- I don't know. I'm just trying to get a feel for how this -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. I think it would have to follow a normal LDC process. And I believe -- and what you talked about, we may have to go back and actually look at the section involving boat dock extensions, boat dock and boat dock extensions as well. I'm just trying to put all the pieces together here, so -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't forget that language he was talking about, about the public use. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion on the floor and a second, put this in the LDC amendment cycle -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, okay. Now I haven't done my second yet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I thought I seen your head going up and down. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make sure. Now-- so in other words, now we're not voting on this anymore. Now we're going to -- what I thought was we were going to have them write it up, but now we're going to change it and we're going to go through an LDC cycle as well, or are we going to vote on this and then after we vote on this, go through an LDC cycle? Let me know exactly what Page 259 April 22-23, 2008 we're doing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand -- understood staff to say that they had some concerns that we had gone beyond the subj ect which was advertised for public hearing. If that is true -- and you think it's true? MR. KLATZKOW: I think we need to go through the process, SIr. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- then we ought to go through the process, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we want to go through a Land Development Code change at this point in time, because we have not vetted it completely, and if people are uneasy about how it's going to work or they're confused about how it's going to work, we need to get that clarified, bring it back to the board in a public hearing, and then if we agree upon the principles, then we can get it into the process and get some -- the Land Development Code change. COMMISSIONER FIALA: My problem is, being that this is already written out, this is what you did and you added something to it, which we do all the time in our deliberations, how is that not advertised, the same words? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, I don't -- I don't understand that either but -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the point is, ifthere's the slightest question about it, I would rather err on the side of caution and get it done right. I, quite frankly, don't see a thing wrong with -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's got the same words here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- yeah -- but no, I added something to this, so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, except when public access is provided, but that's the only thing you added. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not like we're going onto a different Page 260 April 22-23, 2008 subject or something. I'm just needing clarification. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we add impaired waterways, that docks and in general are nonconforming? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't want to add it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas brought up about impaired waterways. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's an impaired waterway? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Dirty water. COMMISSIONER COYLE: One that has too many boats on it. No. Okay. I've had enough of this stuff. Let's get it done, and I'm finished. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you say we have to bring it back because this isn't what was advertised? MR. KLATZKOW: I think the prudent thing to do at this time, given the discussion, is to bring this back and probably go through another LDC cycle on this, get it back to the Planning Commission, have the public vet this through before you get it back. I remember what this LDC looked like when we started out, and it's nothing like this looks like now. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make sure that we also protect the surrounding waters, especially if they're outstanding Florida waters. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what I'm suggesting, make those nonconforming docks and impaired waters nonconforming. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So that would then add that to -- okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All docks. Okay. Do you need a vote on that? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let's -- just-- Page 261 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: We sti11 have a motion and a second. MR. MUDD: I heard the motion and it's there, and I got a second, and we haven't had a vote yet. But I also want to say to you that, you know, you're going to start the EAR-based Land Development Code cycle here real soon. Doesn't mean that we can't take this language, get it where it needs to be, vet it through everybody that it needs to be vetted through and add it to that particular cycle, instead of waiting till next year. I think this has been -- I mean, I can remember 2003, okay. I remember -- starting to look like it's almost a bad dream, and we've been going on this thing for now almost five years, and let's get her someplace close and in the relatively near term. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, 2003 was the issue about the four-foot depth. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not the conservation easement. And we directed in 2003 for staff to work with the stakeholders, the original authors of the Manatee Protection Plan. Your staff hasn't done that yet. They failed to do that. So they need to reconvene those meetings and do what the Board of County Commissioners asked them to do, okay. There's your motion on the floor and a second, bring it back through the cycle. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 262 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-1. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was that really the motion, to bring it back? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow said because it's changed so much. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, I thought the motion was this one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, modified. Weare -- we are -- MR. MUDD: Adjourned until tomorrow morning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Adjourn this meeting ti11 tomorrow, Wednesday, at nine p.m. MR. MUDD: Nine a.m. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nine a.m. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that good, nine a.m.? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're recessed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Recessed. MR. MUDD: Recessed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not adjourned. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to go down to the playground. Page 263 April 22-23, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONTINUED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, April 23, 2008 (Day 2) LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning Donna Fiala (absent) Jim Coletta Fred Coyle Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Sue Filson, BCC Executive Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court Page 264 April 22-23, 2008 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a live mike. Item #3A SERVICE AWARDS: 20 YEAR ATTENDEES - PRESENTED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Welcome back to the Board of Commissioners, now the April 23rd meeting of 2008, and we're going to start out with service awards. And the first award is? MR. MUDD: Is to Lynn Evans from fleet management for 20 years working for Collier County. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wonderful. (Applause). CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. It's managing well, right? MS. EVANS: Yes, absolutely. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hi, Lynn. Thank you so much for your servIce. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We get a picture. MS. EVANS: Oh, sorry. MR. OCHS: Congratulations. MS. EVANS: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Thank you very much. MS. EVANS: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #4A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF MAY 4, 2008 Page 265 April 22-23, 2008 THROUGH MAY 10, 2008 AS DRINKING WATER QUALITY WEEK; ACCEPTED BY PAUL MATT AUSCH, WATER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to proclamations your agenda. First proclamation is designating the week of May 4, 2008, through May 10,2008, as Drinking Water Quality Week to be accepted by Paul Mattausch, your Water Department Director. Mr. Mattausch? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Paul. MR. MATTAUSCH: Good morning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Gives me great pleasure to read this proclamation for all the hard work that the water department has there. Oh, here comes the drip. Whereas, the water follows a natural cycle from earth to air to earth again; and, Whereas, water is the basic and essential need of every living creature; and, Whereas, our health and standard of living depend upon an abundant supply of safe drinking water; and, Whereas, the citizens of Collier County should have a safe and dependable supply of water both now and in the future; and, Whereas, we are calling upon each citizen to help protect our water resources from pollution, to practice water conservation, and to be involved in local water issues. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of May 4th through the 10th, 2008, be recognized as Drinking Water Week. Done and ordered this 22nd day of April, 2008, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning, Chair. And Chairman, I proclaim that -- or make a move that we accept Page 266 Apri122-23,2008 this proclamation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas to move the proclamation, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: I need to reset my clock, right? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is it drip or drop? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations. Hi, Drip. Thanks very much. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's drop. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's drop. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Drip or drop. MR. MUDD: Got to get a picture. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you say his name is Bob Drop? MR. DROP: Wayne. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wayne Drop. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wayne Drop. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wayne Drop. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Known as W.D. (Applause.) MR. MATT AUSCH: Commissioners, thank you very much. Paul Mattausch, for the record, Water Department Director, and with me this morning is Wayne Drop. And Wayne -- Wayne, I appreciate you being here with us this morning. Page 267 April 22-23, 2008 It's important that we proclaim water -- Drinking Water Week, and I thank you for that proclamation. I placed in front of you a copy of the 2007 Collier County water quality report. This is the Consumer Confidence Report that will be distributed to all of our customers, and it let's them know what -- what our water quality is. And as you well know, with half of our water being produced with reverse osmosis, it's very high quality water. And I thank you again for your time this morning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, due to extraordinary circumstances, Commissioner Fiala can't be here in the present (sic), but she is telephonically with us, and I make a motion that we include Commissioner Fiala as part of our deliberations today. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Commissioner Fiala? Commissioner Fiala? (No response.) MS. FILSON: That was Sam testing the phone, Chairman. Commissioner Fiala's -- when she comes on, I told her to say hello when she's between flights. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Did we take care of that item, or do we have to do it again? MR. KLATZKOW: We're good. Page 268 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Item #4 B PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 20, 2008 THROUGH APRIL 26, 2008 AS ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS WEEK; ACCEPTED BY SAUNDRA LOCKWOOD, MEMBER OF THE NAPLES CHAPTER OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS (IAAP) - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next proclamation, which is designating April 20th through 26th, 2008, as Administrative Professionals Week, to be accepted by Saundra Lockhart (sic), member of the Naples Chamber ofInternational Association of Administrative Professionals -- excuse me -- Ms. Saundra Lockwood. Ms. Lockwood, if you'd come forward, please. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Whereas, the Administrative Professionals Week and Day was created as an annual opportunity to recognize the valuable contribution of office support staff in businesses and government; and, Whereas, Administrative Professionals Week is always held annually during the last week of the full week in April, Sunday through Saturday, and the Administrative Professionals Day is always helped -- held on Wednesday, that day of the week; and, Whereas, since its inception in 1952, the Administrative Professionals Week has been sponsored solely by International Association of Administration Professionals, IAAP, organization; and, Whereas, Administrative Professionals Week has become one of the largest work observation (sic) celebrations worldwide; and, Whereas, IAAP's objectives for Administrative Professional Week are to educate the public about the administrative professionals' Page 269 Apri122-23,2008 expand the (sic) roles and value to the business world, enhancing professional image, encourage people to consider administrative careers, and to promote life-long earning, certifications, and professional development; and, Whereas, Administrative Professional Week is an excellent time to open lines of communication and an opportunity for further raising awareness of exemplary service provided by office support staff. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners that the week of April 20th through April 26, 2008, be designated as Administrative Professional Week. Commissioners, I make a motion that we move this proclamation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 3-0. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Congratulations. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations, thank you. Item #4C PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL, 2008 AS HARMONY MONTH; ACCEPTED BY RON TIMMERMAN. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF THE PROCLAMATION, THE NATIONAL ANTHEM WILL BE PERFORMED BY THE PARADISE COASTMEN - ADOPTED Page 270 April 22-23, 2008 MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next proclamation is recognizing April, 2008, as Harmony Month, to be accepted by Ron Timmerman. Immediately follow -- this is for the people in the audience. Immediately following the presentation of the proclamation if you would stand, because I believe we have a Barbershop Quartet that's going to sing the National Anthem. Could I have Mr. Ron Timmerman and his group of four, I hope, or five or six, come forward. The Paradise Coastmen. Okay. Front and center. We'll get the presentation done first, and then we'll sing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, Gentlemen. It gives me great pleasure to read this proclamation. Whereas, the Barbershop Harmony Society is dedicated to sustaining and preserving an American tradition of a distinctive style of vocal music, encourages harmony amongst all people of the world through the universal language of music and promotes music education through music scholarships and other means; and, Whereas, the Barbershop Harmony Society is engaged in laudable civic service and enrichment of our cultural life through the fostering of traditional values in entertainment and community endeavors all across America; and, Whereas, the Paradise Coastmen, as members of the Barbershop Harmony Society perform at many civic and social events in the great City of Naples, Florida, and are noted for singing the National Anthem at any event where it is required; and, Whereas, the Paradise Coastmen were honored with a 2006 Stars in the Arts Award from the United Arts Council of Collier County; and, Whereas, the Barbershop Harmony Society is celebrating its 70th anniversary April the 11th, 2008. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that April, 2008, be Page 271 April 22-23, 2008 designated as Harmony Month. Done and ordered this 22nd day of April, 2008, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to move the proclamation, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 3-0. (Applause.) (The National Anthem was sung by the Paradise Coastmen.) (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wow. That was impressive, very . . ImpreSSIVe. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did we get a picture? We haven't got the picture. You can't leave. MS. FILSON: Do they have the proclamation? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. They have to have a picture before they get the proclamation. Here's the proclamation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, good work, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wow, I don't know if we're going to beat that one, huh? Item #4 D Page 272 April 22-23, 2008 PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JAMES A. MCTAGUE FOR HIS CIVIC AND BUSINESS LEADERSHIP IN COLLIER COUNTY; ACCEPTED BY MR. MCTAGUE'S FRIENDS AND HIS DAUGHTERS: JO ATKINSON, SUZY GOLDMAN AND JEANNE MANURI - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next proclamation is recognizing James McTague for his civic and business leadership in Collier County, to be accepted by Mr. McTague's daughter, Joan Atkinson, or excuse me, Jo Atkinson, and Suzy Goldman and Jean Manuri. If you could come forward, please. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As a matter of fact, why don't all the friends of Jim McTague come forward. Come on Ms. (sic) Senior -- Senior, come on up. Everyone. And this is an absolute privilege to be able to read this proclamation. I've known Jim McTague, oh, over 15 years with Catholic Charities. We served together on the board of directors. He's been not only a good friend, but a mentor for all these years, and it's an absolute honor to be able to read this proclamation. Please, right up front here. Good morning. Whereas, James A. McTague demonstrated love and concern for the disadvantaged; and, Whereas, Jim served Catholic Charities for many years as a director of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami, a director of Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Venice, director of Catholic Charities of USA in Washington, D.C., chairman and founding director of the Catholic Charities foundation of the Diocese of Venice, as well as members of the Advisory board Of Catholic Charities of Collier County; and, Whereas, he is steadfast in his faith, a model Catholic and a dedicated husband and father; and, Whereas, he gave generously from his skills as a business Page 273 April 22-23, 2008 entrepreneur and community leader, fundraiser, consultant and mentor; and, Whereas, he was loved, respected and admired by his numerous friends; and, Whereas, he is always positive -- he was always positive and full of good cheers with a special sense of humor; and, Whereas, he was given special recognition by his peers as the Humanitarian of the Year; and, Whereas, it is the desire of the advisory board of Catholic Charities of Collier County to recognize and promote the continuation of these outstanding qualities in our community. And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that James A. McTague be recognized for his civil and business leadership in Collier County in our hopes that his legacy wi11 serve as an inspiration for the citizens of Collier County. Done and ordered this, the 22nd day of April, 2007 (sic), Tom Henning, Chairman, and I make a motion for approval. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-0. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right up front here. Ifwe can have you all face towards the camera for a moment, right along the dais here. Page 274 Apri122-23,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you going to sing? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A little tighter in here. We definitely want you in there, Senior. No, don't hide. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You must be proud. He was a great man. Item #4 E PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF APRIL 27, 2008 THROUGH MAY 3, 2008 AS NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY MARCY KRUMBINE, DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES; SHARON DOWNEY, RSVP PROJECT COORDINATOR; ANNA GALDAMES, 4H EXTENSION AGENT UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IFAS EXTENSION; MARY MARGARET GRUSZKA, VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM; JOANN WANNEMACHER, VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARIES; MERYL RORER, VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR PARKS AND RECREATION; KATHLEEN DREWE, VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR FOR DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES AND VOLUNTEERS FOR COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next proclamation, which is designating the week of April 22, 2008, through May 3, 2008, as National Volunteer Week in Collier County, to be accepted by Marcy Krumbine, director of housing and human services; Sharon Downey, RSVP project coordinator; Anna Galdames, 4-H extension agent/University of Florida, IFAS extension; Mary Margaret Grusaka (sic) -- Page 275 April 22-23, 2008 MS. GRUSZKA: Gruszka. MR. MUDD: Gruszka. Thank you, Mary Margaret -- volunteer coordinator and Collier County Museum; Joan Wannemacher, volunteer coordinator/Collier County Public Libraries; Meryl Roer, volunteer coordinator/parks and recreation; Kathleen Drewe, volunteer coordinator/Domestic Animal Services, and volunteers for Collier County. MS. KRUMBINE: We lost some people. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It gives me great pleasure to read this proclamation. Whereas, April 27, 2008, through April 3, 2008, is designated at National Volunteer Week; and, Whereas, volunteers are an integral part of Collier County; and, Whereas, volunteers have shown that they truly care and they share their generosity; Whereas, volunteers reflect the power to inspire by example; and, Whereas, volunteers both encourage those that help and motivate others to serve; and, Whereas, Collier County offers many opportunities for citizens who wish to volunteer in a variety of different service areas; and, Whereas, Collier County is the proud sponsor of the retired and senior volunteer program; and, Whereas, Collier County utilizes the volunteers in Domestic Animal Services, public libraries, all museums, parks and recreation, veterans services, university extension services through the 4-H and master gardener's programs; and, Whereas, Collier County has 1,489 volunteers who help the county further its mission and concentrate -- and contribute 72,397 -- 72,397 hours of service annually, representing over $1,358,891.60 in savings for Collier County Government; and, Whereas, we wish to honor and to thank the dedicated citizens of Collier County, Florida, who give so freely of their valuable time, Page 276 April 22-23, 2008 energy, and abilities. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of April 27, 2008 through May the 3rd, 2008, be designated as National Volunteer Week in Collier County. And in doing so we call all citizens to help renew and sustain the spirit and vitality of this great nation by committing a portion of their time in addressing the needs of your community through voluntary action. Done and ordered this 22nd day of April, 2008, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we accept this proclamation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to move the proclamation, second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who's going to hold the proclamation? (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, we get a gift, do we? A rubber band. MS. KRUMBINE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, county and deputy managers, it is both an honor and a privilege to accept this proclamation for National Volunteer Week on behalf of the volunteers and departments in which they serve for Collier County Government. Page 277 Apri122-23,2008 The public services division, under the direction of Administrator Marla Ramsey is home to almost 1,500 volunteers working hand in hand with county employees to serve the public and further the mission of Collier County Government. Domestic Animal Service volunteers, under the direction of Kathleen Drewe, provide companionship, care, and attention to shelter animals, while also promoting adoption and responsible pet ownership. Housing and human services hosts the national award-winning Retired Senior and Volunteer Program, RSVP, under the leadership of Sharon Downey, project coordinator. RSVP connects volunteers to over 100 local non-profit organizations throughout the county and also coordinates bone builders program with parks and recreation. The library uses volunteers to keep our bookshelves, assist with programs such as reading to children, sending books out on tape through the elderly outreach program, and so much more under the direction of volunteer coordinator Joanne Wannemacher. Mary Margaret Gruszka, volunteer coordinator for the museum, explains that our volunteers work with the museum library, gift shop, greet museum visitors, and assist with special events. Parks and recreation volunteers with Meryl Rorer as the volunteer coordinator, coach youth sports teams, assist with children's programs, including therapeutic recreation, help out at the skate parks, and help maintain the park community centers and grounds. At the university extension, volunteers serve under the 4-H extension agent, Anna Galdamas, as 4-H leaders, who put the interests and needs of others first in an effort to build and develop new programs for youth. Finally, volunteer drivers transport our veterans to medical appointments locally and throughout the state. Recognizing the value of volunteers and potential of using volunteers throughout the county, housing and human services has Page 278 April 22-23, 2008 worked with all of these volunteer coordinators to create a volunteer program and training manual, which is here, for the entire county to use as a template as a volunteer program, and that is part of your approved 10-year strategic plan. And right now we're working in conjunction with County Attorney's Office and human resources to put the final touches on it and to see how volunteers can be used throughout the county. During this time of significant budget constraint, the position of our volunteers will become even more significant to all of us. Commissioners, thank you for recognizing the importance of our volunteers. And would you join me in recognizing -- they might not be in the audience -- but they're out and about in Collier County. Let's give our volunteers a round of applause. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's well over 200 volunteers at domestic animal control on a regular basis, and I'm really, really impressed with that. That's amazing, besides the other ones. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's great to have people involved in our community. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And with that said, too, we're at a point in our cycle where we could use all the help we could get. If we're going to be able to maintain Domestic Animal Services and the library at a service level acceptable to the public, we're going to need every individual to step up and do his fair share to be able to make it happen. Budget cuts have their ramifications, and ramifications are drops of service. However, with that said, the best form of government is the individual that can step forward and fill the gaps. So please, don't hesitate to come forward. Page 279 April 22-23, 2008 Item #4 F PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2008, AS SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH; ACCEPTED BY MARIA LAROCCO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PROJECT HELP, INC. - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioners, our next proclamation is to recognize April, 2008, as Sexual Assault Awareness Month. To be accepted by Marla (sic) LaRocco, Executive Director of Project HELP, Inc. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Marla. MS. LaROCCO: Maria. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Whereas, sexual assault continues to be a major social crisis in our society; and, Whereas, sexual assault effort -- affects every child and adult in Collier County as a victim/survivor or as a family member, significant other, neighbor, or co-worker of a victim/survivor; and, Whereas, volunteers and service providers in our community are working to provide a continuum of care to sexual assault survivors through 24-hour hot lines, counseling, support groups, advocacy, medical care, and education; and, Whereas, ProjectHELP, Incorporated, seeks to improve service for victim survivors of sexual assault and prevent future sexual assault through public awareness and services for the victim; and, Whereas, the community recognizes the vital importance of designating a time devoted to increasing the general public's awareness and support of agencies providing services to rape victims; and, Whereas, we hold forth a vision of a community free from sexual violence. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Page 280 April 22-23, 2008 Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that April, 2008, be designated as assault -- Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Done and ordered this 22nd day of April, 2008, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning, Chair. Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas to move this proclamation, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries 4-0. MS. LaROCCO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Keep up the good work. Awareness is very important. MS. LaROCCO: I'd like to thank you today for doing something very important within our county, and that's giving survivors of sexual assault a voice. That's something that is very rare these days. It is so important that we continue to increase awareness and that we use moments like today through proclamations, through different events that we're having throughout the month of April, like Denim Day, bringing awareness to survivors and letting them know that they have a voice and that they have power. Today with us we have members from Naples Police Department, from Collier County Sheriffs Office, who every day stand beside survivors and help to give them a voice, to give them their power. And I thank you very much for being part of that. Thank you. Page 281 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #4G PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING MAY, 2008 AS MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH. ACCEPTED BY PETRA JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA. -ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next proclamation is to recognize May, 2008, as Mental Health Awareness month, to be accepted by Petra Jones, Executive Director of the Mental Health Association of Southwest Florida. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for being here today. Whereas, mental health is essential to everyone's overall physical health and emotion well-being; and, Whereas, mental illness will strike one in five adults and children in a given year regardless of age, gender, race, religion, or economic status; and, Whereas, people who have mental illness can recover and lead full, productive lives; and, Whereas, an estimated two-thirds of adults and young people who have mental health disorders are not receiving the help that they need; and, Whereas, the cost of untreated and mistreated mental illness and addictive disorders to American business, government, and families, has grown to $113 billion annually; and, Whereas, community-based services that respond to individuals and family needs are cost effective and beneficial to consumers and the community; and, Whereas, Mental Health Association of Southwest Florida and its Page 282 April 22-23, 2008 national partners observe Mental Health Awareness Month every May to raise awareness and understanding of mental health and illness. And now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that May, 2008, be designated as Mental Health Awareness Month. Done and ordered this, the 22nd day of April, 2008, and signed by Chairman Tom Henning. And I make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to move the proclamation, second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries, 4-0. (Applause.) MS. JONES: Good morning. I would like to thank the commissioners for proclaiming May Mental Health Awareness Month. With me today I have Dorothy Demichele, board chair; Don William, program coordinator; and advocate, Jeffrey Ryan. The Mental Health Association of Southwest Florida has been providing services to the community for over 50 years. We have several advanced plans for May. If anyone is interested and would like to participate, please call our office at 261-5405 to learn more of who we are and what we are doing in the community and what kind of activities we have planned for May. Again, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. (Applause.) Page 283 April 22-23, 2008 Item #4 H PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING MAY 11-17,2008 AS TOURISM WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY JACK WERT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TOURISM DEPARTMENT- ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next proclamation is to recognize May 11 through 17th, 2008 as Tourism Week in Collier County, to be accepted by Jack Wert, Executive Director of the Tourism Department. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wasn't sure if you were going to be here or not. I'm glad you are. MR. WERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Whereas, travel and tourism industry is the largest industry throughout Florida and employs more than a million people and produces more than $6 billion in revenue of taxable sales; and, Whereas, the travel and tourism industry supports the vital interests of Collier County, Florida, and the United States by contributing over 31,000 jobs to the community, economic prosperity, peace and understanding and good will; and, Whereas, 1.4 million visitors contribute nearly $1.4 billion to the economy in Collier County in 2007; and, Whereas, it is in the best interest of the citizens of Collier County to inform them that -- the direct and indirect benefits of tourism; and, Whereas, in light of Collier County's outstanding beaches, golf, shopping, and restaurants, its natural and historical and cultural activities, travel and tourism has become an increasingly important aspect in our lives, of our citizens; and, Whereas, May 11 th through May 17, 2008, has been observed Page 284 April 22-23, 2008 throughout the State of Florida and United States as National Tourism Week; and, Whereas, given the contribution of travel and tourism to the economy, social and cultural well-being of the citizens of Collier County, it is fit -- fitting for -- that we recognize the importance of travel and tourism in our community. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that May 11th through 17th, 2008, be designated as Tourism Week in Collier County. Done in this order, the 22nd day of April, 2008. And I'm going to make a motion to move this proclamation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Keep up the good work. You do an outstanding job for all of us, and I appreciate that. MR. WERT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thanks, Jack. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Take a picture, Jack. MS. FILSON: Turn the proclamation around. MR. MUDD: It's just to prove you're here, Jack. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There wasn't a message to my Page 285 April 22-23, 2008 statement. MR. WERT: None at all, sir. Chairman Henning, Commissioners, Mr. Mudd, and on behalf of the Tourist Development Council, which Commissioner Henning does chair this year, and the over 31,000 people who are employed in the tourism industry, I want to thank you for this proclamation and recognizing the importance of the tourism industry to our community. We will be celebrating this National Tourism Week May the 14th at the Marco Island Marriott. This is our 6th annual tourism awards luncheon, and we'll be recognizing 16 people in the tourism industry who have gone above and beyond to really deliver excellent customer service to our visitors to Collier County. So I invite all of you to attend that. I think that it would be a worthwhile recognition of some people that really work hard for our community. So, again, thank you so much for recognizing the tourism industry for its contribution to our community. Thanks much. (Applause.) Item #4 I PROCLAMATION THANKING THE HONORABLE MARIO DIAZ-BALART FOR HIS EXTRAORDINARY SERVICE TO COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next and last proclamation is thanking the Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart for his extraordinary service to Collier County. And I believe this proclamation is going to be given to the congressman on Friday by Chairman Henning at 11 o'clock at the emergency services center; is that correct, sir? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. I know it's Friday, yes. MR. MUDD: And there's a rumor that he's going to probably give you a large check. Page 286 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Really? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it a birthday present? MR. MUDD: I don't think so, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well-- and it's an honor to read this proclamation. The congressman has been a true friend, not only of this commissioner and all the commissioners here, but Collier County and South Florida in general. And I -- it's an honor to read this proclamation. Whereas, Collier's 25th Congressional District has been effectively and responsibly represented by Mario Diaz-Balart since he was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 2002; and, Whereas, Congressman Diaz- Balart assisted the county in securing $3 million in federal funding to enhance its public safety communication capabilities, design safer transportation alternatives, sustain water infrastructure needs, promote healthcare assistance to uninsured residents, and construct a new recreational center for our youngest citizens; and, Whereas, Congressman Diaz-Balart has been an energetic and enthusiastic contributor, working to ensure that Collier County remains an exceptional place to live, work, and visit; and, Whereas, Congressman Diaz-Balart has been a valued, tireless and dedicated advocate who, on behalf of our community, has continuously represented the needs of our citizens through his service on the House Transportation Infrastructure Science and Technology and Budget Committee; and, Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that the Board of Collier County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, recognizes the Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart, U.S. House of Representatives, and thanks him for his extraordinary service to Collier County. Done and ordered this 22nd day of April, 2008, Tom Henning, Page 287 April 22-23, 2008 Chair. And I make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to move the proclamation, second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Congressman will be in the office Friday afternoon if any members of the public wishes to stop by and say hello. Also at the emergency -- the new emergency service operations center, that would be from 11 :00 to 12:30. Thank you. Item #5A PRESENTATION OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OUTSTANDING MEMBER AWARD TO JOHN F. BARLOW, JR. OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE - PRESENTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the presentation portion of the agenda. The first presentation is a presentation of the Advisory Committee Outstanding Member Award, to John F. Barlow, Jr., of the Collier Government Productivity Committee. John Barlow repeatedly seeks out opportunities to make Collier County the best possible community and he shares passion for the community wherever he goes. Page 288 April 22-23, 2008 With his strong management background and his ability to define issues and offer solutions, John has been an invaluable asset for Collier County Government. John is a dedicated member to both the Affordable Housing Commission and the Productivity Committee where he recently served as chairman. In addition to serving as chairman of the Productivity Committee, he has participated in several of its major subcommittee studies. Examples are impact fees efficiency and effectiveness, the AUIR studies. He has applied his knowledge of computer programs and systems and outreach efforts to the various county government entities urging their progress toward optimum use of total resources. John's friendly and low-key leadership style along with his problem-solving abilities truly make him an outstanding advisory committee member. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present Mr. John Barlow, the Outstanding Advisory Committee Member. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Congratulations. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. MR. BARLOW: Thank you very much for everything you do. MS. FILSON: You're welcome. MR. OCHS: Congratulations, John. MR. MUDD: Congratulations, sir. Item #5B PRESENTATION OF THE WASTE REDUCTION AWARDS PROGRAM (WRAP) A WARD TO THE IVEY HOUSE BED AND BREAKF AST, THE DOUBLETREE GUEST SUITES, THE INN Page 289 April 22-23, 2008 AT PELICAN BAY, AND THEIR COMMON MANAGEMENT COMPANY: GUEST SERVICES, INC. - PRESENTED Commissioners, our next presentation is a presentation of the Waste Reduction Awards Program, WRAP Award, to the Ivey House Bed and Breakfast, the Doubletree Guest Suites, and the Inn at Pelican Bay and their common management company, Guest Services, Inc., and Mr. Dan Rodriguez is going to help us with this, I hope, your Director of Solid Waste. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Director. We're here to recognize the Doubletree group for their excellence in recycling. I have a presentation for you quickly. The school and beverage container recycling challenge grant adopted by the board -- I'm sorry. We've got two. The mandatory non-residential recycling ordinance adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on July 27, 2004, established a Waste Reduction Awards Program called the WRAP A ward, to recognize businesses and institutions for enhanced and innovative recycling programs. The solid waste management's WRAP program is consistent with the guiding principles adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at our workshop on December 5, 2006, environmental and growth management compliance, airspace preservation, operational excellence, and best valued service. Board of County Commissioners were pleased to recognize the Ivey House Bed and Breakfast, the Doubletree Guest Suites, and the Inn of Pelican Bay and their common management company, Guest Services, Inc., for their efforts to contribute for the greater good of all Collier County by going green at all of their properties thereby helping to prolong the useful life of the Collier County Landfill. All three hotels and lodging properties are reducing their solid Page 290 April 22-23, 2008 waste stream through enhanced recycling programs evidenced by placing recycling containers throughout the hotel property to encourage guests to recycle newspapers, cardboard, aluminum cans, and plastic. They promote source reduction by purchasing products in bulk concentrate. They require vendors to take back pallets, non-recyclable boxes, and crates. All three hotels have an excellent training program for all administrative hotel staff and especially for their housekeeping staff to sort, recycle and reduce waste. Guest Services, Inc., managed properties -- manages the properties at Ivey House Bed and Breakfast, the Doubletree Guest Suites, and the Inn at Pelican Bay, were all awarded a green lodging designation by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. These three properties are all outstanding examples of hotel, motel and lodging institutions that are in compliance with the non-residential recycling mandatory ordinance. The WRAP Award program includes a certificate, a trophy, the use of the WRAP logo, and space on our Collier County website to showcase their waste reduction and recycling program; therefore, the solid waste management department, on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, congratulates the Ivey House Bed and Breakfast, the Doubletree Guest Services (sic), the Inn at Pelican Bay, and their common management company, Guest Services, Inc., on their continued efforts to promote waste reduction and recycling. Their recycling leadership is a positive example to the hotel/motel and lodging industry and will have a significant effect on sustaining usable life of our Collier County Landfill. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: If! may present a trophy and a certificate as the Inn of Naples or the Inn at Pelican Bay. MS. FILSON: These are the ones we're going to give for this one. Page 291 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, for this one? I'm sorry, Doubletree Guest Suites. The Ivey House, the Inn of Pelican Bay, and the Guest Services, Incorporated. Maybe if we get a group picture and then individual company picture. Come on in. Now, if we could just have Doubletree to start off with, and then I'm sure you'd enjoy hanging that up in your establishment, especially since Commissioner Coletta's standing in the picture. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sure Commissioner Henning won't scare them away. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations. It means a lot to us. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Appreciate what you're doing. My people from Everglades even wear green. Thank you. Good to see you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for preserving our landfill. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. It's appreciated. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You do some great work. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Appreciate it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thanks for preserving the landfill. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All by yourself. MS. LAMIANE: That's me. Good men behind me. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MS. LAMIANE: Thank you, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Page 292 April 22-23, 2008 MS. LAMIANE: Thank you, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. LAMIANE: Thank you, Commissioner Halas. Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. MS. LAMIANE: Thank you, Crystal. MR. MUDD: Thank you all for your wonderful efforts to help our earth and the community go green. Thank you. (Applause.) MS. LAMIANE: Wonderful. Thank you, County Manager. Thank you, Collier County Commissioners. On behalf of the Doubletree Guest Suites, the Inn at Pelican Bay, the Ivey House Bed and Breakfast, and all of our properties here in Collier County for Guest Services, we are very proud members of the green lodging establishment which was set by Governor Charlie Crist. And first and foremost, Collier County's first lodging was the Ivey House, and the third and forth were the Doubletree and the Inn at Pelican Bay. And I challenge all the other hoteliers and non-residential businesses, step up to the plate. We're all aware of what Earth Day was yesterday. We have all the resources here. Let's protect them, and have a beautiful day. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #5C PRESENTATION OF AWARDS TO THE WINNERS OF THE RECYCLING ART CONTEST; RACHAEL DOTY, PALMETTO RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL; ANGELA VASQUEZ, MANATEE MIDDLE SCHOOL; AND TIFF ANY SHADDEN, CORKSCREW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL-PRESENTED Page 293 April 22-23, 2008 MR. MUDD: Our next presentation is a presentation of awards to the winners of the recycling art contest. Rachel Doty, Palmetto Ridge High School; Angela Vasquez, the Manatee Middle School; and Tiffany Shadden from the Corkscrew Elementary School. Are they all in school or are they all here? MS. COMPTON: They're all in school. MR. RODRIGUEZ: They're all in school. Good morning, Commissioners. Again, your Director of Solid Waste, Dan Rodriguez. The School and Beverage Container Recycling Challenge Grant adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on October 9th of 2007 helps promote a recycling environmental art contest as one of the five elements of the competition. This state-funded grant pays for 2009 calendars featuring the winners of the recycling and environmental art competition to encourage students and staff to enhance the recycling programs. This state grant is consistent with the guiding principles adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at the 2005/2006 workshop that includes environmental growth management compliance, airspace preservation, operational excellence, and best value service. The Board of County Commissioners -- on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, we are pleased to host today Keep Collier Beautiful unveiling of the top three 2008 recycling art contest winners by school level. High school winner, Rachel Doty, 12th grade, Palmetto Ridge High School; teacher, Barbara Mundy. There we go. The one at the top. Middle school winner, Angela Vasquez, 7th grade, Manatee Middle School, teacher, Rosalind Donovan; and then elementary school, Tiffany Shadden, 2nd grade, Corkscrew Elementary, teacher, Gloria Topczynski. The students are outstanding examples of Collier County school and Collier -- and county recycling promotion programs. The Page 294 April 22-23, 2008 recycling environmental art winners will be featured by 12th to 1 st grade level on each of the 12 months of the 2009 calendar to showcase their artwork and remind students, faculty, and the community of enhance recycling efforts. Therefore, the Solid Waste Management Department on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners congratulates contest of winner (sic), Rachel Doty, Angela Vasquez, and Tiffany Shadden and their teachers, on winning the recycling, environmental art contest. These students and their teachers, art creations and recycling leadership, is an inspiration to students, staff, and our community. (Applause.) MS. COMPTON: These are the winners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, wow. How special. MS. COMPTON: And they'll all go into this year's calendar. This wi11 be the cover, and these two will be one on each month. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's great. It sure is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did Commissioner Henning submit a drawing? MS. COMPTON: Grades 1 through 12 only. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would apply to Commissioner Coletta. MS. COMPTON: Thank you for this recognition. My name's Cher Compton, and I'm the executive director of Keep Collier Beautiful. This artwork and several other pieces are going to be going into our 11 th annual calendar that we put out. This calendar is done with close cooperation with the Solid Waste Management Department of Collier County as well as local businesses. We're really proud of the artwork that the kids have put forth this year. We especially asked them to target recycling, and they came through for us. They've made a great effort. We had a little more than 30 entries, as we usually do. And as I said, we're very proud of what Page 295 April 22-23, 2008 the kids have produced, and I want to thank you for this special recognition on their behalf. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. COMPTON: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #5D AN UPDATE BY P AUL MATT AUSCH, WATER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, ON THE RETURN TO SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT-IMPOSED PHASE II WATER-USE RESTRICTIONS EFFECTIVE APRIL 18, 2008 - PRESENTED MR. MUDD: Commissioners, our next presentation is an update by Paul Mattausch, water department director, on the return to the South Florida Water Management District imposed Phase 2 water use restrictions, effective April 18, 2008. We thought it would be a good way to try to get this out, because we went from phase -- we went from Phase 2 to 3, and now we're back to 2 again, so that Paul can at least get the mandatory days out to the community. MR. MATT AUSCH: Good morning, again, Commissioners. Again, for the record, Paul Mattausch, Water Department Director. I had to send Wayne back to work providing drinking water for our people, so Mr. Drop will not be with us. I'd like to just briefly talk about the return to Phase 2 water use restrictions. That -- and I'd like to real quickly cover the schedule, the education and outreach that we're doing and the enforcement that will take place. On April 10th, the governing board of South Florida Water Management District issued a new executive order that essentially rescinded the Phase 3 restrictions and placed us back on Phase 2 Page 296 April 22-23, 2008 restrictions effective April 18th, and what it does is allows for irrigation on two days a week, as we were prior to January 15th of this year. And those days, in case anybody has any questions, landscape irrigation will be permitted two days a week; no more than two days a week. Irrigation is allowed -- and this is a change in hours, and I want to make sure that everybody is clear on this change in hours. Irrigation is allowed between 12:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., and between 4:00 p.m. and 11 :59 p.m. on that irrigation day. So it's and/or. People can water during either of those time frames. And essentially what this says is, people cannot water, nobody should be watering from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. during the hottest time of day during that period when we have the most evaporation taking place. So it does change the hours. Odd addresses, those addresses ending in one, three, five, seven and nine, can water on Wednesdays and/or Saturday. And obviously if we're getting rain, people don't need to water two days a week. They can water only one, or if we have plenty of rain, they don't need to water at all. This is an and/or situation. Even addresses, those ending in zero, two, four, six, and eight -- and this also includes those places where irrigation systems cover odd and even addresses. In some homeowners association, condos, multifamily kind of situations, we have irrigation systems that run in both odd and even addresses, so that happens on both Thursday and Saturday (sic), as well as in our rights of ways. So that irrigation will take place on those two days, Thursdays and Sundays. Again, odd addresses on Wednesdays and Saturdays; even addresses on Thursdays and Sundays. Irrigation with surface and groundwater sources is restricted. That means all water resources. If you're watering from private wells or watering from canals or lakes, that is restricted as well. Hand watering of stressed plants because we know that certain Page 297 April 22-23, 2008 plants take a little bit more water, with a single hose with an automatic shutoff nozzle is allowed for 10 minutes per day on any day. So if you have those impatiens that need a little more water, those can be watered for 10 minutes with a hose any day that they need a little bit more water. Vehicle washing is not restricted. Best conservation practices should be used. Boat washing should be limited to 15 minutes if the boat has been in saltwater. Pressure washing is allowed anytime, just as it was under Phase 3 but, again, you know, you want to use best conservation management, and voluntary conservation is encouraged. And we will be -- we will be making sure that this gets out by all of the outlets that we have within our capacity. South Florida Water Management District will be helping us. We work jointly with them. We'll get this out and -- in the media and utility bills and public meetings and forums just like this. And it will also be posted in several places on the Colliergov.net website. Enforcement April 18th through 30th, we're going through another period of notice. We're allowing people some time to get their irrigation systems readjusted, and we will begin enforcing on May 1 st. But we've got a lot of people out there that will help -- be helping us get this message out. And May 1 st we'll begin to issue citations. And I'd be glad to answer any questions about this return from Phase 3 to Phase 2 that you may have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I wonder how good this enforcement is going to be. I felt that the enforcement in the third phase was weak at best. There was a number of communities, I think, that were watering. In fact, some people were trying to circumvent the watering laws by watering at one o'clock in the morning, two o'clock in the morning, and the streets would be wet, then -- and they weren't on reclaimed water. This was all potable water. So I'm Page 298 April 22-23, 2008 wondering how we're going to enforce it. MR. MATTAUSCH: I appreciate that, and I'm well aware. You and I had communication regarding that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. MR. MATTAUSCH: We tried enforcement as best we could. We had people out at that time. We can't -- we can't cover the entire service area, but we certainly -- and I just want to compare us to some of the other utilities and locations. Collier County has done an extremely good job overall in enforcing. In fact, as part of the Phase 3 restrictions, we had to report that enforcement to South Florida Water Management District. And by far, Commissioner, we were -- we were well out in front on enforcement, number of citations issued, number of notice of violations issued, well out in front of other utilities in the lower west coast planning region. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Paul Mattausch goes out personally; is that correct? MR. MATTAUSCH: On occasion, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I hear that Mr. DeLony does, too. MR. MATTAUSCH: We all do, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. The -- I have a question, Mr. DeLony. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, go ahead. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How much will this lower the ratepayers' water bill? MR. DeLONY: I'm going to have Tom Wides come up and speak to that directly, sir. We're prepared to answer that question. Tom? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. WIDES: Commissioners, good morning. For the record, Tom Wides, the Director of Operations for Public Utilities. Page 299 April 22-23, 2008 As you can see on the attached chart here, when we were in Phase 3, we had a 30 percent surcharge for certain structures of our -- of our water bill rates. With the inception of this reduced restriction, that surcharge will fall to 15 percent. Commissioner -- and I will get to your question. The surcharge is applied to -- for single-family and multifamily accounts. It is a charge to the consumption greater than the second block, which is basically at 10,000 gallons a month. So anyone who uses water less than 10,000 a month, there's basically no impact to their water bill. Folks that use greater than 10,000 a month, they will see a reduced surcharge, which will probably account for about a dollar and a half per water bill. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MR. WIDES: But again, that's for the upper levels of the usage. We also find, if I may, about the average use in the county about 8,000 gallons in the household. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Paul, I think this question would be for you. Is the reason for these restrictions, is it due to a lack of the resource or the lack of ability to be able to supply the resource, sir? MR. MATTAUSCH: For Collier County, it is neither, okay. We have resources available, and we also have sufficient capacity to provide water for our customers. This is the first time that South Florida Water Management District has begun to recognize that restrictions need to be on a case-by-case, basin-by-basin look at the resources available. In the lower west coast planning area, of which Collier County is part of, our resources have been sufficient throughout this drought to be able to provide water. It essentially has been an east coast problem related to Lake Okeechobee, and a lot of the east coast gets their water supply from Page 300 April 22-23, 2008 Lake Okeechobee. And so we not only had the resources available, but thanks to the foresight of this Board of County Commissioners and the support of public utilities and the water department specifically, we have sufficient capacity as well, Commissioner, to meet the needs of our customers. I hope I answered your question. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The reserves within the ground that you draw from haven't really fluctuated that much in the past year? MR. MATTAUSCH: Actually -- actually no. We -- and that's really what I was kind of beating around the bush on without coming -- without being forthright on saying. Our water resources were not sufficiently, or have not been sufficiently impacted by the drought. When this board in April of 2002, went to three-day-a-week restrictions, essentially placing us on Phase 1, the equivalent of Phase 1 restrictions, we saw that our water resources in this basin stabilized. And, in fact, today we are slightly above -- even though we are still in drought, our water resources, the level of water in our aquifers is slightly above where we found ourselves last year and the year before. And, in fact, if you want to go back to the drought of2000/2001, we are significantly above that water level that we were at back then in that drought. And the reason why is because of our wise use of resources, placing ourselves on Phase 1 restrictions, three-day-a-week irrigation, and properly utilizing the resource. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Paul. Good work. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, thank you. You do a wonderful job on conservation of our water. Appreciate it. MR. MATT AUSCH: Thank you, sir. Page 301 April 22-23, 2008 Item #9D THE COUNTY ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH JEFFREY A. KLA TZKOW AND AUTHORIZES THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SAME - APPROVED W /CHANGE TO TERM OF CONTRACT FROM 4 YEARS TO 3 YEARS MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to -- back to the Board of County Commissioners section, which is paragraph 9. And I believe we're on 9D, which is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the County Attorney employment agreement with Jeffrey A. Klatzkow and authorize the chairman to execute same. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, I put this on the agenda per the board's direction. Previously board members have stated that they would like the County Manager's contract and the County Attorney's contract similar. That was our goal. Met with Sue Filson and Andrea Sims. We went over the contact (sic) -- contact with Mr. Klatzkow, provided some changes. Those changes were accepted. The salary was based upon coastal communities in Southwest Florida. So it is what it is. And I'll entertain any questions or comments. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I have no problem with the salary. I think it's a fair amount for a County Attorney to get paid. The only thing I question is the length of the contract, and I'd like to bring that up for discussion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Four years; I believe that's what we've got it set up for. Is that it, four? Wouldn't it be more practical to ease into this a little bit with one year, recognized like a probationary period, and then from there continue it with additional three years? And that's purely a suggestion, and I'd like to hear the Page 302 April 22-23, 2008 opinion of my fellow commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's not a good idea to do that. Essentially, you're not really making a commitment to a County Attorney and you're merely encouraging that person to look for another position during that period because they have no idea what's going to happen. I think the contract as it's written is good. I think giving a four-year term is good. We all -- we have the opportunity to terminate it at any time. So I don't see the need for any transition period here. We will be evaluating the County Attorney's performance. And if we decide that we need to make a change, we can terminate it at any point in time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some -- probably some of the same concerns that Commissioner Coletta brought up. I was looking at a contract of two years to see what the deliverables were going to be in that office of the County Attorney. I also have some concerns about -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where we at? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The merit raise. Well, this would be page 4 of page 9. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Page 4? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Under item B. I think that we should treat the County Attorney as far as pay raises the same as any other employee. We have in here that -- a 10 percent maximum, but I think that since most of our employees for the last couple of years have been at a lot lower rate, whatever the rate of the other employees are, I believe that the executive branch is no better than the rest of the employees. So I feel the pay raises, that -- that's where I think they should be. Page 303 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we address each? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not done yet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know, but can we address each issue? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. This is the same that was -- that's in the County Manager's contract. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the County Manager, if! recall, he just takes a lump sum. He doesn't put something in his base salary . CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I have concerns here that we are -- every year that we'll end up with a 10 percent merit raise, and the employees end up with either cost of living or nothing. So I have some concerns on that portion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you'd want to change that to lump sum instead of merit? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I'm saying that it could either be -- it's his prerogative if wants to take a lump sum, but I don't believe that it should be as high as 10 percent. I believe in the corporate world that pay raises of this magnitude are no longer acceptable. And if you're asking the employees to relinquish pay raises, then I believe that we should, as stewards of taxpayers' money, make sure that the executive -- executives of this county also adhere to the same rules. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So -- Mr. Klatzkow wants to say something, Commissioner Coyle wants to say something, so does Commissioner Coletta. MR. KLATZKOW: I am comfortable taking the last paragraph of 7B out. The only reason it's in there is because I used Mr. Mudd's contract. Mr. Mudd has always waived that portion. I was going to waive it anyway. So I don't mind if it's deleted. Page 304 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other -- on page 6 of page 9 under C, where it says that term life insurance of employees shall be provided a level of three times the employee's annual base salary. I believe that the rest of the employees are on a -- are on two times base salary. And I feel that, again, we should adhere to the same as we expect our employees. MR. KLATZKOW: But my understanding is all contract employees are on three. I'm just asking to be -- County Attorney's Office be treated the same way. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's my concerns. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we're going to amend section 7, paragraph B, by taking out the last sentence. COMMISSIONER HALAS: By taking out the -- where he's entitled of a maximum of 10 percent. It's whatever the percentage is that we give our -- the remaining -- the rest of our employees here in the county. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, why not be fair to all contract employees? If we're going to do that for one, then we should do it for all. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. And when those contracts come up, I think that's where we need to go on this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're saying -- now, it was -- Mr. Klatzkow said he'd take out the last sentence, but that isn't it what you mean. You want to leave the last sentence and the merit to be, not to exceed whatever the rest of the employees get? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that would be -- well, the merit is based upon -- County Manager, if you can help me out. You do that for the employees. Merit is like a bonus each year; is that correct? Page 305 April 22-23, 2008 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And right now, in the plat -- in the last year or so we've made it a non-reoccurring issue. It doesn't get put into employee's checks, and it has to do with where we are with some of the legislative implications to our budget process. This year in the budget guidance that you -- that you presented -- that I presented to you, there is no bonus merit this year. It's zero. And when I bring my stuff forward at the end of the year, it will be zero for me, and that's my recommendation. Not only will it not get put into my salary, but I'm going to recommend that I get zero, just like the rest of the employees do. That's what the board -- that's what the board put down in their -- in their guidance, that's what you approved, and that was my recommendation to you, and that's just to get us over where we are right now with amendment one and some other things that were passed. MR. KLATZKOW: And I'd be happy to go along with whatever the County Manager does. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we want to change that, such annual performance base merit would be the same as county employees? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that would be the change to this contract. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the other item that I brought up for discussion, it was similar to what Commissioner Coletta brought up, is that I believe we ought to start in the contract with two years to see what the deliverables are in this department. And then at the end of two years, we can then say, hey, we're going to extend the contract for four years, and I have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow? Page 306 April 22-23, 2008 MR. KLATZKOW: I don't really have a problem with two years, frankly. What I will say that -- what that means on the terms of this contract is that approximately a year after this board reconvenes after this summer recess, we will be reviewing this contract. I don't know that I'm going to have enough time to do what I need -- what I think I need to do with this office then. So I could do that in three years. I'm not entirely -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Three years? MR. KLATZKOW: Three years. I'm not entirely sure that I can do it in two. Because it's really not two years. It's really a year and a half then. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Three years? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that okay, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And when it came to the time period, I was concerned, and maybe somebody could clarify how this all works. Whatever the time is, whether it be a year, two years, three years, or four years, at that point in time, Mr. Klatzkow would be locked in on a contract. The only way he could leave would be -- ifhe left at that point in time, what would be the penalties to him? I know what it is on the other end. Then I have additional questions. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I lose-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Suppose you left for whatever season. MR. KLA TZKOW: If! just left, and no employer's going to hire me knowing I would leave high and dry my current employer. But if I just left, I would lose whatever I would have accrued as far as universal leave and what have you. It would -- at this point in time I believe this contract contains 360 hours of universal leave as a maximum that gets paid out upon my leaving. I lose that. It's just gone. Page 307 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Now the other way around, if the commission decided to let you go for whatever reasons, possibly at a review at the end of a cycle or -- well, I mean, if it was at the end of your contract, that wouldn't be a problem, if it was at the three-year review. But we would have to -- we'd be obligated under this contract anytime during that three-year period, I believe that's the way we're going right now, to pay you a year's salary? MR. KLATZKOW: Six months. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Six months. MR. KLATZKOW: What I have is that -- and I took this from the County Manager's contract. Up until my vesting period, which is this July 15th, it would be a year. After July 15th it's six months. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: After July 15th would be six months? MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah. For whatever reason you have or for no reason at all you can terminate -- you can terminate me on six months severance. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we could also terminate you but have you stay the six months, or would he still be obligated to stay the six months? MR. KLATZKOW: I have to tell you, sir, if you decide to terminate me, I would not hang around for six months. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain -- Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think these suggestions are good. I think they provide some complications. We have other contract employees, and we're not going to be able to make the changes to all those contract employee agreements at the same time. The point is that the changes that we're talking about are already Page 308 April 22-23, 2008 changes we can make at any point in time. As an example, it says a maximum of 10 percent. It doesn't say we have to give 10 percent or 7 percent or 8 percent or even 3 percent. It says a maximum of 10. So we're in control of what we want to do. Ifwe make a decision that because the other employees are not getting salary increases, that we shouldn't give salary increases to contract employees, then we should tell all contract employees that. But we have to be careful that we don't get into a situation where we tell the County Attorney that he's not going to get an increase, but we give an increase to one or more of our other contract employees. But you see, we can control that. When it comes up -- time to decide on the increase, we just have to say, hey, other people are not getting increases except us, okay. We're the only ones who will get an increase. Now, I have a problem with that. I really do, and I think we need to take a look at what our options are for supporting the examples that are being established by these two contract employees. I don't know what our options are, quite frankly. But in any event I think it's something we need to do. We need to treat these things consistently. And I don't -- I guess I do not agree that we should take one contract employee and write that contract differently than our other contract employees. I do believe that in our deliberations to determine what the salary increase might be or the bonus, we have the right and probably the obligation to say, since our employees are not getting any increases, our contract employees are not going to get any increases, and the Board of County Commissioners are not going to get any increases. I think that's the proper way to deal with this thing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, you bring up a very good point, is, by leaving it in there, it gives the board flexibility -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: --- to do, because it could be -- it could be zero, it could be 9.98 percent. It just gives us some latitude Page 309 April 22-23, 2008 instead of boxing us in. Commissioner Halas, would that be acceptable to you? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I've had some concerns over the last couple of years when we go through the performance review of contract employees that report directly to us. In the past, the County Attorney, I believe, was getting, I think, outrageous sums of money because it was ranging anywhere from 7 to 8 percent, and I don't believe that there are many areas of even industry that give those type of merit raises anymore. And so I have some concerns about where we're going. And I know that other contract employees that have answered to us, that when we've discussed merit raises, I felt that they were kind of out of the ballpark compared to what's going on in the general economy with people other than Fortune 500 CEOs that seem to get a huge amount of raises and also golden parachutes, and I don't believe that that's the way this county should be run. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would agree with Commissioner Halas in that respect. The reason that these things happened in the past -- and we had a discussion about it last time, and I expressed my displeasure with the way we did it. And Commissioner Coletta said, you know, well, if there's a better way, let's -- you know, let's talk about it, and I think everybody's willing to talk about that and resolve it. In the past what generally happened was we would take the relative score of the evaluation and apply that against the 10 percent range, and then whatever that yielded became the increase. I think we're in a different environment, and I think we do need to establish a more effective way to deal with that, and -- at least for this year, it's very simple. You know, County Manager's not going to get an increase, he's not giving his people any increases, County Attorney has said he's not going to take an increase. Page 310 April 22-23, 2008 I think it's simple. We've already solved that problem. We know it's not going to be 10 percent this year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You bring up a good 'point. And if! may, there's a little bit to this that enters into it that might change Commissioner Halas's thought on this. The contract's going to run most likely for three years, it might be four years. We haven't actually determined that. Why do we want to put something in there that's going to make sure for that whole period of time there's going to be no increases of pay? I mean, that's not realistic. We might have to adjust this thing as we get out there the second or the third year or else we might box ourselves in to a position that will force the County Attorney to have to go at the end of the contract to another position. So at this point in time, do I think that we can say no? I believe we can. I think we just set the mood for it right now. So I think Commissioner Coyle's right on this. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it achieves Commissioner Halas's goal is the point. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think it's best to do it that way. I mean, trying to write it into a contract, only one contract at this point in time, creates some complications. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. What's taken place before has been basically a mindset that if it's 10 percent, that we're going to try to achieve as high as possible to the 10 percent category in merit raises, and I have a problem with that kind of thinking. So I'm hoping that this discussion has been beneficial so that all of us understand that we have to tighten the belt and that merit raises that were given out in the past, that's not going to happen from -- Page 311 April 22-23, 2008 whether the economy gets good or bad, that we're not going to continue to give the gift that's continually giving here at such high rates as 10 percent merit raises. I think normally in the corporate environment, they look at merit raises somewhere around 4 to 7 percent, and 7 percent would be somebody that has an outstanding performance review. And so I think that maybe 10 percent is too much, and maybe we ought to look at all the contracts and say that it -- the limit is not going to be 10 percent or 15 percent, whatever's been written in those contracts, and get more in line with what's going on out in the real world, somewhere between 4 and 7 percent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner, I think that you stated your position very well, and we agree with that. I think we all have stated that we agree with you. And during the evaluation, I can tell you that I'm going to make sure that I hold your comments at that time because we're in a place, like you said, that has changed from the years past. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I was going to say, I think we've worked that issue to death. The only thing that was left is the issue of how long the contract runs. Three years? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Three years. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're all in agreement on that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion that we approve the contract with the one change being the three years; four years to three years. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta to approve the contract as amended. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'll second the motion for discussion purposes. Page 312 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second on the motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta -- Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: First time I did that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Where's the sign? Where's the sign? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Somebody took it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's in the trash. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would ask after this motion that we, as a commission, direct the County Attorney to investigate how the Collier County Commissioners can refuse a salary increase for this year, or can we have that salary increase directed into some other area? CHAIRMAN HENNING: After we vote on it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because it's just guidance to the County Attorney to look into the issue to see if it's even possible. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, so the public understands, we don't set our salary. It comes from the state, and it's based on a formula they use up there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Population. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so we don't have control of it. We don't know what they're going to do with it. They might eliminate it entirely the way they're going. But I think that if -- if the County Manager and the County Attorney are not getting increases and our employees are not getting increases, we shouldn't be entitled to increases either. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We might end up getting a decrease. I think it's based on population. So if -- population, I think, Page 313 April 22-23, 2008 has been leaving the state's area, so we might get a decrease. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, in that case-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I understand. I just heard this morning that they have attached a rider to the clerk bill saying that all elected officials' salaries would be cut in half, including constitutional officers. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's good, that's good. I love it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any more discussion on this motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Mr. Klatzkow, you're okay? Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-0. MR. KLATZKOW: I'd just like to thank the board. This is an honor and a privilege being your County Attorney, and I hope to be here through the remainder of my working life and be known as the best County Attorney this county ever had. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the best office, thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm counting on it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's take a 10-minute break for the court reporter. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we just do that guidance to the County Attorney? Page 314 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we just did. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We want to -- the board wants to-- MR. KLATZKOW: I've got it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- ask the County Attorney to look into Commissioner Coyle's salary. Was that it? No, the board's salary. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're on a lO-minute break. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. (A brief recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item? MS. FILSON: Oh, Mr. Chairman, also I received a message from Commissioner Fiala. It was too busy in the airport so that's why she didn't call in. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How can you get busy in an airport? MS. FILSON: Too noisy, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, noisy. MR. MUDD: It can be too busy, sir, if everything quits flying and you're stuck there with all the other hundreds and thousands of people that are looking to try to get out. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's why it's noisy. MR. MUDD: Been there, done that. Item #9E TO FILL A VACANT POSITION IN THE BOARD'S OFFICE AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE CURRENT COUNTY POLICY TO NOT FILL OPEN OR VACATED GENERAL FUND POSITIONS - Page 315 April 22-23, 2008 APPROVED The next item is 9E, and that is a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve filling a vacant position in the board's office an as exception to the current county policy to not fill open or vacated general fund positions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries, 3-0. Item #10A RESOLUTION 2008-121: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE COLLIER COUNTY HUD ONE YEAR ACTION PLAN FOR FY 2008 - 2009 FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME), AMERICAN DREAM DOWN-PAYMENT INITIATIVE (ADD I) AND EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) PROGRAMS AND AUTHORIZE TRANSMITTAL TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 10A. This is a recommendation that this board approve a resolution adopting the Collier County HUD one-year action plan for FY-2008 through 2009 Page 316 April 22-23, 2008 for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships, (HOME), American Dream Downpayment Initiative, (ADDI), and Emergency Shelter Grant, ESG, programs and authorize transmittal to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Ms. Marcy Krumbine, director of -- your Director of Housing and Human Services, will present. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. MS. FILSON: I have speakers. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give it a second for discussion purposes, because there's some speakers that want to address a couple of issues. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They want to talk us out of it? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. FILSON: I have three speakers, Mr. Chairman. The first is Carol Yates. These speakers were from yesterday. Carol? MS. YATES: You want me to come now? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, ma'am. MS. FILSON: Yes. She'll be followed by Steve Hart. Yeah, right up to the podium right there. MS. YATES: I didn't know I was going to be first. Good mornmg. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. MS . YATES: I had an opportunity to watch you all yesterday. It was quite fascinating. I don't get that opportunity very often, so -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, you poor thing. MS. YATES: I'm a Realtor in Naples, Florida. I've been here for 15 years. And for the most part I worked in the affordable housing arena. Marcy and I have worked together. I was a volunteer Page 3 17 April 22-23, 2008 instructor with her classes for seven or eight years. So this has been a real important issue to us, and is also now a very important issue to NABOR. They haven't always been on board, but they are now. We have an opportunity now to put some distribution of affordable housing out into the community that we haven't had in probably five years at least. We had nothing affordable given the guidelines for the SHIP funds and the consortium. And so I'm really excited that we might be able to make a program work that I think John Barlow's going to speak to you about in a few minutes. There are a lot of foreclosures going on, as you're aware, a lot of short sales that are trying to happen which, if they don't happen, will end up in the foreclosure arena. I pulled up some figures a couple days ago. In the Naples MLS system, we have 148 active listings for single-family homes under $150,000, and a majority of those are short sales. We have 377 active condo listings for villas under $150,000. That's inventory that we have not seen in a very long time. Now, I'm aware that the Sheriffs Department also has some issues with foreclosures in abandoned homes out in the Estates and Golden Gate City and some other locations, and this program that we're talking about would allow for some of these homes to be occupied and, therefore, not a problem with vandalism and squatters. So there are just so many aspects of this, I could go on and on, and I'm sure my three minutes are about up. Anyway, I urge you to listen to Mr. Barlow. He's got some really good information, and certainly excitement for the first time in a long time. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Steve Hart. He'll be followed by John Barlow. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What a novel idea. You're saying to try to capture the vacant homes now, and rehabbing them. MS. YATES: Rehab. MR. HART: Correct. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name Page 3 18 April 22-23, 2008 is Steve Hart with the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce, senior vice-president for public policy. And if I could, perhaps, I could yield my time to Mr. Barlow to explain this further, and I'll come back up after he's done and finish up. Would that be -- would that be allowable with you? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you yielding or just loaning some time? MR. HART: Loaning some time to Mr. Barlow. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Barlow? MR. BARLOW: I probably don't need all this long time. But after watching yesterday, I got quite an education. It was great. Amazing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wish I shared your thoughts. MR. BARLOW: As Carol just mentioned, there is a unique opportunity right now because of a situation where many of our fellow Collier citizens and former citizens are sharing pain relative to the deterioration of our marketplace here, but it's created -- on the flip side of that, every time there's a problem, there's an opportunity -- created an opportunity to link these houses with people who've become income qualified. And this phenomena has happened relatively fast. We've had a lot of print put in the newspapers about affordable housing for years, but we've never been able to solve it in any meaningful way. Now, what the proposal is that we would like to accomplish is make an application for CDBG funding on this cycle, which, as to why we're here, it requires an amendment to the action plan that you're referring to. I asked Marcy to go back and see if additional reprogram funds are available to fund this initiative so we can actually go out with the homeowner and purchase a home, and if necessary, refurbish that home. They'd have to be income qualified. And they'd move them into that home, and once we go to the mortgage company and get a Page 319 April 22-23, 2008 secure mortgage, the money comes in, and we're able to continue to roll this, keeping the houses affordable and keep it in a decent living. We're not sure how long this window of opportunity will exist. As I read the newspaper, just like you do, some people say it's turning now, some people will say it's turning next year, and there are others that say it turns several years from now. I don't know, but I know right now, regardless of when it does turn, the time is to put the engine in place to make sure this thing can work in the future for us so we just don't have to depend on going out and building new homes, and then we've got all of the problems with where they're concentrated, impact deferral fees, cost of labor, and a developer usually will spend his time in 4-,5-, $600,000 homes rather than building $150,000 homes. So I think this is an opportunity. In business I'd call it a nest on the ground for us to act. And I think if we can get the commission's charge to Marcy to go back and take a look at the amendment of it -- of this plan and see if we can come up with funding for it -- and had this happened yesterday, I was -- I brought the Naples Daily News editorial, which some of us agree with sometimes and some of us don't. But yesterday -- and I thought I timed this pretty good but I had nothing to do with it -- it said, whether used for hurricane proofing or mortgage programs, that money could be used, good money -- this is federal and state money -- intended for the use right now. This is no time to pull back. This is the time to accelerate. And what I'm suggesting, this is the time to put in place a new tool to put in our toolbox that we can extend in future years as things get better. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Barlow? MR. BARLOW: Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Don't go away. Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Halas has questions for you. Page 320 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Obviously you received the award earlier today for very good reason. I appreciate your forethought on this issue. I mean, sometimes the solution is right in front of you. It should be absolutely obvious. I couldn't agree with you more. How we get to there from where we are is another question, and I think Marcy might be able to tell us if we've got some sort of time restraint (sic) on this money. Are we in some sort of push/shove type of situation where we could address this? MS. KRUMBINE: Yes, Commissioner. For the record, Marcy Krumbine, director of housing and human services. We do have a time constraint with the action plan. It has to go before -- it has to be sent to HUD by May 15th, and we did have an application cycle, that started in the fall. That was kind of part of my presentation, but I'm glad to not go through it all. So we had an application at that time that talked about buying foreclosures. And unfortunately, it didn't score well. And so the projects that you have before you in the action plan are what -- are kind of the typical track that we've taken in the past five years, which is to assist some of the non-profits with infrastructure to build affordable housing, and -- and so that's what we've -- we've kept with that. And so in order to take on a new project, what we would have to do -- well, first we have to send the action plan in, and then if the board directed staff to come back and look at this, we would need to -- one, you'd need to direct us, do you want to take from this current action plan or do you want us to look to see if there's other money from past projects that weren't completed; and then, two, we would have to advertise it to be fair to everybody just like we did this. There'd have to be an advertisement for applications. There would have to be applications submitted and reviewed and 30-day comment, and then I'd have to come back to you with an amendment. Page 321 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Marcy, a couple things. One, we do have a meeting before the 15th, and I don't know if we could get something resolved before then. MS. KRUMBINE: No, because we need to have a 30-day comment. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then we'll have to address the situation here. I mean, it makes absolutely no sense to be building new infrastructure when we have so many empty buildings out there. Isn't that the goal of this community to be able to remove the infrastructure, the unused homes that are out there, the abandoned homes to be able to fill them? Why do we want to exacerbate this problem by building new dwellings while we still have many, many dwellings out there that are unoccupied? So I mean, we've got to use some simple logic in this whole thing. Now, I know there's going to be some very upset people. And I'm looking at this right now. One thing, St. Matthew's House, there's no way we can -- other than to deal with it in this situation, there's no way we could address this with foreclosed homes? MS. KRUMBINE: No, and you -- and that's special money for emergency services, and that couldn't be taken away from them. The only monies that would be available would be Community Development Block Grant or the HOME monies. And again, because there has to be a 30-day comment and there has to be public hearings, there's no way that the board can change this action plan now, but you can direct me to -- for staff to go back and do the projects all over again and come back with an amendment to this plan that really does need to be submitted to HUD. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I know I'm going to take a lot of -- a lot of comments from -- negative comments from the industry out there, because I am the point person for affordable housing, but I can't disagree more with the direction we're attempting to go. Page 322 April 22-23, 2008 I really do think that the direction should be a program that would be able to capture some of those dwellings that are out there and a blight on the community. That's my personal feelings. I don't know how we get there, but there's got to be a way. MS. KRUMBINE: Well, Commissioner, if you remember, you know, I've been director of housing and human services now for about 15 or 16 months, and I have said over and over again that we need to put kind of a very flexible program in place so that yearly I could come to you and say, where do you want us to go this year because things changed so much? And you know, quite frankly, we're the government, and we're going in one direction, and sometimes it's difficult to turn and steer the ship in another direction. So as I said, you know, for years we've been putting in infrastructure, we've been helping organizations like Habitat for Humanity, and that's the direction that we've been in, and those are the proposals that we got. I think that this is a great idea. Unfortunately, the timing of it is such that we have to address it through an amendment. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I'm sorry I come in in the middle of this discussions when it was -- during the presentation. But I see great benefits here, and the benefits are that we don't have to give impact fee deferrals. The impacts fees have already been paid on these homes, and so, therefore, I think that really -- when you look at it, it's good business practice to go out there and -- when you talk about refurbishing, most of these homes, probably we wouldn't have to do that much refurbishing because there was people that were living there, unless they just let the place really go down, but normally people have pride in it. So refurbishing would probably be nothing more than maybe Page 323 April 22-23, 2008 painting and maybe planting a few shrubs here and there, but if there was -- where we had to replace plasterboard and stuff, it's still a lot cheaper than replacing a whole new structure and paying the impact fees. MR. BARLOW: Well, my thought on that is the initial selection process, because we have such a large inventory now we probably will not need to do a lot of extensive refurbishing. And as far as painting and things like that goes, I would hold the homeowner to do that, moving into a home. I think the refurbishing aspects will probably come in more when you get the less inventory. The people who have vacated these houses could well have taken their appliances with them or created some type of destruction in the house, which we do find when houses are foreclosed on and things like that. But I would think that that's on a subsequent phase and not necessarily this one. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And in looking at the home sales or looking at the price of homes that are now on the market, it's amazing -- there's an awful lot of homes that are in the $150,000 category, or some of them, in fact, are even lower, so they would fit in the category of the 60 percent to 80 percent -- MR. BARLOW: Correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- percentile of wages. So that makes that real affordable. And like I said, we don't have to end up giving impact fee deferrals. MR. BARLOW: It eliminates an awful lot of problems, it does, yes, SIr. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think it's a good idea. I would -- but realities are we've got to submit this action plan. MS. KRUMBINE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We've got to approve the action plan as it is now, submit it, and then come up with a program Page 324 April 22-23, 2008 that will accomplish what you're trying to do here. And I don't know that we need to reach a solution on how you go about accomplishing that here because the idea, I think, is very sound. In fact, it's essential. I mean, why would you leave these places out there vacant? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have to understand a couple of other opportunities and, perhaps, unfavorable consequences. Opportunities are a potential partnership with Habitat for Humanity. They have a large group of volunteers who do things like build houses. They could also, perhaps, renovate some. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Somebody's going to have to buy these houses. You can't buy a lot of houses for a million dollars, even if you got that much in this program. So trying to work out a partnership with somebody else who has the resources to not only acquire the property but renovate it and then control it after it is sold to someone, we could even approach it on a rental basis with some other organizations if you wanted to do that. So I would encourage you to look at partnerships with already existing organizations, that way we can leverage the impact of the money we get. Now, the downside is going to be that by doing this, we're going to be taking away, I believe, some of the potential buyers of low-income housing that is currently being built, and it is likely not to be sold to those people, because if these are cheaper, they're probably going to go for these. So you're taking some people off the market. Anytime you reduce the market, you're going to slow down sales of these newer homes. So in any event, it's worth pursuing. I think it's a great idea, but let's approve this plan and then provide the staff with the guidance to proceed with the suggestion and evaluate partnerships that will leverage our investment. Page 325 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Marcy, did you, in your huddle, did you come up with any solution? MS. KRUMBINE: No, Commissioner Coyle just -- well, Commissioner Coyle just really brought it down to the bottom line, and that is that we need to go ahead with the action plan. And then if you provide me direction, we would be happy to go back and, again, put out an RFP, work with the existing organizations, work with John Barlow and his group to see what are the options out there, and come back with a proposal to you. I'd also like to just draw your attention to the plan as it exists. We did put money in there, about $215,000 for single-family rehab, although we weren't looking at buying the homes. We were looking at people who would initially buy some of these foreclosures and be able to provide some assistance right away with them bringing the home up to a certain code. In a couple of more agenda items, I'll be coming to you with the disaster recovery initiative, single-family rehab program, and we could also combine the monies with that to put on windows and doors and strengthen the roof. So we have a lot of tools in place that we could use to supplement a program like this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think, if anything, it's a good incubator program. And I think once it's instituted, I think that we'll have probably some other people getting actively involved in this, because I think it's a win-win situation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm very excited about it, John. I kind of hope that I might receive an invitation to those meetings that you have with your group. I think there's some tremendous possibilities. Habitat for Humanity could probably -- possibly join into it with some of their resources, and this could be one of the solutions to bring Collier County up by its bootstraps. Page 326 April 22-23, 2008 MR. BARLOW: Commissioner, we have talked with Habitat. The thinking along the line, that it would be nice just to expand their horizons a little bit. They've got the resources, they've got the process all down. Sometimes it's difficult to get people from -- getting out of their knitting, and I think we're going to have to really encourage them in a little bit more direct way. But the best thing to do is to make something successful, and then I think everybody will jump onto this. I mean, I've talked to people at the CBIA, and he said, well, I'll put in a hundred thousand to supplement the -- whatever grant monies are available if you'll put in a hundred thousand. So it's got possibilities of bringing in the private sector -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. MR. BARLOW: -- to also help this engine go faster. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Count me in, John. MR. BARLOW: Thank you very much, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Count Commissioner Coletta in for a hundred thousand. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm borrowing the money from Commissioner Henning, no interest. MR. HART: That's very generous of you, Commissioner. That's very nIce. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's quite all right. Now your hundred thousand's also following, I'm sure. MR. HART: Again, my name is Steve Hart, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: One minute. MR. HART: -- making lemonade from lemons department. The Chamber has fully committed to helping organize this effort in bringing together any number of experts, rehab contractors, people from the CBIA. Some of our volunteer leaders have had discussions with some of the EDC leaders, and we're happy to help in this in any Page 327 April 22-23, 2008 way that we can. We think it's a good idea, too, to pursue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I was kidding, Sue. Any more discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. MS. KRUMBINE: Thank you. Item # lOC TO ACCEPT THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FT A) FY08 5307 GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,978,706.00 - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10C, and that's a recommendation to accept the Federal Transit Administration, FT A, FY-'08 5307-- , COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion-- MR. MUDD: -- grant in the amount of$I,978,706. Ms. Diane Flagg, your Director of Alternative Transportation Modes, will present. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta to approve, second by Commissioner Coyle. Page 328 April 22-23, 2008 Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. It's my understanding that this money's going to be used for maintenance; is that correct? MS. FLAGG: A portion ofthe money can be used for -- Federal Transit Administration considers portions of fleet maintenance, specific parts and labor, as part of capitalized operating. So, yes, you can use the FT A grant for that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And I think you're going to what, purchase four buses? MS. FLAGG: That's the plan. We're holding off on the actual purchase right now until we get a better cost idea of the passenger transfer center at the government center. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And that money can also be used to -- for the transfer center, too, or not? MS. FLAGG: What we would have to do at this point is amend the grant. But, yes, any capital expense such as bus purchases or building buildings. If you build buildings, you have to go through a pretty significantly long process with the feds to be able to use the money, whereas buses you can just outright purchase. But, again, we're holding off right now on the actual bus purchase. If we do purchase the buses, we'll come back to you with approval to purchase. We just want to get a better idea of the cost of the passenger transfer before we do that. We have other grants allocated for the passenger transfer center. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. MS. FLAGG: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 329 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries, 4-1 (sic). Item #lOD THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING A REQUEST BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY TO AMEND THE FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO HELP DEFRAY THE COST OF IMP ACT FEES FOR AN EXISTING COLLIER COUNTY COMPANY WHICH IS CONSIDERING RELOCATING AND EXPANDING THEIR MANUFACTURING FACILITY FROM WESTERN COLLIER COUNTY TO EASTERN COLLIER COUNTY - APPROVED W /FUNDS SET ASIDE FOR ARTHREX'S EXPANSION MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 10D, that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction regarding a request by the Economic Development Council of Collier County, to amend the Fee Payment Assistant Program to help defray the cost of impact fees for an existing Collier County company which is considering relocating and expanding their manufacturing facility from western Collier County to eastern Collier County. Ms. Tammie Nemecek, the EDC executive director, and Amy Patterson, your impact fee -- will present. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. As this is not going to be drawing any new resource into this particular fund and it is limited to Page 330 April 22-23, 2008 the limits of the fund itself, I make a motion for approval. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Henning. Discussion? MS. FILSON: I have a speaker, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions from (sic) Ms. Nemecek. You want a presentation? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I -- my concern on this project-- and I can tell you right off the bat that I'm not going to approve it. I'm not going to sit here and make promises for funds that we don't have, and under the light of what's happening here up in Tallahassee, I think it's going to be very, very difficult for us to meet a lot of these commitments. So I'm just going to put it right on the line. I can't approve something that -- if I can't deliver, so -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Nemecek? MS. NEMECEK: Commissioner, the allocation in this year's funding is $1.1 million, but about a hundred thousand has been expended. There is a million dollars left in that fund. The SDP for this project is expected to come in prior to the end of the fiscal year, which would allocate those funds to this project. We understand that there mayor may not be funding next year. It does not -- the programs are established based on funding availability in each fiscal year, so it does not obligate the board to funding prior -- or future fiscal years. So we would not be -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: So the money's there? MS. NEMECEK: The money is there today, correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does that answer your question, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Answer's my question, but -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're saying all of the money's Page 331 April 22-23, 2008 going to be used on this one project? MS. NEMECEK: The remaining -- the facility that the company is looking to build is a 200,000-square-foot facility. The impact fees on this facility are in excess of $2 million. When they submit their SDP this fiscal year, it will require 50 percent of that to be paid this year, so it will pay up to whatever funds are available this fiscal year, not in excess of what the existing funds are allocated. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they're not going to get it unless they build a facility and get the additional employees? MS. NEMECEK: Correct. There's a lien put on the property based on them performing to the criteria in the program for 10 years actually. They have to keep the jobs in place for 10 years. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Call the speakers up, please. MS. FILSON: I have one speaker, Kevin, it looks like Grieff. MR. GRIEFF: Grieff. MS. FILSON: Can you spell that for me, sir? MR. GRIEFF: G-R-I-E-F-F, as in Frank. Good morning. I'm Kevin Grieff, the operations VP for Arthrex, Incorporated. We're looking to expand out into eastern Collier County because of our growth that we've had over the 15 years, 16 years that we've been here. Weare a medical device company in orthopedics, a division in the United States and worldwide that continues to grow. We started with two employees here in 1991. We're up to 580. We're out of space at our current Creekside complex up in North Naples, and it's necessary for us to expand. So we're about to make an economic decision to expand and build about a $20-million facility, along with the land and the capital equipment, and we're looking for some economic relief to help making that financial decision. Page 332 April 22-23, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I think this is absolutely wonderful, and the reason is, you're putting a facility near the workforce. They don't have to come to the coast every morning to get to their work, and Arthrex has been a -- great to the community by staying here in Collier County. MR. GRIEFF: We're very loyal to the county. We want to stay here and keep our employees here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. NEMECEK: The company currently employs 550 employees at that facility. There'll be at least 100 to start with out in eastern Collier County. And I can't stress enough the importance of having catalyst type company make the commitment, especially a company like Arthrex, make the commitment to eastern Collier County and start that process of saying yes, eastern Collier County's a valid place where you can have your company. In addition to the jobs out there, the relief of the facility in the coastal area at their Creekside facility, they're also going to be increasing employment there. That's not really captured in their application because it's site specific, but I can't stress enough -- I mean, this is a company that could have a thousand employees in Collier County going forward, and we want to make sure that happens here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks, Tammie, for bringing this forward. I think it's a great opportunity. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I couldn't agree with you more. And there's another aspect of this that's going to mean a big difference. The foreclosure rate that's taking place in eastern Collier County, especially in the Estates, the far Estates, is phenomenal. It's the largest amount anyplace in the county. Something like this taking place, along with some of the efforts that we heard of today, could turn that whole market around -- Page 333 April 22-23, 2008 MS. NEMECEK: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and help to stabilize a market out there that's in disarray. MR. GRIEFF: I was thinking the same thing when I hear about foreclosure. These people can live out in that area and they don't have to commute with gas at $3, $4 a gallon. Huge. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your commitment to the community. MR. GRIEFF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the motion? MS. NEMECEK: One clarifying point is that the applications are on a first-come/first-serve basis because we'll need to bring back the revision to this. Can we go ahead and state for the record that these funds will be earmarked specifically for this project, just to make sure that, from a timing standpoint, we're -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My motion states that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And so does the second. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought that you also came in on another item in regards to where some of these funds were going to be allocated for another firm. MS. NEMECEK: That was $49,000. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing no further discussion, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 3-1, Commissioner Page 334 April 22-23, 2008 Halas dissenting. MS. NEMECEK: Thank you. MR. GRIEFF: Thank you. Item #10F AN ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SINGLE F AMIL Y REHABILITATION PROGRAM FUNDED BY THE FLORIDA DEP ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE GRANT PROGRAM - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10F, and this is a recommendation to approve an administrative plan for the distribution of funds for the Collier County Single Family Rehabilitation Program funded by the Florida Department of Community Affairs Disaster Recovery Initiative Grant Program. Again, the running Marcy Krumbine, Director of Housing and Human Services, will present. MS. KRUMBINE: I'm giving you the option, Commissioners. Come on, you know how to say this. Come on. No? Okay. You want me to -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. MS. KRUMBINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas to approve the item. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, nothing to add. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Page 335 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. MS. KRUMBINE: Thank you so much. Have a great day. Item #10G PRESENTING TO THE U.S. CONGRESS FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE 2008 WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT (WRDA) TWO PROPOSED COLLIER COUNTY WATER QUALITY PROJECTS, INCLUDING CLAM BAY ESTUARY IMPROVEMENTS, AND A NAPLES BAY CONSERVATION INITIATIVE ENTAILING A SYSTEM OF 10 AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY (ASR) WELLS ALONG GOLDEN GATE CANAL, AND A CITY OF MARCO ISLAND PROJECT REQUEST FOR HIDEAWAY BEACH EROSION CONTROL AND BEACH RENOURISHMENT - APPROVED W /REMOV AL OF THE CLAM BAY ESTUARY IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE PROPOSAL MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to our next item, which is 10G, and this is an add-on item. It's a recommendation to approve presenting for the U.S. Congress for consideration in the 2008 Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, two proposed Collier County water quality projects, including Clam Bay Estuary improvements and a Naples Bay conservation initiative entailing a system of 10 aquifer storage and recovery wells along the Golden Gate Canal and the City of Marco Island project request for Hideaway Beach erosion control and beach re-nourishment. Page 336 April 22-23, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. MR. MUDD: Mr. Ochs -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. MR. MUDD: Could I just give you -- just for -- because I received an email from Mr. Brad Cornell that had concerns upon this particular WRDA request. And I just want to make sure that the board is aware -- because I'm not too sure the board's got this one down pat, and I'm not too sure the Audubon of Washington, D.C., understands that particular directive that your Congressman that represents this county in Washington, D.C., have received. Water Resources Development Act is a two-year -- it's in the past been a two-year appropriation cycle for water projects, and it also has environmental consequences and things like that. We received notice last week from our lobbyist and from the congressional offices in Washington, D.C., that there is a special cycle. Normally we would have had two years because they just passed the WRDA bill of2007, and the next one should be WRDA 2009. The WRDA 2007, we were very lucky in the fact that we had four projects that affected Collier County on them. This is an appropriation cycle. It is not -- excuse me. It's an authorization cycle. It is not an appropriation cycle. It's an authorization -- Washington does it a little bit different than the State of Florida and most states of the union do, where they authorize and appropriate at the same time. Washington authorizes projects, and then in a subsequent year, you can go out and try to get appropriations on an earmark system that they have in Washington. If you don't have the authorization, you can't ask for money. You don't get it. The -- most congressional offices and committees will say, has it been authorized; and if the answer is no, then it basically falls on deaf ears. Page 337 April 22-23, 2008 So with that request that we got from Washington last week to say, hey, what are your WRDA requirements, it kind of took staff off guard. But we sent out an emergency request to our staff to please tell us what things are out there. And Ms. Wight will present those five particular items -- or excuse me -- the three particular items that came forward. I will make a correction on your -- on the executive summary. It's on the last page of the executive summary, and it's under Hideaway Beach erosion control and beach re-nourishment. If you could please strike -- and it's in the first paragraph, sixth line down, and it says, and aid to restore navigable pass to Big Marco Pass. The Marco Island representative yesterday -- and I'm not sure she is here -- but basically said in that particular proposal that that needs to be stricken from their project. Ms. Wight? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does she need to present? MS. WIGHT: I think they just said a motion and a second to pass. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm -- let me recognize the motion, then we're going to have discussion and public speakers. Commissioner Coyle made a motion to approve, second by Commissioner Halas. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have -- now, how time sensitive is this? Is this something that could be put off by one meeting? MS. WIGHT: No, Commissioners. You received a letter -- MR. MUDD: Excuse me. You were passed out by Mr. Ochs a directive that's signed by the committee chairman in Washington, D.C., that basically says the congressional offices have to have the projects filed, okay, with them by April 25, 2008. And as of Friday, we had to have our worksheets up, but they Page 338 April 22-23, 2008 need to have a letter by the chairman of the board, and that's why it's on this agenda today, and that's why it's a walk-on. We didn't have-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, and I understand it, and I'm not going to vote against it. But here's two problems. One, you're right, I do have the letter. It was just handed to me. I haven't had a chance to read it. So you know, what you're telling me is all brand new news. These things could be provided ahead of time; it might make a little more difference. But I do have to go on the record by telling you I had a request from both the Audubon and the Conservancy to have it delayed. I'm not going to ask for it to be delayed because I don't want to lose the opportunity. If something goes terrible wrong with this and it's a terrible project, I'm sure we'll have some people intercede to be able to have it removed. They wanted the chance to be able to come before us to be able to talk about it, and that chance didn't exist; however, circumstances are what they are. Thank you. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I received this directive yesterday around three o'clock in the afternoon when Brad Cornell in the email mentioned that, you know, he wanted it delayed, and his Washington office says there's time. I called our lobbyist; I called the congressional offices and said, what's the big rush? I know we were told we had to have it at congressional offices. What's the issue? And this is what I was -- what was sent to me. Commissioner, the other reason I gave my introductory remarks to this particular item, it's an authorization. The authorization goes for an appropriation, and then it has a debate in Congress. Ifit gets appropriated, every one of these projects will have a study prior to any construction being done to make sure that there's a federal and a public purpose, that there's a cost share partner, okay, and at that time the environmental community or anybody else can put in comments into that particular study. And if it's determined that the Page 339 April 22-23, 2008 -- that it isn't a project that should be done, that's when it dies. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Further questions? We've got two speakers. MS. FILSON: I believe one's left over from yesterday. Nicole Ryan. Marcia Cravens? MS. CRAVENS: Hello, again. I want to thank you again for your approval of the agenda item yesterday for PBSD to continue managing the Clam Bay Mangrove forest, which is somewhat relevant to this request also. As you know, this is still an issue that is under discussion, and I actually am part of the work group in the Clam Bay Estuary Discussion Committee. And it would seem that this project is circumventing that Clam Bay Estuary discussion work group. Also Pelican Bay Services Division was not aware of this, has had no input, residents of Pelican Bay were not aware of this, have had no input. The conservation and environmental group that I am a member of, the Mangrove Action Group, was not aware of this and has had no input in it. And it would just seem that this is a major project for Clam Bay Estuary. It may include construction, and I would hope that those stakeholders that it will impact will have some ability to be informed and have some input in it. I don't know what else to say other than I also know that the other environmental organizations such as Audubon and the Conservancy had expressed wanting to have some input into it as well. I understand you have the time constraint here, but it does not seem like it follows the discussion that occurred yesterday, particularly for Clam Bay. I can't speak to the Golden Gate or Marco Island issues. But for Clam Bay Estuary, as a member of Mangrove Action Group and as a resident of Pelican Bay, I feel very vested in this, and I have to speak up for those people. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Page 340 April 22-23, 2008 MS. CRAVENS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we have two alternatives. We can delay it and get input from everybody and miss the deadline and not get funding -- is that sticking up for the people -- or we can get it on the project list. If we get the funding, we still have to approve the expenditures, we'll have public hearings concerning that, and everybody will have a chance to provide their input to us. So it seems to me that the smart thing to do is, let's get in line for the money, because if we don't do that we're not going to get anything; and then if we get the money, before we expend the money, we have to get -- develop a project plan, and all of the stakeholders then will get to participate. That's the process. We don't like it any more than you do. We would -- you heard us say we got notice on Friday. How are we going to get people together before the deadline? MS. CRAVENS: I understand, sir, but yesterday part of our discussion was also not rushing into a management plan or activities for particularly -- as, again, I can only speak to Clam Bay Estuary, and maybe just that portion of it could be removed. There is funding for what needs to be done for Clam Bay Estuary and many other environmental programs. I have a thick bundle of funding opportunities for that. I actually will be going to a meeting this afternoon. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand your point. I would be happy to make a recommendation we drop the Clam Bay funding request from this request here and we submit it for the rest of the items. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you made the motion, but before -- Page 341 April 22-23, 2008 MS. FILSON: Commissioner Halas did. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before you amend it, I would like to say something about that. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I believe that did come up in yesterday's discussion briefly. I believe the County Manager made reference to the possibility because there was some discussion about -- the people in Pelican Bay were worried about their Mangroves. We took care of that issue. We said there was some other issues that needed to be addressed down in Clam Bay and below. And I think that's what this funding is going to try to do is to assist in that manner there. So as far as the Mangroves, it's not going to hurt anything in the Mangroves or whatever's going on there by the Pelican Bay Services Division, okay. But I think this is a great opportunity -- it's not to say that we're going to get the money, but it's a great opportunity for us to get at least in line. And then as Commissioner Coyle said, it will have a full vetting when that point in time comes. And I believe that we need to address that, because I think it has concerns not only in Pelican Bay, but it also has concerns with the rest of the estuary system that's connected with the City of Naples. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to modify my motion then, Mr. Chairman. I would like to recommend approval with the elimination of any request for funding for the project that the Pelican Bay Services Division is going to be overseeing with respect to the Mangroves. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'll second that. MS. CRAVENS: Can I comment on that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. MS. CRAVENS: Just that when you're discussing hydraulics and construction in Clam Bay Estuary, you are affecting the Page 342 April 22-23, 2008 Mangroves, and it's something -- at least there should be some information and some discussion for -- again, I belong to this work group that is meeting this afternoon that is supposed to be discussing the management for this. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Ms. Krumbine (sic.) Thank you. Okay. So we just don't want to -- make sure any of those funds don't go to the -- to the Mangrove, whatever Pelican Bay Services -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mangrove management. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We understand that, and we'll -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I don't want to go against my fellow commissioners, especially the one that represents that area, but are we missing a golden opportunity to be able to get some relief for the taxpayers of Collier County? That's my concern. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We just heard that there's plenty of money available. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What we're going to do is we're going to get this for the City of Naples and all the other areas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I see. I see. In other words, just segregating one little bit. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hope that we don't -- and I especially hope that Pelican Bay doesn't come to regret this moment. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, they have their spokesperson that's here representing that Mangrove group, so -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we could have made this decision down the road. But once again, I'll follow the will of the commissioner of that district. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion? Page 343 April 22-23, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Do we have any more speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-0. Item #lOH LETTER TO FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY REGARDING APRIL 24, 2008 ALLIGATOR ALLEY INDUSTRY FORUM: MOTION TO MOVE THE LETTER FORWARD - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10H, and 10H is a letter to the Florida Department Secretary regarding the April 24, 2008, Alligator Alley Industry Forum, and your MPO Director, Mr. Tindale, will present. MR. TINDALE: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. On last Friday, April 18th, at the joint Lee/Collier MPO Board Meeting, it was announced by FDOT that there will be an industry forum tomorrow, April 24th, in the Orlando area, host -- this forum will be a meeting and discussion regarding the possible leasing of Alligator Alley, to toll facility, to a private concessionaire. The Board members from both MPOs are very concerned about this, and staff was given direction to, as soon as possible, prepare Page 344 April 22-23, 2008 correspondence expressing those concerns. The agenda of this forum first will involve a briefing on the facility and its history, and then there will be a discussion of the anticipated method and schedule for selecting a concessionaire. The concerns mainly had to do with timing and location. Obviously it was short notice, and there was very little and really no coordination with the MPOs between the FDOT and the state, and also, with the location, which is located some 180-plus miles from this area. So as directed by the MPO board, I went ahead and prepared this correspondence. If it's the pleasure of the board, I can read the text into the record. And this would be addressed to transportation secretary Stephanie Kopelos. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I wonder what else we're going to have up for sale here. MR. TINDALE: That's-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Basically-- MR. TINDALE: -- with the fiscal environment we are operating mnow. CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, a brief conversation that you had yesterday about this letter. Actually, you received it -- MR. MUDD: On the 22nd, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I received it on Friday at 1553, which -- what time is that? MR. MUDD: That's around three. MR. TINDALE: 3:53 p.m. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. And our clock is late, so I really didn't get this till Monday when I came into the office. It was in there. And -- first time I read it this morning, so -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. They didn't give us a lot of notice on this one, and they've invited -- they've invited the industry forum to come Page 345 April 22-23, 2008 in and take a look at selling the particular asset and see what -- they can spark any interest. I will tell you I drove on Alligator Alley last weekend, and just -- it's almost repaved, the -- both sides, and all restriped. So I don't -- this has been -- it's been their thought process for a while. Normally when you get ready to sell a home, you paint it and make it look like it has good curb appeal. And so, I think that's kind of where we're at right now. And Norm got kind of shortsighted on this, and I know it came up the at Regional Planning Commission and it came up during your MPO meeting, and I believe Johnny Limbaugh was the lightning rod that stood there and basically made that announcement. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. What's taking place here is a travesty to the residents of Florida. I hope that this meeting on the 24th -- I'm fully booked that day, I can't go, but I hope we authorize staff or direct staff to make sure we have representation there, and I'd urge any commissioners free on that day to be sure to go to that meeting on the 24th. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's surprising is that I don't believe that anybody had any idea that this was going to be on our plate this quickly. The other thing that bothers me is that they just raised the toll on there to 2.50. There's already been talk that for a vehicle, a car, they're looking at possibly as high as a $5 toll. This doesn't tell you what the toll is going to be for trucks that bring the commodities into this community. I would hope that we get some support not only from Lee County and this county, but that we get some support from Miami-Dade area and the Broward County area. I believe that the citizens here are being shortchanged. And I Page 346 April 22-23, 2008 think that with the advent of the -- the people up in Tallahassee that are thinking about raiding the transportation fund for the next five years at a sum of $750 million a year to try to balance the budget -- and then, of course, turning around and selling assets that the State of Florida basically owns, or the citizens here, and put it up for the highest bidder so then, therefore, they can try to get some of their road projects done, as Commissioner Coletta said, is a travesty. And I think that there needs to be an outcry by the citizens here throughout the State of Florida. This is just the beginning. And the reason they picked Alligator Alley is because it's the only direct link from here to the west coast -- excuse me -- the east coast, and there's no other good avenue that you can travel to get back and forth. So I believe that we're being held bondage here and are being blackmailed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feder? MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. I'll be very brief, but I do want to point out, first of all, we heard about this early Thursday also. It was finally advertised, as I understand it, east coast and west coast papers, on Thursday, which is interesting because obviously you do not pull 40 members of an international industry together in Orlando in that short time frame. But that's when they let this area know because they came to the Regional Planning Council that Thursday. So first of all, very little notice. To us it's very important, not only from the aspects that have been mentioned, what's going to happen relative to rates, the fact that they just spend all of this money to resurface it to get ready to send out, but this is not your typical public/private partnership where there's some issues that we've been discussing in other areas, but this is an area where you have a facility that already exists, is already a revenue stream. So one might ask, if it's a profit revenue stream, why is the state Page 347 April 22-23, 2008 giving it up? And the answer has to be that they want money up front. Then you say, why can't they bond it? But then you say, okay, well, you can only get so much out of it at the current toll rate, so obviously the prospects are the tolls will be allowed and will go up as an inducement to the industry. So we've got the first issue of the cost for us to commute back and forth. I will tell you, unfortunately, Commissioner, the east coast is not aware of this either. We called them as soon as we became aware of it and talked to the MPOs both in Broward and Dade, Phil did, and he was the one providing them that news. So that is a great concern, so obviously your letter is telling them you need forums down here. It also presents other issues to us. We're trying to pursue an Everglades interchange. We have a concessionaire operating this. What is that going to mean to us? Are they likely to want to get involved in any cost sharing of a construction of an interchange in that issue; and the other one, of course, is we're trying to get the state to assist us in our cost for providing services, emergency response and the like along the alley, and one likely to get help possibly with a concessionaire, unless that's all written into the initial part of those discussions, if it even goes. So we've got a lot of stake in this. I'm asking Phil, given the short time frame, obviously having elected officials would be the best -- but asking Phil with the short time frame to bring the letter if you concur in that today, up with him to Orlando, make sure that they understand we have the concerns. I think the concessionaires need to hear that there are issues relative to what they're proposing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder, you're very familiar with the hierarchy in Tallahassee. Is this something that the governor and his cabinet are driving and they make the final decision, or this has to go back to the House of Representatives in the Senate? MR. FEDER: First of all, it's my understanding -- first of all, Page 348 April 22-23, 2008 they just passed legislation allowing the privatization of roadways last year, so I think your legislative action has already been taken. My understanding -- and this is at least third, if not 20th version down the line -- is that this is being driven by the governor. The governor is the one that wants to pursue this action. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the best course of action for citizens that would like to intervene in some meaningful way, would be to contact the governor's office by phone or by email? MR. FEDER: Florida DOT and your legislators and your newspapers and anyone else you can get ahold of. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're going to take a lunch break at noon. Is there a motion on the floor on this item? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to move the letter forward. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to approve this item. Is -- the second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #101 RESOLUTION 2008-122: AS EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, ADOPTING RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO A Page 349 April 22-23, 2008 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING/CHARTER, ESTABLISHING THE LOWER WEST COAST UTILITY COUNCIL - ADOPTED W /CHANGES MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 101. 101 used to be 16C2. This is a recommendation to approve as ex-officio the governing board of the Collier County Water/Sewer District, to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding/Charter, establishing the Lower West Coast Utility Council. This item was asked to be pulled from the consent agenda to the regular agenda by Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, maybe I can shortcut a lot of the discussion here merely by getting straight to my point. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to membership on this committee, I have no problem with the committee and its purpose. I'm just concerned that it is not clear how these people are initially appointed. I am concerned that any new members will be elected by the executive board of the committee rather than being appointed by the Board of County Commissioners in their respective counties or the municipalities, and I'm also concerned that although other municipalities are listed here, Marco is not, and I -- MR. DeLONY: Sir -- if! may clarify for you, sir? On page 2, voting member shall be any water resource, potable water supply, or waste water management utility representative, public or private, located in Lee County, Collier County, and it goes on. Now, we -- Marco is part of Collier County. We can certainly add that to that in this regard. It was intended to be inclusive. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fort Myers and Fort Myers Beach are part of Lee County. MR. DeLONY: Understand. Now, again, it was -- again, to get after some concerns about whether it was just county utilities Page 350 April 22-23, 2008 whatever, we can put -- the intent is to put every utility, public or private, in the area of that map that's attached on figure 1, page 9 of 9 of your packet. That was never intended to exclude anybody. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But can we be complete -- MR. DeLONY: Sir, we can. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We listed Naples. MR. DeLONY: We can put Marco into that piece if you'd like. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, are -- now, it specifies that only one voting member per utility. MR. DeLONY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're going to have a utility, I presume, from the Immokalee area who will be there. MR. DeLONY: That's correct, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the thing is, how do we decide who our representative is going to be from Collier County? MR. DeLONY: In my view, the decision would be mine, as we've given the chart here, that our representative would be either Mr. Mattausch or Dr. Yilmaz would be two members, but one of them would be our voting member. And the availability of them to go to their meetings would be based on their schedules. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why wouldn't that be a responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners? MR. DeLONY: Can be. Didn't specify it as not a responsibility. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It didn't specify it was. MR. DeLONY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: In fact, it didn't specify it at all. MR. DeLONY: That's correct. And I assumed that you'd want someone from your utility function to be a voting member. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yeah, maybe so, but I -- when we appoint people to advisory boards or committees, it's the Board of County Commissioners that does that. We did it with the Tollway Authority, we do it with everything else we do, and I'm Page 351 April 22-23, 2008 wondering why this is different. MR. DeLONY: If! may, sir? This is more of a -- this committee doesn't have the kinds of authorities that your Tollway Authority has. It's really to be a consortium, council of consortium as laid out in its mission state. It has no taxing authority, no collecting authority, no regulatory authority. As much as just a forum for utility managers within the area of consideration to sit down and discuss and then, in turn, hopefully speak with one voice to the water resource issues of this region. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. People who are speaking with one voice representing Collier County should be appointed by the Collier County Commissioners. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. No problem. I will bring back to you for recommendation through executive. You know, once this is set up, who would be the council representing the county, sir, for your arrival. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, does the term utility -- is that sufficient to identify that the municipalities can appoint someone, Collier County can appoint someone, and any of the private utilities -- MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- can appoint one -- MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- person? MR. DeLONY: I believe it's clear within the Charter to do just what you suggested. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Then that satisfies -- now, the -- under selection it says, new members will be elected to the executive board by a majority of the voting members voting at the annual meeting. I would hope that in our case that "board" would be ratifying the selection of the Collier County Commissioners. MR. DeLONY: That's correct, sir. There won't be any conflict with that. Primarily the idea of the members is the members of the Page 352 April 22-23, 2008 executive board, not members of the body itself. It deals with voting for the executive board, that is the chairperson, the co-chairperson, the secretary/treasurer. That's what that refers to. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I would ask that you say the new officers will be elected -- MR. DeLONY: That would be fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to the executive board. MR. DeLONY: We will make that change. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right, fine. Then that satisfies my problem. MR. DeLONY: All right, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a motion to approve as amended? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there's a second by Commissioner Coletta. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. So Sue, you're going to take care of the advertisement on the appointments? MS. FILSON: I don't know if that's what I heard. MR. DeLONY: Yeah. As I understood the direction, Chairman, Page 353 April 22-23, 2008 if! may, I'd bring you back an executive summary making a recommendation of who would sit as our voting member from -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: What was your intent, Commissioner? MR. DeLONY: -- the water district, water/sewer district. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Since Collier County has jurisdiction over -- only over Collier County -- we don't have jurisdiction over any of the municipalities. The only person we would be appointing would be our one member, okay. There's absolutely nothing wrong with you recommending who that member should be, but we should ratify -- MR. DeLONY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- we should approve that and appoint that member. That member then should be ratified by the membership of this regional committee. MR. DeLONY: It will be. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the problem comes with respect to the private utilities and the municipalities. Somebody has to notify them that this is happening. How is that going to be accomplished? MR. DeLONY: We'll take that on. We'll make sure that the word gets out. The council itself as is set up is largely the efforts of our department, our division, Collier County Water/Sewer District, us, and Lee County, and that's the two of -- the genesis of this idea. And it's our intent to conduct outreach and to solicit as much participation as possible. So we'll take that burden on to make sure that the city utilities and the private utilities within Collier County are aware of this council, that they're invited to attend and to become a part of this, encouraged to do that, because it certainly will serve best if everyone participates in the mission statement that we've outlined, SIr. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, one final point, and that Page 354 April 22-23, 2008 relates to Hendry and Glades Counties. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're including only a small geographic area for both those counties. It is conceivable there could be a private utility from that area, and according to the way this is written, that means that that county could have two representatives, one for the county and one for the private utility. MR. DeLONY: If the county -- if they have a county utility, obviously that private utility will have a member. If there are private utilities, obviously they'll have a member. It's a one-utility, one-member situation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So they could have a member for the county and there could be a member for a private utility? MR. DeLONY: Just like us. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. DeLONY: Just like us. We're going to have a member from your water/sewer district, I assume, and I -- not assume, I hope that the City of Naples will have someone, that someone from the Immokalee Water/Sewer Service will be there, someone from Orangetree, someone from the Lee Cypress, Everglades City, FGUA. We hope that all these utilities, public or private, would choose to have representation in this council. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I don't have a problem with that. I was just addressing the issue that you're only taking a very small geographic portion of those counties and the entire counties are not involved. Is that going to cause any problems? MR. DeLONY: I don't think so. The planning area from the purposes of water use or water planning that you see in that map correspond to South Florida Water Management's district basin's delineation, and the interests that are delineated on that map, the utilities that would fall into that geographic area, have the joined and linked interest. Page 355 April 22-23, 2008 Anybody outside that interest, certainly we can address that. Probably won't have the same interest that we do. This represents an exact overlay of the lower west coast planning area of the water management district, and that's the reason we chose this particular delineation to keep it focused on those that deal with basin issues within that regulatory area, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. DeLONY: Have I answered your question on that concern? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next item? MR. DeLONY: Thank you. Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public comments on general topics. Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: I have two speakers-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: We voted on it. MS. FILSON: -- for public comment. The first speaker is Aisling Swift, and she signed -- actually signed up yesterday, but she was going to monitor it, but I don't see her here. The second speaker is Kenneth Thompson. MR. THOMPSON: You know, I need some help with this 2854 Becca Avenue. This boy is 17 years old and he's dragging every damn thing in Collier County that you can get in there. And I'm having a hard time with my health. I'm facing to have to have my neck cut from here down to the middle of my back Monday morning, and I'll be damned if I can live there. And I don't think a renter should be able to bother people that Page 356 April 22-23, 2008 own property. It -- that place, I don't give it anywhere (sic) they come from, Russia, China, everywhere, they will find that dump. Ever since Dale Steinberg owned it. Then you have a man named Jackson's got it, now you got this one owns it. And boy, I thought we really had somebody, but he-- hell, he's worse than all three of them. Anybody worse than Dale Steinberg, you got it bad. I came here, I think it was December the 11th, though that you'd help me clean the neighborhood up, but the three of you, Mudd and Coletta -- Coletta, there ain't nobody that spent no more damn money than you have over there cleaning up your neighborhood. And then you're knocking me here. And I'm missing Mr. Weigel. He's a very good person, but he had no choice. And then you got a guy at 2679 Becca Avenue, it's about four houses down from me, he keeps putting these box trailers in there working on the weekend and building all kinds of stuff and hauling it out. And these stilt house, 29 -- 29 -- 2695, he built a thing going up, stairway all the way up, all the way across and all the way down. And I think you allergic to me, you know. You don't want to help me. But these people breaking the law. I want you to have the money. I think you need the money. And some of these things that you're building here, I'll be damned if! can see anybody hurting people. The Sheriffs Department was over there the other night, Ricardo Garcia. I had this little blond-headed boy come flying through the window. You won't believe it. It wasn't enough of him for EMS to pick up. Then on Cypress side, again, they throw him through the window. I just don't know where you going to go with this thing. But I'm going to have to leave my wife and move from there because I don't need the humiliation, I don't need Michelle Arnold's Page 357 April 22-23, 2008 humiliation, I don't need what's her name's humiliation, I don't need Dave -- everybody's name, I can't think of his name. He's took over out there. He thinks he's Jesus or something. You call him and somebody else will answer. He's telling me not to call nobody but him. Hell, I call him, you can't find him. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Thompson, I think the County Manager took some notes on your comments. Thank you for being with us. MR. THOMPSON: Well, I need that County Manager to get this guy straightened out, because I can't handle it no more. I'm going down bad. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, sir. MR. THOMPSON: So don't -- a suit (sic) Michelle Arnold in federal court. I see she's done it here. Why can't I do it? I slapped it to her in a minute, and I told her I will. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No further speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Eight minutes for- Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. MUDD: Brings us to staff and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Manager's comments. MR. MUDD: -- communications. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. MR. MUDD: Sir, the only thing I have is just a clarification of something that was said yesterday. And Ijust -- for the record -- and it came out in the paper. I talked to every one of the commissioners about red light running and the possibilities of -- and the intent was to decrease the number of red light runners. Page 358 April 22-23, 2008 I also mentioned to every commissioner that in some cities and busy intersections, those intersections with red lights that people go through, there has been about a million dollars in revenue that comes from that particular red light. I also gave every commissioner a warning, I said, please don't get attached if there is any revenues from those red light runners, those violators in this particular case because the revenues are short lived because the illegal habits of running through red lights have a tendency to change once people get a ticket, one or two, even though there's signage and everything else in front of those. And then approximately two years after the lights are installed, people don't go through the red lights anymore at that particular intersection. I also provided Commissioner Coletta an emaillast night that talked about 12 successful cities as far as cutting down on accidents as far as red lights are concerned. So I just wanted to make sure, for the record, you know, I wasn't out there trying to look for a money generator. I just wanted to let the board know what some of the past experiences have been from municipalities and to also basically warn the commissioners that if there's any monies that come from that -- and I hope we don't get any. I hope everybody obeys the laws and they don't go through red lights anymore, and that's basically the intent -- but to make sure that they understand that any revenues are short lived. That's all I have, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Could you forward that email to me that you forwarded Commissioner Coletta, please? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else? MR. MUDD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: I have one item, sir. It involves Mr. Weigel. Page 359 April 22-23, 2008 I need permission from the board to create a position. It would be a three-quarter full-time employment position. It would be for six months. It would be a position reporting directly to me as up counsel to the County Attorney. Mr. Weigel would have no direct reports himself. It'd be for the purpose of my transitioning into the Office of County Attorney. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think it's reasonable. Anybody have any concerns? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm with Jeff. MR. KLATZKOW: Could I get a motion to approve if that's the intent of this board to create this position? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Henning. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 3-1. Commissioner Halas dissenting. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else? Thank you. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to say this is -- the last two days have been great. I really enjoyed it. Subjects were Page 360 April 22-23, 2008 interesting, kept moving it forward, public was interacting in a positive way. Thank you for a great meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I recognize your comments, I just don't agree with it, and that's the only thing I have. The -- and before we -- Commissioner Coyle goes, we need a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved. Sorry. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was a second, right? CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas to adjourn. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're adjourned. *****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; By separate motion, Item #8C to be continued to May 13,2008 - Approved***** Item #16Al FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR DEL MAR RETAIL CENTER Page 361 April 22-23, 2008 - W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item #16A2 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR FIDDLER'S CREEK - PHASE 3, UNIT 2 - W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item # 16A3 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITY FOR FIDDLER'S CREEK - PHASE 3, UNIT 2 - STAGE 3 - W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item #16A4 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR FIDDLER'S CREEK, PHASE 2A, UNIT 3 - W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item # 16A5 RESOLUTION 2008-101: THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED INDEFINITELY FROM FEBRUARY 26, 2008 BCC MEETING. FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF AUGUSTA AT PELICAN MARSH (PELICAN MARSH PUD) WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Page 362 April 22-23, 2008 Item #16A6 RESOLUTION 2008-102: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF SATURNIA LAKES PLAT ONE (RIGAS PUD) WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A7 RESOLUTION 2008-103: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF SA TURNIA LAKES PLAT TWO (RIGAS PUD) WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV ATEL Y MAINTAINED- W /RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item # 16A8 RESOLUTION 2008-104: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF SUSSEX PLACE, (LEL Y RESORT PUD), THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item # 16A9 RESOLUTION 2008-105: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Page 363 April 22-23, 2008 FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF TUSCANY COVE WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV ATEL Y MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16AI0 RESOLUTION 2008-106: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF SATURNIA LAKES PLAT THREE (RIGAS PUD) WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16All RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ARTESIA NAPLES UNIT ONE Item #16A12 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF CAMERON COMMONS UNIT ONE, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS Item #16A13 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF TRACT 5, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 44 REPLAT, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Page 364 April 22-23, 2008 AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W /STIPULA TIONS Item #16A14 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF TRACT 6, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 44 REPLAT, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS Item #16A15 RESOLUTION 2008-107: RESOLUTION TO FORMALLY DISSOLVE THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE REVIEW TASK FORCE AS ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 2007-105 Item #16A16 ANNUAL EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS, IF NECESSARY, BEYOND THE $50,000 DOLLAR LIMIT CONTAINED IN THE PURCHASING POLICY FOR THE REQUIRED LEGAL ADVERTISING PLACED IN THE NAPLES DAILY NEWS - FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT Item #16A17 JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH THE MARCH GROUP, LLC, D/B/A MARCH PERFORMANCE, INCORPORATED, CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND THE COMPANY'S APPROVED INCENTIVE Page 365 April 22-23, 2008 APPLICATION - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A18 JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH ADVOCATE AIRCRAFT TAXATION COMPANY CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND THE COMPANY'S APPROVED INCENTIVE APPLICATION - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A19 - Continued to the May 13,2008 BCC Meeting FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF REFLECTION LAKES AT NAPLES PHASE lA (WALNUT LAKES PUD) WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A20 - Continued to the May 13,2008 BCC Meeting FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF REFLECTION LAKES AT NAPLES PHASE 1 C (WALNUT LAKES PUD) WITH THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A21 Page 366 April 22-23, 2008 RELEASE AND SA TISF ACTIONS OF LIEN FOR PAYMENTS RECEIVED FOR THE FOLLOWING CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item # 16A22 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT NO. 4600001351 FOR PARTIAL FUNDING OF THE COUNTY'S LIDAR (LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING) ACQUISITION THROUGH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT CONTRACT Item # 16A23 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF CLASSICS PLANTATION ESTATES, PHASE THREE REPLAT OF LOTS 18 THROUGH 45 Item #16Bl HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP) AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND THE COUNTY FOR A WIND PROTECTION PROJECT AND APPROVE THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT ($29,997.00) - THE INSTALLATION OF SHUTTERS WILL PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR THE TOAD MAINTENANCE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING Item #16B2 ONE (1) ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH Page 367 April 22-23, 2008 TWO (2) ROADWAY RECOGNITION SIGNS AT A TOTAL COST OF $150.00 - RECOGNIZING THE BETHESDA CORKSCREW AND 7TH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH AS THE SPONSORS OF THE SEGMENT OF ROADWAY KNOWN AS IMMOKALEE ROAD/CR 846 - ONE MILE NORTH AND SOUTH OF LILAC LANE Item #16B3 BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE FROM A DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FOR SPLIT CYCLE OFFSET OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUE (SCOOT) SYSTEM EXPANSION, PROJECT 601724 FUND (313), AND PERMANENT COUNT STATIONS, PROJECT #601727 FUND (313), IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,000 Item # 16B4 RESOLUTION 2008-108: SHIRLEY CONROY RURAL AREA CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SUPPORT GRANT AND THE APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS ($66,000) - FOR A REPLACEMENT PARA TRANSIT BUS Item #16B5 RESOLUTION 2008-109: RESOLUTION SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 2007-230 AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP) AGREEMENT FPN: 422165-1-58-01, WHICH AGREEMENT WAS UNEXECUTED BY FDOT FOLLOWING BCC APPROVAL ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2007, AS AGENDA ITEM 16Bll, AND APPROVE A NEW AGREEMENT SUPERSEDING Page 368 April 22-23, 2008 AND REPLACING THE AFOREMENTIONED UNEXECUTED AGREEMENT THAT INCREASES FDOT'S SHARE OF FUNDING, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK ON ROBERTS A VENUE AND NORTH 9TH STREET FROM $704,375 IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO $732,268 IN THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT - THE SIDEWALK SITE IS ROBERTS AVENUE FROM NORTH 18TH STREET TO NORTH 9TH STREET AND NORTH 9TH STREET FROM ROBERTS AVENUE TO SR 29 Item #16B6 RESOLUTION 2008-110: RESOLUTION SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 2007-231 AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP) AGREEMENT FPN: 422164-1-58-01, WHICH AGREEMENT WAS UNEXECUTED BY FDOT FOLLOWING BCC APPROVAL ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2007, AS AGENDA ITEM 16B12, AND TO APPROVE A NEW AGREEMENT SUPERSEDING AND REPLACING THE AFOREMENTIONED UNEXECUTED AGREEMENT THAT INCREASES FDOT'S FUNDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK ON 1ST STREET NORTH FROM $170,625 IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO $177,381 IN THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT- THE SIDEWALK SITE IS 1 ST STREET NORTH FROM ROBERTS AVENUE TO SR 29 Item #16B7 PURCHASE OF IMPROVED PROPERTY (PARCEL NO. 142) WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT. Page 369 April 22-23, 2008 PROJECT NO. 60168 (FISCAL IMPACT: $607,475.00) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16B8 EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR 0.12 ACRES OF UNIMPROVED PROPERTY FOR A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR P A THW A YS AND PUBLIC UTILITIES ALONG IMMOKALEE ROAD. ($55,000) - LOCATED WITHIN HERITAGE BAY, NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD Item #16B9 F AREBOX REVENUES COLLECTED FROM OCTOBER 1, 2007 THROUGH APRIL 10, 2008 FOR COLLIER AREA TRANSIT AND TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS (FUND 426- $467,608.00 AND FUND 427 $46,443.80) Item #16BI0 A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE OCTOBER 22, 2002 SABAL BAY DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT FOR ROAD IMPACT FEE CREDITS EXTENDING THE DURATION FOR FIVE (5) YEARS AND APPROVAL OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE OCTOBER 14,2003 COMPANION AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE IN LAND CONVEYANCE MEANS FOR PORTIONS OF THE LEL Y AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 511011) Item #16Cl Page 370 April 22-23, 2008 RESOLUTION 2008-111: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, AND 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $88.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN - FOR ACCOUNT NUMBERS: 2545, 2891, 2901, 25551, 27054, 29654 AND 137708 Item 16C2 - Moved to Item #IOI Item # 16C3 ADDITION OF $100,000 TO INCREASE THE ANNUAL LIMIT TO $600,000 FOR THE EXISTING FIXED TERM CONTRACT 05-3792 "FIXED TERM UTILITY SPECIALIZED LEGAL SERVICES" FOR DE LA PARTE & GILBERT, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW, REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF COLLIER COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN UTILITY SPECIFIC LITIGATION AND REGULATORY MATTERS, AND APPROVE ALL THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,000 Item #16Dl RESOLUTION 2008-112: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO FORMALLY OPPOSE ALLOWING ACCESS TO A FEDERAL SAND SOURCE OFF THE COAST OF SANIBEL ISLAND TO ANY COUNTIES OTHER THAN THOSE COUNTIES ADJACENT TO SANIBEL ISLAND, SPECIFICALLY Page 371 April 22-23, 2008 COLLIER AND LEE COUNTIES Item # 16D2 LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ANDRES MATEO AND MARIA MATEO (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 107, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.46 IN IMP ACT FEES Item #16D3 LIEN AGREEMENT WITH RITHA MERCURE (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 41, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE- DEFERRING $12,442.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item # 16D4 LEASE AGREEMENT WITH GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. FOR SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM AT THE ROBERTS CENTER, LOCATED AT 905 ROBERTS AVENUE IN IMMOKALEE FOR AN ANNUAL COST OF $12,000. THE COST OF THIS RENTAL WILL BE PAID FROM OLDER AMERICANS ACT GRANT FUNDING - THE COST WILL INCLUDE ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE, WATER, SEWER, JANITORIAL SERVICE AND PEST CONTROL Page 372 April 22-23, 2008 Item #16D5 SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $588,400 FOR FY2008 - FOR DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN IN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT QUALIFY Item # 16D6 LIEN AGREEMENT WITH CARMETA PRIME (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 110, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE- DEFERRING $12,442.46 Item #16D7 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH KRISTY BRODBECK (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 1403, NORTH NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,411.94 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D8 AMENDMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. AND APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL AWARD AMOUNT FOR THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT FOR 2008 Page 373 April 22-23, 2008 Item # 16D9 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 FROM THE PARK AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE RESERVES TO PAY FOR AN IMP ACT FEE STUDY UPDATE AND THE REFUND OF IMP ACT FEES TO VARIOUS DEVELOPERS - WHO CANCELLED BUILDING PERMITS OR REQUESTED AN IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL AND TO PAY TINDALE-OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE COST OF THE UPDATED STUDY Item #16DI0 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 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D11 LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MONICA NEWHOUSE (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 1408, NORTH NAPLES - DEFERRING $17,104.22 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16El RATIFY AN ADDITION TO, A MODIFICATION OF AND A DELETION FROM THE 2008 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE FROM JANUARY 1,2008 Page 374 April 22-23, 2008 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2008 Item # 16E2 STATUTORY DEED FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF GAC LAND TRUST RESERVED LAND REQUIRED FOR A POND SITE FOR THE OIL WELL ROAD EXPANSION PROJECT THAT WILL PROVIDE REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 FOR THE GAC LAND TRUST FUND - LOCATED AT TRACT 94, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 64 Item # 16E3 REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONCERNING THE SALE AND DONATION OF ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY SURPLUS AUCTION HELD ON MARCH 29, 2008, RESULTING IN GROSS REVENUES OF $487,526.50 Item #16Fl AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF THE ATTACHED ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FOR THE PURCHASE OF 30 EVACUATION (STAIR) CHAIRS FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,850 - TO REPLACE WORN AND OUT OF DATE MODELS TO HELP ASSURE THE SAFE AND EFFICIENT EVACUATION OF PATIENTS/VICTIMS WHILE PROTECTING EMS PERSONNEL FROM INJURIES Item # 16F2 Page 375 April 22-23, 2008 QUARTERLY REPORT ON ACTIVITIES IN THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURISM INDUSTRY - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND REPORT Item #16F3 $11,000,000 PREPAYMENT ON THE CARIBBEAN GARDENS COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN NUMBER A-32-2 Item #16Gl BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $628,800 TO INCREASE BUDGETED REVENUES AND BUDGETED EXPENSES FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF A VIA TION FUEL AT MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT Item #16G2 AMENDMENT FOR A TIME EXTENSION TO THE RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT AGREEMENT # OT -05-136 FROM THE FLORIDA OFFICE OF TOURISM, TRADE, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT/FLORIDA TRADEPORT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT/RETENTION POND PROJECT - THE EXTENSION WILL BE FROM DECEMBER 31, 2007 TO JULY 31, 2008 Item #16Hl - Withdrawn; Motion to remain on Consent Agenda- Approved COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR Page 376 April 22-23, 2008 REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE COALITION OF IMMOKALEE WORKERS "HUMAN RIGHTS HEROES IN OUR BACKYARD" ON APRIL 11, 2008. $50 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETT A'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT ST. WILLIAM PARISH, 750 SEAGATE DR., NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 Item # 16H2 COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. WILL ATTEND THE COLLIER COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY ANNUAL DINNER MEETING, MAY 3, 2008. $100 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 2400 GREY OAKS DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105 Item # 16H3 COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE BREAKFAST, APRIL 3, 2008. $5 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 6101 PINE RIDGE ROAD., NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 Item #16H4 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC Page 377 April 22-23, 2008 PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE YOUTH HAVEN 4TH ANNUAL FRANCES PEW HAYES CHILD ADVOCATE OF THE YEAR AWARD LUNCHEON ON THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 AT THE NAPLES SAILING AND YACHT CLUB. $75.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 896 RIVER POINT DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 Item # 16H5 COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE WILL ATTEND THE LEADERSHIP COLLIER CLASS OF '08 GRADUATION ON MAY 9, 2008. $50 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT THE NAPLES HILTON, 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 Item #16H6 COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE WILL PARTICIPATE AS GUEST SPEAKER AT GOLDEN GATE KIWANIS CLUB BREAKFAST ON APRIL 30, 2008. $7 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER, 4701 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY NAPLES, FLORIDA 34116 Item #16H7 - Moved to Item #4I Item # 16I1 Page 378 April 22-23, 2008 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 379 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE April 22, 2008 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Affordable Housing Commission: Minutes of February 7,2008. 2) Collier County Planning Commission - Form I: Minutes of February 7, 2008. 3) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of January 16,2008. 4) Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board: Minutes of August 29, 2007; September 19, 2007; November 21, 2007. 5) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Minutes of February 20,2008. 6) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: A) Clam Bay Committee Minutes of January 29, 2008. Other: B. Minutes: I) South Florida Water Management District Public Notice of Final Agency Action of January 29, 2008. April 22-23, 2008 Item # 1611 RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE A DOCUMENT FOR TWELFTH YEAR STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SCAAP) GRANT FUNDS - FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INCARCERATION OF ALIENS Item # 16J2 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 29, 2008 THROUGH APRIL 4, 2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item # 1613 TO OBTAIN BOARD APPROVAL FOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 05, 2008 THROUGH APRIL 11,2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item #16J4 SHERIFF DON HUNTER TO OFFICIALL Y RECOGNIZE THE NAME, THE "WILLIAM 1. MCNUL TY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER" FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS CENTER LOCATED WITHIN THE NEW COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX Item#16Kl PROPOSED AGREEMENT FOR DELIVERY AND REUSE OF Page 380 April 22-23, 2008 IRRIGATION QUALITY (IQ) WATER BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT AND THE PELICAN MARSH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16K2 PROPOSED JOINT MOTION FOR AN AGREED ORDER AWARDING COSTS RELATING TO PARCEL 143 IN THE COLLIER COUNTY V CHARLES R. WILSON, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5164-CA, IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018. (FISCAL IMPACT: $4,000.00) Item # 16K3 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NOS. 135/40, 135/40.1,136/41,136/41.1 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED CC V TIMOTHY MALONEY, ET AL, CASE NO. 92-1508-CA (GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD EXPANSION PROJECT) (FISCAL IMPACT $3,600.00) Item #16K4 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCELS 862, 962 AND 963 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY V GRAND CYPRESS COMMUNITIES, ET AL., CASE NO. 05-1053-CA. (SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT REVERSE OSMOSIS WELLFIELD EXPANSION PROJECT #70892)(FISCAL IMPACT: $43,070.00) Item #16K5 Page 381 April 22-23, 2008 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL 170RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED CC V JORGE A. ROMERO, ET AL, CASE NO. 07-2681-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044). (FISCAL IMPACT $15,830.00) Item # 16K6 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,850.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 157RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA V CHRISTOPHER LINK, ET AL., CASE NO. 07-4218-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT #60044). (FISCAL IMPACT: $9,100.00) Item #16K7 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NO. 159A IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED CC V B.A. STREET, ET AL, CASE NO. 03-2873-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018). (FISCAL IMPACT $6,900.00) Item # 16K8 MEDIA TED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE MEDIA TED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $130,000.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 121FEE AND 121TDRE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA V CHRISTOPHER LINK, ET AL., CASE NO. 07-4218-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT #60044). (FISCAL IMPACT: $82,317.50) Page 382 April 22-23, 2008 Item #17A (THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 25, 2008 BCC MEETING) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE WITH LODGE ABBOTT ASSOCIATES, LLC (OWNER OF THE COCOHA TCHEE BAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) TO SETTLE ALLEGED CLAIMS, INCLUDING AN ALLEGED BERT HARRIS ACT CLAIM PURPORTEDLY ARISING FROM DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COCOHA TCHEE BAY PUD TO MODIFY THE BALD EAGLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND LODGE ABBOTT ASSOCIATES, LLC V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 05-967-CA, NOW PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS WELL AS AMENDED COCOHATCHEE BAY PUD DOCUMENT WITH ATTACHED BALD EAGLE MANAGEMENT PLAN - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #17B RESOLUTION 2008-113: PETITION A VESMT-2007-AR-12562, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLICS INTEREST IN AN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER, ALONG AND ACROSS THE NORTH 30 FEET AND THE WEST 15 FEET OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 4014, PAGE 0235 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING LOCATED WITHIN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A Item #17C Page 383 April 22-23, 2008 ORDINANCE 2008-18: ORDINANCE REPEALING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 89-69, AS AMENDED, WHICH CREATED THE LETHAL YELLOWING DISEASE SUPPRESSION PROGRAM - DUE TO A LACK OF CONSISTENT EVIDENCE OF POSITIVE PROGRAM RESULTS AND BUDGET CONSTRAINTS Item #17D RESOLUTION 2008-114: PETITION CU-2007-AR-I1394, THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, REPRESENTED BY BRUCE ANDERSON OF ROETZEL AND ANDRESS, IS PROPOSING A CONDITIONAL USE OF THE COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL AND GENERAL OFFICE (C-l) ZONING DISTRICT WITH A SR29 COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OVERLAY (C-I-SR29-COSD) AND THE RSF-3 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-F AMIL Y) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A CHURCH/PLACE OF WORSHIP, PURSUANT TO LDC SECTION 2.04.03, TABLE 2. THE 16.8-ACRE SITE IS LOCATED AT 635 STATE ROAD 29, IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, IMMOKALEE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17E RESOLUTION 2008-115: PETITION CU-2006-AR-9337 BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP, LLLP, REPRESENTED BY GEORGE L. VARNADOE, ESQUIRE, OF CHEFFY, P ASSIDOMO, WILSON & JOHNSON, LLP; AND AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, ARE REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE OF AN EARTH Page 384 April 22-23, 2008 MINING OPERATION AND RELATED PROCESSING AND PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL WITHIN A RURAL AGRICUL TURE WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY (A-MHO) ZONING DISTRICT, A PORTION OF WHICH IS LOCATED IN A STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA 9 (BCI/BCP-SSA-9), PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.04.03 OF THE LDC, FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS SOUTH GROVE LAKE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 169.57 ACRES, IS LOCATED IN SECTIONS 17 AND 18, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17F ORDINANCE 2008-19: SHERIFF HUNTER'S RECOMMENDED OFFENDER REGISTRATION FEE ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A POLICY FOR THE COLLECTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REGISTRATION FEES FOR THE INITIAL REGISTRATION AND RE-REGISTRATION OF INDIVIDUALS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE TO REGISTER WITH THE SHERIFF AS A CAREER OFFENDER, CONVICTED FELON, SEX OFFENDER OR SEXUAL PREDATOR Item #17G ORDINANCE 2008-20: ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 97-82, AS AMENDED, WHICH CREATED THE BA YSHORE AVALON BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; AMENDING SECTION TWO (2) TO DELETE THE WORD AVALON FROM THE NAME OF THE MSTU; AMENDING SECTION SIX (6) TO INCREASE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM FIVE (5) MEMBERS TO SEVEN (7) MEMBERS AND TO Page 385 April 22-23, 2008 DELETE THE WORD AVALON THEREIN; AMENDING SECTION EIGHT (8) TO REFLECT AN INCREASE TO THE NUMBER OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE A QUORUM; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE Item #17H ORDINANCE 2008-21: CPSS-06-0 1 SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (GMP A) PETITION TO THE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPANDING ACTIVITY CENTER # 18 BY AN ADDITIONAL 7.3 ACRES - LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF U.S. 41 APPROXIMATELY ONE-FOURTH MILE EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (SR-951) IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, AND RANGE 26 EAST Item #17I - Moved to Item #8C Page 386 April 22-23, 2008 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:56 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL D STRI TS UNDER ITS CONTR . TOM HENNING, Chairm A TTESf~. "0 .'" '. DWIQHT E.j~:ROCK, CLERK ~5p~ejk. ~tt"t ~i'loCM\'" ......"'e r';f\IY ') t, '_i,;:i': !.",\' , These minutes ~ by the Board on ~-;) +-()6 presented or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 387