The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 12/16/2008 R December 16, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, December 16, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning Donna Fiala Jim Coletta Fred Coyle Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Sue Filson, BCC Executive Manager Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB) AGENDA December 16, 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 December 16,2008 ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 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 ALLEGIANc,:E A. Pastor J. R. Pagan, International Worship Center 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. November 5, 2008 - Value Adjustment Board Special Meeting with Special Magistrate Mazur C. November 7, 2008 - Value Adjustment Board Hearing Meeting with Special Magistrate Pelletier D. November 13,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Special Meeting with Special Magistrate Watson E. November 14,2008 - BCC/Pre-Legislative Session Workshop Page 2 December 16, 2008 F. November 17,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Special Meeting with Special Magistrate Pelletier G. November 18, 2008 - BCC/Regular Meeting H. November 21,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Special Meeting with Special Magistrate Mazur I. November 21,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Special Meeting with Special Magistrate Watson J. November 24,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Special Meeting with Special Magistrate Pelletier K. November 25,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Special Meeting with Special Magistrate Pelletier L. November 26,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Special Meeting with Special Magistrate Watson 3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS) 4. PROCLAMATIONS 5. PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners ofa check to purchase a new vehicle for the Veterans Transportation Program. The check will be presented by Jim Elson, President, Collier County Veterans Council; and Ernie Bretzmann, Executive Director, United Way of Collier County. B. Santa Barbara Boulevard - Six-Laning from Davis Boulevard (SR-84) to Copper Leaf Lane and Radio Road Four-Laning from Santa Barbara Boulevard to Davis Boulevard, Contract 06-0442. (Project #62081) 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS A. Public petition request by Larry Basik to discuss small scale GMP amendment on US 41 East and Trinity Place. Page 3 December 16, 2008 B. Public petition request by Cynthia Dennis to discuss waiver ofloan in the amount of $19, 173.98 in order to prevent foreclosure. C. Public petition request by John Martinowich to discuss billing, surcharges and fees for utility billing account. D. Public petition request by Reverend David Mallory to discuss deferral of impact fees. E. Public petition request by Kathleen Reynolds to discuss funding for the Early Learning Program (Child Care Subsidy Program). F. Public petition request by Tim Hancock to discuss rezone request by North Naples United Methodist Church. Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than J :00 p.m., unless otherwise noted. 7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A. This item continued from the November 18, 2008 BCC Meetinl!. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members: CU-2008-AR-13201: VI Ltd, Limited Partnership and Collier County Parks and Recreation, represented by Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use in the Residential Tourist (RT) zoning district and the Vanderbilt Beach Resort Tourist Overlay district (VBRTO) and the RMF-16 Zoning District, pursuant to Land Development Code Section 2.0 1.03.G.l.e, to allow for public facilities (limited to public restroom facilities) that will be constructed within the public right-of-way and partially within the Moraya Bay Beach Club property. The subject property is located in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (CTS) B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members: V A-2006-AR-II 064: VI Ltd, Limited Partnership, represented by Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. requesting three variances from the requirements of the Residential Tourist (RT) zoning district and the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay District (VBRTO) to allow for a proposed trellis structure. The requested variances Page 4 December 16, 2008 are as follows: 1) A variance of 25 feet 4 inches from the required Building Separation Distance calculated as half the sum of the two buildings (50 feet 4 inches) between the trellis and the principal residential structure to allow a 25-foot separation; 2) A variance of20 feet from the minimum required 30- foot front yard setback for the trellis to the north property line to allow a 10- foot setback; and 3) A variance of2.5 feet 4 inches from the required Building Separation Distance calculated as half the sum of the two buildings (12.5 feet 4 inches) between the trellis and the proposed public restroom building along the northern property line (Bluebill Avenue) to allow a 10- foot separation. The subject property, consisting of 4.96 acres, is located at 11125 Gulf Shore Drive, on the Southwest corner of Gulf Shore Drive and Bluebill Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to CU-2006-AR-II046) (CTS) C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members: CU-2006-AR-Il 046: VI Ltd. Limited Partnership, represented by Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., requesting a Conditional Use for the Moraya Bay Beach Club to allow a private club in the Residential Tourist (RT) zoning district and the Vanderbilt Beach Resort Tourist Overlay district (VBRTO) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), as specified in Sections 2.03.02.E for the RT Zoning District and 2.03.07.L. for the VBRTO. The proposed private club will be located within the residential building. The subject property, consisting of 4.96 acres, is located at 11125 Gulf Shore Drive, on the corner of Gulf Shore Drive and Bluebill Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to V A-2006-AR-II064)(CTS) 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Recommendation to consider adoption of an ordinance to amend Collier County's Noise Ordinance (Ordinance No. 90-17, as amended). 9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Appointment of members to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee. B. Appointment of member to the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc Committee. Page 5 December 16, 2008 C. Appointment of member to the Black Affairs Advisory Board. D. Appointment of members to the Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board. E. Appointment of member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee. F. Appointment of member to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. G. Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board. H. Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee. I. Appointment of member to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee. J. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners formalize its intent and direction regarding the establishment of new and/or reconstituted advisory committees to work with the Office of the Medical Director. 10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with The Islands Marina, LLC and Port of the Islands Properties, LLC for the purchase of certain portions of the Port of the Islands Marina property for a purchase price of$5,488,000 which includes $4,750,000 cash at closing and a $738,000 Seller charitable donation, together with a second charitable donation of furniture, fixtures and equipment valued at $105,000, with additional costs not to exceed $95,800. (Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator) B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget. (John Yonkosky, Office of Management and Budget Director) C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution superseding Resolution 2006-142 and authorizing the acquisition by gift or purchase ofland and easements necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility Page 6 December 16, 2008 improvements required for the expansion and extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road from Collier Boulevard to east of Wilson Boulevard. (Project No. 60168.) Estimated fiscal impact: $32,910,600. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator) D. Recommendation for the Collier County Board of County Commissioners to approve a fare increase and limited reduction in Sunday service to address the reduced Collier Area Transit Fiscal Year (FY) 2008-09 budget. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator) E. Recommendation to approve award of Bid #09-5142 to Mitchell and Stark Construction Company, Inc., for the Lely Area Stormwater Improvements Project (LASIP) Phase I B, Project No. 5110 I in the amount of $3,530,719.90 plus a ten (10%) contingency, totaling $3,883,791.89. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator) F. Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Treviso Bay Water Management Agreement allowing for coordination between Treviso Bay Development, LLC and Collier County to complete construction of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project located within and adjacent to the Treviso Bay Development, Project No. 5110 I. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator) G. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report required by Florida Statute 420.9076(4) and direct staff to bring back an amended Impact Fee Deferral ordinance as outlined in the report. (Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator) H. Recommendation to approve the purchase of Group Health Reinsurance coverage for calendar year 2009. (Jeff Walker, Risk Management Director) ($1,310,124) I. Recommendation to Award Bid #09-5157, Seating for the Collier County Emergency Services Center to Marco Office Supply in the amount of $123,411.39. (Steve Carnell, Purchasing Director) J. Recommendation to A ward Bid #09-5158, Systems Furniture for the Collier County Emergency Services Center to Corporate Express in the amount of Page 7 December 16, 2008 $106,153.37. (Steve Carnell, Purchasing Director) K. Recommendation to Award Bid #09-5159, Casegoods for the Collier County Emergency Services Center to The Beaux-Arts Group in the amount of $239,702.77. (Steve Carnell, Purchasing Director) L. Recommendation to: Develop a Landfill Gas-to-Energy Facility that will beneficially use landfill gas from the Collier County Landfill to generate electricity and, in turn, generate new revenue for the County's Solid Waste Fund by (a) entering into a Landfill Gas Sales Agreement and Ground Lease authorizing Waste Management Inc. of Florida to design, permit, construct operate and maintain a Landfill Gas-to-Energy Facility at the Collier County Landfill; (b) amending the County's Landfill Operation Agreement with Waste Management, Inc. of Florida; (c) approving the Facility through the Site Development Plan process; (d) directing the Division Administrator from Community Development and Environmental Services to expedite the permit and review process, and (e) authorizing the Chairman of the Board to execute the Agreement and the Amendment to the Landfill Operating Agreement. (Dan Rodriguez, Solid Waste Director) M. Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve the award of Bid #08-5136 to the lowest qualified and responsive bidder Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., for the construction contract of the 951 Boat Ramp Parking Lot Expansion Project No. 80071. ($1,393,279.65) (Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator) N. Recommend approval by the Board of County Commissioners to award Bid #09-5148 to Subaqueous Services, LLC in the total amount of$I,755,096 for 2008 Dredging of Doctors and Wiggins Passes. (Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator) 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Page 8 December 16, 2008 A. For the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency Board to give direction to the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Executive Director concerning three proposed purchase contracts for multiple real estate parcels within the Bayshore Drive and Gateway Triangle portions of the CRA area. (David Jackson, Executive Director, Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA) 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1) Recommendation to direct Engineering Review Staff to issue Commercial Excavation Permit Number 60.010, AR 11983, to Barron Collier Partnership, L.L.L.P. for the project called South Grove Lake. The project consists of 158.68 acres, more or less, sitting in Sections 17 and 18 of Township 48, South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, more particularly sitting on the north side of Oil Well Rd. about two miles east of Oil Well Grade and west of the entrance road to Ave Maria. 2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopt a resolution to adjust the regulatory assessment fee from two percent to three percent of gross revenues for non-exempt privately owned water and wastewater utilities subject to local regulation, as well as all other water and wastewater utilities bound by an interlocal agreement, effective March 1,2009, as approved by the Board of County Commissioners in the fiscal year 2009 budget and as approved by the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. 3) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (public) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Arrowhead Reserve at Lake Trafford Phase One with the roadway being maintained by the County and the drainage improvements being privately maintained. Page 9 December 16, 2008 4) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility facility for Tall Oaks, Phase 3. 5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility facility for Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Section 7 - Phase 2. 6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility facility for Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Section 7 and 12. 7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility facility for Edison College. 8) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility facility for North Collier Hospital Expansion. 9) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Terranova at Pelican Marsh Unit One 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 Terrabella at Pelican Marsh Unit One with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained. 11) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Terrabella at Pelican Marsh Unit Two with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained. 12) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve an impact fee reimbursement requested by Cheffy Passidomo Wilson & Johnson, LLP on behalf ofthe Weakley Family Properties, LLC, totaling $249, I 07 .61, due to the cancellation of four building permits. 13) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission Members. Should a hearinl! be held on this item all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to acknowledge those Lots along Ravenna Avenue, as shown on the Page 10 December 16,2008 attached Exhibits, as legal, non-conforming Lots of Record. 14) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Trail Ridge with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained. 15) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission Members. Should a hearinl! be held on this item, all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Amerimed Center, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 16) Recommendation that Board of County Commissioners approves Option #3 and takes no action on Public Petitioner's request to change allowable uses in the Randall Boulevard Commercial Sub-district within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Mir Mar PUD. B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a Budget Amendment recognizing an additional $404,634.00 in State Public Transit Block Grant funding for Fiscal Year 2008/2009. 2) Recommendation to approve the purchase of four (4) paratransit vehicles utilizing the FY08-09 Federal Transit Administration Section No. 5310 Grant award. ($31,080) 3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution to reduce the speed limit on Oakes Boulevard between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road from the current speed limit of forty-five miles per hour (45 MPH) to thirty-five miles per hour (35 MPH). 4) Recommendation to approve a Resolution to reduce the speed limit on Coconut Unit 3 residential roadway network (Burton Road, Esther Street, Bonnie Street, Lorraine Avenue, Kathy Avenue and Gale Boulevard) from the current speed limit of thirty miles per hour (30 MPH) to twenty-five miles per hour (25 MPH). Page 11 December 16,2008 5) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute the attached Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 grant application, and to accept the grant if awarded. 6) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute the attached Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 grant application and applicable documents. 7) Recommendation to approve and execute Medicaid Contract Amendment Number 8 between Collier County and the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged for a funding increase in the amount of $41 ,920.00 for the provision of transportation for qualified Medicaid recipients. 8) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve a budget amendment to recognize revenue for the Congestion Management, TIS Review, PUD Monitoring/Traffic Counts PIL, and PUD Monitoring/Fair Share Projects within the Transportation Supported Gas Tax Fund (313) in the amount of $630,271.32. 9) Recommendation to approve the purchase of one (1) para-transit vehicle utilizing the FY08-09 Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Assistance Support Grant award. ($59,400) 10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve the Northeast Collier County Trail Feasibility Study Final Report. Due to the size of the Final Report, Volumes I and 2, copies are available at the County Managers office. 11) Recommendation to approve the purchase of improved property Parcel No. 132FEE (Jerry L. Mitchell and Barbara Mitchell) required for the construction of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension project. Project No. 60168. (Fiscal Impact: $729,104) 12) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve a budget amendment to recognize carry forward in the amount of $3,583.99 and to recognize additional revenue for the Collier County Transportation Pathways Program in the amount of$23,550.08 for Page 12 December 16,2008 Project No. 690811 and direct staff to proceed with the design and construction phase of the proposed projects. 13) Recommendation to award Contract #08-5107 to Dyer, Riddle, Mills and Precourt, Inc., to prepare the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organizations 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan Update with an estimated project cost of$505,159.00. (Fund 128, Cost Center No. 138334) C. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to appropriate funds in the amount of $61,760.60 to reimburse the Collier County School Board for re-routing the Lely High School Force Main associated with SCWRF Reliability Improvements Project No. 72508. 2) Recommendation to Award Bid #08-5123 for purchase of hauling and disposal of lime sludge services to Pro-Lime Corporation in the estimated amount of $150,000 annually. 3) Recommendation to Award Bid #09-5145 for purchase of cartridge filters for the North and South County Regional Water Treatment Plant to George S. Edwards, Company Incorporated in the estimated amount of$500,000. D. PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Recommend approval by the Board of County Commissioners of Use Agreement No. U-0344 between Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida and Collier County. 2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Rolly St. Jour (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 155, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Natalie Conde (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for Page 13 December 16, 2008 an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 174, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Serge Mathurin and Michelene Mathurin (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 95, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amount of $75,000 for FY09, FYIO and FYII to Contract #08- 5082, Sea Oat Planting for Collier County Coastal Zone Management. (Project No. 195-900441) 6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Kenold Pierre and Marie Gertrude (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 40, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a Consent of Mortgagee thereby allowing Eden Gardens Apartments Limited Partnership (EGALP) to execute a grant of easement to Lee County Electric Cooperative (LCEC) for the Reserve at Eden Gardens. 8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Medelsonne Garraux and Rose G. Garraux Gerome (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 176, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Mayra Cardenas (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 48, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Christy Page 14 December 16, 2008 Marie Fegueroa (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 49, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Rebecca Antoine (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 29, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 12) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Manus Louis and Juslene Louis (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 170, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Styve Desgrottes and Najah M. Desgrottes (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 135, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 14) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Suzella Joseph (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 172, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 15) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Philornise Francois (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 45, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 16) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Ketty Montoban (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 175, Trail Ridge, East Naples. Page 15 December 16, 2008 17) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Mario Diaz Lujan and Jael Avalos Perez (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 171, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 18) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jean Baptiste Sergot Souverain and Marie Edith Souverain (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 38, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 19) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Pabiliee Anofils (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 119, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 20) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Frantz Desgrottes and Rolande Desgrottes (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 138, Trail Ridge, East Naples. 21) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Ignacio Zaragoza and Maria Zaragoza Benitez (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 52, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 22) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Martha Luz Carrillo (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 108, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 23) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jose Santos Avellaneda and Marisol Mendoza (Owners) for deferral of Page 16 December 16, 2008 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 51, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 24) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Marie G. Jorcelin (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 50, Liberty Landing, Immokalee. 25) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Francisco Vera and Maria Juana Vera (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 8, Milagro Place, Immokalee. 26) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Therese St. Cyr (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 2, Milagro Place, Immokalee. 27) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Amalia Lubrefand Mentorlis Lubref(Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 7, Milagro Place, Immokalee. 28) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Lucienne Larose (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 18, Milagro Place, Immokalee. 29) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, the annual Certification for Implementation of Regulatory Reform Activities by the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program. 30) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners recognize and approve the expenditure of Housing and Urban Development Page 17 December 16, 2008 (HUD) funds in the amount of$84,375.00 for the Golden Gate Senior Meals Program which is administered by the Department of Housing and Human Services (RRS). This program is an expansion to an existing HHS program which provides nutritious meals to low-income seniors in Collier County. 31) Recommendation to approve and execute a Lease Agreement with Messiah Lutheran Church, Inc. of Golden Gate for space to accommodate the Rousing and Human Services Senior Nutrition Program. 32) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves and authorizes the Chairman to sign an Agreement between Collier County and VI Ltd., Limited Partnership regarding professional services for Collier County beach amenities on Bluebill Avenue thereby ratifying and confirming all actions taken by Staff with the Developer in this matter. 33) Present the Board of County Commissioners a summary of Impact Fee Deferral Agreements recommended for approval in FY09, including total number of Agreements approved, total dollar amount deferred and balance remaining for additional deferrals in FY09. 34) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a sub-recipient agreement providing for a Housing and Urban Development (RUD) grant to the Physician Led Access Network (PLAN) in the amount of$40,000 to provide medical referral services and prescription medications for low-income residents in Collier County. 35) Recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the award of Bid #08-5134 to the lowest qualified and responsive bidder Williamson Brothers Marine Construction, Inc. for construction contract of the Caxambas Boat Dock Project #80057.1. ($132,140.00) 36) Recommendation to accept a donation from Collier County Veterans Council in the amount of $23,360.40 for purchase of a vehicle for the Veterans Transportation Program. Approve Budget Amendments to recognize the donation and transfer funds to the Veterans Transportation Program. Reference Item #5A, December 16, 2008. Page 18 December 16, 2008 37) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the Chairman to sign Change Order #1 to Work Order C3TS-FT-4153-08-02 for design consultant C3TS for the Manatee Park design in the amount of$50,000.00 on a time & material, not-to- exceed basis to provide the Site Development Plan and the required SFWMD permits. The net contractual value of services will total $243,950.00. 38) Request Board of County Commissioners approval ofInternational City/County Management Association (ICMA) Public Library Innovation Grant, in the amount of$53,770 and authorization for the Chairman to sign the application. 39) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve the budget amendment and authorize the Chairman to sign a grant agreement with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for Economic Development Initiative (EDI) funds in the amount of$147,000 for improvements to South Park in Immokalee. E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Alan Tucker for 10 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $35,500. 2) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Norma Depestre-Coba for 4.54 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $72,800. 3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Alina Gonzalez for 2.50 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $40,300. 4) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Harold Mir for 2.50 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $40,300. 5) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Manuel Palacios and Aida Jauregui for 4.93 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, not to exceed Page 19 December 16,2008 $79,100. 6) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Richard F. Berman, as to 50%, and Frank J. Celsnak and Marlene J. Celsnak, as Trustees U/D/T (or U/A) dated December 27,1991, as to 50%, all as tenants in common, for 1. 14 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $19,300. 7) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Ronald Jack Bortnick and Sherry K. Bortnick, also known as Sherrie K. Bortnick, for 5 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $13,100. 8) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Charles A. Darby and Charlotte T. Darby, Trustees of the Darby Revocable Trust, U/T/D November 7, 1997, for 5 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $13,100. 9) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Ola Phillips Griffin, also known as Ola Mae Griffin for 5 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $13, I 00. 10) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Bernard D. Schaab for 2.5 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $6,900. 11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve an Agreement to provide a maximum expenditure of$47,115 from the GAC Land Trust to the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District for the purchase of Fire Shelters and Radio Equipment. 12) The purpose of this Executive Summary is to gain Board approval ofa long-standing staff practice of soliciting donations for a seasonal, charitable program, which practice includes the use of the County's e- mail system and soliciting cash donations from fellow County employees. Should the Board not grant its approval, the employees would be left to continue whatever charitable work they wish to Page 20 December 16, 2008 engage in outside of County Government. 13) Recommendation the Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order #1 to Contract #08-5073 with RW A, Inc. for the Immokalee Master Plan and Related Services and approve $165,500 Budget Amendment as sufficient appropriation to fund a Public Realm Plan in the Scope of Services. Companion to Item # 16G 1. 14) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a Resolution and approve a Lease Agreement with State Representative Matt Hudson for use of County-owned office space for an initial two year term at a total revenue of$20. 15) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a Resolution and approve a Lease Agreement with State Representative David Rivera for use of County-owned office space for an initial two year term at a total revenue of $20. 16) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a Resolution and approve a Lease Agreement with State Representative Tom Grady for use of County-owned office space for an initial two year term at a total revenue of$20. 17) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a Resolution and approve a Lease Agreement with State Senator Garrett Richter for use of County-owned office space for an initial four year term at a total revenue of $40. 18) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts. F. COUNTY MANAGER 1) Approve budget amendments. 2) Recommendation to approve a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Dept. 3) Recommendation to accept payment for principal balances for ground and air Emergency Medical Services charges in the amount of Page 21 December 16, 2008 $7,054.20 and to waive the interest due for these transports in the amount of$I,607.17. 4) Recommendation to authorize Budget Amendments for the Conservation Collier Land Maintenance Fund (174) and Debt Service Fund (272) to insure adequate cash balance for the January 1,2009 debt service payment. 5) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Understanding amending and revising the Year 2006-2009 Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Southwest Florida Professional Firefighters Local 1826 International Association of Firefighters, Inc. 6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a Resolution in support of the tourism industry position on drilling for natural gas and oil off the shoreline of Florida. 7) Recommendation the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the Chairman to sign Change Order #2 for Miles Media Group Contract #06-4037 in the amount of$22,878.00 which includes a Staff authorized expense of $7,964.00 for the 2008 Visitor Guide. 8) Recommendation to approve contract for RFP #08-5081 with Public Financial Management, Inc., for Financial Advisory Services. 9) Obtain approval from the Board of County Commissioners to authorize a second offering of a Voluntary Separation Incentive Program, empower the County Manager to implement program and authorize the Chairman to sign the enabling Resolution in an effort to assist the County Manager's Agency in meeting financial goals. G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1) Recommendation to the Community Redevelopment Agency to approve Change Order #1 to Contract #08-5073 with RW A, Inc. for the Immokalee Master Plan and Related Services and approve a $165,500 Budget Amendment sufficient appropriation to fund a Public Realm Plan in the Scope of Services. This is a companion to Item #16El3. Page 22 December 16, 2008 2) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners accept additional funds from Florida Department of Transportation in the amount of$3,763 and provide a fifty percent (50%) match in the amount of$3,763 for a total Budget Amendment of $7,526 for design, permitting, bidding and construction oversight for apron and parking lot expansion at the Marco Island Executive Airport. 3) Recommendation that the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB) adopt a Resolution establishing a performance evaluation process for the CRA Executive Directors. H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Proclamation recognizing Irv Berzon for services to Collier County. 2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. Attended the ENCA Luncheon on November 20, 2008 at Carrabba's on East 41 in Naples, FL. $21.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. Attended the ENCA Luncheon on September 18, 2008 at Carrabba's on East 41 in Naples, FL. $21.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. Attended the Friends of the Library Sock Rop Dance on December 12,2008 at South Regional Library in Naples, FL. $10.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. 5) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement to attend an event serving a valid public purpose. Attended the Collier Citizen of the Year 2008 dinner on 11/21/08. $35.00 to be paid out of Commissioner Henning's travel budget. Page 23 December 16, 2008 I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed. J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners designate the Sheriff and Sheriff Elect as the Official Applicant(s) and Points-of- Contact, accepters of the Grant when awarded, receive and expend Grant funds, and approve and submit applicable budget and program modifications for a United States Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2009 Operations Stonegarden Grant. 2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an Agreement authorizing the Collier County Sheriffs Office to have Traffic Control Jurisdiction over Private Roads within the VeronaWalk Subdivision. 3) Request that the Board of County Commissioners accepts and approves capital asset disposition records for time period October I, 2007 through September 30, 2008. 4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept the report of Interest for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008 pursuant to Florida Statute 218.78 and Purchasing Policy XIE, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008. No interest was paid. 5) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of November 22, 2008 through November 28, 2008 and for submission into the official records of the Board. 6) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of November 29,2008 through December 05,2008 and for submission into the official records of the Board. K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to authorize an Offer of Judgment for Parcel 115FEE by Collier County to property owner Norma Farmilo, Individually and as Trustee, in the lawsuit styled CC v. Robbie L. Page 24 December 16, 2008 Rayburn, et a!., Case No. 07-4268-CA (Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension Project No. 60091) (Fiscal Impact: Ifaccepted, $48,038.00). 2) Recommendation to Authorize the County Attorney to File a Lawsuit on Behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Against Josefa De La Rosa in County Court in and for Collier County, Florida, to Recover Damages in the Amount of$6,019.50. 3) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the amount of $26,000.00 for Parcel I 64RDUE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. John Goddard, et aI., Case No. 07-3111-CA (Oil Well Road Project 60044). (Fiscal Impact $12,870.00) 4) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the amount of $39,000.00 for Parcel 184RDUE in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Helmut Hittinger and Lynda Hittinger, as Co- Trustees of the Helmut Rittinger Revocable Trust dated April 29, 1991, et a!., Case No. 07-3898-CA (Oil Well Road Project No. 60044). (Fiscal Impact $27,800.00) 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI- JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN. A. This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission Members. Should a hearinl! be held on this item, all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition A VESMT- 2007 - AR -12316, 1999 Gordon River Lane, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the Publics interest in a that portion of a 25-foot wide Page 25 December 16, 2008 drainage easement along the rear of Lot 1, Nature Point, as filed in Plat Book 20, Pages 20-22 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, situated in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, the vacated portion being more specifically depicted and described in Exhibit A and accept the replacement drainage easement also shown on Exhibit A. B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. CU-2007-AR-12619, K.O.V.A.C Enterprises, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock, AICP, of Davidson Engineering, is requesting a Conditional Use for a refuse system in the Industrial (I) zoning district. The +/- 3.73-acre subject property is located at 1995 Elsa Street, Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. CTS C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDA-2008-AR- 13494, Kite Kings Lake, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., is requesting a PUD Amendment to modify the permitted commercial uses within the Kings Lake PUD. (Ordinance No. 82-52) The subject property is located at 4890 Davis Boulevard, in Section 7, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. CTS D. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget. E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners enact an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 87-55, as amended, Imperial Golf Estates, Phase V. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383. Page 26 December 16, 2008 December 16, 2008 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. Welcome to the Board of Collier County Commissioners' regular meeting of December 16, 2008. Today's invocation will be given by JR Pagan, International Worship Service. And by the way, he's looking for a benefactor, if anybody knows one. And after that we're going to do the Pledge of Allegiance. Would you all rise, please. PASTOR PAGAN: Good morning. Dear Creator of all things, we thank you. We give you all our glory for everything you allow us to do. We thank you for this year for all the work that this community and these leaders have put forward, God, for the well-being of this county. I ask you that your favor is with them in everything that they do. God, I ask you also for every person that is over here that want to bring this county and this society and this community forward. God, I ask you that we do everything just to honor you and also to raise the value and -- of people in our community, God. I ask you all these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2A REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA- APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning, County Manager. Would you please walk us through today's change list. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I will. Page 2 December 16, 2008 Agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners, December 16, 2008. The first item is to add on Item 4A. It's a proclamation recognizing I-HOPE, Inc., for its contributions to Collier County and the residents of Immokalee and for their continuing efforts in rebuilding homes and lives in Immokalee. This item is added on at Commissioner Coletta's request. There is another proclamation add-on. Commissioner Henning, you want to talk about that while we're right there at that section. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I was trying to look it up. Over the weekend in Naples Daily News, Sunday's paper, one of our employees is in Iraq, and she used to be a MedFlight personnel. And we're working up a proclamation to get that on the agenda and get it over to her before the holidays. MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioners, I don't believe that -- the proclamation is being drafted. I don't think we have an official copy. So in this particular change, I believe the chairman's asking for you, his authority so he can sign that proclamation and give it to her at Christmastime. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And actually what we're going to do, we're going to read it, I want to create a video and get it over to her. There's -- I'm sure there's a lot of employees that would like to say hello. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signifY by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 3 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item on the change sheet is Item 5A. Also presenting this item will be Reg Buxton, the President of the United Way of Collier County, and that clarification's at staff and presenter's request -- The next item, which you do not have on your sheet, okay -- so it's Item 6A. It is a public petition request by Larry Basik to discuss small scale GMP amendment on U.S. 41 East and Trinity Place. That petition has been withdrawn at the petitioner's request. So 6A has been withdrawn. Next item is Item 7 A. This item, conditional use 2008-AR-13201, was continued from the October 28,2008, BCC meeting rather than the November 18,2008, BBC meeting. That clarification's at staffs request. Next item is Item 7B. This item, variance 206-AR-II064, was continued from the December 2,2008, BBC meeting. Again, that clarification is at staffs request. Next item is Item 7C. This item, Moraya Bay Beach Club, conditional use 2006-AR-ll 046, was continued from the December 2, 2008, BCC meeting and is further continued indefinitely. That's at the petitioner's request. The next item is Item lOA. It's regarding the Port of the Isles Marina acquisition. The agreement for sale and purchase agreement was executed by the owners and signed by the county attorney as to form and legal sufficiency, and it has been distributed and made available for review. That's at staffs request. Next item is Item 10G. The title on the executive summary in the recommendations should read, recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the 2008 incentive review and Page 4 December 16, 2008 recommendation report as required by the Florida Statute 420-9076 (4), and authorize staff to bring back an amended impact fee deferral ordinance as outlined in the report or per direction of the Board of County Commissioners. You'll receive the report, and then today you'll tell staff how you want us to go about changing the ordinance. The next item is to withdraw Item ION. Intent to protest received. Also note that the dollar amount has changed and the title should read, recommend approval by the Board of County Commissioners to award bid 09-5148 to Subaquatics Services, LLC, in the total amount of$I,556,419.26 rather than 1,772 -- $1,755,096. That request -- that clarification's at staffs request. Again, the item has been withdrawn from today's agenda because of a bid protest. The next item is 16A2. The resolution attached to the agenda packet references the date of March 1, 2008. Under paragraph 1, it should have read, March 1,2009. That clarification's at staffs request. The next item is to move 16A3 to 10Q. That's a recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (public) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Arrowhead reserve at Lake Trafford, Phase 1, with the roadway being maintained by the county and the drainage improvements being privately maintained. That item is being moved at Commissioner Henning's request. The next item is Item 16A15. The plat map on Page 6 of6 of this agenda item has been replaced with the revised map that notes the preserve setback. Copies have been distributed this morning and made available for review. This clarification's at Commissioner Henning's request. Next item is to move 16A16 to 100. This item to be heard at 5 p.m. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve option three and take no action on the public petition request to change allowable uses in the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the MirMar Page 5 December 16, 2008 PUD. This item is being moved at Commissioner Coletta's request. The next item is 16B4. The title of the item, including the executive summary and the resolution, should reference Gail Boulevard, and the proper spelling should be G-A-I-L Boulevard. That clarification is the request of Commissioner Fiala. The next item is to move 16B 11 to 10R. It's a recommendation to approve the purchase of improved property parcel number 132FEE, Jerry L. Mitchell and Barbara Mitchell required for Vanderbilt Beach Road extension project, project number 60168, fiscal impact $729,104. This item is being moved at Commissioner Henning's request. The next item is withdraw Item 16C2, intent to protest received. That was a recommendation to award bid number 08-5123 for purchase of hauling of disposal of lime sludge services to Pro-Lime Corporation in the estimated amount of $150,000 annually. This item is being withdrawn at staffs request. Again, we received a bid protest. The next item is to withdraw Item 16D30 and to withdraw 16D31. Both were companion items. And this had to do with the Golden Gate Senior Meals Program and a lease with the Messiah Lutheran Church. The item is being -- those items are being withdrawn at staffs request. The next item is to move Item 16D37 to 1 OP, 10 papa. Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the chairman to sign change order number 1 to work order C3T6 -- excuse me -- C3TS-FT-4153-08-02 for the design consultant C3TS for the Manatee Park design in the amount of $50,000 on a time and material not-to-exceed basis to provide the Site Development Plan and the required South Florida Water Management District permits. The net contractual value of the services will total $243,950. This item is being requested to move to the regular agenda by Commissioner Coyle. The next item we need to scratch off the list. I had Page 6 December 16, 2008 communications with Commissioner Henning, and he's okay with the item being left on the consent agenda, and that is 16F8. So the request to move it to 10S has been withdrawn, and we're going to keep it on the consent agenda. The next item is Item 16G 1. This item is a companion item to 16E 13 rather than 16E 14 as stated in the title of the executive summary. That clarification is at Commissioner Fiala's request. Next item is to move Item 17C to 8B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's PUDA-2008-AR-13494, Kite Kings Lake, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., is requesting a PUD amendment to modify the permitted commercial uses within the Kings Lake PUD, ordinance 82-52. The subject property is located at 4890 Davis Boulevard in Section 7, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida, CTS. This item is being moved at Commissioner Fiala's request. You have two time certain items for today's agenda. It's Item 100, originally 16A 16, to be heard at 5 p.m., and that is the recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve option three to take no action on public petitioner's request to change allowable uses in the Randall Boulevard commercial district within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the MirMar PUD. Again, that item was moved at Commissioner Coletta's request. The next time certain item today is Item 14A to be heard 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, December 16, 2008, per the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency Board to give direction to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA executive director concerning three proposed purchase contracts for multiple real estate parcels within the Bayshore Drive and Gateway/Triangle portions of the CRA area. David Jackson, your executive director of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle, will present that item. This item's time certain was requested Page 7 December 16, 2008 by Commissioner Fiala. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before -- we have one speaker on today's consent or summary, but before we do that, let's get ex parte communications, any further changes. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no further changes to the agenda. With respect to the consent agenda, I have no disclosure. With respect to the summary agenda, I have disclosure for 17B. I received correspondence concerning this item, and for 17C, I've had meetings, correspondence, emails; I've met with Rich Y ovanovich, Wayne Arnold, and Eric Strickland concerning this item. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I have no changes to the consent agenda nor the summary agenda, and my ex parte for the consent agenda, I have no disclosures on the consent agenda. As for the summary agenda, I have one item, and that is 17C, which has been moved to 8B later on, but I've had emails in regards to this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have no ex parte communication on today's summary or consent agenda except for talking to staff. And further changes on the agenda, on Item F -- or 16F8, recommendation to approve the public financial management. The county manager had the fiscal language, fiscal impact language change. Is that included in today's changes? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Let me just get the piece of paper. For the record, we had a conversation with the county attorney, Page 8 December 16, 2008 and we -- and on 16F8 -- just let me find it, sir. The second sentence of the fiscal impact should state, the county manager or his designee must authorize -- must authorize any special project work, and added, as approved by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And furthermore, recommendations to additions to that summary agenda, that the agreement will have an appendix on the cost -- MR. MUDD: On the costs that-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- on the costs as far as the RFP-- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- that were -- and then the final change that I have is to move back on the consent agenda 16B 11. That was on the change list to go to lOR. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: So you want 16B 11 to stay on the consent agenda? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct, even though I have concerns. I'm sure they can be addressed. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no ex parte on the consent agenda. On the summary agenda, on 17C, I have spoken many times with people in Kings Lake, also planning -- planning commissioner for that area and with Rich Y ovanovich, and if he -- is he in the audience? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Ifhe was in the audience, I would have been able to leave it on the summary, because what we're trying to do it just tighten that up to protect the people in that area. But he isn't here, so I'll have to leave it on the regular agenda. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, and good mornmg. Page 9 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no other changes to the agenda, and with the movement of the 17C to the regular agenda, I have nothing to declare for either the summary agenda or the consent agenda. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you. We have a public speaker on today's summary or consent agenda. MS. FILSON: We have a public speaker for Item 16J2, Barry Gerenstein. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Come up to the mike, sir. MR. GERENSTEIN: Good morning. I'd just like to thank the commissioners, the Sheriffs Department, and the county attorney. This is the traffic agreement for Verona Walk. It's long needed and wanted by the residents of the community, and we're glad that it's finally at this point. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record, please? MR. GERENSTEIN: Barry Gerenstein. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. GEREN STEIN : Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve today's agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta. 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? Page 10 December 16, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Page 11 AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING December 16. 2008 Add On Item 4A: Proclamation recognizing I HOPE, Inc. for its contributions to Collier County and the residents of Immokalee and for their continuing efforts in rebuilding homes and lives in Immokalee. (Commissioner Coletta's request.) Item 5A: Also presenting this item will be Reg Buxton, President, United Way of Collier County. (Presenter's request.) Item 7A: This item (CU-2008-AR-13201) was continued from the October 28,2008 BCC meeting, rather than the November 18, 2008 BCC meeting. (Staff's request.) Item 7B: This item (V A-2006-AR-11 064) was continued from the December 2, 2008 BCC meeting. (Staff's request.) Item 7C: This item (Moraya Bay Beach Club CU-2006-AR-11046) was continued from the December 2, 2008 BCC meeting and is further continued indefinitely. (Petitioner's request.) Item 10A: Regarding the Port of the Islands Marina Acquisition, the Agreement for Sale and Purchase ("Agreement") as executed by the owners and signed by the County Attorney as to form and legal sufficiency, has been distributed and made available for review. (Staff's request.) Item 10G: The title on the executive summary and the Recommendation should read: "Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report as required by Florida Statute 420.9076(4) and authorize staff to bring back an amended Impact Fee Deferral ordinance as outlined in this report." (Staff's request.) Withdraw Item 10N (Intent to protest received): Also note that the dollar amount has changed and the title should read: "Recommend approval by the Board of County Commissioners to award Bid #09-5148 to Subaqueous Services, LLC in the total amount of $1,556,419.26. . ." rather than $1,755,096). (Staff's request.) Item 16A2: The resolution attached in the agenda package references the date of March 1, 2008 under paragraph 1. The date should read March 1, 2009. (Staff's request.) Move 16A3 to 10Q: Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (public) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Arrowhead Reserve at Lake Trafford Phase One with the roadway being maintained by the County and the drainage improvements being privately maintained. (Commissioner Henning's request.) Item 16A15: The plat map on page 6 of 6 ofthis agenda item has been replaced with a revised plat map that notes the preserve setback. Copies have been distributed and made available for review. (Commissioner Henning's request.) Move 16A16 to 100: This item to be heard at 5:00 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves Option 3 and takes no action on Public Petitioner's request to change allowable uses in the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Mir Mar PUD. (Commissioner Coletta's request.) 12/16/2008 8:51 :56 AM Item 16B4: The title of this item, including the Executive Summary and the Resolution, should reference "Gale" Boulevard as "Gail" Boulevard. (Commissioner Fiala's request.) Move 16B11 to 10R: Recommendation to approve the purchase of improved property Parcel No. 132FEE (Jerry L. Mitchell and Barbara Mitchell) required for the construction of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension project. Project No. 60168. (Fiscal Impact: $729,104.) (Commissioner Henning's request.) Withdraw Item 16C211ntent to protest receivedl: Recommendation to Award Bid Number 08-5123 for purchase of hauling and disposal of lime sludge services to Pro-Lime Corporation in the estimated amount of $150,000 annually. (Staff's request.) Withdraw Item 16030: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners recognize and approve the expenditure of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds in the amount of $84,375.00 for the Golden Gate Senior Meals Program which is administered by the Department of Housing and Human Services (HHS). This program is an expansion to an existing HHS program which provides nutritious meals to low-income seniors in Collier County. (Staff's request.) Withdraw Item 16031: Recommendation to approve and execute a Lease Agreement with Messiah Lutheran Church, Inc. of Golden Gate for space to accommodate the Housing and Human Services Senior Nutrition Program. (Staff's request.) Move 16037 to 10P: Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the Chairman to sign Change Order #1 to Work Order C3TS-FT-4153-08-02 for design consultant C3TS for the Manatee Park design in the amount of $50,000.00 on a time and material, not-to-exceed basis to provide the Site Development Plan and the required SFWMD permits. The net contractual value of services will total $243,950.00. (Commissioner Coyle's request.) Move Item 16F8 to 10S: Recommendation to approve contract for RFP 08-5081 with Public Financial Management, Inc., for Financial Advisory Services. (Commissioner Henning's request.) Item 16G1: This item is a companion item to 16E13 rather than 16E14, as stated in the title ofthe Executive Summary. (Commissioner Fiala's request.) Move Item HC to 8B: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA-2008-AR-13494, Kite Kings Lake, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., is requesting a PUD Amendment to modify the permitted commercial uses within the Kings Lake PUD (Ordinance No. 82-52). The subject property is located at 4890 Davis Boulevard in Section 7, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. CTS. (Commissioner Fiala's request.) Time Certain Items: Item 100 10riQinally 16A16l to be heard at 5:00 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves Option 3 and takes no action on Public Petitioner's request to change allowable uses in the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Mir Mar PUD. (Commissioner Coletta's request.) Item 14A to be heard at 4:30 p.m.. Tuesday. December 16. 2008: For the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency Board to give direction to the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Executive Director concerning three proposed purchase contracts for multiple real estate parcels within the Bayshore Drive and Gateway Triangle portions of the CRA area. (David Jackson, Executive Director, Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA). (Commissioner Fiala's request.) 12/16/2008 8:51:56 AM December 16, 2008 Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F, #2G, #2H, #21, #2J, #2K and #2L MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 5, 2008 - VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD HEARING MEETING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MAZUR; NOVEMBER 7,2008 - VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD HEARING MEETING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PELLETIER; NOVEMBER 13,2008 - VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL MEETING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WATSON; NOVEMBER 14,2008 - BCC/PRE- LEGISLATIVE SESSION WORKSHOP; NOVEMBER 17,2008- VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL MEETING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PELLETIER; NOVEMBER 18, 2008 - BCC/REGULAR MEETING; NOVEMBER 21, 2008 - VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL MEETING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MAZUR; NOVEMBER 21,2008 - VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL MEETING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WATSON; NOVEMBER 24, 2008 - VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL MEETING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRA TE PELLETIER; NOVEMBER 25, 2008 - VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL MEETING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PELLETIER; NOVEMBER 26, 2008 - VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL MEETING WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WATSON - APPROVED AS PRESENTED CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve November 5,2008, Value Adjustment Board special meeting with Special Master Mazur; November 7,2008, Value Adjustment Board special meeting with Special Master Pelletier; November 13,2008, Value Adjustment Board meeting, Special Master Watson; November 14,2008, BCC pre-legislative workshop; November 17,2008, Value Adjustment Board special meeting, Special Master Pelletier; 2000 -- November 18,2008, BCC regular meeting; November 21,2008, value Page 12 December 16, 2008 adjustment (sic) special meeting with Special Master Mazur; November 21,2008, Value Adjustment Board, Special Master Watson; November 24th Value Adjustment Board special meeting with Special Master Pelletier; November 25,2008, Value Adjustment Board special meeting with Special Master Pelletier; November 26, 2008, Value Adjustment Board special meeting with Special Master Watson. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas. 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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that will bring us to -- we have no service awards for today. That will bring us to proclamations. Item #4A PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE I HOPE, INC. FOR ITS CONTRIBUTIONS TO COLLIER COUNTY AND THE RESIDENTS OF IMMOKALEE AND FOR THEIR CONTINUING EFFORTS IN REBUILDING HOMES AND LIVES IN IMMOKALEE - ADOPTED Page 13 December 16, 2008 The first proclamation was on the change sheet, and that was an add-on. It was Item 4A. It's a proclamation recognizing I-HOPE, Inc., for its contribution to Collier County and the residents of Immokalee and for their continuing efforts in rebuilding homes and lives in Immokalee. This item was added on at Commissioner Coletta's request. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. It's, indeed, an honor to be able -- Mr. Hears, you can come right up front here for now. Please, everyone connected with I-HOPE. It's good to see everyone here. There's been a lot of effort ongoing in Immokalee. I don't know how many people realize the -- what I-HOPE and what the different organizations have combined to accomplish, but it's been absolutely amazmg. Whereas, Immokalee, helping our people is emergencies, I-HOPE, Incorporated, was founded in January of2006 with the mission statement to meet the needs for ongoing coordination in Immokalee, Collier County, Florida, providing support for people whose lives have been impacted by local disaster. I-HOPE, Incorporated, will also provide collaborative leadership for planning, recovery, rebuilding, mitigation, and advocacy for people in this community; and, Whereas, I-HOPE, Incorporated, came into existence in the aftermath of Hurricane Wilma that struck the west coast of Florida in the early morning hours of October 24,2005, with winds in excess of 130 miles per hour whippeting the coastline. The storm was the first hurricane to strike this area of Florida in several decades; and, Whereas, vanloads of Amish workers from Indiana, Iowa, and Michigan arrived in January, 2007, and stayed through early March living, working, and getting to know the wonderful people of Immokalee. Other Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, and United Church of Christ volunteers from Eerie, Pennsylvania; Oregon; Page 14 December 16, 2008 Florida; and North Carolina, joined hands to reach out repairing roofs, rebuilding the inside of homes, helping place FEMA mobile homes in place and saw first hand devastation that rivaled terrible living conditions in other areas of America. Many of the restoration work is anticipated to be completed by the end of2008; and, Whereas, One-on-One Leadership Foundation of Southwest Florida supported the I-HOPE director for eight months until funding could be obtained to assist this rural community from the destruction suffered from Hurricane Wilma; and, Whereas, I-HOPE, Incorporated, has implemented a disaster preparedness plan that incorporated private citizens, farm laborers, business, and educational institutions working together to prepare our community for future disasters; and, Whereas, Immokalee CERT, Community Emergency Response Team, consists of 19 members that have been certified to work with the Immokalee fire department and local health department in case of local emergencies, including hurricane, tornadoes, wildfires, and pandemic flus; and, Whereas, I-HOPE, Incorporated, is part -- in partnership with St. Matthew's House, distributed $25,000 worth of food vouchers to needy senior citizens; and, Whereas, I-HOPE, Incorporated, in partnership with One-On-One Leadership Foundation is rebuilding for clients homes free of charge to the families using CDBG/DRI funds, SHIP funds, federal home loan Bank of Atlanta, and faith-based donations totaling $607,000; and, Whereas, I-HOPE has rehabbed 400 homes, has set up 34 mobile homes for families in Immokalee, and is in the process of completing the installation of another 35 mobile homes for Wilma-impacted families in need. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that I-HOPE, Incorporated, Page 15 December 16, 2008 be recognized for their contributions to Collier County and the residents of Immokalee and for continuing efforts to -- in rebuilding homes and lives in Immokalee. Done and ordered this, the 16th day of December, 2008, signed by our chair, Tom Henning. And I make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to move the proclamation, 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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please, say some words. MR. HEERS: It's truly an honor for me to be here with my staff and a couple of our board members today. Board chair, Ann Goodnight, sends her regrets for not being able to be present with us. She had previously -- previous commitments that made it impossible for her to be here, as well as Pastor Sully, our vice-chair. But we're grateful to have Nancy Freeze, our board treasurer, and also Dick Rice, our board secretary, that are here along with our -- some of our staff; Esther Montero, case manager; Janie Vidaurri, my assistant; and my direct assistant supervisor who volunteers and case manager, is David Grove. I was reading some material by Bill Pollard, who's the CEO of ServiceMasters. You know, they oversee companies like Merry Page 16 December 16, 2008 Maids and TruGreen and Terminex, and he was quoting Peter Drucker on the subject of leadership when he says, leadership has very little to do with charisma or even so-called leadership qualities, or even with the accomplishments of the leader, and much to do with the accomplishments of the followers, the direction that they're being led and who they are becoming in the process. Leadership is all about serving. And I think it is noteworthy that because our -- naturally the funding is going down for recovery efforts, even though our work still continues, work that has been helpfully funded by the Board of County Commissioners with our permitting costs being picked up by other funds that you have provided. One of our employees, who's worked with us since we started, has said to me that even though there's no funding for their position next year as of December 31 st, that it is their intent to continue to be a full-time volunteer doing the work that they have done so capably. That is the true testimony of leadership when there are those who are taking that kind of responsibility. And without the partnership of so many people -- I couldn't even begin to name them all, but you folks are one of those partners -- we've been able to accomplish a great work out in Immokalee, and we're going to continue, as God provides, to do the work to help the poor and disenfranchised out in our community. So thank you for this recognition. We receive it with humility but with great honor today. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well spoken. MR. MUDD: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well spoken. Item #5A Page 17 December 16, 2008 PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF A CHECK TO PURCHASE A NEW VEHICLE FOR THE VETERANS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM. THE CHECK WAS PRESENTED BY JIM ELSON, PRESIDENT, COLLIER COUNTY VETERANS COUNCIL; AND ERNIE BRETZMANN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY - PRESENTED; PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED WAY REG BUXTON ALSO PRESENTING MR. MUDD: That brings us to our presentation part of the agenda. The first presentation to the Board of County Commissioners is a check to purchase a new vehicle for the veterans' transportation program. The check will be presented by Jim Elson, president of the Collier County Veterans Council; Ernie Bretzmann, executive director of the United Way of Collier County; and Reg Buxton, the president of the United Way of Collier County. Gentlemen, if you could please come forward. MR. ELSON: Gentlemen. It's always nice to bring the commissioners money. We have a lot of people involved in this project, and we've invited many of the people that have worked on the project, but also the drivers who deliver the people to their medical appointments. Commissioners, with this group and with this ceremonial check that I have in my hand, I'm very pleased to present you with $23,360.40 so that a new van can be purchased to use and help deliver our veterans to their veterans' appointments at Bay Pines Hospital in Tampa and in Ft. Myers, Homestead, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. We drive nearly 5- to 7,000 miles a month, and a new, safely equipped van will make that much more pleasant, but most importantly, more safe. So with that, I make this presentation. (Applause.) Page 18 December 16, 2008 MR. ELSON: Of course, this could not be done without the help of the United Way, and I'd like to let Ernie say a few words about that. MR. BRETZMANN: Thank you, Jim. We're very proud to sponsor this. As an employee of the United Way of Collier County and a veteran myself, I'm very proud that the board of directors of the United Way of Collier County voted unanimously to support this initiative and to help ensure that our veterans receive the healthcare which they deserve. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. ELSON: One last note I'd like to make is this also came from a year-long effort from the citizens of Collier County. Checks coming in in the amount of 10 or 25 or 50, or some in the amount of 500 or 1,000. But this is from a broad-based support of all of the people within Collier County, and I thank them. (Applause.) MR. ELSON: And I guess I'll give this to Colonel Mudd? CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's great. MR. ELSON: He's in charge of all the important things, correct? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much, Fellows. MR. ELSON: I would like to just say one more little item to what I said earlier. It was Jim DeLony who came to me -- it was Jim DeLony that came to me nearly a year ago with the idea that this could be done saying that the United Way was behind us. I really was a little doubtful that this much money could be raised in a time of the economic situation that we have. But it is with the hard work of lots of people, many of them veterans, that came together to make this all happen. So I want to thank Jim DeLony especially. Thank you. (Applause.) Item #5B Page 19 December 16, 2008 SANT A BARBARA BOULEVARD SIX-LANING FROM DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR-84) TO COPPER LEAF LANE AND RADIO ROAD FOUR-LANING FROM SANTA BARBARA BOULEV ARD TO DA VIS BOULEVARD, CONTRACT 06-0442. (PROJECT #62081) - UPDATE BY NORM FEDER; CONTRACTOR WAS AT THE JOB SITE AND UNAVAILABLE MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next presentation is the Santa Barbara Boulevard six lane from Davis Boulevard State Road 84 to Copper Leaf Lane and Radio Road four laning from Santa Barbara Boulevard to Davis Boulevard, contract number 06-0442. It's project number 62081. And Norman, how you doing? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Contractor must be working today. MR. FEDER: Contractor working. Commissioners, our contractor should be here, but in lieu of that, I'll give you a brief overview and then wait for them to arrive. What I will tell you is the project right now is actually a little bit ahead of schedule. They've got 81 percent of the work completed in 71 percent of the time. They're continuing the effort. And while they have until fall of next year to complete, we're looking at the prospects of, if we maintain the schedule, June or July next year for completion of the project. The original budget was -- is still maintained. The revised budget shows no increase in costs at this time. You pretty much know the typical cross-section. And so what I will do is open it to any questions you have and apologize. The contractor's typically here, Mr. Morgan, but I don't see him, so I will respond to any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board? I have a question. Page 20 December 16,2008 MR. FEDER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I notice that there is a storage of large amounts of dirt on vacant lots. When will that be cleaned up? MR. FEDER: In the project they're using that, and most of that will be brought down to the extension project, which also Astaldi has. They're bringing that over to the area just south of Davis as a start to moving on that project. So I imagine now that they've started up -- we gave them notice to proceed the beginning of this month on that project -- that you'll see a lot of that moved down. Some of it's going to be utilized for the medians and issues on the project itself on Radio and Santa Barbara, but most of it's going to the extension project. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that part of the right-of-way? MR. FEDER: Yes. Where they are right now is either in retention pond or in our right-of-way. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, but to give you a more definitive answer about when, Norm will get with the contractor and give you the specifics on an email to give you -- to let all the commissioners know when -- MR. FEDER: Be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Feder. MR. FEDER: Thank you. Item #6B PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY CYNTHIA DENNIS TO DISCUSS WAIVER OF LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,173.98 IN ORDER TO PREVENT FORECLOSURE - COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO WORK WITH PETITIONER ON THIS ITEM Page 21 December 16, 2008 MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that would bring us to our first public petition. Again, 6A was withdrawn this morning. The next item is 6B. It's a public petition request by Cynthia Dennis to discuss waiver ofa loan in the amount of$19,173.98 in order to prevent foreclosure. MS. DENNIS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name, please. MS. DENNIS: Cynthia Dennis. I am a resident ofImmokalee. I am requesting to speak on behalf of my house that is scheduled for foreclosure on the 18th. I am -- I can save my home -- my home can be saved, but I need the permission from the county commission, I'm sorry, to either waive its loan or accept a partial or half. I take care of my elderly father, which I also have to say he is a veteran also. I -- the loan amount is 19,000, and if I don't try to save it, they will foreclose it. I'm quite sure that I'll be homeless. And I'm here today because I'm asking that the county commissioner (sic) will waive or partial it. And that's basically more -- that I can -- you know, that I can say, and that is why I'm here today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I'm sure we have questions. If you don't mind -- MS. DENNIS: Of course. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- we could go to the commissioners. Commissioner Coletta, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do. Thank you, Commissioner Henning. You're saying that you have half the money to be able to pay this? MS. DENNIS: What I'm saying --I'm sorry. What I'm saying is, I have someone to help me save my home. My father, he's elderly, which I take care of him. And who's going to help me is reverse mortgage. Page 22 December 16, 2008 And so I feel like that was my only -- that was the only hope that I had to go there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, forgive me. MS. DENNIS: It's okay. COMMISSIONER COLETT A: Yeah. You're going down the path of no return with a reverse mortgage. I'm sorry to hear that that was your only option. That's just grasping at straws. It will buy you a little bit of time, but eventually it catches up with you and you have nothing to show for it. This is -- this would be a new precedence if the commission went in this direction. I don't believe we've ever taken it upon ourselves to offset a -- this is a SHIP loan for impact fee deferrals or something? MS. DENNIS: Yes, and 1 got some repairs did on my home. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you help us with this, Mr. Klatzkow? Do you know what this loan's about? MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm quite confused actually. Who's foreclosing on the home? MS. DENNIS: Yale Mortgage. MR. KLATZKOW: I'd be happy to sit down and work with Yale Mortgage. MS. DENNIS: I've tried to work with them. MR. KLATZKOW: I would be happy to sit down and see in could work something out with respect to the SHIP loan. MS. DENNIS: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, we can subordinate this SHIP loan. That's not an issue. I don't think we can just waive it though. MR. MUDD: The problem you have is -- the problem you have is the federal program. You can't waive it. You could take money out of ad valorem and you could pay it, but you can't waive it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm a little confused here. Is this a loan to offset the impact fees? Is this what this is about it. It sounds to Page 23 December 16, 2008 me like this is part of impact fees or what? MR. MUDD: No. Marcy, if you could please get up and describe the loan. MS. KRUMBINE: Yes, thank you. For the record, Marcy Krumbine, Director of Housing and Human Services. This was a loan to assist in doing some rehab work for an income-qualified individual on an owner-occupied house, and it's a federal program. It's the HOME program. And there are some very clear strings attached to any of our programs, and this -- some of the strings that are attached to this is, one, the house remains owner-occupied and in the name of the individual slid and, two, that it remains affordable for a certain length of time based on how much money we used to rehab the home. And in this case, it's a 10-year affordability, and the loan was taken out in 2006. And then lastly, because it's a federal program, we are bound to recapture the money if there is any reason why these things are not kept -- any of these stipulations are not kept up. And currently Ms. Dennis does -- no longer owns the home. She quitclaim deeded it, and so she's already -- she's already not in compliance with the terms of the agreement that we had with her. And by our agreement, the county is bound to recapture the money. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so this is why the -- I'm sorry. I'm speaking out of turn. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, please, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the way I understand it, this loan wouldn't be due at all at this point in time if it wasn't for the quitclaim deed. MS. KRUMBINE: Well, no. The loan would be due -- really what we need to do with the county attorney's office is to pursue getting the money back, because it's under her name but she no longer owns the home. Page 24 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I understand what you're saying. So in other words, if it's in her father's name, that's the reason why he's eligible for this extended type of payment back -- MS. DENNIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- where, what do they call it, the reverse mortgage, he would be the one that would be eligible for it, right, I would assume? MS. KRUMBINE: I'm not sure about that. Probably ifhe's a senior citizen, then yes, that might be, but then that loan would also have to be under his name. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it might not hurt to have the county attorney just make a general inquiry to the bank itself to see if there is something. That home will have no resale value at this point in time under these circumstances, you know, and the market being what it is. So I would think it would behoove the bank to try to come up with a working arrangement. But in any case, we are required to get back the full amount of the loan at this time; is that what it is? MS. KRUMBINE: We're required to recapture the money or make the effort to recapture the money because it's no longer being used for the purpose that we gave it -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And how do you do that -- MS. KRUMBINE: -- and for the individual. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- by -- with a loan on the prop- -- with a lien on the property? MS. KRUMBINE: That would be the county attorney's responsibility. They would -- MR. KLA TZKOW: We have a lien on the property as it is. That's not the issue. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And that lien is the reason why funds can't be drawn down from other sources? MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I really don't understand Page 25 December 16, 2008 what the story is. I'd have to get with the petitioner here and her bank to understand what the story is. I just don't have enough information right now. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Halas? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. Commissioner Halas wasn't finished. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did this person qualify for this loan with -- at the point in time when it was administered to her? MS. KRUMBINE: Are you asking if she qualified for the mortgage or the rehab loan? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the rehab loan. MS. KRUMBINE: Yes. She -- well, she doesn't have to pay that back. She had to income-qualify for the program, and she did. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So what's been the change here? Do you have a -- you don't have a job at the present time? MS. DENNIS: I have ajob at the present time. My job is very slow. I'm a CNA/HHA. My hours is cut tremendously. My husband lost his job, and I was -- I was asked -- someone presented this to me, and that is why I went along with it. And my father, in doing the -- I mean, doing the -- changing the quit claim, they told me that's what I would have to do in order for me to qualify, which I didn't investigate it enough. It was like I was doing something to save my home. And that is why things was changed over, and that is the reason why. I thought I was doing the right thing about, you know, going that road, you know, of doing the reverse mortgage. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is the federal loan subordinate to the mortgage, or do you have any idea? MR. KLATZKOW: This particular one, they generally are-- they generally are subordinate to the first mortgage, yes. Page 26 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: They are. Okay. We don't have any idea what the first mortgage is, how much it is? MR. KLA TZKOW: (Shakes head.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. There are too many unanswered questions, and I -- I'd like to see the commissioners do whatever they can to help Ms. Dennis make the right decisions in this respect, and I think the county manager -- the county attorney has made a good offer. Let him work with Ms. Dennis and the bank to see what can be worked out, and then he can come back and report to us what the actual facts are. MR. KLATZKOW: I'll come back. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because we don't have the authority to waive it. There's nothing, absolutely nothing we can do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, is that okay with you? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. It's really hard for me to understand it, but I'm glad that the county attorney might be able to guide Ms. Dennis along and, you know -- and maybe at least give her some answers on this issue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine with me as far as the direction. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm all done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Had a majority of the board asking -- requesting the county attorney to work with the petitioner and see what we can do. Thank you. MS. DENNIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, ma'am. Okay? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It's just -- the only thing I can -- my expertise, outside of being -- staying at the Holiday Inn Express last night, has to do with a commercial by Robert Wagner, the guy that Page 27 December 16, 2008 used to play the lead role on It Takes a Thief -- he basically talks about reverse mortgages and they'll buy it back and then the person can stay in the particular house until they are no longer with us, and then they take possession of the house. I believe there's probably a clause in there that says the home, on reverse mortgage, needs to be free of all liens before they'll do that, and I believe that's what the issue is. But again, my expertise comes from a commercial. And, you know, it's truth in advertising. But the county attorney will get into it in great detail. Item #6C PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JOHN MARTINOWICH TO DISCUSS BILLING, SURCHARGES AND FEES FOR UTILITY BILLING ACCOUNT - MOTION FOR UTILITY DEPARTMENT TO FOLLOW POLICY AND TO WORK WITH PETITIONER IN TERMS OF A PAYMENT PLAN - CONSENSUS The next item is Item 6C. It's a public petition request by John Martinowich to discuss billing surcharges and fees for utility billing account. Sir, if you could please come forward. MR. MARTINOWICH: Good morning. MR. MUDD: State your name for the record. MR. MARTINOWICH: My name is John Martinowich. I'm a resident at 886 Wyndemere Way. And I thank the commissioners for this opportunity to address a problem I have at the Collier County utilities department. I have a dispute with the department which I've been unable to resolve. For the billing period of June 18th through July 18th of this year, we received the bill for 124,000 gallons of water. We were not Page 28 December 16, 2008 in residence in the house. The month prior to that bill of 124,000 gallons, our usage was zero. The month after the 124,000 gallon bill, our usage was zero. I have not received any reasonable explanation from the utilities department of how we could have consumed 124,000 gallons of water. To put that in perspective, 124,000 gallons is 10 times the amount of water in my swimming pool, which is an above-average swimming pool. The explanations I got from the utility development was, somebody left an outdoor spicket running. The property's patrolled on a daily basis by our security people. I have two neighbors who check the house at least once a week. And to give you some perspective also, our landscaping company was unable to cut our lawn at one period in time when I left the hose on outside for a 12-hour period overnight, and we had only used about 2,000 gallons of water. 124,000 gallons of water would have left water streaming onto the street. The second explanation I got is that there may have been a leaky toilet. We did some tests inside the house. They're rudimentary. But in our sink in the kitchen, we used -- if we do a test, we can do -- the discharge rate is about two gallons per minute, which is less than 100,000 gallons a month, and they claimed we used 124,000 gallons. The discharge out of the toilet is about two gallons every one minute and 45 seconds, which equates to about 60,000 gallons of water. The county -- or excuse me -- the utility department says, well, the ordinance is what it is and we cannot give you any relief. I've asked them to explain in any reasonableness how this could have happened, and the only thing that I can conclude was that when they read the bill for the month of July, they were unable to get a successful reading. And they normally read the bills by what they call a radio, an RF transmitter. The RF transmitter was not working. They did a manual Page 29 December 16, 2008 reading of the bill. And at the time of the manual reading, there was no water running through the meter, and we got -- subsequently we got billed for the 124,000 gallons. After the manual reading, everything went back to normal. And it seems inconceivable to me that we could have used over 4,000 gallons of water a day, per day from the time they did the last reading till the time they did the reading for the 124,000 gallons and mysteriously it corrected itself. I mean, I just find this unreasonable. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board members? Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to hear from our water department. I understand -- I agree with him. It sure is mysterious, especially when nobody noticed any water going anyplace, and it automatically shut off for the next reading. Doesn't sound right. Could we hear from our water department. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Before we do that, I have a question -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- for the petitioner. So you were gone a month? You were gone approximately a month? MR. MARTINOWICH: We were gone approximately six months. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Six months? MR. MARTINOWICH: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MARTINOWICH: And-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now you said you had somebody checking on the property? MR. MARTINOWICH: Yes. We had our next-door neighbors and my other neighbor, who is Dawn Sally York, who probably some of you know, checked the house on a regular basis. Page 30 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: So they walked around the house? MR. MARTINOWICH: They walked around the house, and on a weekly basis they would actually put some Clorox into the toilets and flush them so they would stay -- so -- and they claim that there were no leaky toilets. And as I've already stated, even a leaky toilet couldn't have used that much water. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala wants to hear from staff. Who wants to do it? Mr. Bellone? MR. BELLONE: Commissioners, for the record, my name is Joe Bellone. I'm the Manager of the Utility Billing and Customer Service Department. I have a record of the correspondence that we have with this particular customer and the -- kind of the day-to-day. I do want to start out by saying that we did do a radio read on June 17th, and the meter reading at that time that we took electronically read 50, meaning 50,000 gallons was reading on the meter. On July 18th, the meter readers went out a second time for that month's cycle reading, and the electronic read, again, read 50. We have certain protocols within the water department and utility billing, whereas, if a meter reads the same as in the prior month, we'll send a utility technician to that site to see if it's a matter of, is the radio frequency transmitter not functioning properly or is the meter stuck? There are reasons why you might get a similar read from month to month. So a utility technician went out on July 21 st and did two things. One, they took another electronic read, and it read 50 again. Then they looked at the register of the meter, which is the dial that has the numbers on it, and it showed that the reading at that point, manually, was 174. So if you look at manual reading of 174 compared to the month Page 31 December 16, 2008 before of 50, would say that 124,000 gallons of water passed through the meter. Because the manual read and the electronic read did not match is an indication that the RF transmitter was not working properly. And so at the same time they took the manual read, they also changed the radio frequency transmitter. Based on the phone calls that we had from the customer sometime in August, August 28th, we sent the utility technician out again to do an electronic read and to do a manual read. And at that point, the electronic read was 175 and the manual read was 175, indicating that in that time period from the end of July to the end of August, 1,000 gallons had passed through the meter, and that the radio frequency and transmitter was working properly since the manual read and the electronic read were the same. We have Mr. Mattausch, who's the director of our water department, can explain to you the parts of the meter and how they work together so that you understand how the meter works, if you will. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that the kind of detail that you wanted, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I just -- I don't know if! wanted that much detail, but it sounds like they had a malfunction there and the billing is wrong, from what I'm hearing, and so -- MR. MUDD: No, ma'am, that's not what you're hearing. What you're hearing is the transmitter was broken and the meter had a change read. The meter, the physical meter, was at 174 even though the transmitter was sending out to the van that the collected data said 50. Now, you always go with the manual meter in the ground in order to come up with that. So there was a difference in the amount of water on what the manual -- what he was billed prior at 50,000 and the 174 that the manual read in the meter. Page 32 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Just a couple questions. The meter itself, was it -- the transmitter nonfunctional for months; in other words, you were getting the same reading continuously? For how long? MR. MATT AUSCH: The -- for the record, Paul Mattausch, Water Department Director. And I have a meter here in my hand and I have a transmitter, what we call an ERT. The meter has a register on it, and this continues to work in the event of a failure of that transmitter. The transmitter only takes the signal from the electronic register and transmits it to the equipment in the van as they drive down the road and obtain radio reads. If this fails, this continues to work, and it's this electronic register here that is -- that we went back and read at a later date. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Paul, let's go back to the question. How long had the reader been reading the same? In other words, over how long of a period had it showed the -- whatever it was -- what was it, 50,000 or whatever? Is that -- that's like the base mark. How far back does that go where that didn't change? MR. BELLONE: Commissioner, in -- in the reading in May showed that the reading was 49. As I explained earlier, the reading -- the June reading was 50. And then because the July reading was 50 as well, that's when the utility technician arrived on scene to actually look at the register on the meter. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there anyone that could tamper with that meter by magnets or some other way to be able to make it give a false reading? MR. MATTAUSCH: No, sir. The meter really is -- it's a sealed register, it's electromechanical, and it -- it's -- as I have up on your screen, it meets -- it's compliant with the standards for meters, and that also includes design and verification, which means that these meters are pretty tamper proof. Page 33 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this meter that the water goes through, is this the meter also that supplies the irrigation for the lawns, or is that something separate? MR. MATT AUSCH: I don't know what the irrigation is there. MR. BELLONE: Commissioner, it's a separate irrigation system. So this is just potable service for the home itself, for the home, the pool, et cetera. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, the analogy that he gave us as far as the usage of water, is that correct as far as, you know, it's impossible to get up to those kind of number in one month's period? MR. BELLONE: Yes. You know, there are -- I mean, there are comparisons. A WDI (sic) has some comparisons. Paul, if you want to move down to the bottom. Okay. A running faucet -- and this would be a normal faucet. There are low- flow faucets as well. Certainly we don't understand the fixture that the customer has, you know, within the home. But a running faucet will use three gallons a minute. If that was running for 27 days, inside the home, it would be 121,000 gallons. A running toilet, normal toilet, maybe six gallons a minute. A low-flow would be two-and-a-halfto three gallons a minute. A garden hose, typically on a three-quarter inch connection, would use 600 gallons an hour. That would take about eight days to use 122,000 gallons. And I have a personal story, if you'll allow me. I was on vacation last October. My pool company comes on Thursday to do my pool. Apparently they must have cleaned my pool and put water in the pool, started the hose running on Thursday. And I got home on Saturday night and my -- luckily I was there, and I found the hose in the pool. And my normal bill is 8,000 gallons, roughly, and I had in excess of 40,000 gallons for two-and-a-half days. The pool wasn't overflowing. The outflow, the drain was work Page 34 December 16, 2008 properly. There was no -- there were no signs, no physical signs that the pool had overflowed. So I know -- luckily that I was there, that I saw within two days, two-and-a-half days, you know, that, you know, my bill-- and I got my money back from the pool company. If! had been away another week, that would have run another week, and I'm sure the bill -- it would have been a mystery. The pool company would have come, put the hose back in its case, and I never would have known where it went. So it's difficult to say. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the short of it is, is that you can't think of any circumstances that caused this meter to come up with this reading other than to have water pass through it? MR. BELLONE: That's correct, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So basically the other months that the meter basically stood still with the transmitter, the RF transmitter, he didn't get billed anything? MR. BELLONE: Well, he'll get billed the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Minimum amount. MR. BELLONE: The minimum amount. He won't get billed for consumption, but he will get billed for the availability charges, and those are being paid on a regular basis all year long. He's paying his -- those bills he's paying regularly. The other thing I want to mention to the commissioners is that when we have the complaint, we did send the technician out, and we have what we call an in-ground test, a 1 O-gallon test. The utility technician will run a fixed amount of water through the meter, and then they'll read the dial and compare the reading on the dial to the amount of water they pass through the meter. It's called a 10-gallon test, and that showed that the meter for that limited test was functioning properly. We did offer to have the meter tested, do a bench test, that would Page 35 December 16, 2008 require pulling the meter out of the ground. We can either test it in-house with our own utility technicians -- and there's a cost for that as defined by the ordinance -- or we can actually send it back to the manufacturer for an independent test, and there's a cost for that too. Now, if the merit -- if the results of that test show that it's not within standard accuracy, that test is then free and we'll credit the account back to normal usage. But if it shows that the meter is accurate, in addition to the existing water consumption that's on the bill now, we also would add the test fee as well. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You know, what I'm seeing here, there's a lot of time being spent on this one case, and that doesn't leave me with a lot of comfort. How much is his bill going to be, over $1,000? MR. BELLONE: In this particular instance, for 124,000 gallons, water and sewer together is $1,150. CHAIRMAN HENNING: $1,150. That isjust unreasonable. You know, the burden of proof should be on the government to prove that he did not use this amount. Here comes another one. I mean, there's gobs of money, I'll betcha over $1,000, just in staff time just on this one issue. MR. MUDD: There must be 800 of these a month. That's what he's going to probably tell you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Then that tells me that we have a global problem here. MR. DeLONY: Sir, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator. Sir, the bottom line of this situation is, the government provides -- you used the word government. I use the word utility. The utility provides a service. That service is bonded through the usage as flows and measured by this meter. We've talked to the details of this. Once the material or the product goes through the meter, what happens on the back side of that meter we have no control over. We can speculate what happens on the other side, we can try to explain. Page 36 December 16,2008 We have an adjustment policy. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I didn't ask a question. MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir. I thought there was a question. I apologize. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was a statement. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, I understand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I didn't ask a question. MR. DeLONY: I apologize then. I'll wait for the question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, there was no question. MR. DeLONY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And, you know, the thing of it is, if there are 800 of these going on, we have a problem. I don't believe that we have a residential problem. And what you're -- what you're doing, you're going from a transmitter to reading the meters, but who's to say those meters, when you set up the transmitter, wasn't recorded? Do you have any proof of that? MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, we do. We have the audit trail with regard to all the meter reads up to the point of concerns, we have the meter read subsequent to the read by the meter reader -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: When was the-- MR. DeLONY: -- and then we have the follow-on months. So I think we have our excellent audit trail with regard to that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: When was the transmitter installed? MR. DeLONY: Joe, didn't you say that was done in the month of July? MR. BELLONE: The electronic transmitter was replaced on July 21 st. CHAIRMAN HENNING: When was it installed originally? MR. BELLONE: Probably been in there a while. I can check the records. If I go back for the -- consumption -- MR. DeLONY: Again, in may. To answer your question directly, the transmitter is only a device to send a signal to what's on Page 37 December 16, 2008 this meter here. This doesn't change except for flow through it. So if this fails, this remains active and accurate. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I understand what was said earlier. MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, I got that. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But you had a -- you used to have meter readers go around to every one of the meters and, you know, record the numbers on there, and then you went to the transmitter when they only -- or the responder when they drove by. When was that? When did we start that? MR. DeLONY: It was early 2000s, late 1999,2000, somewhere in that area, that we made the transition, and it took us a series of years to retrofit all of them in. But we were full up and running, Jim, I guess when you came here in 2001 ? MR. MUDD: No. We basically -- we were in the process. We did the first installment -- excuse me. We did the first installment, and I think it was the spring of 2000, and then when I got here in October of 2000, we finished it up and had a series of four more installments and finished up the whole program. So it started around 2- -- at the beginning of2002. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Here's a question for you. MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: When was -- prior to in June, when was the last time you physically read this meter? MR. DeLONY: Do you have that information, Joe? MR. BELLONE: It wasn't physically read. MR. DeLONY: As long as we are seeing through our, what we call an exceptions report, that the meter is not showing any type of equal reads, what Joe described earlier, we would take the read strictly from the UR T (phonetic), from what was transmitted to the van. So I Page 38 December 16, 2008 cannot answer the question when it was physically read except at the time of the meter installation itself, we registered there for the first -- from the beginning. So that would have been the only answer I would have for you on that one, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct, and -- I mean, $1,000 to-- for a month, a water bill for a single-family home, is -- just is not reasonable. And the only thing that I'm saying is, you got to go back from the beginning. And what -- in between the time that the electronic transmitter was installed, what was the meter at that time and what was the gallonage uses? And, you know, bring it forward. But, you know, I can't -- we're getting more and more complaints about these outrageous water bills, and there has to be more than the reason of, well, the toilet's not work right or, you know, left the hose on in the kiddy pool or something like that. I can tell you, when I leave -- when it rains in my pool, I know when it overflows. I can see it out the discharge. So, you know, it's either an internal problem -- it's not an external problem. The gentleman said he had residents going there. There's no -- there's no doubt in my mind, anybody with any common sense entering a home can hear water running, whether it be a toilet or whether it be a sink. Commissioner Halas, commissioner Coyle -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I think that-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- there is a burden on the homeowner in regards to what the Florida Statutes say in regards to water usage. Obviously he wasn't being used (sic) any water when they took some other readings, so there could have been a malfunction at that point in time and it wasn't really caught by the water staff until at such time as they realized that something was amiss, because if he's got a pool, there's got to be water put in that pool every week. So ifhe wasn't being charged, if the meter still retained from the Page 39 December 16, 2008 transmitter that was sending the information and that hadn't moved, then obviously there was water being consumed. And then when the problem was found, then this was all compounded by the fact that they got one bill, and that was because the other months prior to that was not showing up -- was not showing up in the manner it should have been. So I think that you have to look at what the Florida Statutes are. And, yes, we probably got some more of these issues that are coming forward, but this is a utility. And if you start going in this manner where you want to give restitution to this, then it's going to be -- the burden's going to be put on all the other people who are paying the water rates. And so I think you're -- you can't be -- you've got to be fair with everyone in regards to this, and I don't feel it should be a burden put on all the other users who pay every month and would notice that there's some kind of a flaw if they don't get billed for proper water usage and if they have a pool and whatever other amenities that they have that use water. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's way too much inconsistency here for me to be able to make a decision on the information that has been presented. Mr. Martinowich has -- gave us a period for this usage, which is at significant variance from the period that was stated in his letter and in the water usage report from the utilities department. And, in fact, the water usage -- the utilities department has started from the beginning. They give us the entire year's readings, month by month, of water usage for this entire period of time. And for July the 30th the reading was zero. It was the only time during the entire year that there was no usage of water in the petitioner's home but yet the petitioner says that somebody was living in the home for eight days from July the 23rd through 31 st. Page 40 December 16, 2008 Somebody was living there. So why didn't they use water? I don't understand that. So the water usage was zero on July 30th. MR. DeLONY: Again, sir, I can only tell you what we have in our billing records. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand that. MR. DeLONY: We know that specifically because that's the -- that's what we're responsible to provide. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then what I would say then is that Mr. Martinowich has said that for eight days, from July 23rd through the 31 st, the house was occupied; is that correct? MR. MARTINOWICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But yet there's no indication any water was used during that period of time. MR. DeLONY: By the applicant? COMMISSIONER COYLE: By the applicant. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That doesn't make any sense to me, okay. And it's something that somebody's going to have to clear up before we can make a decision on anything. MR. MARTINOWICH: Commissioners, can I have a minute or two rebuttal of some of the things that they've said? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's not my call. It will be up to the chairman. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, go ahead. Just two minutes, that's all. We've got to get this thing finished. MR. MARTINOWICH: Personally we've heard some stories about the pool. The pool was monitored. The pool was not overflowing during this period. In my previous employment, I was the senior vice-president of customer service in business development for United Water Resources, which is the large -- was at the time the largest private utility in the United States. It served 40 million people in 19 states. Page 41 December 16, 2008 Most of our utilities, you had access to a public service, a public utilities commission that are customers, and we work on reasonableness of the charges. There's no reasonableness in this. They can't demonstrate how that much water could have been used -- could have been used. I mean, 124,000 gallons of water on your lawn, somebody would have noticed it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. I guess I'm next. And what I want to do is -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hadn't finished. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you hadn't finished. Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ifwe're going to use some deviation of reasonableness here, you've got to factor in how much water someone might have used since they lived in the house eight days in the last week or so of July. That's going to be probably at least 1,600 gallons. Is that not true? MR. DeLONY: Sir, I can't say that because I don't know what goes on behind that meter. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. DeLONY: I don't know the status of lengths of showers. We've got an anecdotal story about pools. If you're going to have a problem using water wisely in your home, it's probably going to be that pool and your pool service, which, you know, will bring it up -- will, you know, very unscientifically throw a hose, turn on the tap, to raise it to a certain level. And unlike Commissioner Henning's pool, I don't know where my outlet is, so I've had that problem, too. We know that over a period of time, running toilets are very -- and we have some statistics here that they cause significant water -- and it's not usually one event that causes this problem. It's usually a combination. Page 42 December 16,2008 We know there was some people in the home and we know people were checking it. We just don't -- we only know what the meter tells us, truthfully. And our adjustment policy and -- that we have, by ordinance, says, look, we depend on the accuracy of the meter to describe and to prescribe the billings on the account. If there's a dispute about the accuracy, we have a resolution process for that in our adjustment policy, and that's what we've got. In this particular case, this customer decided that he didn't want that adjustment policy to pursue that matter. With all candor, sir, being reasonable from my view deals with what passes through this meter is what we know. What happens beyond it we don't know. I've looked at a lot of utilities here in the course of this last six, seven months to see what they're doing in terms of adjustment policies. Mrs. Fiala recently had one in her district that we worked through together. Mr. Halas has had a couple in his district we've worked through together. Mr. Henning's had a few that we've worked through with his customers. In working through -- and in every single case, the meter was the thing we knew. What happened behind the meter was all anecdotal or evidence that was determined subsequent to what the meter said. We've pulled a few meters through the adjustment policy and we have not found a problem with our meters. I'm not saying -- you know, I'm just telling you, the accuracy is what Mr. Mattausch described. We want to make sure that we are reasonable, but the chart -- the problem with this is that once it passes through this meter, the cost of distribution, treatment is all done. I mean, the cost has been spent. It's like going to a gas station, filling your tank up and going in and paying, because we charge in arrears not in advance with regard to water and water services. So we have to depend on this meter to provide us that indicator, Page 43 December 16, 2008 and through our ordinance we have an adjustment policy, which I believe levels out that fairness. Now, we can't control what happens behind the meter, and I can only speculate. And I certainly empathize with anybody with a high water bill, include the DeLony family. And -- so that's the reason we've been aggressive which regard to our water conservation programs to help me. But that's where we're at, sir. In terms of reasonableness, that's our application. We have spent a lot of time with this matter because we feel every one of these matter, every one of these have consequences for families, and that's what we've attempted to do, sir. I hope I've answered your question. MR. MARTINOWICH: Can I make one final point? CHAIRMAN HENNING: After we go to the commissioners. And first of all, we have Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Halas, and Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Mr. DeLony-- MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you were great when you worked with the people that -- in my district who had a problem. They, too, were out of town, and I guess their bill was over $4,000. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir -- ma'am, it was. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you were able to work out an agreement. We did not want to dismiss the bill because that wasn't right, but you were able to work something out. Can you do that with this gentleman? MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. If I may take a moment -- and there may be a lot of people listening that are going to be in this position, so ifI may, I'd like to take a moment about our adjustment situation, if I may. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we'll have to replay it back because ComCast is not working. The channel's moving. MR. DeLONY: Okay. We're moving today. Page 44 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it's not. MR. DeLONY: Well, just for the benefit that -- of those that are here. What we'll do is, is when you get in arrears on your water bill and it's a big number, we'll sit down with you one-on-one and we'll look at that and we will work with you on establishing a payment plan, normally a year, interest free. In other words, let's say you owe $1,200 in arrears. We'll take that and what -- that $100 a month for the next 12 months on top of your current consumptive bill, and as long as you pay your current consumptive bill, you know, your current bill, and that $100, you're a customer in good standing with the firm, even though you are in arrears for your large bill. We're -- that's about all we've got in the way of extension. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wasn't there something with the sewer that you were able to eliminate? MR. DeLONY: Right. We make sure that ifthere's an excessive use of -- first of all, you only pay for the first -- up to the first 15,000 gallons of sewer charges. You pay for the sewer on your water bill, and after the first 15,000 gallons, there's no sewer charge to be subscribed. So we've worked with folks to do that and make sure that the -- what they're paying for is just the water. And then we provide -- we're requested or, you know -- the payment plan I described. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you reduced the bill somewhat? MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am, we do. Any way we can justify a nexus between benefit and cost, we're going to do that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what I'm getting out of this whole scenario is that when you realized that something was amiss because the recorded amount was zero from the previous month, then you realized that maybe there was a problem, then you went out and Page 45 December 16, 2008 replaced the transmitter, and obviously things then started to work correctly. And the meter itself is an analogue meter, so it records -- continues to record the gallons, whether the transmitter is working or not. It still records the gallons. When there was a complaint about this, you went out in the field, or your service technician went out in the field, and made a quick assessment of -- if the meter was working properly by extracting or running through there 10 gallons of water. And at that point in time, the 1 O-gallon test passed with flying colors. And you then asked the person that owned the property here, this Mr. Manowich (sic), Martinwich-- MR. MARTINOWICH: Martinowich. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah -- that he has the obligation here of having the meter pulled and put on the test bench, either your test bench or to send it back to the manufacturer for 250, and he decided not to; is that correct? MR. DeLONY: Well, to date, so far, we -- he has not -- to my understanding, has not agreed to that bench test. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So as far as you're concerned, the meter is working properly. Now, suppose the meter is pulled out of service, he decides to pay the $250, you send the meter back to your lab or you send it back to the manufacturer, then what's the scenario that comes forward? MR. DeLONY: You know, it's an up or down call. If the meter's accurate -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then the bill's there? MR. DeLONY: It's over. COMMISSIONER HALAS: If the meter is not accurate -- MR. DeLONY: We'll adjust it to -- as Joe had briefed earlier, we'll adjust it back to historical usage, and we'll chalk this up to meter error. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you'll find out what the error in Page 46 December 16, 2008 the meter is and then credit him for that amount of error? MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifhe provides the $250? MR. DeLONY: That's correct. Well, ifhe-- MR. MUDD: No. MR. DeLONY: No, if the meter's accurate, we suck that up. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. DeLONY : Yeah, we take that on, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. DeLONY: The adjustment policy that Joe spoke to -- and, excuse me, Mr. Mudd, did you have anything you wanted to say? MR. MUDD: No. I just want to make sure -- MR. DeLONY: Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. DeLONY: With regard to the adjustment policy -- you know, I found that this is very unusual, by the way, in utilities to have adjustment policies like this, we'll go out and pull the meter, test the meter, and then have an adjudication on the accuracy of the meter as part of it, very unusual. We're glad to have it, because we don't want people's money that we're not supposed to have. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. MR. DeLONY: So yes, sir, that's the policies we got. And it's -- and it's essentially -- you know, if it's right, then you pay; and if it's not right, then we'll adjudicate the bench fee. It will be on the utility, and we'll go back to the historical uses patterns and we'll move on. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Got it. MR. DeLONY: Customer in good standing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. DeLONY: And that's our adjustment policy. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who was next? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I am. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, Commissioner Coletta, I'm sorry. Page 47 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not next. I already had my turn. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Just a couple of observations. If this was the other utility, the Florida Power & Light, everything that comes on the other side of the meter you're responsible for. There's never any question about it. If you got your pool pump, it doesn't go on the timer, for some reason it just continues to go and you're gone, it's going to continue to run and, you know, you're going to have a much bigger bill than you have had before. Now, here's some of the problems that come up with this whole thing. The petitioner wasn't in control of the situation all the time. There was other entities out there that he was depending upon to be able to do a check on a weekly basis. It was probably a pool company that came and left. There's a lot of different hands that come into play. Unless the meter is at fault and the problem lies with the meter not on the other side of the meter, then the county has some responsibility. Am I correct on that? MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, that's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once the water goes through the meter and activates it and it turns a number, it comes out the other end, that becomes the responsibility of the customer. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That doesn't mean that we don't have to have some compassion in this, and I think you're doing a good job as far as the compassion goes with coming up with some working arrangement to be able to make this a little bit more workable. But the whole thing is, there's some things that are out of our control. We can't prove what happened to the water once it got past the end of the meter. We can prove what happened when it went through the meter. Past that point, there's no reason why we have to get involved with having to prove that the water was dispensed through the pool, on the ground, down the toilet, down the drain. Page 48 December 16, 2008 That's not our responsibility. We can't possibly do that. As long as you're sure the meters were correct and remain correct and that -- and I agree with the petitioner, there's probably absolutely no reason to have the meter, you know, tested and pay $250. If it passed the 10-gallon test, it's probably going to pass everything else that's out there. I doubt it could be wrong, but maybe a fraction of a percent probably that wouldn't make any difference. So, you know, we've got to be realistic about this. Whatever kind of policy we come up with now or whatever we direct you to do is going to give other people the ability to come back if their bill is $25 over what it was the previous month, and be able to have an argument based upon actions we take here today. We either have equipment that works or we have equipment that doesn't work. Now, one thing that Commissioner Henning brought up that gave me some concern, he said, you're getting an abnormal -- well, and I'm using the exact words. And forgive me for that. I don't mean to quote you when I can't remember the words. But he indicated there was more complaints than there have been in the past; is that correct? MR. DeLONY: 1 don't -- sir, we have -- we are just a reflection of the economic status in this community. If there's a downturn in employment and jobs and income, people have a hard time paying their utility bills, whether it's me or FP&L or any other service provider in town. And we've had -- we've had some activity. We always have activity, if you've -- and I guess my staffs scrambling behind me to give me the numbers with regard to meter lockouts -- what we call lockout where a bill is in default more than two billing cycles and we go out there and we're not able to resolve with the customer the payment of the bill and we have to do that cutoff thing, and, yes, that's on the rise. There's no question about it. We probably are looking at a third more on a monthly basis in Page 49 December 16, 2008 the last two months than what we had last year at this time. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but that's -- the trend is up. That is a problem certainly, and that would be -- I don't know a matter of a complaint, but more of a reality. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, meanwhile, the petitioner is our customer. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I myself, you know -- and I don't know if my fellow commissioner is going to agree, would direct you to go back and try to work out some arrangement that will be the least obtrusive as possible with them, keeping in mind that, you know, what you have done in the past in applying that at this point in time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we see if we can get a consensus -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- with that. Are you okay with that direction? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'm okay with that direction. Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a problem with that, because if we start giving -- looking at each one of these things and saying, okay, we feel sorry for you because what -- we don't have control on the other side of the meter, and somebody doesn't want to accept the responsibility of when somebody else is living in his house -- I'm a ratepayer. Somebody's going to have to pay for that water that's being consumed, and it's going to end up me because I'm one of the utility ratepayers. And I got to tell you, if! -- if we're going to sit here and give people breaks because it's something beyond our control, then my water bill's going to go up, and I got a problem with that. Fair -- Page 50 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coletta didn't suggest that at all. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's kind of the way I was looking at this. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no, no. I have a question. Do you have any kind of measuring device pre the household meter? MR. DeLONY: I'm sorry. I don't understand the question, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, do you have a meter at the community, or do you have a meter at -- MR. DeLONY: Oh, for an individual meter? We know what comes out of the plant, that big number. We may know, depending on the distribution system at a certain node, like, for example, storage tank. We'll know what the queue is with that, but the pipe -- but no, generally speaking -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The answer-- MR. DeLONY: This is what we depend on for individual customers. Yeah, one or a larger one. That's how this is done. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So the answer's no? MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, that's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I was just going to try to clarify Commissioner Coletta's motion, and the motion really was to follow our existing policy of working out a payment plan if the meter is correct. And if the meter is not correct, then you make an appropriate adjustment. You're not going to do anything beyond that; is that essentially what Commissioner Coletta had in mind? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me, sir, but I never suggested the meter was incorrect. Since the petitioner didn't think it was necessary to have the meter examined, I didn't think it was either. Page 51 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you've assumed the meter is correct, so really what you're saying to the utility department, that they get together with the petitioner, work out a payment plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whatever they've done for other customers in the past to try to alleviate the pressure, they should also do for this petitioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Sir, you had your time at the podium, and we're going to take a 10-minute break. And I'm sure you'll hear from Mr. Bellone or Mr. DeLony and try to work something out. MR. MARTINOWICH: Okay. Can I make one final statement? CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have 30 seconds. MR. MARTINOWICH: Okay. The bill is predicated on a manual reading of that meter. That meter may be correct, but over the 10 years that that RF transmitter was installed, we know it was defective when it was replaced. It could have been defective for eight to ten years, and it could have been giving out a faulty reading. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there should be a record on that, that initial reading. MR. DeLONY: It's right here. It's right here. MR. MARTINOWICH: And I didn't own the house for those ten years. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. Again-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Back in 2000 when, you know, that was recorded, there should be a record. MR. DeLONY: Yes, there is, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'm sure you'll go over that, right? MR. DeLONY: We will provide that data to him as we have it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. We're going to take a 10-minute break, and let's -- well, nine-minute break. Let's be Page 52 December 16, 2008 back at 10:40. (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 we're ready for nine? MR. MUDD: That brings us to our next public petitioner, and Pastor Mallory, are you here? (No response.) Item #6E PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY KATHLEEN REYNOLDS TO DISCUSS FUNDING FOR THE EARLY LEARNING PROGRAM (CHILD CARE SUBSIDY PROGRAM) - DISCUSSED MR. MUDD: Okay. I didn't see him out in the hallway and I haven't seen him yet. So, Commissioner, I'd ask your indulgence, because he goes into default tomorrow, so we've got to hear this particular item. We're not going to do it right now. We're going to wait till he gets there, if that's okay. And we'll go to the next item, which is 6E. It's a public petition by Kathleen Reynolds to discuss funding for the Early Learning Program, Childcare Subsidy Program. Ma'am, if you'd just state your name for the record. MS. REYNOLDS: Good morning. My name is Kathleen Reynolds. I reside at 1685 Ludlow Road in Marco Island, and I'm here to represent the Early Learning Coalition of Southwest Florida which serves Collier, Lee, Hendry, and Glades counties. We have offices in Naples at 201 8th Street South in Naples. We also have offices in Golden Gate and at the workforce board in Immokalee. Page 53 December 16, 2008 First of all, I'm really appreciative of the opportunity to speak with you, because I heard that someone from -- representing our organization spoke with you a while ago, and you guys were not familiar with us, and that's our fault. So I think it's really important that I have the opportunity to kind of introduce myself and our agency, which is the Early Learning Coalition of Southwest Florida. We administer two programs. One, the one that I want to speak to you about today, is called school readiness. The school readiness program in Collier County serves in excess of 1,100 kids from Collier County. I don't think there are too many people who are going to come before you today and say, we're looking for some support, for some financial support, for the initiative that we run, and in return, for the state's commitment of $3.5 million to Collier County. The state asks for a $160,000 match. That match can come from a lot of different places. It can come from charitable funding agencies, it can come from private donors, but in most instances in the state, the Board of County Commissioners does contribute at least a portion of the required match. In Collier County, for whatever reason, reasons I don't really understand, our coalition has not historically approached the county commission. I'm fairly new in my role, and so I am approaching you. I'd like you to really understand what we do, and I'd like you to understand the economic benefit that we bring to the community. We also administer the VPK program. The VPK program, again, I'm very surprised -- a lot of people do not know this, but every child in the State of Florida, the year before they go to kindergarten, is entitled to go to pre-K for free. That was an amendment to the Florida Constitution, and that's an entitlement program. But the program that I'm talking to you about today allows low-income families to be able to get childcare, and by this ability to get childcare they must be working. Both parents must be working at Page 54 December 16, 2008 least 20 hours a week. Ifwe did not have the school readiness services that we're able to offer, 50 percent of these families' income would be focused on childcare, and there would be no incentive to be employed. What my associate has shared with you, the first page of our handout -- did you pass them out to everyone -- lists the top 25 employers in Collier County who are employing people who are receiving school readiness services. The school readiness services, to the extent of $2.5 million that's distributed in Collier County, allows these employers to keep these employees to come to work every day. The next pages in your handout are a listing of over 100 small businesses in Collier County. These are early childcare, early learning providers, who are the direct recipients of school readiness funding, which our agency serves as a pass-through. So the impact of the $3.5 million, $2.5 million for school readiness services, and an additional $1 million that goes to serve tana (phonetic) families. Those are what we would have historically called welfare, at-risk families, children who are referred by DCF to the coalition placement in the childcare services, and special-needs kids. So a total of $3.5 million in return for a requested match of $160,000. Now, our partner agency, coordinated -- Community Coordinated Childcare, is tasked with assisting us to raise the required state match. To date, we've received $12,000 from Collier County. You can understand that this is a particularly challenging year, even for in-kind contributions, and that's why I'm inviting you to take advantage of this opportunity . And if you cannot help these providers, these children, these families directly, then I would ask you to assist the coalition in identifying other funding sources because the state this year absolutely wants their $160,000 match. On the next page you'll see a listing of the children in Collier County who are enrolled, and you'll see that currently -- and this is -- Page 55 December 16, 2008 varies upon the day that we pulled the data. On the day that we pulled this data, there were 1,102 children being served in Collier County. On the next page you'll see of our $2,453,297 budget strictly for school readiness, that's -- just by itself. In addition to that comes the VPK funds, in addition to that comes the funds for T ANA families, families at risk, and special needs families. We've already expended over $1 million with these over 100 childcare providers in Collier County. On the next page, which looks like this, you'll see that currently in the coalition, which serves four counties, Collier, Lee, Hendry and Glades, we have 4,346 children who are waiting for service; kids that we simply can't fund because the resources are not there. And then if you go to the next page you'll see that in Collier County there are currently 1,128 children, of which 725 are below age five on the waiting list. Finally the very last page is a breakout by zip code, and it shows you the number of kids that we're serving in each of these zip codes. Deborah's now going to -- I'm trying not to kill too many trees here, so I'm going to have Deborah -- we have two sets of the lists of over 400 employers in Collier County who are currently receiving school readiness services. That means that their employees are able to go to work because, through the funding of the Early Earning Coalition, they're able to afford childcare. And again, please understand, it is a prerequisite that families who receive these services be working. I've also given to you a breakdown by district. And so you can see, for example, Mr. Henning, District 3, you have the largest number of school readiness children that are being served in the county, 364 children; with District 5 -- Mr. Coletta's district being a close second with 292 children. These are children that are currently being served. We need to come up with a local match. Seems to me like a pretty good deal. Page 56 December 16, 2008 We are short at this moment $148,000 for the $3.5 million that's being brought right now into Collier County. And at this point I'd be ready to answer any questions that the commission might have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions, comments, by the board members? Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coy Ie, then I want to go. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: After you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ma'am, I think this is a well -- it's a very worthy program. Have you approached the school board in regards to this? Because this, I think, would be tied in with the school, part of the school process, the learning process. The other question I have is, have you gone to any charitable organizations within Collier County like the United Way to see if they could come forward with the funding on this? MS. REYNOLDS: We have not approached the school board. It is -- it's my understanding -- again, I'm fairly new in this role -- that they are not one of the potential funders. Their funding is pretty much designated to serve specific kinds of priorities. We have approached many funding agencies and we are waiting some responses. This year because of the pretty significant economic challenges, our bosses, if you will, in Tallahassee, which is the agency for workforce innovation, the Department of Labor -- because this is a -- this is a work program, this is about putting people to work, taking them off of welfare roles and giving them the opportunity to contribute to Collier County's economy, they are requesting this year that we have some definitive answers by December 31 st in terms of the dollar match, and that's why it's kind of pushed up the agenda. I've listened this morning to many issues of interest. This is about small businesses in Collier County, over 100 childcare providers, over 400 employers who are depending upon these funds that allow their staff to come to work. Page 57 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, maybe the 400 employers could come forth with some money also that -- since it would be a benefit for the whole community. MS. REYNOLDS: Absolutely. And we will approach those 400 employers. But as I stated, in most of the coalitions across the state, the county commission contributes a portion. The match, for example, for Lee County is about $300,000. Last year the Lee County Board of County Commissioners contributed $400,000 to the early learning coalition. This year the contribution is not quite as significant; however, they have residual funds that can be carried over, because they have been such significant contributors in the past. I truly believe that in the priority list, someplace along that priority, keeping these over 100 small businesses working, particularly right now, and the 400 employees, must be someplace on the priority list for the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think one of the things you need to do is go to the school board and see -- that's one area I think you need to see if they can assist since this is -- pertains to pre-school and children so that they have the ability to learn about reading prior to getting into the school system. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think Commissioner Halas brings up a good point. If you've got 400 employees who have -- or 400 employers who have employees who take advantage of these services, you know, $300 from each employer would cover the entire amount of the match money that you're looking for. And it would surprise me if those employers would not be willing to spend that amount of money per year to support their employees' needs, so I think they would be the first place to go to. Unfortunately, government is not in a position in these severe economic times to easily find and distribute money because our Page 58 December 16, 2008 sources of income have been dramatically reduced by the state legislature and by a tax amendment that was approved by referendum by the taxpayers. They want us to reduce spending, not to spend more. And it's very difficult for us to find money for really very good purposes. And we are further restricted in our ability to take money from some existing funds and use them for something else. Most of the funds we have, have restrictions on their uses so that we have to use those funds for a very, very specific use and don't have any flexibility with it. But I'm not going to try to trouble you with our constraints, but you must know that although government is frequently wasteful, right now we don't have a lot of options with respect to money. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question I had, what has Lee County Commission provided your organization? MS. REYNOLDS: In the last fiscal year, $400,000. In the current fiscal year, it's about $150,000. But because Lee County historically has contributed more than the match, they have residual funding. So for Lee County we're actually in pretty good shape. I do really appreciate and I understand that it would have to be a redirection of funds, but as a citizen of Collier County, long-term citizen, I guess I do have to wonder why is it that other counties can support this work initiative and my county can't. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, to answer your question -- but I want to expand upon my question. We have not funded organizations on community benefits in the past. What we do is work with United Way to assist those worthy needs like this one. But my question is -- so Lee County gave approximately a 100,000 this year? MS. REYNOLDS: About 150,000 this year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that could not be applied to the grant? Page 59 December 16, 2008 MS. REYNOLDS: No. Every county -- let me be clear about that -- the $3.5 million that I'm talking about is specifically for Collier County. Every county has a required match unless there are such high levels of poverty in the communities, we then may request that there be a waiver. So, for example, I am given permission to request a waiver for Hendry and Glades. But even this year, the state is being very demanding about that. They're requesting, for example, exactly what Mr. Halas has suggested, that I petition employers in Glades and Hendry to help us to meet the match. So the $160,000 match is strictly for Collier County. The match for Lee County is significantly more. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I'm still trying to understand my question. The response my question. MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. Let me be clear, because I'd really like to answer it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. You're saying that Lee County gave a match of $400,000? MS. REYNOLDS: For FY-'08. CHAIRMAN HENNING: For FY-'08? MS. REYNOLDS: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Lee County Commission did? MS. REYNOLDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Previously you said it was 100,000. MS. REYNOLDS: For FY-'09, which is the current fiscal year was -- it was 150,000; however, they had residual funds from previous years. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. REYNOLDS: So they're able to make their match for this year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Page 60 December 16, 2008 MS. REYNOLDS: Because -- you know, I understand everybody's been hit. And I'm saying, if it can't be done, at least assist us even if it's, you know, directing us to ways, for example, where we can have good conversations with groups that can help us make the match. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The numbers doesn't (sic) add up to what's provided in our backup material -- I'm sure that was provided by staff -- and what's being presented here. Even with the requested amount and what the grant will do, it still far exceeds what you're saying each student would receive, or each child would receive. I think it's -- MS. REYNOLDS: I guess I'm confused. Help me. To -- I'd like to clarify, if! could, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it says that 1,800 -- total of 1,800 children in Collier County are currently being served. Here it's 1,100. MS. REYNOLDS: Yes. I explained. We use the state's EFS system, and it depends upon the day that you pull the data. So the day that we pulled the data, which was at the beginning of the year, there were 1,800 kids currently enrolled. I had this data pulled yesterday. Yesterday there are 1,100. Weare seeing a reduction in the numbers because, as I said, parents have to be employed. Each parent has to be employed a minimum of 20 hours per week in order to receive these services. So the numbers fluctuate from day-to-day. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- and what I come out with for the money, it's 15,500 based upon 1,800. That's what it could potentially benefit children. And I think you can actually get -- enroll your child in a private school for that amount of money. I mean, I just don't understand. MS. REYNOLDS: Again, I'm not sure I -- the cost to the coalition for funding each child is about $3,000 a year. You can get Page 61 December 16, 2008 school readiness service for about $3,000 a year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, my math must be off then. Commissioner Coletta, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Ms. Reynolds, one observation you made and I don't think a reply came back at was Collier County's lack of participation. You're right, your observations are absolutely correct. What we have done in the past is we have always recognized the fact that we have a very caring and giving community that steps up to the plate; however, you know, I recognize the fact that it's different out there now than it was before. So let me understand correctly. You have already approached the United Way, you have approached the Community Foundation, you've gone to the Wine Festival? You have gone to all the local organizations that have been giving in the past, and they either cannot help you or they can't help you to any sufficient amount; is that correct? MS. REYNOLDS: We have approached the United Way. We're still waiting on a reaction from that group. The Wine Festival has a policy that they do not fund ongoing issues. They fund, for example, the new school that's being built at the Edison campus, but ongoing issues they do not fund. We have approached the Community Foundation. We have received a grant, I think, in the amount of $1 0,000 from the Community Foundation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that was part of your original amount that you said, what was it, $12,000 that you received? MS. REYNOLDS: We have a total now, between the Community Foundation and from Moorings Park, of$12,000. So we -- at this point we need $148,000. And, again, I'd be grateful for even direction of where to get -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll tell you what my thoughts are on this. And I don't know if I'm going to have enough Page 62 December 16, 2008 support from my fellow commissioners. I believe incentivizing people to do the right thing. In this case, who's the beneficiaries from this? Of course it's the parents, the fact that they're able to support their family and be able to operate at a low -- in a low-income environment with jobs that pay very little. Their employers should be the ones stepping up to the plate. They're the ones that benefit by these people working there for substandard wages, not that I'm going to belittle anyone that offers ajob today. I think it's wonderful we have employment out there. But how do you get them to come across? Now, $300 per employee at this point in time -- and a lot of these -- some of these here can easily afford it, there's no question about it. But there's a lot of small organizations and nonprofits themselves, that $300 would be a real stretch. What I would propose, that we -- at least for discussion purposes and maybe to be able to bring it back for consideration -- is that we come up with an incentivized program whereby we would match dollar for dollar half the amount for each child if the employer matches it. In other words, if they put up 150, we would put up 150. So our total outlay would be about 80-some-thousand dollars of the total. And at this point in time, if the employer isn't willing to step up to the plate to be able to make up that difference -- and I would also mention, this would be a one-time-only offer so that it doesn't become something that becomes an entitlement for future years. Because I mean, we -- I can't see this program dropping off. We absolutely need this lifeline that we have to be able to keep these children going in the right direction to break that train of poverty that's been ongoing for a long time. That would be my proposal that -- for consideration. MS. REYNOLDS: Commissioner Coletta, I would be extremely grateful. I would express my gratitude on the part of some of the Page 63 December 16,2008 providers who are here today, and I will work assiduously with your staff to make sure that we do solicit every one of these employers. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, don't get too excited. MS. REYNOLDS: I know. You need to vote. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just one commissioner up here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Could you tell me what a VPK program is? MS. REYNOLDS: Oh. VPK is voluntary pre-K. It's a unique program in the state. It's something we should be very proud of. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. REYNOLDS: Every child in the State of Florida age 4 is entitled to go to pre-school for free. That's an entitlement program. It's not part of this budget. The more kids we can enroll -- and we work hard to enroll them -- the more money comes to Collier County. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the more children that get childcare rather than be left home alone. MS. REYNOLDS: That's right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that is a big certain as well, especially in this environment. You have to be concerned about the parents who are eking out a living, many who have left town, maybe that's why your figures have dropped so much from 1,800 to 1,100, and the jobs -- a lot of the time they're getting less hours so that they can at least keep a job, but then they don't have enough money to pay the childcare, so I understand that. You say that if you can raise $160,000, in turn the state will then give you 3.5 million, right? MS. REYNOLDS: That's right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I said that correctly, right? MS. REYNOLDS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just for Collier County? Page 64 December 16, 2008 MS. REYNOLDS: That's right, just for Collier County. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now, when do you need money? When do you need the $160,000? MS. REYNOLDS: We absolutely need -- we already have a $12,000 commitment for Collier, so I want to be clear about that. We need to clean up our books by the end of the fiscal year, which is the end of June. The state is looking for us to identify by December 31 st where the money's coming from this year. You can imagine, Commissioner Fiala, this year there's more pressure to identify our funding sources. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then I was wondering, Marla, do you have any money -- and 1 know I'm catching you offguard. I just thought of this myself. Do you have any money in the -- in like the after-school program or any money in something through the parks or through health and human services that might be dedicated to a childcare effort to -- in order to get back $3.5 million or to help us get it back? MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator. Commissioner, the funds that we use for our after-school program and our summer camp program are paid by user fees. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. We don't -- I was wonder- -- do we have any dollars that either of you know of that -- even if we come could come up with $50,000 to show an effort to help them, and then tell the employers that, you know, we've come up with this, and we need you to come up with the rest? MS. KRUMBINE: Again, for the record, Marcy Krumbine, Housing and Human Services. All of our federal and state programs are -- you know, are to specific -- specific programs as well. And I had begun conversations with this organization. And although we have a grant application cycle, the portion that this would fall into would be like a public service program. And the only way we Page 65 December 16, 2008 fund those if it's a new or expanded service, not continuing operating. And we've got the same issue that the Wine Festival would have is they -- most grant programs won't provide funding for continued operations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I'm just looking for anything we can come up with to try and figure out -- Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: I wish I had -- I wish I was like the federal government and I had control over the printing press. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, we could print money. MR. MUDD: The -- we get to see monies that they come back. Well, first thing I got to tell you is -- and I don't mean to put a damper on this conversation, but Ms. Reynolds is not a registered lobbyist and she's, indeed, lobbying you for money, and 1 figured -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I'm not sure she's getting paid though. Are you getting paid? MS. REYNOLDS: I am paid. I did check yesterday actually with A WI Agency for Workforce Innovation, and because it's very clear about if I'm allowed to solicit funds. I am required in my job description to solicit match funds. MR. MUDD: I'm not arguing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We'll-- if you could just get together with her -- MR. MUDD: Yeah, I'll get with her after. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- after that. MR. MUDD: I just wanted to bring that to the board's attention because it's a requirement that we do that. The other piece I would say to you is, the really good news is, this is a 23 percent return on investment, okay? You get a 23 -- you get $23 for every dollar that you put into this, so that's not a bad return as far as her figures are concerned. But what I will also say to you is, there's something else going on, and it's something that we probably -- you as a board need to be Page 66 December 16, 2008 cognizant of and she mentioned it. The Wine Festival collects money and does capital projects with it, and they do a very good. It's an absolutely wonderful thing that goes on. I have been approached on numerous times during this last year and a half by two distinguished citizens -- at least two distinguished citizens of this county, one, an ex-representative and one an active councilperson from the City of Naples, looking for some way that they could work on operational dollars, because she's not the only person that's having issues with operational dollars, and the Wine Festival proceeds are all on capital expenditures. Well, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you're going to spend money on capital expenditures and what you're expending it on you have no way to operate it after you bring it on. So there's a major disconnect there in that particular charitable organization in what's going on in the ground right now. They even talked to me about coming to this board with a petition to go to referendum, okay, to increase the millage rate for that particular cause for operational dollars. And I might as well get it broached out because she's brought it up, and it's a significant issue in the community. And so it's out there, and it is a problem, and it's one that this board, this government, and this community is going to have to wrestle with as far as how voluntary dollars are paid for, what the United Way can come up with in order to get some -- and I was glad to hear that Ms. Reynolds had approached the United Way. It would be wonderful ifshe was actually a registered recipient of United Way dollars so that she could be part of that particular organization. The only thing that you have in these particular cases are reserves, and we do whatever the board desires. But I will tell you I had some rather disturbing news, and I'll talk about that later just before we break so that can give you something to look forward to over Christmas. Page 67 December 16, 2008 But the Department of Revenue hasn't been very good to us. We have about a $2 million shortfall on taxes, and I've just got to look at what our depreciation and housing values are going to be, and I'll let you talk about that at the end of the meeting. So it's not very good news for us by any stretch of the imagination. The only monies that you have, though, Commissioner Fiala -- and that was the question that you gave to me, and I'm getting around to it was, are there any dollars there? The only things the board has are in reserves, and that's the appropriate reserve amount that you put in every year to get you through hurricane season and whatnot. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, let's -- and I would appreciate that update. But as far as the petition, that's another day. And we're going to go to Commissioner Coyle, and then I want to chime in. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, this is not about whether you deserve the money. MS. REYNOLDS: I know. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's nobody sitting here who wouldn't like to give you this money. It's about our policies and what precedents we set. There are standing behind you hundreds of people who feel they're actually deserving and who perform very valuable services for our community who expect to get some money if we give you money. So there's going to be a very difficult problem if we set a precedent here. And all you have to do is look at the governor's list of potential budget cuts to understand what's going to happen to local governments. Most of the cuts involve depriving local governments of funding. So we're going to be in very bad shape despite the fact that there are many people here in Collier County who feel that landscaping is the most important issue that we should be funding. Now, if we go through the list of employers, let's not assume that Page 68 December 16, 2008 this is an inordinate burden on employers. These employers have employees who take advantage of this program, and you can demonstrate that. You can tell them how many of their employees take advantage of this program, and just go down through the list. There's Target, Bob Taylor Chevrolet, Sam's Club, Bank of America, Naples Community Hospital, Publix, Arby's, Edgewater Beach Hotel, Walgreen's, Olive Garden, Pizza Hut, University of Miami, Naples Jaguar. Now, let's not pretend that by asking the employers to contribute $33 a month -- not per employee, just $33 a month -- for these services is going to put them out of business. It's not going to happen. That is the place we get the funding first. And these employees (sic) can, in fact, afford to pay $33 a month to help give you the amount of money that you need to get the job -- get the matching funds. I hope you can do it. If there's anything we can do to help you to do it, I'd be happy to do it. But it's not a matter of just voting for money for you. It's a matter of voting for money for the hundreds of other people who will come here after we do that. That's the problem. And we try very, very hard to treat everyone the same. We can't give one group special preference over another. It's a very difficult problem, and it looks like a very coldhearted approach, but we don't have many alternatives. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What I'm hearing is a consensus to try to work this out, you know, go to the employers and get those funds from the employers and then come back. But I can tell you that more and more employers are laying off their full-time employers (sic). And those employees are looking for anything that they can get. So this problem is not going to disappear by those employers (sic) getting laid off. They're going to stay in this community because they're vested. The problem's only going to get bigger. And we need to find a way -- having a six-year-old child that went through the Page 69 December 16, 2008 VPK, it is just a wonderful program that has lifted all those children up to be ready for elementary school. It's a benefit -- a benefit to the community . So I guess what I'm hearing is, go out to the employers. And if I can help you with that endeavor, I'd be happy to, and Commissioner Fiala -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- will-- said that she would, too. So we're not making a decision today. What I'm hearing is, let's do that, the ones that truly benefit from that, and let's bring it up at a later date. MS. REYNOLDS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. REYNOLDS: I will. And I am -- I didn't expect, truthfully, you would say, here's a check, Kathleen. I didn't expect that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, good. MS. REYNOLDS: But I will tell you that I'm grateful for the opportunity to have spoken with you. I will follow up on your recommendation. I will contact all of the employers. I would ask -- I would like to be in communication with your county manager and see if we can't be part -- if the coalition cannot be part of those conversations, because it's true, the Wine Festival is funding homes in Immokalee that are taking in children, and our new school here in the Collier County campus. It's the Early Learning Coalition that's funding the working poor to go into those homes, which still requires the match. So it's -- this juncture of operations and building buildings has to -- we have to come to some agreement on it. So I will follow up with Mr. Mudd, and I'll hope to be part of those conversations. I'll thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. REYNOLDS: I'll take your direction, and I will be in touch. Page 70 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jeff, would you get together with Ms. Reynolds about that and we'll get that squared away. And the next petition? MS. REYNOLDS: Thank you. Item #6D PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY REVEREND DAVID MALLORY TO DISCUSS DEFERRAL OF IMPACT FEES- PETITIONER TO WORK WITH COUNTY MANAGER AND ST AFF TO RECALCULATE IMP ACT FEES - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Next petition is Reverend Mallory. I saw him walk in. It's a public petition request by Reverend David Mallory to discuss deferral of impact fees. REVEREND MALLORY: David Mallory of First Assembly Ministries. And, Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to be heard today. For the past 20 years, we have, in some small way, tried to address some of the social concerns of our community, hunger and homelessness, those under the influence of life-controlling substances, and we've just reached out as best we can. For instance, this last month we have fed 640 different families who are lacking sustenance in their lives. About three years ago we were approached by a group called ESP, Emergency Services Personnel group, along with MDG, Incorporation, to sell 24 acres, and they were going to build 296 emergency service personnel residences. We were very excited about that. And so the church released that property, paid some bills that we owed, and then an amount was due of about $5 million, and over the last year, interest payments were received. Page 71 December 16, 2008 About four months ago, five months ago, the interest payments stopped, and then October 6th came when the final monies were due, and that was not paid as well. The problem is, the church kind of put all our eggs in that one basket and we began to borrow against the closing of that property. Since the money did not surface, we began cutting back. We had to cancel our girls' program, or unwed mothers program, several of our staff are no longer paid, we've had to face some layoffs, and we're in a situation now where some of the mortgage payments on the church are In arrears. Tomorrow we have an impact deferral that comes due. At this point we do not have the funds to surface that -- to service that, and so we're just asking the commissioners for some guidance. Weare still carrying on the ministries as best we can. Our ministry, of course, is one of giving, and we're -- the coffers are pretty-well dry. This, you know, situation is happening all over the world, not just here in Collier County. And so we're -- I'm just here to kind of layout our situation, which is very critical at this point. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, before I go to you, I think the county manager might have a resolution to this, if you don't mind. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't mind. I know what the resolution is, and I think it's good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. MR. MUDD: Okay. The staffs recommending that we recalculate the applicable impact fees based on the actual use of the four trailers currently on site, and that the 15 trailers that have been removed, which is a rehabilitation facility -- if! say anything wrong, Pastor, you let me know, okay? In 2002, staff calculated the impact fees for the structures based on the residential classification and thereby allowed the impact fees to Page 72 December 16, 2008 be deferred through the affordable housing rental impact fee deferral program; however, the use of the structures was and currently is rehabilitation facility, which is an institutional/commercial use, not a residential use for the purposes of assessment of impact fees. The change in the calculation would remove the assessments for the residential impact fees, parks, library, and schools. Impact fees for transportation, EMS, and jail, et cetera, would be required to be paid. The estimated amount due under this scenario is $23,473, okay. What he owes under the present scenario is $82,899.34. My numbers good? REVEREND MALLORY: (Nods head.) MR. MUDD: Okay. So that's a -- almost a reduction -- it's almost a -- it's almost a 75 percent reduction in the impact fees that are due. Let's say 20 percent for lack of better terms. Okay. It would be $23,473 subject to the full review and recalculation. Under this scenario, the BCC could still elect to transfer the deferral agreement to the charitable organization impact deferral program provided that the entity meets the eligibility requirements. The First Assembly of God organization has informed staff that the money is not currently available to pay the deferred impact fees because the closing on the sale of their property to MDG Capital has yet to occur; therefore, any remedy that requires immediate payment of impact fees may not be financially feasible for Reverend Mallory and may require legal action, which I don't believe this board wants to do based on my conversations with the commissioners. Additionally, as noted above, water and sewer impact fees have been paid in full for the subject construction and deferral agreement. So our recommendation is we re- -- as the staff recalculates, go from the 88,000 that's due down to a 23,000 that's due, transfer it over into the charitable impact fee category, Pastor Mallory will make sure that he's eligible for the charitable piece, 501C3, or whatever it is. And that has some resolution, and we'll work out the terms. But let us Page 73 December 16, 2008 not default tomorrow on this particular organization. They do provide a valuable service to this community. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion to that effect. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala, to direct the county manager to recalculate the impact fees and the other stuff he said. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I still have my questions, okay. Let me ask a question about that, then I'd like to talk to Reverend Mallory about something. What is the time frame for the deferral under that program? MS. PATTERSON: For the record, Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager. A new program entering into the charitable organization impact fee deferral program would have 10 years from the date of the deferral. We'd seek direction on the term for Pastor Mallory. He has, as of tomorrow, he's been deferred for six years. If you wanted to take the term an additional four years for a total of 10 years or some other variation there, that would be at your discretion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, Reverend Mallory, you understand that you cannot use this facility for residential purposes? REVEREND MALLORY: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: At any time during this deferral program? REVEREND MALLORY: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if you do, the amount comes due, right? REVEREND MALLORY: Uh-huh. Page 74 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so you don't have any plans to use it for anything other than a rehabilitation facility; is that correct? REVEREND MALLORY: That's true, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Is it your belief or do you have the feeling that MDG Capital is not going to close on this property? REVEREND MALLORY: That's the feeling we have right now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. REVEREND MALLORY: Okay. Other payments -- they're keeping up all of their payments except the ones to the church, from what we understand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I want to remind you of the time when you came before us supporting this project, and I raised some concerns about the potential success of this project. I specifically stated that I felt that it was very thinly financed, and I had great concerns about whether or not it would be a success. Unfortunately, it seems that I was right. And I think we have to be very cautious in the future with these kinds of proposals where they're really -- they really are not established on a sound financial foundation. Now, the other -- other thing you said that caused me some concern and I'd like to see ifthere's some way we can -- something we can do to help, that the -- there are mortgage payments for the church that are past due. REVEREND MALLORY: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have a solution for that or is there some way that you can get some help relative to that? Because you do a great job for our community, and we'd like to see you continue to be able to do that. REVEREND MALLORY: At this point we -- we're just knocking on doors seeing if someone would help us with the mortgage at this point. We cannot foreclose if we have a second mortgage on Page 75 December 16, 2008 the 24 acres, but MDG has a $4.7 million first mortgage, which would have to be assumed, and we can't afford to do that. We started our structure borrowing against the 5 million that was due us, and we now owe the Royal Bank, RBC, 3.2 million. Those mortgage payments are about 30,000 a month, and we just -- just don't have it right now, so we're not sure what RBC's going to do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So they, in essence, own the property. And with the decline in potential value, there's probably not much equity if anything left in that property -- REVEREND MALLORY: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- beyond the mortgage itself. So you wouldn't -- you probably wouldn't get any funds if it were to go into bankruptcy. REVEREND MALLORY: No, I don't believe we would. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So that would still leave you in a very bad way. REVEREND MALLORY: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I wish you the best of luck. Ifthere's anything we can do short of giving you money, please let us know. And I have been afraid of this MDG financing process from the very beginning. I am very, very concerned about what's going on there. REVEREND MALLORY: Well, you can pray for an angel. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll do that. REVEREND MALLORY: That does happen. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other discussions on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 76 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. REVEREND MALLORY: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Item #6F PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY TIM HANCOCK TO DISCUSS REZONE REQUEST BY NORTH NAPLES UNITED METHODIST CHURCH - TO TAKE THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS AND COMP PLANNING MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next public petition, which is a request by Tim Hancock to discuss the rezone request by the North Naples United Methodist Church. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Commissioners. Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering. I am a registered lobbyist and I'm not asking for any money. I am pleased to represent the North Naples United Methodist Church, not just as a consultant, but my family and I have been members at the church for years, and I serve the church in a variety of volunteer capacities. The purpose for today's public petition is to gain board direction and input. The church parcel is approximately 13 acres located on Goodlette-Frank Road just a quarter mile north of Pine Ridge Road. You can see it on the visualizer in front of you. And just to the north or to the top of that picture is the existing church campus. To the right, if you will, is the tract at Pine Ridge Middle School, and to the south a commercial infill subdistrict called the Livingston Road -- I'm sorry -- the Goodlette Road/Pine Ridge Page 77 December 16, 2008 commercial infill district. The church bought this parcel several years ago from the Colliers, strictly for the purpose of future church expansion. And in doing so, we wanted to make sure we left our doors open. You never know, as you've heard today, with all the funding issues the churches are facing, what you mayor may not have to do in the future. The church submitted a rezone in this parcel under the infill commercial criteria, being that it's adjacent to an existing commercial district on one side and was requesting an addition to church uses, some very low-scale commercial uses on the property. What you see before you obviously is your Future Land Use Map, and you see about six of the categories in the upper right-hand side that have been highlighted. There are 13 commercial subdistricts created in the Growth Management Plan. Seven are called just that, commercial subdistricts. Six are called commercial infill subdistricts. Therein lies the problem the church has realized in the process of our rezone. We're adjacent to one that has the word infill in its title yet it's 31 acres in size, it has a Sweetbay Supermarket, four-story office building. It's very much larger in nature than what you would picture infill to be. When the church purchased the property, they would have been allowed to request commercial zoning or part of their property as commercial zoning under the infill designation. In 2007 this board approved a change in the Growth Management Plan to the language under the infill designation. That change, in essence, took the word adjacent to commercial and precluded any properties that are adjacent to infill subdistricts from requesting commercial zoning. When we started the process and began master planning the site, we could request commercial zoning. Due to this language change in 2007, this parcel, which previously would have qualified as infill, does not, and the reason is because it's next to a subdistrict that's called Page 78 December 16, 2008 infill. The problem we have is we have a lack of consistency in how that word infill has been applied. Show you an example. You have two pictures here. On the right is a commercial subdistrict at the corner of two six-lane arterial roads at Vanderbilt Beach and 951 approximately 30-plus acres in size. To the left is the Goodlette Road infill subdistrict. It is at the intersection of two six-lane arterial roads. It is approximately 30-plus acres in size. The one on the right, the parcel that looks partially cleared just to the left of it, was allowed to request commercial zoning under the infill designation, but because of this change in 2007, and because the church parcel is located adjacent to a subdistrict that, again, is almost identical to the one on the right, we are now precluded from requesting commercial zoning under the infill. We have researched all six commercial subdistricts that are called infill. This is the only parcel that's affected by this change. Our request of you today -- we are in for zoning right now. If-- our alternatives are, number one, to request an amendment to the Growth Management Plan which would take a minimum of 18 months to two years before we could even get back with our rezoning at extensive cost to the church in order to allow this 13 acres the opportunity to come before you and request any type of commercial zoning on the parcel. And please understand, we're still trying to develop the church and expand the church here, but there are certain quasi-commercial uses that can be associated with churches, and I think we've seen that at times. One example may be to construct an administrative space building where we might lease out some of the space until the church is ready to occupy all of it. We're just trying to keep those doors open. But what we're asking you today is to basically look at the 2007 change, and we're asking you to concur with us that we don't believe it Page 79 December 16, 2008 was the board's intent to preclude a parcel such as this from requesting commercial zoning simply because the piece next door had the word infill in it. I don't believe that was the intent, and after looking back at the approval process, I don't think it was pointed out to you which parcels were affected by this. And what we're asking is that you give that direction to staff, that that was not the intent as it should apply to this parcel, so that we may proceed through the zoning process and come before you with a zoning application as opposed to waiting till that day to find out that that was your intent and we stand there hat in hand with no options available to us. And that is the nature of my request, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board members? I have a question. Obviously, sounds like you took a look at the minutes of the adoption? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And there was no references why we were changing the infilllanguage? MR. HANCOCK: There were references to it. And I don't -- won't purport to speak for Mr. Weeks on that. What I was specifically looking for is, were the parcels that this change would directly impact identified? And being that they were so limited in nature, that's what I was looking for in the minutes, sir. I -- beyond that, I certainly don't want to speak for the intent that the Compo Planning department had. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And the Planning Commission, did you take a look at their minutes? MR. HANCOCK: I did not read the Planning Commission minutes, no, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think Mr. Coyle was -- Page 80 December 16, 2008 Commissioner Coyle was before me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, weren't you? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay. Have you asked for an official interpretation by -- MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. And the reason that we didn't is, first of all, I think Mr. Weeks will tell you, we have a good feeling for what the official interpretation is going to say. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think that's the direction you need to go really. That's what I'd feel comfortable with, is an official interpretation of what this really -- MR. HANCOCK: The only reason that we brought this before you today, sir, is that your compo planning staff is swamped, to say the least. An 01 from their department, which would then be followed by an appeal to this board, is going to be a six-plus month process, which will put the zoning continually on delay. And I felt this was an interpretative issue, and that delay, I think, is significant to this project. Like Reverend Mallory mentioned, we all, as churches, we face a lot of funding issues, and a six-month delay could be costly to the church in trying to get something done here. It's the only reason I appear before you today, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think I've got an official interpretation. I think that's what -- it's not officially declared an official interpretation, but it is a communication from the county manager to the Board of County Commissioners that says you may find this information useful during the public petition of Item 6F on Tuesday, and it goes through the staffs reasons for making the decision that they have made. Page 81 December 16, 2008 And I can't imagine that if you asked them for an official interpretation, that it would be anything different than this, and I think that's exactly what you're saying. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- this is a fairly complex issue for us to try to take up in this meeting, but I would like to ask the staff if they could address this issue and tell me how it is different -- how these two properties are different, and what harm will result from your proposed development if it is deemed to be in compliance with our current Growth Management Plan. So can staff tell me that? MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. David Weeks of your Comprehensive Planning Department, the Planning Manager of that department. And amongst other things, I oversee the staff that write consistency memos, such as the one that Tim has -- or has been provided to each of you. To directly answer your questions, Commissioner Coyle, I don't think there is a significant difference between the two properties that Tim has shown you this morning. And secondly, it's a bit difficult, I guess, to say what the harm would be. I'll say I don't think there is any harm. We're talking about the Comprehensive Plan, a set of regulations, and I'd be hard pressed to think of a scenario where I would say, yes, there's some harm if you interpret the plan, generally speaking -- you know, not just this situation, but in general -- to say, well, that will be harmful because the Comprehensive Plan, principally, is guiding the development to appropriate location. But to say that, boy, if you allow development in that location it's specifically going to cause harm, Commissioner, that's a difficult scenario for staff to be able to say, yes, if you approve this, boy, that's going to have all these really negative consequences. So the short answer is no to both questions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So there would be no harm, Page 82 December 16, 2008 and there really is no difference between the two of these yet something was permitted in the one on the right that is not going to be permitted in the one on the left; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess my overall feeling is that the Growth Management Plan is designed to make sure we don't do something that will be harmful to our community. And if we find that there is a technical interpretation here that would not cause harm to our community, to the extent the technical correction can be -- the technical issue can be corrected by a decision by the Board of County Commissioners without a Growth Management Plan, I wouldn't see anything wrong with doing that. My real question is, if there is no harm permitting this thing -- this development to go forward, what authority does the Board of County Commissioners have to say that the change that was made in December, 2007, was not intended to cause this result? County attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I sort of agree with you. I don't believe there are unintended consequences for something like that because the board can fix them because the board knows what its intention was. But to get there, I think you're going to have to go through the 0&1 (sic) process so that staff can lay it out. There's a public hearing involved so that other interested parties can come forward, and maybe they have a reason. I don't know. And at that point in time the board can make a decision as to where the board wants to go that, no, we didn't intend for this to happen, go in, Mr. Developer, and develop, and that would be fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, what would be the time frame and cost of doing that? MR. WEEKS: I think the official interpretation -- though I generally agree with what Tim said as far as the staff workload. Our department is not suffering a lack of work as some within our division Page 83 December 16, 2008 are. But because we have already, in essence, made an interpretation in that memo you've seen, I think we could act on it rather quickly. By rather quickly, I think I could say within a month of submittal we could have an answer rendered, which would -- ultimately means the end result would be, getting to you would be less than six months by far. I'm assuming that they would -- Tim would expeditiously appeal that official interpretation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, you're telling me that you're going to deny it and you're going to find that it's not in compliance with the Growth Management Plan, which you've already told us you have done. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can't you tell us that tomorrow morning rather than waiting a month? MR. WEEKS: Well, I don't think you'll have his application in tomorrow morning, Commissioner. MR. HANCOCK: Along with the appropriate fee, I'm assuming. MR. WEEKS: Of course. MR. HANCOCK: So, yes, sir. I guess we have to spend $1,000 to hear "no" tomorrow. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the Board of Commissioners -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the $1,000 is not for the no. The $1,000 is also to help -- this is a public process, and people have to be notified in that community that this is going on so that they can weigh in on this. There are notice requirements here. MR. HANCOCK: I understand. We -- I was hoping this was an interpretative issue, when the inconsistencies were pointed out to this body. If we're going to be forced through an 01 process and a Board of Zoning Appeals process, then that's the process we'll do. MR. KLATZKOW: The process shouldn't take that much time. We already have our answer here. Page 84 December 16, 2008 MR. MUDD: Yeah. We already have -- we already have the answer. I don't believe Mr. Weeks or Joe's staff can do anything other based on what's written in the book and what has been passed to render any other opinion except what I gave you on the sheet on Sunday night when I transferred the issue. I believe the public process is important, okay, and the county attorney is dead on. Now, we could take this and advertise, while he's doing his thing, and advertise a public meeting. I believe the board is also making -- I had this conversation with Tim. I believe the board is also assuming that the church is going to use all of that land to do what they want for the church, okay. I wouldn't make that assumption if I was you. You might find out that only a portion of that property is going to be used by the church, and something might get sold off. And if it does and it has a higher intensity than what you have right now on your books for this GMP, then I believe the public has a right to listen to it to figure out what that could be and what impacts it would have on their neighborhood. I don't believe anybody has a problem with the church. We've got lots of them, and they seem to be the only business in Collier County that's expanding right now, and everybody's praying for a recovery, I think that's the reason, and -- that's why they're getting more people to show up. But I will tell you I believe the public process is important here. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. And the only other thing I would say is -- so we don't prolong this more than necessary -- is whether or not you want the Planning Commission to give you a recommendation on this before you hear it, or do you want to hear this direct? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if! might. And it goes right to what the county attorney was stating. One option they have is simply let the rezone go forward through the usual process which includes going through the Planning Commission and then coming to you. I understand what Tim's perspective is and the church's is, they don't Page 85 December 16, 2008 want to wait, you know, X number of months before the actual rezone gets to you to find out that you disagree -- that you might agree with the staff position and deny their application. They're hoping -- I think the reason Tim's here, is he wants to find out today, do you disagree with staffs position, so that they have some sense of what the outcome is going to be when you do act on the rezone petition. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think the board members individually need to have a lot more information, and I think the process -- it needs to go through the process, personally, so I can fully understand all the issues. And I didn't mean to jump in front of Commissioner Coletta, but I just needed to state that -- my position. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, actually the discussions that took place, you just kind of summarized it up, also covers what my concerns was, was the due public process. We can't assume that everybody's going to be in agreement with this, you know, without at least touching base. But any way we can simplifY this and speed it along and hold the cost down, I think it would be advantageous for all concerned. MR. WEEKS: We have established fees, Commissioners, to cover the cost of staff time and public notice process. As I've indicated, I believe we can act on it within a month of submittal, that we can have it -- the official interpretation rendered and provide the public notice, and then there's an appeal process that the church can then file to get it in front of you. MR. SCHMITT: The second option is proceed with -- MR. WEEKS: Right. Or again, the other option is, just stay the course with the rezone petition. No additional expense involved but, of course, the outcome still lies with you at the end. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Tim, my perspective, I'd rather try to settle that issue, the Growth Management Plan issue, before we Page 86 December 16, 2008 discuss the rezone. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I thank you for your time this morning. We'll pass the plate a second time on Sunday, and we'll be back before you sitting as the BZA, I would assume, as soon as possible. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tim, if it's any comfort, bars are also doing quite well right about right. MR. HANCOCK: So we're in good company or -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It kind of balances each other. MR. HANCOCK: Again, Commissioners, thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Did we answer his question about coming to the Planning Commission before us? I don't believe we did. MR. WEEKS: An official interpretation comes straight to this commiSSion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we -- I think we have a number of speakers on an item on 9. Does the board have any objections to go to that item before we go to lunch? Which item is it? Item #9 J RECOMMENDA TION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FORMALIZE ITS INTENT AND DIRECTION REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW AND/OR RECONSTITUTED ADVISORY COMMITTEES TO WORK WITH THE OFFICE OF THE MEDICAL DIRECTOR- DISCUSSION TO CONTINUE AFTER THE LUNCH RECESS Page 87 December 16,2008 MOTION TO HAVE A 5 MEMBER COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF AN ER PHYSICIAN, ER NURSE, PHARMACIST, EMS REP AND FIRE REP AND SUNSETTING THE EMSAC COMMITTEE - APPROVED MR. MUDD: I'm assuming 9J, sir; is that correct? CHAIRMAN HENNING: 917 Do we -- we have two public speakers? MR. MUDD: And that's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners formalize the intent and direction regarding the establishment of new and/or reconstructed advisory committees to work with the Office of Medical Director. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. The -- I didn't get a sense that we got a clear direction, Mr. -- we're a little bit late on that public petition -- or that public comment. The first one, if we can get through it. The EMSAC Committee. It was reported to us it was 14. There was no direction whether the board wanted to cut that down. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I wanted to speak on the other one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: On the other one? COMMISSIONER FIALA: On the other one, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we get a consensus on EMSAC? We want to cut that down? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got just a suggestion. How about if we sunset EMSAC and re-establish a newer comm- -- a new commission? CHAIRMAN HENNING: A new committee? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, a new committee. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's what I think we should do. Page 88 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I could agree, but I'd like some more discussion on the number of people that are going to be sitting on that committee. Fourteen is not a committee. It's a parliament. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if we sunset the EMSAC Committee as it is today, then we can re-establish a new committee and then we can basically come forth on how many people we think needs to be on that committee. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: A new one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That sounds very reasonable to do that, and maybe we ought to go to creation of a medical policy advisory group. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think that's kind of where -- where I'm hearing my colleagues want to go. So if we can have that discussion and then give some direction after public input. Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think that's the appropriate process, and I think you need to get rid of a 15- or 14-member committee. I seem to recall it was 15 members, but that -- you can't get anything done with a l5-member committee. We just scaled back the Habitat study group to considerably less at their own request because they couldn't get anywhere with 15 people. And we heard members of EM SAC say the same thing. So we need to get that down to a small portion, and that should be an emergency medical services policy committee. The quality assurance and quality improvement committee is the committee that, under our agreements with the fire districts, is created and guided by Dr. Tober himself, and I don't think you need to create that as a Board of County Commissioners' committee. Let them deal Page 89 December 16, 2008 with that for lots of good reasons. But let me say this right up front, that I am very disappointed that we made a decision on November the 3rd to have a workshop that we had in early December, and we spent three hours talking about the solution here, and the county manager and the county attorney let us walk away from that process feeling they did not have adequate guidance from this board. If -- I hope that never happens again. County manager and the county attorney both told me that the two of them were looking at each other shaking their heads at the conclusion of that meeting wondering what we did. Now, why one of them didn't step up and say, wait a minute, I don't have clear guidance, I don't know, but this is an important issue. It needs to get solved quickly, and we cannot continue to talk about this over and over at subsequent meetings without getting a decision made, and I hope that's what we're going to do today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I understand where you're coming from, but conversely, now we've -- we talked with a lot of people that day from all different walks of this Emergency Medical Services community. They in -- then requested to go back to their boards. F or instance, my Marco Island fire guys, they wanted to go back to the Marco Island City Council. They couldn't make any decisions unless they get approval of city council, which they haven't been able to do. Same with East Naples Fire Department. They had to go back to their East Naples fire commissioners. Now, this hasn't happened, and I feel that this is too quick. I would like to put this -- I would like to place this on an agenda for the beginning of January instead so these people have -- yes, I would -- these people have a chance to go there and then give their recommendations to us. Page 90 December 16,2008 I can't just speak for the fire departments until I hear what the city council, for instance, on Marco Island -- and I don't believe that your city council in the City of Naples has made a decision on this either. I believe that we need to hear from them before we march forward, because I think we're going to be sorry that we did that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has spoken. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good grief. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have three speakers. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? Why don't we go to the public speakers? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think that would be the best idea. MS. FILSON: Wayne Walldack. He'll be followed by Jim Burke, who will be followed by George Agrella, Agurela (sic). MR. MUDD: Aguilera. MS. FILSON: Aguilera. Thank you. MR. WALLDACK: Commissioners, my name is Wayne Walldack, City Council, Marco Island. I'd like to compliment the board on the open discussion they took (sic) that took place on December 8th concerning the issue of positive role of the ALS engine agreements. As one of many elected officials at that meeting, I would like to request that the -- the opportunity to report back to my council members at our January 5th meeting. I'm sure that other elected officials would also like to provide feedback to their respective boards. It would be appreciated that we be afforded this time prior to your taking definite action. I supported Commissioner Coyle's recommendation of a protocol development advisory committee made up of ALS providers, Collier County EMS and emergency room physicians, the review inventing of the protocols by the actual people Page 91 December 16, 2008 in the street that do the job and the physicians receiving these patients is an excellent model. There are many makeups of EM SAC within the state. The current board makeup was, within the past few years, changed by the county commission to provide a fair representation of all affected individuals. I do have concerns of a medical policy advisory group as discussed in the final minutes of the meeting. I do not feel that a hospital administrator, a nurse, the medical and community (sic) -- and county medical director, certainly all fine people, and one business community leader represent the best interests of pre-hospital care. Dr. Nelson, the state medical director, mentioned a few models that might provide better policy guidance concerning pre-hospital care. I think the commission should give some consideration to looking at assistance from Dr. Nelson. The discussion of quality assurance program contained within the ALS engine agreement already exists. The major discussion centered on regularly scheduled meetings of this committee for the purpose of medical review. In conclusion, as an elected official, I was encouraged by the open discussion at the December 8th meeting. I would request and ask the indulgence of the commission to consider the allowing elected -- allowing elected officials to report back to their respective councils. I look forward to continued involvement in this process. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Jim Burke. He'll be followed by George Aguilera. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, George signed up late when the discussion started, so does anybody have any -- want to deviate from our policy? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we ought to let him speak. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Page 92 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do, too. MR. BURKE: Commissioners, Jim Burke. I'm a recently elected member of the North Naples Fire District Board of Commissioners, but I want to make the point that even though I'm only a month old on the job, I've been very active with that commission for the past three years, as well as the countywide steering committee. So during that three years, I've formed a lot of opinions, and I've observed quite a bit. And my take today is, I think you're on the right path, but I -- my take is, is that you've been asked to referee this intramural serious scrum that we're going through here. And I say serious because it affects our lives, our health, our families, our property. But what we're going through, in my observation, doesn't surprise me. I mean, it's the nature of the beast. It's what happens. And I went through this a bunch of years ago with what was once the largest hotel company in the world. It was in its final days, and our behavior during those days was very similar to what -- similar to what we're doing now. We start tossing emails and letters back and forth and making accusations and cutting up turf, and to no avail. It doesn't solve anything. So here we are today with our system which, in my mind -- and I've said this in public -- it's creaking, it's groaning, and it's beginning to collapse under its own weight. Time and turf have caught up with this system. And I truly believe that it is time to move on into the 21 st century with it. Now, for me to get up here and tell you what the solution is would be very presumptuous, but I think we all know the kind of things we can work on so -- the other thing, in closing, I want to say is, when you proceed with this new group -- and I agree with you about the sunshining out of EM SAC -- don't exclude any of the Page 93 December 16, 2008 players. Get everybody involved, all of the stakeholders in the delivering of the service. But I think you're on the right track, and I will support what it is you're doing. So thanks for the time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: George Aguiler- -- I can't, sorry. MR. AGUILERA: That's okay. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I, too -- we left that meeting quite confused as well with what was the actual resolution. But I'd like to bring you back to a meeting that occurred the Friday before, on December 5th, with the state EMS medical director; Dr. Tober, the local medical director, and members of all of the stockholders -- stakeholders in the ALS engine program. We did leave that meeting with some sort of an agreement, which was kind of nice because we were comfortable that we opened up some great dialogue, we thought, with the medical director, the state medical director, and all the other providers. I'd like to bring you to the two things that we actually agreed on, is the state medical director recommend, and Dr. Tober agreed, that we would have an office of the medical dir- -- advisory committee, a little different than, I think, what the board has been talking about, which is something to replace it as far as an EMSAC committee. This was a committee that was going to work -- an actually working group under the office of the medical director, under Dr. Tober, that would fill the following different roles. Number one is to discuss training issues, discuss training schedules, protocol development, medications, field training officers. It was a very distinct committee that was going to work basically as staff or as assistants to the medical director to discuss these really important issues that are today's issues. We also discussed about creating a quality assurance committee, and I think that was written in the current interlocals. The state calls it Page 94 December 16, 2008 an emergency medical review committee. Again, participating of all the stakeholders to meet to take a look at any of the quality or issues or research that was being worked on in order to be able to comprehensively provide direction countywide. I think that those two things that we agreed upon to work directly under the office of the medical director are very, very important, and at a minimum, whether the discussion of creating a new EMSAC or a version of the new EMSAC is also important. I think that if we can get some direction that these two committees or these two working groups, under the office of the medical director, are supported by the county, and give direction for those to happen, I think that those would start now. Those can start paying dividends today, because those are the type of communications that we need to start happening -- occurring with the office of the medical director. So with that, thank you, and hopefully that direction can follow through. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Did you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to continue this till the first meeting in January so that we can -- all of the commissioners can get input from our own respective districts and bring that back so that -- like, for instance, George Aguilera just mentioned two committees, and we're not even discussing that right now, but I think that that's an important thing, both of them operating under the medical director, each with a different mission, and I think that this is important. This is going to affect the health of our community from here on in. So let's wait until the beginning of January. My motion stands as continuing this till the first meeting in January. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good motion. I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta to continue this item. Page 95 December 16, 2008 Who was first over here? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, one of the reasons that we elected to have the medical director report directly to the Board of County Commissioners is because there was this ongoing fight between the fire districts and the medical director. Now, I don't know about some of the other commissioners, but I've been involved in discussing this with the fire districts and the medical director for the last six to eight months. We have all been aware of this issue for a long, long time. It is our responsibility. I don't recall that we go to any city council or any other governmental body to ask about their input on appointments to our Planning Commission, nor do I believe that our Planning Commission operates under the direction of the county staff. We did this because we wanted to elevate the position so that we could begin to understand the problems and take responsibility for them. And then if there was an issue, it was not an issue between the fire districts and the medical adviser. It was an issue between the fire districts and the Board of County Commissioners. And secondly, we wanted to provide a public forum so we get everybody involved in the discussion process. We cannot and should never try to get every single stakeholder in Collier County represented on a commit- -- an advisory committee. You do that the same way we do it with the Environmental Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. You have public hearings. And the people come from the public, anybody who wants to talk about an issue, comes from the public, and they provide their input during that hearing. What you want on that advisory board, you want the very best minds concerning medical protocol and how it is to be delivered to the best benefit of our community. That's what this committee would do. We're not -- in my opinion we're not looking for a countywide Page 96 December 16,2008 consensus on the makeup of the committee. It is our advisory committee. We should decide who's going to be on it. I would even recommend that we interview the members who apply for this committee. But we -- right now we have already directives from Dr. Tober going to the fire departments saying, you cannot -- you cannot use certain drugs. There are directives concerning levels of training for the fire departments to continue advanced life support functions. There is great confusion concerning that. Fire departments are concerned about it, so is Dr. Tober. There's a new policy concerning hyperthermia treatment for heart attack victims. We're going to stand around and wait another month to set up a committee that after -- will take another month and a half to select the members that will then meet maybe sometime in March or April to implement or to consider and implement these kinds of things? I suggest that we are functioning as a significant impediment to good emergency medical treatment for our patients, or our citizens. And if that's what we're going to do, then we ought to say, I'm sorry, we made a big mistake, let's put it back the way it was, because you can't have a county commission who has to have meeting after meeting after meeting to make its mind up about what it's going to do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Responsibility of the welfare of the citizens falls on this commission. We aired this in front of everybody. Everybody had the opportunity to come that day and speak on behalf of this. I think what came out of this discussion is that we have one of the highest standards. And what I take out of this conversation that we had with -- at this workshop basically is that we want a dumbing down of the system, and that's not where I want to go. In fact, we've got the best. I want to excel it even better, and that responsibility falls on this commiSSiOn. Page 97 December 16, 2008 And that's where I stand on this, and I think we ought to be moving forward instead of waiting to have other dialogue where we have another workshop with 300 people here. We went through this dialogue. We heard the airing. We heard from the citizens. We heard from the medical community. We heard from the fire department. Now we take all that stuff and I think we move forward. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion on the floor and a second. Further discussion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. My understanding of the motion was, is to be able to seek counsel, individually, commissioners, and to be able to come back when we'd be able to air this whole thing. Now, I'm in agreement with Commissioner Coyle for the most part and Commissioner Halas. But Commissioner Fiala, would you please elaborate on your motion one more time? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. I don't want another workshop and I don't want -- I mean, right now, people were knowing this was here. We don't see the audience filled with people. I just want to hear back from my constituents as to what we could do. Now, George Aguilera made an excellent presentation here to tell us, not one committee, but two, and what each should be comprised of and what each of their functions should be. We're not even talking about that. I think we need to consider these things. And I'm willing to listen to our people. It's only two weeks away, two weeks away, three weeks away, and I don't see that three weeks is any -- we're not going to get much done through the holiday season anyway. I would prefer to wait. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. One more question, Commissioner Fiala, just to help me with this a little bit. What you're Page 98 December 16, 2008 proposing is something that we normally do anyway, and that's to be able to meet with our constituents -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and other stakeholders out there that may wish to be able to talk to us. That was your motion, wasn't it? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir, it was. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, we don't need the permission of the commission to be able to do that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So do you really think we need the motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do, because what they want to do is they want to form this policy advisory group with certain people on there -- and no ALS people on there, by the way -- yet on another issue here they're talking about existing ALS engine agreements. I just want to hear what my people have to say. I went out and asked, by the way. When I talked with Mike Murphy, for instance, from the Marco Island Fire Department, he said, I really can't tell you because I haven't spoken to my city council yet. They haven't met. They can't get back to me. I can't give you my advice. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the reason for this discussion now is because both the county manager and the county attorney felt that we left the issue in the middle of the air. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I did too. When I left that meeting, I talked with Jim Mudd. And I said, you know, I don't know where we're going either. He said, neither do I. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, forgive me. I thought it was intentional, but now I know it wasn't. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We were just kind of floundering and then -- and we didn't know whether somebody had this tail and Page 99 December 16, 2008 was trying to shake the whole dog or what. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. What is it about Commissioner Fiala's motion that I should be concerned about? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We started on this back in October when we elected to have -- to put it on the agenda that we wanted the medical director to report to the board. We then -- once we accomplished that, then we put on the agenda a workshop to talk about how we dealt with that. We had the work shop. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Any commissioner on this board has had months to talk to constituents about -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not after the workshop. Excuse me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I talked with people before the workshop because I wanted to know what their impressions were before we sat down to talk about it. I talked with people in January of this year. I talked with people in October of last year. When I saw the flurry of angry emails going back and forth between the fire departments and our medical director, I talked with the people about those two -- those things then. I've been talking with them a long time. So I hope you can understand my frustration when I hear somebody say, wow, this just came up, and I don't know anything it. I need to talk with somebody about it. We need to move ahead and get something done. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's vote on the motion and see if it passes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, may I, just one last thing. I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning. We might not even have a motion, but I just -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we do. You seconded. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we do. I haven't -- I may pull my second. Commissioner Fiala may pull it. I'm just trying to Page 100 December 16,2008 clarifY something. Help me with this. Suppose the motion fails or the motion's pulled. What would be the next step? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's get that-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no. I want to know what the other alternative is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I have somebody waiting for me, and I'm not sure if we're getting anywhere. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'll be very brief and I'll be finished. But I'm the one who asked for this to be on the agenda today. If I hadn't asked for it to be on the agenda, we wouldn't be talking about it today, and it would be another month before something happened to it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But what? COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what I wanted to do today is to clarify the guidance of the board so that the county attorney and the county manager can begin to get the application requests out to people to apply for membership of this meeting (sic). That's going to take a month and a half or two months, and then we're going to have to select people, and then they're going to have to start meeting. So if we don't get started pretty soon, we're going to be into spring of next year before we start promulgating any policy. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I withdraw my second because your argument is compelling. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Why don't we continue this discussion at 1: 16 this afternoon. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We get a whole hour? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A whole hour? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. We're in recess for lunch. (A luncheon recess was had.) Page 101 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Continuing on. The board's back from lunch. Continuing on to 9J. Looking for direction on the current EMSAC board and -- or creating a new board for medical policy for the ALS and BLS. The -- there was a motion and a second, and it was -- failed because the second pulled the motion. Is there any other guidance on this item? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can make a motion, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's try it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Let me make a brief explanatory statement. I'm not going to address -- you remember there was some discussion about two committees. I'm not going to address the other committee. That's the QAQI committee, which is already established. It's up to the medical director to establish that committee, and I don't think it's necessary that we get involved in that. So the only committee I'm going to address is the emergency medical policy committee. And I recommend that we create a committee consisting of the following positions: Emergency room physician, a pharmacist, emergency room nurse, to be appointed by us from nominations made from the Medical Society of Collier County. We'll then have a representative for the fire districts and a representative for EMS. You notice that Dr. Tober is not -- I have not specified Dr. Tober as being a part of that committee for the same reason that we don't specify a member of our staff to be part of the planning advisory committee or the Environmental Advisory Committee. Dr. Tober will be making his recommendations in concert with the QAQI committee, and they will be reviewed by this committee, and then we will act upon those recommendations. So five members, and those are the members that I would suggest. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's a motion? Page 102 December 16,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is a motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it if we are going to sunset the EMSAC. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. That certainly should be the case. We should sunset the EMSAC Committee. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you name them one more time? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. An emergency room physician, an emergency room nurse -- MR. MUDD: Pharmacist. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- pharmacist, EMS representative, and a fire district representative. MR. MUDD: And the emergency director, the pharmacist and the emergency room nurse, you mentioned something about a recommendation -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: They would be selected from recommendations submitted by the medical society, and that takes us out of the business of trying to sit here and decide whether a doctor is qualified to be on that committee. MR. MUDD: So they're basic- -- you're asking the -- you're asking that the Medical Society of Southwest -- of Naples or Southwest Florida recommend to this board an emergency room doctor, a pharmacist, and an emergency nurse? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's part of my second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- and we can definitely get something over to them. Now, would this -- members of the committee have to reside within Collier County, same -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Same procedure as with any other Page 103 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Same procedures. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I don't know what you mean by reside. I mean, they can be on another board if they want to be on another board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, reside in the county. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Reside, live in the county. Yeah, they've got to live in the county. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think so. I think members of the Collier County Medical Society live or practice in the county. I'm uncertain about that. Do we require it on all of our committees? I believe we have some nonresidents on our committees -- other committees. MR. MUDD: You might have nonresidents based on specifics to the committee, but Ms. Filson will be able to address it. Go ahead, Sue. MS. FILSON: There are a couple in Immokalee wherein they have to represent a certain category, and that category doesn't have anyone who resides in Collier County, and they reside outside of Collier County. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there are some. It's not a precedent, but I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. But I would say to you, there are some very experienced emergency room physicians at the Trauma Center in Ft. Myers. But whether they can participate in meetings down here is a different question. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we ought to just limit it to this -- Collier County. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's okay with me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, would that be for the hospitals, and that's a pleural, in Collier County? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it would be wherever the best qualified person is according to the medical society, which is Page 104 December 16,2008 theoretically not an organization that's allied with any particular hospital. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. So, you know -- okay. Well, that's clear to me. Any further 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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Now, Commissioner Fiala wanted to take 8 what, C? COMMISSIONER FIALA: 8B and switch it with 8A. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 8B, switch it with 8A. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. Whenever we get to 8, you know. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Whenever we get to 8. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we -- okay. We're going to go to 7 now. Item #7 A RESOLUTION 2008-375: CU-2008-AR-1320l: VI LTD, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION, REPRESENTED BY RICHARD D. YOV ANOVICH OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN, JOHNSON, Page 105 December 16, 2008 YOV ANOVICH & KOESTER, P.A., REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE RESIDENTIAL TOURIST (RT) ZONING DISTRICT AND THE VANDERBILT BEACH RESORT TOURIST OVERLAY DISTRICT (VBRTO) AND THE RMF-16 ZONING DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 2.01.03.G.1.E, TO ALLOW FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES (LIMITED TO PUBLIC RESTROOM FACILITIES) THA T WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PARTIALLY WITHIN THE MORAYA BAY BEACH CLUB PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (CTS) - ADOPTED W/RETURN TO THE BCC REGARDING OPTIONS ON ELEVATION AND FEMA MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That would go to 7A, and this item was continued from the October 28,2008, BCC meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's conditional use 2008-AR-13201, Six Limited, or it's VI Limited, Limited Partnership, and Collier County Parks and Recreation, represented by Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich, and Koester, P.A., is requesting a continual use in the residential tourist zoning district and the Vanderbilt Beach resort tourist overlay district, the VBRTO, and the RMF -16 zoning district pursuant to Land Development Code section 2.01.03.G.l.e, to allow the public facilities, limit to public rest room facilities, that will be constructed within the public right-of-way and partially within the Moraya Bay Beach Club. The subject property is located in Section 29, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. That's what I have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Everybody wanting to Page 106 December 16,2008 participate in this discussion, please rise, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communication, starting with Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have had meetings with Mr. Dick Bing, or Dr. Dick Bing, and Jerry Griffin, and I've also met with Bruce Burkhard. I have received correspondence, emails, and telephone calls concerning this item. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've met a number of times with Dick Bing and Jerry Griffith (sic), and also with the people who live up in Vanderbilt Beach area, and I have numerous meetings with staff in regards to these items, and I've also had emails and phone calls and other correspondence, and they're all located here in my book. As you can see, there's been quite a few. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, no. Just whenever you get to speakers or somebody's on the board that wants to speak, I'd like to speak. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You're first. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. We need to do the rest of the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, yeah, I know that, but I just wanted everybody to recognize Commissioner Coyle was first. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, good. That's a good feeling. I never get to go first. COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's a reason for that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're on the clock. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- I had -- I met with the petitioner, the petitioner's agent, I went down to the site, I have Page 107 December 16, 2008 voluminous amount of email correspondence, and I talked to staff. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I met with Bruce Burkhard, I met with Janet Vasey, and we both went on a little tour of the place, just by car, and then I met again with Richard Bing and Jerry Griffin there and toured the place again, and then I have emails, I talked with staff, I talked with a planning commissioner, and -- boy, I think I mentioned it all. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'll repeat what Donna just said. Meetings, correspondence, emails, phone calls, staff -- meeting with staff numerous times, I visited the site, Richard Bing, Rich Y ovanovich, Wayne Arnold, Eric Strickland. I think that pretty much covers it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Who wants to go first? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I guess I'm first. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we may as well get this out of the way right up front because it probably will affect both of these items. Whatever happens with this and however this works out, I would merely ask that the other members of the Board of County Commissioners join me in demanding that the staff seek the necessary variances and not build a two-story outhouse with an elevator at this location because I don't think it's necessary. It's an irresponsible waste of taxpayer funds. And so however we decide on this thing, I would hope that you would -- that the majority of the commissioners would give staff direction to get the necessary variances to keep from wasting taxpayer funds on this huge structure. Page 108 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't know they were going to do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They are. I think they can. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, Commissioner, if I could respond to that. Ijust don't understand the State of Florida be (sic) able to put permits -- build buildings at Wiggins Pass Park without having to comply with the FEMA rules. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. Well, I think we -- we can. I mean, I don't know what you're saying. But if you're saying that we can't get a deviation -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not a deviation, what I'm saying is, because if others -- if others get it, it's just a matter of the interpretation of the FEMA rules. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. So you're saying that other people have gotten away with doing it. Why do we have to waste our taxpayers' money on doing this, and I believe that the county attorney will tell you that we can do this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I believe that we could be putting ourselves in jeopardy as far as where we stand with the insurance -- flood insurance premiums in this county. So just because we'd like to keep this at one story, the end result may be an impact for most of the taxpayers here in Collier County. So I think that we have to look at this cautiously before we go this direction. And I guess I'm going to look for guidance from the county attorney. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I'll work with Mr. Schmitt. We're going to have to bring this back. We'll have a full executive summary as to what we can and what we cannot do, and then the board will be able to make an informed decision on this. But we will look into, you know, building this. MR. MUDD: Let's make sure you clarify, bring it -- bring this Page 109 December 16, 2008 back. MR. KLATZKOW: It will be a variance. MR. MUDD: The issue that Commissioner Coyle brought up will require a variance. The variance would have to be advertised and go through the variance issue. This does not have any bearing right now on the conditional use because you're basically putting a conditional use to put a bathroom facility, a/k/a outhouse, in the right-of-way. That's what the conditional use is all about, okay, and that right-of-way and the access was given to you based on a settlement agreement. But -- and then Mr. Klatzkow's comments are perfectly correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I make a comment? CHAIRMAN HENNING: About that one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: On this one, yes, since -- Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. The -- you're going to need to modify some exhibits that are attached to the resolution because there's -- there are specific elevations and heights contained in Exhibit C of the resolution approving the conditional use. So we would need to -- we need to modifY that. And then my question is, what happens if you do not get the variance to go to one story? This conditional use, would you want to adopt it as it is with direction to try to reduce it to one story so we won't have to go through this process again? That would be my recommendation that you do that with direction to redu- -- to try to reduce it to one story. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, if I could. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only reason I brought it up front is because -- that I understand that there is substantial dissatisfaction from some of the residents about having this big Page 110 December 16, 2008 structure there, and I just wanted to bring it up front because it might impact the positions of people in the audience who are going to be speaking for or against this project. And, yes, you're right, we don't want to duplicate our efforts here, so let's -- we'll approve it in its current form with -- I mean, if we do approve it, we'd do so in its current form and -- with guidance to staff to see what variances they can get to reduce the size of this outhouse. Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Okay. What we're talking about is FEMA's rules that are requiring it to be elevated where it is, if I understand correctly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And so the direction that we're giving is that ifFEMA's willing to waive that rule, we'd build it at near ground level? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Is there any other advantage to having this -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: The cost. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. You don't have to put an elevator in. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The cost is less or more? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, it's a lot less. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, building it at ground level. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And so -- yeah, that sounds -- in other words, we go forward with the project, and if we can modifY it to be able to put it at ground level, we'll do it. Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it will come back at another meeting in regards to discussing all the options that are open for it. Page III December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Is that what you said? I thought it wasn't going to come back. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. That's what I said, because it will have to come back for a variance, but what you don't want to do is take this whole project and make it come back through the process. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you can't do anything with the project until you know what you're going to build. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, you can. You can approve the project with the structure as it's currently shown in the documents with guidance to the staff that we will seek a variance to that requirement and reduce the size of this -- and the cost of this structure, if we can. If we can, we -- the variance will be coming back to us for consideration. We will then, as the county attorney has said, we will understand all our options, and then we can make a decision on whether or not we want to do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that sounds fine. The only one concern I may have is that FEMA has been known not to work in any kind of reasonable timetable. This may be delayed for years. MR. MUDD: I'm going to -- I just want to -- I just want to interject myself. This variance is within -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Our variance. MR. MUDD: -- within the power of the Board of County Commissioners. The issue -- the issue is what Commissioner Halas brought up, is how much risk do you want to accept on your flood . . Insurance premiUms -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: The citizens. MR. MUDD: -- because you now have put a building -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: An outhouse. MR. MUDD: -- a/k/a, an outhouse, okay, at sea level, so to speak, versus being 17- foot above the ground, which is the floodplain elevation that FEMA has designated for this particular area. That's the issue that gets resolved during the variance, and the Planning Page 112 December 16, 2008 Commission will get to see that. But you don't have to ask FEMA for that variance. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does this affect our rating throughout the county? MR. MUDD: It could, sir. We don't know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay. MR. MUDD: That's the risk, okay, that needs to be -- needs to be looked at and asked about as this variance goes through the process. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And -- I mean, the variance itselfs still going to depend on FEMA's determinations, too, right? MR. MUDD: No. They've already made their determinations. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Their determination, it had to be built, a second story. MR. MUDD: The floodplain elevation is 17-foot, and so you've got to have a second story. You have to have one blowout floor. But you, as a Board of County Commissioners, can approve a variance of that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's get this dog-and-pony show underway. Mr. Y ovanovich? And no offense. MR. YOV ANOVICH: None taken. I believe we did a full presentation the last go-round and we continued this to take care of an item that you approved on the consent agenda today, which was the actual conveyance of the sliver ofland that was necessary to have the county total ownership of the land subject to the continual use. Unless you want me to go through the presentation again, I -- I would -- I would say we are where we are, and those are the elevations of the worst-case scenario, as I'll call it right now, based upon your discussion. And with that, we're available to answer any questions you may have. Page 113 December 16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So on the consent agenda there is an item on there -- I must have missed it -- about conveyance? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It's 16D32. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I know there was another item on there in regards to paying for your time and effort and other people involved in this. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was all taken care of on 16D32. It was reimbursing expenses paid and the conveyance. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nope. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the public speakers. Call the public speakers. MS. FILSON: Oh, I'm sorry. Bruce Burkhard. MR. BURKHARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Burkhard, and I'm the Chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. We feel that the concept of the bathroom was a very important element of the settlement agreement as it went forward. We feel that it does, indeed, benefit all of the citizens of the county, not just citizens in the immediate area. We think it's a good deal, and our association fully supports it and asks you to support passage as well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Burkhard, I have a question, if you don't mind, sir. On the issue about the clubhouse -- and I know it's a different issue. MR. BURKHARD: Well, that's been pulled, so I don't really want to address it, I don't think. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I don't -- I'm pretty sure it's going to come back, so I would ask you and anybody who objects to it to get Page 114 December 16, 2008 together with the developer and see what kind of resolution you can have before it comes back to us. MR. BURKHARD: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. BURKHARD: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Staff presentation? MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner of Zoning. You have the executive summary and the staff report on file. We are recommending approval with conditions. Obviously, as the discussion has gone through today, those conditions may need to be modified to reflect some direction. I don't know exactly how you might do that. Perhaps just approve it as it is conditioned now with staff direction being separate. But that's your call, just so that we have it clear on the record as to what's being approved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What conditions are you talking about? MS. DESELEM: There's just a condition that recognizes the actual site plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a motion that we approve this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I make a motion that we approve this as it is today with the idea that this is to come back to us on another time in regards to addressing the elevations and FEMA. So the motion is that we approve it as it stands today. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the exhibit shown may change, Page 115 December 16, 2008 depending on further board direction. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct, that that's when it comes back with us in regards to discussing the options that we have with elevation changes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That was a motion by Commissioner Halas, second by a Commissioner Fiala. Is there discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying -- are you okay, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm getting ready to say aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #7B RESOLUTION 2008-376: V A-2006-AR-II064: VI L TD, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, REPRESENTED BY RICHARD YOV ANOVICH OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN, JOHNSON, YOV ANOVICH & KOESTER, P.A. REQUESTING THREE VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL TOURIST (RT) ZONING DISTRICT AND THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH RESIDENTIAL TOURIST OVERLAY DISTRICT (VBRTO) TO ALLOW FOR A PROPOSED TRELLIS STRUCTURE. THE Page 116 December 16, 2008 REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) A VARIANCE OF 25 FEET 4 INCHES FROM THE REQUIRED BUILDING SEPARATION DISTANCE CALCULATED AS HALF THE SUM OF THE TWO BUILDINGS (50 FEET 4 INCHES) BETWEEN THE TRELLIS AND THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO ALLOW A 25-FOOT SEPARATION; 2) A VARIANCE OF 20 FEET FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 30-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE TRELLIS TO THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE TO ALLOW A lO-FOOT SETBACK; AND 3) A VARIANCE OF 2.5 FEET 4 INCHES FROM THE REQUIRED BUILDING SEP ARA TION DIST ANCE CALCULATED AS HALF THE SUM OF THE TWO BUILDINGS (12.5 FEET 4 INCHES) BETWEEN THE TRELLIS AND THE PROPOSED PUBLIC RESTROOM BUILDING ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE (BLUEBILL AVENUE) TO ALLOW A 10-FOOT SEP ARA TION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 4.96 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT 11125 GULF SHORE DRIVE, ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GULF SHORE DRIVE AND BLUEBILL AVENUE, IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (COMPANION TO CU-2006-AR-II046) (CTS) - ADOPTED W/CHANGE TO VERBAGE IN RESOLUTION MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to our next item, which is 7B. This item was continued from the December 2,2008, BCC meeting, and it requires that all participants be sworn and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's variance 2006-AR-ll064, VI or Six Limited, Limited Partnership, represented by Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich, and Koester, P.A., requesting three variances from the requirements of the residential tourist R T zoning Page 117 December 16, 2008 district and the Vanderbilt Beach residential tourist overlay district, VBRTO, to allow for a proposed trellis structure. The requested variances are as follows: Number one, a variance of 25 feet, 4 inches from the required building separation distance calculated as half the sum of the two buildings, 50 foot, 4 inches, between the trellis and the principal residential structure to allow a 25-foot separation; number two, a variance of20 feet from the minimum required 30-foot front yard setback for the trellis to the north property line to allow a 10-foot setback; and three, a variance of 2.5 feet, 4 inches from the required building separation distance calculated as half the sum of the two buildings, 12.5 feet, 4 inches, between the trellis and the proposed public rest room building along the northern property line of Bluebill Avenue to allow a 10-foot separation. The subject property consisting of 4.96 acres is located at 11125 Gulf Shore Drive at the southwest corner of Gulf Shore Drive and Bluebill Avenue in Section 9, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. And the companion item that's annotated was continued indefinitely. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You need a break after reading that one. All wishing to participate in this item, please rise, raise your right hand for the court reporter to swear you in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte, starting with Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Okay. I have had --I've had meetings, correspondence, emails, phone calls, met with Richard Y ovanovich, Wayne Arnold, we talked about it -- we talked about it then. I met with Strickland, also Richard Bing, and toured the site. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, same as I mentioned before, Page 118 December 16, 2008 but I guess I have to go through them again for the record. So I went and viewed the site. I met with Richard Bing and Jerry Griffin and Bruce Burkhard, and spoke with staff members on this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I visited the site, I spoke to the petitioner and the petitioner's agent, and I have email correspondence in my record if anybody would like to review. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The same goes for what I had the last time. Met with the petitioner a number oftimes, met with Dr. Bing, and also Jerry Griffith (sic), met with the people from the Planning Commission at separate times, met with the residents, met with staff, had meetings with staff and with the residents in the community there, and I guess that's the whole gist of everything. Anyway, it's all in my packet here as I showed earlier. I tour the site almost every morning at 4:30 in the morning as I walk by it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's going there for the rest room. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've been looking for it. Hope they put a half moon on that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we better leave that one there. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have talked with Dr. Bing and Jerry Griffin and Bruce Burkhard concerning this, as well as staff. I have received correspondence, emails, and telephone calls concerning this item. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today are Jerry Griffin, Karen Bishop, Van Miller, and Jay Westendorf to answer any questions you may have regarding the vanances. Mr. Mudd read to you all three variances that are required for this Page 119 December 16, 2008 trellis. On your visualizer is actually, you know, the survey showing where the three variances are being requested. It turns out that a trellis is considered a structure under the county's Land Development Code and, therefore, setback requirements between the trellis and the condominium building as well as the off-site public rest rooms would be required. Up -- and I forgot my laser pointer, but behind Mr. Mudd is -- shows you the -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's a light sword. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is the trellis we're discussing today, and the setbacks have to do with the public rest room, the setback between the condominium building and the trellis, as well as Bluebill is considered a front road, so we're asking for a setback for that as well. Your Planning Commission recommended approval of 8-1 for approval of the variance, and I believe it's a nice feature for the project, and the Planning Commission agreed that this would be a nice buffer, if you will, from the -- from the public rest rooms to the building, a nice transition and would better identifY the beach access on the property through the trellis. And with that, we're requesting the board approve our variance -- three variance requests as read to you by Mr. Mudd. And your staff is supporting the variance as well. And with that, we're available to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by board members? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a clarification on verbiage. When you say a variance of25 feet, 4 inches from the required building separation calculated as half the sum of the two buildings -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- are you not saying, half the sum Page 120 December 16,2008 of the height of the two buildings? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Shouldn't that be in there to make sure there's no misunderstanding, because that's the way we calculate variances? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. That's a good point. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And that's true of a number of the sentences in this stipulation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It should be half -- half the sum of the height of the two buildings. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Staff presentation? MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon again. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. Again, you have the staff report and the executive summary. The staff is prepared to give you our position on this. The staff report goes into detail as to your findings for the recommendation to support our recommendation of approval. And, again, the only condition for this petition is that condition that recognizes the site plan itself. Other than that, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to respond to them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Public speakers? MS. FILSON: Bruce Burkhard. Page 121 December 16, 2008 MR. BURKHARD: Good afternoon again, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Burkhard, Chairman of Vanderbilt Beach Zoning Committee. And I would like to just say that in general, our organization is trying to hold down the number of variances in our area and keep it -- keep them to a very reasonable level so that the county code is complied with in all instances rather than allowing continual bending. In this case, however, we feel that the bathroom is an essential part of the settlement agreement, and we feel that this trellis construction adds to the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ambiance? MR. BURKHARD: -- beauty of the product that's being built, and we think it's an enhancement overall for the site and, therefore, we would recommend approval. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Burkhard. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing. Is-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve the variances that are requested by the petitioner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala to approve a variance and adopt a resolution, but the resolution needs to be corrected, is that correct, to where it says -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Height, half the height of the building -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Between the trellis and the principal residential structure required a one-half sum of two buildings to allow a 25-foot height separation distance; is that correct? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just the -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sum of the height of the two buildings. Page 122 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: The sum of the height. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, sum of the height of the two buildings to give the 25-foot separation. And essentially the same for all the other variations, too. It's just, we should be saying the sum of the height of the two buildings rather than the sum of the two buildings. I don't know how you sum two buildings. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just wanted to write that down so when the resolution comes through it's going to be -- I'll look for that correction. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct. MR. KLATZKOW: And does that include staffs recommendation, the motion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Includes staff recommendations, exactly, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that included in the second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: And --I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just ask a question? Is any change appropriate or necessary to this if the height of the rest room facility is ultimately reduced? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will probably reduce the amount of the vanance -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Variance. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- between the trellis and public rest room, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The north side. It will probably mean that is not a variance. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'd have to do the math, but it may not -- it may -- or it will certainly be smaller. The variance will be smaller for sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's all I have. Page 123 December 16, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: It affects that one only. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion? (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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Moving right along. Item #8B ORDINANCE 2008-67: PUDA-2008-AR-13494, KITE KINGS LAKE, LLC, REPRESENTED BY D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP OF Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A., REQUESTING A PUD AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE PERMITTED COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN THE KINGS LAKE PUD. (ORDINANCE NO. 82-52) THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4890 DAVIS BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CTS - ADOPTED AS AMENDED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to 8B, was a request that Commissioner Fiala made. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. MR. MUDD: And 8B is now 17 -- used to be 17C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be Page 124 December 16, 2008 provided by commission members. It's PUDA-2008-AR-13494, Kite Kings Lake, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., is requesting a PUD amendment to modifY the permitted commercial units within the Kings Lake PUD, ordinance number -- excuse me -- ordinance number 82-52. The subject property is located at 4890 Davis Boulevard in Section 7, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. The item was moved at Commissioner Fiala's request. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All wishing to participate in this item, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communication? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hang on just a second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We all received-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: 17C, I have met with Mr. Yovanovich, Wayne Arnold, and Eric Strickland, and I have correspondence and emails concerning this item. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only thing I've had to -- as far as ex parte is, there's been emails that I received in my office in regards to this issue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I have received correspondence and emails. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've received emails, correspondence, I've met with Rich Y ovanovich and talked with him as well, and with Eric Strickland. I've also spoken with some of the representatives from Kings Lake community as well as Karen Homiak from the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? Page 125 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I've had meetings and emails.ImetwithMr.Yovanovich.Mr. Arnold, and Mr. Strickland, and also discussed this with staff. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Yovanovich? Actually, Commissioner Fiala, do you want me to go to you? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. I can bring this to a fast close. This is -- it's not a big deal at all. I've already spoken with Rich about it. Some of the things -- there were just a few other things that the community wanted to add as far as restrictions goes to this -- to this agenda item, and that is, they wanted to eliminate number 8744, and I already spoke with Rich about this, which includes jails and correctional facilities. They also wanted to eliminate number 24, public administration, which would include things like housing programs, resource programs, economic programs, et cetera, and they also wanted to eliminate sales barns. We weren't quite sure what a sales barn even was, so we thought maybe we ought to eliminate that. And then there was -- under libraries, which should be just a wonderful thing -- but under the libraries, it included things like documentation centers and items like that. So those were things we asked to have eliminated from this. And once we hear from the petitioner that that would be okay with them, then I would make a motion to approve. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And they are. I just wanted to correct one thing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Your reference to Item 24 was public administration. That's actually item number 23 in the list of uses. So I wanted to make sure we have that correctly referenced. And what we did is we deleted number nine, which is the educational services, and that was the reference to libraries. And it was a little confusing, but sales barns were always excluded, so that Page 126 December 16, 2008 was taken care of. And there was one thing you didn't read off but we didn't forget that -- we talked about it, was on the accessory uses. We wanted to make it clear that new outdoor seating is allowed. It says, new outdoor seating shall be permitted; however, outdoor amplified music or televisions shall be prohibited. So we added that to the document. We ran it by your staff. So we need to include that in any motion you bring to hopefully approve with those changes, but we didn't want to leave that one off. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you for remembering that. Yes, that was a big discussion on that, too. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Rich. And so with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve as amended. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. We have to close the public hearing, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, that's fine, Commissioner, I'll recognize it. But let me go to the accessory structures. In the ordinance, accessory structure use is customarily with -- permitted with a principal use and structures. Sidewalk sales, outdoor seasonal sales shall be permitted. So tell me -- tell me what you're talking about, because I don't see that in the ordinance now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We added that, Commissioner, based on our discussion with Commissioner Fiala yesterday. And here's the language we propose adding. It would be in number three that we would add, and we've run this by JD. We wanted to clarify that, yes, outdoor seating is allowed, and there is some already, but there would be prohibitions on the new outdoor seating to make it clear that there would be no outdoor amplified music or televisions based on other instances in the county. Page 127 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So it's a new one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And that needs to go in the-- into the record -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- along with other people, whoever's going to correct this ordinance, is going to have to have a copy of it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any public speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Close the public hearing. Entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I make a motion to approve this item as amended. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala makes a motion to approve the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Kings Lake Shopping Center. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Kings Lake Shopping Center ordinance, amended ordinance, with the added stipulations, and that includes with staff stipulations, too. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep, that's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Are we clear on the item? County Attorney, we're clear on the item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the Page 128 December 16, 2008 motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Item #8A ORDINANCE 2008-68: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY'S NOISE ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO. 90-17, AS AMENDED) - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8A, and that's a recommendation to consider adoption of an ordinance to amend Collier County's, with an apostrophe S, noise ordinance, ordinance number 90-17, as amended. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Wright? MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I'm Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney. And I'm pleased to bring for your consideration, an amended noise control ordinance. I just want to have a couple remarks here, then I'm going to turn it over to our noise consultant. Back in the fall of 2007, the Board of County Commissioners directed that staff look at the noise ordinance and review it to make it Page 129 December 16, 2008 better. And pursuant to that direction, the code enforcement department hired Lisa Schott, who's a noise consultant, in late 2007. In April, 2008, a draft amendment was sent to our department for legal sufficiency review and public input. We had public input from the Sheriffs Office, the chamber of commerce, staff, citizens, and the private sector. As it evolved, it became tied to the outdoor seating effort, which was being reviewed by the Planning Commission. So the Planning Commission also looked at the noise ordinance, and they looked at this time in July, again in October, and then in November twice. The second time in November, they unanimously recommended approval. That was on November 20th, of the ordinance that's in your packet. Some highlights of the ordinance. It was -- we basically did a general update to reflect the ongoing evolution of legal, technical, and enforcement challenges, and we tried to make it user friendly, because we had a lot of concerns expressed that it was a real technical ordinance that was hard to navigate through. So we tried to make it a little bit more user friendly. Specifically we added C weightings. That's -- and Lisa will explain the impact of that. We've also added some qualifications to our human voice exemption. We've added mixed-use provisions. That was with the input of the development community. And we've also, as a byproduct of this effort, have an increased cooperation in phone lines available for noise complaints, and the cooperation is between the Sheriffs Office and code enforcement. So they have a pretty air-tight system for addressing noise complaints whenever they come In. It's not a cure for zoning incompatibility issues, and that's something that we really want to illuminate, because a lot of the questions that come up in noise control relate to zoning compatibility issues, and we're not addressing that here. Page 130 December 16, 2008 Like I said, there's a lot of competing interests, and this is our chance to make the ordinance better and take all those various interests concerned into the draft. Lisa Schott, as I said, is here. We also have Kitchell Snow from code enforcement. Catherine Fabacher has permitting expertise. The Sheriffs Office is here, Captain Mark Baker. We also have Steve Hart from the Chamber of Commerce. We've also gotten private sector input from Doug Lewis and Karen Bishop, who are both here, and we also had a lot of input from citizens. We really did try to listen to everybody. And that's all I have, unless you have questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that as I read through this, I was very much impressed with all the effort that was put into this, not only by staff, but also by the consultant that you hired and also the amount of work and effort that was vetted by the Planning Commission. And I think the end result is we've got something here that's going to be very favorable to the citizens here in Collier County. And I just want to say thanks to everyone who worked on this to bring this forward. This has been a huge problem within the community. And as our community gets larger, I think there's going to be more concerns about trying to figure out the best way to protect the citizens from unwanted noises throughout the whole Collier County area. A lot of us have experienced this in the urban area. And I'm sure that as the rural area gets developed, there's going to be more of these issues. So once again, I want to thank each and every one of you who were involved in this, and along with the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jeff, this is not going to fix the problems that we're having in some area shopping centers located near Page 131 December 16,2008 residential, correct? MR. WRIGHT: It's not going to fix those problems, but it does attempt to address them at some level, and I could give you a couple of examples. One that comes to mind is the human voice. We've always had an exception for the human voice, but in this draft we've qualified that to say that it's the reasonable use of the unamplified human voice. So that's intended to be an objective standard that when a court or a tribunal hears it, they can say, this is unreasonable use of the unamplified human voice. Not to say that the Sheriffs Office is going to go gangbusters with that provision and start citing people for violation that are outside making noise. But it is an attempt to address those problems. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What about in the exemptions, M, in Mary (sic)? It says it gives an exemption to existing businesses. MR. WRIGHT: That's an attempt to address the problem of coming to the noise. If, for example, there is an industrial operation that's making a lot of noise but there's nothing around it, it's all ago or industrial, nonresidential, and then through development, the residential abuts that or adjoins that -- that manufacturing use, the manufacturing use doesn't have to comply with residential standards like it normally would. Because it got there first, it goes with the higher levels, the previous standard, the industrial standard. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But it doesn't spell out industrial standards. MR. WRIGHT: Nonresidential is the term that we used, so it would apply to whether it's a golf course or an ago use or industrial. Anything that's not residential. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is exempt? MR. WRIGHT: If it came there first, it gets to go at the higher level rather than the lower residential level. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. If -- okay. I understand what Page 132 December 16, 2008 you're saying now. If the residential was first prior to the commercial, this would not apply? MR. WRIGHT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I see. Okay. I gotcha. How does the board want to do that? Hear a full presentation or go right to the speakers? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Coyle to approve -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- the amended noise -- or staffs recommendation, second by Commissioner Halas. And-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to add that -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we go to public speakers. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- I think that the -- so that -- the benefit of my commissioners being that that used to be myoid field. When you use the C-weighted scale, basically what this is going to do -- a lot of the issues that came up from the citizens was the lower area of the audio spectrum, which is down in the 20 to, let's say, 100 hertz, 200 hertz range. This is the area that I think we're going to be addressing, and that's in regards to the deep base boom, boom, boom that drives you out of your house even though you've got the windows closed and everything. This is the area that I think that we're going to address, and that seems to be the most obnoxious area in regards to the sound. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I also appreciate all the time and effort that went into this. This is what, the third or fourth time that we have seen this since we've been in office? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, or -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Eventually we've got to get it right, right? Page 133 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Since 2002 anyways. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But what I'd like to do is to be able to have a better idea of what these two different instruments look like, the C-weighted scale versus the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's the other one called, the COMMISSIONER HALAS: A-weighted scale. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. If we could have a demonstration of that, the octane (sic) band versus the C weight and why one has an advantage over the other. MR. WRIGHT: Lisa Schott here has brought some equipment. I'm not really sure how it works, but Lisa does know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great. I'm glad you're here, Lisa. MS. SCHOTT: Thank you, Commissioners. Good afternoon. I would just like to make a few prefatory remarks, and then I'll set up the demonstration, which will just take a minute. As Commissioner Halas mentioned, their primary concerns of community noise are audible noise and low frequency sound. And the most common measure we use for measuring audible noise -- that would be pretty much everything we hear in the environment; amplified sound, voices, any type of noise could be called or considered audible noise. We measure that with what's called an A-weighted sound level, or the units of measure are dBA. And you'll see in the noise ordinance that there are dBA limits. The problem with the A-weighted sound level is it doesn't give much weight to very low frequency base noise, as Commissioner Halas mentioned. And the reason is, the human ear doesn't hear base noise as well, so the A weighting implies a large weighting to that before it factors into the final number. Page 134 December 16, 2008 But we can feel base noise and we can sense it coming down-- you've heard -- all heard loud cars coming down the street, and you typically hear the base much sooner than you hear the audible sound. So the way -- there are two ways of enforcing the low frequency noise. One is with octave band sound limits. If you're familiar with music, you might be familiar with octaves on a piano. It's -- octave bands measure noise and individual frequencies. The other way of enforcing low frequency noise is with the C-weighted sound level. Either way is effective. The old version of the ordinance has the octave band levels. The revised ordinance uses C-weighted levels. We have established the limits to be equivalent to each other. Our C-weighted limits were calculated from the old octave band limits. So the noise ordinance is not necessarily getting more or less stringent in the low frequency; however, the benefit of going to the C-weighted is that the instrumentation required to measure it is less expensive, it's easier to learn how to use. So not only will code enforcement be more able to easily enforce it, but any user out there in the community, whether it be a citizen or a commercial or industrial business trying to comply with the noise ordinance, can buy a meter for $100 from Radio Shack or off the Internet that will allow them to measure the A- and C-weighed levels, and that's not the case with the octave bands. So we've kept the actual sound level limits the same while still allowing for protection of the citizens and ease of enforcement. Some -- there was a question about sound levels and what exactly they mean. If I could just have a minute to pull the loudspeakers out to the middle of the floor, I'll give you a little demonstration. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many speakers do we have? Two? MR. MUDD: You want me to make sure I'm facing this to the commissioners, right? Page 135 December 16, 2008 MS. SCHOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You want Commissioner Fiala to sing into that? MS. SCHOTT: Maybe some Christmas music. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I couldn't do that to anybody. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sure it would be beautiful, like an angel from afar. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, while she's setting that up, I'd like to ask Jeff a question, if I could, Jeff Wright. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HALAS: In the presentation it was stated that this is going to be a joint effort by the sheriff and by code enforcement. What have you done to make sure that there's cohesiveness between the Sheriffs Department and code enforcement, especially in off-hours? And what I mean by off-hours, I'm talking like 10 o'clock at night to 1 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the morning, and how's that going to be addressed? MR. WRIGHT: Commissioner, I would -- if! could introduce Kitchell Snow. He's better qualified to answer that question. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. SNOW: Good afternoon, Commissioner. For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. We have an agreement that has been established by our Director, Diane Flagg, with the Sheriffs Department. There will be -- the Sheriffs Department is a 24-hour service. We're not 24 hours. So anything after the hours of when code enforcement closes, the Sheriffs Office will usually address, or we will address next day. That was one of the main concerns of what would happen, who was going to enforce what. Basically, the breach of peace the sheriff is going to do, and code enforcement's going to handle the rest of that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the Sheriffs Department will Page 136 December 16, 2008 be brought up to speed in regards to exactly how to make the measurements, how to set up the equipment to make sure that either they're in compliance or out of compliance, and then the sheriff has the ability to issue a citation? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, they do. And, Commissioner, when we went -- you and I went to class together -- we had four of the CCSO's in there, so four of them are actually qualified to take meter readings. And this ordinance specifically addressed what you're talking about where there's instances where they are not going to have to take readings when they can go ahead and issue a citation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good, okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great question, by the way. Seems that most of our complaints come during the night. COMMISSIONER HALAS: After hours, yep. MS. SCHOTT: Okay. Are we ready? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. MS. SCHOTT: Just as an interesting point, while Kitchell was speaking, his sound level on that meter, where the microphone is located, was ranging from 50 to 60 dBA. And the C-weighted sound level was running at around 60 to 68 dBC. Or daytime limit is 60 dBA, which is about the top of Kitchell's voice range there and are 72 dBC. The nighttime limits are 55 and 67. What I'm going to play for you first is the daytime sound level. Okay. What I will play first is the daytime sound level, and I would ask everyone to be quiet for a few minutes so we could just get the sound of the speakers. There is 60 dBA. This is the daytime sound limit at a residential property line. Let's listen to the nighttime sound limit. This is measuring 55 dBA right now. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's the C-weighted equivalent? MS. SCHOTT: Right now this is 65 dBC, which is two decibels Page 137 December 16,2008 below the nighttime limit. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Public speakers? MS. FILSON: Douglas Lewis. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Lewis? MR. LEWIS: I'm going to waive. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker? MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Karen Bishop. MS. BISHOP: Who's first? CHAIRMAN HENNING: You are. MS. BISHOP: Merry Christmas. Karen Bishop, for the record, representing Cemex. We were not involved in some of the changes on the -- for this noise ordinance early on, and so some of the things that were taken out we're concerned about, and we just wanted to put that on the record. Even though I've been assured by the county attorney that we -- that it means the same thing, I just want to make sure that we are covered, which is section -- the exceptions that Commissioner Henning brought up earlier. All that that was scratched out discusses all the work that we did when the original noise ordinance went into place, all the money that we put into our facility to bring as close to compliance as we can with that manufacturing, which is 24 hours a day there. And so I just want to go on the record to make sure that if this gets taken out, that everything that we've done to date, I guess the term is, grandfathers us in at this point. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a question? MS. BISHOP: I'm guessing that is a question. He assured me. I just want to make sure it's okay with you guys that we have the same understanding. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's my understanding. Page 138 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's just put it -- just put it on the record. Mr. Wright? Is that Cemex the national? MS. BISHOP: Yes. It used to be Krehling Industries when we did that first, and now Cemex bought Krehling Industries, and now it's Cemex, but specifically it's the Wiggins Pass plant, which has always been the issue. Not our other plants. We're pretty much in industrial areas. But what he described is what happened to us. We were out in the boondocks, and then everybody built next to us. We even have units that look over the yard, and so we're just concerned that we can't do anything more to this old facility. We've already spent a lot of money doing this, and we can't make the noise levels get any better at this point. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Wright? MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, the reason that we moved-- removed that provision, that language -- it's four or so paragraphs I believe, on Page 24. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. WRIGHT: It's to just make it a more concise ordinance. There haven't been any problems with the Cemex factory. And that new language that we added that we talked about earlier gives them an additional allowance for the fact that they came there first. I have no problem adding that language back in there, especially if they expended money in reliance on that language. No problem at all. Substantively it doesn't make a difference. But if she'd like that in there, I would recommend going along with that, no problem at all. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is, this has been vented (sic) very many -- quite a few times, and I'm surprised that is the first time that this has come up that you, as a citizen, haven't been involved in this, and it's been publicized quite readily. But I don't foresee that you're going to run into a problem Page 139 December 16, 2008 because we've basically said, hey, this is an established area in an industrial zone, is grandfathered. So if this in an encroachment, as the case with the Cemex plant up there, that that's already been taken into consideration. But what surprises me is the fact that this has been in front of the Planning Commission a number of times, and it sounds to me like this is the first time that you knew anything about this, and I'm quite surprised. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your time's up. MS. BISHOP: I can speak to that. We actually knew that the noise ordinance was going to be changed, but it was based on a problem in a project. So we didn't assume that the level of changes that are here was going to occur. I was in the Planning Commission. That's how I found out that these changes were made at the level they were. Unfortunately, I was at the second Planning Commission when I got word of this. And so rather than create a wave with what they were trying to do, I met with the county attorney, we went over it. He assured me that this means the same thing, so I'm just -- want to make sure that the commission agrees that this is the same thing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I see it as same thing, and it won't affect the project, the old Krehling plant. MR. SNOW: Just for the record, Commissioners, we haven't had a noise violation out there in two-and-a-halfyears, so I don't see -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that wasn't the question. MR. SNOW: I know, sir. MS. BISHOP: Well, and we did buy -- I mean, as everyone may or may not be aware, when the noise ordinance was changed originally, Krehling Industries at the time, they -- we bought the same equipment the county code enforcement has. We were trained by exactly the same people so that we could -- we have an ongoing program to monitor so that we don't disturb, but occasionally that does Page 140 December 16, 2008 happen, and we did implement a lot of things to try to lessen the impact on our neighbors. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Obviously if you haven't had a complaint in two-and-a-halfyears, whatever you've done has benefited the neighbors and the neighborhood. MS. BISHOP: We try. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm just ready to continue the public speakers. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, yep. MS. FILSON: That was the final speaker. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I'm fine. Call the vote. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #9 A RESOLUTION 2008-377: RE-APPOINTING DARCY ANNE KIDDER AND MITCHELL ROBERTS (W/WAIVER OF TERM LIMITS) TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT Page 141 December 16, 2008 ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9A, and that is appointment of members to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, motion to approve the committee recommendations of Darcy -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Darcy. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Dusty (sic)-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Darcy. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Kidder and Mitchell Roberts. MS. FILSON: Does that include waiving section 7B of ordinance 2001-55 -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, that includes that. MS. FILSON: -- because he serves on two. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second as well. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala to approve the committee's recommendations. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #9B Page 142 December 16, 2008 RESOLUTION 2008-378: APPOINTING TAD BARTAREAU TO THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AD HOC COMMITTEE - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Next item is 9B, appointment of a member to the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc Committee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Tad -- I better put my glasses on -- Bartareau. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve Tad Bartareau, second by Commissioner Henning. 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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #9C RESOLUTION 2008-379: APPOINTING SUMMER WHEELESS TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Next item is 9C, appointment of a member to the Black Affairs Advisory Board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve Summer Wheeless. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. Page 143 December 16, 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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #9D RESOLUTION 2008-380: APPOINTING RICHARD TAYLOR AND PAM BROWN TO THE HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9D, appointment of members to the Historical/ Archaeologic Preservation Board. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, motion to approve the committee recommendations of Richard Taylor and Pam Brown. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to approve committee's recommendations, 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: Opposed? (No response.) Page 144 December 16,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #9E RESOLUTION 2008-381: APPOINTING DOUG FINLAY, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF NAPLES TO THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Next item is 9E, appointment ofa member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee. MS. FILSON: And Commissioners, on this one, I had an unsigned resolution in the backup. At five minutes till five last night I got the signed copy, so I do have a signed copy. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Doug Finlay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve Doug Finlay to the CAC, second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. Item #9F RESOLUTION 2008-382: RE-APPOINTING MAURICE JAMES BURKE TO THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD - ADOPTED Page 145 December 16, 2008 MR. MUDD: Next item is 9F, appointment of a member to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve the committee's recommendation of Maurice James Burke. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas to approve committee's recommendation, 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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #9G RESOLUTION 2008-383: RE-APPOINTING WILLIAM E. ARTHUR (W/WAIVER OF TERM LIMITS) AND ELLEN R. BARKIN (SHAW) TO THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Next item is 9G, appointment of members to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Make a motion that we appoint Ellen Shaw, and second, Bill Arthur, William Arthur. MS. FILSON: And does that include waiving-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: And waiving the ordinance of section Page 146 December 16, 2008 B of2001-55. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Item #9H RESOLUTION 2008-384: APPOINTING DAVID H. FARMER (W/WAIVER OF MULTI-BOARD APPOINTMENTS) AND PAT HUMPHRIES TO THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LAND TRUST COMMITTEE - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Next item is 9H. It's an appointment of members to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve David Farmer and Pat Humphrey (sic) and to waive the requirement regarding section 5 for Farmer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. MS. FILSON: And on this one, I have that the terms expire on October 12th. That should be October 13th. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Noted in the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to appoint the committee's recommendation, second by Commissioner Page 147 December 16, 2008 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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. Item #91 RESOLUTION 2008-385: APPOINTING KEVIN F. WALSH TO THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 91, appointment of a member to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Kevin Walsh. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve Kevin Walsh, second by Commissioner Henning. 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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. Page 148 December 16, 2008 Item #10A AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH THE ISLANDS MARINA, LLC AND PORT OF THE ISLANDS PROPERTIES, LLC FOR THE PURCHASE OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE PORT OF THE ISLANDS MARINA PROPERTY FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $5,488,000 WHICH INCLUDES $4,750,000 CASH AT CLOSING AND A $738,000 SELLER CHARITABLE DONATION, TOGETHER WITH A SECOND CHARITABLE DONATION OF FURNITURE, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT VALUED AT $105,000, WITH ADDITIONAL COSTS NOT TO EXCEED $95,800 - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is lOA. It's a recommendation to approve an agreement for sale and purchase with the Isles -- with the Isles Marina, LLC, and Port of the Isles Properties, LLC, for the purchase of certain portions of the Port of the Isles Marina property for a purchase price of$5,488,000, which includes $4,750,000 cash at closing, and a $738,000 seller charitable donation together with a second charitable donation of furniture, fixtures, and equipment valued at $105,000, with additional costs not to exceed $95,800. Ms. Marla Ramsey, your Public Services Administrator, will present. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I think we owe the court reporter some time off. You want to finish this item? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Ms. Ramsey? MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator. Commissioners, you did see this a couple of board meetings ago Page 149 December 16, 2008 where we brought it in with a proposal for you, and staff has negotiated with the owners, the Shucarts, and have brought to you a signed agreement that 1 believe is past due yesterday. And at this time we're seeking your approval for the purchase of this facility. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve staffs recommendations, second by Commissioner Coletta. We have public speakers. Would you please call up the public speakers? MS. FILSON: Yolanda DeBartdo (sic). She'll be followed by Jean Kungle. MS. DeBARTOLO: Hi. Yolando DeBartolo, 25000 Tamiami Trail. I am a resident of the Port of the Islands hotel/condo marina area. I would like to request the board to postpone this $4.7 million sale of the marina ship store. There's lots of issues concerning this sale. I've lived through a couple of sales of this area. It's a big area like this. It consists of a hotel, a restaurant, a marina, and 140 dock slips. Back maybe four years ago when the market value was very high, the whole entire thing was purchased for less than like 4 million, 1 guess, and now the market is very bad, economic times are bad, and I just can't justifY the county spending $4.7 million for a ship store the size of this room. And they're getting no docks with the marina sale. My -- I just represent myself, but I had spoken with my board. The homeowners association are concerned with this. They'd like to be present if they just -- if! could request to postpone this sale until Christmas is over because they're all on vacation, and it's only two weeks till Christmas, and they're all just finding out about this now. And there's -- there's a lot of issues concerning this sale, and there's other people involved other than just the owner. There's issues Page 150 December 16, 2008 like reciprocal parking, parking spaces. There's 90 parking spaces which are reciprocal parking from one another to another owner to homeowners to tenants to the entire community. So 1 think it's a big thing that needs to be looked into further. That's my only request, to postpone it, the sale for today, the approval of the sale. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas has a question of you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand where you're coming from because I've had some reservations. But I would hope that maybe staff could give us a quick overview of exactly what we're buying here besides a ship store, okay. MS. DeBARTOLO: Right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'm glad that you're here. As I said, I had some reservations in regards to this. It's a lot of money in, of course, the time that we have. But opportunities like this don't come up all the time, and I think -- for the benefit of not only you, but other people, so they have an understanding of what we're trying to accomplish here or what's all involved with the sale of this, okay? MS. DeBARTOLO: Well, according to this whole thing, it seems to be valued at $20 million now. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think -- we need to do is see an overview of what staff has, okay? MS. DeBARTOLO: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And maybe that will help clear up some questions for you, too. MS. DeBARTOLO: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker? MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Jean Kungle. MS. KUNGLE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jean Kungle. I just want to say that I attended the CID, Community Improvement Page 151 December 16, 2008 District special meeting last week. There were several residents that did show up at the meeting. I was actually quite surprised, because normally there aren't that many. The overall consensus at the meeting was that it was a good thing. The -- all of the contingencies were met, the attorney has met with the county attorney, and the CID was totally onboard with the whole program and the whole thing to go through. Other residents -- I am at the real estate office, and they stop by, we talk about it. And 1 haven't heard anything on the negative side of that yet. And I would hope that the board would approve the finality of the sale. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. That's the final speaker? MS. FILSON: Final speaker. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Ramsey? MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, if you want me to, I'll go over the list. The -- on the overhead there is a highlighted area of the things that we are purchasing. The first thing is, there's approximately 2.4 acres of commercially zoned waterfront land currently used for the boat trailer and car parking and the boat trailer and storage area. It's highlighted in the yellow. There's an oversized single boat ramp that's next to the red spot there. There's approximately 15,400 square feet of submerged land. This will allow us then to be able to tie off the boats during loading, unloading, and fueling operations. There's a nonexclusive use of a 94-space parking area, which is the white one with the red line around it. There's approximately 1.46 acres of commercially zoned upland property, together with the necessary easements for access and egress. There is a fueling facility, a 7,400-square-foot marina building that houses a ship store, bathrooms, offices, and a Manatee and 10,000 Islands education center on approximately 1.4 acres of commercially zoned waterfront property. Page 152 December 16, 2008 And then there's -- significant additional square footage exists within the marina building so that we will be able to construct a permanent Ochopee -- Ochopee, I'm sorry -- fire station and future EMS capabilities at that location. So those are the listings of the things that we're purchasing. Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The lady that spoke was concerned about the 94 parking spaces it sounded like. Could you go into more detail on this nonexclusive use parking spaces? MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. There are -- basically the hotel, the ship store, and those that have use of the marina, yeah, the wet slips, have the opportunity to park in that 94 parking spaces on a first-come first-serve basis. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So is this going to, some way or another, impact the community? MS. RAMSEY: Not that I'm aware of, sir. I believe it's the same arrangement that exists currently. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. MUDD: It would impact the -- it should impact the neighborhood in a very positive way. Right now they don't have a fire station so they have to come all the way from Ochopee to answer a fire call. Those residents in those condos, their fire premiums for insurance are very high. They will be appreciably lower once that fire engine is in this particular building, and that should be done in short order. The next issue is, if you take a look at this overhead and you look at the yellow, you'll see some things on the perimeter of that particular land. They're in the grass area. Those are boats and trailers that are being stored, and they're -- and I have to admit, as they sit there, they're a little unsightly if you look at what it is. You know, it's just sitting there, and I guess it's their dry dock facility, so to speak. Page 153 December 16, 2008 Those particular boats have got contracts with the Shucarts right now for shortage storage. That is about $100,000 worth of revenue right now on those existing contracts that will be transferred over to the county. In the interim, because we're putting the fire -- the fire station here, along with the ship store, we plan to create an off-site facility for those boats and trailers to park that aren't on the waterfront and by those slips that those people would have, and it will appreciably increase the ambiance of that particular ramp, the slips, and what the people over here from the condo association will see. So -- and oh, by the way, those people now will have some security for their boats that are sitting on the perimeter that don't have a fenced area to keep them secure in this particular facility. And overall, 1 think it will be a better -- a better fit for the community and everybody else, and plus it gives us, the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, it gives us some room, whatever you want to do on that 1.42 acres that are sitting over here as that commercial property. If for some reason in the future this board and/or the community gets bigger and they require two engines and an EMS facility along with it, then we could move the whole operation on that particular block and move the fire station out of the building, and you're still in great shape. So you've got some stretching room, so to speak, with this particular purchase. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner Halas needs to finish up, and then we've got Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HALAS: In the sale we're going to get the slips that are presently here, boat slips? MS. RAMSEY: No, sir, no, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No? Okay the boat slips then still Page 154 December 16, 2008 belong to the seller; is that correct? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. If you remember, the original-- one of the original offers from the seller, from the Shucarts, was to purchase the boat slips, and we were -- and we were in the $9 million range on this particular issue. The boat slips are -- I want to say there's 30 or 35 ofthem that are already sold, have private contracts on them, and there's about 140 that aren't sold. And Mr. Shucart, his family, as part of this deal, we would provide them two office spaces in the ship store so that they could sell the remainder of those slips, and I believe it's over a nine-year period of time, and that's also laid out in the particular agreement. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. 1 just want to say, I've been talking to the people of Port of the Isles for one heck of a long time on this, and when it first started out there was all sorts of skepticism that this was going to beneficial. But I can tell you, with the exception of one or two people, this has been totally embraced by the community. It's a very positive thing. Everyone seems to be coming out ahead on this one. With the help of the offset with the facility as far as what we can do for income, money that we can get from the fire department over there to be able to offset the cost of the fire department locating there, it becomes a real bargain. It's going to be there for generations to come. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I still -- wanted to go back. Jim, when you were talking about the benefits as far as insurance goes, the lady back there who was -- did not want it didn't hear you because she was talking with somebody else, and I thought, maybe you could just repeat the very beginning of what you said about the great reduction. Page 155 December 16, 2008 MR. MUDD: Yeah. There's some great benefits in the fact that you get a fire station at the Port of the Isles, which they have never had. Each one of those condominium owners has a homeowners' policy for insurance, and part of it has to do with fire. Because they aren't located by a fire station and they don't meet those requirements, their ISO rating, which is the official name for having a fire station close or not and then it's rated, they probably have one of the worst ISO ratings, i.e., they have the highest fire insurance that they have to pay. Having that fire station there will decrease their fire insurance premium drastically, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there has been an appraisal on the property? MS. RAMSEY: Two. MR. MUDD: Oh, yes, sir. We've had two appraisals. And at this particular juncture, we're below what the appraised value would be for what we're acquiring. The appraised value for what we are acquiring would be $5,488,000, and that's the lowest of the two appraisals. And I basically got with the Shucarts and told them we just didn't have the cash for that. They accepted the $4,750,000 offer from the county, and our -- their counter was, could we please have a donation piece of documentation for the IRS for tax purposes, for the donation, the remainder between what we're willing to pay in cash and what the lowest appraised value was for the property that we're acquiring. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So tell me what's so ugly about a boat and a boat trailer. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The owner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The owner? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell me -- point to the things we actually own -- Page 156 December 16,2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are going to own. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- on this map. MR. MUDD: Okay, Commissioner. Here we go. We will own this property that's right here. It is a large parking area that sits here, a lot of grassed area that can be converted and we can -- we can redesign the parking area so it can take more vehicles and boat trailers. We will acquire this submerged land piece right here, and the -- for a boat ramp in the future. And it -- and I believe it would have enough room in it for three boat ramps altogether, or wide enough in order to do that, and that's on a seawalled facility. We will get the riparian easement in red that's here. That's so when somebody uses the existing boat ramp and they drop their boat off, the boat can be tied off, they can take the truck, the trailer, car and trailer, whatever it is, and park it over in this parking lot and then come back, get on their boat and take off. We have a fueling station that's right over on this side on the boat ramp. We have some discussions in the agreement. That is a single-line tank. By federal law it has to be removed before the last day of December, 2009. We know that for a fact. We know, based on our experience of replacing a fuel tank, single lined or double lined that had failure out at Caxambas Pass, that it will probably cost the county around $200,000 to pull that tank and replace it with a new one. The part that's very expensive is -- and we're holding the seller responsible for that; therefore, there is a $200,000 escrow that's there. If there is any environmental damage to the ground under and around the fuel tank that we're going to pull, they have put $200,000 in an escrow account, and they will pay whatever remediation is required and/or long-term groundwater monitoring from that. So we tried to reduce the risk that the county would have on an environmental circumstance that we do not know at this present time. If there is no environmental consequence and everything is okay and it's clean coming up and it's clean going in the ground before we Page 157 December 16, 2008 put the new one on, then the county will return that $200,000 in escrow. We are also purchasing a seawalled area that runs from the fuel station along this side all the way to this particular point from here to here, and that seawall will provide a place for boats that are docking to be refueled. Weare acquiring a ship store, and 1 do not know what the square footage is. MS. RAMSEY: Seventy-four. MR. MUDD: How much? MS. RAMSEY: Seventy-four-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seventy-four-- MS. RAMSEY: -- hundred. MR. MUDD: -- hundred square foot. The ship store is in this particular area right here in the front. This side where my pen is has three office places, two of those, the smaller ones from the far end to the middle, will go to the Shucarts, and there is a present lease on the one closest to this big bay. This big bay, right now, is a place where the Shucarts now sell docks. They will move to the smaller offices. We will convert this big dock area right here in the center and part of the maintenance area over in here to the fire station. We are acquiring or getting an easement for New Port Road, okay, so we can come in and out and the fire truck can go in and out and get to 41 or go down New Port Road. We are re- -- we are also receiving a vacant upland parcel that's commercially zoned. That is this green area right here. And we've -- also have in the agreement an easement, a 40-foot easement, that will let us go -- and this property out in front is owned by the Shucarts -- that will give us access to 41 in that particular direction, plus we'll have some access into this nonexclusive use of 54 parking areas. There is a temporary easement on this property until we use it, Page 158 December 16, 2008 and that is for the Shucarts to have their easement that runs down this way, and then the bound area. As soon as the county decides that they're going to use this property, that temporary easement that we are granting for the Shucarts will go away. If we kept that easement on, it would burn up around 40 to 45 percent of our acreage that we've got. So if -- in the interim they can use it, but when we decide what we want to do with it, then that temporary easement to the Shucarts will expire. We're also receiving a nonexclusive use of 54 parking spaces, and that's basically overflow parking spaces for the hotel facility, the condominiums that are off the slide, and for those folks that are -- that have slips. What we are also putting in the agreement is that these three slips that are right here -- slips. These piers that are right here, docking piers -- which have about, I want to say 30 each as far as slips are concerned -- we're dedicating two unloading parking spaces at the base of each one of those piers so that people can put their car up there, unload the stuff that they're going to put on their boats, and then they're going to hightail and park over in the nonexclusive parking area. I don't think I've missed anything. We receive -- we receive as a gift all the furniture and whatnot that's inside the ship store, the decorations on the wall and whatnot, and then Ms. Ramsey has the ability to buy the inventory or whatever she wants, the inventory that's presently in the ship store. We also receive their tobacco permit, their alcohol permit, and their lottery sales tax permit, and then we'll have to convert them to county name after it's over. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, yes. That's -- so what we're really getting is one-and-a-half acres -- or four-and-a-half acres, but -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Five. Page 159 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm sorry, five-and-a-half acres. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And only four acres are on the waterfront? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: For $900,000 per acre, and we're using it for parking and boat launch facilities except for that portion that contains the ship store. That seems to be expensive for the uses that we're going -- that we intend for those areas. But who is going to operate the ship store? MS. RAMSEY: The parks and recreation department is going to be doing that, just as we do at Caxambas and Cocohatchee. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what 1 was afraid you were going to say. How do we know that -- what assurances can you give us that this ship store will not be a continuing drain on taxpayer funds? MS. RAMSEY: We run these stores as a profit center, and so we adjust staff and prices in order to make sure that we're able to meet our expenses. And we have anticipated about a $40,000 profit on an annual basis at this store at this time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you're basing it upon accurate historical sales and profit information? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You have complete sales and profit information for this store for what period of time? MS. RAMSEY: I believe it was for a lO-month period of time so far. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And where does the money come from? MR. MUDD: The purchase? The purchase, sir? MS. RAMSEY: To purchase the entire site? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Page 160 December 16, 2008 MR. MUDD: The purchase comes from $3.4 million that Marla has for boat launch and beach facilities that the board put aside for the boat and beach master plan that was several years ago. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, 1 can read that off the executive summary. But what I'm asking you is, that money is there, it's available, it just requires a budget transfer? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all it is? MR. MUDD: The only piece -- the only piece I physically don't have in my hot little hand right now is the $585,000 from the South Florida Water Management District. Mr. Dunnuck knows that I had to have it by the 16th, and I'm waiting anxiously. He said he would have it here. This is an -- this is to meet an obligation that the board had with an agreement the last time you had the joint meeting with them. And so they're drafting that to make sure that that satisfies that commitment, some kind of an agreement that comes forward with a check. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And there's no problem -- complications with the transfer of money from reserves for the Ochopee Fire Control District? There's no other capital improvement that is adversely affected by that move? MR. MUDD: None. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: Coming out of their impact fee reserves and their operational reserves. Most of that was being -- most of that was being acquired, squirreled away, gathered, whatever you want to call it, so that they could someday build the Ochopee fire station. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coletta? Page 161 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Has this facility got a pump-out facility because it's around the 10,000 Islands? MS. RAMSEY: Apparently there is a pump-out on the marina property, meaning up in the top, right? Over in this area right here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm talking -- well, do we have -- will we have access to it or do we have to put a pump-out station in? MS. RAMSEY: 1 would have to research that, sir. 1 can't imagine why the public can't utilize it. I think they currently are. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We need a pump-out station in this room. MS. RAMSEY: I wouldn't want to duplicate it if it's available for the public. But if it's not available, then I -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Well, I just want to make sure that if we're -- that if we're going to have people go down there, that -- if they're going to go out in the 10,000 Islands area, that they make sure that we address the issues of not dumping waste overboard. MS. RAMSEY: Agree, sir. And you do remember that at Caxambas and at Cocohatchee, we received a grant in order to put those two pumps in. And so if for some reason we were unable to have the public utilize this one, we would probably do the same then and seek a grant in order to put a pump-out in. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And my last question is to the county manager. Jim, obviously, you realize that South Florida Water Management has made promises to us in the past for about 640 acres. Is this promise of the $500,000 just a promise? Because I believe today they're in the process -- MR. MUDD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- of trying to buy the sugar land down there. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you signed an agreement with that board for that $585,000 over two years ago. That still exists as a Page 162 December 16, 2008 requirement. I have got Mr. Dunnuck -- the gentleman that was on the phone with him was their attorney -- come on, help me -- was Mr. Barnett, and I had Clarence Tears on the phone, Leo was in the room here with me, and we talked about the 585, and Mr. Dunnuck and Mr. Tears said, the check is coming. And this is not one of those promises they're not going to go on. And it's going to get tied to something, and I wanted to talk about that during communications, but I'll bring it up now so that you understand. They're trying to meet the 640 acres, more or less, from the original agreement that we should have received in October of 2003 or '5, or something like that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Three. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir. MR. MUDD: As time goes on, it's getting harder to remember those days -- 2003, and they're having -- and they're having a tough time doing that. We are in conversations right now with a temporary facility in Hendry County on land that's already owned by the South Florida Water Management District. Commissioner Coletta's been our lead on this and has been working with a Hendry County commissioner and also our staff with their staff to get that resolved. That particular land that's owned by the South Florida Water Management District is relatively close to the 640-acre dump site that was going to be at Lake Trafford. So that's out there, that's working as the interim site for A TV s. The long-term site for A TV s is out at the jetport. You know, there's that airfield that's in Collier County but it's owned by Miami-Dade County? Miami-Dade is getting a lot of pressure internally to have off-road vehicles -- and I'll get this as fast as I can, Commissioner -- off-road vehicles. We're under extreme pressure to Page 163 December 16, 2008 get off-road vehicles -- Mr. McHann (sic)? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Brian McMahon. MR. MUDD: And I don't know if Commissioner Coletta's been out there yet but is -- has been involved and has looked in this particular site. They are offering -- Miami-Dade is offering an ORV site out there of over 2,000 acres, okay, with significant trails and everything else that's there that will solve their problem and our problem. Now, South Florida -- but they need access improvements into the millions. South Florida Water Management has come up on the net and said, we will do the access improvements for that jetport but only if that satisfies the agreement with Collier County, okay. So now I have -- now I have told you everything I possibly can about what's going on with the South Florida trying to resolve their agreements and get them satisfied for you and the $585,000. They know that the long-term improvements on the jetport is not the agreement that they signed for 640 acres, but they're willing to come back to you, talk that particular issue, and get you to -- get you to agree to that to satisfY the requirements for everybody involved. They are not going to jeopardize that with reneging on a $585,000 loan -- or grant or whatever you want to call it for a boat ramp that they promised you at the last time that we updated the agreement. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. It's because of the fact that this has been carrying on for so long. I sometimes get leery when South Florida Water Management promises the citizens and us as the Board of County Commissioners that they're going to do something, and this drags on and on and on. And 1 just want to make sure that if we go through with this deal, that the money's going to be there. And as of right now, you don't have the check in hand. But you say that the check is in the mail, and we've heard that a lot of times about the check being in the mail. Page 164 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Ifwe could stay on lOA, I'd appreciate it. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Just briefly, I wanted to recognize the efforts of Jim Mudd. It's been very remarkable how he's taken a situation that probably was off the chart as far as affordability and how he was able to put together the bigger picture, including the fire department locating there and all the other elements to bring this down into a cost-feasible project. Also I'd like to recognize the fact that Brian McMahon who sat in that meeting two years ago was the force that was suggested about the water access issue, and it was their -- that's how we were able to get them to agree to it. So we do owe -- if this goes through, we do owe a debt to Brian McMahon for helping to guide us in that particular venture. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve staffs recommendations, second by Commissioner Coletta. Discussion on the motion? (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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Now, we're going to take a 10-minute break, and then when we come back, we're going to do the proclamation that was walked onto Page 165 December 16, 2008 the agenda. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I just say one thing before we break? It's going to be less than 30 seconds. And that is, I hope that people realize that only once in a lifetime property like this comes up for sale. And I understand the economic turmoil that we're in at the present time, but I think in 20 or 30 years, we're going to be thankful that the commissioners that sit at this dais 20, 30 years from -- maybe it's some of you people -- are going to be happy and thankful that we went through the process today to purchase this land. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So right, so right. (A brief recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Commissioners, that brings us to 4B (sic), which is a recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments appropriate -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: 10. COMMISSIONER COYLE: lOB. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, lOB. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, we're going to a proclamation that was added on. Item #4 B MOTION TO CREATE A PROCLAMATION AND VIDEO FOR ST AFF MEMBER, TRACY EDMONSON, SERVING IN IRAQ- ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Ah, I'm sorry, sir. You're absolutely correct. It brings us to 4B, and this has to do with the proclamation for a certain -- Page 166 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Tracy Edmonson. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Recognizing Tracy Edmonson. And Commissioner Coyle will read the proclamation. And we would like for Tracy Edmonson's colleagues to come up to accept this proclamation on her behalf. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Double time, guys. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I even put my Christmas lights on. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's something to do with response time? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it does. No loitering. Pick 'em up and put them down. MR. SUMMERS: We're extremely efficient in our response. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Whereas, Tracy Edmonson has been employed by Collier County since the year 2000 as a MedFlight pilot with the Emergency Medical Services Department; and, Whereas, Tracy is currently stationed in Iraq serving her country as a member of the National Guard Reserves; and, Whereas, Tracy is a graduate of the Army Helicopter School and has been in the Individual Ready Reserve since getting out of the active Army in 1993 where she served 13 years as a warrant officer; and, Whereas, Tracy, as a reservist in Iraq, is flying CH-47D Chinook helicopters, with one of her recent assignments being to transport mail to soldiers for the holidays; and, Whereas, Tracy was re-called to active duty on March, 2008, deployed to Iraq in August, and is scheduled to return to Naples around June the 1 st, 2009, and will be back on the job as a MedFlight pilot next summer; and, Whereas, we encourage Tracy's friends and coworkers to send her a video -- video greeting through the Daily News web site by Page 167 December 16, 2008 calling 263-4781 by noon Wednesday or by corresponding with her directly at tracy.edmonson@yahoo.com. That's tracy.edmonson, E-D-M-O-N-S-O-N, at yahoo.com; and, Whereas, during the holiday season, everyone in Collier County sends their best wishes, thoughts, and prayers to Tracy and all of our men and women in uniform who are protecting our great country during these perilous times. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on behalf of the citizens of Collier County, that we enthusiastically extend our support to all of our military men and women, and in particular, Tracy Edmonson, EMS MedFlight pilot, now serving as a reservist in Iraq. Done and ordered this 16th day of December, 2008, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning, Chairman. It gives me great pleasure to present this proclamation in honor of Tracy Edmonson. We wish her a safe journey and return home soon. 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 FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who's going to get this to her? MR. SUMMERS: I'll take it to her personally. Page 168 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fine. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That would be an exciting tour. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you going by helicopter? MR. SUMMERS: By helicopter. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. There's just one thing I need to tell you about. There is a difference between the National Guard and the Reserve. We're using those terms interchangeably here. Just take a look at it to make sure you've written it properly. MR. SUMMERS: Will do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're going to say a few words? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, I will. Commissioners, Dan Summers, Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services. And MedFlight's one of the departments that I get the opportunity to work with. We were going to sing to Tracy today, but we care for her so much that we elected not to sing to her a Christmas greeting. We do send her our warmest regards. I hope that she will be willing to fly a smaller helicopter when she comes home. So we have not promised her a new ship or anything like that when she gets back. She's a great employee. We wish her all the best. It has been very enjoyable. She's been bouncing emails, sending emails to the staff, and we get some pictures of her from time to time. So, again, she's in our hearts and prayers for a very safe tour and a very speedy recovery, or speedy return home. And, again, thank you very much for recognizing her. It's most appreciated. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, could I just make one request? Dan, could you get with John Torre, perhaps, and communicate to her what we're doing with respect to the Freedom Memorial to recognize and honor people like her who are serving our country? Page 169 December 16, 2008 MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I'll be glad to pass that along. That will be a great thing for her to share. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you very much. MR. SUMMERS: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And also, County Manager, we have several employees that are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. We need to get all those together in one proclamation and to recognize that and thank them, and our hearts and prayers are with them. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Item #10B RESOLUTION 2008-386: RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 ADOPTED BUDGET - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to lOB, and this is a recommendation to adopt -- this is really a companion to lOA. If the board approved lOA, we had to have this particular resolution, because there is an item on there that looks and acquires the $585,000 from the South Florida Water Management District, and that's why that particular item is there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Coletta to adopt the resolution. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. Page 170 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. Item #10C RESOLUTION 2008-387: RESOLUTION SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 2006-142 AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF LAND AND EASEMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION AND EXTENSION OF V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD FROM COLLIER BOULEVARD TO EAST OF WILSON BOULEVARD. (PROJECT NO. 60168.) ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $32,910,600 - ADOPTED W /CHANGES MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item, which is 10C, and that's a recommendation to adopt a resolution superseding resolution 2006-142, and authorizing the acquisition by gift or purchase of land and easements necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage, and utility improvements required for the expansion and extension of the Vanderbilt Beach Road from Collier County -- from Collier Boulevard to east of Wilson Boulevard. It's project number 60168. The estimated fiscal impact is $32,910,600. And Mr. Norman Feder, your Transportation Services Administrator, will present. MR. FEDER: Commissioners, I'll be fairly brief. There are three things in this superseding resolution that we're seeking to do. Page 171 December 16, 2008 The first is to extend the limits just east of Wilson out to the Corkscrew Canal for the purchase of a project pond for retention and treatment. The second is to bring it in conformance with board-directed provisions for administrative settlement authority, which is basically not to exceed 125 percent or 50,000, whichever's less. That wasn't in the original resolution, and we're requesting that be put in. The third thing is, we're facing with the rapidly decreasing values of property a situation where our appraisals are now coming in lower than the just value from the property appraiser for taxing purposes. What we've been recommended by our folks in legal and with my staff in right-of-way is that we're coming to you and asking that we be in a position under the administrative negotiations to offer that just value from the property appraiser if that results in a closing. While that's higher than the appraisal at the moment -- and I realize it's paid in arrears, the value from the property appraiser, plus the taxes. What we're trying to do is acquire the corridor, especially now while the costs are down, and it should be a savings for us, both in the condemnation costs later when we're ready to move on the corridor and the costs at that time that that probably would be back up as the market comes back. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I have some real concerns, what you're asking, but let me go to my colleagues, if they have any questions before I do. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what you're -- just to paraphrase what you said is that the estimates may be coming in lower than the appraised value of the land, so that the person who presently owns the land, and with the decrease in the value of the property, we still want to make sure that the tax bill for the property that we're going to acquire is not putting a burden on the seller; is that right? MR. FEDER: No, that's a little bit different issue that we're Page 172 December 16, 2008 having on a different front with our corridor preservation. What we're saying here is, as we're going out to acquire this property, with the reduction in property value -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. FEDER: -- we're running into situations where our appraisal price now is below the just value from the property appraiser, the value that the property is being taxed upon at this time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. MR. FEDER: What we're told to be able to negotiate the closing, rather than leaving it out or waiting until we're ready to move on the corridor condemnation, that it might be viable for us to offer -- and there is some legal precedent if we end up in condemnation -- that we would have to offer at least what the just value is from the property appraIser. So we're asking that we have the opportunity to offer that, understanding that's an unusual circumstance because of the market falling now, but that that value at the just value would be a good purchase price for the county and for the property. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I thought I said, but I guess I didn't. MR. FEDER: Okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. My problem is that the just value is established on a historical basis, and a current appraisal is established on the current basis, so the current appraisal should more accurately reflect the cost of the property. I'm a little concerned about giving blanket approval to use historical values which are always going to be higher than today's appraisal under the current market conditions. Now, I don't have a problem if you put together a settlement package of some kind that says, look, we can get a settlement with the buyer at this price, but if we have to go through court and pay Page 173 December 16, 2008 attorney's fees and all these things, it might be this amount of money, so let us make a decision to go with the little higher price. I can deal with that because there's rationale and there's potential savings to the taxpayers by doing that, but I can't just say, let's buy it at a price that was established by the property appraiser a year ago because that-- there's no logic. Okay. MR. FEDER: Understood. And what you're saying, and I think appropriately so, is that rather than that have -- be an administrative settlement option, be an option that we bring to the board if we find that it's still a better option and make that case to the board. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I would say that with this caveat, that we have the legal right to do that. MR. KLA TZKOW: These are voluntary purchases. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. KLA TZKOW: So, yes, we have the legal right to do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. Then I don't have a problem dealing with it that way, but I don't want to just transfer to you the right to do it based upon the tax appraiser's figures of a year ago. MR. FEDER: And that's why we brought this to the board to ask you how you wanted to handle it. And so I would ask -- and our recommendation would be the first two items I mentioned, extending the limit and, of course, bringing it into conformance with your direction on 125 or 50,000, whichever's less -- 125 percent or 50,000, whichever's less, that those two actions be taken in the superseding resolution, and the portion about offering just value, if it's -- if our appraised value is lower, it be removed from this action. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, explain to me the effect of the hundred and -- you said 125 percent or 50,000? MR. FEDER: Yes. Board policy and clarification which came in after this particular resolution, but -- was that you did not want us to offer more than 125 percent of the appraised value or 50,000, Page 174 December 16, 2008 whichever's less. So in other words, if you have a property where 125 percent, it's over 200,000, you can't offer more than 50,000. And if it's only 1,000, you don't offer 125 percent -- or you don't offer 50,000. You only offer 125 percent at the max. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this is -- MR. FEDER: Board administration. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because -- that whatever we do when we take somebody's property, we're causing them inconvenience -- they're having to move, I presume, in many cases. MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if we wish to provide them a little more money to compensate them for our actions, then I'm all for that. But you need to bring it to us with rationale, in my opinion, rather than just arbitrarily saying, I'm going to give you 125 percent more. MR. FEDER: The up-to-50,000 is a limiting factor, so it would never be more than 200,000 over, was to take many of the very small purchases and make sure every one of them didn't have to come to the board, unless, of course, we exceeded those attributes, either the lowest of either of them. The only thing we're trying to do here is bring that board direction that you've previously given us for just that and make sure it got included in this superseding resolution, because it wasn't in the original. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. I could buy that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Before I go to Commissioner Coletta, when do you plan on constructing this road? MR. FEDER: Right now we don't have construction in our five years. We're hoping in about six or seven to be in that position. Really it depends upon what happens in the market and the revenue stream. Page 175 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: And in the meantime, a lot of these houses you're allowing the owners to stay in them. MR. FEDER: In some of them, and you had one today, we're allowing some short-term occupancy as is necessary for them to move on. Typically we're removing the homes if we don't do that, because the cost to maintain and manage is high, keep the electricity on and other issues, so we usually remove the facility if we don't have somebody in it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I've heard a lot of my colleagues want to lower impact fees, and what you're recommending is for us to pay far in excess of what the real value is. MR. FEDER: No, I'm not, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, sure you are. MR. FEDER: No. I'm telling you that on very small purchases, the process you've given me for all corridors and all acquisitions I'm trying to include in here. I am including one extension for a pond for that first phase. And the other issue that we just raised, I've told you that I'm pulling that out. We will bring it back to the board if we feel that we can show you that it's a value to consider offering something beyond the appraised value relative to just value, or whatever the case may be on this corridor or any corridor, but not over 50,000 or over 125 percent of the value, whichever's less. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The one that is on the consent agenda, would this quality in what you're recommending? MR. FEDER: No. That had nothing to do with just value. It had to do with the appraised value. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no, no. Would the purchase, the sale purchase, quality what you're saying now, what you want us to adopt now? MR. HENDRICKS: For the record, Kevin Hendricks, Page 176 December 16, 2008 Right-of-way Acquisition Manager. The purchase that you approved on the consent agenda today was at the lower of two appraised values. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That isn't my question. MR. HENDRICKS: Just value. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. That isn't my question. MR. HENDRICKS: I'm sorry. What is your question? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's say that wasn't even on our agenda, but let's say that person, it's in the right-of-way. Would he quality for the -- under this superseding resolution? MR. FEDER: Yes. Anyone along that corridor or any other corridor. What we've done now with taking out just value issue with the three items is to bring it consistent with the policy direction you've given us in the past on all of our right-of-way acquisitions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You know, government -- I think that we ought to be consistent. I mean, we do it -- we do it with all the other purchases that we do, including Conservation Collier. MR. FEDER: We are being consistent, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman. Again, as was noted, we had two appraisals. We offered the low of the two appraisals. Typically we look to be in the middle of the two appraisals as an item and bring that to the board. If it's over -- 50,000 over an appraisal or 125 percent, whichever's less, then we bring it to the board. We had one issue we're raising to you on this corridor that we seem to be finding. I think the board's direction is no, you don't want to authorize the consideration of just value if it's over appraised value and over those limits. You want -- if we feel any of them are reasonable to -- you consider, to bring those to you for consideration for acquisition. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking. MR. FEDER: Okay. That may be. I'm sorry. Page 177 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: What I understand from the superceding resolution is to allow to use the property appraiser's value; is that correct? MR. FEDER: The original request was for three things, one of which was that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, let's-- MR. FEDER: I've now sensed that the board doesn't want that to be the case. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we're going back to the getting two appraisals? MR. FEDER: We always were there, and we're there on the other issue. But again, that is being pulled out of this request. The superseding resolution no longer contains the issue of just value. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I can explain it. Norm is saying that he's backing off using the appraiser's just value. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay? He agrees, we won't do that. But he does believe that there is a value -- there's good rationale for giving him the authority to pay up to 125 percent of the appraised value for property as long as it doesn't -- or $50,000, whichever's smaller. So all he's saying is he'll take the appraised values, and if there is good rationale for offering 25 percent more than that, he will do so as long as it doesn't exceed $50,000 or 125 percent of the -- of the appraisal. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And he's doing that just to give himself a little flexibility so that if he can avoid a lawsuit, avoid taking it to court, he can save the county some money by going up that amount in the prices. Did I describe that properly? MR. FEDER: Perfectly, Commissioner. And I need to point out Page 178 December 16, 2008 that actually bringing that provision into this resolution is to bring it consistent with prior board direction. That is your direction to us. It's already been established as policy upon all of our right-of-way acquisitions. It just wasn't in this original resolution that was superseding. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I didn't hear that the property appraiser's valuation was taken off the table. MR. FEDER: That issue we are taking out here. We're recommending to you only two -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I understand. MR. FEDER: -- actions in this superseding resolution now. One is to extend the limit to allow us to include a pond for retention and treatment for the first phase of the project, the second is to bring it in conformity with current policy direction by this board relative to 120 (sic) percent or 50,000, whichever's less. The third issue we are asking be stricken from our request, and that is the effort to use property appraiser's just value if it turns out our appraisal is lower than that just value. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Yes, Mr. Feder? MR. FEDER: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Dealing with this situation, what are we talking about that's different than what it's been before? MR. FEDER: Only one thing is different than it's been before, and that is that we're asking to extend the limits of the original resolution. The other thing we're trying to do is, I will call it a scrivener's, is since we are bringing one thing back up for your consideration, is to make it in conformance with your policy relative to 125 percent or 50,000. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what we've been doing in Page 179 December 16, 2008 the past? MR. FEDER: We have -- yeah, we have -- and that's what we've been doing at board's direction. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, okay. MR. FEDER: But it was a scrivener to bring that in since we were updating this resolution. The third thing we had requested, I think we've gotten our direction from the board. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you haven't yet, sir. I mean, you heard from a couple commissioners. I hope you -- before you make that judgment decision that we have enough time to make a discussion on it. MR. FEDER: With all due respect, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're talking about people's lives, people that have had something imposed upon them. It's not Collier -- Conservation Collier where it's a voluntary purchase where they come out of wherever it is and they offer their land up for sale and we negotiate it. These are people who have a road corridor imposed upon them for the good of the greater community. These people have been put upon in some way. And how do you make them whole? So I think probably your idea as far as the -- using the tax assessor's adjustments -- because let's say it. What's the realities of this world? What you pay taxes on is really the value of the land as far as we're concerned. How are you going to be able to make them whole based upon that? That's a concern. I'm not -- and I just want to make sure that whatever we do, that we're not going to shortchange that public, because right now it may be a couple roads in District 5. Tomorrow it's going to be other roads in other districts, too, and we'll have a uniform policy to be carrying forward, and it's got to be fair. It's got to be fair no matter what part of the county it's in. Page 180 December 16, 2008 So I offer that for discussion because I -- I don't think we're talking about a tremendous difference in cash, are we, Mr. Feder? MR. FEDER: No, we're not. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Between the appraiser's suggestion and leaving that in there as a responsibility for consideration? Does this commission have the latitude to be able to make a decision based upon anything that comes before us? MR. FEDER: Yes. And what I was saying -- basically what I heard originally -- but of course I'll wait for the full board to direct me -- was that, what we're asking was that ability under an administrative action. What I think I heard was, we need to make our case to the board if we feel that that's viable and an issue out there. So I think maybe both of us are saying some of the same thing. The only difference is, we can't unilaterally take that action with the board's guidance. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. MR. FEDER: We have to come back to the board and present it and make our case for it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, you were talking about doing it administratively? MR. FEDER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Now, the only problem with doing it administratively is that it loses that human element we should be dealing with. That's my concern. You know, if -- how much does it add to the process? It's -- you have to put it on the agenda, come before the commission, brief discussion generally on these things. So it really doesn't add a lot, but it puts the responsibility back on the commissioners and also gives members of the public a chance to be able to say, you know, you're charge -- you're paying too much for this land or you're not paying enough. So I like the idea of each one of these things coming back, if anything, at least on the consent Page 181 December 16, 2008 agenda where we can pull them if necessary. MR. FEDER: And I would submit to you, Commissioner, that if you took the attached resolution, and under paragraph 5 -- one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine -- the ninth sentence down in paragraph 5 that starts out "in the alternative" where the Collier County Property Appraiser's just value -- and the remainder of that to the end of paragraph 5, and strike that, then we would have accomplished what I think I've heard so far from all the commiSSIOners. MR. HENDRICKS: If! may, Commissioners, I just consulted with Assistant County Attorney Heidi Ashton because I thought that it was true that a property owner is allowed to in an eminent domain proceeding, admit as to evidence of full compensation the property appraiser's just value if it's higher than the appraised value, so -- MR. FEDER: And again, that's in eminent domain. Right now we're in negotiations. I think we can bring that to you knowing that we're trying to settle these through negotiation. If they don't get settled, then they go to condemnation, then that issue will come into effect. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the cost goes up. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you complete? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, not really. I did have a couple more things, if I could. Mr. Feder, so in other words, if negotiations took place, the difference between the lowest of two appraisals or the average of two appraisals, plus the 50,000 maximum or 25 (sic) percent, whatever's the lower. MR. FEDER: 125, yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When you start dealing with those kind of numbers against the appraiser who's one year behind, but you're paying taxes based upon that, how much of a difference are we talking about as far as a tool goes? Is it something that's substantial? Page 182 December 16, 2008 MR. FEDER: Before the property values were coming down so rapidly, we didn't have the issue. Now that they're coming down, we find that we are coming in with appraisals that are lower than the property appraiser's just value because of the precipitous decline in values. Having said that, Commissioner, again, if you strike as I mentioned here, we can still deal with those issues if we feel it's still a good provision for negotiation, for the property appraiser and for the county, and the board can make that decision. It just takes it from being an administrative activity, and we're fine with that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you've done a wonderful job so far. How many -- just in talking about homes. That was the main concern of this commission in the past -- how many homes have actually gone to condemnation at this point in time? MR. FEDER: I believe we're at 15 right now of the original 19, and then became 21. Then you had two that also were brought to you outside of that that the board told -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But I mean, 15 of them that went through the court system or 15 that we settled? MR. FEDER: No. None of them have gone through the court system. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. That's the point. You have had enough tools in your toolbox to be able to make sure we could do it. Now, changing economic times the way they are, if they can go to court and pull this rabbit out of the hat as far as the just valuation according to the tax assessor, now we might have more of them going to court, and then our cost actually goes up. MR. FEDER: Not necessarily, Commissioner, because, again, this issue's been out there. We recognize that it's going to be harder for us to negotiate it with somebody maybe under the just value. They Page 183 December 16, 2008 may decide to wait until we get closer to the actual construction and then -- whether or not we negotiated it further at the condemnation, but we still have the ability, if we think it's a good purchase price, current conditions, and the like, to bring it to you rather than wait until we get close to the condemnation where the property values may go up, because that appears to be the way things are going. We don't have to negotiate it immediately. We do not have construction going, but we're trying to address these people in this corridor as this board directed us because they didn't ask for this corridor to be established, and we're trying to make them whole. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Feder. Thank you, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just mention quickly, trying to put a personal note to it, because you have to think of the people and what's happening to them. We have a guy downstairs named Mike. Three years ago he bought a house for $150,000. Pretty dilapidated, but that's all he and his wife could afford. And he bought it and he put $100,000 into fixing it all up, and it's looking good now, and its property value is worth 75,000. Now, what do we offer him in our -- if somebody was going to take his property? I mean, being that he's got 250,000 in it and it's only worth 75- according to the property appraiser, even a $50,000 increase wouldn't get back his initial loan. MR. FEDER: Again, the property appraiser's in arrears, so we would look at it. We'll do appraisals. In our appraiser we take into account the true value the property is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we approve this resolution with the exception that we will strike the last sentence in paragraph 5. Page 184 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think there's more than one sentence there. The last sentence says, such purchase approvals are herein referred to as administrative settlement. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm talking about the one -- the sentence that starts in the alternative -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and then it goes all the way through the end of that paragraph. And I'm -- I would strike that entire sentence, and that is consistent with what Mr. Feder has recommended to us. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas to approve the resolution as amend. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't hear Mr. Feder make the recommendation. I heard him give us alternatives. It's going to be a little hard to vote for something like this. I'd like to be able to keep the tools in the toolbox, allowing negotiation to take place, and then we can make the final decision when the time does come. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what this does. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then, no. You've removed the ability to be able to use the appraiser's valuation, just valuation, haven't you? MR. KLATZKOW: This is -- this is establishing an administrative procedure where Norm does not have to come to you for these purchases. Now, this was important in the days where we were hot and heavy to build the roads because Norm just didn't have the time. Norm has at least seven years before he's building this road, so he has the time here. You don't have to give him this administrative Page 185 December 16, 2008 procedure here if you don't want, and you can see every purchase come forward to the board if that's what you want. But what he's asking you for is the ability to not come to the board on certain purchases, provided they meet certain monetary parameters. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we said no, we want it to come to the Board of Commissioners. MR. KLA TZKOW: That's not the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's not the motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Let me try to -- let me try to clarify this one more time. What we're saying is we're giving Norm administrative authority to offer 25 percent more than our appraised value for the property or $50,000, whichever's less, but anything else has to come to us for review. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So it forces all of those others to come to us, people get a public hearing, we can make a reasonable judgment as to what we should do, and Norm can say to us, look, we're paying -- we're offering more than the appraised price, and here's the reason we're offering more than the appraised price. And if it seems reasonable to us, we will here it in public, everybody will get their say, and we can make a decision. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm with you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm with you. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Didn't we give away something else? We gave you the right to do something else without coming to the board within the last month; what was that? MR. FEDER: That was exactly this, Commissioner, and it's a little bit longer than a month ago, and all we were doing is bringing Page 186 December 16, 2008 that vision into this resolution. That 125 and 50,000, whichever's less, is what you directed us previously. We were just trying to get this resolution conforming to that. And I shudder because I know there's been confusion, but I appreciate the board's indulgence. The sentence here, as the commissioner pointed out, in the alternative, we would recommend eliminating that sentence from paragraph 5 if that's what you're trying to seek to do. I would ask, if we could, the last sentence says, such purchase approval be remained -- retained in, refers to the issues prior. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Do you want to amend that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I can do that. Yeah, I'm beginning to see a period emerge right after apply. You just have to look at it long enough. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. That's why I use these. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- yeah. The second to the last sentence in that paragraph we strike and we leave the last sentence which reads, such purchase approvals are hereinafter referred to as administrative settlements. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does the second agree to that? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Discussion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Just a quick question back to Commissioner Coyle. What just took place now still agrees with your original statement you made? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep, yep. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just reinforces it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Page 187 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. MR. FEDER: Thank you. Item #10D RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE A FARE INCREASE AND LIMITED REDUCTION IN SUNDAY SERVICE TO ADDRESS THE REDUCED COLLIER AREA TRANSIT FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2008-09 BUDGET - MOTION TO ACCEPT OPTION "E" - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next -- stay there, Norman. Next item is 10D. It's a recommendation for the Collier County Board of Commissioners to approve a fare increase and limited reduction in Sunday service to address the reduced Collier Area Transit fiscal year 2008-2009 budget. Mr.-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any pubic speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. What are the options? MS. ARNOLD: Well, there's a couple options that you have to decide on. For the record, Michelle Arnold. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Staffs recommendations, the Board of Commissioners authorize the reduction of service on Sunday by, Page 188 December 16, 2008 let's see, 137,000 and some change, transit budget reduction resulting in the modification of. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. We're here to ask for a reduction in service as well as an increase in fares, and we have five options for the increase of the fares, and that's what you need to make a decision on. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh. That's not in the recommendations. MS. ARNOLD: No, no. Do you have -- anybody have a recommendation? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I looked at this, and I think it's still a great buy if we look at option E. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'll include that in my motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: The reason is that the cost of running vehicles, maintenance and everything else, is still high, and even though we have a lull in gas tax -- or price of gas or diesel, it's going to go up. And so I think that -- and this also takes a lot of the burden off of the taxpayers that do not use the transit system. So I really looked at option E as the way to go on this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does the second agree? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if I -- yes, I do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a part of your motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And if! could just add to that, is that it is the option that really essentially rewards the people who ride the transit more frequently -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because of the weekly passes, Page 189 December 16, 2008 which are really very good. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just a question. In option B is says something -- it says also -- fare increase, full fare transfers. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That means they have to pay double, right? Instead of -- every time they transfer a bus -- and we have that -- they don't have that much of an issue in Lee County, but we have that issue a lot here because nothing is through so they have to transfer. And according to your figures on Page 7, that's $2.50 more per day if they have to pay for these transfers; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: That would be -- yes. But the option, in my understanding, is E, is the recommendation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And E says -- MS. ARNOLD: E would be a 75-cent transfer, and -- they would pay $ I .50 when they get on the bus, and if they have to transfer, they would pay 75 cents to transfer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: For each transfer? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, for each transfer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that the, what -- so how many -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, some people -- if some -- if you have one transfer, then you would be paying $1.25 -- no, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: A buck and a half. MS. ARNOLD: 2.25, and then if you were to transfer a second time, you would have to pay another 75 cents. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Another buck and a half extra. MS. ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And for people that make five and a Page 190 December 16, 2008 quarter an hour and can't afford a car, that's a lot of money. MS. ARNOLD: That would be $3 for that one trip. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I do need to note -- and I think the commissioner mentioned it -- people that are traveling frequently on the system -- first of all, at board's direction, the monthly fare is not changed at all. There is the provision of a new weekly fare, which is also at a pretty good rate to try and get some of our tourists on and to address some folks that can't afford the monthly fare cost at one time. So I think that you've addressed the people that are using the system quite a bit, but you are getting other folks at a rate that's more commensurate with others around us. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then my last question, and I'll stop. But the transfer fees were the one things -- the one thing that was very objectionable to the people who took the survey, correct? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so if we find now that we have to lose passengers because they can't get to -- and they can't get to work, what are we going to do about that? Are we going to be monitoring that? And then, of course, by that time they've lost their job anyway, so then, you know -- and I don't know how good that is, because usually these people also have childcare to pay, and childcare is an awful amount. It's just so difficult for people. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They can't take them on the bus with them. They couldn't afford it. If I may? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Okay. A couple of things. One, I am having a problem with the total cost, and one big jump. I think that that's going to really raise havoc. You had -- generally the people you met with was a pretty small crowd that showed up. They seem to be accepting increasing fares as long as the service maintained itself, but they were against transfer fees. Or wasn't that a problem either? Page 191 December 16, 2008 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We had a smaller crowd than we had hoped, and the sentiments of the crowd was -- and we've had a couple different public meetings. The most concern that the riders have is the reduced route. They don't want to lose service at all. Those people that attended the last public meeting were not opposed to an increase in the fare. The sentiment was to not have a transfer fare if they could avoid that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Okay. Now, another question, too. I'm looking at your fare structure sheet that you have here. And if you go across, it shows youth day passes, elderly, and so on, and it's got like $2, and then it shows under option A, it's $2, option Bit's $2, option C, $2, option D, $2 and -- MS. ARNOLD: Those are the day passes, so if you -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But what about transfer charges? Is there going to be a transfer charge of $2 for these people, too or-- , MS. ARNOLD: No. If you buy the day pass, that's what you pay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay. I understand now. MS. ARNOLD: So we're not eliminating any of the passes that we have. And as Commissioner Coyle said, it's encouraging folks to purchase the passes. And a little bit more -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it is. And those people that can come up with that much money at one time. And I'll tell you something. You're doing an absolutely wonderful job of maintaining bus service for, what is it, over a million riders? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's tremendous. This is something that when we first came into office we were told by many people this wouldn't make it. It would fail. People would never ride the bus. Well, by gosh, we proved them wrong. I think this is -- we're going in the right direction; however, I Page 192 December 16, 2008 can't accept this transfer fee of75 cents. I think we're putting an exorbitant expense upon them. I could go with 25 cents, but that's just -- that's heavy for people that are working very hard to make ends meet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, we can't have it both ways. You can't say that people are going to lose their jobs because of these fares, because the people who are using it the most are the people who are getting the best deal. It's costing them about 40 cents a day to ride the bus if you buy a monthly pass. Monthly pass costs you -- I'm sorry, a weekly pass. MS. ARNOLD: If you buy the weekly pass. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if you -- you can have a monthly pass or a weekly pass and it's a real bargain when you get right down to it. You don't have to pay the transfer fees, right? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got a pass. So the people who use it the most are getting the best price. The people who use it only occasionally, like Coastland Mall, as many of them do on that route, and spend the day at Coastland Mall, will have to pay the full fare unless they are buying a weekly or monthly pass. So those people are not going to be hurt because they don't use it all the time to get to and from work. But the people who do use it a lot to get to and from work have a great price deal, and we haven't changed it on them at all. We haven't forced them to pay a transfer fee, we haven't increased the cost of a pass. And so we've changed nothing with respect to people who depend the most on this kind of transportation. MS. ARNOLD: And that was the reason for introducing the weekly pass, to give folks an option outside of the monthly pass, and the weekly pass may be beneficial to those using the service here year-round and to our visitors. Page 193 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question, if! may. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Michelle, what is your evaluation? In other words, when you put this -- if you put Item E into place -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- what do you foresee as far as people having to pay the transfer fee or else going the other way with the weekly? Do you have any idea? Do you have any kind of projections? MS. ARNOLD: You know, we didn't come up with an estimate, you know, whether or not it's going to be 25 percent or 50 percent or those types of things, because we may have some folks that go towards the monthly pass because they use it, you know, seven days a week, and that was what -- one of the things that our survey showed us. So there'll be a split probably between a weekly pass and the monthly. What percentage, you know, we really can't speculate. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But at this point in time, you don't have a weekly pass, just a monthly pass. MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. What percentage of your business is monthly passes versus, you know, pay-as-you-go ridership? MS. ARNOLD: A small percentage is the monthly pass right now. Mostly it's some of the Marco Express, the folks going down to the hotels, and some of those hotels are purchasing that for the -- their employees. We think with this fare increase, those passes -- the purchase of those passes will definitely go up. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But wouldn't it make more sense to start off with maybe a smaller transfer fee to see if that does draw people into the weekly pass as an option? I'm just afraid that the Page 194 December 16, 2008 people that are working day to day trying to make the ends meet might try to find themselves -- I mean, it's kind of hard for us to realize it -- but finding it hard to come up with the $7 for the weekly pass. Is that what it is? MS. ARNOLD: No. It's $ I 5 for full fair; 7.50 for a reduced rate. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We really don't know? MS. ARNOLD: That was -- right now, if they are not purchasing a pass with our current fare system, you know, they would purchase that in a couple of -- two days. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Michelle. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the motion? (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. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1; Commissioner Coletta dissenting. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to say that we -- I will be bringing back a resolution that will memorialize your decision here today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Put it on the consent, please. Next item? Item #10E AWARD OF BID #09-5142 TO MITCHELL AND STARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., FOR THE LEL Y AREA Page 195 December 16, 2008 STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (LA SIP) PHASE 1B, PROJECT NO. 51101 IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,530,719.90 PLUS A TEN (10%) CONTINGENCY, TOTALING $3,883,791.89 - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10E, and that is a recommendation to approve award of bid number 09-5142, to Mitchell and Stark Construction Company, Inc., for the Lely Area Stormwater Improvements Project, LASIP, Phase 1 bravo, project number 51101 in the amount of$3,530,719.90, plus a 10 percent contingency totaling $3,883,791.89. And Mr. Norman Feder, your Transportation Services Administrator, will present. MR. FEDER: Commissioners, this includes not only 1B phase for the LASIP project but also the second portion of the Treviso Bay project. As you remember, we had a developer contribution agreement for them to build, and then we'd pay back 95 percent, and 5 percent was their application use. They had finished their first portion of that. The question was raised, aren't we better off if the county is out there on all developer contribution agreements and doing the bidding in-house by the county's procedures, even though they had gone through a bidding process. With that in mind, we took that second portion of the Treviso along with 1 B and bid it out, and that is the project you see in front of you today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning to approve staffs recommendation, second by Commissioner Coyle. Page 196 December 16, 2008 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. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. Item #lOF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TREVISO BA Y WATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT ALLOWING FOR COORDINATION BETWEEN TREVISO BAY DEVELOPMENT, LLC AND COLLIER COUNTY TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LEL Y AREA STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE TREVISO BAY DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT NO. 51101- APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, which is 1 OF. It's a recommendation to approve an amendment to the Treviso Bay Water Management Agreement allowing for coordination between Treviso Bay Development, LLC, and Collier County to complete construction of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement project located within and adjacent to the Treviso Bay Development project number 51 101. And again, Norm Feder, transportation administrator, will present. Page 197 December 16, 2008 MR. FEDER: Very quickly, Commissioners. As I just noted, we had structured under the developer contribution agreement for the developer, having gone out to bids, to build it and then we pay back 95 percent. By us going out and bidding out the second portion, we now needed to change the agreement such that we build it and they pay us 5 percent, and that's what this does. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Motion to approve the first amendment to the Treviso Bay Water Management Agreement and authorize the chairman to sign that amendment. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve item 1 OF, second by Commissioner Halas. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: 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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MR. FEDER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next item, do you think we can get through it in a half an hour? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can get through it in about five minutes. Item #10G Page 198 December 16, 2008 RECOMMENDA TION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE THE 2008 INCENTIVE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REPORT REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 420.9076(4) AND DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK AN AMENDED IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL ORDINANCE AS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT - MOTION TO APPROVE REPORT AND INCENTIVES (PROXIMITY WITH RESERVATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND STRENGTHEN BANKING CONSORTIUM) FOR STAFF DIRECTION - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I think we can -- you can, if you'd just concentrate on that matrices and say, we like this or we don't like that, and tell us which one of those you want us to come back with. I think we can get through it, and we just take them one at a time. This is lOG. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report as required by the Florida Statutes and authorize staff to bring back an amended impact fee deferral ordinance as outlined in this report and/or changed by the Board of County Commissioners as we go down that matrix, and that's the important part, what you're comfortable with and what the board wants to do. Go down that matrices and say, we're locked, no, I don't like this; you take a motion. We'll get through this in short order. And I believe that Buddy Ramsey, your public -- from the public services administration, will present. MR. RAMSEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Frank Ramsey, your Housing Manager, and I will keep this brief. We're here today to provide you a brief presentation on the 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report. Revisions in 2007 required communities receiving state initiative partnership program or Page 199 December 16, 2008 SHIP dollars to prepare this report every three years and present it to you. We reviewed a total of 15 incentives, and of the 15 we reviewed, the following nine are not requesting any board action today: Expediting permitting of approvals, density flexibility, parking and setbacks, reductions, flexible lot configurations, modification of street requirements, ongoing oversight, preparation of a land bank inventory, transportation enhancement, and an infrastructure investment program. The following six items are requesting board action: Impact fee waivers and modifications. We are requesting you to authorize staff to work with the impact fee deferral department and the County Attorney's Office in reviewing the current ordinance for a potential future amendment to the -- increase the deferral period for rental units from 10 years to 15 years. Approval of today's report would not amend the existing ordinance. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we vote on these as we go along? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: If! could just make a comment. The County Attorney's Office is not going to be in favor of increasing it from 10 years to 15 years. We've talked to outside consultants on impact fees, and 10 years is about as long as, legally, we can go. We can look at it if the board wants, but really we've had this discussions before, and 10 years is about the maximum. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Especially with rental properties. MR. KLA TZKOW: All properties. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The first one is expediting permitting. Do you want to take them all at once? MR. RAMSEY: No. The committee believes the program's operating as intended, and we're not recommending any board action on that item. MR. MUDD: This is your Affordable Housing Committee andp Page 200 December 16,2008 their recommendations that Mr. Ramsey is basically putting out. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the impact fee waivers and modifications, I have to go along with what the county attorney said, that I think we ought to leave that where it is today, and that's 10 years instead of going to 15. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And does that -- we don't -- we don't waive impact fees now. COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is the-- MR. RAMSEY: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is the impact fee deferrals, not waiving. This is just a deferral program from the -- 10 years to 15 years is what's been suggested. But we're saying no, waive impact fees. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They're use the wrong term, I think. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, it's deferrals, not -- MR. RAMSEY: Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner. The term came from the state in their report format, but you are correct, the county does not waive impact fees. We only defer them. COMMISSIONER HALAS: See, the state's wrong. CHAIRMAN HENNING: See, I told you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The state's wrong. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You have consensus on that. MR. RAMSEY : Yes, sir. The next item asking for board action is the reservation of infrastructure. This would authorize staff in the Affordable Housing Commission to work in drafting a report and proposal for the reservation of infrastructure to ensure sufficient capacity for future development of affordable housing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? Page 201 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One of the things that we discussed when Marcy Krumbine gave her report just recently, we talked about it. And just like we said earlier in this meeting, we never came up with a conclusion when we talked about oversaturation, and that enters right into this, doesn't it? And what I would like to do is make sure that we bring back an ordinance that really establishes an affordable housing oversaturation. So as we're reserving infrastructure for the future, we make sure that we're not tipping that scale and that that infrastructure is shared equally throughout the county. MR. RAMSEY: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any further direction on this one? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Other than that I would agree with Commissioner Fiala, that is it the -- the housing commission take a look at that and then come back to us with some recommendation sometime in the future, but I don't see any need for a decision right now. MR. RAMSEY: Yes, absolutely. None of the items I'm asking for would involve action or charges today. It's simply authorizing the staff and Affordable Housing Commission to do further investigation on these items. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could -- Mr. Chairman, could I just add something to that? The reservation of infrastructure is very closely tied to the other item on the second page called proximity. If you're going to talk about reservation of infrastructure, you must also give consideration to proximity to sources of employment where people would likely live. So if we're going to ask them to take a look at the first reservation of infrastructure, we should clarify it to make sure that you also, when you're looking at it from the standpoint of reservation of infrastructure, that you're looking at it from the standpoint of proximity to work locations. Page 202 December 16, 2008 MR. RAMSEY: That's an excellent point, also one that we felt proximity should be looked at when looking at a density bonus program as well. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we're not making a decision now. We're just saying, if you're going to look at it, look at them both together and come to us with a recommendation. MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. As far as the idea of oversaturation and trying to come up with some sort of plan that equally distributes it throughout the county, in theory, I think it's a wonderful idea. I'm a little bit concerned that we might have the plan built on the heavy side where we'll say, you know, that when saturation comes, it can't go in these areas, and then the other areas don't accept, which means there'd be no affordable housing. You know, that becomes a real issue. If we can -- when we look at it, if they can look at this, how can you come up with a balance? In other words, you have a demand for affordable housing that might be 100 units, for discussion's sake. And the oversaturated areas can't take it because of the fact we passed an ordinance saying it is, you've still got a need for 100. So somehow you have to have a mechanism to make sure that 100 go into the undersaturated area. If you can't do it, then where do you go from there? And that's a good question that has to be asked when you go into the process. MR. RAMSEY: Absolutely. That's why there definitely needs to be more investigation into these -- all of these items today before you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala and Page 203 December 16, 2008 Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Also with proximity. Right now -- well, maybe not -- probably affects you, too. I'm looking at the three who handle most of the affordable housing right here, and it says close proximity to work, but yet the work is in the other two's districts because that's where the hotels and the restaurants are located, but they don't have any room to put any affordable housing, really, because they're all built out. So I don't know how you're going to do that, but -- because we're not close to any work. We're trying to attract some, but we haven't been able to do that as yet. Good luck with that. MR. RAMSEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Merry Christmas, too. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think there's affordable housing injust about every area except maybe one area, but anyway. Two areas that I know of. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Three areas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you have to be careful that we don't get involved in some issues that are -- that are under the federal guidelines. So you're walking on a thin tightrope. But I understand the concerns that a couple of my commissioners stated. So we have to make sure that we're fair to everybody and that we don't run into any particular issues that could get the county in some serious problems. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely, especially violating any state statutes or anything. That's right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Federal statutes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. RAMSEY: And I would say to that, Commissioner, that these items, 11 of the 15 items were required by the state to be reviewed, and this was one of them, so -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Accessory dwellings. Page 204 December 16, 2008 MR. RAMSEY: Yes. The next item requesting board action is accessory dwelling units. We're requesting you authorize staff and the Affordable Housing Committee to identify areas within Collier County that may be suitable for the inclusion of affordable accessory residential dwelling units, sometimes referred to as mother-in-law suites. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think this is a boobie trap. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure, it is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, we have an excess of dwelling units in Collier County that are vacant right now. The market is flooded with relatively low-priced homes. Our objective should be to try to deplete that inventory of vacant low-priced homes before we start taking action to create a whole 'nother layer of homes, low-priced homes. And I think now is not the time to start designating mother-in-law units in Collier County. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, let me totally agree with everything he's saying, because we -- one of the things we've said is we wanted you to try and do what you could to fill those extra units, take some of that blight off our streets, and not only that, the little ancillary effect is, we don't have to defer impact fees so that -- so that when impact fees are coming in again, we don't -- you know, these things are off the market already. We -- I totally agree. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, did you record that, Terri? She totally agrees with Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put it in caps, underline it. MR. RAMSEY: It's an excellent report -- an excellent point. I believe the intention of the state was just to make -- force communities receiving funding to think long-term planning and, perhaps, not a short-term solution. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're always trying to force Page 205 December 16, 2008 somebody to do something. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think that was the last item? We already talked about proximity. MR. RAMSEY: We covered proximity. MR. MUDD: I'll make sure I got this right. No action on accessory dwelling units; is that right? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. MR. RAMSEY: The -- there's two more. The final one is-- while the county has an affordable housing trust fund currently that developers may make contributions to, during the discussion, the committee believed that authorizing staff and the committee to draft a report and proposal for a dedicated funding source to that trust fund that would not negatively impact the county's funding would be a worthwhile mission at this time, and so we would ask for that authorization. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sound's like tax to me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what it smells like. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we're -- in this day and age and prices dropping in the Vanderbilt Beach extension corridor and other places, that we don't need to make this a priority today, and we have to review it every year, correct? MR. RAMSEY: Every three years. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Every three years. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There you go. MR. RAMSEY: And the final item that we were asking for board on today is to authorize staff and the Affordable Housing Committee to survey the community to assess the support of affordable/workforce housing through an inclusionary zoning incentive. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this goes along with the other Page 206 December 16, 2008 one. We've got such a large number of vacant homes at affordable prices now. I believe our primary focus should be to get those homes occupied again, and however you can help us do that, I think, is the best way for you to serve the community. MR. RAMSEY: I think you'll be very pleased when -- once we receive our neighborhood stabilization program money, probably sometime in February, with the efforts of the number of homes that are foreclosed that we'll be able to acquire and rehabilitate. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, wonderful. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I don't know if you can add something to this or not, but a friend of mine just bought two places, one a two-bedroom, two-bath and the other one three-bedroom, two-bath, both of them in a swimming pool complex. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Speculators. COMMISSIONER FIALA: One for 57,000 -- that's exactly right. That's where I'm going -- and another for 65,000. Now, she's a speculator, just as Commissioner Coyle said. And I said, these are prime places for young families to move. But when I talked to Marcy Krumbine about it, she said, the problem is, the banks won't give them a loan. And so maybe -- maybe there's something the Affordable Housing Commission can do to work on the banking consortium. According to Marcy, there's only three members left. And so these people, in order to follow the thrust that you've heard from this commission today in trying to get these homes that are sitting there vacant now -- some in wonderful condition, some not in very wonderful condition -- occupied, we need to have a banking consortium to work with us. So I don't know if your Affordable Housing Commission can work on that, but I think it would be a good objective. MR. RAMSEY: I agree. Page 207 December 16, 2008 MR. MUDD: If that's the board direction. It doesn't necessarily have to be in this one. It is your Affordable Housing Commission, okay. I want to make sure that you understand that as a board. If you want to give them direction to try to strengthen the banking consortium -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. MUDD: -- so that-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I would. MR. MUDD: -- so that we can get some more people to lend money to qualified people, why not? Frank can take that back to the committee. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think you have a consensus. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. MR. MUDD: I want to make sure I got exclusionary zoning. I believe I saw two -- at least two nods that say we don't want to go down this road, but I need a third. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. MUDD: I just now have my third. Ms. Filson, do we have any speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. MR. RAMSEY: That concludes my presentation. We have Steven Ruby, your Chairman of your Affordable Housing Committee, here to answer any questions and say a few words. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions of the chairman of the affordable housing board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: No questions. MR. RUBY: Questions? I'd like to make a little bit of comment on behalf of the advisory board. For the record, my name is Steven Ruby. I'm Chairman of the Affordable Housing Advisory Board. I totally agree with you and our advisory board agrees with you Page 208 December 16, 2008 that we need to deal with the foreclosures and the glut of existing property on the roles right now. The purpose of this report, yes, it was mandated by the state, but it also includes a raft of other initiatives that were brought to us by you, by the EDC, by the ULI, and we formed a subcommittee in order to look at these in a more comprehensive way, not to solve the immediate problem here, but looking further on. As we re- -- come out of this recession and out of this housing problem, we're very confident that we're going to have a different type of crisis. The paradigm in the housing market is going to change. Just as you said, Commissioner Fiala, the housing out there is affordable now. It's affordable to our workforce. It's not attainable. The mortgage crunch, the high -- harder to get mortgages, underwriting criteria is higher, down payments are more like we, you and I, had to pay when we bought our first house at 15, 20 percent. Our workforce can't -- won't be able to handle this. They fear their jobs, they're losing their jobs, they don't have savings, and the mortgage money will not be accessible. So just because the products out there are affordable, they're not going to be able to attain it. As we come out of this recession, housing prices are going to start to elevate, and we're still going to have a demand, a big demand. If we don't have the tools in place -- and I think what we're trying to do here, what your advisory board is trying to do is look at best practices and tools, have them ready. No, don't put them in place now. Put them in place when you need them and have them in the back door. You hit the ground running with the NSP program, this $7.2 million that you're getting. I do this around the country, and I've talked to people all over the state. There is no municipality as well prepared as you are right now to handle that. Why? Because you saw the initiative back in June and July, took some excess CDBG money and created that program. Page 209 December 16, 2008 Work it out, have the county attorney work out all the procedures and the legal ramifications, and you're ready to hit the ground running. There are municipalities, large municipalities, who don't know what to do with it right now. I'm just scrambling. You're six to eight months ahead, so why shouldn't we be ready in three years or four years after we're coming out of this recession to have the tools in place so we can hit the ground running for the next crisis that we're going to have in the housing market? That's a recommendation from our advisory board. If you have any questions? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. RUBY: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item? MR. MUDD: No. I think we need to go down this one more time because I didn't hear a vote. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the 2008 Incentive Review and Recommendation Report. You just approved the report that you got, okay. And the direction we received was to work on two items on the matrices, proximity and infrastructure, plus go back and see if we can't strengthen the banking consortium. So the direction we have, I just need you to approve the report that you received. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Make a motion to approve the report and also approve the incentives as amended and by the comments of the Board of Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, the direction. I got it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. Page 210 December 16, 2008 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: 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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. MR. MUDD: Now you've satisfied the state requirement. Item #10H RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF GROUP HEALTH REINSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2009 - APPROVED MR MUDD: Brings us to 10H, which is a recommendation to approve the purchase of group health reinsurance coverage for calendar year 2009. Mr. Jeff Walker, your Risk Management Director, will present. The reason this is on your agenda, we do this annually. It is over the $1 million figure. The total cost, $1,310,124. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to approve staffs recommendations, purchase health insurance, second by Commissioner Halas. I just have one question. We are insuring 2,1 50 employees or Page 211 December 16, 2008 thereabouts? MR. WALKER: Approximately, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I thought we had far less than that. MR. WALKER: Well, we cover not only the board's agency, but also four of the five constitutional officers. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay, all right. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: No further discussion, 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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good report, Jeff. MR. WALKER: For the record, Jeff Walker, Risk Management. Item #101, Item #10J and Item #IOK A WARD BID #09-5157, SEATING FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES CENTER TO MARCO OFFICE SUPPLY IN THE AMOUNT OF $123,411.39 - APPROVED AWARD BID #09-5 I 58, SYSTEMS FURNITURE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES CENTER TO CORPORATE EXPRESS IN THE AMOUNT OF $106,153.37- APPROVED Page 212 December 16,2008 AWARD BID #09-5 159, CASEGOODS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES CENTER TO THE BEAUX- ARTS GROUP IN THE AMOUNT OF $239,702.77 - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next -- how you doing? Okay. The next item, I took all three items that had to with furniture requests off the consent and moved them on the regular agenda because we -- the board had a requirement in a previous discussion on a comment and/or public petition by Mr. Penzo from Marco Office Supply. He had some questions and some issues. The board told us to go back based on their directions in September and bring back a discussion item. They're all three here for the discussion item, and Mr. Steve Carnell, your Purchasing Director, will present. MR. CARNELL: Yes. The items are, again, items I, J, and K, are all bid invitations that were issued in parallel using the same business process, and they all pertain to the emergency services center. One is for the purchase of seating; one is for the purchase of Case Goods, which includes desks, tables, file cabinets and those types of things; and the third would be the systems furniture itself, the panels. In each case we followed the same bidding process. We issued a two-step bid process. If you'll remember our discussion from September, one of our concerns in this whole area, particularly of the modular project, is being able to buy product that's like to like in common, recognizing that the manufacturers are very distinct and separate in their product. So what we did was we took the product design that had been developed based on the original approach for this building, and we converted it into a basis of design document where we itemized every single piece or item being purchased. We then put a, what we call, a more equal clause into the bid document that allowed the competing Page 213 December 16, 2008 furniture manufacturers to bid their product, their comparable product, but we took product information in the first step only so that we could compare the product information and make sure that it was comparable or equal to what we had specified. And based on that process, in the first step we receive nine responses from -- for all three of them we received nine envelopes in which people provided their product detail information. The staff reviewed these submissions, and this included the architect of record for the emergency services center working with the facilities management purchasing staff, and determined that in the case of the seating bid, that five of the nine bidders had provided a product that was equal, and so we invited them to then submit a price proposal. In the case of the systems furniture, seven of the nine were found to be equal, so they were invited to participate and provide a price proposal in the second round. And in the case of the Case Goods, four of the nine were deemed to be responsive in the first round. So we invited those groups to then give us price envelopes. Those envelopes were all opened on November the I 7th and evaluated. And based on the pricing evaluation step, we are recommending award for each one of the three bids today in the case of the seating. Recommendation is to award to Marco Office Supply in the amount of $123,411.39. In the case of the systems panels, $105,918.17, and that would be awarded to Corporate Express, and then the Case Goods would be awarded to Beaux-Arts Group in the amount of$235,497.73. Now, these are the three largest purchases involved with the emergency services center project. And in addition to that, we also -- prior to issuing these bids, we also solicited informal quotes for what we call the work station pods. These are the units that actually literally get built into the floor of your new emergency operations center. If you picture the first floor of building F right now, and you Page 214 December 16, 2008 picture yourself here during a declared disaster, and you walk in that room and you see all the people conferring with each other? This is the new building's version of that work area. And this one's a little different because in this case the furniture had to literally be nailed to the floor and built into the floor as part of the construction. And because of that, we needed to get it done earlier and sooner. We wanted it done while the general contractor was still on site. So we put that out as a separate package. It was a much smaller package in terms of dollars and cents. And we awarded that based on staff authority and the purchasing policy and the direction you gave back on September the 9th. Now, we actually received eight price quotes and awarded that to the lowest responsive quote in the amount of $53,000 and change. We've also taken -- if I can go over to the South Regional Library. We have four purchases there that are all part of this discussion in terms of what you directed us to do back in September. There was the purchase of auditorium seating, and there's also been -- right now we're in the process of placing the order for what we call the library shelving units. Those are the -- those are the items that the board, in November, directed us to buy directly from the state contract and not go through the competitive bidding process. And then we have two other smaller orders that we're in the process now of putting out to bid. One is for office furniture within the private offices of the new library, and the remaining one is for furniture for Case Goods for common areas within the library facility. Those are considered less urgent. If you'll remember our discussion back in September, we were trying to award the bids without delaying the opening of the library facility. And those -- we can do those last because we don't need those to open the facility. All that said, what I'm here today to do is to ask for you to award Page 215 December 16, 2008 these three bids that are listed in items I, J, and K. I think I may need three separate motions to do that. If you can award to recommended bidder in each case, that would be what the staff is asking you to do today, and we'll answer any questions you have at this point. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Recommendation for approval of Item I. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala to recommend awarding the bid to Marco Supply, Item I 01. And do we have public speakers for 10I? MS. FILSON: I have a speaker for 10K. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The answer is no. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: 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: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve Item 10K. MR. MUDD: Which is a recommendation -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: J. MR. MUDD: -- to award bid number 09-5158, systems furniture for the Collier County emergency services center to Corporate Express in the amount of$106,153.37. Page 216 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to approve IOJ, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we don't have any speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed to the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MR. MUDD: Next item is 10K. It's a recommendation to award bid number 09-5 I 59, Case Goods for the Collier County emergency center -- services center to Beaux-Arts Group in the amount of $239,702.77. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coletta-- MR. MUDD: You have a speaker. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to approve 10K, and we have a public speaker. MS. FILSON: Philip Penzo. MR. PENZO: Philip Penzo with Marco Office Supply, I live at 201 Majorca Court, Marco Island. Thank you for your time. At the last commission meeting I brought to your attention the new library, that the purchasing was awarding without board approval. Page 217 December 16, 2008 I don't see that on today's agenda either. If purchasing had gone with the low bid for the chairs, the county would have saved $21,000 on those stack chairs. On September 9th the commissioners said that all furniture purchases for those two projects would be brought to you for approval. Marco, also supplying HON, was able to save 21 percent, a $34,000 savings on the chairs that you needed for your new EOC building. We would like to do the same on the Case Goods you need. We were not allowed to submit pricing on the Case Goods even though you told purchasing to include us in the mix. We were told by purchasing that you were unclear -- we were-- that they were unclear as to what exact products we were wanting to bid in step one of their multi-step process. We provided the same information in the same way in all three bids. Why was this fine for chairs but not the Case Goods? The bid called for state-contract discounts. There is absolutely no need for such formality in the state contract purchase. That is the whole purpose of the state contract, to save everyone time and money over a complicated bid process. Why did they make the process of comparing prices so complicated? Why was the local preference ordinance thrown out on such a formal bid? I've read over the state contract and been unable to find any terms or conditions overriding local law. If Marco Office Supply is allowed to provide the Case Goods, we are confident we would save the county over $50,000. Please hold off on awarding this bid until you have a HON quote to compare it to. Thank you. MR. CARNELL: Let me address both of those issues. First off, let's talk about the item that you made your motion on, because he spoke to that. Again, we received nine proposals in step one. Marco Office Supply was one of the nine. Page 218 December 16, 2008 Now, I need to correct Mr. Penzo on something he said that was not factually correct. He said that Marco Office Supply submitted the same information for all three bids. That is not a correct statement. In the case of the seating, the bid that Marco Office Supply -- you just adopted for award, the bidders were all asked to provide detailed information regarding the various line items in the bid. We wanted them to name their product and the specific product they were bidding to meet that assigned line number in the -- line item number in the bid, and they were to provide detailed information, literature, brochures, and other information. In the case of seating, we got that from Marco Office Supply. In the case of the Case Goods -- he keeps mentioning case of the Case Goods. But in the instance of the Case Goods, we did not receive that from Marco Office Supply. All we received was a brochure. Nothing else. Did not identify what product they were actually bidding. If anybody'd like to see it, I'll show you the physical difference between what they submitted in one instance and what they submitted in the other. So we were not able to compare or determine all these line items we named, what actual items they were offering for competition, so that's why they were not advanced to the second round. Now, in the case of the library seating, the instance there, we -- the library director, working with the architect of record for the south library, selected a product that is broadly available. It was available to Mr. Penzo to bid. It's an open line product. It's not specific or narrow to one dealer. It's on the state contract, and it was a product that the library director and the architect thought was appropriate for the intended use. This is going to be seating for the auditorium at your new south library. It's going to be used for a number of different events, many of which are going to be all-day training and teaching events with the community. And they selected a chair they though would fit that Page 219 December 16,2008 setting and would be appropriate and comfortable for patrons and members of the public to sit in. So we specified that product. And Mr. Penzo, Marco Office Supply, bid an alternative product. Now, it just so happened, we had to requote this because we all learned something in the quotation process the first time, that we were originally attempting to get the award -- actually have the delivery in December so that the library could be used for a social event out there. Well, as it turned out -- we didn't know this until we took the bids that there was a $2,400 upcharge for what the manufacturer deemed to be early delivery . We didn't know this, the architect didn't know this, the bidders didn't know it. Half of them did not even include the upcharge in their bid, so we ended up with a mishmash. So we had to requote it. Now, the reason I mention that is, that at that point in time we informed Marco Office Supply that they had not met the specification. And they asked if they could file a protest. Well, we told them there was no protest process. There isn't for quotations less than $50,000. There is no formal process for quotations. But we did extend Marco the offer to write a letter to the purchasing director and -- prior to submitting his second bid, if you will, and that the purchasing director would take that up with the architect, and we would look at his issues and concerns. Well, we never received a letter from him, and the quotes came in a second time. And Marco Office Supply bid the same product again. And, again, if you want more detail as to why that product didn't meet specifications, the architect and Marilyn Matthes are here, and they can help explain that to you. But in a nutshell, that's what happened in both those instances. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we're beyond part of what you were talking about. Can we get -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, you are. That last explanation that Mr. Page 220 December 16, 2008 Carnell talked about as far as library stacking chairs is over and beyond what Item 10K is, absolutely. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Can we stay on 10K? Okay. Because you lost me on the other. I just shut it out. MR. CARNELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. So where are we at with the Case Goods and Marco Office Supply? Where we at with that? Were they allowed -- MR. CARNELL: Oh, with the Case Goods, what I just said a moment ago, Marco Office Supply did not submit the requested information. Remember we allowed people to submit alternative products. We specified a product rather than redesigning from scratch. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we said and we were told that these furniture bids, HON would be included in all bids. . MR. CARNELL: And they were. They were invited to submit their product in the front end. They did not give us enough information to be qualified to advance to the second round. They did in the seating, and they were awarded the seating. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But we're -- MR. CARNELL: They also did so with the systems panels. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- saying two different things. I'm saying that we were told that HON would be including (sic) in the pricing when it comes up to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're saying something different. MR. MUDD: No. What he's saying to you is, there's two categories -- there's two qualifications. There's the qualification that you meet the specification of the line of product, and then you submit your pnce. And what Mr. Carnell said is they didn't meet the qualification on Page 221 December 16, 2008 the product so, therefore, they were disqualified for submitting the price. Because he was going to submit -- I can't say it for sure because he -- as Mr. Carnell said, there wasn't enough specifics on the brochure that he submitted. So I don't know what his price would be for the different piece. But he never did specify what the product was that was going to meet the requirement so that he could submit the pnce. MR. CARNELL: And all the other bidders did, sir. And I believe the direction of the board was to give HON a shot, and that is what we did. But we're not able -- everybody needed to play by the same rules. All the other bidders did. They provided us the material we asked for so that we could know. When we're -- again, we're talking about the Case Goods. This is desks, this is tables. These are things that you could bid a HON product, you could bid something else. We can't assume what your product would be just off a piece of literature. We need to have you name the actual item, and they did not. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. When Mr. HON -- MR. MUDD: Mr. Penzo. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Penzo, at the last public comment, it was directed to get the minutes of that meeting so we can see exactly what the understanding of the board was. Do we have that? I mean -- MR. CARNELL: I have a copy of the minutes here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know if it's relevant. I thought we'd have it well in advance. Can we deal with it real quick? MR. MUDD: Sure. You go ahead, Steve. You can read it from there. MR. CARNELL: All right. If you look in the middle of the page where you see Mr. Mudd's comment. He says, Penzo did state he's on the state contract for HON furniture. Mr. Carnell's -- his methodology for under 100,000, over 100,000. That was part of the executive Page 222 December 16, 2008 summary, that purchasing would get quotes under 100,000. We'd have formal bids over 100,000. Mr. Mudd's making reference to that. He says, my recommendation to the board is, let's put HON into the mix. And if you have an interconnection problem -- that would be the systems panels -- we'll bring it up and we'll come back to the board and say, hey, we've got an interconnection problem. We couldn't go that way. But if we don't and if they have good quality and the prices, well, then our recommendation is, then that's what we'll do. And the chairman said, is there a motion? Mr. Mudd says, I can't make a motion. Commissioner Fiala, says, yeah, I'll make a motion that we go out to bid for the purchases that are coming up until you have a settlement or conclusion from a local contractor who -- or, I'm sorry. You called him local contractor -- but then give you recommendations as to how we proceed with the purchasing of the furniture. Now, the actual motion came on the next page in the minutes. That statement was made, and then on -- if you look at 226 now, again, pick up where Mr. Mudd's talking. What I'm basically saying is put HON in the mix, okay, and go to the third -- the third vendor beyond the state contract and then bid them out, and then you've got all three coming in and we'll use state contract to determine the lowest bidder and quality, and we'll come back to the board and tell you what we find. And then if you look right beyond that, Commissioner Fiala says, well, there's nothing fairer than that, so I would make a motion to do exactly that. "I will second the motion." Chairman Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So you feel that you put HON in the mix? MR. CARNELL: That's correct. We gave them a chance to compete on qualifications up front with everybody else. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that wasn't my understanding. I Page 223 December 16, 2008 thought we'd have something in our agenda packet saying, okay, here's HON's price. But -- any discussion, further discussion? I've got a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? Aye. Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner Henning dissenting. We have a 4:30 time certain. Item #14A FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD TO GIVE DIRECTION TO THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CONCERNING THREE PROPOSED PURCHASE CONTRACTS FOR MULTIPLE REAL ESTATE PARCELS WITHIN THE BA YSHORE DRIVE AND GATEWAY TRIANGLE PORTIONS OF THE CRA AREA - MOTION TO BRING BACK CONTRACTS FOR REVIEW - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and that is 14A. It's for the -- for the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency Board to give direction to the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA executive director concerning three proposed purchase contracts for multiple real estate parcels within the Bayshore Drive and Gateway Triangle portions of the CRA areas. Mr. David Jackson, your Executive Director of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA, will present. Page 224 December 16, 2008 David? MR. JACKSON: Point of order. Need to switch the gavel to the CRA board. MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We need to table the BCC meeting and open up the CRA meeting. So table the BCC. You do what you do. CHAIRMAN FIALA: CRA board is now open. MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Madam Chairman. David Jackson, Executive Director of Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA, the CRA component of it. At the last meeting I was given guidance to go out and advertise for up to a $20 million line of credit for the CRA, and that has been advertised. We're waiting for results to come back in on it. Also was given guidance to go out and see if there was other properties that would be of interest that met the redevelopment plan and bring them back to the board. I'm bringing that back to the board today. With me I have also Mr. Lindsey Thomas, the advisory board chairman here, who may wish to speak later on, and also Mr. Hal Cannery (phonetic) from PFM from financial management ifthere's any questions involving that. So I'm here to receive your guidance. I would like to give you a little bit of background other than what's in your packages there; that way you can make an informed decision, and I will be brief. Up on your visualizer there on your scope, you'll see that there's a CRA boundary, and there's two sites that we're looking at presently. And the sites in the red one is up in the Davis triangle area. And, Commissioner Fiala, that's in your district. And the yellow area is down in the Bayshore Drive area. Commissioner Coyle, that's in your district. Looking at the one down in the Bayshore district area there, you Page 225 December 16, 2008 can see on the map in the headings the location. The CRA currently owns 18 acres off of Bayshore Drive, and you can see that there's a cutout parcel in it. And this is the site that is the subject, and we've been looking at it for over two years. Here's a drill down into the aerial, and you'll see the 18-acre site owned by the CRA. That pretty much borders about 10 acres of uplands with about 8 acres of water, and it's around Lake Kelly. If we acquire this site, it will then give us about 820 feet of road frontage, which makes it very attractive to a developer at that point without the cutout parcel, and this has been identified, as is shown in your packages, as a catalyst project location. In 2006, we offered to buy the property from a man. It was appraised at 1.2 million. We had it appraised this October, and it -- because of the economy and the land values decreasing, it's valued now at 660,000. Pressing on. I'm going to go back up to the Davis triangle. And again, just to give you the lay of the land. The area that we're going to be looking at -- this is Commissioner Coyle's district. This is Commissioner Fiala's district, and this is the location of the site. It's right at the point there. So you can see where that -- the site that we'll be looking at. This is a visual -- this is an aerial taken from overhead, the City of Naples looking to the west, and this is the triangle area. It's called the mini-triangle that we're looking it. It's about 14 acres of site development. Give you another perspective of the location. You're now over what would be about the Gate -- Gulf Gate Plaza area, right at the intersection of Bayshore and u.s. 41, looking out over the site. You can see the triangle is the dotted area, and there's two subject parcels in there. The red one and the blue one. And you can see the development that's happened on the other side of the City of Naples city line in that, and the airport to the north. Page 226 December 16, 2008 Drilling down, we take a look at the site. You can take a look at it, this 14-acre site. You don't see much on it, okay. A lot of parking lot, a lot of older buildings. And I'm going to tell you why it's a focused interest in it. This graphic here, if you'll look at it, it's two colors. The color is the light green and the color is the light gray. The light green is where the property value is greater than the value of the improvements that are on the land. The gray areas is where it's just reverse. The improvements are greater than the land value. Over time that's the way things happened, and I'll point this out later. The things that are on this land don't -- aren't very -- great value. They were built in '60s, '70s, and '80s. So we'll go back to the aerial here, and the first site is -- if you remember back January of2007, we worked with -- the Burger King site's 1.6 acres. Back then it was appraised at 3.5 million. We had it under contract. Strand case came into effect. It's now been appraised this October at 2.55 million, a million dollars less. You can see its location. Due to the Land Development Code -- that site is pretty small -- you could not building anything to get a return on value on that site because of the restrictions the Land Development Code put on it. You'd probably have to acquire the light green parcel also with the old Bob Taylor Chevrolet in order to get enough land and massing and cost to be able to build something that would give return to value on an investor or developer. The only building on the blue site is the old Burger King building, about 6,000 square feet. The parcel directly to the east and bordered in red has been assembled by a family. It's seven parcels, about 6.29 acres. And in that parcel there, there is, again, multiple pieces that the man was going to assemble in 2005. The economy changed. He stopped the property assembly and sat on it and since then is trying to recoup his -- Page 227 .... _^_.,."_____"..U_L.__'_'__...._~'_,._.__._.,_... .. ...'" n.........._.,."_.....~_...__.__..,..___ December 16, 2008 enough money to pay his debt service on it. This is the buildings that are on there. These buildings are old prefab metal buildings. They don't have great value, pretty much knockdown, but they served their useful purpose, and that's why the land is of greater value than the property. Looking at it from a total site of this acreage here, 6.29, you can see how much it takes up of the 14 acres. Of the thing -- to look at it, if it -- why it's important to us is because of the economy and the man that owns it right now. He's had two offers to divide the property back up into seven parcels again. The first parcel is a cell tower. The cell tower's owned by AT&T. They're renting the space and the land. Makes economic sense to buy the land. And I tell you what, if an A TT or cell tower owns the land, they're never moving. They're going to be there forever, okay. The other parcel's a man that's currently renting the Bob Taylor Chevrolet. He's found out through economics, return on investment, that if he buys that land, he gets better investment out of it than renting it for the next 15,20 years to run his business. So if you look at the Burger King and you bought it alone and didn't pay attention to the red sectors, you have two parcels right in the middle that are going to be gone, okay. Then you'll never be able to assemble it for a very long time. So the thing to look at is, if you think the mini-triangle's important to you as a CRA board, if you think it's important to the redevelopment and creating a higher tax base and putting higher-quality development after many years, you need to look at all 7.95 acres as assembled, and then you can see with the white dotted line around it that it is a significant portion of it there. Now, the CRA doesn't have enough funds to go out and buy all 14 acres. We just don't have it. So we -- I wanted to lead you down a thinking path here for you to make an informed decision. Page 228 December 16, 2008 The catalyst project, there's three -- the first four things in there are centrally located, zoned properly, got an overlay district, and 168 residential density. The thing that needs to be done is these three things. We're at the nexus now to decide to do something or decide to do nothing, okay? And there is a risk involved with both and there's a recourse involved with both of them. So when you look at it, if we can assemble it, find an end user and get some specific needs for that 14 acres, there's four different things that you possibly could find on it. Right now, what is needed to bring the developer/investor in is zoning, permits, impact fees, enterprise initiatives from the EDC brown fields designation, government participation. And the thing is that if you don't bring these on board, it is what it is. And without the above, it will stay what it is for a long time, and that's a conscious decision that needs to be made by the CRA board if you want to leave it as it is or do something different. So going back to the parcel there, if you look at it, he says, well, what about the people on the perimeter? Well, if you look at what's happening here, is these people have talked to us in one form or another over the last two years of either saying, I will sell, I will contribute my land or my building in some force to be part of the development, or I will relocate, and that's what we would do if we got together and put enough incentives in the right package in this location to make it happen. Here's a view of what was -- something would have if you had a multi-story building there of some form. But one of the things that we sell every day in Collier County, it's a great place to live, okay. So if you take a look at it, several things. Goals. CRA, we're supposed to stimulate investment. We need to position ourself to market ourselves when the market recovers. What is our desired outcome? Spend money to get involvement or provide significant incentives to get private investment. What are Page 229 December 16, 2008 your options? Invest in public infrastructure throughout the CRA, land bank for the future redevelopment, or do both. So some things for you to consider. Now, quickly I'm going to go through an analogy here, sports analogy. There's three participants in a football game. There's the crowd, there's the coach standing on the sideline, and there's the players. If we do nothing, we're in the crowd. You're sitting there all alone, and you're just watching, and you'll hope things will happen. If you'll be the coach, you're on the sideline, you're the regulator, and you try to regulate what goes on there, but it's privately owned by a private person, and they can do what they want with their property rights. Your only control is the Land Development Code, fees, and permits. Or you can be the players. And if you are the player, you have the controls. When you own it, you control it, you control the intensity, the density, and the design, and the end-user. So I'm going to summarize. The Bayshore property, $660,000. In the mini-triangle, you have the Burger King. Right now, I've talked with the owner. The owner is willing to accept an offer. He hasn't given me a price. It is appraised at 2.55. The Coradi property, 6.29 acres. You purchase it for 9.5 million. Currently appraised at 9.7 million as is. He's willing to take a 2.5 million hit to give it up if the CRA buys it as a package. Basically, it's appraised at $35 a square foot. We would get it at $27 a square foot. The good thing about it though is it currently has leases. It brings him about $440,000 in leases each year to help service the debt. Okay. eRA loan debt, if we absorb the $6-million line of credit with the new line of credit and you did do the math at the bottom there, those are estimates. We don't know what the bid is that's coming in on it. You'll end up with some money to service the debt. Page 230 December 16, 2008 It will be about 300,000 to 500,000 a year annual to service that debt to make a go from there. So that's where we're at. The choice is up to the CRA board on where you want to go. I'm here for your direction. We have three parcels, or we have three owners offering us multiple parcels, and where do you want to go with it, what do you feel is most a priority. Before you speak, I will give you my priorities. First is go for the red one because it's the biggest one, it's in the middle; go for the Burger King second; and the one on Bayshore go for third. And I don't know what the answer will be when we get the contracts out to them. I'm here for your guidance. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The CRA district, what kind of debt can it encumber in service? MR. JACKSON: The financial manager's looked at our debt service numbers, and they feel we can handle up to $20 million. If we take all $20 million in debt service, that really limits and restricts how much work we do in infrastructure and other programs. It will be -- it will be a thing, Commissioner, we'll have to stay within our budget, and we'll budget accordingly. The first thing taken off the top is the debt service, and then if we get personnel and also into other infrastructure improvements. How much can we handle? Finan- -- Hal Cannary's here -- is here if you want to have him speak to that subject on how much we can handle. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you saying we can do a $20 million debt service and still keep you employed and your staff? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You just -- your flexibility goes away. What was the advisory board's recommendation? Page 231 December 16,2008 MR. JACKSON: The advisory board in 2006 recommended we go up to the Shadley property on Bayshore Drive as part of that catalyst project. We've been working that for two years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's kind of changed. What -- MR. JACKSON: For the mini-triangle, the advisory board has given unanimous approval to go after the Burger King and the red properties -- the blue and red properties in the triangle. And they did that on December 2nd. MR. MUDD: And the red property is Caradi's? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the Bayshore property, did you broach that topic? MR. JACKSON: That is an ongoing discussion with the advisory board, and they know that we've been trying to work on that. And I give them monthly reports on my discussions with the Shadley family. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. JACKSON: It's a family trust, and there are some health issues with the patriarch, and they're working through that. And right now it looks like the children are beginning to get control of that, and that's why the discussions are finally coming to a decision point. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. JACKSON: So all three -- all three parcel -- all three properties of multiple parcels are still on the advisory board's radar scope to acquire. eOMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not sitting as a BCC member, but I know as BCC member our limitations to assist in any endeavors. In my opinion, if the CRA can handle a debt like that, I don't have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. David, don't you have something that says, here's my current debt, here's how much debt I Page 232 December 16, 2008 would incur if! buy these properties, and here's how much remaining borrowing power I will have, and here's how much I'll get from leasing the property that I've purchased? You know, don't you have something, you know, that sort of nets this out for everybody, so we can see exactly what we're talking about? MR. JACKSON: I apologize, sir. No, I do not, not at this moment, but I can get that for you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Let's walk through it then. We've got to get through it at this meeting or you're going to be talking about another month delay. How much debt do you have right now? MR. JACKSON: Six million. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got 6 million in debt? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How much can you handle total? How much debt can you actually handle and service a debt? MR. JACKSON: Twenty. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Twenty million? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. JACKSON: Our revenue stream is 2 million, and subtract personnel from that, operating and capital and the debt service, and we would have, you know, a minimum amount in reserves. The pro forma numbers that I'm looking at is a -- on a full 20 million line of credit. We really don't want to do that. We want to bring it to about 17-. It's about $900,000 a year for principal and interest. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You're mixing up too many things for us to follow. Let's take it one step at a time. You've got $20 million -- you're capable of servicing $20 million of debt. You currently have $6 million of debt already. That leaves you with $14 million. Page 233 December 16, 2008 MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you buy the Caradi property and the Burger King property, you're talking about -- MR. JACKSON: 10.1 million. MR. MUDD: Ten million, you take -- subtract 10 from the 14, you still have just a little less than 4 million. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that leaves you 4 million of additional debt service, okay. So if you wanted to go to the other property on Bayshore Drive, how much is that going to cost you? MR. JACKSON: 650,000. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you're still looking at 300 -- $3.4 million. And you're going to get $400,000 in cash flow if you purchase the Caradi property; is that correct? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you're already getting $2 million, did I hear you say -- MR. JACKSON: That is our-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- revenue? MR. JACKSON: That's our annual TIF. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. So it appears -- and I'd like someone to verify the conclusion I'm about to draw here. It appears you can afford to spend that kind of money on this property and service the debt without any difficulties. Under those circumstances, this is very much like the marina property that we talked about earlier today. It's a perfect time to buy it if we've got the money to buy it, because the price is lower. Ifwe wait until the market turns around, we might lose some of this property, in which case this golden opportunity will probably disappear forever. So I would agree with you that we should proceed with purchasing the property in the mini-triangle first, and then we begin to look at the property along Bayshore Drive once we've sorted out how much the first purchase is going to cost us, and we'll just reassess our Page 234 December 16, 2008 financial position at that point in time. And I think the timing is probably pretty right for it to happen in that sequence. But I agree with your conclusions. I think it's a good strategy, and it will be a wonderful benefit for the community. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, it sounded like you were making a motion in there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- yeah, that you come back to us with -- MR. JACKSON: With contracts. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- with contracts at least 30 percent below what you're suggesting. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle and a second, but I have a speaker. MR. THOMPSON: I'll waive. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Waive? MR. THOMPSON: Everything's been said. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good, very good. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excellent motion, excellent. Thank you. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: And with that, I'll close the CRA meeting and open back up the BCC meeting. Page 235 December 16, 2008 And we move on to? Item #100 RECOMMENDATION THAT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVES OPTION #3 AND TAKES NO ACTION ON PUBLIC PETITIONER'S REQUEST TO CHANGE ALLOWABLE USES IN THE RANDALL BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUB-DISTRICT WITHIN THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND THE MIR MAR PUD - MOTION TO REISSUE THE APRIL 18,2008 ZONING VERIFICATION LETTER AND PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE NOTIFIED BY RWA REGARDING AN APPEAL HEARING - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to -- that brings us to our five o'clock, okay, because -- I have a lot of people waiting for gas and energy, but you've got a five o'clock that -- but I don't think you're going to get to finish. So five o'clock is 100. 100 is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves Option 3 and takes no action on public petition request to change allowable uses in the Randall Boulevard subdistrict within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Mir Mar PUD. This item was requested to be moved from the consent to the regular agenda by Commissioner Coletta. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we go any further, Terri, do you need a break? THE COURT REPORTER: After this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it might be a break until tomorrow. COMMISSIONER COYLE: This shouldn't take that long, should it? Page 236 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It could take an hour and a half. Just joshin'. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's go. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put him on the clock. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I'm David Weeks of your Comprehensive Planning staff. This is a presentation today as a follow-up to your November 14th public petition item regarding the allowable uses in the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and also the Mir Mar PUD, which is one of the two PUDs that comprises that subdistrict. Specifically the discussion on the public petition was, how can the uses be expanded? How can additional uses be allowed in that Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict? Also, there was a question about a zoning verification letter that had been issued to the property owner earlier this year in which 16 uses were referenced, whereas the subdistrict has a total of 13 uses identified. And I think it will be helpful to have some background, Commissioners. I'll be as brief as I can. And let me start with that discrepancy and put that aside. The reason staff has identified a longer list of uses than was identified in the subdistrict in the Golden Gate Master Plan is because some of those uses listed in the master plan actually are comprised of multiple use. In the executive summary I give an example where one of the listings is shoe repair, TV repair, and so forth. Well, shoe repair is distinctly different from those types of appliances. That will be viewed as a separate use. So that one alone comes from one uses to two. That's where the discrepancy comes from. As I said earlier, there are two PUDs that comprise this subdistrict, the Mir Mar PUD, which the public petitioner has interest in, and the Randall Boulevard Center PUD. Let's start with the -- again, briefly, some history. Page 237 December 16, 2008 The Randall Boulevard Center PUD was approved first before there ever was a subdistrict on this property. It was approved in accordance with the 1983 Comprehensive Plan. And at that time that plan limited the uses to convenience/commercial type uses. It's a limited use. In 1989 when the county adopted the present Growth Management Plan, the same list of so-called 13 uses that were approved in that PUD were carried over into the subdistrict and to the Growth Management Plan. That is how we ended up with such a very specific list of land uses which is unique in the Golden Gate Master Plan. Even the neighborhood centers, which have a lot of specificity, do not have this level, this zoning level of a list of allowable uses. The Mir Mar PUD was approved a few years after the Randall Boulevard based upon the same subdistrict that had that same list of specific uses identified in the master plan. So those very same uses got listed, with one exception. On the entry that says office uses, professional offices, it also specifically stated, including branch banks. I could only conclude that the board at that time determined that a bank was a type of professional office. I can tell you that today staff would not view it that way, but nonetheless that occurred back then. And on Page 3 of your executive summary for this item, I've listed a table that shows you the list of uses in the subdistrict and each of those two respective PUDs. So you can see for yourself how they are identical with the exception of the branch banks. Another exception, which is not really relevant, is the fact that the Randall Boulevard CUD -- PUD mentions a 25,000-square-foot limitation that is not included within the Mir Mar PUD. I will also tell you that, going back to the Randall Boulevard eenter PUD, when it was approved in ] 986, not only was -- were we dealing with a different Comprehensive Plan, but also the zoning ordinance at that time listed a shopping center as a use. Today we don't treat it that way in the zoning code. It is a type of structure with Page 238 December 16, 2008 a certain number of units and/or a certain square footage. But at that time it was listed in the C2, 3,4 and 5 zoning districts. Shopping center was listed as a use. And the types of uses allowed in the shopping center would only be those uses found within the zoning district in which the shopping center was listed. For example, if you're in the C3 zoning district, your property is zoned C3. You want to develop a shopping center, you could only develop C3 uses in that shopping center. You can't jump over and grab a C5 use and put it in your shopping center. So it was in alignment. The same thing for that Mir Mar PUD. Shopping center is listed as an -- allowable uses, but the only uses allowed there are those uses listed in the PUD. There's no ability to reach out and go to some other zoning district, grab a use, and place it within that shopping center. I think that's important because shopping center is -- it's unusual to see it listed this way as a use. But that is based on past practice in the former zoning ordinance. Commissioners, there's a few options here, one of which would be for the property owner to -- excuse me -- for you to direct staff to issue to the property owner another zoning verification letter, just as occurred earlier this year. Why would you do that? Well, if you chose to do that, that would allow the property owner to have a time period in which they could file an appeal to that determination, which would come before you as the Board of Zoning Appeals. Another option, of course, is you could direct staff to initiate an amendment to the Growth Management Plan to broaden the list of uses. That is a more comprehensive approach. Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or Growth Management Plan will be a more comprehensive approach, because that is the ability to add many uses to the subdistrict, whereas, the official zoning letter, the zoning letter verification letter, is key towards a specific use or uses. Page 239 December 16, 2008 Similarly, the property owner could file for an official interpretation, an 01, which, again, would be subject to appeal to you as the Board of Zoning Appeals. But that, again, is tailored towards a use or few uses as opposed to an amendment where we open up the entire subdistrict and potentially could add a lot of uses to it. Another option the board could take though is to take no action, and that is the action that staff recommends to you. There are processes in place, including that official interpretation or the applicant. The property owner could file for a GMP amendment to change those list of uses. As far as the fiscal impact goes, Commissioners, going this process where the property owner went to the public petition and then you directed staff to bring this back to you, we've estimated an expense of approximately $1,200 to date. That's due to the necessary research and prepare this executive summary to bring to you today. A Growth Management Plan amendment is expensive and it's time consuming, but that is, again, the most comprehensive approach. And I think for the property owner, if they want to put this issue aside once and for all, broaden the list of uses, that is the best approach, and that would have to be followed by a subsequent amendment to the PUD to also add additional uses. Again, staffs recommendation is that you take no action. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's it. Questions? Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to hear the attorney for the petitioner or the -- excuse me, in this case -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think he's been demoted. MR. NADEAU: Mr. Yovanovich might take offense. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No offense. MR. NADEAU: I approach you with a little bit of material that may help you -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good fan. Page 240 December 16, 2008 MR. NADEAU: There you go. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm Planning Manager for R W A. I'm representing Pack of Collier, the owner of the Mir Mar PUD, Armando and Maria Cabrera. I think staff did a very good job with their $1,200. They did some very accurate research. The '83 adoption of the Randall Boulevard PUD did provide for convenience stores as well as gas stations, and the lowest order level of goods and services. It's important to understand the term goods and services. Services could be more like professional services. Goods being that which you would buyout of your convenience store or out of a shoe shore, those land uses that are provided for in the Mir Mar PUD. Your staff report does go along and say that the Mir Mar PUD was adopted in 1998, and it was found consistent with the Growth Management Plan at that time. David already explained how shopping centers were associated with the zoning districts in which a shopping center land use was permitted. The staff report does -- or excuse me. The executive summary on Page 4 provides you an opportunity, Commissioners. It says in the middle of the first paragraph on Page 4, conceivably the uses from the C 1 through C3 zoning districts could be allowed similar to the neighborhood center subdistrict in the Golden Gate Area Master plan. Well, as you heard in Mr. Weeks' presentation, he was telling you what has occurred in the past. He's saying that we had a Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict adopted at the same time as the neighborhood centers within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as a part of that adoption. Well, the neighborhood centers were basically serving the same service area, two to three miles, and they were providing for those range of uses in the C 1 through C3 land use categories, zoning districts. Page 241 December 16, 2008 Well, here we are 25 years after the Mir Mar P- -- after the Randall Center PUD has been adopted, and things have changed in our community. Maybe it's that the Randall Boulevard Commercial Center subdistrict is functioning like a neighborhood center, and with this opportunity provided for in your executive summary, you may want to consider that. You may want to make a policy statement and say that it's our opinion today that the Randall Boulevard commercial district is so similar to a neighborhood center that it should be afforded the same range of uses, Cl through C3. Well, now there could be some concern about what is permitted in Cl through C3, thus I gave you this document. And you can see here that the C2 district is intended to implement neighborhood center district of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. You can also see that the commercial intermediate C3 district is that area -- are those land uses which you typically would see in a shopping center. Well, if we take a look at the criteria on the next page of my handout, it says, the criteria for neighborhood centers are as follows: Commercial uses shall be limited to intermediate commercial to provide a wider variety of goods. These uses shall be similar to C2 and C3 zoning districts outlined in the Land Development Code. Are there concerns about what the land uses are in C2 and C3? I've provided them for you in a form that's easy to read. Our current Land Development Code, 04-55, as amended, puts it in table form, and it's not that easy for you to read. This is in a listing form. I've gone through these land uses in C2 and C3. C2, many of the uses that are in C2 are already permitted in the Mir Mar PUD and the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict, including apparel stores, with some limitations. The C3 land uses still provide for convenience stores and gas stations, but it has restaurants similar to what's permitted in the Mir Mar PUD. It's permitted to have general merchandise stores. Page 242 December 16, 2008 Now, group care facility, probably not. It's a 2.38-acre site. The site itself would preclude that type ofland use. Hardware stores are already permitted in the Mir Mar PUD. Your C3 uses, you might have some automotive service, but you're already allowed to have automotive gas stations. You're allowed to have veterinary clinics but no outside -- no outside kenneling is permitted. So we could -- we can basically say that we're not going to be impacting the neighbors with barking dogs and -- barking dogs. Cats don't bark. So with this, Commissioners, on behalf of the property owner, we'd like to be brought up to date. And given the limited amount of resources that this landowner has, we'd like to be brought up to date with some simple measures and policy statements by this board this evening, and that would be that you consider or view the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict and the Mir Mar PUD as a neighborhood center, and they should be permitted to have -- and be afforded to have the land uses in the C 1 through C3 zoning districts. And this can be accomplished without having to amend the PUD. We could put a note on the zoning map and say, by adoption or policy, potentially by resolution, the board has determined that Mir Mar PUD's allowed to have Cl through C3 uses. And in the next cycle of -- or in a cycle of your choosing, you could amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to add a note to the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict that says it's being treated as a neighborhood center, or you could even redesignate that as a neighborhood center and have the C 1 through C3 land uses provided for in that area, and we wouldn't have to make any global changes to the document. I offer you -- offer myself up for questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want to go to Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Coletta, and then Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we had a similar request earlier today where we were being asked by Page 243 December 16, 2008 Mr. Hancock to make a policy decision that would shortcut this process, and it was the decision of the majority of the board that there is an established process for accomplishing these changes and you have to go through that process. Now, whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant. The point is, we need to treat people essentially the same. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't refuse one person the right to make a -- you can't refuse them the expectation to have the Collier County Commission make a policy statement concerning our Growth Management Plan intent and then later in the day grant the very same thing to another petitioner. So I don't see how we can, in all fairness, proceed with this other than to accept the staffs recommendation of item -- alternative three. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. There's a vast difference between earlier this morning and what we see before us now, and I'm very familiar with the history. I've shared the original master plan that put this togeth- -- put together a lot of the rules and regulations that go throughout that area. And I can tell you it was never the intention of the group at that time to become so restrictive as far as uses go. This is an existing commercial area. The one we looked at earlier, if we remember correctly, was an open space for an infill; completely different. What we're looking at is adding some uses here that would be -- fall right in lines with the neighborhood. What I would suggest and what I'd like to see done as a matter of policy, have this brought back at the next meeting with -- bringing this up to what you're allowed to do up to C3. At that point in time, it can be advertised, get the public's input at the meeting, and we'll also be able to view all the uses for C2 and C3 to make sure they're really Page 244 December 16, 2008 conducive to what takes place. But let's try to simplify this. Let's -- it's getting to be so convoluted that it's unreal. Okay. And Mr. Klatzkow, help me with this so that we can get this done. MR. KLA TZKOW: Okay. I'm not entirely sure what it is that you want. You want us to come back at the next meeting with a public meeting for C3 zoning; is that it? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To be able to recognize the fact that this is -- this should be allowed to be declared C3 zoning in place of what it has now for some very limited uses, which makes absolutely no sense. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I'm not sure, Commissioner -- if you don't mind. I'm not sure if that statement is true. If you -- and I remember that, you were on the original committee. And I remember going to a couple meetings. I figured, I don't want to get involved if Jim Coletta's involved. Just kidding. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Merry Christmas. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What -- a shopping center is not a use. A shopping center is a business or is a building where you put the uses on. So why or what was the intent to put shopping centers in a use? Now, Mr. Weeks said, used to -- if you were designated a shopping center, you had particular uses in the '83 Land Development Code -- if I'm saying that right, David. Is that a summarize (sic) of what was done in the '80s? MR. WEEKS: You're off by one year, but otherwise correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It was what, '82? MR. WEEKS: '82 zoning ordinance, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I have one of those in my office. So if the intent was to have those uses in the shopping center and it was identified in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan but never Page 245 December 16, 2008 caried over to the Land Development Code, that's where the mistake came m. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The master plan recognized the fact that these uses were needed. MR. KLATZKOW: If! may -- because my office has done research on this a month ago, all right, in preparation for the initial public (sic). To get back at what Commissioner Coletta was getting at, I think we should bring this back, okay. And I happen to think C2 zoning is the correct zoning on this one based on the old codes, all right. But we have a mechanism to do this, and that would be Option 1, which is that the zoning verification letter gets reissued. The applicant can then appeal it. Necessary notices can go out to the adjacent property owners so their voice can be heard. They may be in opposition. I don't know, all right. And then Mr. Nadeau can come forward with his review of this, our office will come forward with our review of this, and then it will be a matter for the board to interpret what it is that the code says and what it is that the Comprehensive Plan says, and we'll have the dually advertised public meeting. Any decision of the board, in my opinion at that time, would be upheld. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Could I just add something to that and finish up? Yeah, I -- Jeff, I think we're close to where we need to go. We're talking about a time element. We're talking about cost. What I would suggest, that we limit the actual cost related to the required advertising and the notices that have to go out, and that might get us to a point we need to be. What kind of a time element are we looking at? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, may I interject, please? For a zoning verification letter, which is option one, there is no notice requirement involved. That's strictly a communication between the applicant and staff. Page 246 ~.------"--_.._.-->...~_..-.-".__._---- December 16, 2008 The official interpretation request, which can then be appealed, that's the process that includes public notice. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why not reissue the letter of April 18, 2008, just reissue that letter -- MR. WEEKS: That could be done and appealed, but I'm saying that there's no noti- -- the only notification process is that letter going to the person that's requesting it. No surrounding properties are notified. No type of public notice of any type. That's a totally different process than the official interpretation process. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what I'd like to do -- let me try to cut to the chase so we can get to the discussion. Make a motion to direct staff to reissue the April 18, 2008, zoning verification letter and if appealed by the applicant, which, of course, it will happen, that the county attorney review the appeal and issue an opinion as the permitted use ofMir Mar PUD, and that applicant's cost be limited to the actual cost related to the required advertising and notice. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. MR. KLATZKOW: And ifthere is no required advertising, we're done. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, you heard the motion and the second. So if there is any cost in advertising, then they're to be the actual cost. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we saying we're going to make this change without a public hearing? MR. KLATZKOW: There will be a public hearing. It's going to come back to the board. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It will be advertised to the adjacent property owners and there will be a public hearing. MR. KLA TZKOW: I think it should be advertised, and I think there should be a public hearing, yes. Page 247 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: But did Commissioner Coletta's motion do that? MR. KLATZKOW: I think it does, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, explain to me how that is different than what we refused to do earlier today, or is it the same thing? MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's pretty much the same thing what you did earlier today. I think you're being consistent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I'm concerned about, because what we did earlier today is exactly the same thing as we're trying to do here. So if we're being consistent, I'm okay with it, but if we're not being consistent, I'm not okay with it. MR. KLATZKOW: I think you're consistent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I need a clear answer. MR. KLA TZKOW: I think you're consistent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. ISTENES: I disagree, respectfully. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on, hang on, hang on. Hang on. One at a time. Commissioner Coyle has the floor. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, tell me -- tell me what you disagree with then? MS. ISTENES: The -- my understanding of the action you took this morning was the applicant was directed to do an official interpretation. With that process, you have a required notification, both a publication in the newspaper and a required mail-out to surrounding property owners of a stated distance in the code. With a zoning verification letter, which is what the motion maker suggested now, there is no requirement in the LDC for public notification. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that was the zoning notification letter of 1982? MS. ISTENES: No. Page 248 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what the -- MR. MUDD: The zoning verification letter was an attach- -- was attached and it was dated -- and it would be dated -- the draft letter would be dated December 16, 2008. MR. SCHMITT: Page 7. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. Commissioner Coletta specifically said, reissue the zoning notification letter of 198- what -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I did not. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, he didn't. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: April 18, 2008. MR. MUDD: 2008. MS. ISTENES: The reissuance will then start the clock for the 30-day appeal process, which is why we're suggesting it be reissued, because that 30 days has expired. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. ISTENES: So it will give the ability of the applicant to appeal if they wish. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you talking about issuing a zoning verification letter or reissuing a zoning notice? MS. ISTENES: Reissuing the zoning verification letter that was previously issued. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then that will prompt a public advertisement and a public hearing. MS. ISTENES: There will be a -- if the applicant files an application for an appeal, the appeal itself will be notified -- noticed in the newspaper, but the -- there will be no -- similar to what you do in a rezoning, there will be no mail-outs to surrounding property owners. COMMISSIONER COYLE: See, I'm not buying that. You know, I think we've got to do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Would you buy it if! include that in my motion that the immediate property owners be Page 249 December 16, 2008 notified? COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we're going through the full process of notifying property owners and having a public hearing and the costs are going to be paid for by the petitioner. Is all that true? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm sorry. Let me -- the motion that I made was pretty simple. It was to try to simplify the process but still have due process in it. Adding the particular about notification out there, I think that's something that we could do, but I -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now Mr. Nadeau, from what I understand, is saying they will notify the abutting neighbors. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, once -- and I'm not finished yet. You know, on several occasions today Commissioner Coletta has said, I'm concerned about making sure that the public gets notice and that there are public hearings. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, what we're describing here, unless we go a little further, will shortcut that process. I want to make sure that we're not shortcutting it. So please tell me what steps we have to take and what sequence we have to take them in, in order to assure that there is a full and complete notification of property owners and the public so we can have a public hearing on this issue. MS. ISTENES: There's two options -- well, probably three. But I'm going to state the two that are clearly stated in your code, because what we're attempting to do is create a hybrid here that's not stated in the code. So the two options that are stated in your code would be the official interpretation process whereby the applicant pays a fee, submits an application, the application is analyzed, a response is provided, and then the property -- surrounding property owners are notified of the response and the ability to file an appeal, as well as an Page 250 December 16, 2008 advertisement is placed in the Naples Daily News with the ability to file for an appeal, and that ability lasts for 30 days from the date of the last advertisement, which I usually count as the newspaper ad. That's usually the last. That's one option. The other option is to do the -- what staff recommended was basically that the applicant can come in and amend the Growth Management Plan and rezone the PUD. Both of those are public hearing processes that are dually notified. MR. KLA TZKOW: Your staff option in your executive summary was to reissue the April 18th zoning verification letter. If the only issue is notice, would the petitioner be willing to send out written letters to the adjacent property owners in the same manner as MS. ISTENES: He said he would, but -- yeah, but I just want to make sure that we're, again, attempting to create the hybrid process here that doesn't exist, and I think I'm reading that as your concern. So that's all I needed to say about that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay. I've got it. I understand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? MR. NADEAU: If! may put it on the record. Again, Dwight Nadeau. The applicant is more than willing to send out property owner notification letters, and we have no objection to paying for the advertisement in the Naples Daily News. We know that there is a $1,000 fee that's associated with the appeal of the zoning verification letter. So that would be $1,000 out of my client's pocket, the cost to prepare and mail the letters, as well as to pay for the newspaper ad. It will be properly public noticed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And I think what we discussed this morning -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- but we talked to the point to where this may have to go before the Planning Page 251 December 16, 2008 Commission. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, a -- no. A notice -- an official interpretation -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- does not go to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, but if the -- in respect to what took place this morning was that there was -- you'd almost have to have a GMP amendment in regards to addressing this particular issue; am I correct? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the -- you're correct that the most full and open process is amend the Growth Management Plan and then follow up with the PUD amendment. Both of those processes require the most notice of any processes you have. Both of those go through a review process that will include the Planning Commission and then finally this body. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what -- I think we came up with the determination this morning. MR. WEEKS: This morning that was one option. The other option, which I believe the -- Mr. Hancock indicated he was going to pursue, was an official interpretation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: That's what Susan identified, which can then be appealed to this body as the Board of Zoning Appeals, and that includes a notice process. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm going to support the motion, so I think there's enough to do the process of the zoning verification, and then notices -- the enhanced version of notices, putting it in the newspaper and mailing out in the neighborhood. MR. NADEAU: Yes, Mr. Chairman. And if! may, there was backup material in the executive summary package where the draft Page 252 December 16,2008 appeal letter has already been prepared. So if this April 18, 2008, zoning verification letter were reissued next week, we would be able to response to that, and the appeal could be rapidly provided by staff because it's already been drafted. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Can we go to public speakers? COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's okay with me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. FILSON: I have two public speakers. Vivilan (sic) Jimenez. She'll be followed by Paul Candi -- Landi. It's a C or an L. MS. JIMENEZ: Here or here? MS. FILSON: Doesn't matter. MS. JIMENEZ: Hi. I'm Vivian Jimenez. I'm a Realtor. I've been here since 1998. And just to let you know, the neighboring surrounding community property owners have asked me to help Mr. Armando and Maria Cabrera to try to get zoning differences for the shopping centers, as they want to rent, and currently their use does not supply what they want to put in. I know that one of the things that wanted to be in the shopping center was a karate school, and the current zoning does not allow that. That's what I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Paul Landi. MR. LANDI: Hi. How are you guys? I own L'Appetito, the Randall location. I feel that we need tenants out there. I mean, it helps the economy. The economy is in disarray right now. And it takes a community of the plaza to help the plaza be successful. And right now, everybody's struggling out there. As you guys are aware, the economy is hurting, and we need great tenants out there to support that neighborhood. And I think it's -- a karate school out there would by great for kids. It's a great -- it's a great idea. After school interacts with us as a business and interacts with the neighborhood. That's it. Thank you. Page 253 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. You know, I don't understand -- well, I'm just going to make a statement here. We have what is a -- in the PUD and in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan a use of shopping, and a shopping center is not a use, but we know what is traditionally in shopping centers. And if you have an area, especially in Golden Gate Estates, that wants business, why aren't we helping them? Why aren't we helping them so they don't have to travel so far, use our infrastructure, and make it happen? I mean, it's a quality of life for them. It's a quality of life for, in this particular case, for people who live up and down Immokalee Road who those residents have to travel across. And it's just a win-win for everybody if we can make it happen. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Henning, you're right. And I was troubled a little bit by this when I talked to staff and I was told why I couldn't do it. I talked to Mark Strain, and Mark Strain also agreed with what we're saying here today, that this is, what do you call it, insignificant and it doesn't require -- shouldn't require the kind of review, that it should be something that we could do by policy. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we're taking that extra step with the zoning verification letter, plastering it in the newspaper, which nobody out there reads anyways, okay. I mean, they read the Golden Gate Citizen. That's the one that they read. They don't read the Naples Daily News, and then notifying (sic) it. So we're going way above board to do a good thing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the letters, too. Don't forget about that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, yeah, the letters going to the neighbors. But anyways, there's a motion and a second on the floor. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Once again, my only Page 254 December 16, 2008 concern is that we are being consistent in the way we're treating people. Now, will somebody tell me whether this is consistent with the way we treated the petitioner this morning? Because in my mind, these are identical situations. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, in my opinion, this is not the same. The -- as Susan said, we're creating a hybrid process. We're saying, let's do a zoning verification letter, but let's add a notice requirement. Well, you already have that process. It's called an official interpretation with an appeal process. It's there, it's in the code, everybody can see it. That's what the rules are. But it certainly seems to have -- to staff that you're, on the fly, creating a new process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Creating a new process where, with this motion? MR. WEEKS: With this, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's my point, okay? That's my point. MR. KLATZKOW: Let me just -- if! may. What is the difference between your zoning verification letting and an official interpretation? Because you've already ruled on the issue. I mean, you can call it -- you can call it whatever you want, but you already ruled on the issue. If they asked for an official interpretation of the same issue, how's it going to be any different than your zoning verification letter? MR. SCHMITT: Let me clarify. For the record, Joe Schmitt. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that's a good question that needs to be answered. MR. SCHMITT: I'm fighting with my two managers and my director. This morning had to do with a Compo Plan and a Compo Plan interpretation. That was different. This is a Compo Plan, but it also deals with zoning. On Page 7 of your executive summary, one of the items we Page 255 December 16, 2008 offered to do is to reissue the zoning, zoning verification letter. Now, understand that that is a very narrow process. It only had to do with, was a clothing store allowed at this shopping center. And my concern is -- and I think where Jeffwas coming from -- under option one, the zoning verification letter is a very, very simple administrative process. Applicant comes in, says, can I do this within the PUD? The zoning staff says yes or no. Under your Code of Laws and Ordinances under section 250-58, they can appeal a decision of a government official, which is a different type of appeal than what Tim was going to do this morning under the 01, official interpretation. This appeal would be very specific. It would be an appeal basically saying, can I open the clothing store at this location. Dwight wants to introduce new uses. And I don't know -- again, I'm concerned about that becoming part of the appeal process. But your zoning verification letter we redrafted. It's in your executive summary, Page 7. It's a new -- it's a new zoning verification letter, and what it does is just says that a clothing store is not allowed. Dwight would then have to appeal that, specifically concentrating on that one issue, and then he could bring in the issues having to do with C2 or 3 -- C3, but then you may be entering what is kind of slippery slope of almost amending an existing PUD. If you feel that this use is allowed and you believe that it's a use that certainly is acceptable, I would just say, so directed, and we'll do it. Now, that may be a problem legally or otherwise. But if that's the consensus of this board, we'll follow the consensus of the board. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, why didn't you tell us the same thing this morning when Mr. Hancock was making his appeal for essentially the same kind of issues? MR. SCHMITT: Mr.-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was a Growth Management Plan issue. Page 256 December 16, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: Right. This is a Growth Management Plan issue, but it also is a use based on an existing PUD. Tim was trying to get a policy decision to actually amend how to apply the Growth Management Plan having to do with the enlargement or expansion of an infill district. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was more specific than that. It was merely trying to get us to make an acknowledgment that a change in 2007 was not intended to cause the effect that is being caused for his client. You're saying the same thing here. You're saying that you want us to make an interpretation that we didn't intend for certain things to happen or not to happen here. You're asking us -- or the petitioner's asking us for a policy decision on the fly. It is exactly the same thing. And I still don't understand what you're telling me. MR. SCHMITT: I understand your logic. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: And what you're saying is basically that you're -- this is asking you for a policy decision just the same as Tim -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. That's exactly the same thing. MR. SCHMITT: -- was this morning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, you give me the same process and I'll support it. You give me a different process, and I'm not going to support it, but I don't know that it makes any difference. MR. SCHMITT: Then that process, to be consistent with what was this morning, would be Option 3, and that is where the -- you take no objection. You leave it up to the petitioner to basically ask for an official interpretation. They would send -- under an 01, ask for how to apply both the GMP and basically, in this case, the guidance in the PUD. They would submit for an official interpretation, which they then could appeal if the ruling did not come to their favor. Page 257 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: But -- and what you said to us earlier, was if you do it through a zoning verification, it would have to be a very narrow issue that had to do with the use of one specific business or use? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, that's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: In order for them to get changes that would be productive for their facility, they're going to have to look at other changes. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so what you're suggesting is, they're going to come in and try to sneak in those other changes during this debate over the zoning verification letter, and that's exactly what will have to happen if they're going to have a successful business there? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. I think-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So why not do it right? CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's not the motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. The motion is not right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you may vote no or you may vote yes, but let's call the motion and see where it goes from there, okay? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the way it works. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 2-1. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 3-1. Page 258 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 3-2. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 3-2. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 3-2. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'll get it right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. The pontification that's going on in these discussions, it's just unnecessary, and we could get a lot more things done. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just think we're going -- it's on down a slippery slope here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's what I'm talking about here. I have 15 minutes to go, and then I have an engagement. Item #IOL RECOMMENDATION TO: DEVELOP A LANDFILL GAS- TO- ENERGY FACILITY THAT WILL BENEFICIALLY USE LANDFILL GAS FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY AND, IN TURN, GENERATE NEW REVENUE FOR THE COUNTY'S SOLID WASTE FUND BY (A) ENTERING INTO A LANDFILL GAS SALES AGREEMENT AND GROUND LEASE AUTHORIZING WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA TO DESIGN, PERMIT, CONSTRUCT OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A LANDFILL GAS- TO-ENERGY FACILITY AT THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL; (B) AMENDING THE COUNTY'S LANDFILL OPERATION AGREEMENT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA; (C) APPROVING THE FACILITY THROUGH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS; (D) DIRECTING THE DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TO EXPEDITE THE PERMIT AND REVIEW PROCESS, AND (E) AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE Page 259 December 16, 2008 BOARD TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND THE AMENDMENT TO THE LANDFILL OPERATING AGREEMENT - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think we can do -- I think we can do 10L, because we've got some people that are here that have been sitting here. That has to do -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know how long -- MR. MUDD: Excuse me. That has to do with the recommendation to develop a landfill gas-to-energy facility that will beneficially use landfill gas from the Collier County Landfill to generate electricity, in turn generate new revenue for the county's solid waste fund by, A, entering into a landfill gas sales agreement and ground lease authorizing Waste Management, Inc., of Florida to design, permit, construct, operate, maintain a landfill gas-to-energy facility at the Collier County Landfill; B, amending the county's landfill operation agreement with Waste Management, Inc., of Florida; C, approving the facility through a Site Development Plan process; D, directing the division administrator from community development's environmental services to expedite the permit and review process; and E, authorizing the chairman of the board to execute the agreement and the amendment to the landfill operating agreement, and Mr. Dan Rodriguez, your director of solid waste, will present. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you need anything on the record? MR. MUDD: No. The reason -- the only reason that he needs to have CDES expedite is so that we meet the threshold, the time cutoff for the incentives, and that's the reason for that one. Outside of that, everything else is clearcut and it seems to be a Page 260 December 16, 2008 pretty good agreement that was negotiated. But Commissioner Henning could disagree with me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, it is what it is. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. How late does the board want to go? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to finish it up. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I pulled an item off the agenda, if we can go to that. Item #IOQ RESOLUTION 2008-388: GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PUBLIC) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF ARROWHEAD RESERVE AT LAKE TRAFFORD PHASE ONE WITH THE ROADWAY BEING MAINT AINED BY THE COUNTY AND THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That would be -- that would be 10Q, and that would be -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we do M? MR. MUDD: No. We're trying to get the ones done because he has a six o'clock. He received a memo that he has a prior engagement Page 261 December 16, 2008 that he has to go to, I believe. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. MUDD: And I'm looking. 10Q used to be 16A3. It's a recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (public) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Arrowhead Reserve at Lake Trafford, Phase I, with the roadway being maintained by the county and the drainage improvements being privately maintained. That item was pulled at Commissioner Henning's request. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the reason I pulled it is, we just did a Land Development Code amendment not to do these things -- is to approve the -- in PUDs, whether they be public or private roads, that we would not maintain them, and that's why I pulled the item. And Mr. Schmitt, I see, is gone. It's one of his items. MR. MUDD: Go ahead, Norm. You were there part of the decision that the board made prior. Go ahead, Norman, and then Joe will follow. MR. SCHMITT: Apologize. We were clearing up some guidance for Dwight. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're working on the -- on the -- I guess the Arrowhead issue. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir, Arrowhead. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the Board of Commissioners in the Land Development Code meeting says we're not going to take over any more roads in PUDs. MR. SCHMITT: That was the most recent round of LDC amendments, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. So that's why I pulled this so -- it's different than when the board approved the LDC amendment. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. This goes back to a 2002 PUD and a plat that was approved, and I don't have the date in front of me here. The plat was later approved both identifying it as such, and I've got -- this goes back to a -- and it was amended again in '05. 2005 ordinance Page 262 December 16, 2008 is on top. But under transportation, under paragraph I, it notes, roads will be public and dedicated to county at the time of platting, and that has been in that PUD since the PUD was first adopted in 2002. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it didn't say -- they could be public. Doesn't mean that we have to maintain them. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. There's nothing that states that. Now, Jim, if you could zero in. That's the -- on the plat itself -- and it does highlight. But that's correct. They could be public, but it doesn't state anything about maintaining -- if they're maintained by the county or by the residents. But the PUD did state that they would be public roads. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Well, let's just talk about the maintenance of it. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the concern. This was approved in 2003. This plat was approved in 2003. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I have the item, the executive summary item, and there is nothing in here that's saying that the county is going to maintain these roads. The board did not approve, give consent to staff, that we would maintain these roads. Do you agree with that? MR. SCHMITT: I agree. There's no -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: But yet this plat was recorded saying that the county would maintain these roads, correct? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That -- the staff does not have the ability to make those fiscal decisions. It's only the Board of Commissioners. Now, this is the reason why I took my signature away, for these very things. The Board of Commissioners approved things, and what is signed is not what the board approved. Page 263 December 16,2008 MR. SCHMITT: This plat -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: My signature's on this plat. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Henning, what you're suggesting is that we don't keep these roads in repair after we told the people that we were going to do this, that we -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: We never told-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or is it just a question of whose signature went where or when it went? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nobody told anybody, these people, that we were going to maintain these roads. Nobody said that. We said they'd be public, but we didn't say we'd maintain them. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So every road that's public out there that's within any kind of community, we no longer have to maintain them? This makes no sense. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Board of Commissioners approved an LDC amendment that, unless the board directs differently, we're not to maintain any road if they would come to us for maintenance within a PUD. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is this date prior to the time that Arrowhead was established? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Normally we do not apply LDC changes retroactively. If the -- whatever agreements were made at the time of either PUD acceptance or the recording of the final plat normally carrIes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me tell you what's going to happen here. I'm very familiar with Arrowhead and what's taking place there. At this point in time, they're in serious trouble, just like a lot of communities, more so there than you could ever expect. They only got about 20-some percent of the people contributing to their homeowners' fund that they have. The -- what do you call it, the Page 264 December 16, 2008 assessments? The place is falling in disrepair, and ifthe county all of a sudden decides that they're no longer liable for the roads within one gated community, I can guarantee you that they're not going to keep them up and repair them. There's no way they can. It's a desire situation. The understanding was, is that it was going to be taken over by the county. It was brought up to a certain standard. Am I wrong about this? The roads were brought up to a standard? MR. SCHMITT: They were required to be designed to the county standard, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. With the anticipation that the county was going to take them over when they reached that point. And now if we do a reversal on this, it's going to be extremely detrimental to that community. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who -- let me ask you. Who approved to make the county responsible for maintaining these roads? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I can't tell you who did what along the way, but I can tell you the expectation for all these communities out there that enter into these kind of agreements is that that's what happens. It's happened in the past, and it was expected to happen in the future. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But are these agreements a one-party agreement? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I don't have those agreements in front of me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have some public speakers? MS. FILSON: I have one speaker. George Hermanson. MR. HERMANSON: Good evening. I'm George Hermanson, partner with Hole Montes. We represent the petitioner. He's -- sends Page 265 December 16, 2008 his apologies. He's under the weather today, so I was called at the last minute when this was taken off the consent agenda. The statement that I wanted to highlight is the one in question, that is the plat of Arrowhead Unit I which was recorded in '05, April of'05. That was before this Land Development Code amendment was in place. At this time this was recorded there were both publicly and privately maintained roads allowed in the county. We went through the process, as anybody did. The roads were required to be built to county standards. The right-of-ways are to county standard. The plat went through the review and went through the county commission at the hearing and was approved and recorded. So I'm not here to tell you what you have to do, but I am telling you that's what the documentation says. The developer, when we went through the process, even considered a gated community, but he was told that with a gated community they would be private roads and privately maintained. With open roads they'll be publicly maintained. So he chose that option. I will tell you that Lincoln Boulevard, which is the main road, does connect at both ends. It can be used by the public. So -- and as far as the economics of the situation are concerned, Commissioner Coletta, you're right, there are budget problems. They have not budgeted for road maintenance. They have 44 homes under foreclosure right now. The roads -- they will have great difficulty maintaining the roads. But that's a side argument. I think the documentation indicates, with all due report, that the county commission approved the roads to be publicly maintained. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. Mr. -- Nick, I have a question of you. In your research, can you tell me what the board approved? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. For the record, Nick Page 266 December 16, 2008 Casalanguida with Transportation. Going back into the PUD, you're correct, it says to be dedicated to the public, but it doesn't speak to maintenance. And from going through the documents, there's really no recommendation either way of whether it would be maintained or it would not be maintained for the public. We just had that fiscal workshop with the board. And one of the recommendations we'll make as things like this come upon is, there should be a fiscal impact analysis that's done when we accept a public road. That exhibit that's on there right now -- and excuse my voice. It's going a little bit. There is a public road that runs from one end to the other that connects two other roads. Then there are half a dozen other dead-end roads that serve really no public purpose. In our research, we spoke to our road maintenance department and said, over a 15-year life cycle, what kind of fiscal impact are we looking at? It's about 50- to $60,000 annually that the county would assume by taking on those roads. So it's not that, as staff, we support or don't support. That's not for us to make that decision. For staff, we just want to make the board cognizant that every time we make a decision, it comes with a fiscal impact. And so you're looking at that with a semi-public through road, but then a bunch of private kind of roads that kind ofT off that really serve no public purpose, that if this goes forward, we would be maintaining. And so that's just information for the board to consider, that as these plats go forward, we should have a good fiscal impact number that you understand what you're incurring in the future. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did anybody tell you in this approval process that you're going to maintain these roads? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The plat went through transportation for review, and the road maintenance reviewed them. It was, I guess, implied that the public dedication would include public maintenance, Page 267 December 16, 2008 but no one told us that that was going to be the case. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was it in the executive summary? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, it was not. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's why I have the problem. I don't see where we have the ability or staff has the ability to make those kind of judgment calls. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got a motion though. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Coyle to approve this item, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? Aye. Motion carries, 4-1, Commissioner Henning dissenting. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we might have some people that were here for the public comments that -- can we hear them today rather than make them come back tomorrow? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I think that was the last item that -- the only item that I pulled off the agenda. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's the last item you had that you pulled off. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if you don't mind, the vice-chair will take over. (Chairman Henning left the hearing room.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure, sure. After the public comment though, we will close the meeting and then resume tomorrow with the other things on this agenda. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you only have -- Page 268 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've only got two items. MR. MUDD: You have one -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have item-- MR. MUDD: You have two items. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- M and we have -- MR. MUDD: P. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- P. MR. MUDD: That's it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So do you want to do all those -- you want to do those two? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Should take about five minutes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right then. Item #IOM A WARD OF BID #08-5136 TO THE LOWEST QUALIFIED AND RESPONSIVE BIDDER, QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT OF THE 951 BOAT RAMP PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT NO. 80071. ($1,393,279.65) - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Next item's 10M. It's a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve the award of bid number 08-5136 to the lowest qualified and responsive bidder, Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., for the construction contract of the 951 boat ramp parking lot expansion project, number 80071, $1,393,279.65. Mr. Gary McAlpin, your Coastal Project Manager, will present. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a second. That was a no-brainer, you're right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. Page 269 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further -- any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Item #IOP AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN CHANGE ORDER #1 TO WORK ORDER C3TS-FT-4153-08-02 FOR DESIGN CONSULTANT C3TS FOR THE MANATEE PARK DESIGN IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000.00 ON A TIME & MATERIAL, NOT- TO-EXCEED BASIS TO PROVIDE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE REQUIRED SFWMD PERMITS. THE NET CONTRACTUAL VALUE OF SERVICES WILL TOTAL $243,950.00 - MOTION TO BRING BACK WITH CLARIFICATION - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is lOP, which used to be 16D37, and that is a -- that is a recomm- -- that's to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the chairman to sign change order number I to work order C3TS-FT-4153-08-02 for the design consultant C3TS for the Manatee Park design in the amount of $50,000 on a time and material not-to-exceed basis, to provide the Site Development Plan and the required South Florida Water Management District permits. The net contractual value of services will total $243,950. Page 270 December 16, 2008 This item was asked to be on the regular agenda and pulled from the consent agenda by Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Very quickly. I don't have the slightest idea what you're doing with this thing. MR. McALPIN: Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you'll turn to that section that says caveat, an entire paragraph of caveats. I need to understand what the implication is as far as what you're asking the contractor to do. MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, what we originally set up to do was put a design-build contract on this. And during -- in that process, the contractor would develop the design package up to a point, and then he would bring it, and then we would -- where we would clearly identify the scope, and then we would put it out for a qualified contractor to finish the rest of the design, get the permitting, and do the construction. And we did that because of the relative straightforward nature of this job. It was basically just site development for Manatee Park. Pretty straightforward. We thought this would be the most economical way to do this project, but that implies that we're going to have enough money to move forward with the funding of the construction for this job. As we looked at our impact fees, they continued to get tighter and tighter, so we realize that we're not going to have enough money at this point in time to move forward with the design-build contract. So we're looking to change the scope of this project back to a traditional project where the design is done by a consultant, and we take it all the way through the design and permitting process so we can wrap a ribbon around it. That would take about 18 months for us to complete at this point in time. We'd have all the design and all the permitting complete. And then at that point in time we would make the decision whether we would move forward with the construction at that point in time if the funds were available. Page 271 December 16,2008 We're recommending to do that. There's no -- there's no loss in terms of -- as long as we have the permits in hand, there's no essential loss from throw-away associated with this job, and that will allow us that -- during this period of 18 months, which is the -- which is the lead time, get the design done, get the permitting in place, and then hopefully at that point in time our impact fees and the economy will start to recover, and then we can go out for bid for construction. That's what we're trying to accomplish. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But let's start from the top. The original work order amount was $193,950. MR. McALPIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're coming in for an additional sum of $50,000. MR. McALPIN: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How much have you already spent on the project? MR. McALPIN : We've spent -- as of last month we've spent approximately $86,000. So we would take the balance, which is approximately $107,000 and add $50,000 to that, complete the whole design of this project and all the permitting associated with the infrastructure and also the community services building. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You're going to take the 86,000 you've already spent, and you're going to add 107,000 to it? MR. McALPIN: The original contract was for 193-, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right. MR. McALPIN: We spent 86-, which meant we had a balance left -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of 107-. MR. McALPIN: -- of 107-. If we take the $107,000 and we add $50,000 to it, and we're not -- and we would reuse the 86,000, so we would get to a total price of243-, okay -- Page 272 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. McALPIN: -- for the total job. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, you've got a $243,000 budget here. Now, let's go to the caveats. The person who's going to do this work -- well, maybe it's not that person at all, but -- yes, it is. MR. McALPIN: C3TS. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Collier County Community Development/Environmental Services has indicated that the transfer of property from the school to the park would trigger the need for an SDP amendment to the school property before review could ever begin on our SDP application. Has that happened yet? MR. McALPIN: No. Commissioner, no. We haven't transferred the property from the school to the park. That caveat was based on one approach; that would be that we would have a deed simple, a transfer of the property on the lake to the school, from the school to us. We could also approach that from where they would just grant us a -- the reservation of the stormwater capacity in that. And so that's another approach that we could take on this, and which we would be looking at. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Gary, you've a project amount of $243,000. I want to know what you are going to do and what you're recommending, not what you could do under different scenarios. So for that -- that project for that amount of money, what is being proposed? MR. McALPIN: What would be proposed, Commissioner, was that we'd look at -- when we look to do the stormwater, there's two options we could take. One is, if there was a fee simple transfer of the property to us, what -- how that would affect our SDP. We haven't got into that with the CDES or South Florida Water Management District. We have another possible solution with that. It's just part of the permitting process that we go through, Commissioner, when we deal with South Florida Water Management District. We haven't gotten to Page 273 December 16,2008 that issue yet. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the one thing that could substantially delay this project, we haven't even made a decision about yet, transfer of school property? MR. McALPIN: We have reached preliminary agreement with the school board that they would transfer the property for the lake to us, and there's no -- no question about that. The issue came up relative to whether that would involve or trigger when the school board wanted to expand their facilities, if that would involve a global rework of their -- of their capacity for transferring the water -- the stormwater. And we haven't gotten into that. There's a number of ways we could do that. They could reserve the capacity to us and not trigger that transfer. We just haven't gotten to that yet. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The contractor is telling us that his proposed approach does not include efforts to address any modifications to the school SDP. That's another contract change that we're going to run into if you -- if you proceed that way. But you haven't decided which way you're going to proceed so we don't have any idea what this is going to cost us. Now, secondly -- well, thirdly, our -- it says, the preliminary SDP discussions identified significant limitations on traffic impacts that would be allowed. Our approach assumes that the traffic study will be performed by Johnson Engineering outside of our contract and that the traffic aspects of the SDP can be addressed with limited input from us, the contractor that you're working for. This is an open-ended contract for, perhaps, hundreds of thousands of dollars of change orders. I can't sort through this stuff, okay. It's incomprehensible to me that we would proceed on a contract with all of these open questions. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, may I Page 274 December 16, 2008 make a suggestion? Probably should make a motion to bring it back to the next meeting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I'll just make a motion to deny it, and then they can bring it back. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no. That kills it, doesn't it, if we deny it? MR. McALPIN: Just deny the change order request. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. You know, I want some decisions to be made about how you're going to approach the project because without that, nobody's going to be able to tell you how much it's going to cost, and we're going to be talking about this again when you want another 50- or $100,000 to do something. This is not the way to get a good price for a project, okay. Well, I will recommend that we bring it back with the decisions made about what we're going to do and how much it's likely to cost. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any discussion on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS Page 275 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Now we'll go on to public comments. MR. MUDD: Public comments on general topics, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. How many speakers do we have, Sue? MS. FILSON: Three -- four. Burt Saunders. He'll be followed by Kenneth Thompson. I believe he's gone. He'll be followed by Dean Starnes. SENATOR SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman and Commissioners, I appreciate your courtesy in hearing me this evening very briefly. My name is Burt Saunders. I am with the law firm of Gray Robinson, and I'm representing Orangetree Associates. And we're here because of a very hyper-technical issue that the commission can solve for us that will result in a very much needed project going forward out at Orangetree, and that's the development of a CVS pharmacy. The problem basically is that we're waiting for the issuance of an SDP from the county. County staff is ready to issue that SDP. There are no issues associated with that. But there -- we're also waiting for a modification to an existing ERP from the water management district. I want to emphasize modification. We already have an ERP that was issued by the water management district, but because of some changes to roadways and things of that nature, there's some modifications to that ERP that are pending before the water management district. The water management district has told us, there are no problems with this ERP modification. They're just slow. And the problem that we have is, under the contracts that Orangetree has with CVS, the pharmacy, they can terminate this contract if the SDPs are not issued by the county before the end of the year. And so I asked Commissioner Coletta if he would be kind enough to add this to the discussion this afternoon. The pharmacy Page 276 December 16, 2008 would be in his district. It's something that's very important for the district. And this really is a very hyper-technical issue. It's something that -- we're going to get the ERP modification, we're going to get the SDP, but we have this timing problem. And so what I would suggest is, ifthe commission would simply advise staff that it's permissible to issue the SDP, we will not pull any building permits per student to this SDP until the ERP modification is issued. We should get that ERP modification within the next 60 to 90 days, and the CVS pharmacy can be built out there. This will mean about $700,000 in impact fees that would be paid and a very important project for that part of the county; otherwise, CVS is going to pull the plug on it and not build that pharmacy. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And they very well may because of the fact of the economics being what it is, and I know that community's looking for it. There is nothing like that for -- all the way between Immokalee until you get -- SENATOR SAUNDERS: That is correct. And ultimately the plan is to have a Publix grocery store out there. It will be very nice for the community, but we have to get this portion -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If! may, I'd like to go to Joe Schmitt to see what we can do. Is this as benign as it sounds? MR. SCHMITT: Just for clarification, what Burt is actually asking is that the LDC prohibits us from issuing the SDP until the ERP is issued by the water management district. That way we validate that the ERP and the SDP match. In this case, he's asking for the board to grant me the authority to issue the SDP with a stipulation to await the subsequent issuing of the ERP. Now, understand what he just said. This is a modification. So there was a previous environmental resource permit, a water management permit for this site. All they're doing is a modification. And I just need the board's approval to allow us to stipulate, which is Page 277 December 16, 2008 really what it's doing is waiving a portion of the LDC that says we cannot issue the SDP until the water management district permit has been issued. I don't -- there's very little to low risk in this. And I see no problem with it. I just need your concurrence. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to direct staff to do so. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. What was the changes out there that caused -- that you had to go back to water management for another ERP? MR. SCHMITT: Go ahead. I know what it was, but I'll let Tim MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner Halas, for the record, Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering. Primarily it dealt with turn lanes that were required as a part of the transportation improvements as part of the project. A second issue was that the previous permit had an outfall location that doesn't meet current standards. So we're just bringing it up to date under current standards. There really were not material changes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this -- basically stormwater issues then, right? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. There are no environmental issues associated with this project. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And the changes that were made -- even though you don't have the ERP permit, what is the feeling by South Florida Water Management in regards to the changes that were made? Has this caused them to scrutinize this more slowly? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. Actually, we -- the water management system, as a part of this change, is better and closer to standards. And in fact, we would have already had the ERP issues, but there was a transfer of ownership of one of the parcels within the Page 278 December 16, 2008 project, and that caused us to go back to the district for that issue alone. So literally, this is a very insignificant issue with the district pending issuance. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So what you're telling me now is that it's really not a stormwater issue as such? It's a feel about where the parties transferred property to someone -- another party? MR. HANCOCK: I apologize. I'm saying both. The thing that initiated the need for modification was stormwater related. That had been addressed, reviewed, and was ready to be issued; however, they then noted a change in ownership, which caused the application to have to be modified. That's the issue that's at hand right now. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And have they given you any idea of how long it will be before they can put their signature on this for an okay? MR. HANCOCK: Based on the communication we've had with the district, we believe we're in our last review at this point, which puts it inside of a 30-day window. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so you just need something to cover you between now, which is the 16th, and the 31 st? SENATOR SAUNDERS: Commissioner, if! may answer that. Under the contract that CVS has with Orangetree, if the SDP isn't issued by a certain period of time, they can cancel the contract and walk away from the project. So we want to make sure that doesn't happen. If the SDP is issued, that solidifies the contract and we move forward with the pharmacy. If the SDP isn't approved, there will be no pharmacy out there. That basically is the problem. It's a very technical issue in terms of the LDC, and it's a very technical issue as it relates to water management district. We're going to get the ERP modification. We're going to get the SDP. It's just a matter of, we don't get the SDP now, we're going to lose the pharmacy, and that's the whole issue. Page 279 December 16, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: I will just add that it's both my responsibility and the district's responsibility, we'll make sure that it's built in accordance with the approved plan. So whatever is built will be built in accordance with the district permit and the subsequent final approval of the SDP. All this will do is allow them to proceed contractually and also to start initial work on site. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got one other question. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'm being the devil's advocate here. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: If the pharmacy company obviously has made a survey and they realize that the potential out there is going to be profitable for them, I don't understand why they would decide to pull the plug on this when there's no other pharmacy out there. That's what I don't quite understand. SENATOR SAUNDERS: Commissioner, that's a good question. I think it's a matter of simple frustration. This has been going on for well over a year. And, Commissioner, I think Tim Hancock kind of gave us the timeline, but this has been going on for a very long time. They've grown frustrated, and that's the problem. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Burt, what's been dragging it out? Why has it been going on a long time? MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner, unlike many times when this is the opportunity to throw the staff under the bus, I'm not going to do that because that's not really been the key case here. The issue has been, we have been coordinating -- we have two buildings going in under current SDP. One is a CVS, the other is a Florida community bank, a local bank branch. We've been coordinating with multiple architects, and we've been the organizing engineer bringing all those things together. Have their Page 280 December 16,2008 been some review comments we've felt were somewhat redundant at times? Sure. That happens in the process, and it does cause things to drag out, but there have been coordination issues all along. And I will also tell you, some of the transportation issues that we would resolve in the first review would come back in the third or fourth review because of the lag of time. So it's multiple issues feeding on each other. Weare literally on the one-yard line here and just simply asking for you to grant Mr. Schmitt the opportunity to still hold our feet to the fire but allow the order to occur in a little different fashion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. What's the -- Joe, I think you're going to have to give me an answer to this question. What is the downside? Let's suppose we approve the SDP, and then CVS pulls out anyway. What is the exposure? What happens? MR. SCHMITT: He's -- there is little to no exposure to the county. The applicant and the developer is still responsible for building the property and building the site in accordance with the approved plan and with the district permit. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Will the plan have to change if they need to accommodate another business? MR. SCHMITT: Then that would trigger an SOP amendment or another process where they would come in and actually go through and start the process again. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there's no risk to the county in doing this? MR. SCHMITT: The only, only risk and this is -- is if they all walk. I mean, that's -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: What do you mean, they all? MR. SCHMITT: I mean they, the developer picks up his toys and says, I'm not going to finish this site. But that risk exists anywhere we issue a site plan. I mean -- and then we go in and we will, through code or some other action, direct that the site be Page 281 December 16,2008 basically reclaimed or re- -- reclimated. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So Commissioner Coletta, you have asked us to move forward? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we need a motion on that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 4-0. Thank you. SENATOR SAUNDERS: Thank you. Madam Chair, thank you very much. And if I don't see you all before the Christmas holiday and the Hanukkah holiday and the new year, happy holidays to all of you. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You, too. (Commissioner Fiala left the hearing room.) MS. FILSON: Dean Sarns. He'll be followed by Doug Fee. MR. SARNS: My name is Dean Starns. I moved to Naples in 1979. I live at 3211 58th Street Southwest in Golden Gate. Thank you, Commissioners, for hearing my concerns. My concern is the 75-foot wide nonconforming lots in Golden Gate Estates. Taxes are assessed at the same dollar level per square Page 282 December 16, 2008 foot for nonconforming 75-foot wide lots as conforming larger lots. There are no allowances for a homesite. If a few nonconforming homes get sold in our area, all home assessments go up by the same percentage of increase. What about unpermitted remodels? Sixty thousand dollar kitchen remodels do happen. To protect Collier County that unknowingly get entrapped into unpermitted nightmares by buying a house, we need a home sale permit that stamps on the property that all improvements are to code and permitted at time of sale. Next, Golden Gate assessments need to be such as $100,000 per buildable homesite and may be a dollar per square foot lot size to have equity between 75-foot nonconforming lots. The 30-foot mowing ordinance just passed must be rescinded and put up for public decision in the Planning Commission. If your neighbor enjoys a seven-and-a-half-foot setback, does that condemn your property? Do you have to mow what is now his yard on your property, maybe even clear trees and bushes, too? This is imminent domain. All lots in Golden Gate should be required to have a 30-foot side and rear yard setbacks (sic), outbuildings such as sheds included. Were there -- in the -- is a will there is a way to accommodate a 30-foot setback. This could include staggering lot lines or front and rear lots with deeded easements. An MTSU subjecting on Golden Gate Estates alone needs to be created to provide funds for individuals who would like to assemble two nonconforming lots into one conforming lot. Home sales would provide funds for the county. Home sale permits would also provide the property tax assessor to do a reappraisement (sic). Home sale permits would provide protection for citizens, sellers, and buyers. Seventy-five-foot-wide Golden Gate Estates lots are unfair. They -- there has to be a tax lowering adjustment for the Page 283 December 16,2008 owner of a large lot if the neighbor enjoys a seven-and-a-half-foot setback. Repeal the 30-foot mowing ordinance, please. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I took over as the immediate past chair. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Doug Fee. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Has the timer been working, Sue? MS. FILSON: Those are not working. They ordered a new one. Mine does. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, yours does. When it gets to that time, can you go bing, bing? MS. FILSON: It does. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh. MS. FILSON: Don't you hear it? CHAIRMAN COLETT A: You kidding me? I got a hearing loss. That's why I got a volume control on my speaker over here. Okay, Doug. MR. FEE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go for it, man. MR. FEE: Okay. I'll be done in a minute. Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Doug Fee. I'll try to be brief because I know you've had a very long day. What I'm here to speak about tonight is a NRP A. And I handed out about three pages, four pages. Exactly five years ago, December 15,2003, there was an article in the newspaper in reference to Wiggins Pass and trying to bring up the subject ofNRP A. The second page that I handed out obviously describes the NRP A, the purpose and intent, and it says, the purpose and intent of the natural resource protection overlay district is to protect endangered and potential endangered species by directing incompatible land uses away from their habitats, to identify large connected, intact, and relatively unfragmented habitats which may be important for listed Page 284 December 16, 2008 speCIes. And I won't go and read further, but I want to point out that back when the county was establishing the Growth Management Plan in 1989 and in '90, they designated certain areas. There was a final order, a lawsuit where the county wasn't, I think, designating these areas. So in the final order, the county then designated, and they were blessed, and 10 and behold, we have our GMP. In the GMP process -- I have up on the visualizer two maps. One is of the Pelican Bay area, okay, and that is to the right, and the second area is of the Wiggins Pass area. What I want to point out is Pelican Bay has a NRP A. It was established. And as you can see by the map, these are drawn by the graphics department at the very same level, okay. They're the same height. And I believe you probably have 50 percent more environmentally sensitive land up in the Wiggins Pass area as you can see in the Pelican Bay area. I'm very much in support of putting this overlay for the future in the documents that I read down at the county. What they stated was that they would reanalyze this at the future -- in other words, they designated some areas, but the county would have the ability in the future to see if there weren't any other areas to be considered. We have an RLSA process we're going through right now. It's a five-year review. My question is, how could we possibly consider the Wiggins Pass area for an NRP A? I know it doesn't necessarily have any relevance to the process you're going through in the eastern lands, but is that possibly a time that we can consider this? Obviously it would have to be heard by the -- MS. FILSON: Beep, beep, beep. MR. FEE: -- CCPC. It would have to be heard by the EAC. One of the benefits I see is you could go to the landowners who actually are in this area, private landowners who may have to maintain that in perpetuity, and one of the things about the NRP A is there's acquisition, and what can I do further -- Page 285 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's ask our fellow commissioners here if they have any questions for you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think this is a great idea. I'm not sure what direction we can give you to check with staff on this and see if there are possibilities to establishing a NRP A here, since this is in an area also that has outstanding Florida waters. And so I think it's an area that we need to look at and see ifthere is a way to address a NRP A to protect this area. But again, I'd have to get -- the three commissioners that are sitting here would have to give you a nod to have the staff look into this, and county manager. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a suggestion just for thought, then we'll go to County Manager? MR. MUDD: My answer to this one is, Doug needs to go to the EAC. The EAC needs to tell you if this is a good idea or not and give you a recommendation, come back to the board, and then the board gives us direction, because this is going to cost money, and it's -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, I think you should first go through Commissioner Halas' organization, some of the other associations down there, and then bring it forward. The last thing I want is something coming directly to our -- one of our committees without sort of public support behind it. Bring the public support where Commissioner Halas can probably give you some better directions on that. I think you'll be where you need to be. MR. FEE: And I appreciate that, Commissioner Coletta. I -- to be honest with you, about two weeks ago, I did go to the Planning Commission and mention the very same thing. And sometimes you wonder, should you go from the bottom up, or do you go from the top down. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bottom up. MR. FEE: Bottom up. And I had said that very same thing. And they said, well, you really need to go to the Board of County Commission. And if they view this as something to be considered, Page 286 December 16, 2008 they can then direct. But I'm hearing you say, go to the EAC, go to Commissioner Halas' district meeting, which I attend, and come up with some support. And then would you say come back to the board, or would you say go back to the EAC or the CCPC? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, work with Commissioner Halas from that district. MR. FEE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And he'll help to give you some direction on it. MR. FEE: Okay, that's perfect. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great. With that, let's go on to -- that's -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one other question. When you were talking about cost, do you have any idea what something like this would -- MR. MUDD: No, sir, but I can get you the answer. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you do that? I think that would be -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that would also fit into the equation, especially in this time -- economic time, okay. And I'd appreciate that. Item # 15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd, do you have you anything? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I do. And I don't -- I'm not going to belabor this. I'm going to go right to the chase, and I'm really not looking for a concurrence or a nod. Page 287 December 16, 2008 We are where we are. December 4th, the ad valorem estimating conference from the State Revenue Commission basically gave their estimates of what the 20 I 0 property tax or estimates on property values are going to be, and it basically stated that Charlotte County will be minus 13.4 percent, Collier County will be minus 14.3 percent, and Lee County will be minus 13.4 percent. What that basically tells you is the property values are going to go down by 14.3 percent in Collier County. I issued -- just so you don't get caught by surprise, I issued my administrators and my department directors a letter that was dated 12 December, basically said, I'm looking for a 15 percent -- minus 15 percent budget for -- based on what we got for property appraisals. They might as well start working now. We're not talking about a couple percent. We're talking about a 35 to $40 million cut in our ad valorem take. Our ad valorem take that we received for '09 in our budget is 247 thou- -- $247 million. That's a pretty good chunk of change that's coming out of the budget. So I've asked them to start working on it. So what I'm going to provide -- and I'll come back to the budget guidance. I'm just trying to get ahead of the ball game a little because this is going to take a little bit more time than we normally have, so I figured I'd get them started, but provide a budget, and I'll -- again, I'm not asking for concurrence. I'm just telling you what I'm doing right now. When we come up with a budget guidance, I'll send it forward, but I want to make sure that you understand. We're going to provide a millage neutral, and we're going to provide -- and we're going to provide a tax neutral, but both, and one will have a -- around a 35- to $40 million cut ad valorem-wise, and the other one will be the same amount of money that we had last year, and the cut will not -- will not be there. But what a tax neutral position would be with that kind of depreciated property value, that would require a millage rate increase, Page 288 December 16,2008 exactly what Marco Island and Naples did. Naples was more tax neutral than Marco was. They had an overall 4.2 percent increase. The next item I wanted to talk about -- I mentioned today about all the ORV sites that we're working on right now. We will continue to press that. Another -- another item or another avenue that we're looking at has to do with the Bonness quarry property off of Oil Well Road, okay, and Commissioner Coletta knows about that one. They have given us some estimates on what they would rent the property to us for. Again, this is South Florida Water Management District's nickel. So we're trying to find some short-term alternatives to an A TV/ORV site and a long-range specific one that's out there at the jetport that's owned by Miami-Dade, and that piece is out there. Last, but not least. Yesterday, because of time constraints, every municipal- -- I won't say that, can't say that. I would say a large number of municipalities and states in this country are trying to come up with lists that the president elect could use, i.e. President Elect Obama, could use to allocate dollars for this stimulus package that the federal government is trying to get out of the starting blocks as fast as they can upon his -- right around his time that he gets sworn in as president, which is the 20th of January. Doesn't give everybody a lot of time. What I did yesterday is I drafted -- and I sent letters to the staff of Connie -- or Congressman Connie Mack, Congressman Diaz-Ballard, Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez, and I gave him -- them the preliminary list for Collier County where we can get projects in the ground starting 90 to 120 days. Our list is over $500 million strong, and most of those are ready to go with permits in hand or within the next month. In addition to that, we also provided them a list where, if we had 180 days to a year, we could also provide about another 100 to $150 million worth of additional projects. Page 289 December 16, 2008 There's a lot of interest up in the capitol. Why? Because this initiative is out there, and it's been stated by the president elect. And I will tell you, based on what I've seen so far, the list of ready-to-execute construction projects for the county are pretty slim. Why? Because they don't have the permitting and they don't have the designs done. And they're having a tough time getting lists that are more than 76 billion strong. And the president's -- yeah, I find that very unbelievable. I mean, it's a meager amount. And so there's a lot of people in congress that are basically saying, well, they don't have ready-to-construct projects to the amount. I provided our list to make sure that we were -- we were up front and ready to go if those dollars are allocated and they saw fit to send them to Collier County. I wasn't -- and these are projects that you've already seen as a board that are either in your five-year transportation plan and aren't ready to go, but we got the stuff -- got the permits ready to do and/or we've got plans on the shelf right now with permits in hand, but we don't have the dollars to execute. I just wanted to make sure you knew that. I figured if we languish too long we wouldn't get anywhere close to where we need to be as far as dollars are concerned, and I know this board is out there trying to find ways to stimulate the local economy. I can't think of a better way to stimulate the economy than a $500 million injection. That's all I have. COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Manager, you said that you had, right up front, enough projects to haul down about $500 million here, and within 12 to 18 months you could probably come up with an additional $150 million that could be used here to stimulate the economy of Collier? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The instructions that everybody's been given out of the federal side is the projects have to be ready to go 90 Page 290 December 16, 2008 to 120 days. I mean, contract has to be executed, the notice to proceed issued, and you've got people working. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My next question is, do -- does this have to come through the state, or can we circumvent the state and get this directly from the -- from Washington DC down here to Collier County? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, when you get earmarks out of the federal government, you bypass the state. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. MR. MUDD: And so -- but we're also taking our list and we're giving it to the state so that the state can put it as part of theirs. But I also wanted to make sure that your representatives in congress had our list so that we could be ready to go. I mean, it even had Gordon Pass dredging on it, which we still need about $3 million for to get accomplished. That's even on the list, and we've got the permits. We're ready to go on that one. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about the Everglades interchange? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you don't have the permits to go on that one. We're still in the planning stage. So, no, sir, it's not there. And they talk about construction, ready to go with permits. You don't have that on that interchange. I wish I did. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about some of the WRDA bills, WRDA stuff that we're trying to get down here to do studies? MR. MUDD: WRDA's an authorization. It's not an appropriation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. MUDD: When you do a WRDA bill, you get authorization, and your appropriation comes the year after that in the appropriation bill. So that would be over two years out. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: No, sir. Page 291 December 16,2008 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about you, Mr. Klatzkow? MS. FILSON: No, I think it's late enough. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I have several things. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's going to take me a few minutes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. Take your time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. And I'll go as slowly as I possibly can. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know how much you enjoy staying here late at night. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I had actually the same dinner engagement Commissioner Henning had, but I think I better forget about it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to our budgeting policy, I think the county manager is taking the right steps, but can we try to -- can we try to cut out the foolishness with our congressional -- or constitutional officers this year? I mean, getting turnbacks after the end of the fiscal year and spending time in meetings in December trying to decide how we're going to budget and spend money that is turned back from constitutional officers because they intentionally overbudgeted expenses and underbudgeted revenues so they can come in here and say, look what we did for you. We're giving you back $5 million this year. You know, the time has passed for those games. Let's see if we can't get people to budget more carefully so that we know what we're doing when we set the budget in June and July. You know, it is insane to do it the way they're doing it, and there's no good reason for it other than just to play the public relations game. So we're beyond those kinds of games now. We need to do something serious, we need to make serious decisions, we need to Page 292 December 16, 2008 budget carefully, and we need all of the governmental agencies to do that, including the constitutional officers. So is there agreement here that we should include that as budget guidance to the constitutional officers? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, I think it's a great idea because what happens is the constituency out there looks at this as free money. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it's not free money, and so that's why we get ourselves in a pickle saying, well, it's free money. Now we want landscaping. And there's a lot of other things that we need to address besides landscaping. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it's the same thing when we're going through our regular budget cycle. I mean, we start budgeting when, April, May, June? We work on budgets-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: March. COMMISSIONER COYLE: March. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, normally the end of February, first of March I get your guidance. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We're working on budgets all the way through from, let's say, February or March, all the way through August and September, and there are people coming in here saying we want more money because we know you got some coming. You're going to get some in October and November. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If it makes you feel good, I agree with you, because ifthere's ever a time for heartburn, it's dividing up that turnback money. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right. We shouldn't be in that position. We should be considering all of the money we've got available during the time we're going through the budgeting process so we can have the proper public hearings and try to make sound decisions on where the money goes to -- Page 293 December 16, 2008 MR. MUDD: I got it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- serve our -- MR. MUDD: I've got three nods. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. And with respect to the federal funding, I applaud you for getting those requests in. I think that's a great thing to do. But once again, let's be realistic. That money's going to be divided up based on political issues and not whether or not you've got a project that's ready to go. But try, you know. That's all you can do. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Ifhe's looking for 350 billion in projects and all they can do is 76 and the meager county can come up with 500 million, I think we're doing pretty good. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're ready to go. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You'll be -- we'll be lucky to have any money left once they bailout the automobile companies and the financial companies on Wall Street. There's not going to be much left anywhere. MR. MUDD: Our portfolios will be slim to none, yes, sir. I agree with you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's going to be real slim, okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I just want to say that it's been a pleasure to work with each and every one of you this year. Obviously we've got two commissioners that are missing right now. But I just want to wish everybody a happy holiday season and good health this coming year, and that's for staff also. You've endured a lot this year with the budget cuts, and obviously you're back there sweating already with the additional 14.3 to 15 percent budget cuts. So I just want to make sure that everybody -- let's forget about the austerity program over this holiday season, let's enjoy the joy with our families and out-of-town guests, and then we'll get back at it the Page 294 December 16,2008 first of the year. We'll try to figure out the best way that we can work through the problems that are facing us. So I just want to wish each and every one of you a very, very merry Christmas, happy holidays, and happy new year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Spend a lot of money over the holidays. Rejuvenate the economy. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Buy lots of Christmas presents. MR. MUDD: Locally. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One thing, Mr. Mudd, in order to be able to get a complete appraisal for a financial picture, we have to know how our investments are doing. Could we get the clerk to come in here and make a report to us, an update of where we are. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, seriously. Is that too much to ask? COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is for him. MR. MUDD: No, sir. I think you've asked that. I will draft a letter up for the chairman's signature to try to get him to come in either the first or second meeting in January to give you an update. Do I have three nods on that particular issue? I have three nods. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And with that, merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah. We're adjourned. *****Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner Coletta and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ***** Item #16Al ISSUING COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 60.010, AR 11983, TO BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP, Page 295 December 16, 2008 L.L.L.P. FOR THE PROJECT CALLED SOUTH GROVE LAKE. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF 158.68 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, SITTING IN SECTIONS 17 AND 18 OF TOWNSHIP 48, SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY SITTING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OIL WELL ROAD ABOUT TWO MILES EAST OF OIL WELL GRADE AND WEST OF THE ENTRANCE ROAD TO AVE MARIA - FOR A 42 ACRE LAKE EXCA V A TION (EARTH MINE) AND A 89 ACRE LAKE EXCA V A TION (STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT) ON THE 158.68 ACRE SITE Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 2008-354: ADJUSTING THE REGULATORY ASSESSMENT FEE FROM TWO PERCENT TO THREE PERCENT OF GROSS REVENUES FOR NONEXEMPT PRIV A TEL Y OWNED WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES SUBJECT TO LOCAL REGULATION, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES BOUND BY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, EFFECTIVE MARCH 1,2009, AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET AND AS APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY Item # 16A3 - Moved to # I OQ Item #16A4 FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR TALL OAKS, PHASE 3 - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Page 296 December 16,2008 Item #16A5 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD, SECTION 7 - PHASE 2 - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item # 16A6 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD, SECTION 7 AND 12 - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item #16A7 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR EDISON COLLEGE - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item # 16A8 FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR NORTH COLLIER HOSPITAL EXPANSION - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item #16A9 RESOLUTION 2008-355: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Page 297 December 16, 2008 FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF TERRANOV A AT PELICAN MARSH UNIT ONE WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16AIO RESOLUTION 2008-356: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF TERRABELLA AT PELICAN MARSH UNIT ONE WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16All RESOLUTION 2008-357: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF TERRABELLA AT PELICAN MARSH UNIT TWO WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV ATEL Y MAINTAINED- W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A12 AN IMP ACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTED BY CHEFFY P ASSIDOMO WILSON & JOHNSON, LLP ON BEHALF OF THE WEAKLEY FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC, TOTALING $249,107.61, DUE TO THE CANCELLATION OF FOUR BUILDING PERMITS - FOR PERMITS #503780, #503781, #503782 AND #503783 Page 298 December 16, 2008 Item #16A13 RESOLUTION 2008-358: ACKNOWLEDGING LOTS ALONG RA VENNA AVENUE, AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS, AS LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING LOTS OF RECORD - THE LOTS ARE GENERALLY 1.25 ACRES, THE ZONING FOR THESE LOTS IS AGRICULTURAL, WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 5 ACRES PER UNIT Item #16A14 RESOLUTION 2008-359: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF TRAIL RIDGE WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A15 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF AMERIMED CENTER, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULA TIONS Item #16A16 - Moved to Item #100 Item #16B I A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING AN ADDITIONAL $404,634.00 IN STATE PUBLIC TRANSIT BLOCK GRANT Page 299 December 16, 2008 FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/2009 - FUNDING APPLIED TOWARDS THE OPERATING COSTS OF COLLIER AREA TRANSIT Item # 16B2 THE PURCHASE OF FOUR (4) PARA TRANSIT VEHICLES UTILIZING THE FY08-09 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5310 GRANT AWARD ($31,080) - TO REPLACE HIGH MILEAGE VEHICLES THAT HAVE 200,000 TO 250,000 MILES Item # 16B3 RESOLUTION 2008-360: REDUCING THE SPEED LIMIT ON OAKES BOULEVARD BETWEEN V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD AND IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM THE CURRENT SPEED LIMIT OF FORTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (45 MPH) TO THIRTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (35 MPH) Item #16B4 RESOLUTION 2008-361: REDUCING THE SPEED LIMIT ON COCONUT UNIT 3 RESIDENTIAL ROADWAY NETWORK (BURTON ROAD, ESTHER STREET, BONNIE STREET, LORRAINE AVENUE, KATHY A VENUE AND GALE BOULEVARD) FROM THE CURRENT SPEED LIMIT OF THIRTY MILES PER HOUR (30 MPH) TO TWENTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (25 MPH) Item #16B5 Page 300 December 16, 2008 RESOLUTION 2008-362: EXECUTING THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5310 GRANT APPLICATION, AND ACCEPTING THE GRANT IF AWARDED - FUNDS TO BE USED FOR THE PURCHASE OF PARATRANSIT VEHICLES TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED RESIDENTS Item # 16B6 RESOLUTION 2008-363: EXECUTING THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 GRANT APPLICATION AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS - TO SUPPORT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ON THE IMMOKALEE CIRCULA TOR ROUTE Item #16B7 RESOLUTION 2008-364: MEDICAID CONTRACT AMENDMENT NUMBER 8 BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED FOR A FUNDING INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,920.00 FOR THE PROVISION OF TRANSPORTATION FOR QUALIFIED MEDICAID RECIPIENTS - TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT FROM NOVEMBER 30, 2008 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2008 Item #16B8 A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING REVENUE FOR THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT, TIS REVIEW, PUD MONITORING/TRAFFIC COUNTS PIL, AND PUD MONITORING/F AIR SHARE PROJECTS WITHIN THE Page 301 December 16, 2008 TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED GAS TAX FUND (313) IN THE AMOUNT OF $630,271.32 - FOR FUNDS COLLECTED IN FISCAL YEAR 2008 Item #16B9 THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) PARATRANSIT VEHICLE UTILIZING THE FY08-09 SHIRLEY CONROY RURAL AREA CAPITAL ASSISTANCE SUPPORT GRANT AWARD ($59,400)- TO REPLACE A HIGH MILEAGE VEHICLE THAT HAS OVER 165,000 MILES Item #16Bl 0 THE NORTHEAST COLLIER COUNTY TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT. DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE FINAL REPORT, VOLUMES I AND 2, COPIES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item # 16B 11 - Moved to Item # lOR; Direction to remain on Consent THE PURCHASE OF IMPROVED PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 132FEE (JERRY L. MITCHELL AND BARBARA MITCHELL) REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT. PROJECT NO. 60168. (FISCAL IMPACT: $729,104) - FOR 6.2 ACRES LOCATED AT 755 27TH AVENUE NW, BETWEEN COLLIER AND WILSON BOULEVARDS Item #16B12 Page 302 December 16, 2008 A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,583.99 AND RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL REVENUE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION P A THW A YS PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,550.08 FOR PROJECT NO. 690811 AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECTS - FOR FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALK/BIKE PATHS AND LANES Item #16B13 CONTRACT #08-5107 TO DYER, RIDDLE, MILLS AND PRECOURT, INC., PREPARING THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS 2035 LONG- RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE WITH AN ESTIMATED PROJECT COST OF $505,159.00 (FUND 128, COST CENTER 138334) - UPDATE REQUIRED EVERY 5 YEARS Item #16Cl A BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $61,760.60 REIMBURSING THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE RE-ROUTING OF THE LEL Y HIGH SCHOOL FORCE MAIN ASSOCIATED WITH THE SCWRF RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, #72508 Item # 16C2 - Withdrawn BID NUMBER 08-5123; PURCHASE OF HAULING AND DISPOSAL OF LIME SLUDGE SERVICES TO PRO-LIME CORPORATION IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $150,000 Page 303 December 16, 2008 ANNUALL Y Item #16C3 BID NUMBER 09-5145; PURCHASE OF CARTRIDGE FILTERS FOR THE NORTH AND SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT TO GEORGE S. EDWARDS, COMPANY INCORPORATED IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $500,000 - TO REMOVE DEBRIS AND SAND IN THE RA W WATER SUPPLY Item #16Dl USE AGREEMENT NO. U-0344 BETWEEN BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND COLLIER COUNTY - TO ACCESS THE ST ATE PARK FOR THE DREDGING OF WIGGINS PASS Item # 16D2 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ROLLY ST. JOUR (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 155, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES- DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item # 16D3 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH NATALIE CONDE (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT Page 304 December 16, 2008 LOCATED AT LOT 174, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item # 16D4 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH SERGE MATHURIN AND MICHELENE MATHURIN (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 95, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D5 AUTHORIZING $75,000 FOR FY09, FYI0 AND FYll TO CONTRACT #08-5082, FOR SEA OAT PLANTING FOR COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT (PROJECT 195-900441) - IN CONJUNCTION WITH DUNE RESTORATION Item #16D6 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH KENOLD PIERRE AND MARIE GERTRUDE (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCA TED AT LOT 40, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D7 A CONSENT OF MORTGAGEE THEREBY ALLOWING EDEN Page 305 December 16, 2008 GARDENS APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (EGALP) TO EXECUTE A GRANT OF EASEMENT TO LEE COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE (LCEC) FOR THE RESERVE AT EDEN GARDENS - IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION Item # 16D8 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MEDELSONNE GARRAUX AND ROSE G. GARRAUX GEROME (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 176, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D9 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MA YRA CARDENAS (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCA TED AT LOT 48, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $14,987.08 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16DIO A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH CHRISTY MARIE FEGUEROA (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 49, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $14,987.08 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16Dl1 Page 306 December 16, 2008 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH REBECCA ANTOINE (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 29, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D12 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MANUS LOUIS AND JUSLENE LOUIS (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 170, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D13 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH STYVE DESGROTTES AND NAJAH M. DESGROTTES (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 135, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item#16D14 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH SUZELLA JOSEPH (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 172, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES Page 307 December 16, 2008 Item #16D15 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH PHILOMISE FRANCOIS (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 45, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D16 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH KETTY MONTOBAN (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 175, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D17 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MARIO DIAZ LUJAN AND JAEL AVALOS PEREZ (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCA TED AT LOT 171, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMP ACT FEES Item #16D18 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JEAN BAPTISTE SERGOT SOUVERAIN AND MARIE EDITH SOUVERAIN (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING Page 308 December 16,2008 UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 38, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D19 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH P ABILIEE ANOFILS (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 119, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $14,987.08 IN IMPACT FEES Item # 16D20 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH FRANTZ DESGROTTES AND ROLANDE DESGROTTES (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 138, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMP ACT FEES Item #16D21 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH IGNACIO ZARAGOZA AND MARIA ZARAGOZA BENITEZ (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 52, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $14,987.08 IN IMPACT FEES Item # 16D22 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MARTHA LUZ CARRILLO Page 309 December 16, 2008 (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 108, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.46 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D23 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JOSE SANTOS AVELLANEDA AND MARISOL MENDOZA (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 51, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $14,987.08 IN IMPACT FEES Item # 16D24 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MARIE G. JORCELIN (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 50, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $14,987.08 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D25 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH FRANCISCO VERA AND MARIA JUANA VERA (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 8, MILAGRO PLACE, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $19,311.96 IN IMPACT FEES Item # 16D26 Page 310 December 16, 2008 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH THERESE ST. CYR (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 2, MILAGRO PLACE, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $19,311.96 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D27 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH AMALIA LUBREF AND MENTORLIS LUBREF (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 7, MILAGRO PLACE, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $19,290.73 IN IMP ACT FEES Item #16D28 A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH LUCIENNE LAROSE (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 18, MILAGRO PLACE, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $19,290.73 IN IMPACT FEES Item #16D29 THE ANNUAL CERTIFICATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATORY REFORM ACTIVITIES BY THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM- TO ENSURE THAT THE COUNTY CONTINUES TO BE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN AND RECEIVE FUNDING FROM THE SHIP PROGRAM Page 311 December 16, 2008 Item #16D30 - Withdrawn RECOGNIZING HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $84,375.00 FOR THE GOLDEN GATE SENIOR MEALS PROGRAM WHICH IS ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS). THIS PROGRAM IS AN EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING HHS PROGRAM WHICH PROVIDES NUTRITIOUS MEALS TO LOW-INCOME SENIORS IN COLLIER COUNTY Item #16031 - Withdrawn A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH, INC. OF GOLDEN GATE FOR SPACE TO ACCOMMODA TE THE HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM Item # 16D32 AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND VI LTD., LIMITED PARTNERSHIP REGARDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY BEACH AMENITIES ON BLUEBILL A VENUE THEREBY RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY STAFF WITH THE DEVELOPER IN THIS MATTER - TO PROVIDE BEACH ACCESS AND PUBLIC RESTROOM FACILITIES WHERE NONE PREVIOUSLY EXISTED Item #16D33 Page 312 December 16, 2008 SUMMARY OF THE IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL IN FY09, INCLUDING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS APPROVED, THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT DEFERRED AND THE BALANCE REMAINING FOR ADDITIONAL DEFERRALS IN FY09 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item # 16D34 A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) GRANT TO THE PHYSICIAN LED ACCESS NETWORK (PLAN) IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000, PROVIDING MEDICAL REFERRAL SERVICES AND PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS FOR LOW- INCOME RESIDENTS IN COLLIER COUNTY - TO ASSIST IN INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PATIENT REFERRALS PROCESSED THROUGH THE PLAN Item #16D35 BID #08-5134; THE LOWEST QUALIFIED AND RESPONSIVE BIDDER WILLIAMSON BROTHERS MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT OF THE CAXAMBAS BOAT DOCK PROJECT #80057.1 ($132,140.00) Item #16D36 A DONATION FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY VETERANS COUNCIL IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,360.40 FOR THE PURCHASE OF A VEHICLE FOR THE VETERANS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM. BUDGET AMENDMENTS Page 313 December 16, 2008 RECOGNIZING THE DONATION AND TRANSFER THE FUNDS TO THE VETERANS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM. REFERENCE AGENDA ITEM 5A, DECEMBER 16,2008 - THE VEHICLE IS TO BE USED FOR TRANSPORTING VETERANS TO V A MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS THROUGHOUT SOUTH FLORIDA Item #16D37 - Moved to Item #IOP Item #16D38 AN INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (ICMA) PUBLIC LIBRARY INNOVATION GRANT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $53,770, AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE APPLICATION - FOR THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRONIC DOWNLOAD STATIONS AND ELECTRONIC READERS IN ALL LIBRARIES Item #16D39 A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE (EDI) FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $147,000 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SOUTH PARK IN IMMOKALEE - TO REPLACE THE CURRENT COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDINGS WHICH ARE AGED AND IN POOR CONDITION Item#16El AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH ALAN TUCKER FOR 10 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION Page 314 December 16, 2008 COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $35,500 - IN THE CAMP KEAIS STRAND AREA, LOCATED SOUTH OF OIL WELL ROAD Item #16E2 AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH NORMA DEPESTRE-COBA FOR 4.54 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $72,800 - WITHIN THE RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT Item #16E3 AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH ALINA GONZALEZ FOR 2.50 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $40,300 - WITHIN THE RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT Item #16E4 AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH HAROLD MIR FOR 2.50 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $40,300 - WITHIN THE RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT Item #16E5 AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH MANUEL PALACIOS AND AIDA JAUREGUI FOR 4.93 ACRES UNDER Page 315 December 16, 2008 THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $79, I 00 - WITHIN THE RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT Item #16E6 AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH RICHARD F. BERMAN, AS TO 50%, AND FRANK J. CELSNAK AND MARLENE 1. CELSNAK, AS TRUSTEES U/D/T (OR U/A) DATED DECEMBER 27,1991, AS TO 50%, ALL AS TENANTS IN COMMON, FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $19,300 - WITHIN THE WINCHESTER HEAD MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT Item #16E7 AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH RONALD JACK BORTNICK AND SHERRY K. BORTNICK, ALSO KNOWN AS SHERRIE K. BORTNICK, FOR 5 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $13,100 - WITHIN THE CAMP KEAIS STRAND PROJECT, LOCATED SOUTH OF OIL WELL ROAD Item # 16E8 AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH CHARLES A. DARBY AND CHARLOTTE T. DARBY, TRUSTEES OF THE DARBY REVOCABLE TRUST, U/T/DNOVEMBER 7,1997, FOR 5 ACRES UNDER THE CONSER V A TION COLLIER LAND Page 316 December 16, 2008 ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $13,100 - WITHIN THE CAMP KEAIS STRAND PROJECT, LOCATED SOUTH OF OIL WELL ROAD Item #16E9 AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH OLA PHILLIPS GRIFFIN, ALSO KNOWN AS OLA MAE GRIFFIN FOR 5 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $13,100 - WITHIN THE CAMP KEAIS STRAND PROJECT, LOCATED SOUTH OF OIL WELL ROAD Item #16EIO AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH BERNARD D. SCHAAB FOR 2.5 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $6,900 - WITHIN THE CAMP KEAIS STRAND PROJECT, LOCATED SOUTH OF OIL WELL ROAD Item #16Ell AN AGREEMENT PROVIDING A MAXIMUM EXPENDITURE OF $47,115 FROM THE GAC LAND TRUST TO THE GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRE SHELTERS AND RADIO EQUIPMENT Item #16E12 A LONG-STANDING STAFF PRACTICE OF SOLICITING DONATIONS FOR A SEASONAL, CHARITABLE PROGRAM, Page 317 December 16, 2008 WHICH PRACTICE INCLUDES THE USE OF THE COUNTY'S E-MAIL SYSTEM AND SOLICITING CASH DONATIONS FROM FELLOW COUNTY EMPLOYEES. SHOULD THE BOARD NOT GRANT ITS APPROVAL, THE EMPLOYEES WOULD BE LEFT TO CONTINUE WHATEVER CHARITABLE WORK THEY WISH TO ENGAGE IN OUTSIDE OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT - FOR THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM GIFT TREE PROGRAM Item #16E13 CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 1 TO CONTRACT NO. 08-5073 WITH RW A, INC. FOR THE IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN AND RELATED SERVICES AND APPROVING A $165,500 BUDGET AMENDMENT AS SUFFICIENT APPROPRIATION TO FUND A PUBLIC REALM PLAN IN THE SCOPE OF SERVICES. (THIS ITEM IS A COMPANION ITEM TO 16Gl) Item #16E14 RESOLUTION 2008-365: A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH STATE REPRESENT A TIVE MATT HUDSON FOR USE OF COUNTY- OWNED OFFICE SPACE FOR AN INITIAL TWO YEAR TERM A T A TOTAL REVENUE OF $20 - LOCATED IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SUITE 212 Item #16E15 RESOLUTION 2008-366: A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH STATE REPRESENT A TIVE DAVID RIVERA FOR USE OF COUNTY- OWNED OFFICE SPACE FOR AN INITIAL TWO YEAR TERM A T A TOTAL REVENUE OF $20 - LOCATED IN THE Page 318 December 16, 2008 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SUITE 305 Item #16E16 RESOLUTION 2008-367: A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVE TOM GRADY FOR USE OF COUNTY- OWNED OFFICE SPACE FOR AN INITIAL TWO YEAR TERM AT A TOTAL REVENUE OF $20 - LOCATED IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SUITE 304 Item #16E17 RESOLUTION 2008-368: A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH STATE SENATOR GARRETT RICHTER FOR USE OF COUNTY- OWNED OFFICE SPACE FOR AN INITIAL FOUR YEAR TERM AT A TOTAL REVENUE OF $40 - LOCATED IN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, SUITE 203 Item #16E18 CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 24, 2008 THROUGH NOVEMBER 20, 2008 Item #16Fl BUDGET AMENDMENTS - FOR THE REVISION OF THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT (#BA-09-103 AND #BA 09- 104) Item #16F2 Page 319 December 16, 2008 A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT-RENEWAL IS REQUIRED EACH YEAR Item #16F3 PAYMENT FOR PRINCIPAL BALANCES FOR GROUND AND AIR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES CHARGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,054.20 AND WAIVING THE INTEREST DUE FOR THESE TRANSPORTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,607.17- TO COVER A 2005 AUTO ACCIDENT CASE Item #16F4 BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND MAINTENANCE FUND (174) AND DEBT SERVICE FUND (272) INSURING ADEQUATE CASH BALANCE FOR THE JANUARY 1,2009 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT - PAYMENTS FOR INTEREST ARE MADE SEMIANNUALL Y ON JANUARY I AND ON JULY I EACH YEAR Item #16F5 A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMENDING AND REVISING THE YEAR 2006-2009 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1826 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, INC- WAIVING THE 2% ANNUAL MERIT PAY PROVISION FOR FY09 Page 320 December 16, 2008 Item #16F6 RESOLUTION 2008-369: A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY POSITION ON DRILLING FOR NA TURAL GAS AND OIL OFF THE SHORELINE OF FLORIDA Item #16F7 CHANGE ORDER #2 FOR MILES MEDIA GROUP CONTRACT #06-4037 IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,878.00 INCLUDING A STAFF AUTHORIZED EXPENSE OF $7,964.00 FOR THE 2008 VISITOR GUIDE - FOR PRODUCTION OF THE VISITORS' GUIDE TO BE USED TO FULFILL INFORMATION REQUESTS AS AND HANDOUTS AT TRADESHOWS WORLDWIDE Item #16F8 - Moved to Item #10S; Direction to remain on Consent CONTRACT FOR RFP #08-5081 WITH PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, INC., FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES - FOR AN INITIAL TWO YEAR CONTRACT Item # 16F9 RESOLUTION 2008-370: A SECOND OFFERING OF THE VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM, EMPOWER THE COUNTY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT THIS PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE ENABLING RESOLUTION IN AN EFFORT TO ASSIST THE COUNTY MANAGERS AGENCY IN MEETING ITS FINANCIAL GOALS Item #16G I Page 321 December 16, 2008 CHANGE ORDER NO.1 TO CONTRACT NO. 08-5073 WITH RWA, INC. FOR THE IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN AND RELATED SERVICES AND A $165,500 BUDGET AMENDMENT SUFFICIENT APPROPRIATION TO FUND A PUBLIC REALM PLAN IN THE SCOPE OF SERVICES (THIS ITEM IS A COMPANION ITEM TO 16E13) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item # 16G2 ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,763 AND PROVIDING FIFTY PERCENT (50%) MATCH IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,763 FOR A TOTAL BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $7,526 FOR DESIGN, PERMITTING, BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT FOR THE APRON AND PARKING LOT EXPANSION AT THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT Item # 16G3 CRA RESOLUTION 2008-371: ESTABLISHING A PERFORMANCE EV ALUA TION PROCESS FOR THE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS Item #16Hl PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING IRV BERZON FOR HIS SERVICES TO COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED Item # 16H2 Page 322 . . _...~.-.__.._--~..-.-~---~ ,,-.--. ...._...,_...,._._..~._~-~.._-~-'" -_.......,,_.~.-.._,,_..._.- December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE ENCA LUNCHEON ON NOVEMBER 20, 2008 AT CARRABBA'S ON EAST 41 IN NAPLES, FL. $21.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item #16H3 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE ENCA LUNCHEON ON SEPTEMBER 18,2008 AT CARRABBA'S ON EAST 41 IN NAPLES, FL. $21.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item #16H4 COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY SOCK HOP DANCE ON DECEMBER 12,2008 AT SOUTH REGIONAL LIBRARY IN NAPLES, FL. $10.00 TO BE P AID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET Item # 16H5 COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO ATTEND AN EVENT SERVING A V ALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE COLLIER CITIZEN OF THE YEAR 2008 DINNER ON NOVEMBER 21, Page 323 December 16, 2008 2008. $35.00 TO BE PAID OUT OF COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE NAPLES ELKS LODGE Item #1611 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Page 324 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE December 16, 2008 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Affordable Housing Commission: Minutes of October 6,2008. Voting Conflict Form 8B, dated April 7, 2008, with copy of minutes of April 7, 2008. 2) Animal Services Advisory Board: Minutes of October 21,2008. 3) Board of Building Adiustments and Appeals: Minutes of October 16, 2008. 4) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of October 9, 2008. 5) Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda of November 20,2008. Minutes of September 26,2008 Special Session; October 2,2008 Regular Session; October 2, 2008 Special Session. 6) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Minutes of September 2,2008. 7) Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc Committee: Minutes of August 27,2008; September 24, 2008 - unofficial, no quorum. 8) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of September 25, 2008. 9) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency: Agenda of November 19, 2008. Minutes of October 15,2008. 10) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Agenda of November 19, 2008. Minutes of October 15, 2008 11) 12) 13) 14) Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee: Agenda of November 19, 2008 joint w/CRA Committee Members. Minutes of October 15,2008 joint w/CRA Committee Members. Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Agenda of October 2, 2008. Minutes of October 2, 2008. Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of October 13,2008. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Minutes of October 15,2008. December 16, 2008 Item # 1611 DESIGNATING THE SHERIFF AND SHERIFF ELECT AS THE OFFICIAL APPLICANT(S) AND POINTS-OF-CONT ACT, ACCEPTERS OF THE GRANT WHEN AWARDED, RECEIVE AND EXPEND GRANT FUNDS, AND APPROVE AND SUBMIT APPLICABLE BUDGET AND PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS FORA UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FISCAL YEAR 2009 OPERATIONS STONEGARDEN GRANT - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16J2 AN AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO HAVE TRAFFIC CONTROL JURISDICTION OVER PRIVATE ROADS WITHIN THE VERONA WALK SUBDIVISION Item # 1613 CAPITAL ASSET DISPOSITION RECORDS FOR TIME PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2007 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 - FOR ITEMS NO LONGER DEEMED TO SERVE A USEFUL FUNCTION OR HA VING ANY COMMERCIAL VALUE Item #16J4 ACCEPTING THE REPORT OF INTEREST FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 PURSUANT TO THE FLORIDA STATUTE 218.78 AND PURCHASING POLICY XII. SECTION E, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2008: NO INTEREST WAS PAID Page 325 December 16, 2008 Item #16J5 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 22, 2008 THROUGH NOVEMBER 28, 2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item #16J6 DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 29, 2008 THROUGH DECEMBER 05, 2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD Item #16Kl AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL #115FEE BY COLLIER COUNTY TO PROPERTY OWNER NORMA F ARMILO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE, IN THE LA WSUIT STYLED CC V. ROBBIE L. RAYBURN, ET AL., CASE NO. 07-4268-CA (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 60091) (FISCAL IMPACT: IF ACCEPTED, $48,038.00) - FOR THE TAKING OF A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN A 3.79 ACRE PARCEL Item #16K2 A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST JOSEF A DE LA ROSA IN COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,019.50 - DAMAGED A COUNTY LIGHT POLE AND A PALM TREE Page 326 December 16, 2008 Item #16K3 A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,000.00 FOR PARCEL #164RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN GODDARD, ET AL., CASE NO. 07-3111-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT 60044) (FISCAL IMPACT $12,870.00) - FOR A .052 ACRE PARCEL NEEDED FOR A RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES EASEMENT Item #16K4 A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,000.00 FOR PARCEL #1 84RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. HELMUT HITTINGER AND LYNDA HITTINGER, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE HELMUT HITTINGER REVOCABLE TRUST DATED APRIL 29,1991, ET AL., CASE NO. 07-3898-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044) (FISCAL IMPACT $27,800.00) - FOR A .321 ACRE PARCEL NEEDED FOR A PERPETUAL NON-EXCLUSIVE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT Item #17A RESOLUTION 2008-372: PETITION A VESMT-2007-AR-12316, 1999 GORDON RIVER LANE, DISCLAIMING, RENOUNCING AND VACATING THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THAT PORTION OF A 25-FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG THE REAR OF LOT 1, NATURE POINT, AS FILED IN PLAT BOOK 20, PAGES 20-22 Page 327 December 16, 2008 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SITUATED IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE VACATED PORTION BEING MORE SPECIFICALLY DEPICTED AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A AND ACCEPT THE REPLACEMENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALSO SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A Item #17B RESOLUTION 2008-373: CU-2007-AR-12619, K.O.V.A.C ENTERPRISES, LLC, REPRESENTED BY TIM HANCOCK, AICP, OF DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A REFUSE SYSTEM IN THE INDUSTRIAL (I) ZONING DISTRICT. THE +/- 3.73-ACRE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1995 ELSA STREET, SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17C - Moved to Item #8B Item #17D RESOLUTION 2008-374: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #17E ORDINANCE 2008-66: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 87-55, AS AMENDED, IMPERIAL GOLF EST A TES, PHASE V Page 328 RECEIVED JAN 0 5 2009 December 16, 2008 Board of County Commissioners ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:44 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARO(S) OF SPE AL 01 RICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~. aIrman ATTEST DWIGHT,pdij~.oCK, CLERK I" ,.h.,. hJ~~CN1~/IJ{ . .i~ 01111 . I i. These I}linutes approved by the Board on ~, as presented V or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 329