Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/28/1995 RREGULAR HEETING OF FEBRUARY 28, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members ALSO PRESENT: present: CHAIRPERSON: Bettye J. Hatthews Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Ken Cuyler, County Attorney CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the Board of County Commission meeting for February 28th, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in the invocation and pledge. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this morning, as always, for so many things that benefit Collier County. This morning, Father, we give thanks for the opportunity to recognize young people in our community and the interests that they have in government and the governmental process. We give thanks to recognize the arts in our community and how important they are in making our lives whole and also this morning to recognize the acceptance of historical significance and the hard work of county employees. Father, as always, we ask that you bless and guide the business deliberations of this commission as they make very important decisions for this community and that you would bless our time together here this morning, and we pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hr. Dorrill, we have a few changes to the agenda? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Good morning, Commissioners. I have one add-on item this morning. It is actually a companion to item 8-H-2, which is the award of the construction bid for the four-laning of 951. That companion item is just a resolution that you have as part of your changes that will enable us to draw against the commercial paper program which has previously been discussed and authorized by the commission. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we already have an 8-H-37 MR. DORRILL: You do. And this -- the add-on item will be 8-H-4. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: And it's companion to 8-H-2, and it's a resolution confirming the financing mechanism. I have a request to continue two items, request to continue item 12-C-4. We don't have a date for that. Apparently that item needs to be readvertised. MR. CUYLER: Yeah, 12-C-4, I expect it to be heard March 28th. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Cuyler indicated that it will be continued until March the 28th. There's at least one person who is here this morning and had registered to speak on that. But, again, that ' s item 12-C-4 . MR. CUYLER: And just for the record, that was sent to the newspaper and just didn't get advertised. That's why it's being continued. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that will be free next time? MR. DORRILL: We have another continuance request. It's item 13-A-4 also under public petitions, which is petition A-W-95-1 as it concerns a request to waive the minimum distance between a church and a facility that is serving alcohol. It's requested to be continued for two weeks until your meeting March the 14th. That was at the request of the petitioner. There was one item this morning that I had as a staff communication item. I also need to read into the record for purposes of the recorder that item 16-H-6 on the consent agenda, that item is a recommendation to approve a professional service agreement with Missimer International for the second deep well injection. That the contract has been slightly revised to correct a typographical error. And in order to conform with legal sufficiency, the county attorney's office had asked me to read that into the record this morning. There is a modification, and it's to correct a typo. And that's all that I have this morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Dotrill. Commissioner Norris, do you have anything to change? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No further changes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: None. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to abstain from voting on 15-A-4, so we need to pull that. I have a conflict there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 15-A-47 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple of changes. I don't need these items discussed, but two items on the consent agenda, 16-H-3 and 16-H-6, I intend to vote nay on. If we can do that as still part of the consent vote, that's fine. If we need to pull those -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we need to pull them. MR. DORRILL: You need to pull them. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Also I'd like to add item 10-E, a brief discussion on the landfill contract as it was presented back to us in its final form. I just had one specific concern in there before our chair signs that. MR. DORRILL: Commissioner Constantine, could you give me those 16-H items again, please? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16-H-3, 16-H-6. MR. DORRILL: They will then become 8-H-5 and 6 respectively. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I also -- under BCC communications -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 3 and 6 you said? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 3 and 6. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under BCC communications we'll have some comments on our TDC. MR. DORRILL: THC? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Nodded head.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The -- I do have one question, and that is that 12-C-1 mentions -- when I go through the executive summary, that it has a companion item, and I couldn't find a companion item, wondering where it is. Did I read it wrong? MR. CUYLER: I'll need to get that checked as we go along, but I'm fairly certain the companion item has already been approved as part -- MR. ARCHIBALD: Madam chairman, the companion item was previously approved by the board and was a condition of the plat approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So the condition of that approval is the approval of this? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Just wanted to verify. Thank you. If there are no further changes, I'd like a motion to approve the agenda. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda with changes as noted. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second. Call the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Item #3 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 7, 1995 REGULAR MEETING AND FEBRUARY 7, 1995 SPECIAL MEETING - APPROVED COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss chairman, I'd like to move approval of the minutes of February 7th, regular meeting and the evening meetings. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to approve the minutes of the two meetings. No further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Motion approved 5-0. Item #4A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 26 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1995 AS "KNOW YOUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEEK" - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda are proclamations, and the first proclamation -- I will be reading it, and it's one that gives all of us great pleasure, especially when we get to enjoy lunch with young people in Collier County, which two new commissioners have not yet done, but quite a pleasant experience. A proclamation: Whereas, county government is a complex and multifaceted process which affects the lives of all residents of Collier County; and, Whereas, an increased knowledge of how various aspects of county government work can enhance an individual resident's quality of life in Collier County; and, Whereas, Collier County 4-H, the League of Women Voters of Collier County, the Collier County Public Schools are for the 16th consecutive year cosponsoring a teen citizenship program entitled Know Your County Government, which program is designed to enlighten selected local high school students in the area of county government; and, Whereas, it is desirable for all county residents to be knowledgeable of the county's government and how it works. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of February 26th, 1995, to March 4th, 1995, be designated as Know Your County Government Week. Done and ordered this 28th day of February, 1995, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman. I know we have a series of people who are here, and I'd like to call each of you up and give you individual recognition; Jen Ferguson from Lely High School, Hazeen Ashley from St. John Neumann High School. And I'm sure in the audience we have a series of people from the League of Women Voters who have worked so much with this group as well as the 4-H. And with that I'd like to move that this proclamation be accepted. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to accept the proclamation. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, we accept this proclamation. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We really want to thank you for a marvelous, marvelous -- thank you very much. Did you have something more you want to say? MS. FERGUSON: We both have. Good morning. I'm Jen Ferguson from Lely High School, and this is Hazeen Ashley from St. John Neumann. We would just like to thank the commission, the county manager, all the division heads and the department heads, all the constitutional officers and the adults from the 4-H, the League of Women Voters, and the Collier County Public Schools for making this possible for us. Thirty teens approximately from throughout the county are participating. And some of the things that we did were visited animal control and learned the operations there, which are a lot more complex than anyone would ever guess. We learned about how the value of property is determined in Collier County. We learned the difference between the north Collier water treatment plant and the Lely treatment plant, which I personally didn't realize there was a difference before. And in representing Lely High School and Naples High School, Barton Collier, Immokalee, Community School, St. John Neumann and home school students from throughout the county we would like to thank you. We're looking forward to having lunch with all the commissioners and learning about their duties and responsibilities as well as addressing some individual concerns about our own districts. MS. ASHLEY: As she said, I'm Hazeen Ashley, and I'm from St. John Neumann High School. The main reason I joined this program is because I want to pursue a career in criminal law. And I found I want the most basic information such as about the governmental processes, such as I did not know where you went to pay your traffic violation fines, and I didn't know what district I lived in. And without this information, I would have had a fairly hard time becoming a responsible voter or a citizen or a successful lawyer. Thanks to the hard work of the League of Women Voters and 4-H members I was able to have fun, meet new people, and, last but not least, I gained some knowledge about the government that one day I hope to be an active member of. I learned that you pay your traffic violation fines through the clerk of courts and that I lived in District 3 under Commissioner Constantine. I was also able to tour the animal control center, the wastewater management, the landfill in Immokalee. As I toured these places I realized that they -- that the county government can only do so much, that the community has to be aware of important issues, must try to be a part of the solution and not the problem. The one place that I saw the many effects of community service was in Immokalee. They are making the community a safe one to live in. All the places that I visited were very interesting, and I really enjoyed having the chance to view them. The most valuable lesson that I learned was that the government is a multifaceted organization that needs the support of its citizens to be able to make decisions for the benefit of all. Through this program I have not only gained knowledge, but I have become aware of the little things that the county government does that I usually take for granted. Before this program I never knew how much the county government does for its youngsters and teens, always believed that the government saw us as a nuisance, but I now realize that they are trying to educate us, the future leaders of our community. There are not many people with the exception of teachers and select parents that would take their time to help my age group. People my age grow not only physically but intellectually. So I would like to take this time to thank the League of Women Voters, the 4-H organization, the Collier County Public Schools, and the support staff of the Collier County government for all the time that they have given us and all the hard work that it took to make this program a success. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think at this point I'd like to comment that if our young people in Collier County have the type of preparation and speech skills that these two young ladies have exhibited, we'll be in good hands. I'm -- I'm real -- real proud of it. Item #4A2 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF MARCH, 1995 AS "NATIONAL MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION MONTH - ADOPTED So next item on the agenda. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, is Santo Pino here today? Okay. Do we have someone in their place to accept the proclamation regarding National Middle Level Education Month? Being none, we'll read it in anyway. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll accept that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: They must have known I was doing the reading today. Whereas, middle level education has a special and unique function in the nation's educational system; and, Whereas, young adolescents are undergoing dramatic physical, social, emotional, and intellectual growth and are especially vulnerable; and, Whereas, the habits and values established during early adolescence have critical lifelong influence, and this influence impacts directly on the future health and welfare of our nation; and, Whereas, an adequate public understanding of the distinctive mission of the middle level school is necessary for that mission to succeed. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of March 1995 be designated as National Middle Level Education Month and that the public be afforded special opportunities to visit middle level schools and participate in programs that focus on the nature of young adolescents and celebrate the ways in which our nation's schools respond to their needs and to the needs of the nation. Done and ordered this 28th day of February, 1995, signed Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman. Motion to accept this proclamation designating National Middle Level Education Month. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to accept the proclamation. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, we certainly accept the proclamation. And I guess -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I certainly would like -- well, I would just like to encourage, as the proclamation designated, all parents get involved in your middle level school system. It's a very important time in the growth and maturity of our young people. Item #4A3 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 26 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1995, AS "NAPLES PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA WEEK" - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda, Commissioner Constantine. We're honored this morning to have the president of the Naples Philharmonic with us, Myra Janco Daniels. Myra, if you would come up. And we have the following proclamation. Whereas, the enrichment of children's lives through their involvement with the arts is earnestly sought and greatly valued in all enlightened societies; and, Whereas, opportunities for such enrichment are prized by Collier County as a governmental entity dedicated to the best interests of children; and, Whereas, the Naples Philharmonic Orchestra and the Philharmonic Center for the Arts have always made programming for children a primary part of their total programming; and, Whereas, the Naples Philharmonic and its then music director, Timothy Russell, in 1993 performed and recorded the contemporary children's classic, Tubby the Tuba, by George Kleinsinger and Paul Tripp; and, Whereas, and perhaps most impressively, that recording has been nominated for a Grammy award for excellence in the category of recordings for children which, in fact, is attracting national attention and admiration to the Naples Philharmonic and by extension to the City of Naples and Collier County. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of February 26 through March 4th, 1995, be designated as Naples Philharmonic Orchestra Week. Done and ordered this 28th day of 1995, Board of County Commissioners. I'd like to make a motion that we approve this proclamation. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to approve the proclamation. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, we approve the proclamation. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If I could interrupt before Myra tells us more about what's happening, I had the good pleasure over the weekend to be in contact with Timothy Russell. He was a neighbor of mine before he left for Arizona. And he merely wanted to say that of the four, five goals established by the Phil when it began, that he felt Tubby the Tuba brought three of those goals to -- to fruition, two of those three being national recognition, which is a great honor, and another being educational program for the youth. And he is extremely pleased and happy that the -- the nomination has come toward Tubby the Tuba, and he just says everybody keep their fingers crossed. Maybe tomorrow night we'll have a winner. Thank you. MS. DANIELS: On behalf of our board, we're very, very, very grateful for this recognition. I must tell you that over 12,500 young people come through our doors every year on at least two occasions or more. We believe in education. Coming September we will have 40 classes of continuous education that will be introduced to this county. You will -- might be interested in knowing that very shortly our millionth customer will come through those doors. Last evening I heard the orchestra play again, and I must tell you that we have an orchestra of national level. We are just starting on our trip up the ladder, and we love the support of this commission. I -- we -- we are keeping our fingers crossed on this recording. Lion King, as you've heard of them, they're -- they're a little bit of our competition, but it was a good thing. I -- I want you to know that a whole orchestra of 80 pieces worked very hard on that, and Manhattan Transfer were the -- were the artists with us, and the board -- the board dug down into their own pocketbooks and came up with $80,000 to make that recording, and so it was a joint team effort, and thank you for this recognition. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're very welcome. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Maybe by Wednesday midnight we'll -- we'll all be smiling and happy. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, Disney can't win them all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They sure try, though. Item #4A4 PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING "PALM COTTAGE", THE HEADQUARTERS AND NATIONAL HISTORIC STRUCTURE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY, INC. - ADOPTED Next -- next item on the agenda, Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Charles Danray, if you would come forward, we have a proclamation that I'd like to read. Would you come forward? Whereas, the Collier County Historical Society, Inc., founded in 1962 to gather and preserve all documents and materials that have a bearing on the history of Collier County; and, Whereas, the Collier County Historical Society acquired the building known as Palm Cottage at 137 12th Avenue South in order to prevent its possible destruction in 1978 has restored same and is responsible for the preservation of Palm Cottage; and, Whereas, Palm Cottage was designated a national historic structure in 1982, the only individual residential historic structure so recognized in Collier County; and, Whereas, the Collier County Historical Society allows tours of Palm Cottage by the public, both those living in and visiting Collier County from throughout the world; and, Whereas, Palm Cottage was built in 1895 and is celebrating its 100th anniversary throughout the year of 1995; and, Whereas, the Collier County Historical Society and the people of Collier County realize that the historic structure known as Palm Cottage is in need of restoration. Now, therefore, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, encourages all Collier County citizens to do everything possible to ensure that proper recognition of the antiquity and historic importance of Palm Cottage be observed and celebrated in a manner benefiting all the people of Collier County. Done and ordered this 28th day of February 1995, Board of County Commissioners, Bettye Matthews, Chairman. I'd like to move approval of the proclamation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the proclamation. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? No one. MR. DAURAY: Thank you very much. (Applause) MR. DAURAY: I would like to give you all a copy of our official publication, special edition for the 100th of Palm Cottage. And I would be remiss not giving you buttons from Palm Cottage. Here we are -- there you are. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We get to wear buttons today. MR. DAURAY: And one for you also. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The next proclamation is announcing this as proclamation day. MR. DAURAY: Thank you very much, Commissioners, for the recognition of our national historic site, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many people over the years whose foresight allowed us to preserve this very important structure in our county. It is interesting that this year there is a convergence, a confluence, you might say, of historic firsts. To the best of my knowledge, I believe that the League of Women Voters is 75 years old this year. The YMCA of Collier County is 25 years old. The Conservancy is 30 years old; Marco Island's formation 30 years; and, of course, the sesquicentennial for the State of Florida, 150 years. With all of that in mind, I'd like you to know that the celebration for Palm Cottage is part of our entire historic impetus for 1995 and that this meeting is going to be specially recorded, and the words that you speak today will be put into a time capsule to be buried on a lawn and preserved on a lawn of Palm Cottage. The time capsule will be disinterred 50 years from today. So with that in mind, I'm sure that the meeting of the commissioners will be a kinder, gentlet gender friendly meeting today. There's no question about that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're friendly. MR. DAURAY: Also that the commissioners who will be sitting where you are sitting 50 years from today -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's us. That will be me. MR. DAURAY: -- will -- as they are redebating now -- as they are debating the merits of the placement of the second Gordon River bridge, will reflect on your good words and so on. I'd like to thank Mrs. Daniels, of course, for the marvelous work that the Philharmonic work is doing. And, Mrs. Daniels, if you have something that you would like to have go into the time capsule this Friday, please make sure that we have that. We'd like to -- we'd like to preserve that. And the children of the community last week participated very much. All of the elementary school children sent in Palm Cottage drawings, 1,200 Palm Cottage drawings. And the children of Seacrest School -- who will be right up here in a moment -- when I walked through the doors, they said, there is the man from Palm Cottage. They all toured Palm Cottage last year. So it's heartening to know that they recognize history and you recognize history and that the people of Collier County recognize the heritage and history of their community. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. (Applause) Item #4A5 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 26 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1995, AS "FLORIDA HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AWARENESS WEEK" - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda, Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Chairman. We have with us today our -- our own Ken Pineau to accept this one from our emergency management office, and the proclamation reads: Whereas, the Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act or EPCRA was passed by Congress in October 1986, and the Florida Hazardous Materials Emergency Response and Community Right-to-Know Act was passed by the 1988 Florida legislature; and, Whereas, the implementation of those laws carried out by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and Florida State Emergency Response Commission or SERC is designed to protect the safety and well-being of all Floridians; and, Whereas, more than 17,000 businesses and government facilities in Florida have reported the use of hazardous materials, and 1,500 hazardous material incidents are reported in Florida annually; and, Whereas, EPCRA requires businesses and government facilities with certain quantities of covered substances to report to federal, state, and local officials to formulate emergency plans and procedures to improve emergency response to hazardous materials-related incidents; and, Whereas, community right-to-know provisions of the state and federal law help the community become aware of the substances utilized by local facilities. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of February 26th to March the 4th, 1995, be designated as Florida Hazardous Materials Awareness Week in Florida to recognize the importance of the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and urge all residents to become sensitive to the locations of hazardous materials in their communities, aware of whom to call in case of an emergency and knowledgeable about the evacuation routes in their community so that we can better ensure the protection and safety of all Floridians. Done and ordered this 28th day of February, 1995, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. And, Ms. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to accept the proclamation. I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? No one. Motion passes 4-0. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Pineau. (Applause) MR. PINEAU: Thank you, Commissioners. On behalf -- as a member of District 9 local emergency planning commission committee of southwest Florida I'd like to accept this proclamation on behalf of the thousands of households and private business in the community who deal with hazardous materials every day in a very safe and ethical manner. I'd also like to put in a plug for our environmental services division which will be holding its semiannual household hazardous waste collection day or days on the 10th and llth of next -- of this next month over in our north parking lot. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Ken. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Pineau. Item #4B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Next item on the agenda is service awards. We had five. I've learned earlier this morning we're down to four. We'll talk about that one later. But first off I would like to call Ruth Schulze from the library service who has been with Collier County for 20 years. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 20 years? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She obviously started when she was 12. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Here's your pin, and thank you very much. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congratulations. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 20 years. That's older than you are, isn't it? (Applause) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Younger than your children. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Younger than my children; you're right. Next is Mr. Dan Pucher from fleet management who has been with Collier County for ten years. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Dan. Dan. Next is Mr. William Swearingen with the utilities division for ten years. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: congratulations. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: the library for five years. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Pin, certificate, and my Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Carolann Abramoff with Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Carolann. Carolann. And our fifth person who was to be here this morning but is not was involved in increasing the population of Collier County last night. She gave birth right around midnight to a baby girl. We hope both are doing well. I'm sure they are. And congratulations to Lisa Taylor after completing five years of service and some very difficult, or not difficult labor, but some labor. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's no such thing as not difficult labor. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a good point. Thank you very much. Item #5C PATRIOTIC MUSICAL PRESENTATION BY SEACREST COUNTY DAY SCHOOL, SECOND GRADE STUDENTS Next item on the agenda is a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. It's a musical presentation from the Seacrest County Day School -- Country. It says County. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay. What age? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What age group? MR. WILLIAMS: Second grade. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a first grader. MR. DORRILL: We've had them waiting patiently for almost an hour. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: These are 36 -- correct, still 36 -- second graders. (Seacrest Country Day School Second Graders performed three songs.) (Applause) MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. We've enjoyed coming singing for you today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we take one home each? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, no problem at all. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dotrill, will we be booking this entertainment every Tuesday? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The kids did a wonderful job. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Very nice. MR. WILLIAMS: They're going on to the city government center now to take a tour of the city government center. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good luck. I'm sure they'll do well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good program. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. Glad we could sing for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Enjoy the rest of your day. Next item on the agenda -- gees, who wants to go on now. CONNISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we take about an eight-hour break? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How about a one-week break. Let's move on. Item #SA1 CARNIVAL PERMIT 95-1, KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS CARNIVAL TO BE HELD MARCH 1 THROUGH MARCH 5, 1995 ON VACANT LAND DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1-16, BLOCK A, IHMOKALEE SUBDIVISION - APPROVED Next item the agenda -- There are no budget amendments today, so we'll move directly to the county manager's report. item is 8-A-l, petition C-95-1. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is the standard -- First MR. DORRILL: Yes, it is. Bonds. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Hulhere. There's a motion and a -- MR. HULHERE: I've got more coming later so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We'll hear from you later. There's a motion and a second to approve petition 9 -- C-95-1. those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. All Item #8C1 RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REJECT ALL BIDS IN RESPONSE TO BID #94-2300 AND DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY VETERINARY SOCIETY TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE METHODS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS THAT ARE ADOPTED FROM THE ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER THAT ARE NEUTERED OR SPAYED - APPROVED WITH HUMANE SOCIETY Next item on the agenda under public services, 8-C-1, recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reject all bids. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I just wanted to be sure each of you got a copy this morning of the letter that come to me from the Humane Society. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, I did. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. I'm sorry. I was in the hallway fighting my way through flags. For the record, Tom Olliff, our public services administrator. And again this week this is an item that we would really like to get resolved. This is the item that was continued from last week's agenda, and rather than -- than go through the entire presentation, I think the board is aware of those facts about the cost of the neuter/spay bids that were received, and I provided to you later -- earlier in the week, I'm sorry, an itemization of the actual four bids that were received. And in case that you don't have them with you, I would like to hand those out. What I've just handed out is simply a tabulation of the bids as they were received. The top third of that page shows the prices received against the formula that was outlined in the bid specifications, and then in addition was the physical examination cost, and then towards the middle of the page the number that you probably want to focus on is that total bid price number there. And if you'll just look at those first two columns, that is the Humane Society and the Veterinary Society. Based on the formula that was in the bid specification, the Humane Society is the low bid by about $2 on average per operation performed. Over the course of the total annual number of neuters and spays that are done, we've put an annual cost of that, so there's a savings of about $2,000 on that if you go with a single contract with the Humane Society. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you say that last thing again, if you go with the single contract? MR. OLLIFF: If you go with the single contract, the total annual savings is there in the parentheses, $2,050. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tom, that doesn't take into account the letter. MR. OLLIFF: It doesn't, but I'm told the way the bid was submitted was this way, and this is the way that we spec'd it and the way it was actually submitted and this is the way that I have to look at what was -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thereafter if they're willing to charge $15 less, can we accept that offer? MR. OLLIFF: I'll let the attorney answer that, but I'm COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Attorney, wherever you are -- MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record Romero Hanalich, assistant county attorney. I've reviewed this matter and discussed it with staff. It appears to me that the Humane Society would not be allowed to change its bid at this point regarding the $15 because from my perception that would be a competitive advantage that they would gain. Now, my understanding from staff is that despite not allowing them to do that, they are still the low bidder. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question, though, Romero, is assuming that we award the -- if just assuming that -- that we went with the Humane Society's bid here at fifteen seventy-five instead of fifteen fifty-seven eighty -- I'm sorry. Let me try that again. Assuming we went with the Humane Society's bid at 55.75 instead of the Veterinary Society at 57.80 and then the Humane Society thereafter wants to offer us this gift of reducing that by $15, I assume we don't have to pay them more than they are asking for. MR. HANALICH: I think I would agree with that, Tom. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean if they want to charge us $40, we can pay them only 40 bucks. I would pray that was the case. MR. HANALICH: My point is that the evaluation of bids should be made -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- based on these costs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- based on these bids. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the correlation would be if someone builds a new building for us and it comes in under budget, we don't still give them the extra money just for good measure. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just want to be sure. MR. OLLIFF: Okay. So you know there would be a contract that would have to follow. I'm assuming as part of that contract if we would negotiate that price out or as included in part of operation that it wouldn't be an additional charge. However, even based on these numbers, the county recommendation or the staff recommendation hasn't changed. We're still recommending that we not award the bid and that you direct staff to go work with the Veterinary Society. And in general terms we covered this last week. We just believe that there is goodwill and actual dollar value at risk, and we provided last week, I think, an estimation of some $61,000 that we estimate plus the effect on a county-wide licensing program. And for those reasons we would still recommend that we try and do a negotiated type of a -- some type of improvement other than a single contract with a single clinic with the Veterinary Society before we would go try and do this because we do believe there would be some negative impacts and substantial negative impacts with the department. And with that, that's my presentation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have two elements on this that don't become part of the numerical bid process that I believe are fiscal considerations, and I would just like to clarify them if I may. On number one on this sheet you state that the cost does not include transportation to and from the animal control department, and that's been estimated at $4,500 annually. We currently have about a thousand adoptions a year, so we're talking four and a half dollars per animal for transport cost, and that's assuming county staff and vehicles are used. MR. OLLIFF: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that is a true cost or even one-half of that is a cost, then the animal control bid is not the lowest. MR. OLLIFF: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Secondly, the value of emergency medical service last year, $24,000 in services were provided to Collier County free of charge from local veterinarians and again averaging out approximately $24 per animal. I believe there's some indication that we may lose the bulk of that service if we do not contract with the veterinarians. Would that be a fair assumption? MR. OLLIFF: I think there is certainly that risk. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I add those two things together. I come up $28.50 in potential additional charges by contracting with Humane Society. That's a big -- big lump of change to increase our spay/neuter that -- I believe it's 30 percent. Weren't we achieving about 70 percent, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a big cost to me, and I guess I just wanted to put that on the floor because I think we do have to look at all of the fiscal indicators, and those two certainly come into play in this situation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment, Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree with what Commissioner Hancock said. There's another point I -- I'd like to bring out that I don't believe he spoke about, and that is the licenses being sold through area veterinarians. If the veterinarians no longer receive these animals, there may be instances where the animals don't get licensed, and that's not in anyone's best interest to have unlicensed animals. Plus there's quite a bit of revenue to the county involved in the licenses. The -- per animal it's how much, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: It depends on the animal, whether it's neutered or spayed. There are some discounts available, but our total annual county revenue is about $80,000. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: $80,000. It certainly seems to me that we are -- we are faced with the decision of whether to risk $24,000 worth of emergency medical service and a portion of the $80,000 licensing fee in order to gain $2,050. Is that -- am I fairly accurate in these assumptions? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. And that's the reason the staff recommendation was what it was. In order to save 2,000 you risk 61 and a licensing program. You have to take those things into consideration when you're going to make a recommendation for -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And there's one other element that I'd like to bring out is right now we have a decentralization of this service because we have any number of veterinarians that participate and are available to provide this service. If we lump all our eggs in one basket and for any reason there's some period of time of inavailability of a veterinarian, then we are without a program, period. And that's another consideration that has to be taken into account here. And when you weigh all of these factors with trying to save $2,000, I don't believe that the justification is here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know I'm not allowed to consider this in my decision because I have to make my decision based on these bid numbers, but I don't have a calculator. Has somebody done the math on if in fact it's $15 less, what are the numbers? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's $15,000 less. COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So then the comparisons are -- we're not -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 17,000. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, then we're not saving 2,000; we're saving 17,000. I just think that that's -- even though we have to play by the rules of the game, and God knows I -- you know, I'm one of those lawyers who makes the rules, but -- but I think that we ought to be realistic and deal with the facts too, not just the game. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I think Commissioner Hac'Kie is right. We need to deal in real world here, and we're not talking 2,000. We're talking 17,000. I think to suggest that we're going to lose all of our license fees is Henny Penny, the sky is falling. I don't think that's going to happen. I think most veterinarians are caring, responsible doctors that are going to try to serve the best interests of their client, the pet owner. And obviously licensing the animal is in the best interest of their client, the pet owner. I can't remember what the statistics were, some overwhelming number. One nonspayed or neutered cat can provide a million in its lifetime, a gazillion other cats. I assume that has an impact on us as more and more cats and more and more dogs are running around, and we pick them up and run them through our program. A 30 percent difference in spay and neuter, particularly when that high end becomes 100 percent, we no longer have any cats or dogs going out of our program that aren't spayed or neutered. I've got to think if you start nitpicking at fiscal, that's going to have a great fiscal impact in a positive manner not to have those animals multiplying and coming back to us on the other end. If you look around the state -- you only have to look as far as Lee County, but if you look all around the state, the most successful programs in the state are those where the county either contracts to the Humane Society or shares responsibility with the Humane Society. This isn't a competition. I think we're all shooting for the same thing. Yeah, there's some -- there may be a veterinarian or two out there that will turn the county away and not participate. I don't think that's going to happen with the majority of the veterinarians. And I don't think there's any reason why the Humane Society can't provide the same list we provide when you adopt a dog or cat of those veterinarians. For most people -- I think of myself with my cats -- it's a matter of convenience. I have a doctor with whom I'm very comfortable with in the Golden Gate area, and I happened to get my cat from the Humane Society and happened to have the initial work done at the Humane Society, but then I nestled in with my doctor located conveniently in Golden Gate. I have to think that's what the majority of pet owners are going to do. Just because the initial operation is done on Airport Road doesn't mean someone on Marco Island who's adopted a dog is going to drive back to Airport Road every time. I think they're still going to go to their veterinarian, and we can provide them with that list. So I think that in a nutshell if we can have -- save $17,000, we can have 100 percent of our animals going out knowing that they cannot multiply, period, and that we can follow the example of other counties around the state, fiscally we are going to save money in the long run. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: What is the term of this contract, Tom? Is it one year? MR. OLLIFF: Two years. Two years with some options to renew. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Host of what you said, Commissioner Constantine, I can't disagree with. However, we keep talking about reality, and the reality is a veterinarian that has a much greater reduced chance of becoming a -- the veterinarian for an animal that goes out is not going to be as apt to provide services to Collier County Animal Control. I think that's reasonable. If this were a one-year contract -- I'm trying to look down the road, and I think we're going to see an increase in expenditure here. I don't think there's going to be a savings. There's going to be a definite increase to the county. I'm anticipating that, but I really don't have anything to prove that. If this were a one-year contract where we had the ability to review it in one year and actually look at those numbers to find out did we save dollars, did we spend dollars and how much with a one-year option, I would be more comfortable going with the Humane Society simply because I don't want to -- I look at the numbers and see something a little different than you do. I see a expenditure where you see a savings. So -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If our legal counsel tells us we can make this to be a year with an option, I'd certainly be willing to accept that compromise because I think proof's in the pudding. At the end of the year either we'll know we spent more -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. It's not a statement about the Humane Society but simply a fiscal look at this, and if we go 12 months down the road and we did not save dollars, then we know exactly what the cost versus the increase in spay/neuter is, and we can make a judgement decision at that point. So I would like to see what the reaction is for one year as opposed to two. And with that I, you know -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm a little bit concerned that the two-year contract period was part of the RFP and that changing it to one year may very well alter the numbers. We don't know that right now, but I'm just a little bit leery of straying too far from the bid. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see a swing of up to $40,000 a year here, and that's a lot on a -- you know, a swing of up to 80,000 over two years, that's a lot to gamble on to me. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's, one more time, that I think that causes us to recognize we need to look at our purchasing policy because we don't have -- I don't think we have the ability to just say, no, one year is a better deal. We should have, but I don't think we have that flexibility. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think we do either. MR. HANALICH: Well, I guess part of the question here is it appears it was based on a unit price arrangement, so I'm not sure that the length of contract factored in. I'd like to take a quick look at the specs, but that's what Tom has indicated to me. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we were to approve the contract on a one year with a one-year extension and it not be challenged, then it flies as recommended. Would that be correct? MR. OLLIFF: That's correct. And as Romero pointed out, I think, you know, that the way the bid is structured may or may not affect -- be affected by term in this particular case because it was a unit-priced bid. In fact, it's not affected by term unless you're expecting them to make a initial large capital investment in order to carry them for the cost of this. And from the indications I've had with the Humane Society, they won't -- that they intend to do staffing with or without this contract the same. So I think -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if it's not affected by term, the answer is we can change that to one year. MR. OLLIFF: I would think so. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would be willing to look at a one-year contract with a one-year option for the simple reason that I'm speculating an increase of cost to the county. I'm also anticipating a reduction in the number of adoptions from animal control, and I have no basis other than feeling for that. So I really can't let that stand in the way of what appears to be the low bidder even though fiscally I internally want to balk at this. That's the only way in which I would consider it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I think I agree that there may be a reduction in adoptions, but that reduction may not be all bad. If that reduction comes about due to what you could call a cooling off period between little Sally saying, Hommy, Daddy, let's go get a dog or a cat, and a week later after the spaying has occurred mommy and daddy saying, oh, my God, do we really want to do that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're probably not good owners anyway. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're probably not good owners anyway so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- if that's true, that's a good point of the other one. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, I need to go over one more time the emergency -- after hours emergency services. What -- if the Humane Society's contract is approved, what will be the effect on the after hours emergency services? MR. OLLIFF: I don't know that. Right now what we get from the veterinarians is in a lot of cases -- this week a case with a treatment -- emergency medical treatment on a puppy was done and no bill ever received. And so in most cases a lot of vets around town are writing off the total bills whenever an animal control animal shows up. In a lot of cases it will be 50 percent off of the published price. We just gave you our estimate of what our annual savings are from that program there at $24,000. Whether the vets as a society will continue to provide that sort of goodwill no cost, reduced rate to animal control or not, I can't tell you. I will tell you that I think a certain portion of that will be at risk because I think it is a business investment in some of their eyes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand that, and I'm not speaking totally to the cost portion of that, but will the service itself be provided, or will the service be at risk? MR. OLLIFF: Well, we don't have a choice. We'll have to get the service from some place, and we will -- and probably worst-case scenario we'll end up paying for all of that, and so that will be an expense item in the animal control department's budget that's currently not there. Best case, it will continue exactly like it is, and we'll be able to keep that budget line item exactly where it is. Realistically I think it's going to fall somewhere in between, and we're going to end up paying more for the emergency medical services. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it safe to assume if we find a way through our imagination to nurture the relationship with the veterinarians and encourage use again through that list like we currently use or other things that they will continue to provide that service? MR. OLLIFF: Is there a representative of the vet society here who could answer some of these questions? MR. DORRILL: Yes, Mr. Johnson is here. Could you explain a little bit how that works, or either ask Jodi to help you explain that? Is there a rotation list, or does it depend -- if we pick an animal up that's been hit by a car, do we take it to the closest vet? And the other thing that I think the board needs to know, does the Humane Society's vet participate in the rotation for emergency medical services? MS. MORELOCK: I'm Jodi Morelock, director of animal control. Yes, they have a rotating doctor on call for emergencies in the evening. So whenever you pick up an animal in the evening, you call the closest veterinary clinic, and they'll refer you to the vet that's on call. MR. DORRILL: And does that include -- do we allow the Humane Society's veterinarian to participate in that as well? MS. MORELOCK: Yes, they are part of the association. And I believe he is one of the veterinarians on call. MR. DORRILL: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Identify yourself, please. DR. JOHNSON: Dr. Johnson from Eastside Animal Clinic. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question for you, Dr. Johnson, before you begin. Are you here officially representing the Veterinary -- DR. JOHNSON: Myself, but I'm also past secretary-treasurer for three years of the Society. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you representing the Society, or are you here representing yourself? DR. JOHNSON: Yes. I did talk with the president yesterday, and I am a representative, yes. As far as comment on emergency duty, yes, it is a rotation. It is a loosely knit group of people cooperating together to take care of emergencies during the week. Sixteen of us have formed a business, our own corporation, to take care of emergencies on the weekend, but the inclusion or exclusion on that list depends entirely upon the vote upon the group, so any member can or cannot because of any reason can be included or excluded in that group as we choose. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quite frankly, if we were to award the bid to the Humane Society -- and believe me, I'm not asking for threats here. I just want an honest opinion -- most of the veterinarians that you know, if the spay/neuter contract changes to a single provider such as the Humane Society, is that going to have a significant effect on the number of doctors willing to serve on that rotation? DR. JOHNSON: Absolutely. As far as you're going to get an impact not only on emergency duty but especially on license tag sales. It's going to have a profound impact, not one or two that are going to not sell. It's going to be one or two that do. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Because I feel like I'm gambling tens of thousands of dollars of a given -- DR. JOHNSON: Believe me, sir, you are. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- against the potential for decrease in population of the shelter. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I can't believe that there's only going to be one or two that will provide that service to their clients. DR. JOHNSON: The unofficial poll that I've taken gets close to a hundred percent -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The key word there is unofficial. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question was what are you going to tell your clients when they ask you -- DR. JOHNSON: No other county in the State of Florida has a hundred percent compliance of tag sales by veterinarians. This is the only county that does. You're going to lose a considerable amount from this. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A question was what will you tell your client when they say I need to get a tag for my dog? DR. JOHNSON: What every other county says. Go to county animal control center and pick it up. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems to me then as a pet owner that I'm going to go to the vet who gives me -- who takes advantage of that competitive advantage to provide all the services that I need for my -- DR. JOHNSON: It's not really a competitive advantage because we lose money selling tags. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you're going to lose more business because you won't do everything I need for my pet, so I'm going to go to a vet who will. That's just my -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to agree with Commissioner Hac'Kie. I mean you talk about fairness and doing what's competitive and trying to provide service and so on, and if I take my cat in for its annual, that's the same time that I do my license. And if I have to make an extra trip because that doctor says no, then I'm going to go to a different doctor if it's not convenient. So I think for you to suggest that one or two veterinarians will do that and the rest are going to suggest that, I can't believe that, absolutely cannot believe that. DR. JOHNSON: I'm just telling you the facts. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He either. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, there's additional public speakers? MR. DORRILL: I don't know if Dr. Johnson had any other comments. DR. JOHNSON: Yes. MR. DORRILL: Okay. And then, Hiss Tobias, if I could have you stand by please, ma'am. Dr. Johnson, go ahead. DR. JOHNSON: This comes down to more than just an issue of dollars and cents. There's the statement of the goal of animal control is to increase adoptions and decrease euthanasia. This type of program is going to have just a counter-impact on that. It's going to not save money in the long term because it doesn't address the problem why the animals are impounded and euthanized in the first place, which is not overpopulation. The main cause of euthanasia in this country is behavior problems of the animal. It's not overpopulation. And if sterilization is the answer, then we simply do not have enough veterinarians practicing in this country to take care of cats, let alone dogs or any other animals. So sterilization is not going to be the ultimate answer. It's got to be education of our owners. And any plan that would take clients away from veterinarians and reduce their exposure time is going to be a problem. Fiscally I think I have a question about any of those programs that have higher spay -- spay and adoption -- spaying at the time of adoption if fiscally they have saved any money. That's a question that's -- I think you're going to find the answer; it's going to cost more no matter what. The disadvantages of the Humane Society bid are, one, that it -- we argued about the overall cost expenditures and the fact that transportation is not included. That was a part of the bid requirements, and I don't think they addressed that, which somewhat disqualifies their bid. Next was that I talked to a client of mine about an hour ago, and she flat out told me of the four animals she's adopted from animal control. She would no longer adopt them if they were going to have to be taken to another veterinarian. Not to say anything about me, but there are a lot of veterinarians that have a lot of client trust in this town, and you're going to have a significant number of reduction in adoption rate because those people are not going to want to participate in this program. They will get the animals elsewhere. And, again, the stated goal of animal control is to increase adoptions and decrease euthanasia. And it's going to be counterproductive because you're taking the freedom of choice away from people. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question for clarification. The client you spoke to said that if the Humane Society or if somebody else -- DR. JOHNSON: Somebody else. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- neutered the dog -- DR. JOHNSON: If she was forced to take her animal to somebody else first -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me be sure and get my question. If somebody else neutered the dog, she wouldn't adopt the dog? Okay. DR. JOHNSON: That's true. The other thing that bothers me about the program is it -- the animals that come out of animal control are in poor physical condition. Of the ones that I've seen in the last two weeks, I couldn't honestly say I'd spay or neuter any one at that time. We have a major upper respiratory problem with the cats coming out of there right now. And I've seen five or six cats with high fevers, nasal discharge, sick, anemic, parasitic. It's not the time to spay them is at the time they come through an organization or an area where they've been abandoned. These animals need time to build up. If you do spay them at this young age, at this poor physical condition, you're going to have to expect morbidity and mortality. You're going to have animals at six weeks of age go through this program as it stated on the bid, go through the program, get put in too high density facilities, spayed or neutered, and when they're at their weakest time immunologically, you're going to have postoperative complications. You're going to have costs. Who's going to take care of them? It's going to be put back to us probably. Who's going to pay for that? There's no contingency for a sick animal coming into the Humane Society to say wait -- let's wait a week or two weeks. That means more transportation costs, everything. You're going to have significant lost. If these are sick coming out of there -- and to me there's no excuse to spay or neuter an animal when it can be done two months later when it's sick. And there's no contingency plan. You're going to have mortality. You're going to have morbidity and costs. How are you going to explain that to the people who are adopting these animals? That's a major problem with this program, very, very major. We wait until they're ready to go. And you're going to have death associated with this. You're going to have cost. You're going to have increased emergency fees. All that's going to build up. The assembly line fashion may also be a problem. When you start getting one or two veterinarians doing two or three thousand animals a year, you're going to have problems just in sheer numbers. Instead of becoming an individual patient they become another number, and you get the problems with that. Lastly, you shouldn't forget the veterinarians have donated a truck to the Collier County Animal Control, have donated a crematorium and paid for another one, and those types of services are going to be gone or very well could be gone. The scholarship program we have may disappear. The fact that the amount of free time that we give as far as neutering pets, as far as the loss when we issue tags, as far as the free physical exams, all that may be gone. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Has the Society taken a position on all of those? DR. JOHNSON: Not at this level. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes or no? Has the Society DR. JOHNSON: No. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. DR. JOHNSON: We have not had time to vote on it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Had time? DR. JOHNSON: They're waiting the outcome of this meeting. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be too late to vote on it. here. for. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think -- DR. JOHNSON: It's in a direct response to what happens CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you want to wrap it up? DR. JOHNSON: I finished it. That's all I have time CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question of either Mr. Olliff or Mr. Cornell. Dr. Johnson has said that the transportation was a part of the bid and not in addition to. Is that true? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. There was a item line to be filled in for transportation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Was it an add alternate, or was it a requirement for it to be part of the bid? MR. OLLIFF: Requirement for it to be part of the bid. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the Humane Society then was not responsive in that area; is that true? MR. OLLIFF: They included a note that indicated that would be negotiated as part of the contract negotiations. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that acceptable to our purchasing requirements and rules? MR. OLLIFF: I'm sorry. We're talking about the transportation. The transportation was an add alternate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Was an add alternate, okay, fine. Next speaker. MR. DORRILL: Is Ms. Tobias. And then following her is, I believe, Dr. Eisel. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just had another question, if I may. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know if Tom -- for you or someone else. But the other point that was made that got my attention is that there's not a contingency. We have to pay or neuter these animals regardless of their health. Is that a fact under the Humane Society's bid, that we're going to spay or neuter them the day we get them or soon thereafter? We're not going to -- there's no contingency for delaying it a month or so if necessary for their health? MS. TOBIAS: I'm Lee Tobias, president of the Humane Society, and I live at 4451 Gulf Shore Boulevard North. We have included in the price of our bid a physical, which the animal, of course, would be assessed, and if there was any problem with that, it would be up to the vet at that point to decide the course of action. There's no way that we're going to perform a spay/neuter on a sick animal, and we do everything from listening to the heart and lungs, establishing the weight, general health status, mucus color membrane, feline leukemia check, heart worm fecal, so I think we do a very comprehensive physical there. And I would be distressed to think that we would do anything to an animal that isn't healthy at that point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MS. TOBIAS: I just want to add a couple of things here. In no way did we ever want this to or intend this to become a battle in a public arena because we all do have the same goals here. I can't agree with Dr. Johnson on his feelings about euthanasia. I think we're in a crisis intervention situation here when we're looking at something like over thirty-one million animals a year that are euthanized. This isn't a matter of looking at behavior. I think we're into crisis intervention. We are totally willing to work with the vets. We do not want to quibble or whatever with them. And whatever happens out of this today, we never want this idea to be let go because you are going to be hounded totally and if forever from animal activists groups that are going to want a drastic reduction in euthanasia or a hundred percent compliance. That's a given. So while we bicker here, more animals are being put to sleep, and I want to say that we can do this job for you. I do believe that we've come in at the lowest bid. We are willing to work with the county on this. I think that we can do this for you. I don't know what else there is to say at this point. We want to stop this problem. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right now we -- Miss Tobias. MS. TOBIAS: I'm sorry. Excuse me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right now the veterinarians are on a rotation to provide emergency medical care. MS. TOBIAS: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does the Humane Society anticipate providing all of that? MS. TOBIAS: The Humane Society currently participates in that program. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not my question. MS. TOBIAS: And to answer your question, this was not part of our bid. We were not asked to -- to -- at this point when we submitted this bid, we were not asked to comment on the costs that it would cost us -- in using our member funds what it would cost to provide emergency services, so that catches me totally off guard. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The question once again is not what the bid was and not what you bid. The question is, is the Humane Society in a position to provide all of the after-hours emergency care. MS. TOBIAS: I'm in a position to go to my financial committee to look at our figures to see how many animals are coming in. And might I add, sir, that on the veterinarian's costs or services provided, if you look at the cost of heart worm, $20 times 1,000 animals, if there's 1,000 animals adopted out each year, are we to assume that they're all dogs, because cats don't get heart worms? So this $20,000 to me is a figure that is not correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Once again, I'm not getting into the bid. It's a very simple question. MS. TOBIAS: I understand that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. If -- and it -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I don't think the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a minute, Commissioner Constantine. I've got the floor, please. You had your chance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He has the floor. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Now it's my turn. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You had the floor. Continue. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There is some question about whether or not these emergency medical services will be provided or not. MS. TOBIAS: Correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is the Humane Society proposing or preparing to take over all of the emergency after hours medical care or not? MS. TOBIAS: I cannot answer that right on this spot. All I can say -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. If you can't answer it, that's fine. MS. TOBIAS: I will repeat what I said before, that I'm prepared to look at the figures -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What you said before was not responsive to the question. It doesn't matter if you repeat that. I asked you a very simple question. You said you can't answer it. I accept that. That's fine. MS. TOBIAS: I'm open to looking at that, the figures. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I apologize for interrupting. I was just going to say, I don't think the question was raised whether or not the service will be provided. It was a question of whether or not it will be provided at cost still, because I think -- just let me finish now. It's catching, isn't it. I think the question before was or I think that services provided not only to animal control, that is if anything happens in the middle of the night there is that rotation of -- of who is on call in the middle of the night. That's not strictly for us. That's county-wide. So I don't think that's going to stop. I think the question is whether or not that -- the cost will be affected by this. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I heard a different story. I heard that there's a potential for a lot of the veterinarians to not participate in that and that, therefore, we would be taking now what is a very widespread service and reducing the numbers of participants and perhaps losing some of the service, and that's what I heard. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, can you clear that up? MR. OLLIFF: It's a question of what bill results. I think the service will continue to be provided. It's what bill will result. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have one more speaker. Let's hear that speaker. MR. DORRILL: It's Dr. Eisel or Eisel, if you would, please, sir. MR. EISEL: Oh, I don't really have anything further for the commissioners unless you have any specific questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Then we're finished hearing the public comment? Could I get a motion, and then we'll debate the motion. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move we approve the lowest bid with the Humane Society and go forward with the contract as proposed, two years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that so we can move on with discussion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Discussion. Let's look to Commissioner Hancock. You guys support your motion in a minute. Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've been kind of on the fence on this one. I don't know if anyone else had the opportunity, but I just recently spent a half day working in animal control. And I guess, you know, I have to go what my gut tells me is going to be in the best interest of the taxpayer on this. I really think that moving with the Humane Society is going to be a cost to us and -- and I'm sorry. You know, like I said, there's merits to both sides, but I'm going to be voting to keep it with the Veterinary Society. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, you want me to interject -- MR. CUYLER: I just wanted to mention real quickly in case the one year versus two years came up. There is a termination for convenience provision, as I understand it, in the contract, so you could terminate that at less than two years if you saw fit. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We could terminate it in a month or two months, at whatever point was convenient for the county. MR. CUYLER: We just need a yes or no; is that correct? MR. HANALICH: Yes, 30-day notice. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, you had -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one small short comment. As being a lawyer and a member of professional associations, I know that you guys have similar situations, but it's important that we not allow an individual to speak for an association when he doesn't come with that authority. And also as a lawyer I -- I know that every lawyer who has an opinion, it's not the same as mine. I mean I think that's a problem that lawyers have to deal with generally, and maybe that's a problem that veterinarians have to deal with too. I think that it's -- it's an insult to the veterinarians of this community to say that they would abandon this program and that they're not going to do what's best for the animals of the community and best for the pet owners. So I hope we can get support for this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We've debated a lot of points on the financial side of this, and there's some question of who's right and who's wrong on the financial part. My concern goes more into what's best for the animals and whether or not the services are going to be provided as efficiently and effectively for the animals themselves in the future if we centralize the program with one vendor. And that would concern me whether it's the Humane Society or any of the individual veterinarian services that bid. I -- I think we would be taking a risk with the well-being of the animals of the county if we don't continue to utilize the services that are widespread that we have today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The unfortunate thing is this has been painted as though this is going to take animals away from the veterinarians. I don't think that needs to be the case. Dr. Johnson said something to the effect that this will take animals away. The more time with the veterinarians and the more education, the better. And I agree with that part. But that conflicts directly with your statement about the license position and all the other veiled threats that were made. Those aren't in the best interests. That doesn't provide more education, so you can't play both sides of the coin. Either it's one or the other. And if the best interest -- and I think most veterinarians think it is -- is to spend more time with their vet and to have a better education, I think they're going to continue to provide those services. I agree with Commissioner Mac'Kie as far as who is speaking for whom today. What I hear is a single doctor who is afraid of losing business, and I -- I understand the concern, but I don't think it's a valid concern. I think we can strive to continue to work with the local vets and to make sure that a relationship is still established with the local vets and that we can still have that education of which you spoke and at the same time do this and have 100 percent spay and neuter and not have unwanted kittens and puppies running around out there. And, Commissioner Hancock, I appreciate what you've said, and we apparently disagree, and that's fine. I suspect that'll happen a few more times. I think the key is what Mr. Cuyler just said. If we find dollar-wise this isn't working six months from now, a year from now, at any time we can opt out of this contract for convenience of the county. So I would ask you -- you had said earlier if it was a year, it might make you more comfortable, and I would ask you to approve this with the thought in mind that perhaps we can formally review this in a year's time even if it is a two-year contract and go ahead and see where we are at, and if we are indeed hemorrhaging money-wise, then we can discontinue it at that time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any further comment? Well, I'm going to support the motion, and I'm going to support the motion because I believe that the veterinarians in Collier County are truly dedicated professionals, and they will do what is best for their businesses and for the dogs and cats and other animals in the county. The Humane Society proposal will move our program more toward 100 percent compliance, and that's something I've been seeking for two and a half years now. And if the added costs Commissioner Hancock has raised do come to be, we can cancel. If we have problems with the centralization Commissioner Norris envisions, we can also cancel. So it is a contract we'll be monitoring, and if we run into these difficulties, I'm sure that we'll be looking at it again. And with that I will call the question if -- if nobody objects. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 3 to 2, Commissioners Hancock and Norris in dissent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Be back at 20 minutes of. (A short break was held.) Can we take a break? Huh? Take a break. Yeah, take a break. 10 minutes. Item #SG1 CONTRACT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTHENT OF ENVIRONHENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) TO PERFORM UNIQUE AND INNOVATIVE PROJECT ACTIVITIES IN COLLIER COUNTY - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED AND INTERIM POSITION TO BE INCREASED TO RUN WITH THE CONTRACT CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the county commission meeting for February 28th. Next item on the agenda is 8-G-l, approval of a contract with Florida Department of Environmental Protection. MR. SMITH: Good morning. My name is Ray Smith. I work for the pollution control department. I have a brief presentation. On February 7th, 1995, this proposed contract was presented to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. During the initial presentation of this agenda item the board requested additional information and clarification. Through the executive summary and Exhibit 1 staff addressed these questions as well as possible. This proposed contract is a $50,000 matching funds grant, which these state funds will be matched with a portion -- excuse me -- of the $453,800 appropriated within the county's hazardous waste management program. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question. MR. SMITH: Sure. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: This will be matched to funds that we are going to expend anyway? MR. SMITH: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that correct? MR. SMITH: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So the only consideration here would be either we take the $50,000 grant, or we don't take the $50,000 grant. MR. SMITH: Correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris, just -- I'm trying to get an answer to that question too that -- I understand these are funds that are budgeted, but are they, in fact, going to be spent whether or not we match it with this 50? MR. SMITH: These funds -- these funds are budgeted for hazardous waste management. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. MR. SMITH: And the funds will be budgeted -- will be spent if the need arises for that purpose. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But will the need arise -- it appears to me, and I want you to tell me if I'm wrong -- it appears to me that this is $50,000 that's in the budget; we'll spend it if we get another 50 from the state. First of all, I've got no great interest in getting another 50 from the state because it's tax money, but I certainly don't want to get 50 so that we spend 50. MR. SMITH: We will probably spend those -- the $50,000 that have already been budgeted within the program. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What would you spend it on? MR. SMITH: This is just an additional $50,000 that will help improve the in-kind services. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What would the $50,000 be spent on if we don't do this matching grant? MR. SMITH: The $50,000 will be spent on establishing collections for businesses of the hazardous wastes they generate. It will be spent on amnesty day collections, which we have one on March 10th and llth. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How are you going to do those programs without this 50,000? It seems to me you're moving it from those programs to another program. MR. SMITH: No, not necessarily. What we're doing is we're enhancing those programs. For example, the $50,000 that is -- well, first of all, let me back up. Within the household hazardous waste collection program we have $150,000 budgeted. Of those monies we use those monies for the disposal of hazardous waste through amnesty day collections, and we have a household hazardous waste collection facility in which we -- we clean out those hazardous wastes and use those monies for that cleanout. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm familiar with that. MR. SMITH: The $50,000 will help by providing another amnesty day collection within the county in the outlying areas. MR. DORRILL: Commissioner, you'll find a good breakout of what he's saying on page 7 -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I see that. MR. DORRILL: -- because it differentiates between essentially what we did last year and what we would propose to do, which is in the second column. And, for example, the -- the biggest part of the money is this amnesty day program, and as opposed to having just two days per year and the one that's upcoming, they're going to add a third day in the hopes that they can collect, you know, additional supplies. But that's -- I asked them to specifically break it out here, because the question that you asked last time is, well, what do I get for my money now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. DORRILL: And before I even want to determine to accept any additional money. That's why they've shown it the way that they have. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So the business about the Spanish language is only part of what the 50 -- the federal -- the state funds would be spent on? MR. DORRILL: That's my understanding. The primary special Spanish focus has a cost of $12,000. It's like the third or fourth item that's down there, and I don't know whether the staff has determined whether the one additional household collection program would occur, frankly, in Immokalee, which is where the preponderance of Spanish speaking people are, or whether they would still have it here. I just don't know at this point. MR. SMITH: At this point we've just decided that it will be located in the outlying areas. We haven't dedicated an existing site at this point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to make sure I understand exactly what we have here. As I look at the first page and under considerations, the things being considered is coordinate a, quote, milk route, and that's which businesses can call the county, and we'll run out and get their hazardous waste for them? MR. SMITH: Well, the milk run is where the county's contract it has with its waste transporter will work with the county, will be notifying the businesses of -- of the telephone number or contact with the hazardous waste transporter. And they'll work out with the hazardous waste transporter the milk run in which the transporter will drive to the business location, pick up the hazardous waste that the business has generated, and then they'll pay the transporter for that service. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And then we hire a temporary part-time pollution control specialist who is bilingual. MR. SMITH: Yes, part time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then we increase an existing position to a higher position. MR. SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And part of the reason for that is so that they can oversee the grant so we get more money so that we can pay them more money. MR. SMITH: Not necessarily. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In part, in part. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what it looks like. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Growth management plan, this program significantly satisfies -- and I appreciate your attempting to satisfy our growth management plan, but the county shall appropriately manage hazardous waste materials and wastes to protect the county's populous and natural resources and ensure the highest environmental quality. And I agree wholeheartedly with that goal, but I'm afraid -- my concern is that we may be going beyond that with this -- going beyond what's necessary with that. At the bottom of the page we see ad valorem tax impact total, zero, and I'm probably one of the five happiest people in the room to see that. However, the total tax dollar, while it's not ad valorem tax, the total tax dollar impact is still a hundred thousand dollars. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My concern when we add a part-time person and increase a current one is that we are looking for ways to spend this money that's been budgeted instead of simply trying to fulfill the program. MR. SMITH: Not necessarily, Commissioner. What we're -- the monies that we have budgeted for primarily with the household hazardous waste collection historically have been spent up to about $150,000. The $50,000 -- $40,000 of the $50,000 that we were requesting through this contract with the state will be going towards enhancing those problems, in essence, removing more of the household generated hazardous wastes that exist within Collier County. If you may, I have a memoranda that I prepared, and once I locate it, if I can provide you -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: While you're looking, can I ask you another question? MR. SMITH: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have several more too, but go ahead. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Just that the second item here on the list that Mr. Dorrill referred us to, HHWCF cleanout, it says presently performed services is performed quarterly at county costs of a hundred thousand dollars, and with the grant that same service will only cost us $85,000. Why is -- where did that 15,000 -- why does it cost 15,000 more without the grant -- yeah, 15,000 more without the grant? Why is that? MR. SMITH: You're referring to the household hazardous waste collection facility, item two on the table? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. MR. SMITH: Primarily the monies that we are presently using for the cleanout of the household hazardous waste facility is one hundred thousand dollars. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. SMITH: What we're doing is we're taking the difference of the $85,000 and placing it into the amnesty day as matching funds. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question is why is it that today without the grant that activity costs a hundred thousand dollars and that tomorrow if we get the grant that same activity costs $85,000. I must be missing something. I don't mean to be -- MR. SMITH: Primarily -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're not missing anything. MR. SMITH: Primarily what we're doing is we're keeping those monies in reserve for the cleanout of the household hazardous waste. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, then why are you spending it in the first place? MR. SMITH: We receive a number of various different types of hazardous wastes that the cost varies substantially, and we do need those monies in reserve. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- my last comment, and then I'm just going to stop on this, is just a suggestion that unless it's some sort of requirement for getting a grant, that you not give us an item that says you want to perform unique and innovative projects that cost tax dollars. That immediately sent out bells and whistles for me. MR. YILMAZ: For the record, George Yilmaz with pollution control. As I mentioned before, unfortunately I can say in this business picking up, we've got enough hazardous wastes out there to deal with, and that's one reason we have asked staff to prepare the memorandum that I shared with you. At this time our service level for households is 4 percent. We were able to collect only 4 percent of household hazardous wastes, and our service level for businesses has been point five percent. So there is a lot of household and business waste not being reached and collected. Bottom line is we have $50,000 which this board has received competitively that we can spend and increase our service level to small businesses as well as household. As an example, last year we only collected 80,000 pounds of hazardous wastes from households where an estimated household hazardous waste generated per year according to state and federal guidelines, 1.8 million pounds. In terms of businesses, out of 58 businesses we have collected 32,000 pounds of hazardous wastes where estimated amount is 5.7 million pounds of hazardous wastes. And, frankly, staff and this board does not know where that hazardous waste is generated and how it's being disposed of. So this is an opportunity for the board to take $50,000 the state is giving and increase our service level for businesses from point 5 percent to hopefully a higher level and then for households from 4 percent to higher levels. So we're pretty much in terms of collection rate versus generation rate very, very low level. And anything that this board would provide to businesses as well as household, the proper disposal of hazardous wastes, would be definitely a great service. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Now that the memo has been found, Commissioner Constantine -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple more questions, and this one is as far as practicality of trying to implement some of this. The research -- the information -- after extensive research from so on, so on, and so on -- let's get the right words here -- estimate those businesses in which the owner/employees may not have had a good understanding of English, I'm wondering how many of those brochures will be distributed and how. And why I ask is we have a list -- from our list staff identified those small business occupations one to three employees -- and I outlined these words -- which have the potential of, so we're not sure that they're -- like all our businesses, we're not sure if they have hazardous wastes, but which have the potential of generating hazardous waste. And through a formula -- and I appreciate that answers some of the questions last week. Through a formula you have answered staff estimates that there may be -- or that there are approximately 160 small businesses in Collier which none of the employees or owners may have a good understanding. And that may well be true. My concern is we have several thousand businesses here, and by using that formula we came up with a number, 160. We still don't know specifically, as far as I can tell, and if I'm wrong, that's what I need -- as far as I can tell, we don't know specifically which businesses those are. So as well intentioned as we are, we still don't know to whom to distribute these brochures unless we do an overkill and send them to all the thousands of businesses. MR. SMITH: The newsletter or brochures will be sent to all businesses on our assessment roll. We are planning on providing that newsletter in a format in which it addresses the areas of interest in both English and Spanish. It will be on one newsletter, so those businesses that are out there that we don't know specifically which ones speak only Hispanic -- Hispanic or Spanish language will also be receiving the information in their native -- in their native language. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Other than putting together the newsletter, how will we use the bilingual part-time person if we're not sure -- how many businesses are -- is it 5,000 roughly? MR. SMITH: On the assessment roll? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Five or six thousand, yeah. MR. SMITH: There's approximately 12,000 on the assessment role. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. So of that 12,000, 160 we estimate speak little or no English. MR. SMITH: That's an estimation, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How do we know where to send that part-time bilingual person? MR. SMITH: The part-time bilingual person will be -- his or her responsibilities will involve the coordination of the amnesty day collections, the business hazardous waste collections, and that person will also be available to put together this newsletter and translate it from the English language into the Spanish language, and that person will also be available in case any customers come in or call. Or if one of our inspectors comes across a business in which there is a language breakdown, that person, that bilingual pollution control specialist, will go out there and attempt to benefit the businesses by interpreting the rules in their own language. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand your main concern is to avoid hazardous waste being inappropriately disposed of, but I -- I am a little concerned. The 1.3 percent of our businesses that are in this program is a pretty small percentage, and we're looking at picking up a person and trying to target them. I understand the goal. It just seems -- there comes a point maybe of diminishing returns as far as dollar costs. One final comment. I notice next to bottom on the list on page 7 is promoting hazardous waste management minimization techniques through English and Spanish media advertisements. As far as I know, that qualifies for public service announcements, so I'm not sure why we're spending dollars for advertising. MR. SMITH: I checked into the public service announcements, and the information I've come up with is Channel 54 and Colony Cable allow us to present a short, brief explanation in which it's a bulletin board that posts up, and we're estimating it only flashes two times an hour when the Channel 54 or Colony Cable doesn't have any other programming on. So this may occur in the late evening hours, early morning, or at times when -- during the day when they don't have normal programming. So it's a good way of providing the public information, but it's not a great way of providing the public information. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The radio stations and so on do not provide public service announcements for this? MR. SMITH: The radio stations -- what we've done with -- for example, with the amnesty day collections, we have had to pay the radio stations for the advertisement for the amnesty day collections and also the newspaper, Naples Daily News, though the newspaper has run articles on the amnesty day collections in the past. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is a one-year, $50,000 grant; is that correct? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So at 12 months it goes away. MR. SMITH: As of December 8th, 1995, it goes away. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. On December 8th -- MR. SMITH: Excuse me. There is an opportunity in which we can extend it out. I spoke to Jan Claimin (phonetic) with DEP, and she has noted that that exists. We can extend it out. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We're going to begin with the assumption that it's a one-year grant, though, so this temporary person at the termination of that grant goes away. MR. SMITH: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only other cost I see that lingers is the upgrade position from -- and I remember reading it, but you're upgrading one person from one pay grade to another? MR. SMITH: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: At the end of that grant will that person's pay grade remain constant so that there's an increase? MR. SMITH: That person's pay grade -- MR. YILMAZ: Yes. MR. SMITH: Okay. Is that pay grade increase absolutely necessary? MR. YILMAZ: That was based on our assessment with human resources department that currently that person oversees and coordinates such activities, and those activities goes beyond and above entry level pollution control specialist, through which this is an opportunity for us to create a career path within the organization. In addition, there are reimbursements from solid waste department, pollution control department for human resources, and that person will be pretty much financed through those reimbursements. MR. DORRILL: Okay. That could be at the board's discretion. So if you want to limit the upgrade, if you will, consistent with the end of the first year to evaluate the position, you can put that flag on there at your discretion. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be -- obviously if additional responsibilities is a reason for the upgrade, when those responsibilities go away, so does the upgrade. That makes sense to me. In other words, here they come right back down to where they were when the grant money wasn't available. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not realistic though. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, realistically you start cutting a person's pay a year from now, that's hard to do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I look at it as a temporary responsibility increase and a pay increase associated with it. When the responsibility goes away, so does the pay increase. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Perhaps the pay increase should be more in the form of a bonus rather than a pay increase. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe so, for the administering of this program. In other words, I don't want to incur additional expenses at the end of a grant because of the grant. That doesn't make sense to me. However, I'm glad I agree with Commissioner Constantine on proclamations because we seem to be on the opposite side of everything else this morning. I see this as we have a collection system X. We can increase collection of hazardous materials throughout the county with no ad valorem cost, which is a true community benefit, instead of dumping these things in somebody's backyard or sitting in a storage facility somewhere where they can contaminate ground water sources and so forth. We have the potential to increase that without cost to our individual taxpayers in this county, and we can argue until the cows come home, Commissioner Mac'Kie, but unless we use that 50 grant -- if we don't, I'd like to see Collier County benefit. Okay. I'd like to see this county benefit environmentally from programs, so with that I know there will be obvious discussion afterwards, but I'm going to make a motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to approve. Just a second. Is there a second? There not being a second, the motion dies. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there public speakers? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I need to ask a question. Then I may second it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we need to see too if there are public speakers. MR. DORRILL: There are none. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have the same concern that Commissioner Hancock just talked about, and that is elevating a position and then finding out a year from now that the position is over what the duties are. And correct me if I'm wrong, but then that person would be funded by ad valorem taxes in that department? MR. YILMAZ: We're talking about less than $2,000 in actual increase -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand. MR. YILMAZ: -- and that would be financed through reimbursements from solid waste department. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So it's not an ad valorem base. Is there a -- is there a mechanism whereby we can -- do we have a mechanism of a temporary pay elevation that we could -- MR. DORRILL: Yes, we do. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We do have that? MR. DORRILL: We routinely do that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A year from now we could delete that, and the employee in question will know going in that this is just temporary elevation. MR. DORRILL: Unless -- unless reauthorized as part of an expanded hazardous waste collection program, and that's going to be dependent on what you do with the budget this summer. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that would then, again, depend on whether the grant's available for a following year. But if -- if the motion maker would amend the motion to -- to include this temporary elevation of pay, then I'll second it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll amend the motion with one side comment, and that is that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me interrupt here because I'm on the record as having said the motion dies for lack of a second. We need a new motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will make a motion that we approve staff's recommendation with the addition that the position be an interim increase in -- in salary to be concurrent or to run with the grant. Would that be acceptable? And the one point I want to make to that before we get into discussion is that if you remember we were talking a lot about unfunded mandates. A lot of our waste collection is something that is as a result of our growth management plan, a result of state mandates. Here is a chance to pull some state monies in to make this collection system better and larger. So, again, I don't see it as an unrelated money situation at all. But with that I'll shut up and let people vote. That's my motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. We have a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a short comment because I've already made my position known obviously, but I -- I think that this is an example of bureaucracy at its worst. I think that the intentions here are honorable in that everyone involved intends to be doing a good thing and -- but that unless -- if we keep taking these monies, you know, as long as somebody is taking them, they're going to keep passing them out. And we have a responsibility to care about more than just the taxes that we assess. The ad valorem taxes are the ones that we assess, but those aren't -- you know, that isn't the only checks that people write, and we have responsibility to all of their taxes. And the fact that this doesn't come out of our ad valorem budget is irrelevant to me, so I hope that it fails. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Realistically the board has trouble stopping a program once it starts. John, Bettye, and I have been through the budgeting process two times now, and it is hard to go backwards. These federal and state grants are intended -- and no one denies this at the federal and state level. These are intended to be seeds for programs to grow. That's why they provide the grant, and that's why they only provide it at the front end. And I see this as sprouting and growing. That concerns me. I see a new position plus I see an upgraded position, and I see new expenses, and to try to backtrack from that a year from now -- and really we can say, well, we'll red flag it, but I don't see it as fair to an employee to say, well, for the next year we're going to increase your pay. The next year we might roll it back. And that's -- even with a warning that's very difficult to do. They have life-style. They have bills to pay. They have everything else. You get into the mode of they know what their income is; next year we're going to shrink what their income is. It's not appropriate. And, Commissioner Hancock, you suggested that what we're trying to do is have the most effective program possible, and I agree completely. My question is, is this program effective? How much does it improve what we're doing? And you start comparing the breakdown of cost against how much it improves, and then is the cost justified? And my answer -- and again, maybe we're going to disagree on this one, but my answer is no. And to say -- now, I've got to agree with Commissioner Hac'Kie to say state tax dollars should be spent simply because someone else will spend it if we don't. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I don't believe I said that. That would be a characterization and an incorrect one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll finish my comment -- and we can go back and look at the record. There was something. I'm paraphrasing. I'm certainly not quoting. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But there was something there that said if we don't spend it, someone else will. And to say that state tax dollars should be spent because someone else will spend it otherwise is why people don't trust government in the first place. I'm going to vote no as well. MR. DORRILL: One quick comment, just because the characterization is that this is bureaucracy at its worst. You already have a household hazardous waste collection program. I consider it to be good staff work to bring opportunities to expand your preexisting programs at no local revenue expense. Two weeks ago Mr. Connor and I were told to drop what we were doing. Mr. Connor and I were asked to drop what we were doing to go to Tallahassee to try to close the airport land slot deal primarily to make us eligible to receive a grant from the Department of Transportation to improve your airport at no local cost to Collier County residents. And I agree, and the board can make its own policy decision, but if your staff finds grant money for programs that are already preexisting, I would like for you to either reevaluate the program as opposed to implying that we've done sloppy staff work if we find opportunities where we think you can grow or expand the program even if temporarily and not be at risk -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, I'm not criticizing you bringing it forward, but it's this board's prerogative to decide whether or not we want to approve that program. By all means, bring it forward. Let us know it's there, but please don't be defensive if we've raised questions -- MR. DORRILL: No, my remarks shouldn't be intended to be defensive. I'm just saying that we find opportunities that we think may be good business deals. Whether you vote them up or vote them down is your prerogative, and then we'll do the best we can with what you give us to do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And my comment about bureaucracy at its worst was certainly not pointed toward our staff. I don't think he was trying to do anything, but -- you know, the problem that I have is with the fundamental concept that if it's not local tax dollars, it's free money -- MR. DORRILL: I understand that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and I object to that. MR. DORRILL: There's no such thing as free taxpayer money, and I understand that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Same thing as free lunches; there's no such thing. We have a motion on the floor and a second approving the contract with the Florida DEP and with a notation that the salary increase for the upgraded position would run with the contract. I guess at this point I need to say that I'm going to support the motion, and I'm going to support the motion because amongst the Spanish-speaking businesses we don't necessarily know what the hazardous waste is, and while it is only 1.3 percent of the population, we may find that they're generating 10 percent of the hazardous wastes. We don't know that. For the one-year period that this grant exists, we may very well find that out and discover that we -- we need the program and are going to continue it based on whatever it is we find out. So with that in mind, I will call the question. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 3 to 2, Commissioners Constantine and Hac'Kie in the opposition. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Today is the day of the shifting troika. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where is that troika? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I feel like I'm being pulled in both directions. Let's move on to the next item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just to prove we're not consistent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are going to be taking a break today at 12:30. We have a luncheon engagement with some young people, so we have about an hour and ten minutes left, so we will get into the NRPA. Whether we finish or not, I don't know. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure we will. Item #862 CLAM BAY NATURAL RSOURCES PROTECTION AREA (NRPA) - APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Next item on the agenda is approval of the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area. Mr. Lorenz. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we get started, can I just make one comment? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I look at page 3 and 4 of our executive summary, and at the very bottom of 3 it says fiscal impact is $400,000. There are no -- and I underlined the word no four times. There are no funds currently budgeted for the implementation plan. And then under recommendation on the next page it says the BCC considered the approval and approved necessary budget items. I'm wondering what the necessary budget items are. If it's $400,000 that aren't budgeted, I'm not sure how you do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, the budget would be to do a budget amendment to, I presume, remove it from our reserves and put it into the current budget. I would like to say, though, that they do give us a schedule and that this $400,000 is to be spent over, what is it, Mr. Lorenz, a four- or five-year period? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. For the record, Bill Lorenz, environmental services administrator. And if I can back up a little -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I need to make a quick addition to that. I also -- Commissioner Constantine, I also think that we have the ability to pull line items or add line items as we look at this. So if there is part of that $400,000 that seems unreasonable or excessive, we can alter line items throughout this too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It will be an altered menu, yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My thought was two weeks ago, three weeks ago we were told about the budget crisis we were in. And now we're being asked to add $400,000 that aren't budgeted. And we can go through the exercise, but that should be something weighing on each of our minds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's very true, Commissioner Constantine. My feeling, though, is that we've been looking at this Clam Bay issue now for a number of years, and we've been watching mangroves die off, and we've been watching salinization problems and nutrient problems and so forth. And I think we need to hear from staff if spending $400,000 now is going to save us several million dollars a few years from now, and, frankly, I feel that we need to know that. MR. LORENZ: Let me also add in terms of the implementation plan on page 3 of the executive summary I've also indicated that you can also look at this process. It's coming into play with your program budgeting process that's upcoming. And this -- the timing is such that -- that once you hear the presentation from staff and from the public with regard to the Clam Bay system, you may want to just simply consider certain -- certain components or certain directions of staff to come back to you as part of the program budgeting process where you can then look at taking Clam -- the Clam Bay NRPA implementation programs and put them into your rankings of your programs and rank them either as mandated, discretionary, or essential services as part of the program budget process. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Lorenz, do you want to move forward and -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. Thank you. The growth management plan requires the county to have in place a natural resource protection area program. The deadline was October 1st of w94. The Clam Bay natural resource protection area was the first NRPA that the board directed staff to develop. This was basically a year ago, March 1st of 1994. What I have in place here is I have -- staff has a project manager. Dick Hartwell will basically give you an overview of the more technical components. Let me just say that the concept of this particular natural resource protection area, there really -- a large priority of the program is to, number one, have in place a mechanism by which we can have the permits to open up Clam Pass in the event that it closes. Coincidentally, of course, it has closed in the past three weeks. The process that youwre going through is somewhat indicative of something that we donwt want to be in position in the future. We want to be able to have a permit in place to open up Clam Pass in the event that it closes. Thatws a -- thatws a -- thatws a component of the natural resource protection area that we consider important. However, the -- and I think everybody recognizes the need to open up Clam Pass. The other most important part of the NRPA that we evaluated is the increased nutrient concentrations within Clam Bay that we have data over a period of time, that the -- primarily the source is probably the storm water input from the Pelican Bay system, and a large fraction of the monitoring effort that you see in the plan is geared towards assessing additional data to be able to understand that those inputs better so that we can make recommendations. One of the criticisms of the plan is that itws less action oriented and more monitoring oriented, and I accept that. I think thatws a valid criticism. However, for the storm water components we need to know more about that if wewre going to make certain recommendations within the Pelican Bay system. That could be very costly themselves. The -- the NRPA went through a public input process. Your Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board, EPTAB, considered this item on two different, perhaps three different occasions. EPTAB also had developed a subcommittee of three members that had met with staff for at least six meetings. Staff also gave presentations to the Pelican Bay Service Division Board and Seagate ownersw associations. EPTAB has recommended this plan with the addition of an additional monitoring effort, which is an expanded scope, a contract from Turfell and Associates that was entered into by the board, the initial base contract last year sometime to prepare the inlet management plan for Clam Pass. Staff, however, does not recommend that the board go to the degree that this particular expanded scope is recommending, that our assessment is that the components that you currently have are sufficient at this particular time to provide the data to -- for us to continue with a Clam Bay natural resource protection area program. With that -- and, again, the note in terms of the implementation, the board, of course, has the ability to see some of these components come back to it as part of the program budgeting process for next year where you can then consider it with regard to your other priorities that you have county-wide. With those comments what I'd like to have is Dick Hartwell who is our project manager walk through with you some of the major components of the NRPA. MR. HARTWELL: For the record, Dick Hartwell, natural resources department. I would like to give a brief overview of staff's assessment of the Clam Bay NRPA. The Clam Bay system consists of 640 acres of mangrove forest, beach and dune systems, fresh and saltwater marshes, and tidal bays. Staff conducted a biological assessment of the natural resources area that consists of two phases. First, an in-house data search was initiated utilizing data and literature review as well as all aerials and scientific reports from past studies conducted prior to Pelican Bay development. Staff also interviewed a number of citizens familiar with the area in the past; second, staff ground truthing the entire Clam Bay area for vegetation and wildlife surveys from April through July of last year. Briefly I'd like to go through what staff did on the ground truthing. Staff began the survey with the berm area -- excuse me. I don't -- it's a laser beam. I don't want to hit you in the eye. Going down to what we call a Pelican Bay berm, we traveled the berm up from the Registry to the top of the berm area in the northern part of the Pelican Bay area. As we traveled the berm, we did transit scopes to the west into the mangrove system itself. We noted down from the Commons all the way down to the Registry that the east side of the berm was infiltrated with all sorts of exotics like Brazilian peppers and melaleuca. And our fear there is that if given the chance, those plants will jump over to the west side of the conservation easement. Also in the north part of the area up here there is a monoculture of cattails growing, and in the flow-way itself on the west side of the berm is a large production of duck weed, which is indicative of nutrients coming into the system from the Pelican Bay side. Second, staff went up to the Bay Colony area here, went down into this area where there is 13 acres of black mangrove have died off in that particular site, and staff did an assessment of the salinity test in this area and also mapped for wildlife and vegetation. It was found at that time that staff was in there that the salinity levels were abnormal. The next thing we did, that we took a survey up through outer Clam Bay up the tributaries in inner Clam Bay and upper Clam Bay and going into the mangrove system noting vegetation and wildlife and mapping it on new aerials that we had in our possession. We also recorded a number of birds, which are listed on the state species list, special concern list, and noted going up the whole area that it was an area that was quite well utilized by these species of special concern birds. The next thing that we did, we went up to the northern part of the Pelican Bay area and went all the way down the berm recording vegetation and other species and wildlife, walked into the mangrove area into the east, noted that there is an exotic bush growing up there called the inkberry that we may need to have a better look at later on in the future. And then last we went back down to outer Clam Bay and mapped the sea grass beds. We noted as we mapped the sea grass beds that some of the beds itself have been scarred by boats in that area. So -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And all of this work was done in-house by staff? MR. HARTWELL: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. HARTWELL: The in-house information and on-site biological survey was combined into a fact finding technical report. From this technical report staff formulated a list of concerns and recommendations which are in the management plan that you received with the executive summary. I would like briefly to summarize these concerns and afterwards have staff and myself answer any of the questions that you might need to ask. The first major concern is, of course, the Clam Pass permit. Right now capital projects is pursuing a temporary permit to get Clam Pass opened. I understand that it will be a permit that's life only exists until Hay 1st of this year, so it's kind of a one-shot permit. We would like to recommend in our management plan that the county goes after a long-term permit, one that could be available for the county for 25 years or even less than that, but one that could be utilized every time the pass closes so that we would not have to go through this situation that we went through this time. And also in 1988 when storm Keith came by and closed the pass, it took staff eight months to obtain that permit to reopen that pass. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one question on this. MR. HARTWELL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is it normal that the DEP would issue a long-term permit such as that? MR. HARTWELL: I have been told by the local office that they might -- they could -- they could consider that, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They could consider it? MR. HARTWELL: They could consider it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Have they ever done it? MR. HARTWELL: They've done it in Sebastian Inlet over on the east coast. But, again, that was a 25-year permit, but it was for a pass that had been maintained, that is to say a pass that had been dredged every year. It's a little different than we have here. We're only asking for a permit that will open that pass when it closes for emergency purposes. We don't want to make -- have that pass maintained, you know, every year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, thank you. MR. HARTWELL: I consider this -- the water quality monitoring, which is the second part of our concerns, I consider one of the most important parts of the monitoring program itself. Data collected since 1980 and analyzed by staff indicates the general trend in a long-term increase of nutrients, nitrogen, and phosphorus concentrations. These sources of nutrients to the Clam Bay system could come from coastal exchange, rainfall, sediments, perhaps most important, storm water runoff. MAc Hatchet and Steve Gray will answer any questions you have on that, but I emphasize the importance of the storm water because of the fear that if this system is getting overloaded, it could create some problems down the road for the Pelican Bay area. The black mangrove die-off, as I stated before, approximately -- approximately 13 acres of black mangroves had died in the northwest area by Clam Bay. Staff's investigation showed no conclusive evidence to indicate the die-off. The management plan calls for a monitoring of soil or surface water salinities for possible concentrations of salinities that may impact the mangroves in the future. There is a mitigation program going on right now to replant the black mangroves in that area. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did they do that once before, seven or eight years ago? MR. HARTWELL: Not in that area. There was a die-off I understand south of that area. It happened, I believe, when the pass closed the time before that, or that's what it was stated in some of the articles that I read. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's happened since then? MR. HARTWELL: Since the die-off? Up there now I understand that capital projects is using that area for off-site mitigation and that they're replanting the black mangroves in some of the area and hoping that it will spread. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. HARTWELL: The next thing that we noticed in our biological assessment was the exotic management. During the biological survey staff was concerned with the invasion of Brazilian peppers which were fairly heavily impacted on the berm. Staff recommends the removal of these plants before they become a problem within the easement area. Sea grass bed protection: Field studies indicated that the sea grass beds in outer Clam Bay had scarred marks created by watercraft. Clam Bay management plans recommend a continued program in monitoring the sea grass beds as well as location markers to warn boaters of their presence. Finally staff recommends a program to restore several nature trails that exist in the back beach area and also install canoe directional signs within the three bays and the tributaries to help guide canoes using the systems. If the board has any questions, staff will try to answer them. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've got a list here for you. I'll hit them one at a time. The $6,000 allocated for restoration or proposed restoration of nature trails, these trails are open to the public; is that correct? MR. HARTWELL: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Same with the canoeing, it's open to the public. MR. HARTWELL: It's all public. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I have a problem with an item in here, and it came to my attention at one of the HSTBU regarding the $30,000 proposed for removal of Australian pines. MR. HARTWELL: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand our exotic ordinance, but I also understand that if you remove Australian pines from Keewaydin Island you have a sandbar. In Pelican Bay the Australian pines act as a buffer area, secure sands. They help keep things in place, and they're not near homes or structures that could be damaged in the event of a hurricane. I understand that it's in conflict with our exotic removal ordinance. MR. HARTWELL: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But to me to spend $30,000 to remove trees that the purpose for putting them on that list was the fact that they become uprooted easily in wind storms when they're also serving a purpose to help maintain the beach area, I can't agree with that. I'm sure we'll have some people speak to that today but -- MR. HARTWELL: Well, Commissioner Hancock, I was at that meeting also that you were at, and there's no question in my mind that the people in Pelican Bay at that meeting were totally against taking those Australian pines out. I believe that at this present time that we shouldn't consider that, and that should be stricken from the management plan. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, thank you. That would help one concern and, boy, there goes $30,000. Wasn't that easy. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three hundred seventy-seven to go. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know if we're going to get there, but we'll try. The storm water runoff from Pelican Bay is really the main conveyor of nutrient enriched -- MR. HARTWELL: That's correct. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- going to that area, so the $228,000 to water quality, other than establishing a baseline of where we are and looking at the growth pattern, I see a correlation here. If we don't have a fully functioning open pass there, the nutrient level is going to increase dramatically. So it seems to me I can save us a lot of money by saying if we don't get the pass open, if we don't have a maintenance plan for the pass, I can tell you where those numbers are going to go. I can tell you what's going to happen. So I think by doing one of the early steps, which is to maintain an open pass, to get an inlet management plan in place that will continue to maintain an open pass, a lot of those studies may not be wholly necessary to the level at which they're proposed. That's an area I would like to take a harder look at, that we do need the water quality monitoring, but I think some other actions we take can help us in that regard, such as focusing on the pass. MR. HARTWELL: I agree with you on that, but I would like Mac Hatchet or Steve Grabe to address that. They are more familiar with the water quality problems out there. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And we're going to hear some more from some people there, so if you kind of put that as a note __ MR. HARTWELL: I will do that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and it will continue to be addressed. How much for the current monitoring plan that's going on out there? How much is the Pelican Bay services division contributing? MR. HARTWELL: Steve? Mac? Could you answer that for US? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The PBSD is currently contributing to the monitoring plan that is ongoing out there; is that correct? MR. HATCHER: Mac Hatchet with the natural resources department. PBSD is doing the monitoring currently -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: They're doing it. MR. HATCHER: -- and are planning on continuing to do that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So 100 percent? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Does this plan take into account their efforts and dovetail their efforts in with this, or is it assuming their duties and the dollar costs are enclosed? MR. HATCHER: That's about -- their contribution towards the water quality program is about nine or ten thousand dollars, and there's no reason to believe currently that they would not be continuing that water -- their portion of the water quality program or their water quality program. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And was that program taken into account in the assessment of dollars for this? MR. HATCHER: It's not -- it's not in the table. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That answers my next question. Does your total project cost take into account the proposed shifting of the 50,000 from the estuarine water quality monitoring to this? You mentioned in your report that there is a proposed -- that a cost shifting could occur from the existing estuarine water monitoring system to this of $50,000. Does that $407,000 price tag take that shift into account, or is it saying if you want to sacrifice another part of our program, you can put it here? MR. HARTWELL: That's what it's saying, the latter. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. In other words, we would have really no other estuarine sampling system if we rolled it all into here, but we're currently spending 50,000 elsewhere. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where else are we spending it? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Just for the board's edification, I'm seeing a priority here of the Clam Pass dredge and fill. Obviously if the pass is closed, the rest of this is a moot point. That seems to me to be a priority. There are great savings that we could realize in the exotics control area from what is proposed. I've got it down to about twenty-four seven by just removing the Australian pines -- from being taken care of. Black mangrove die-off, that's $3,000; sea grass, that's $3,000; and the other 6. So that water quality of 228,000 -- MR. HATCHER: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is a focus area for me because obviously I don't know that we can afford all of that. That's all I have for now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What would -- what would be the result of the water quality monitoring program suppose we find that we don't like the water quality what we see? Is there any action to be taken because of that? MR. HARTWELL: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What would that be? MR. HARTWELL: Steve. MR. GRABE: Steve Grabe, formerly pollution control department. Some basic steps. We could advise homeowners through public notice or whatever to see if they might be able to control the amount of fertilizers they use. Pelican Bay Services District could evaluate the amount of fertilizers they apply. There could be mechanisms looked at to plant -- to introduce aquatic vegetation into the holding ponds similar as used up in Disney World and then harvest that vegetation for nutrient uptake. There are ways you can inactivate phosphorus by adding alum to holding ponds, and that would cause it to precipitate out. So there are steps that could be taken to reduce the effects of the storm water. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And who would fund this? MR. GRABE: I have no idea. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Would that be county funding or -- MR. GRABE: That could conceivably come from Pelican Bay Services District. It could come from the Board of County Commissioners. I don't know. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Would these -- would these actions be mandatory by ordinance or by -- would these -- would the county have any authority to force these actions to be taken? MR. HARTWELL: I don't -- go ahead. I don't think so. MR. HATCHER: I believe that the individuals that would have these actions forced upon them would be unwilling at this point in time with the data assessment that we've got; that's part of the problem that we find ourselves in. The water quality data shows a trend, but it's the water quality data that we have to date from the Pelican Bay Services District is inadequate to point the finger directly at the storm water runoff and say that this is the only source of the problem, and this is where we need to take immediate action. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, the area that we're looking at is a conservation easement already; is that correct? MR. HATCHER: Correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And we're trying to also overlay it with the NRPA? MR. HATCHER: Correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what we're being asked to do? MR. HATCHER: The NRPA encompasses an extra 78 acres of privately held conservation easements that's being used for water management by the Pelican Bay Services District. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The exotics in question, are they within the boundaries of the conservation easement? MR. HARTWELL: There are some that have become a problem in the boundaries, but there are very few. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mostly outside -- MR. HARTWELL: Mostly outside the boundaries. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Who owns the property that -- MR. HARTWELL: That's the -- that would be the Pelican Bay district that would be involved in that, and we have control over removing it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're being asked to expend county funds to improve something in the Pelican Bay -- MR. HARTWELL: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Privately owned land in effect. MR. HARTWELL: Well, it's a county-run board service district. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's all for now. I'll come back to another point in a few minutes. MR. DORRILL: You have a few speakers at the conclusion of the board's questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to follow up on Commissioner Norris's last question. If there were a number of exotics on the property in Golden Gate where the firehouse and the community center and all that, that's -- all that property is paid for out of taxing districts there, who would be responsible for clearing those exotics? MR. HARTWELL: I would assume the taxing district. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. You mentioned monitoring sea grass beds. How many -- this has always been one of my favorite things when we mapped our sea grass beds a year ago. Judge jokes with Bill about that, but what exactly do we do? Explain to me. If I'm monitoring sea grass beds, tell me what I'm doing. I get up in the morning, and I shower and I shave, and I'm going out to monitor sea grass beds, where do I go, and what do I do? MR. HATCHER: In this particular instance the most preferable way would be to go out in the bay area with a GPS unit and COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With a what? MR. HATCHER: GPS, global positioning system. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would be in a boat, would I? MR. HATCHER: In a boat, and establish the perimeter of the sea grass beds and identify the types of sea grasses -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I need you to simplify it more for me because Tim knows this stuff better than the rest of us. I go to Clam Bay. I get in my canoe or my rowboat, and I have some of my equipment with me, and I do what? MR. HATCHER: You establish the edges. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: By driving around? Running around? MR. HATCHER: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how do I establish that? With the equipment or by eyesight? MR. HATCHER: By eyesight. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I row around, and I'm looking for sea grass? MR. HATCHER: Yeah. MR. DORRILL: And plotting the positions on the GPS as you go. MR. HATCHER: Right. So that you can map it on a map when you go back in the office. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then I do what with those maps? MR. HATCHER: You would compare them with previous years' maps to see whether or not the sea grass meadows are increasing in size, decreasing in size, changing in species composition. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And depending on what I find, what do I do? If it's increasing, I do what? MR. HATCHER: If it's increasing in size, that would be considered to be a good indication of improving water quality. If they're decreasing in size, then that would be a negative thing --COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. But what do I do as an employee? I go out. I map it -- or I plot it. I come back. I map it. I find one or the other, and then what do I do? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who do you tell? MR. HATCHER: Report it to our superiors as a change in the existing conditions and with whatever comments would be appropriate, whether the water quality is improving or degrading. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you understand where I'm going. But then what does my supervisor do with this? I'm just trying to understand what's the purpose of this monitoring that we're doing. MR. HATCHER: It basically would become a water quality check to tell whether or not the system was improving or degrading. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And once we knew that with that information -- once somebody on your staff knew that, that information would go where? MR. HATCHER: Ultimately it would come to you all to make a decision as to whether or not to fund some change. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only other comment, then I'll stop, but I just wanted to echo what Commissioner Hancock said as far as water quality. I think if we do the dredging permit, I think there are some fairly obvious answers as to what we'll do, and perhaps we can step that back somewhat. My concern continues to be -- monitoring is fine if there are some objectives there, but if we're monitoring for the sake of monitoring, I have a little worry there. It's like we'll row around for awhile, come back and map it. I'm not sure what I'm going to do with that once I get the result. I'm a little leery about spending money to do that. MR. HATCHER: Again, all of the water quality monitoring that's proposed is proposed because we've identified a trend of increasing nutrients in the estuarine Clam Bay system. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That made me think of one more thing. The -- Commissioner Hancock mentioned earlier when the pass closes obviously the nutrient level goes up. Now, you said it was -- the last time the pass closed was '88, '89? MR. HARTWELL: Yes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Coincidentally that's the last time we had the die-off -- MR. HARTWELL: Well, there was reported -- I can't personally say. I wasn't here at the time, but it was reported in one of the reports that there was some small die-off, and it was -- contributed to the closing at that particular time, but that never was really proven, I don't think. You know, you get on the stand out there in the mangroves. There are die-offs from being stricken by lightning. And, you know, it could have been a various number of things. It was very small, though, at that time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just wondering if we're taking lessons from history or trying to rewrite the book here. And if last time the pass closed we had a die-off, and now we've had trouble, and the pass closed and we're having a die-off, if that's merely coincidence or if we can learn something from that instead of spending $377,000 to find out why. MR. HATCHER: The water quality trend is established over an eleven-year sampling period from 1980 through the present. And the overwhelming majority of that period of time is with the pass open. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock has a follow-up to this conversation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just along Commissioner Constantine's line. Something just kind of clicked to me. Sea grass beds are, in fact, an indicator of water quality. MR. HATCHER: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Our vegetation health and inspection of that is an indicator of water quality. In essence we're running concurrent programs by looking at sea grasses and vegetation. In other words, looking at the physical environment out there and doing the water quality monitor, we're running parallel courses. Obviously if we had, you know, loose purse strings, we could do four or five parallel courses. MR. HARTWELL: I understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I'm wondering -- and maybe there are some people here that could help a little bit more with if one is an indicator that would then trigger a specific type of monitoring, if that isn't the more prudent fiscal approach than running both at the same time to come out with the same results. So, in other words, if our sea grass beds are growing every year, if our mangroves are healthy every year, a $200,000 water quality monitoring program seems to me to maybe be a course that isn't necessary unless we have to have it for the pass opening, which -- but I'm -- I'm just wondering if those aren't parallel courses and if there is some savings by using one as an indicator versus -- to trigger the other as opposed to running at the same time. MR. LORENZ: I think that's a valid point. I would, however, not reduce the water quality monitoring to zero because -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. MR. LORENZ: -- you've got to be able to understand that if there's something else going on, we need to have that data as well concurrently. So there could perhaps be some cost savings but still an ongoing water quality monitoring program that's pared down together with the rest of it, I think, is still -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree. That would not imply taking it to zero. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How often do we do the monitoring in either or both of those? I mean is this a weekly? A monthly? An annual? MR. HATCHER: The Pelican Bay Services District is currently monitoring monthly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Monthly. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- I had -- I have a lot of questions, but I want to hear more of the input, but one fundamental one was I had been told that perhaps on last Thursday's visit to the state to -- with the emergency permit that we might get some indication from the state that -- that, yeah, they might let us open the pass but only if we do certain activities. Have we gotten any -- did that come to fruition? Did we get any information from the state? MR. DORRILL: We'll ask Mr. Conrecode to elaborate on that. My understanding is that we will have a -- what amounts to a temporary type permit, and it should be the end of this week, sometime next week in order to do the type of cross-section that we discussed last week, but I'll let him elaborate on whether there are any strings attached to that. MR. CONRECODE: I'm going to attempt to answer the question, but if I don't, I may not have heard all of the question. Last week after we met with DEP and the corps, we pretty much got unanimous declaration that they didn't find it an emergency as the board did. However, they did seem exceedingly willing to work with us in terms of issuance of a permit. The only delay we have at this point is the public notice requirement under Florida law. That public notice, thanks to some hard work on the attorney's office, was in the newspapers on Sunday. We're going through that process now and should have permits in hand -- March 14th, I believe, is the date that we have right now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Keep your fingers crossed. MR. CONRECODE: So that's kind of the status where we're at. MR. DORRILL: Our heavy equipment will be on the beach in advance of that in the event that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Waiting for that phone call, huh? Okay. MR. DORRILL: You won't be waiting for the bulldozer to be delivered to the beach. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And were there any strings attached by the state to that permit? MR. CONRECODE: Not any specific strings attached. They are concerned and did provide comment on the navigability of the pass or of the system. They don't want to see the Clam Bay system opened up to motorized boat traffic in there. That's a concern that they have. We think that their concern really goes beyond DEP's concerns and addresses coast guard, corps of engineers, and a lot of other federal agencies that are involved. So we're providing that kind of feedback to them saying, look, we tried to simply eliminate a bridge on the Clam Pass walkway that's been there for ten years and never opened. I think they'll begin to realize how significant changing something like that is going to be, so that's the indication we've gotten from them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this was discussion as to the permit necessary to get our county bulldozer out there and move -- get the water flowing again. Was there -- was there any discussion about any more comprehensive kind of permits? MR. CONRECODE: Well, definitely. There -- they understand and are participating in the review of our inland management plan which will ultimately -- ultimately lead to long-term permits for maintaining Clam Pass. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So no -- no strings yet, but currently review continues? MR. CONRECODE: Yeah, we expect -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The permanent permit may have strings on it. MR. CONRECODE: We expect special permit conditions will be applied to the permit. We expect there will be some as well on this temporary permit, but we haven't identified all the specifics. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tom, this might be more appropriate for you. Obviously the pass opening being critical and the pass being able to maintain that opening being critical, of the water quality monitoring that is proposed here, how much of it would meet the minimum requirement in order to apply for the permit to do a full pass opening? A dozer may get down a couple of feet, but that doesn't ensure a functioning pass that's going to allow the Clam Bay system to survive or even flourish. So we're going to have to come back in and do a dredge in that pass eventually. So I need to know the minimum water quality monitoring required for that permit because without it we're not going to get the pass fully opened and functioning anyway. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, Commissioner. The water quality isn't an issue for the maintenance of the pass -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CONRECODE: -- in terms of the dredge cross-section of the cut that goes through the pass. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The state's not going to use that as a string -- MR. CONRECODE: No. It's the tidal prism and the exchange of water that they're looking at, what the cross-section needs to be and the orientation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So that's included in the numbers for the dredge. You're talking about obtaining the permit, the 30,000 and the 50,000 for the permit or the inlet management plan? MR. CONRECODE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those studies, in your opinion, are the minimum required to try and obtain those permits? MR. CONRECODE: Right. Those are water quantity, not water quality. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the quality is separate from the dredge permit application? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there further questions? I have a couple. In the conversation you had said that I believe in response to one of Commissioner Hancockws questions about the $50,000 thatws currently being spent on estuarine sampling and that you said that it was the latter of his scenarios that was true, meaning the 50,000 would be moved in its entirety to the Clam Bay pass -- to the Clam Bay NRPA. Where are we spending that money now? What estuarine groups? MR. LORENZ: Thatls their county-wide monitoring for our estuarine program, and welve established basically a five-year plan where we monitor intensively one estuarine system a year, and within five years we should get most of the larger estuarine systems. Clam Bay was not part of that. Iim not sure which system welre doing now. Steve might be able to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess the point that Iim trying to make is that if we move that $50,000 to this NRPA, that monitoring program will cease. MR. LORENZ: That would certainly cease for the amount of time that it would take to do the monitoring, whatever level we do for the NRPA, yes, without new monies. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So youlre talking then not of eliminating the program, but youlre talking about including Clam Bay in that monitoring program and accelerating Clam Bayls rotation in that? MR. LORENZ: Yes, you would -- thatls correct. Clam Bay then would be a priority within the county-wide program. The other -- the other estuarine systems would not then be monitored for quite some time. I couldnlt tell you right offhand. It depends on how much time we spend in Clam Bay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So instead of one every five years, it would be one every six years. MR. LORENZ: Probably maybe seven or eight the way the numbers may be. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I see. But youlre not talking about dismantling the program in favor of Clam Bay, merely adding Clam Bay to it? MR. LORENZ: Thatls right. And I think we would want to -- as part of the estuarine monitoring program, welve established some what we call sentinel stations in the estuaries that we have done prior assessments on. We want to maintain that system, and thatls where I think in terms of the board reviewing this as a total context with the other -- other kinds of programs, we could take a look at that in terms of program budgeting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we have $50,000 already in the budget that we can allocate to the -- towards this 407,0007 MR. LORENZ: Thatls correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now, in order to establish water quality, Iim -- am I correct in assuming that we are not now doing any sort of monitoring in Clam Bay, in any of the Clam Bays for water quality? MR. LORENZ: The Pelican Bay Service District is monitoring three locations monthly. Part of this plan recognizes that we would want to build upon what they're currently doing, improve upon the actual monitoring effort there. That would be an incremental cost over and beyond what they're currently doing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the two hundred twenty some thousand dollars for water quality in this program, does that include what they're already doing, or is it in addition to? MR. GRABE: That two hundred some thousand dollars assumes that there is no cooperation from Pelican Bay, so if we got cooperation from Pelican Bay, then you'd basically be taking out somewhere between eight and ten thousand dollars a year which would be their contribution. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So over the five-year period then, we can knock off forty to fifty thousand dollars of this four hundred seven; is that what we just -- what I just heard? MR. GRABE: Roughly, yes. I don't know the exact amount of money that Pelican Bay is putting into it. We've just estimated what their costs are. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. LORENZ: But that would be -- you could look at that as being an existing funding source that would help to fund a large effort. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now we're down to $277,000 in unidentified budget. MR. LORENZ: Better. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Getting better, getting better. Now -- well, that answers one of my questions as to whether we would need a baseline test for water quality so that we know based on using the sea grass beds or the mangroves for our benchmark, would we need a benchmark water quality to determine if it's improving or not. And based on what Pelican Bay is currently doing, we -- we have that benchmark; is that correct? MR. LORENZ: We would want to enhance what they're currently doing, and this is where when we start trying to add to it, we'd have to come back to you with the numbers, but we'd want to enhance their current effort to give us a little bit better -- better coverage and statistical coverage that we are, indeed, seeing that trend, and we are picking up the -- some more appropriate parameters. But that's -- but that is -- but using the Pelican Bay improvement district's existing monitoring program, that can be basically the framework for which to add some incremental improvements. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. One final question that I have, and this is if we already know or we already assume that the problems in -- in the Clam Bays are salinization problems and nutrient problems. I don't remember reading anything in this program that was addressing either of those issues. I was reading merely about a quarter of a million dollars for water quality, and we already know the water quality is not the best. I think I would prefer to see some -- something included in this program that's going to enhance the water quality and -- and then we -- we use the flourishing sea grass or mangroves to know that we're moving in a positive direction. MR. LORENZ: The structure of the program, number one, is the nutrients are indeed -- we saw that increasing. The salinities -- don't see the increasing of salinities through the system, so we're focusing simply on nutrients. Part of the water quality monitoring -- I couldn't tell you which component -- WQ3 -- perhaps somebody could check for me -- is to look at a more extensive assessment as to exactly where those nutrients are coming in from that berm because there could be certain places within the Pelican Bay drainage area that are getting more nutrients than others that would then lead us to try to go into that particular area to try to reduce those nutrients as opposed to looking at a total comprehensive program. It allows us to focus -- cut -- cut -- focus a little bit better in terms of some action plans, because as Steve noted before, I mean there can be some -- some general action plans such as getting public sensitivity to not using a lot of fertilizers and things of this nature. But when you start looking at the total quantity of nutrients coming in the system and the fertilizer used first on golf courses or in some of the other common areas, we'd want to be able to -- we just need to know a little bit more about what's coming into the system to be able to target an action plan, but I know -- I know where you're coming from. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there such a thing as a fertilizer that may be less damaging to the environment than other fertilizers? And have we made any requests of golf courses and homes and so forth who have direct runoff to use -- to use a fertilizer that's less damaging? MR. LORENZ: I don't think that there -- there is. You have a quick release or a slow release, but generally the same nutrients -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The same amount. MR. LORENZ: -- get into the system either through the ground water or through surface water runoff. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So there is no good fertilizer? MR. LORENZ: Well, the fertilizer does real well in that it grows grass, and then it also grows the algae too. Again, that's where we've struggled with a little bit in terms of trying -- should we try to pin something down on an action plan, or do we know enough about -- about that, and that was our assessment is that we don't know enough about it to be able to come in and provide the recommendations that we would eventually would like to be in the position of providing, which is how much should we reduce application rates in the system, is that the preferred solution, or is the preferred solution to look at some structural improvements or some additional operational improvements within the storm water system. That -- that requires an additional analysis to develop, I think, a strategy that is well considered with regard to what the future costs could be. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I would think that because these chemicals are very expensive that no one except possibly occasional homeowners are applying this more often than absolutely necessary. If it's all right with the board, we'll go to public speakers. MR. DORRILL: First one, I believe, Mr. Pistner. Following him we have Dr. Stallings. If I could have you stand by, please, sir. MR. PISTNER: My name is Stephen Pistner. I represent the Naples Cay owners. I'm on the advisory board. I have listened with great interest, been studying the records for seven years since the first emergency openings began, and request after request seems to die, partially for a lack of understanding of the problem and obviously for a lack of funds. But we've reached a new point. You see the dredging permit that we're talking about now for an emergency opening is likely to be the last one the state is going to approve unless these -- you as county commissioners are able to do the one critical thing that the state is requiring. And I've heard here in the last few minutes staff moving around the subject as to what the state really will require of us if we are to get a permanent dredging permit. If you look closely at the opening of Clam Pass, the emergency opening that will take place on or near March 14th handles one small piece of the problem. The area directly behind it, the interior channels just behind that opening, are clogged. Whatever is done to open that pass temporarily is so temporary now as a result of the long-term effect of closing the interior channels immediately behind it that we are down effectively to less water volume than you could imagine. The state has told us, Pelican Bay, and Seagate communities, all who are in total agreement with the environmentalists -- I stand before you today in this rather unusual position -- we are all in agreement and I think in agreement with the commissioners. Clam Pass has to open. But you'll shortly be sitting here knowing that we have done nothing because the state is saying unless we have the two studies put together, that is the NRPA study for water quality and the hydro study to determine the amount of water flow. If we don't have these two things, the state will not issue a long-term permit to dredge. Why staff doesn't say this, I don't understand. If there's an argument about it, I think the commissioners need -- I think you need to find out quickly. We've been told it over and over by the state officials. So the NRPA study and the request for funds is missing a major piece, the hydrologic study, the flow of water. The long-term saving of Clam Bay and the opening of Clam Pass is a critical issue. Certain things could be set aside. The exotics and other issues could be set aside. But it's becoming clearer all the time that the state is becoming more and more reluctant to do anything about the issuance of the longer term permit to keep it open. And I say to you, ladies and gentlemen, we are very close to permanently losing it. And I don't believe that I'm exaggerating, and I believe when you talk to Mr. Stalling and the others, you'll understand it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question? May I? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just that you allude to the exact question that I was trying to get an answer from staff, and that is are there any strings. Were there any strings? Do we know yet what the strings are from the state? And what I mean by that is that do we know that there are conditions that the state is going to impose upon us as a condition to a permanent permit? I'm told that we don't yet know what those conditions might be, and it sounds like you have other information. Can you tell me the source of it or how you get it? MR. PISTNER: When you listen carefully, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I think staff is correct, that they'll leave it slightly in the gray area just long enough to let this slide just a little further. When you listen carefully in Tallahassee, listen to the experts. They are telling us very clearly unless the hydrologic study and the water quality study are brought to the state, no permanent permit will be issued. Now, maybe there'll be a disagreement. Maybe Mr. Stalling and others can clear this up. Maybe staff has something that they know that all of us who have worked on this for a long time don't know. But seven years is a long time, and all the evidence says we are truly that close to serious trouble. There is a study right now that was done or that you authorized on Turfell and Associates. You only funded part. We ask your most serious consideration to get the hydrologic portion of that study done. Is there any other questions that I can answer? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you accusing our staff of withholding information? MR. PISTNER: No, I'm not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question for you. On the -- for staff. On the portion -- talking about a permanent permit for the opening of Clam Pass -- for the dredging of Clam Pass, it was my understanding that that included a hydrologic study at the pass at the south end, which is the opening to Seagate and at the north end. MR. HARTWELL: No. My understanding in conversation with Jeremy Craft, who is the lead up there in Tallahassee, is that he has suggested that staff would put -- go -- put in for a consultation application to find out what the state would require. We do not know if the state will require that complete funding. We need to put in the application and find out what they're going to require from us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the state didn't send you a letter saying you have to have hydrologic studies of X, Y, and Z in order to even apply for a permanent opening. MR. LORENZ: In the executive summary you can note that on page 1 that we recommend that strategy that we go through the consultation with the state. If the state is going to require the hydrologic study, then we are recommending that albeit the board needs to fund it. At this particular point when Dick talks to certain staff representatives up at the state and they tell him that you may not have to do that, that if someone comes to us and says we'll do this for you, then his staff will say, fine, we'll make you do it when the supervisor tells staff that, then it's our obligation to tell you that there is a -- there's a -- there's a question in our mind as to whether there's a requirement or not, and that's why we addressed it like we did in the executive summary. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in essence we're trying to spend the minimum taxpayer dollars to get an opening right now based on what we've heard from the state. Should that prove to be insufficient later, we must revisit it at that point. Is that what I understand? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. That's our recommendation for the plan. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that sound reasonable to you, sir? MR. PISTNER: I've worked a lot with all governmental units, Commissioner, and I'll tell you, Commissioner Hancock, it is not reasonable. And it's not reasonable because of the number of times that we have approached the state. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We being? I'm sorry. MR. PISTNER: We as the county. And the fact that the pressures against us now have increased so greatly that I say what I think you don't know or sense at this time is that we're reaching the end of the road. Unless the studies are combined, I feel later is reaching the point of too late. And as I say, the other speakers and especially Mr. Stallings may clarify this for you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question for Bill was -- was whether or not you're able to -- I understand what you're saying, that the state has not said thou shalt do this and that you're correct to leave that door open for us because we don't want to spend money that we don't have to. Do you, however, have an opinion as a professional, as a scientist, about whether or not that is going to be necessary? Two questions, let me be clear. MR. LORENZ: That's not my area of expertise, so I can only rely upon what staff talks with the state agency officials and we get some -- we get some -- we get an opening there that -- I mean if -- if they said yes, then we would obviously bring it to you in that fashion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But my question is not is the state requiring it. My question is who on our staff makes a recommendation to us as a county government about whether or not it's a necessary element for our decision making process. If that's not you, who on your staff makes that recommendation to us? MR. LORENZ: When talking about dredging, this is a capital projects issue. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So whether or not the hydrologic report is necessary is a capital projects department, not an environmental issue? MR. LORENZ: For the purposes of the Clam Pass dredging, the inland management plan, yes, that's capital projects. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't understand why, but it seem to me there are environmental ramifications to that evaluation. MR. CONRECODE: There are, and we've worked with Bill on that. But specifically the state does not require that second phase. Now, does not require, that's important to note that. If we ask them, would you like to have us do this $200,000 study -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're going to say yes. MR. CONRECODE: -- oh, sure, go ahead. But they don't COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I'm asking, is there a recommendation from our staff about whether or not it would be in the best interests of the county, not is the state going to require it. MR. CONRECODE: Your recommendation from me is that we don't do it if it's not required by the state because I can't justify you spending 200,000 that's not required by the state. We can go further and say that several hundred years ago the intercoastal waterway stretched from Ten Thousand Islands all the way up through Lee County, and you could go all the way to Lake Okeechobee by canoe. We changed that. We've forever changed that. If we were to study the opening at Seagate, if we were to study possibly reconnecting to the Vanderbilt lagoon system, I don't want to begin to tell you what the ramification to that would be for this board with all the property owners and developers that are out there who have built those obstructions to that natural water flow that Mother Nature put in place. And Commissioner Hancock and my staff and Bill talked at length about that. So it's nice to have data. The state's not telling us that it's required. They're telling us, yeah, if you do it, we'd love to see the information. But we can't make that recommendation that you spend an extra $200,000. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We're going to hear from Dr. Stallings, and then we will be breaking for lunch, that is unless we don't -- we should be able to finish this one in five -- before 12:30; right? DR. STALLINGS: Fred Stallings, Florida Wildlife Federation, someone who spent a great deal of time in the permitting process to address Commissioner MacwKiews questions. I think what the state really is looking for is reassurance that the decision they would make in granting the standing permit is justifiable. I think that's basically what it is. I don't know if they know exactly what they want, but they want enough information so they can be assured that this is a valid decision that they can defend themselves against. I think it's basically that simple. I am disturbed a little bit in that we keep talking about the reopening of the pass as if that were the entire issue. I think that really is the smaller part of the issue. The big issue is that we have a sick system here, and it's sick whether the pass is opened or closed. It's obviously a lot sicker if the pass is closed than if the pass is open. As far as keeping the pass opened is concerned, once the beach renourishment is done, I think the pass is going to be much more difficult to keep opened. So I don't think that's something that people have thought about very much, but there's going to be a lot more sand available out there to fill the pass in. The system is sick because it's overfertilized, nutrients, and the hydrological periods have been changed, in other words, the influx of fresh and saltwater and that sort of thing. As far as the monitoring is concerned, this monitoring is like the gauges on an airplane. Those gauges tell you what's going on, and that's why you need more than one, because you can get a better measure of the system, so it gives you the data that you need to evaluate the system. Now, if we don't do something to fix this sick system, it's going to get a lot worse because the building is still going on in Pelican Bay. The infilling is occurring. The impacts lag behind the building. It's going to get worse, and it's going to get bad enough that the property values even are going to start declining out there because you're going to have green slimy algae that's much more widespread than it is today over the system. You're going to have other problems. So it's something that really needs to be done. The value to the community of this amenity is just too great. Mr. Pistner was correct when he said we're all in agreement that something needs to be done about it. I think that in the long-run situation the property values will bring in enough taxes if we fix the system to ultimately pay for it. If we don't fix the system, I fully believe that we're going to have some decreases in property values. So, again, I think the value to the community is just too great to not go out and do this thing the right way, design the study that fixes the sick animal, then worry about how we're going to pay for it. As far as paying for it is concerned, I don't see why someone like Westinghouse who has benefitted so tremendously from this whole scenario could not in the spirit of goodwill and community support kick in a million bucks to help fix it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We know how much they would follow your recommendation at this point, Dr. Stallings. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll get them on the phone f you want to talk to them. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you want to talk to them. DR. STALLINGS: I don't know if they're talking to me mn a very friendly fashion right now or not. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I will say, Dr. Stallings, at least the leadership of the PBSD and MSTU in Pelican Bay does recognize they do have a direct benefit from this system being healthy. But, again, we're trying to draw the line between what's internal in our NRPA and what is -- DR. STALLINGS: Well, I would go a little further. In addition to having a direct benefit, they have a responsibility to help keep it healthy and help solve the problems in that large measure resulted from this development that has occurred around it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Dr. Stallings, can I ask you -- I agree with your assessment about it's a sick animal, and we need to diagnose it appropriately. Is the recommendation that we have from staff, is that an adequate diagnosis in your judgment? DR. STALLINGS: In my opinion, it is not. We need a combination of efforts. The study that Mr. Turfell and his associates proposed I thought was an excellent study. That combined with what the staff can do, I think we need a much more comprehensive effort because in here I don't even see the meters and things that would tell us what the circulation patterns are, and that's where one of the primary problems is. We've got to find a way to restore a lot of the circulation, especially in the north end of this system, if we're going to fix it. And I just don't see that in this study. In other words, I think we need to stop worrying about how much money we can save by cutting this and that and something else out. Design a study that solves the problems, find out what it will cost, and then spend the money just as efficiently as we know how to get the maximum mileage out of the money. I understand a government's job is not to save money, but it's to spend it just efficiently as they know how. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wish I had the luxury, but I have a very difficult time prying myself away from that. So, you know, I understand what you're saying. The bottom line is we could design a study that could solve the majority of the problems but -- DR. STALLINGS: Let's design a study that does that, and then look at how we can pay for it and implement it. Otherwise we're not going to solve the problem. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's involved in designing the study that you're describing? Right now what we have proposed, $407,000 implementation plan. I don't know what it costs to design that study. What would it -- do you have any idea what you're talking about? What would it cost to design the study that would be broad enough? DR. STALLINGS: I don't think designing a study is where the primary cost is. The cost is in implementing the study. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. DR. STALLINGS: I think we ought to design a study that clearly will give us the data needed to solve these problems and then figure out what the study is going to cost and go from there, balance that off against a potential decrease in property values. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll be quick. In your assessment of the waters to the south of Clam Bay, are they more sick or as healthy as Clam Bay? DR. STALLINGS: My understanding is that once you cross Seagate Drive, the water quality is lower in the north end of that system than the south end. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have a seawalled waterway. So the condition is much poorer to the south than it would be in Clam Bay? DR. STALLINGS: That's my understanding of it. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: To the north? DR. STALLINGS: My understanding is that the water quality is significantly lower than in the north end of the Clam Bay system. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: See, we have a little bit of an oasis between the two right now. DR. STALLINGS: And unfortunately a sick oasis. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Dr. Stallings. With that we're going to break. We have a previous engagement with some young people for lunch. We're going to break until two o'clock. (A lunch break was held between 12:28 p.m. to 2:06 p.m.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the afternoon -- not afternoon, but reconvene the BCC session for February 28. We're in the midst of discussing the NRPA for Clam Bay and the public speakers. MR. DORRILL: David Addison. Following him, Dr. Staiger if he's back. MR. ADDISON: I'll have to see if I can't recall my train of thought before we broke off. For the record, my name is Dave Addison. I'm a biologist with the Conservancy. For the standpoint of the NRPA and what was -- been proposed by the county staff, we certainly support that. With respect to the water quality which seems to be quite a bone of contention about how much is enough, I think in that aspect you need to really try to find a way to get as much of this in place as you possibly can. You're currently dealing with three water quality stations, one in the pass, one by the draw bridge -- I'm biting my tongue when I say that -- and there's another one I think in the lower Clam Bay, but there's nothing up in upper Clam Bay. So you've got an area up there that's been shut off from circulation from above, and you certainly need some water quality points there or at least one water quality point in the bay to get some idea of what's going on there. I don't know how all that will fall out, but you certainly need to do that, and I think there's some flexibility within this to allow you to do it. As far as this permitting is concerned with the long-term permit for the pass, Hurricane Keith or Tropical Storm Keith, whichever -- my memory fails me -- but it came through in the summer and the water qua -- the water temperatures were quite a bit higher than in -- In the case when you have warmer water, the -- its ability to sustain dissolved oxygen levels is much reduced; and so, consequently, you had a lot more immediate impacts in terms of water quality degradation and, thereafter, that pass closed up. This time when it closed up, the water temperature was a little bit cooler, and you didn't get the immediate effects. But one of the things that I found with it after -- in the '88 instance, I happened to take a walk down through that pass at that time, and there were a lot of benthic organisms in the form of mollusks and crabs and a few fish that were dead. I don't mean a few. I should say a lot. So you do get perceivable impacts pretty quickly with this. So it is important to be able to get that in place. As far as what the county wants to do with getting a long-term permit in place, there seems to be some confusion about what exactly is required, and, you know, the county staff or your -- or a consultant or whatever can have a preapplication meeting with the -- with the state permitting agencies and find out what is needed and you go from there rather than just trying to find, you know, by guess and by golly as to what -- what we need. You need to get that nailed down to find out what you need so you can do it. If it requires a circulation study, then that needs to be done. One other point that came up, I think Commissioner Hancock made the mention about being able to save some money by not removing the exotics on the beach. Australian pines are not particularly good at stabilizing beaches. It's just one stem sitting there whereas you get the stems of a bunch of sea oats or distichous grass, something like that that's in there, all those little stems stick up and they tend to trap -- trap -- trap the sand and build the beach up. That's why you get dunes underneath the sea oats and you don't get -- necessarily get dunes underneath the Australian pines. And when they do finally blow over, if they are quite prolific, you end up with a tremendous mess on the beach in terms of just being able to get access to the beach. I deal with it every year down in the south end of Key Island when I'm dealing with the sea turtles. So what I might suggest you do, if you can't find a way to get some of those exotics off of there, then at least try to institute some sort of program to keep them from spreading in terms of the Australian pine. It doesn't take too much to pull up a seedling when it's big around as a pencil as opposed to something that's this big around that you've got a real problem with getting rid of. And if they blow over in the storm, again, the larger trees, they'll present a problem too. But that might be a way around to effectively contain the exotics you've got out there without having to go to a tremendous amount of expense. Let me see if there's anything else here. I guess that's about it. If you've got any questions you'd like to ask, that's fine. If not, we can get on with the proceedings. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions of Mr. Addison? MR. ADDISON: Okay. Fine. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Dr. Staiger and then Mr. Krasowski. MR. STAIGER: I apologize for coming in in the middle of Mr. Addison's presentation, but I was out there enjoying our northern visitors while they're paying their Tourist Development tax. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God bless them, every one. MR. STAIGER: For the record, my name is Jon Staiger. I am the Natural Resources manager for the City of Naples. A couple of points were made this morning that I wanted to sort of reinforce, one of them dealing with the length of the permit. We have for Doctor's Pass ten-year maintenance dredging permits, and they can be obtained as long as 25 years. The longer the duration, the higher the permit fee. Whether or not that kind of permit would be applicable to a non-stabilized inlet is something -- I think that could be a policy decision at DEP. But the longer the term of the permit, the more latitude you have in doing what you need to do without having to doodle around with this agonizing thing that is renewing these permits. Regarding the whole Clam Pass lagoon system, that's a very, very dynamic area, and if you look at the old soil conservation survey maps of this county, they -- made from aerials that were shot in the late '30s, Clam Pass, for example, in that particular soil survey map has three openings. Doctor's Pass is closed. South of Gordon there's another pass called John's which closed many years ago and Big Mar -- or Little Marco Pass is a mile and a half or so north of where it is now. So that this is -- This whole system along here is very -- is very dynamic. The development activities that led to the creation of Pelican Bay have modified that to the point where the hydrologic head you need to at least keep that pass open on a most-of-the-time-type basis has been -- has been changed. The drainage patterns are changed. The vegetation that was there before Pelican Bay was built was a pine/palmetto-type habitat. They preserved a great deal of the scrub that was there. But that was a situation that ran off water rather -- rather routinely into the estuary instead of pulsing it in through a storm water management system. And I don't see how if you're going to try to keep that thing healthy it can be done without some attempt to routinely keep that pass open far enough to get decent flushing. You can't wait for Mother Nature to deliver a big storm that's going to pulse a lot of water through it and flush it out anymore. That water is going to get trapped in the Pelican Bay storm water management system, rightly so, because if it came in untreated, you'd have greater problems than you do now. So I think the chances are that the hydrologic study that is a component of the inlet management plan three part of that plan and one part has been funded, the hydrologic study is something that I would think in all probability is going to have to be done. Dave Addison made the comment, you can go into a preapplication conference mode with DNR where they're not too committal but they don't require you to bring them super-detailed engineering drawings at the same time and perhaps feel them out as to just what needs to be done to get this thing -- this permit for a long-term management of that inlet. The thing that I would urge you to do is that regardless of what decision you make today, you've got to keep pushing for this inlet management plan to get it done at least. If you want to defer some of these other things, that's your decision because it's your money. But the inlet management plan should be completed. And I think that, you know, you've got to keep progressing. This is a system that is, I think, vital to the ecology of coastal Collier County. Naples Bay was destroyed by development in the '60s and '70s. The Wiggins or the Vanderbilt Lagoon has already been destroyed by similar development. So you've got a little piece of sort of Heaven in the middle, and I'd like to see it stay that way. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Is Mr. Krasowski still with us? Not. Mr. Mudge. Mr. Young. Mr. Varley. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: All three had afternoon appointments, Mr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Espinar. He is your final registered speaker. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: While he's coming up, a question I'm going to want answered is based on Dr. Staiger's comment. How long was the duration of the permit for which we're applying? MR. CONRECODE: The long-term permit? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The long-term permit. MR. CONRECODE: The long-term permit, we have to work that out in the preapp meetings and going through the whole process. I'm thinking ten or -- ten -- in the range of ten to 25 years. Our permit for Wiggins Pass, for instance, was a ten-year permit. So it's going to be a long-term. Specifically it's something we've got to negotiate. For the record, Tom Conrecode from Capital Projects. MR. ESPINAR: For the record, Marco Espinar with Turfell and Associates. Turfell and Associates has proposed a scope of services that was given to you last year of which it was approved but the funding was not approved. The funding was approved just for the inlet system itself but not for the all bay system. Our scope is a very comprehensive and complete scope. The price of it is $265,000. It includes hydrographics, the permits required for long-term maintenance of that pass, and the complete environmental study of the pass. Case in point, the county's proposal gives you three water quality stations. Ours has eight. We have an additional 14 variables of chemical outlines in our water quality samples that are not even addressed by the county. We're looking at light attenuation to see how that affects the sea grasses. We're doing all this at a lot considerably lower price than what the county has proposed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I -- You're saying that of the $407,000 that the staff is proposing, you'll do the same work for 265,000? MR. ESPINAR: Well, there are elements within their NRPA study that are essential that are not covered by Turfell and Associates. Case -- Exotics is one of them, and there's other parts of that NRPA study that I strongly support, and I think that they should be examined and probably funded. However, yes, we are doing segments of this at a lot more reasonable price. We talk about cost-effectiveness here, efficiency, and Turfell and Associates has put together a team of professionals that will examine this for a lot lower cost than can be done in-house. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can you tell us how much of the 407 would -- How much could I subtract from the 407 if -- if your term -- MR. ESPINAR: Our total proposal includes water quality testing. That's going to be eight stations, and I show you right there -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've got to use the mike. MR. ESPINAR: -- Throughout the whole -- throughout the whole Clam Bay system right here. These are the county's stations that they're proposing. Ours covers everything from the north of the bay system all the way down to the Seagate culverts. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you help me on an item-by-item basis? If everybody else already understands this, you know, tell me and I'll -- I'll stop but -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. I don't think we do. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much is the county suggesting the three stations cost, and how much are you saying you'll do eight stations for? MR. ESPINAR: Their -- Their whole water quality proposal -- correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't know -- Bill can correct me here -- is about $200,000. We're saying we could do everything, hydrographics, permits, water quality, and environmental study, for $265,000. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: By "permits," do you mean inlet? MR. ESPINAR: Inlet, yes, sir, dredge-and-fill long-term permits. We've got -- We factor in a price in there that includes it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This sounds sort of like a privatization opportunity. MR. ESPINAR: Well, this -- this went before the board last year, the whole scope did, and it was strongly supported by everybody. The only thing is that the funding was not appropriated. Only the inlet was funded. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, Mr. Lorenz, how did we get from -- we had a contract. We didn't fund it all and now staff -- How did we get from there to that staff is going to do most of it? MR. LORENZ: Well, we're -- part of the implementation plan, we're saying that staff -- we don't need to have staff do it. We would want to bid it out. But there's differences. You're looking at apples and oranges. He's talking about a one-year study for those locations without replicate samples for statistical analysis. This is a completely different design. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As opposed to yours which is? MR. LORENZ: Which is -- is a five -- at least a five-year -- five-year approach with different types of objectives, different types of information. And our study was based upon the assessment -- when we did the NRPA, we found out that we have nutrient problems after assessing the data. This was proposed back in March. I'm not sure that's even -- assessed the data back at that point. MR. ESPINAR: There are some similarities and there's some overlap to what we're doing here, but there's also some differences. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Most of what you've put together is the focus to gather data sufficient enough to obtain the long-term permits for the opening of or continual opening and maintenance of Clam Pass? Is that more or less the primary focus of what you have designed here? MR. ESPINAR: Yes. That's part of it, but we also are collecting scientific information for the overall bay system, specifically looking at sea grasses and the water quality element of it and the hydrographics. And let me clarify. We have met with DEP on this, and hydrographics is a major element of your long-term dredging permit. You cannot side-step it. It will be required. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me -- Let me follow up on that, if I may, because our staff is telling us that the state has not yet said whether or not hydrographics will be a required element of the study. When you met with the state, were you doing that on our behalf as our -- MR. ESPINAR: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Agent under that contract? MR. ESPINAR: Yes. We're working with staff right now currently on the emergency permit. CHAIRPERSON HAC'KIE: Well, how is that you are positive that it's required and they don't -- MR. ESPINAR: We just met with them this morning too. MR. CONRECODE: I can assure you hydrographics is an important part of the inlet management study. We can all agree on that. The extent of it is where his proposal and our current plan of work differs. The state is not requiring us to do a dual inlet study. Okay. They have defined the scope very specifically in and around Clam Pass. That's what the board has funded. That's what our recommendation has been, and any additional scope beyond that is nice-to-have stuff. And the state -- absolutely, we've heard from the state. They say, yeah, if you want to do it, we'd be glad to look at it, but it's not required. So in terms of the hydrographics, the hydrographics are required. It's the extent of the hydrographics that's in question. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What we're seeing here today as -- as this NRPA was preliminarily envisioned, it was supposed to be a monitoring system of an ecosystem to see where it's going, where it's heading, what type of intervention can be necessary or may be necessary to maintain its health. What has happened is this has become a discussion of what's the best way to open the pass, what's the minimum things necessary to get that done. These two items are not necessarily all part of an NRPA, not what was initially envisioned here. We have a separate discussion going on here. We need that pass open. No one argues that. We have two opinions on what it's going to take to get it open. One says we think the minimum will cut it, and the state is telling us that. Another is saying, look, you're going to have to do this anyway. Okay. Why this is part of the NRPA discussion is a little confusing to me because it seems now it is more appropriate to separate the pass opening and closure away from the NRPA and look at the NRPA as a testing and data-gathering system to look at the health of Clam Pass. We're putting these two things together, and I think we're going to talk in circles all day today and nothing is going to get done. So I'm saying three elements. Pass maintenance, okay, an inlet management plan dovetailed with that, and then the NRPA to me is the data gathering and collection for the Clam Pass system to identify indicators of health. Is that what this board approved when you said we were going to have a NRPA? I wasn't here so you -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not what I approved. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: What did you approve? Because we are expanding this thing. Every time someone takes a breath, we add ten, $15,000 to this thing, and it's getting a little out of control. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I endorse what you're saying, Commissioner Hancock, that there are separate discussions going on here and -- but my read is that -- just the opposite. My read is just the opposite of the result. Yes, there is a discussion, and that was what we had on last week's agenda about reopening Clam Pass, and that was an emergency, and we declared that an emergency and we -- you know, staff is proceeding and our consultant's proceeding to get that emergency permit. But the NRPA, in my mind, is about the overall system. It is about the management. It is about the water quality. It is about the hydrology, and it isn't just about opening the pass. The NRPA is the big picture, and that's why I think that the big picture is the appropriate discussion to have today, and how many monitoring wells and where they are and what they're going to monitor is today's discussion, in my mind. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe I didn't make myself clear. We designated a boundary. Staff has used that boundary to go to the state and say this is what we're looking at, and we're getting a response back from our staff. I appreciate what you're doing. I understand wanting to look at the larger picture, but that to me is not what the NRPA was supposed to be with going way south and going way north and looking at the overall study. Our staff concentrated on the area designated as the NRPA, and I feel like today we're being asked to expand that view well beyond that, and I don't understand that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the nature of the system, is that you can't just look at the center of it as much as we would like to. It's all interconnected. It's affected -- Each is affected by the other. And I know you know that, and I don't mean to suggest that you don't. You know that better than I. You've studied it in much more detail than I have. But I think that that is why we're looking at the big picture. And I would like an answer to the same question that I believe you asked before, and that is, what was -- when was this contract entered into with Turfell and Associates, and what was it for, and was it associated with the NRPA? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, it was not. The contract was entered into -- MR. CONRECODE: 1993. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. '93. And -- and, you know, it was not associated -- MR. CONRECODE: I think the NRP was done in 1993. We entered into a contract. We defined the scope in conjunction with the state specifically what they required for the inlet management study. They were doing inlet management studies all up and down the coast. Okay. This additional proposal again was separate from the NRPA. The NRPA is part of the Growth Management Plan. Clam Bay was selected as the first NRPA to be done, and that scope of work has been handled entirely in-house by Natural Resources Department staff. There was an alternate proposal made as part of Turfell and Associates' scope of work to expand that to include additional water quality monitoring stations, additional hydrographics. And I'll tell you, Natural Resources Department, Capital Projects will say that's great information if you want to have it, and it could be very useful to the county at some point in the future. What we're telling you is that we can't tell you that it's specifically required and, therefore, ought to be funded. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I agree with that. I think I would like to wait for the state to tell me we have to do it before we sign on to spend a quarter of a million dollars; that based on what Commissioner Hancock was saying earlier today, and staff agreed with him, that the health of the system and the water quality of the system can generally be measured through the sea grass beds and the health of the mangroves, and perhaps we don't have to run off and spend this quarter of a million dollars -- I don't want to say on a whim. Certainly it would gather information that would be useful. But I think at this point, and especially with the budget hearing crunch, I would prefer to see us do the necessary -- do the necessary water quality studies along with monitoring sea grass and the mangroves but -- Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is our speaker finished? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. ESPINAR: Any further questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I presume he is. He's out of time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I used it up so '- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I need to ask one question, and then let's see if we can't start getting closure on this item. Mr. Conrecode, hypothetically speaking, if we -- if something -- Well, if the board does not approve the NRPA concept that's been presented here to us today, what would be the effect on our Clam Pass inlet management plan? MR. CONRECODE: None. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: None. Okay. MR. CONRECODE: None that I can think of. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. Thank you. Then I think it's time for us to start sort of look at reality here a little bit. We've had -- Everybody that's spoken has told us that we really, in effect, know what the problem is, and that's too much nutrients and pesticides and so forth coming into the bay. I can't in good conscience with the budget -- budgetary constraints that we've seen, go out and spend two, three, $400,000 to tell us something in detail that we already know in general. There's no point in it. We also heard this morning that there's only a limited number of things that we can do to correct the problem, but I would certainly rather spend the money correcting the problem than to try to find out in minute detail how extensive the problem is. We already know what it is, and we already know what we can do about it, so let's do that instead. The other part of the discussion to me is why -- and this was the same objection I had back when we first -- when this first went through the board. Why are we putting a NRPA in the urban area? The whole point of a NRPA is to -- is to identify a sensitive environmental area that we can target for additional protections at some point in time. This is already a conservation easement, and it's in the urban area besides. I said back at the time that we would be a lot better served by identifying areas out in -- out east that we could put a further layer of protection on by establishing the NRPA. I can't see the point in either spending this money on this system, the additional work that we're going to do or -- or, for that matter, designating it as a NRPA, either one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If what you're saying is correct, Commissioner Norris, I need to -- I need to know it, and I'm interested in it. If we already know what the problem is -- and I think part of the problem is quality of the water that you described, but I think an additional part of the problem that you probably wouldn't argue with is also the hydrology, the speed at which the water used to flow as opposed to what it does now that it's managed. I think that we do agree that in a general way we know what the problem is. I don't know -- What is there on this sheet that is -- how to solve it. I haven't yet seen what is the answer. I mean, I agree with you. Let's spend money on how to solve it. Do we know what that is? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we're going to have to do that hydro -- some of that hydrogeological work to get our Clam Pass inlet management plan done. That's going to have to be done independent of the NRPA. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe I am, you know, mixing my metaphors here between the NRPA and the -- I -- I thought the NRPA was the study and that -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does the NRPA ensure to the residents of Collier County by approving it in some form that an interim permit will be obtained and that an inlet management plan will be done? I need a level of security that we are, in fact, going to pursue those, and this board saying, "Yeah. Gee whiz, let's go do it," isn't enough for me. It probably isn't enough for the residents of the county so -- MR. LORENZ: I think you can approve -- For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator -- that you can approve this as a NRPA, and this is the county's first NRPA as required under the Growth Management Plan. And as part of the NRPA, the Clam Pass obviously is integrated to the NRPA. And if the board agrees to pursue the strategy to open up Clam Pass, get a permit that allows the county to open up Clam Pass in the event that it closes and do the work that's necessary, whether it's the minimum amount of work or whether we have to go because the state says we have to do it for a more comprehensive study, that is one element of the NRPA that you could adopt and recommend. That's, if you will, a policy for the NRPA. Obviously there's other components in the NRPA that we have recommended that the board consider. But if you limit it to that, I think you can still adopt the NRPA and say this is -- this is the major component that we want to give staff direction on at this time. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I ask a question? Mr. Lorenz, is it correct that we could do all of these studies on this entire area without declaring this area a NRPA? MR. LORENZ: Yes. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Am I incorrect in assuming that we're -- Don't we have to have a NRPA for the Growth Management Plan? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are -- We are -- This board prior to Commissioner Hancock and Commissioner Mac'Kie coming on the board agreed a year and a half ago or so to accept the NRPA program as part of our Growth Management Plan, and we directed staff to assign Clam Bay as the first one and to bring us back a proposal as to what needs to be done to institute Natural Resource protections. That's what we directed them to do. Whether this is going further than this board envisioned, that's one question. That's where I think that we're here today, is to decide how far we want to carry the protection. And other than that, that's -- that's where I see it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The majority of the board that is carried over from the old board voted against that, but the Growth Management Plan requires us to have an NRPA program by that 3-2 vote, but the program's to study various areas for their need. It's not a requirement that we approve all those that come before us, if that helps at all, Commissioner Hancock. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. Of course it's not. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's -- I just -- A couple of points. I think I'm -- I'm in agreement with Commissioner Norris on a couple of points. Regardless of our status of an NRPA, whether we approve or disapprove, the inlet management plan will have the study done, and I think we can get many of the answers that were brought forth today anyway. And I agree wholeheartedly. Let's work on solving the problem we know exists rather than spending five years reassuring ourselves that that problem exists and then looking. And we may need to fine-tune -- see how much of a problem is there in order to know how to go about fixing it, but I don't think we need to spend five years convincing ourselves that there's a problem there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other further comments? Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since we're getting to a point that we need some form of motion -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think it's time for a motion. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- There's something that -- Again, I'm going to try and do something within the confines of designating a Clam Bay NRPA, and we'll see if the motion fails or succeeds or what else happens. At a minimum, I need to see the ongoing dredge-and-fill permit work as a part of the NRPA as a commitment by this board to pursue that. That is -- in total is 85,000. The one that interests me the most is the $30,000 permit, the first step of it that says we're going to go out and get a permit so that if it should close up, we can open it up properly, not necessarily just with a front-end loader but properly. The second part is no matter where we have an NRPA in Collier County, exotic control has to be a part of it anywhere, whether it's out in the east part of the county or in the west part. Excepting the Australian pine $30,000 line-item, I'd like to see the rest of the exotics controlled. The two indicators I see that are strong is -- that cause this to be a NRPA is the black mangrove die-off -- and that in the entirety is less than $2,200 as a part of this. And the protection of sea grass beds, 2,600, again is an indicator of the health of the system. I'd like to see those two included. At a minimum, if it's now proper to put that in the form of a motion, I would like the NRPA to come back to this board for approval having the ongoing dredge-and-fill permit section intact, a reduction of the exotic control to eliminate the Australian pines, the water quality section to reflect the shift in priority under the current estuarine water quality monitoring program, the black mangrove die-off section intact, and the protection of sea grass beds intact, and I will make a motion that we can direct staff to bring the NRPA back to us in that format. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Question on a motion. Do you want staff to bring it back, or do you want to just pick the many parts of this and approve it? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My problem is right now I'd like to see it in its entirety as one group and one lump sum because some of these exact dollar figures per item are going to require a little bit of work, such as the exotics control. Although we pulled out the 30 -- I -- I choose to pull out the 30,000 for the Australian pine. I show that leaves 24,740, but, again, I want to see the exact dollar figure before the -- before we approve it, before we potentially approve it. So I would like to see it come back to us because it's such a drastic change from what is before us today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: that motion? Well -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: another motion? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have a second for Moving right along. I -- Motion fails. Is there I'll try a different motion. I've been convinced by what I've heard here today that it's not necessary to declare this area a NRPA in order to accomplish all that we want to accomplish here. In fact, it just seems a major redundancy to me to do that since it's already a conservation easement. I'm not comfortable with the expenses that have been proposed because of our budget -- budgetary constraints, and I think that probably what we need to do is have the staff make sure that we're given the opportunity to address the inlet management plan as a stand-alone rather than the NRPA program that's been proposed to us here. And that, of course, would have to come back as a new budget item or a new agenda item at some point in time. So I'm going to make a motion that we deny staff's recommendation in this case. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that as long as we make it crystal clear that the dredge-and-fill permit work, including the long-term as outlined by Commissioner Hancock a moment ago, is a priority for us. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I -- Yeah. I guess I need to clarify. I'm certainly in agreement with what we're trying to accomplish here in the protection of this Clam Bay and certainly the obtaining of the dredge-and-fill permit to make sure that we have that system -- get that functional. I certainly don't mean to give the impression that I'm not in favor of that. I'm just saying that we probably could do this another way and probably not spend anywhere near $400,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as you still -- As long as your motion still anticipates doing that, making sure that's -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- A priority, then I'll second the motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. I should have clarified. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question on the motion. Are there any elements of this menu that you are suggesting continue? Could you identify them or -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we need to do those items certainly that -- and I saw Mr. Lorenz taking notes, that certainly those items that will be necessary to go forward with our inlet management plan. And beyond that, we also need to have -- another menu at the same time might be appropriate of other measures that we would like to take to make sure that we are doing the right thing with the bay as a whole. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Lorenz, could you tell us what dollar amount we would be approving today under that motion? MR. LORENZ: I might need some help from staff, but our estimate of getting the dredge -- the interim dredge-and-fill permit is $30,000. To the degree that the state would require the hydrologic study, the estimate that we have in the executive summary, the cost could be up to 100 -- 100 -- $116,000. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't know what that would be until the state tells us to what extent they're going to require it? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there any other items on the list then? The exotics is out the window and -- MR. LORENZ: Well, that's -- that would be the only ones that are related to the dredging to the inlet management plan. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Any of the meters, the testing, the monitoring, none of that's included? MR. LORENZ: No. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the dredging which is about 30,000 and up to 116,000 in hydrologic studies as required by the state in order to get the dredge-and-fill permit? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Keep in mind that we are taking water quality samples, just not to the extent that's been proposed here today. So it's not like we're not taking any at all. Keep that in mind. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any further comments? Well, I'm not going to support the motion, and I'm not going to support the motion because I think that we do need to form an NRPA and address it. The numbers that I've been playing with -- Let me say this. The numbers that we just discussed add up to $146,000. The numbers that I've been looking at, if we eliminate the WQ 3 which is 100,000 by itself plus take into consideration the estuary monitoring for 50,000 plus the work currently done by Pelican Bay for another 40 to 50,000 plus eliminate the Australian pine, we're at 176,000 and we get the NRPA. So for $30,000 I think the NRPA is worth having for the sea grass monitoring and so forth like that. So if there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to get real clear on that. Under the -- Under the motion on the floor, we're talking about spending $146,000 and we will no longer have a NRPA at Clam -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. That's exactly right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe that's what I hear, is not to -- not to go forward with the NRPA. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a final comment then. There's two ways to look at that. You can say, well, it's only 30,000 more and we don't get a NRPA, or you can say, we save at least 30 because it was up to 116. That's the maximum. It may be less. So we'll save at least 30, and we'll have less government bureaucracy is the other way of looking at that. We'll still have a conservation easement there. We'll still have the test there. We'll still have the study there. We'll still have the inlet management plan there. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my confusion is, what's wrong with having a NRPA and choosing not to fund it to the extent -- I mean, I thought you guys just said we have to have NRPAs under our Growth Management Plan. That doesn't mean we have to spend every penny that the staff recommends we spend in the NRPA. It seems to me that -- that -- I wasn't on the board at the time, but I'll tell you from the outside looking in, having the NRPA approved was a small step in the right direction that the environmental community viewed as a, well, thank God they at least gave us a NRPA on a conservation easement. And if you're not even going to do it there, where are we going to do it? For God's sake, you know, that was -- that was like pulling teeth. It seems to me that there's no sense in undoing that small step that was taken in the right direction, but I've talked about that long enough. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No further discussion. I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Opposed? Motion fails two to three. Commissioners Mac'Kie, Matthews, and Hancock being in the opposition. Is there another motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's take another run at this. Okay. We're going to strip this Chevy down a little bit further and see if we can't make some sense out of it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Here's the numbers I just read off. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you like to make a motion, Commissioner Matthews? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't you make -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm the chairman. I don't make motions. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can't do it? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Item PER-1 of $30,000 which is to continue the process of getting a permit to dredge the pass is included. Items water quality one and two per the proposal which are both consisting of staff time are included. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I might need it back. Thank you. I need to mark it. One and two? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: are included. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: PER-i? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Water qualities one and two And the first one was PER-1. Yes, sir. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: MAN-1 for mangrove one would be included, again an assessment of the existing mangrove die-off area. Where are we going with this here? Unfortunately the last motion failed before I got all my work done so -- Water quality, the Clam Bay NRPA would be designated as a priority project for Collier County's existing estuarine system, and the shift would have to occur within that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that permit three? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: A little help there, Mr. Lorenz. No. PER-3 would -- that's the inlet management plan study. As I've already heard, it doesn't have to be part of the -- the NRPA for the inlet management plan to continue on course; is that correct? MR. CONRECODE: (Nodded head.) COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So PER-3, in my opinion, as a part of the NRPA becomes unnecessary because it's continuing on its own. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a real important point for me -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Because I need to be sure that it has a life of its own. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So what I'm looking at is an increase in the water quality testing at some level but not at the level indicated in the NRPA. Can you give me a dollar figure or a line-item on that, Mr. Lorenz? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And from the air he pulls. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just trying to be as specific as possible so it either lives or dies here today. MR. GRABE: For the record, Steve Grabe. If you replay our ties to the estuarine monitoring and move that $50,000 into the Clam Bay system, what you would get would be basically WQ-3 which is twenty-five two. It would give you WQ-7a at a somewhat reduced scope, and it would give you WQ-5 I believe which is the sediment monitoring. So you would still have a fairly powerful program in place for at least one year. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So it was WQ-3, WQ-7a at a reduced scope. And what was the third item, Mr. Grabe? MR. GRABE: I think it's five, the sediment monitoring. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Five, sediment monitoring. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: WQ-5. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I think the question related more to what would be the increase in spending over -- MR. GRABE: Well, if you move the $50,000 over -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: It's the same 50? MR. GRABE: It's close to it. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. GRABE: It would be -- You'd have to retool the specifics of the program, but we would just take our estuarine monitoring program, move it into Clam Bay and basically cover three of the elements. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And understandably that increases the time frame between monitoring in other estuarine areas, but it's a shifting of priority in funds but not a -- MR. GRABE: Right. Move it from a six-year -- five-year rotation to a six-year rotation. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And the last point is protection of sea grass beds. I am interested in the mapping of those for comparison purposes as an indicator. I believe that is -- Is that C -- Is that the $500 a year, C-i? UNKNOWN VOICE: Yes. UNKNOWN VOICE: C-i, yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. C-1 at $500 a year. And that is my motion unless, of course, Commissioner Matthews has something to say. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was just going to ask what portion of this is it that today is currently doing -- what water quality testing are they currently doing? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I incorporated one point that stated the reduction in cost with volunteers to twenty-one ninety-six for the black mangrove die-off. Okay. As far as water quality testing, I'm under the assumption that the Pelican Bay Services Division will continue their water quality monitoring, and what I have just requested will be in addition to that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: let's see where we are. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. What was the total dollars? I really don't know. Maybe we can run that and 30, 32, 37, 44, 49, 59, 74, 84, 94, 114, and that includes the permitting. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What about the 100,8007 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Only 25,002 of that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're at roughly $114,0007 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Plus the Pelican Bay, 40 -- 40 to $50,000. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question for Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. It's not a complicated one, is it? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. It's a nutshell question I think. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is -- What's the benefit of declaring an NRPA as you've outlined versus doing our inlet management plan study and separately calling for the dredge/fill permits and all that as a priority? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The dredge/fill permit as a priority in combination with the inlet management plan does not address the mangrove die-off which is the one element that brought this particular area to the surface. And, in addition, in trying to save the water quality monitoring costs, I see the sea grass beds as an inexpensive indicator of a declining health in that system. That is a recreational area for county residents. The canoe trails and so forth and the Clam Pass trails, county residents have the ability to use, and if the system, the mangrove area and the sea grass areas all begin to deteriorate and we're not aware of it or we're not on top of it, in my opinion, it's not just a Pelican Bay problem. It's a community problem because of the recreational opportunities. So the NRPA -- I'm trying to isolate the NRPA to just that, to the environmental conditions inside Clam Pass and Clam Bay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does our study work -- Mr. Conrecode, maybe you can answer this. Does our study work as part of the inlet management plan not give us any of those indicators? MR. CONRECODE: It does not give you the indicators that he's referring to in the sea grass beds. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stay because I have a question for you too. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't give you any indicators as far as water quality? MR. CONRECODE: No, it won't. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I -- On the question on the motion, I'd like to ask the motion maker to include the exotic removal with the exception of the Australian pine. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be a total line-item of EX-3 and 4 for 6,400? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. What is the $22,000 exotic, EX-i? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: EX-i? It's a line-item with 22,500 to occur in '96. Do we know what that is for? MR. HARTWELL: That's the removal of Brazilian Peppers. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Are all of those within the NRPA or are some of them on Pelican Bay? MR. HARTWELL: Dick Hartwell for the record. Most of those Brazilian Peppers are within the NRPA but not in the conservation easement. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm not interested in including anything that is not in the conservation easement. MR. HARTWELL: Then you would want to get rid of that amount of money. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He just made a very important point. I don't know that everybody caught it. If we designate this NRPA as proposed, we are expanding the boundaries of this area outside of what is now a conservation easement. We are putting more environmental regulations on a privately owned property. I want you to think about that before you vote on the motion. The other thing is it is not necessary to have a NRPA to do any single item or all of these items that have been proposed to us today. It has nothing to do with it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One more comment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a second. The motion maker is considering the exotics. Do you want to add exotic three and four? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hope you won't because of the -- the example I used earlier, the community pays for -- the community as a whole in Golden Gate with the special taxing district would pay for whatever the situation on the land was on that block I described out there that's owned by the community. I think if we're talking outside the conservation easement but inside the Pelican Bay special taxing district, then we're getting into probably an inappropriate use there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that. Can you tell me the acreage difference between the conservation easement and the NRPA? MR. HARTWELL: Yes, I can. It's approximately -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have to use the microphone. MR. HARTWELL: -- 70 acres. It's approximately 70 acres. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is it outside -- MR. HARTWELL: The outside. And the NRPA -- the conservation is 570 acres. So we're talking about 70 acres more outside the easement area. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. MR. HARTWELL: If I could just say one other thing. They reason why they were included is because they were contiguous with the vegetation, and they need the vegetation, and that's the reason why we included it in the NRPA itself. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm very receptive to Commissioner Norris' comment, that I don't want to put an overlay on property that's not a part of the conservation easement. So I'm going to do two things on the motion. The first is to include the removal of Brazilian Pepper in lines E -- in line-items EX-3 and EX-4 in the motion. But, in addition, to amend the motion to include only that area of the conservation easement, not the 70 acres outside of it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So that's going to alter the dollars. We can no longer use this chart, some amount of money higher than 114,000. Is there any additional comment on the motion before us? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a question. Well, a comment and a question. One is the property owners have asked for this. They were here. They have -- You're not -- You're not doing something to people. It's so rare that the environmentalists and the property owners agree, and in this case they do. They're saying please, please, regulate me. Very unusual. But that's the condition we have here. And, second, before I vote on this, I want to know when will the inlet management plan come before us. MR. CONRECODE: We expect to present the final inlet management plan to you in October of '96 and then the state takes -- the state takes a six-month review period and will adopt it sometime in the spring of '97. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A year and a half away. MR. CONRECODE: So, in the meantime, there are three -- there are three parts to that process. We have the first report. We have a public hearing, receive comments, revise, and a second report. It's a long, drawn-out procedure defined by the state. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to withdraw my second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion that's been amended and a second that's been withdrawn. I'll second this motion to get it on the floor because I think we need to -- we need to vote on something. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion fails two to three. Commissioners Hac'Kie, Constantine, and Norris being -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: folks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: closed on this? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, there's no troika here, Is there a -- How are we going to get Is there another motion that we can get closure on? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll be very frank. I'm looking for a couple of things. I really want to have the opening of Clam Pass acted on today. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not just -- Not just the temporary emergency but the first step of having a permit in order to dredge that pass to maintain that system. I want that acted on today. I think we've said verbally that that's important and I -- and if the NRPA's not the mechanism, at least let's make some motion, for God's sake, to get that thing prioritized and a part of the program today. MR. CONRECODE: Can I save you that motion? You've already done that. You've already funded it. That work is already in place. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The 30,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That work is done. MR. CONRECODE: Both the interim opening that you approved last week -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The emergency. MR. CONRECODE: -- And the long-term. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So that money's already funded. MR. CONRECODE: Right. You're using Tourist Development funds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. So now we have this amount of ad valorem taxes substantially reduced even more. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. That -- MR. CONRECODE: You have an approved some future amount, that 30,000 that we talked about. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. But the 30,000 -- the 30,000 that's 1995 on this is already approved. MR. CONRECODE: There's $97,000 in 1995 dollars that we're spending right now doing the inlet management study. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Got you. Okay. Commissioner Hancock, are you going to try again? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I don't know. I'm getting bruised and battered so I'm not -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to ask Commissioner Hac'Kie why she withdrew the second and maybe we can draft something. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why I withdrew the second is because I thought we were -- I thought we were talking about doing the inlet management study sometime in my lifetime instead of 100 years from now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's being done as we -- it takes time. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know it takes time, but, you know, that is a -- that's -- that's as essential as digging out that little dredge there to open up the pass. It's as essential. The whole system functions as one. You're telling me that it's already going on and that -- Is there anything on this list that would have been a part -- that would have made the inlet management program move along more quickly? Is there anything on here that's -- to fix that? MR. CONRECODE: The NRPA is not required for the maintenance and the opening of the inlet. The NRPA recommends that the inlet be maintained open in order to maintain the viability of the system. You are doing inlet management studies for every pass and inlet that you have up and down the coast, and each one of those is at a different stage. Doctor's Pass is completed. Wiggins Pass is nearly complete. This one just happens to be -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got a question that might help me. If what's involved in the motion as made by Commissioner Hancock -- is an element of that motion an item wherein the state may tell us you've got to do that hydrology study? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, but we can't define it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. But if we go forward with the motion as proposed by Commissioner Hancock, that would make the ball roll so that we will finally know from the state what exactly it is they want us to do as far as hydrology? MR. CONRECODE: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try something here. Try my hand. Everyone else's failed, and perhaps I will as well. I'm going to make a motion that we decline the NRPA status; however, keeping in mind what Tom has just said, that we can move forward with the dredge and fill, and that seemed to be Commissioner Hancock's highest priority. And that as a separate item, that on our own we do -- we look for the clearing out of the Brazilian Peppers and exotics other than the Australian pines within the conservation easement, not to include the 70 acres outside and that -- Commissioner Hancock, you had mentioned earlier priority was also the black mangrove die-off. And if we could do the investigative work there and simply address those two issues, let's dredge and fill work, move forward as already outlined separate from this as Commissioner -- I mean, as Mr. Conrecode has suggested, and simply do those two items so we can address what's necessary and what's going on out there but at the same time not go so far as to declare this as an NRPA. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask a question of Commissioner Constantine if I may? I understand your basic difficulty with declaring a NRPA. I know you voted against it in the past. If we're talking about apples and apples -- and what we call it is -- whether we call it a NRPA or whether we call it individual action, the benefit I see to calling it a NRPA is that it gets the state off our back on Growth Management Plan requirements on some elements. So I find some importance in calling this collection a NRPA. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's three votes for that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if that's not a part of your motion and if your motion should fail -- I think what you want under the title NRPA, with one or two minor additions, we'll probably succeed. So either amend or we're coming after you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. We have a motion -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll withdraw it if there's not -- if there's not three votes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have a second. Are you withdrawing the motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'll withdraw it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Do it again. Okay. Here we go. Try this one more time. One more time. We're going to designate Clam Bay system as a NRPA in the confines of the conservation easement not to include lands outside of that. Secondly, we are going to prioritize the water quality program for the county into the Clam Bay system. Thirdly, we are going to incorporate the black mangrove die-off section. That item's $2,196. So we get a -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The second one? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second one is to -- to allocate the existing 50,000. Make Clam Bay a priority within that so that we increase the water quality testing in -- in -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The estuary one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. The estuarine system so that Clam Bay becomes a priority and we develop a baseline with that. The fourth is the survey and mapping of the protection of the sea grass beds. And before closing with that, let me get one point of clarification again from Mr. Conrecode who is getting tired of standing up and sitting down. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Getting his exercise today. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I understand this correctly, line-item PER-i, the $30,000 cost item that provides an interim permit from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, you stated, if I understand you correctly, that that is going to be done but has not been funded; is that correct? MR. CONRECODE: That's correct. That's what we came to you last week on. When this was originally drafted, the pass was still open. Last week we came to you and said, would you like to declare an emergency and do this interim permit measure which we're estimating is about $30,000. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're going to have to do this debt. We're currently doing it anyway; is that correct? MR. CONRECODE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're going to have to approve a funding mechanism at some point for it? MR. CONRECODE: Uh-huh. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Therefore, I'd like to include item PER-1 in the NRPA. And that's it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You have to help me with which items those are dollar-wise on here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I can give you -- Rather than going to the list, we can be real simple about it. PER-1 is $30,000. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yep. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The black mangrove die-off is 2,196. That includes the volunteer efforts of some folks in Pelican Bay. The protection of sea grass beds which includes mapping and some other things is $2,600. And the water quality has no real fiscal impact. It's a shifting of priorities and not an expenditure of dollars. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: About 50K going to this as opposed to -- for the 30 budget? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. It puts -- What it does is put the other estuarine systems on hold while we allocate resources to Clam Bay and then again next year we review it and look at where we are. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could I ask a question of staff? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was expressed as a concern. Bill, maybe you can help me with this. It was expressed as a concern that we may have some problem if we don't declare this an NRPA because our Growth Management Plan says we're looking at NRPAs. If we don't declare this particular project a NRPA, what's likely to happen from the state in the way of a penalty? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This may be a Marjorie question. MR. LORENZ: I'll turn around to Harjorie Student for a legal question. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Lorenz, another side of that same question would be, do we have the ability to remove the NRPA system from the Growth Management Plan all together? MS. STUDENT: Okay. I think I can answer both of those questions. There's nothing specifically in the statute that states if you fail to implement a part of your plan by the time you say you will that DCA is going to do anything. However, in the past they have quote other programmatic commitments of ours, land development regulations. And, in fact, land development regulations might be able to flow, not necessarily out of this NRPA program but out of some of the NRPA programs that could be implemented. So if the DCA were to catch wind of this, they may likely correspond with the county, ask us the status of the program, perhaps require us to submit some sort of schedule as to what we've planned for the other NRPA programs, or they could also determine that it's a land development regulation and take us to circuit court and require -- ask the Court to require us to implement it because that's what's happened in -- That's what they've talked about doing in the past with other programmatic commitments. We could amend the comprehensive plan to remove the program, but there are requirements that I won't go into specific detail on in Rule 9J5 as well as Chapter 163 that require conservation and protection efforts for certain types of habitat and protect the plant and animal specie. So we are likely to run into problems if we were to take it out of the plan without some other kind of program that would meet those requirements. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said they had talked in the past about taking people to court or taking us to court. Have they done that with us in the past? MS. STUDENT: No, they have not. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the likely penalty appears to be nonexistent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll try to put this in summary. Make a motion that we approve the Clam Bay NRPA to consist of only the conservation easement area, not be 70 acres outside of it; that we include in that line PER-i, $30,000, line C-1 of 2,000; that we increase -- I'm sorry -- line C-2 and C-3 totalling 2,100; that we prioritize the estuarine water quality testing system to make Clam Bay a number one priority; and that we have an exotic removal program excepting Australian pines within the conservation easement area. Did I miss anything? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. I think that's it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the motion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just got a couple too many. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion on the motion? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just going to oppose it because I think we're creating something that we don't need to create. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I agree. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: With no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 3-2 with Commissioners Constantine and Norris in the opposition. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And nobody particularly happy. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm so glad the high school students weren't here for this one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If nobody is particularly happy, that means we have a true compromise. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess. Item #SH1 RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER THE PROPERIETY OF PAYING CAPITAL PROJECT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FEES FROM TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS ON COASTAL AND INLET PROJECTS - CONCEPT APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda. Recommendation that the board consider the propriety of paying capital project professional services with TDC funds. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's kind of cut this one real short. I mean, if we don't have professional services and engineering services, we ain't putting any sand on the beach; so therefore, it's part of it, and it should be funded with TDC funds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: it as being an 8-1 vote. That's exactly -- Let's just cut that out That's exactly why you saw I voted against the proposal, and my feeling is that regardless of who is doing the engineering, somebody's got to pay for it. And if the county is not going to be funded, then I would think the county would want to say then that we don't want to do the engineering and the Tourist Development Council and the Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee can go hire an engineer to do it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There you go. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we hired someone on the outside to do this, I assume just like the TDC phase with Mike Stephen -- MS. GANSEL: That would be exactly right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Then TDC would pay that outside person? MS. GANSEL: Yes. The professional fees as they would be for any other -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This -- This doesn't require us to alter any formula that currently exists with the TDC? MS. GANSEL: No. No. In fact, we have in the past paid OCPM professional service fees with Tourist Development taxes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me we ought to be consistent all the way through. If we pay all the professionals to do the fees, our professionals are -- MR. DORRILL: The same in solid waste, utilities, and I will tell you that your fees for in-house preliminary engineering and/or permitting are significantly less than those in the private sector, and that was one of the major areas when this board asked to consider the OCPH concept to internalize minor design and engineering things. It was to include these types of areas. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just to continue my, you know, contentiousness today, I think it's the wrong idea. I think that we probably legally can do this. I think we shouldn't do it. I think we're confusing the public, and here we're going to go back to them and ask them to trust us one more time on the penny for the bridge. We told them we're going to spend this money on sand, and now we're saying, well, we're going to spend it on sand, but what we really mean is we're going to spend it on the staff, and that's misleading to the public, and it's going to have ramifications that are negative for a long time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just disagree with that because of the engineering concept. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Just let me explain that clearly. We told them we'd get sand on the beaches, and to get sand on the beaches it takes engineering. Now, we can spend more than we're paying our staff and go hire an outside engineer if that's the preference. But we can save money and do it with our own people, but somebody's got to be paid either way. To suggest that this is distrustful or changing the rules I think is inappropriate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have one speaker why don't we hear from. MR. DORRILL: Dr. Staiger. MR. STAIGER: For the record again, Jon Staiger, Natural Resources manager for the City of Naples. I am the staff administrator for the beach committee, so this is my lucky day. The genesis of this particular concern was the examination that the beach committee has done over the last two years of the Tourist Development tax funding applications, and each one of those involves an application from Collier County. There is a percentage allocated to OCPH project management. The beach committee has been very, very prudent in its recommendations of expenditures for TDC revenues. They're very much aware of the magnitude of this beach project and how a few dollars really come in from the Tourist Development tax every year. So they have questioned a lot of these expenditures and, in fact, recommended against a number of the projects last year that they felt were ones that were not really beach-related to the same degree that others were. The committee is not questioning the legality of this charge. Mr. Varnadoe's esteemed colleague, Bruce Anderson, has agreed with the county attorney's opinion that it's a legally defensible position to charge -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That settles that, by God. MR. CUYLER: Not that that's a prerequisite. MR. STAIGER: And Mr. Anderson is a member of the beach committee. The concern is I think basically that there is so little money there when you look at the magnitude of that project and add into it all of these inlet management projects that have to be accomplished simultaneously or within at least the time period for the beach project, that to dilute that pot, so to speak, for some internal management fees just means you're going to have to borrow more money down the road to pay for this construction project. The range and percentages of the OCPH fees has been around, oh, 8 percent up to about 13 for the actual percentage of the contract cost. For the beach project it's -- it's less than 1 percent simply because the magnitude of the beach project is -- you're looking at about $15 million for construction. OCPH is not designing the beach project. Coastal Engineering Consultants is. And so it's not in-house engineering. It's basically in-house contract supervision and tracking the funding that has concerned the beach committee. They felt that as a policy you might consider covering that cost somewhere else to keep that Tourist Development tax sum, as much of that money as possible available for the beach and the inlet management projects and that's -- and that's where all this came from. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dr. Staiger, it seems like you're asking us to cover that from ad valorem taxes. The irony, in my mind, is Commissioner Hac'Kie had said we've told the public we'll use tourist tax dollars to put sand on the beaches, and now we're being asked to use ad valorem taxes to help put sand on the beaches. MR. STAIGER: Well, I don't know what -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's a question of how much money we're going to have to borrow and what we want to borrow it for. We're going to -- Unfortunately it looks like we're going to have to borrow some money, and I would rather borrow it for sand than for staff. MR. STAIGER: The question I have and I don't know if -- if that's answerable is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But it's part and parcel of the same cost. MR. STAIGER: -- Is before -- before OCPH was created -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not from the public's perspective. MR. STAIGER: -- Mr. Huber was working on the beach project. Hr. Huber has been working on the beach project since 1985 or '86, and he was paid from some source of money before OCPH was created, and I don't think it was -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ad valorem. MR. STAIGER: -- Tourist Development. Was it ad valorem? Well, then that's basically the source the committee would ask you to consider. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Staiger, every time the beach committee called the OCPH office, did you know you were being billed for that time? MR. STAIGER: Every time the beach committee calls OCPH? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I'm just -- With this particular one I agree. I mean, in the future if -- you know, if you know that OCPH time is billable and you call on OCPH, then it comes out of the -- MR. STAIGER: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- It comes out of the Tourist Development tax. I'm wondering about this 82,000 as to whether or not every time -- you know, if you are operating under the guise that there was going to be no charge for the OCPH time and then all of a sudden there is, that seems a little strange to me. I don't disagree with it in theory. I just think on this case you didn't have the option of bidding this out. You just called OCPH and they're doing work, and now we're getting a bill. Is that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That doesn't work with lawyers. People expect me to tell them ahead of time if I'm going to bill them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Conrecode, have we been very conservative or very liberal? How have we been in accounting for those hours we spend on the beaches? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I bet he's going to say we've been terrible at it. I bet he's going to say we've been sloppy. MR. CONRECODE: If I could step back to address the comment made prior to that, this is a part of the funding cycle. We're requesting this funding in advance for services to be provided. This isn't, oh, by the way, we did this work and you owe us 80-some thousand dollars. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. This is services to be provided? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: These are services that were included in the application for inlet management plan update, or whatever, was going on for the current fiscal year. These funds have not been -- MR. CONRECODE: For the current cycle. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: These funds have not been expended yet. MR. STAIGER: Not yet, no. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They've been asked for and included in the application process. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That answers my question. MR. CONRECODE: The ones that we're billing for right now were approved in last year's cycle. So it was approved last year. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We've got four votes on it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hake a motion. MR. CONRECODE: If I can answer Commissioner Constantine's question -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you still have a question, Mr. Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Staiger. MR. STAIGER: It's a policy decision is what -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, it is. MR. STAIGER: -- The committee was asking and we're -- we're -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're going to make that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to make that -- MR. STAIGER: They're not questioning the legitimacy of the work that's being done. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're going to make that decision right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, there is. I'll make a motion that we approve the concept of paying capital project professional services fees from Tourist Development funds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For the inlet management plan and the beach? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Anytime they're used for anything that has to do with Tourist Development funds. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 4-1. MS. GANSEL: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie being in the opposition. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Alone. Item #8H2 RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST AND MOST RESPONSIVE BIDDER,, BETTER ROADS, INC. FOR C.R. 951 FOUR LANING IMPROVEMENTS AND WATER/SEWER IMPROVEMENTS (JCT. U.S. 41 TO JCT. S.R. 84), CIE NOS. 10 AND 11, BID NO. 95-2320 (COMPANION TO ITEM #8H4) - APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,444,684.35 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item, item H(2), recommendation to award a construction contract for County Road 951. MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode from the Capital Projects Office here presenting one of my items. I'm pleased to advise the board that based on the board's direction of December to advance CIE numbers 10 and 11 -- that's the two segments of County Road 951 from U.S. 41 up to Davis Boulevard -- the bids came in about $5 million under the estimated cost for construction. And, as a result, we're asking the board today to award a bid to the low contractor, Better Roads, in the amount of $9,444,000 and some change. In addition to that, we would ask the board to approve the funding sources identified in the executive summary which includes funding from the utilities division for their portion of this project and as well as to recognize in Exhibit C that there's a benefit within district -- hold on a second -- within district six under your impact fee districts, therefore, authorizing funding from that particular source for this project. And then there's a companion item that goes with this. I would ask the board to adopt a resolution budgeting to borrow -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, if we don't have any speakers, I'll make a motion to approve the item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have speakers? We have none? Okay. We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before a second, I do have a question. I understand the propensity of boards to spend what's there sometimes. We have on paper saved $5 million. In two years we have a funding shortfall. Do we have a little savings niche we can stick that five million in as we realize it in two years? Because I'm worried that once it gets pulled off the capital list next year's budget, it won't be there. It's an operational question that I'm afraid I don't understand. MR. CONRECODE: If I can answer that, of this $5 million savings, you will realize $3 million of it in your road capital program October first of this year. You'll recognize the balance of it one year after that which was when the next segment of this road project would have been funded. So that's when you'll actually recognize some savings and reapply those. You address that annually as a part of your road plan update. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- For some reason when I heard about this savings, I immediately allocated it to the '97 shortfall, in my mind. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I understand that Commissioner Constantine's motion would be the recommendation in your executive summary for H(2). I would ask that you take a separate motion approving the resolution that's been distributed as item number four. You can go ahead and do this one and then take a separate motion on the commercial paper. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the commercial paper is related to this -- MR. CUYLER: It is one of the funding sources that Tom pointed out, a portion of the funding sources. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Did we ever get a second? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to address only item 8H(2). That is the awarding of the contract. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Motion passes 5-0. Item #8H4 RESOLUTION 95-148, AUTHORIZING THE BORROWING OF $2 HILLION FROH THE COHMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM FOR C.R. 951 PROJECT (COMPANION TO ITEM #8H2) - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER NORRIS: the resolution. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: the resolution -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion to adopt We have a motion to adopt Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- For the funding source. We have a second. If there's no further discussion -- This is item 8H(4). If there's no further discussion, I will call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Motion passes 5-0. Item #8H3 REQUEST TO WAIVE FEES FOR DEDICATED AMBULANCE SERVICE FOR THE NUVEEN MASTERS EVENT - APPROVED Two in a row. We're on a roll. Next item is 8H -- What is this? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what I have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I seem to have lost my -- Oh, here it is. Request to waive fees for dedicated ambulance service at the Nuveen Masters. Mr. Ijams -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we do this at the other events like the Vineyards? MR. IJAMS: We did in October on a permit basis for five other special events. This is not one of those. This request is for one year only. Norris Ijams, Emergency Services Administrator. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is a new event. MR. DORRILL: You have an ordinance that governs the other events for which there is a demonstrated community benefactor. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are they? MR. DORRILL: They are the Swamp Buggy Festival, the Collier County Fair, the Seafood Festival, the Immokalee Horse Trials, and I can't recall the last one. MR. IJAMS: You've got it. The LPGA and the PGA. MR. DORRILL: That's it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question is, how will the community benefit from the Nuveen Masters? In other words, is this in the same group or is this something that the community -- MR. DORRILL: It is similar. They have three local not-for-profit benefactors that include the Humane Society, the local chapter of the Wishing Well Foundation. I don't know what that is. I'll presume it's one of those children's Make-a-Wish-type things. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Similar to Make-a-Wish. It's a wonderful group. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Similar to Make-a-Wish. MR. DORRILL: And the Children's Hospital and Cancer Society, it's my understanding that that is more of a national-type sponsor. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the public benefit is they don't have to -- these groups don't have to pay the fee. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a decision for me. I'll make a motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the waiver. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5-0. MR. IJAMS: Thank you. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Three in a row. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Maybe we can get moving. Item #8H5 And Item #8H6 AMENDHENT NO. 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEHENT WITH HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR HYDROGEOLOGIC AND ENGINEEREING SERVICES RELATED TO DEEP WELL INJECTIONS AT THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATEHENT FACILITY - APPROVED AND PRFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HISSIHER INTERNATIONAL FOR THE NCRWTP SECOND DEEP INJECTION WELL OBSERVATION PROJECT, RFP 94-2284 - APPROVED COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The next two items I had asked to be pulled from the consent agenda. I don't need a discussion on them. I just wanted to vote against them. So we can do what we need to do with them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that because you're anti-deep well? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anti-deep well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They are -- Oh, my gosh. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16H(3) and 16H(6). COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move approval of those two items. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think -- Do we have to take separate motions, Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: Not as long as the record is clear. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm looking for which one is which. 16H(3) -- MR. CONRECODE: 16H(3) and 16H(5) and that's the deep-injection well, the South County Regional Waste Water Treatment Facility. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that for excess effluent? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Question on that, Mr. Conrecode. There's been some statement in recent weeks that our staff withheld information from us, that there are other counties that are putting irrigation systems up and spring clean county land with this water and that it's legal, that it's permitable and that you did not notify us of that. I personally thought we talked about overland discharge. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We did. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the statement was made to me, and in all fairness I wanted to get it on the record, that is it permitable to -- instead of deep well, to construct a huge sprinkler system and irrigate the heck out of something that we aren't growing anything on. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I comment on that? Because I got the same call, and when I checked with a couple -- I checked with Hole, Hontes and a couple of other engineering friends, and what they said is, "Pam, what's the difference between that and a perc pond except you didn't dig a hole?" COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did Mr. Conrecode answer your question? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I guess I want to ask about the permitability of that and find out if that's -- MR. CONRECODE: I have not looked at the permitability of that application. I know that we are using effluent on county property, normal irrigation, not for overland spray. MR. DORRILL: There's a difference. For example, the Orange County, Florida, wastewater utility uses an overland wetland discharge. You can see it as you leave the Orlando International Airport but we -- I don't know whether we still have, but we did have in recent years a spray field irrigation system with the Immokalee Water Sewer District because we're -- we leased them property at the Immokalee Airport for a spray field irrigation for what is essentially a hay field operation. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll cut it short. During the wet season, the water's going to -- it's going to stand anyway, and it's going to run somewhere and has to be bermed and it -- basically, in essence, it is some form of a perc pond so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It becomes a perc pond. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So I just wanted to mention that, and I'm done with that now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we just have had -- we continue to move with the reuse program. And, you know, we may have to build a well, but hopefully we won't use it as often as we otherwise might. MR. CONRECODE: In fact, we just approved an extension of reuse main as a part of that last item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion to approve -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- 8H(5) and (6). [sic] We have a second now. If there's no further discussion on the motion, I'll call -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not that it's that important, but who made the motion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie made the motion. Commissioner Hancock seconded it. No further discussion. I'll call the question on both issues. All those in favor please say aye. All those opposed? Motion passes 3-2 with Commissioners Constantine and Norris being in the opposition. Well, we're back to shifting around. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could we have five? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you want to take five? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Let's take a quick break for five minutes. No. Make it ten. Let's not be silly and say five. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ten minutes. (A short break was held.) Item #9A DISCUSSION RE THE CASE OF MATHIAS TARI VS. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 89-00246-CIV-FTH-17, INCLUDING A PRESENTATION AND/OR SETTLEMENT DISCUSSION OR PROPOSAL BY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL - NO ACTION CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to -- I want to reconvene the Board of County Commission Meeting for February 28. Next item on the agenda is under the county attorney's report. Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: Yes. Madam Chairman, in the case of Matt Tari versus Collier County which has been an ongoing case for a number of years, the county has been successful at the federal trial level and the case was dismissed for lack of ripeness as the board is aware. Mr. Tari -- And we have an appellate argument this week. Mr. Tari had written a letter to the commissioners asking that he or his counsel be allowed to address the board with regard to perhaps a settlement offer or settlement proposal of some sort. Mr. Theriaque who's in the audience and will be up at the podium momentarily also wrote you a letter dated February 24 which has a settlement proposal in it. There have been some ongoing discussions, and I think he wants to address the board at this point, and I'll let him go ahead and speak. Any questions you have of me or of Mr. Hootman who is counsel on this case for the county and who is also in the audience will be happy to answer any questions that you have or comment on anything. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Before we get started, I think Commissioner -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cuyler, important to note, have all board members been briefed by you and by other counsel on this matter? MR. CUYLER: Yes. The reason that we're not going through a more full explanation and a history and such is that all the board members are aware of this. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So just the nuts and bolts today? MR. CUYLER: Just the nuts and bolts. This is not supposed to be an argument of the case. I think Mr. Theriaque put at the beginning of his letter that they think they're going to win. We think we're going to win. Fine. We both think we're going to win. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Theriaque is going to address the settlement issues. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. THERIAQUE: Good afternoon. My name is David Theriaque. I'm with the law firm of Apgar, Pelham, Pfeiffer and Theriaque, and I represent Matt and Dottie Tari. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you this afternoon. As Mr. Cuyler indicated, I am not going to get into the merits. We are currently scheduled to do that on Thursday in Atlanta. Hopefully as a result of today's ongoing negotiations we may not have to go to Atlanta. On Friday we faxed a letter to Mr. Cuyler which outlined the various issues, conditions, what have you, for settlement. After meeting with Mr. Cuyler and Mr. Hootman for the better part of today, we have revised our request for settlement. First off, let me state that the Taris have incurred a great deal of expense and time, and I'm sure the county has as well. However, in an effort to have this thing go away, which I believe everybody who's been involved with this case desires, Mr. Tari is prepared to settle on the following terms: Mr. Tari agrees to drop all claims or all damages -- all claims for damages against Collier County. Collier County will recognize Mr. Tari's right to operate a wholesale nursery with limited retail associated with the wholesale operation. That has been the most difficult part of the negotiations today, trying to define what is a limited retail sale or a component to a wholesale operation. I'll address that after I finish the conditions. Mr. Tari will agree not to expand his existing nursery business operation. He will be allowed to make necessary repairs and/or improvements that are necessary to continue his existing business. The county will allow Mr. Tari to sell his business and the uses set forth if those uses are agreed upon today. And the county will allow Mr. Tari to place an identifying unlit on-site four-by-six sign on his property on White Boulevard and that Collier County will agree to pay Mr. Tari $45,000 for all -- as a lump sum which would include attorney's fees, damages, whatever that may be used for. That is a significant reduction from the letter that we faxed on Friday. On Friday I believe we were a hair under $100,000. Coming back to the retail associated with wholesale, Mr. Tari does not want to operate a garden center. What Mr. Tari wants to do is have a wholesale operation. However, associated with any wholesale operation when you're dealing with a nursery is some limited retail. You have a wholesale customer come in who may refer to another individual that person knows who may refer to another individual. You have somebody coming down and buying a rose bush or you have somebody coming down to pick the fruit up that is growing on Mr. Tari's property, on his trees. And we have been struggling for the better part of six hours today to come up with a way to have limited retail. And Mr. Tari understands the county's concern that retail generates traffic in the area, and what we've attempted to do is to come up with a compromise position that would address that in this fashion. Mr. Tari has 12 acres of property. On five acres Mr. Tari has a fruit tree nursery. At the end of five years, Mr. Tari will use those five acres exclusively for wholesale sales. There will be no retail sales whatsoever. On his remaining seven acres, he will be allowed to have retail sales associated with wholesale of no more than one-third of the purchasers. So, for example, if he has 12 customers, no more than four customers can make a retail purchase. The one-third/two-third will occur on the five-acre parcel for five years. He's currently in the process of making that five-acre parcel a viable wholesale operation. It's going to take approximately five years to get the volume. At the conclusion of the five years, it will be exclusively wholesale. On the seven acres, the one-third/two-third retail/wholesale distinction will continue in the future. Mr. Tari agrees to do no retail advertising. His retail sales will be as a result of his existing clientele and the word of mouth. The one caveat that we've been working on is that Mr. Tari would like the ability on his sign to state "Oranges Available." So if somebody is passing by, they can purchase, retail purchase within that one-third/two-third breakdown some fruit. And, in essence, that is our settlement which we have been hashing for six or seven hours this morning and this afternoon. I would -- can only stress that Mr. Tari does not desire to have a garden center, a retail operation. However, in having a wholesale operation, he does not believe that he can tell somebody who shows up to buy a rose bush to go away, that it's inherent in any wholesale operation. And I would entertain any questions at this point or comments from Mr. Hootman or Mr. Cuyler. They've been very cooperative today. I thank them for their assistance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have two points that I think are important to state up front, at least how I feel. First of all, as you know, the counsel that's been handling this is at no cost to the county. It's through a previous, if you will, insurance policy. So settlement cost to us, that's really their choice. So I think we can hear from you regarding that. The second point that I have a problem with is you have requested that this use run with the land? MR. THERIAQUE: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I personally won't agree with that. It will run with the owner, not with the land. This is not a situation where I think we need to vest an operation that we want to continue out there. We have in the past some setted uses that are not necessarily conforming to the adjacent properties. In this case, I personally feel that I -- I have no desire approving it to run with the land, but Mr. Tari certainly has a right to continue his livelihood. So for it to run with the owner, no problem. To run with the land, big problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other comments, questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The only comment I have -- I appreciate everyone trying to work out a solution here. I think that's always preferable to continuing the fight. If we can work in a cooperative spirit, that's much better. The problem I see is practicality of trying to limit retail customers to one-third. Who's going to police that? I mean, how would that ever be policed? And the same goes with the acreage. I mean, five acres is not. Seven acres is. How are you going to police that? We could station a full-time person out there I guess and we could get it done, but I just see the problems there from practicality if nothing else. MR. THERIAQUE: May I address that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. MR. THERIAQUE: Thank you. On the one-third/two-third, Mr. Tari is willing to provide raw data which would document on either an annual basis or a six-month basis whereby you can either -- If you need to see the actual sales receipts with the names -- he does object to providing you with the revenues, the amounts of the purchases. But the names or a tally on a six-month or 12-month basis, that can be required on an annual basis, or the county can require that after Mr. Tari submits his numbers that they need to see additional documentation. So I think we can work out on that. On the five acre versus seven acre, we can define legally which five acres we're addressing. I think we can draft that up in a settlement agreement. So I think both of those can be clearly defined in a settlement agreement and enforceable. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Would you tell me once again what the monetary portion of this is? MR. THERIAQUE: $45,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 45,0007 MR. THERIAQUE: At this point, Mr. Tari has incurred several hundred thousands of dollars worth of damages. The attorney's fees through Friday, not including my trip today, are approximately $169,000 that Mr. Tari has incurred and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's throughout the life of this? MR. THERIAQUE: Yes, ma'am. That is not to me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. THERIAQUE: And he is willing -- Initially with my letter on Friday, we are looking at splitting the baby. We are seeking reimbursement, one-half of the attorney's fees. In an effort to settle this thing before the county or my firm and Mr. Tari incur additional expenses going up to Atlanta, we were authorized to represent that Mr. Tari would settle for $45,000 total. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question, Mr. Cuyler. Where does the 45,000 come from? MR. CUYLER: Mr. Hootman has been given authority to the figure that was discussed, $45,000, so the insurance fund would pay the $45,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So if we were to agree to release this case, then they would sign off and settle it? MR. CUYLER: For $45,000 as a maximum, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Question, Mr. Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm in the unique position of having -- being the only member of the board who's been named in this lawsuit since day one. I was on the Code Enforcement Board at the time this was filed back in the late 1800s. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think you're the only still on the board, aren't you, that's named in that suit? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I thought -- I thought we were in the right in 1989. I think we're in the right now. And while I appreciate the spirit of the offer, I happen to think we're going to make out fine Thursday and we'll end up not having to compromise on any of these, and so I'm not sure I'm interested in the compromises offered today personally. MR. CUYLER: I will note -- not to -- not as a proponent of the offer, but I will note that we can be successful Thursday, successful in the argument. That means we go back potentially and there may be further claims that they can make in the future, but I believe you're aware -- you're all aware of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would Mr. Tari be amenable to these conditions running with the owner and not with the land? HR. THERIAQUE: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: running with the land. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: running with the land. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, sir. Okay. I can't agree to them Pardon me? I can't agree to them I need to -- I need to know the effect that this would have on future zoning matters of similarity. MR. CUYLER: Well, I believe that at some point in the proceedings Mr. Tari would be able to raise an estoppel argument in state court claiming that certain things happened that he claims allowed him to do the things that he's doing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. That's not what I meant. I was thinking of precedent setting. MR. CUYLER: Well, I'll -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're getting to that? Okay. MR. CUYLER: I'm leading to that. Not to say how good that is -- not to say how good that argument is or how bad it is, but if you have the potential for the lawsuit -- We're currently in one lawsuit. If you have the potential for a lawsuit and you settle the lawsuit and there are certain zoning considerations involved in that, I've always taken the position that you have the ability to take into account what you can win and lose ultimately in setting something. For example, in the worst case scenario, he would be allowed to continue wholesale and retail if he made the right arguments and they were bought by the Court down the line which probably would be a couple of years from now. And you can take into account that type of thing in saying, well, here's our down side, here's our up side, and we want to compromise something in the middle. I've taken that position in the past, and I would be willing to say that in direct answer to your question, probably no precedential value based on the facts, but that doesn't mean somebody down the street is not going to say, "Hey, he's doing it. Why can't I do it?" COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I meant. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions, comments? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I for one am not inclined to support the settlement for the simple reason that the request is for it to run with the land. I'm sensitive to the grandfathering issue that Mr. Tari has made, and the grandfathering was his operation. But, in essence, wanting it to run with the land and not with the owner is to look for creating a marketable piece of property as opposed to operating the business. So I think the distinction to me is if Mr. Tari wants to continue operating his business under these terms, I have no problem with that, but I don't wish to create a marketable piece of property for Mr. Tari to sell to someone else. That's just not within the realm of understanding that I'm comfortable with. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, what's the underlying zoning on this property? MR. CUYLER: It's E estates. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All 12 acres? None of it's ag? MR. CUYLER: It's all E estates. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All E estates. Okay. Well, I don't think we have anybody here that is interested in settling this if it runs with the land. MR. THERIAQUE: Thank you for your time. Item #10A RESOLUTION 95-149, APPOINTING RICHARD EGGERS, MARGARET PAULSON AND MARY JANE HITTLER TO THE MARCO ISLAND BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMHITTEE - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, with deference to Commissioner Norris, there are three numbers and three applicants, and I'll make a motion to approve those three. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve Richard Eggers, Margaret Paulson, and Mary Jane Hittler to the Marco Island Beautification Advisory Committee. Motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. 5-0. Motion passes 5-0. Item #10B RESOLUTION 95-150, APPOINTING DAVID CRAIG, CHARLES DAURAY, HARK DRUCKER, EDWARD FERGUSON, DOUGLAS FINK AND TIMOTHY LYNCH TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is appointment of members to the County Government Productivity Committee. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, there's six openings and six applicants. I'll make a motion we approve the six people outlined in the summary. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was wondering. We have a motion -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm tearing them all down. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve David Craig, Charles Danray, Mark Drucker, Edward Ferguson, Douglas Fink, and Timothy Lynch to the Productivity Committee. What's so funny? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nothing. Share it with the whole class. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Motion passes 5-0. I've been asked to name them off when we haven't discussed them. Item #10C RESOLUTION 95-151, URGING THE U.S. CONGRESS TO FUND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRACTION ACT - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES; RESOLUTION 95-152, URGING THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO AMEND SECTION 322.03, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY REVISING THE PROVISION WHICH PERMITS INDIVIDUALS TO RETAIN AN OUT-OF-STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE AND SIMULTANEOUSLY POSSESS A VALID FLORIDA DRIVER'S LICENSE - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES; AND RECOMMENDATION TO URGE U.S. CONGRESS TO REPEAL OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT - NO ACTION Next item on the agenda is item 10C, consideration of three different resolutions regarding the Motor Voter Act. Do we have someone from staff or -- to do this or, Mr. Cuyler, are you going to? MR. CUYLER: I will be happy to remind you that several weeks ago the last of your three resolutions was on the agenda, and I told you that I would prepare two additional resolutions. One deals with funding of the National Voter Registration Act, and the second one deals with revising of the provision which permits the out-of-state driver's license and in-state driver's license, and you were going to choose amongst them or use whatever parts of all of them you wanted. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize we may have a couple of speakers on this, but I just will ask the board -- The third one here is urging repeal. I don't think any of us are looking for that. I think we're looking for cutting out some of the nonsense that's in the existing one, but I think all of us have said either on the radio or through the paper, whatever, that if we can encourage more voters, that benefits everyone. So unless there's some other direction for the board, perhaps we can keep our discussion just to the first two on here, funding and revising. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise. I'm in support of one and two and not the third. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We might even be able to cut through if, in fact, the majority is in support of the first two resolutions. I'd be happy to make a motion in favor of the first two. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's see if we have public speakers. Mr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: You have one in Ms. Fitch, and Ms. Morgan asked to be called when we got to this item. She's on the way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Fitch. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Fitch. MS. FITCH: Good afternoon. Dorothy Fitch representing the League of Women Voters of Collier County. As you know, this is a national program and; therefore, we are unable to speak to the second part of your agenda on this issue about the out-of-state driver license. And we, of course, have no position on funding. And we agree with you that the third one should not be considered at all. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Ms. Morgan is on her -- on her way? Do -- I don't know that we want to delay. I think based on her comments the previous week, we are going in a direction that she has suggested that we go. Is that a new speaker? MR. DORRILL: Yes, it is. Mr. Tribble. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Tribble. MR. TRIBBLE: Good afternoon. My name is Henry Tribble, and I'm chairman of the Bureau of Black Affairs Advisory Board. Based on what I'm hearing at this point, I'd like to say that I believe the course of action that you seem to be taking is appropriate. Our concern was any kind of resolution that would go to the repeal of the law, and I think of particular concern since Collier County is one of the few counties in the country that is under the Voting Rights Act, it just wouldn't look good as well as not be good. So I do think this is the right approach. To the issue of this being a federal program, it is the responsibility of localities, local governments to ensure the voter participation in the electoral process. We are talking about a federal law but unfortunately -- and this is probably one of those cases -- there are sometimes necessities for the federal laws to be passed to ensure that local governments are meeting their responsibilities. I've always been one who's been for state's rights, even in the '60s. I'm for state's rights, but there has to be state's responsibilities and local responsibilities, because when we have local rights and responsibilities, then I think we have better government for all people. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Tribble. Ms. Harris, did you -- MS. HARRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Also put in a -- to talk? MS. HARRIS: Yes, I did. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. HARRIS: Yes. Good evening. I'm Joyce Harris. I'm president of the Collier County branch of the NAACP. I'd like to say that as a representative of the minority community, we do concur with your first two resolutions, and I'm certainly in favor of federal funding to implement the Motor Voter Act. I guess, like everybody else, the opposition would be to see -- which is number three, urging the U.S. Congress to repeal the National Voter Registration Act. In my mind, it brings to home -- I don't want to use the word "convenience" but maybe convenience, yes, and affordability for people who would not ordinarily be able to vote. It makes it convenient for them on a timely fashion with -- regarding people who do not have adequate transportation. We do have in this county a lack of public transportation which makes it, you know, impossible for certain people with certain work schedules or medical problems not to be able to actually come down in person and vote as the average person would. I'd like to say too that I concur with Mrs. Morgan who believes that the program has not been in effect very long, approximately 60 days, and I don't think we have enough information to accurately decide if it's not effective from that -- from this end. I'm looking at some of the stats from January of 1995 in respect to the number of voters. These stats show that 2,378 voters were registered in January of -- January of 1995. Of that number, 1,853 were actually certified registered voters. Then 1,202 of the total registered at the local driver's license office which I think is a very significant number when you look at that number compared to the total number of registered voters for the month of January of 1995. Of the total number, 234 of those were by mail. Three hundred nine were through public assistance offices such as food stamps, AFDC, WIC and Hedicaid. Three of the total were through Armed Forces and recruitment offices. And through the local public libraries there were six. And through other means 623 registered voters. "Other means" meaning organized registration drives such as things such as the NAACP does. We regularly have drives and do voter registration. So we are very concerned that on that part of that particular resolution that you would not go forward with that at this time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have pretty much said that we are not going to go forward with number three of this. MS. HARRIS: Okay. I just kind of wanted to give a little input. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Ms. Morgan, did you have something you wanted to add to this right now? We're discussing moving forward with resolution one and two. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question for her. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I can't let you get away that easy, Mary. If you come over, you've got to at least say something. MS. MORGAN: What? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have to be a citizen to vote? MS. MORGAN: You have to be a U.S. Citizen in order to register, yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Do you have to be a U.S. Citizen to get a Florida driver's license? MS. MORGAN: No. But at the time you apply for a Florida driver's license, they ask whether or not you are a U.S. Citizen. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You have to offer no proof? What about -- What about -- MS. MORGAN: I'm not that familiar with what the driver's license office requires. I know that you just don't walk up with no kind of identification and get a license. They require a couple of items of identification but I'm not that -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Concerning this law, when someone comes to you through the driver's license agency or however they're doing it, do they have to prove citizenship at that time? MS. MORGAN: No more. No. Everybody's on their honor. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well -- hmmm. I think what we should do is to revise this resolution to ask that proof of citizenship be offered. I mean, that's where the problem is -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- Is non-citizens registering. I have no objection to people registering to vote. MS. MORGAN: Actually, our bigger problem is -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thatls not the problem. MS. MORGAN: -- People registering who are -- who have not forfeited their out-of-state driverls license. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thatls another thing. Dual registration. MS. MORGAN: And thatls something the Florida Legislature can address with the driverls license law, and I would rather us tackle that one and get it out of the way. As we come across these people who have perjured themselves on the application, welve been sending them to the state attorney, and we sent some to the state attorney already this year for investigation. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: How do you determine -- How does it come to your attention that theylye perjured themselves? MS. MORGAN: Well, when someone says theylye met all the requirements for becoming a registered voter and when we go to enter it into the system, we find they have been convicted of a felony previously. We call the Office of Executive Clemency to determine whether or not that individualls had their right to vote restored. And if they have not, then we forward that to the State Attorneyls Office. If we have the material, we send it -- send the -- and everything appears on its face to be correct and we send the voter I.D. Card and itls returned to us undeliverable with a little note from the post office that they donlt live there and we start searching to find them and find theylye not lived there for six months or more, we send those to the State Attorneyls Office because somewhere along the line theylye lied not only on the application for becoming a registered voter but also for obtaining a Florida driverls license. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously -- MS. MORGAN: And I believe a third-degree felony is punishable by up to five years in jail or five -- and/or up to a $5,000 fine upon conviction. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: And this -- In falsifying those records, that perjury is a third-degree felony? MS. MORGAN: That is a third-degree felony, perjury. Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously we want to -- I donlt have a question. Iim just going to try to wrap this up. We want to encourage every eligible U.S. Citizen to register and to vote. Two points that were brought up are the biggest concerns I think you voiced here and elsewhere is that we should look to repeal or revise those flaws that put us at risk of either multiple registrations or of non-citizens registering to vote. I think that taints the process. So Iill make a motion we approve both one and two, the resolutions one and two here. Also include as part of the second resolution those two concerns, the non-citizen and the multiple registration concerns. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Canlt we ask the congress to address those? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think maybe we need to make a separate resolution. That needs to go to the State of Florida. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Number two is -- The second resolution is to the state, not to the national congress. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not sure that the current Motor Voter registration law has been in effect long enough to really judge if we have a problem with non-citizens registering. MS. MORGAN: I think California did have a demonstrated problem, and they revised their form. Florida took the -- took advantage of what they did to flag the citizenship requirement for people. And so if you look at the form, the citizenship question is in red print. The rest of it is in blue. Until we've got some statistical data to present to congress, I'm not sure that they're going to address that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In my mind though -- MS. MORGAN: But it's something that could come back and be revisited at the end of the year because we'll have a feel then -- a better feel for whether or not we have found people who violated that provision. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In my mind, though, if -- we shouldn't wait until the problem happens before we address it. It seems fairly obvious. If we don't have the ability to ask them or to prove that they are citizens, then that can potentially be a problem. You know, if I see there's a nail in my tire, I don't wait until it goes flat before I fix it. So I think here we can do the same. We can say there is potential for a problem there, and we think that should be addressed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask you a question, Ms. Morgan. Prior to the enactment of the Motor Voter legislation, was there a requirement to show proof of citizenship when you registered? MS. MORGAN: No. That depended upon the county, on a county-by-county basis. Pretty much those of us who have large immigrant populations where the naturalization and immigration services come through with these big sweeps and arrested illegal aliens, we've asked for information that could be tied back to the naturalization papers. We did not physically require them to show up in my office and show it, but they had to give us the number off of it for those who were naturalized at some point other than the classes that we have here. We've tried to go to the naturalization ceremonies and get them registered as they've -- shortly after they've received the certificate. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe I'm missing something. What would the disadvantage be to requiring people to prove they're citizens to register to do something only citizens can do? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it's adding a burden. It's the same thing as the Voters Rights Act. It's the same thing -- it's -- it's -- it's adding a burden, and it's getting in the way of people's ability to vote. I'm not saying it's an unreasonable burden, but it is adding an additional step, and it is a step that I'm hearing now we've never required in the past. MS. MORGAN: Well, we did ask for information off of their paper work. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we still do that. The driver's license people still ask for it. MS. MORGAN: Well, they may. I don't know. I know that they ask whether or not they're citizens. What they ask to show their citizenship I don't know. I need to point -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Asking someone to prove that they're a citizen to do what only citizens have a privilege to do I don't think is a burden. It's pretty cut and dry. MS. MORGAN: I should point out that up -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEW: It may be. MS. MORGAN: -- Until the turn of the century, non-white males who owned property could register to vote regardless of citizenship. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean -- I mean, picture this. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you for that insert. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask -- Let me ask the board to consider this. I've lived in Collier County now for a half a dozen years, and we're right to move to another county or another state and register to vote and the state had a requirement for proof of citizenship. The only proof that I have in my hands is either my passport which fortunately I do have or my birth certificate, and I don't know where my birth certificate is. So it would be a burden. So, anyway, we have a motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. I'm going to call the question if there's no further discussion. All those in favor please say aye. All those opposed? Three to two. Motion passes 3-2. It will include the suggestion for proof of citizenship. Commissioners Matthews and Hac'Kie in the opposition. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That suggestion will probably go about as far as every other suggestion we've ever made to the state and feds, but we'll try anyway. MR. CUYLER: Does that approve the first two resolutions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Next item -- Item #10D RESOLUTION 95-153, APPOINTING NElL MORALES TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, there's appointment of one member, and there's one applicant, and I'll make a motion that we appoint Neil Morales to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. I presume there are no speakers, Mr. Hargett? MR. HARGETT: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second to appoint Neil Morales to the Hispanic Advisory Board. If there's no discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Motion passes 5-0. Item #10E DISCUSSION RE LANDFILL - NO ACTION Next item on the agenda, Mr. Constantine, you added discussion on the landfill. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I just had a couple of questions. I understand the landfill contract has either made its way to you or is on its way to you -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In the final form not yet. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- From our County Attorney's Office. There was one concern in particular that was raised at some point during the discussions although we've had three or four public hearings on it so I can't -- I have no idea when it was, and I don't know that it was addressed the final week when we were trying to put all these together, but that is the use of chipped tires as cover material, and there was some question about that, and I thought we had addressed that at some point. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I asked that question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not clearly in the contract as it's written now. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I had a verbal commitment from Waste Management at the podium that they would not use chipped tires as cover material is what I was told by them in the hearing. Is someone here from Waste Management? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Varnadoe's representing Waste Management. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, but there's George. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Varnadoe. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll have one other question. Go ahead. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just remember asking that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I think it was the next to the last hearing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I remember there being minor discussion, but I don't remember what the resolution was which is why I called for the minutes for both meetings so I could review them. Mr. Varnadoe. MR. VARNADOE: We have no desire to use chipped tires for cover so I won't have any problem with that being in the contract explicitly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Great. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That answers one. The only other question was -- and Mr. Lorenz answered this I think in memo form, but there may be further question on that was -- there was an incident last year with low-level radioactive waste that was taken care of at the landfill, and I've had a number of public inquiries on this, and I don't know if or how this can potentially impact our -- I had a concern until I got your memo. I'm much more comfortable now, but maybe for the benefit of the public and the board you can explain that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Varnadoe, if you want to stay handy, I have one more question on this. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator. Yes, there was a -- Back in Hay 4 of 1993, we had a -- a load of spare scrap metal was shipped off to the dealer in Tampa, and the detector at the scrap dealer -- radioactive detector was -- the detector was set off. The source of the low-level reading was two old galvanized water storage tanks. We had submitted the information to the health department. The health department did their tests. They had indicated to us that the material was well within safe levels and that we were advised that we could dispose of it in our landfill. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And you have a couple more details with that that you don't need to read now but that put me more at ease with -- that we actually had some backup on that. And just for the amusement of the board, as I got up this morning and came out my front door to come to work, I got a great whiff of the landfill. So hopefully in six or eight months, I won't have to do that anymore but -- we were- the odor patrol was on strong today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The question I had, Mr. Varnadoe, I hope you might be able to answer, but certainly I'm going to read the minutes to see what they contain, and this is the amount of landfill open face for the tarp at night. I had -- I thought I had understood that that is 150 square feet, give or take a little bit, but now I'm being told that it's 150-foot square which is entirely different. MR. VARNADOE: It's not either. My recollection which could be corrected from the minutes -- but my recollection, I was asked that and talked to them at that time so I think my recollection is right -- is it's 50-by-100-foot face. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 50-by-100 foot? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am. Which would be falling between your two ranges. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 500 foot -- square feet. MR. VARNADOE: About 500 square feet. The idea is to be able to have three trucks simultaneously off-loading the garbage. But we'll, of course, abide by whatever the minutes say, but I think you'll find that's right, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. There's just been some question. Now, 50 by 100 is 5,000 square feet. MR. VARNADOE: You're right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So -- MR. VARNADOE: I stand corrected. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So 150-foot square is something like 22,000 square feet. MR. VARNADOE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 215 -- MR. VARNADOE: 22,500. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fifteen squared is 225 so 22,500. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was under the impression of 150 square feet. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For some reason, that number sticks in my mind too. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Someone said that during the meeting when they meant 150 feet square, I think, but it was 50 by 100. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 50 by 1007 MR. VARNADOE: I think -- I think I was asked that question and I was -- because that had come up earlier in the discussion, and I had the number written down, but I don't have it with me, but that's my recollection. That's all I'm saying. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll certainly review the minutes with the contract to be sure what that number is. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to thank Chief Peterson for coming in because he had some information -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, he did. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- On the chipped tires, but it was unnecessary. So thanks for driving here anyway. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions related to the landfill contract? MR. HARGETT: Madam Chairman, we do have three speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have three speakers? MR. HARGETT: Tom Henning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is on the landfill? MR. HARGETT: Yes, ma'am. Followed by A1 Perkins. COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: While they're coming up, is this -- is this board communications or where -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. This is an item added to the agenda this morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Henning. MR. HENNING: For the record, my name is Tom Henning. I'm president of the Golden Gate Civic Association. There is concerns of potential fire of the new way the landfill is to be covered. Chief Peterson wanted to address that. A resident of Golden Gate, John Delate, has done a lot of research on this, and I think he has a few comments and believe -- please believe this is not a last minute thing to ditch the Waste Management contract. That is not the feelings of either of us. We just have some concerns of public safety, health issues that you need to be aware of, and I would hope that you would just take a few minutes to listen to Chief Peterson from Golden Gate and John Delate. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. HARGETT: A1 Perkins followed by John Delate. MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's time to wake up. A1 Perkins, Belle Heade groups, citizens for constitutional property rights. In reference to your contract with Waste Management, if their contract is any way the same way that they collect their crash, man, I don't want any part of it. It's all over the street. It's all over the town. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A1, I'm the last one to support the Waste Management contract, but the item I put on here had a couple of very specific things -- MR. PERKINS: Right. Okay. I'll jump to it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- And keep it in that realm. MR. PERKINS: Okay. One of the things that I want to address is the fact that -- the Clear Flame report that was brought out in '94 stating the dangers, the amount of gas levels, the explosion factors, the reaction to personnel, the danger to health, and at the same time the danger of fire. Now, the Clear Flame apparently -- I don't know whether or not you people have read the entire pamphlet on Clear Flame which you paid for it, $268,000, along with the memos that go back and forth pertaining to what has taken place and what has not taken place and the recommendations thereof. One of the biggest things that this whole thing was about is the smell. There's no way to measure the smell, and there's no way to control it even though it's in the contract that there -- if the smell doesn't smell right to you, you have a chance to cancel the contract. Along with that, the fact that we're going to be emitting 2.3 million cubic foot of cubic -- of gas, methane gas, to the atmosphere causes not only a hazard to everybody's health out there but it also is polluting the air. If -- By signing this contract, we're going to not be able to have any control whatsoever with the landfill or the dump as I want to call it nor to be able to move that dump. The permits alone to get them controls the ability to put out a fire, the ability to protect the people out there. We don't have it. They don't have it. At the moment we have it because you people have control of that place right at the present time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just don't want to -- I don't want to lose any of what you're saying. So I want to understand which of the points that Commissioner Constantine has raised -- Maybe you can tell me. What are the points that you've raised that this is relevant to? MR. PERKINS: Am I hitting on them or not? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure, A1. MR. PERKINS: Okay. The big point that I've always said is -- as far as getting the landfill out of there, but the fact is that we're losing $100,000 a month out there in the gas alone because we do nothing about it. Yet, in the contract it says we're going to burn it off which we're going to take one problem and make another one from it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A1, we've already voted on this contract. MR. PERKINS: Right. Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the discussion today is limited to using chipped tires for daily cover which we have reached an agreement that's not going to be and a discussion of the open face. MR. PERKINS: Right. Now, as far as the open face goes like that, you've had testimony here before that the fact is that the ones up in Lee County have been left open at night. They've got pictures of it. Now, talking about it and doing it is two different things. Now, how are you going to take and monitor this? Who's going to -- Who's going to police this whole thing? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Obviously we will have to. MR. PERKINS: Then why are we getting out of it? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why are we getting out of -- MR. PERKINS: Why are we getting out of the dump? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to have a contract administrator. MR. PERKINS: Okay. On behalf of all these people that I represent, I just want to refer to -- we're still gasping in the Gate with the fill. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thanks, A1. MR. HARGETT: John Delate followed by Linda Harszalkowski. MR. DELATE: For the record, John Delate. Good afternoon, Commissioners, and I -- I really do appreciate you hearing me out on this issue. The one issue that Mr. Constantine mentioned was the use of chipped tires, but I think the larger issue is fire concerns. That's why we have Chief Peterson here today. This is not some grasping-at-straws agenda. As one might anticipate, the last contract was presented to you about 30 minutes prior to actual voting. It's very difficult to look something over in that time and find the fine print and determine if there are any problems. In looking it over carefully, there seemed to be some discrepancies between what was stated at the meeting and what was actually put in print, and my main contention is there are a lot of ambiguous terms used in this final contract that when put into practice could throw -- pose a fire threat to the landfill and a threat to the health and safety of the citizens in that area. If I could first draw your attention to the top document I provided to you, Joseph Salvato's Environmental Engineers and Sanitation Book is the authoritative guide for environmental engineers. Please note on the second page of the daily cover -- excuse me -- that the daily cover should be a minimum of six inches and the intermediate cover a minimum of 12 inches. And if you continue on in the areas I highlighted, under "Fire Protection," page three there -- well, excuse me -- still page two -- there should be a refuse cell limit of eight-foot depth. Our limit on the contract is ten foot; however, it says it can go even beyond that in certain cases. This book says that's a potential fire hazard. If you will turn to the next page, three, I quote there under again "Fire Hazard," the daily six-inch cover that we currently use will also minimize the start and spread of underground fires. Ladies and gentlemen, these are serious matters. Another point on fire safety is the size of daily open operating face that we were just discussing. In the minutes of the last meeting, the county manager stated that the size would be 150 square feet. That was corrected later on, but no firm number was given, and the contract doesn't have it. The reality is that it could be 150 by 150 which Commissioner Matthews correctly stated is 22,500 square feet. That's a very large area. You don't have any parameters in this contract to control that. You're not using dirt fill. You're using a tarp. I spoke to a chief -- not to Chief Peterson. I spoke to a retired fire chief from Connecticut. I ran into him the other day. He lives in the Naples area. He looked over this issue, and he said, "Let me tell you. There were a lot of landfills in our area in Connecticut. There were many fires that lasted days, months, and sometimes several months." And he said, "If you don't use daily fill and a good intermediate fill, you pose a great fire hazard." The fill -- I'm not an expert, but it acts as a fire wall from one area to the other. It doesn't let the fire keep going. You can contain it in a small area. So by taking away this dirt, we're not only dealing with maybe potentially more odor but we're dealing with a greater fire hazard. So the daily -- And the other point, on the contract it says that this intermediate cover can be taken up, and more garbage can be put on it. Again, was this intentional? I don't know, but it's a real problem. In Florida, as you know, with lightning, the hot sun, spontaneous combustion and, of course, in all landfills mufflers, et cetera, that can produce sparks out there, a landfill is a very dangerous place. Also, it's important to remember that smoke from a landfill fire is very toxic. Doctors and scientists have noted that numerous immunologic ailments can result from the inhalation of this type of smoke. My final point is the last item I gave you there -- is it doesn't deal with fire safety directly, but it's closely related to this issue in the entire contract. It was stated by staff at the February 7 meeting and previous landfill meetings that the use of a daily cover had no impact on odor abatement. I have the text. Well, in front of you there's a copy of an internal 1994 memo from the county's own solid waste department. Please note at the top of the second page, and I quote, "The department study showed that by covering the working face of the landfill garbage at the end of the working day, the odors at the landfill were substantially reduced." They weren't completely eliminated but they were reduced, and it notes there that six inches of cover was used. Now, someone is not being frank with you, and I think if I was in your position, I would want stronger, straighter answers to this. This is their own internal memo. If you look more at that memo, they talk about the potential. It was a report by Clear Flame that they -- the county paid for. On page three there, it says, "If gas were to be used to include the generation of electricity, the values of savings would amount to approximately a present worth of nine and a half million dollars." My point is this. We're getting those figures for tipping fees and we don't hear about this. I think you deserve better. I think the public deserves better. But my final comment is, if we were all going to take a cruise and we spent months and months preparing it, bought our tickets and everything else, and just as we're ready to leave port we find out that the ship has a leak in it, I hope we're going to go back and disembark and fix the leak first. I truly pray for the health and safety of the people around that landfill that this issue of fire will be seriously investigated. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. HARGETT: Linda Harszalkowski. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just have a couple of questions as Don comes up. I know we wrestled with the tarp question a little as we got to 10:30, 11 o'clock at night on this issue. There were two questions that seemed to be in mind. One was the amount of space that were -- would be rolled back or left open, and the other was the question of odor. And I'm just -- I guess this opens a question in my mind on those two issues, and I am not trying to reopen the contract. Just on that one issue, the basis on which we accepted a tarp, if my recollection is correct, was that it wouldn't affect odor and was that it was a limited space. And I'm wondering if -- now that we've heard different, something different, does that have any impact? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My recollection of the tarp was the working face only, and the working face size as Mr. Varnadoe stated was 50 feet by 100 feet. That was my understanding. The tarp was working face only, not to be in place of any other intermediate cover elsewhere in the landfill but working face only, and the size of the working face was 50 feet by 100 feet. I will ask Mr. Lorenz if that is -- That's okay, Bill. Wherever you find it in the minutes, would you copy all of the commissioners on that particular point because if it's -- if it's not in the minutes, then we need to make sure that it gets done that way. That was my understanding at the time that this item was before us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So as I -- as I read this contract then over the next couple of days, I should be looking for a description of the working face as 100 feet by 50? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, again, Mr. Varnadoe said he believes that was what was mentioned in the record and so do I. That's my recollection. So, yes, I would -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Because the word that's coming to me -- and I've not read the contract, but others have read intermediate versions of the contract as we come to closure on it, that there's no description in the current contract as to working face. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know that there ever was. It was a commitment that was made in this hearing and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But the contract is going to rule. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And it -- well -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where is Mr. -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's in the back. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. Not -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh. Mr. Weigel. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, my understanding when we were talking about this was that commitments made by the petitioner at the hearing are as binding as the contract itself; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: Well, what I had stated at those meetings was that statements made by the board for future board action were statements of record but did not pertain to the contract itself, that the -- the language I used was the four corners of the contract. The language that was in the contract itself would establish the rights and responsibilities and obligations of the parties. Now, this agreement has a contract in chief and it has exhibits that are attached to it. Among those is an operating plan. The operating plan that's attached to the agreement is referred to in the agreement in chief as a provisional operating plan where the contractor, Waste Management, will come back within a stated period of time and fine-tune that, and that plan will be commented on by the board as it is implemented. And so changes -- I would suggest that change or clarification regarding tire chipping or the 150-foot -- 100-by-50-foot open face can be addressed based on statements made in the record today in the operational plan, or we can take the agreement which is a scintilla away from being finalized right now and add that specific provision in the agreement in chief. I believe, though, that the statements that Mr. Varnadoe is making about operational procedures could, in fact, come into the plan that is under the contract -- supposed to come back before the board within a stated period of time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess it comes down to those three things, Mr. Varnadoe, a 50-foot by 100-foot working face, a tarp being used on the working face only and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the tire chips. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you've already verbally said that there -- you know, you have no intent on using chipped tires for cover. If those three elements are in the contract, does Waste Management have a problem with that? MR. VARNADOE: The three elements being the size of the working face, the tarpaulin -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The 50 feet by 100 feet -- MR. VARNADOE: -- Working face, the no chip tires for cover? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir. MR. VARNADOE: Not at all. And if it -- I -- I suggest we put it in the contract and not leave it to some later document. It doesn't bother us at all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And for the fire suppression argument, I understood that the -- where the tarp is not used, an intermediate cover is used? MR. VARNADOE: It's not -- What we get into is the -- is the terminology. We use the -- We use these terms because they're used -- they're definitions applied by the DEP, final cover, intermediate cover, daily cover. And what is not in the working face as we -- as they explained to you much better than I can -- Waste Management, that is, at the hearing -- they put on what amounts to daily cover, although we don't call it daily cover because it meets the six-inch requirement as opposed to the one-foot or 18-inch requirement for intermediate cover. So you're right. The only part that the tarp actually controls is at the end of the day to cover the working face so that you have that ready the next day to come back in before you compact. But I don't have -- Those three items -- to get more specific, we have no problem with those being in the contract, and I think they probably should because of the relative importance to some of the public. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, can we get a contract before I go away tomorrow so I can read it over the weekend? MR. WEIGEL: I would think so. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: I mean, the elements are clear what we need to provide so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: And, otherwise, we can provide you what we've got. So we'll have one for you. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Ms. Harszalkowski. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: Good afternoon. My name is Linda Harszalkowski from Naples Recycling, and I feel as though I'm ahead of you a little bit because I was given a contract on Friday. I was also given a transcript of what was said at the February 7 meeting, and I'm really not sure whether I should be addressing you now or in the public forum or just -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me clarify -- MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- That in that I was told Friday that a near final contract was ready, and I specifically said I don't want to read a near final. I want to read a final. So, I mean, I would have had the same contract, but I didn't want to spend my time reading a contract that I'd have to read again. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: I don't blame you. I've just made a couple of notes and I'm not sure -- First of all, on that contract that we received on Friday, on the last page of that contract, it said daily cover used in landfill operations provides an effective fire wall, and I think that's -- that's really important to us, especially if you look at the next to the last page. I'm concerned about the engineering practices of the way Waste Management might create this landfill. On daily cell construction it says that the daily cell construction could be ten feet but may be deeper. Initial cover may consist of a temporary cover but it may be removed. But I think the thing that I was most concerned with, especially after hearing the hearing on February 7, was that all or part of the intermediate cover may be removed before placing additional waste or installing the final -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Harszalkowski, what does this have to do with the tire chips that we were talking about earlier today and the -- MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: We're talking about cover material. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- 150 by 50? MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: Okay. Is this also discussing the cover material? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Those are not the issues raised. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: Okay. Then can I come back -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We were -- MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: -- Under the public petition then? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We specifically talked about using chipped tires and the daily cover, and we've clarified that. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: All right. Can I come back under your public petition and discuss this? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Public comment is the next item anyway so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. If you're going to come back in the public comment, you might as well finish now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is the next item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: I'm sorry. I really was confused as to where I should be, and your gentleman over here asked me, and I wasn't clear either. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: If you're having a very large open cell, I think from the standpoint of engineering, what you usually do is you usually have a fire wall between smaller cells on a daily basis. And when you're having those smaller cells, when the fire department comes in, they're able to eliminate a fire problem. If you have very large cells, what happens is the fire goes underground. When it goes underground, what happens is you wind up with sinkholes. The only way you can put a fire at a landfill out is by driving a heavy piece of equipment over it and use fill dirt. It's the only way. If you're creating deeper crevices other than that ten feet or you're removing your intermediate cover, what could be happening is you're creating a fire that could go underground for several days. If that fire goes underground for several days and you have a piece of equipment running over the top of it and a sinkhole has established underneath that landfill, what will happen is that piece of equipment can come over the top and sink into that facility and you could lose people. The way your facility is run right now, that isn't happening. David Russell led you to believe that -- on your transcript on pages that I have, he said let me -- well, Bettye Matthews said, "Let me make a clarification. Do we strip the dirt off in the morning?" And David said, "No, we don't." And then it goes on, "But I might add that immediately what you do in the morning is to run over that with a compactor and you break that up." I talked to the staff out at the landfill. That's not what happens. The cover material is not taken back. It's not removed. So that you do have a cell for fire protection right now. The way that this is designed could cause you a problem in the future, and I'm concerned about that. I'm also concerned about -- and I still don't understand, and perhaps you could explain it to me. The things that have gone on at that February 7 meeting, could you tell me whether Waste Management is obligated to what they said at that meeting or does it have to be in this contract? I'm not -- I'm still not clear on this. If it is stated that they're going to do something and yet it's not in this contract, do they still have to live by it? Because there are things that are in that transcript that are not in that contract? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Based on what Mr. Weigel just told us, it could be in the plan, in the operation plan, that is included in the contract by reference. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: By reference? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: Okay. Because right now there are no parameters for what you can use or what you can't use for daily cover. And in that transcript -- Whoops. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you wrap it up? MS. HARSZALKOWSKI: Well, in the transcript, there are a number of issues that you all believe that are in this contract. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, they may be in the -- in the operating plan. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: They're not in the operating plan either is what I'm saying. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: There are some real concerns here that were discussed at that meeting but are not in the contract. How do we come to you and say we have a concern about it? When it was agreed -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess when they bring the operating plan back to us in -- what is it? 30 or 45 days, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: (Nodding head.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: We can address you then? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- That's when we have to make sure it's in there. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That would be my assumption, that if -- if it deals with the daily operation of the landfill, it needs to be in the operating plan. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: Okay. And if it's not and it was agreed to in this -- in the meeting and it's not in the contract -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Come back to the microphone, please. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: What you're telling me is that if we find things in this transcript that was agreed to and is not in the operating plan -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Or in the contract. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: -- Or in that contract, we can come back to you -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Or any of the other exhibits. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: -- In 30 or 45 days? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When it comes back to us, yes. That's my understanding. Is that correct? MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: Because there are definitely things that are not in this contract or the operating plan that you guys agreed to and have been mislead on. You need to understand that, please. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that correct, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Not exactly. Now, what the staff has done in working with Waste Management is we have implemented into the agreement those directives that we received from the board. There were many things discussed but not always directed from the board, and the operating plan will be an opportunity for the board to fine-tune any of its concerns and any of the promises or affirmations of compliance or operation that Waste Management indicated at those -- at that meeting, but that's not to say that every item of concern that was brought up was written down as a note as a directive into the agreement. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's true. I know that there were many items we discussed that were not necessarily included. MR. WEIGEL: And, as an example, if one goes through the transcripts of each of those meetings -- they're about 100 pages a piece -- you'll find that they are brought up in more than one context and oftentimes more than one page. And I'll almost say I'll defy people at some time to come forward and find real clarity in what might be the closure of a particular issue, not withstanding that it may have had very substantive discussion by various or all members of the board. We worked hard to make sure that the contract contains directives of the board. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you're saying that -- You're saying then that within the -- within the minutes of the public meetings, unless we specifically direct staff to include this clause or Waste Management specifically agrees we have no problem with that, that it may not be in this contract or the management plan? MR. WEIGEL: It may not be -- It may not be in the agreement as written yet still may be elements of discussion and fine-tuning of the operating plan which, incidentally, for the record, the operating plan that is within the agreement is a provisional operating plan but it is -- the time frame is 120 days after the effective date of the agreement that the operating plan will come back to the board for its review and comment working with the contract. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Ms. Marszalkowski, I stand corrected. It's not 45 days. It's 120 days from the effective date, whatever that is going to be. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: 120 days from the effective date? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: And we come to you in open session then? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I would imagine it will be advertised in our regular agenda. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: Very good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think so. MR. HARGETT: Chief Peterson. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that -- Is that correct, Mr. Weigel? Would it -- Will the operating plan be an advertised item that comes before us in the agenda? MR. WEIGEL: The operating plan shall be -- contractor shall develop free facility, a detailed operating plan for county review and comment prior to or concurrent with review and approval by the department. That same plan will be going to the Department of Environmental Protection, and it will concurrently be reviewed, approved, commented on by the county. In other words, the board -- the board acts through public sessions. So it won't be advertised in the sense -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I don't mean an advertised public hearing but I mean on our agenda. MR. WEIGEL: -- That an ordinance is advertised, but it will be the regular public hearing -- regular public meeting process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it won't be a staff review? It will be a board review? MR. WEIGEL: The county in here is referring -- The county assigns the contract. The board is the county assigning the contract. It would be back to the board. The board may provide comments, however, the staff executive summary, et Getera. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Chief Peterson. MR. PETERSON: Good afternoon. I'll be brief. For the record, my name is Don Peterson, Fire Chief, Golden Gate Fire Patrol and Rescue District. We are the district that provides protection for the landfill area. Through the last 48 hours and 72 hours, there's -- a lot of questions and concerns have come up so we're trying to come up to speed with some of the issues that folks have raised here. On the issues that I am glad to hear, the chipped tires are not going to be used. I would also share with you today that -- and understanding part of the problem was there was a conceptual operations plan in what I was reviewing. I would ask the board that in the next 145 days or so that any items relating to the fire protection areas, if we could work with county staff and they could work with us in addressing those items specifically. It's important to us for the dirt fill and the reason there is no fire hydrants provided in the landfill area currently so it's important as well as the amount of area that's exposed there. The other item that I would share with you for your consideration is 4.4 in the conceptual plan deals with hazardous waste, and the way it reads currently, it would -- it would accept asbestos material in there. It's been quite a few years, I believe, since the landfill has accepted waste, so this would be something new again they would be bringing back in there. And, again, in the area of fire protection or rescue protection, the fire district becomes an integral part in that process because of the different items there. So I just share that with you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Again, it's my understanding that that hazardous waste that will be accepted at the landfill is redirected to a super fund site in Alabama. MR. PETERSON: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what my understanding is. MR. PETERSON: That isn't the way 4.4 reads so that's why I just share that with you to -- It says it will be accepted, designated to a site, covered, protected, and then it would be removed someplace. So at some point -- MR. LORENZ: You can have a certain type of asbestos that can go into the landfill. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But not pliable? MR. LORENZ: Right. So that's what this is addressing. It would be classified as a special waste. The operator would have to tell Waste Management that he's coming with that particular load. Waste Management will make special arrangements for that load and will be -- the charge is -- I think that was like one and a quarter times the rate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a general gripe. I think that it's a shame to waste people's time, particular people from the public to come in and sit here all afternoon to get to say something that it's going to be appropriate to bring for a discussion when we talk about the operating plan. People come in here -- That's enough. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. No further discussion on this item? Let's move on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Eight words I hate to hear. Good evening and welcome to the afternoon agenda. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that only eight words? You counted them out. Actually, we're at the public comment section. Do I dare ask if there's public comment? MR. HARGETT: MAdam Chairman, you do have five speakers starting with Bob Krasowski and John Delate. MR. DELATE: I believe Mr. Krasowski is not here. I'll be very brief. Fire safety is an issue, which whether we talk about it now or 140 days from now, has to be discussed. You heard the chief. We don't have hydrants out there. Folks, we're going to put -- The thing that -- The one other point -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Delate. MR. DELATE: Yes? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you expect us to remember what you're saying today 140 days from now? MR. DELATE: No, I don't but -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DELATE: But I think the point is, between now and then, perhaps Waste MAnagement will hear me and they will do something with our local fire department to rectify this potentially hazardous situation. I noticed that at the last meeting, February 7, on the landfill we talked about the best -- Mr. Hancock can answer me maybe -- the terminology best managerial practices or best practices that are done in the field. Well, it seems to me according to the textbooks that are used in the field, using a six-inch daily cover of dirt is the best practice. That is something also that prevents fire. The chief echoes my words. Again, I just think that -- it scares me a little bit to see what appears to me as, hey, if it's a fire hazard out there, it's -- you know, or excuse me, if we're not using the best practices to prevent fires out there, well, that's the way it goes. It shouldn't be that way. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But nobody is saying that, Mr. Delate. Nobody is saying that. We're saying we want to hear this, and it's appropriate and critical and very important for us to talk about it at the time when we talk about the operations plan. MR. DELATE: Well, I understand that. But, again, my feeling is that maybe someone else will hear me that can do something about it in the time before 145 days. I just want to re-echo, you trust your staff here which you should. I talked to a staff member, and they said, "We don't work for the public. We work for the board and for the county manager." Fine. I accept that. I hope intertwined in there though is the public somewhere. But the point is they give you specific information which you go to bat and assume that to be correct. I think if you look at that internal memo, something they told you seems to be very deceptive. I know many of you were concerned about the odor problem out there and the best possible means to prevent it, one of which was this daily cover. You were told that it had no effect yet their own internal memo says that it does, indeed, have an effect. Someone was mislead. Again, thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. HARGETT: George Schaaf followed by Lionel L'Esperance -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. -- MR. HARGETT: -- Followed by Timothy Ryan. Item #11A PUBLIC COMMENT MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Schaaf and Mr. Ryan are not here at this time. My name is Lionel L'Esperance. I am the chairman of the Contractor's Licensing Board, but I am representing myself this evening so my comments are addressed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you want to be in the public comment or -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Do you want to be when we -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Address this other? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Public comment if I may. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, it is. Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you very much. And briefly what I'd like to cover here very, very briefly is concerning the job site supervision proposal. On the 17th of February on WNOG, there was a news broadcast concerning Naples High School about certain construction difficulties relating to, as the radio station mentioned, lack of supervision and resulting in some safety concerns both for the workers on the job site and for the students at Naples High School. I have a brief list of items here that I'd like to read off and then I'll hand you a copy, Madam Chairman. The public has expressed its opinion in the form of positive letters to the editor over the past several months concerning the job site supervision proposal. The American Subcontractors Association of Collier County has taken an executive director of board support and perhaps even perhaps sent you letters by this time. Collier County Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Association board of directors were one of the original proponents of the proposal. The Electrical Contractor Association of Naples has in the past, and I believe presently, supports this proposal. The Contractor's Licensing Board has had public hearings on this proposal and has passed it on two separate occasions. The "Naples Daily News" under John Lunsford's articles has written many favorable positive columns in support of the provision also. The public's health, safety, and welfare will be further safeguarded with its passage. Florida Attorney Journal opinion 1991 does approve of the concept. Hany adjoining counties already have similar ordinances, and an informal economic impact study has determined that development services in the county will save enforcement cost based on the reduction of code violations as a result of on-site supervision presence. Also, the public and contractors will save reinspection fees as a result of fewer code violations. So briefly in summary what I'd like to ask the Board of County Commissioners to consider is to ensure that the job site supervision proposal is included in the administrative code which you will hear the 28th of March and that it is advertised during the appropriate legal period of time before that hearing on the 28th of March so that it can be brought up for public debate in this forum. At this time, if there are no questions, I have some handouts, and then I will be finished. Any questions, please? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have no questions. Anyone have any questions? No one has any questions. Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What I'd like to do is hand out a memo that I have read most of the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't you give them to Mr. Hargett and he'll -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Certainly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- See that we get them. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And then also under item 12 dash C(3), if you could also hand this one out when you reach that item. I will not be able to be here for that item this evening. Two separate memos. Thank you. Item #12A1 ORDINANCE 95-7, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEHENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS TO RESOLVE CASE NO. 94-3494-GH - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. We will now move on to the afternoon agenda items. First item under advertised public hearings -- it's almost dinnertime -- is 12A(1), an ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, my name is Barbara Cacchione with your Long Range Planning staff. The item before you today is an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. It's pursuant to a stipulated settlement agreement that the board entered into with the Department of Community Affairs on January 10. It's regarding the Transfer of Development Rights and allows for the maximum densities and the density caps to be exceeded in the Future Land Use Element when using the limited provisions under the TDR section in your Land Development Code. The Planning Commission heard this item on February 2 and recommended 9-0 to approve the proposed amendment, and we're asking you today to approve this amendment to the Future Land Use Element. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for Miss Cacchione? Are there any public speakers? MR. HARGETT: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve. No questions? I'll call -- the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Another excellent presentation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. And Barb gets to go home. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 95-8 RE PETITION PUD 94-10, BARBARA CAWLEY, OF WILSON, HILLIER, BARTON & PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING PENINSULA IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION FOR A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURE TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FOR RESIDENTIAL USES REPRESENTING MIXED TYPES OF HOUSING WITH AN 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is item 12B(1), petition PUD-94-10. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino, Current Planning. PUD-94-10, the 300-acre Goodlette PUD is exactly what the title says. It's a project of 300 acres on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, I have to interrupt you briefly. Mr. Cuyler, during my tenure at Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek, I did some planning exercises on this particular property laying out a variety of golf course homes and so forth. I have no financial interest in the property or any of the parties involved but just that past involvement with this particular parcel I wanted to state for the record. And again -- once again, I have no financial interest. So it's my understanding that I am required by law to vote on this. MR. CUYLER: Correct. We have researched this thoroughly on a couple of different occasions and, yes, the answer is that you do not have a legal conflict under the law, and there are statutes that require you to vote if you don't have a legal conflict. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. NINO: The development strategy includes 900 residential dwelling units of various mixtures and a golf course and related accessory uses. Included in the accessory uses, the section of the urban residential designation which this property enjoys is also -- are such uses as churches and a day care, nurseries, and both of those are intended to be permitted uses within this PUD document. Relative to the issue of density, the density rating system provides that three dwelling units per acre is the recommended density for the subject property producing 900 dwelling units. We find that the density that's proposed for this project is consistent with the Future Land Use Element. The issues of interconnection have been addressed in the PUD; therefore, there's no reason for discussing a reduction in density attributable to a lack of interconnection. The density is exactly three dwelling units per acre. They're entitled to that in this density rating system, and that produces 900 dwelling units. The other aspect of the plan, of course, is the golf course. Relative to the issue of density and the -- our requirement to find compatibility, staff is of the opinion that this development is designed to enhance compatibility. You will note that for most of its contiguous relationship with an existing residential development, you have a golf course. I don't think you can find any better compatibility than that relationship. To the north of Orange Blossom Road, the Monterey development really has its own buffer area and a masonry wall. In addition to that, there were some concern raised by residents of Monterey relative to the type -- the height of residential structures that would be within the view of Monterey, and the PUD makes specific provision that the height will not exceed 35 feet for development within this project that is nearest the Monterey development. The subject petition we find is consistent with all of the traffic elements of the Growth Management Plan. The level of service will not be affected over the entirety of the post receiving arterial road system. The project is consistent with the open space requirement of the Growth Management Plan and will be consistent by virtue of stipulations that are included within the PUD document relative to other elements of the Growth Management Plan, in particular the coastal conservation elements. We concluded that the project in its entirety was consistent with all elements of the Growth Management Plan. Staff undertook the normal findings that are required of PUD's and standard fezones. And, in the opinion of staff, the preponderance of the findings support a recommendation to approve the PUD. The matter was heard by the EAB, and the EAB recommended approval subject to conditions which are all included in the current copy of the PUD document that is before you. The Planning Commission in its meeting unanimously recommended approval of the PUD rezoning and the document, and all of their concerns are reflected in the PUD document. Some concerns were raised at the public hearing; however, in the opinion of staff, no person really represented an objection. There were concerns represented that in our opinion are now reflected in the PUD document that's before you. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, you stated on the piece north of Orange Blossom Drive, the height closest to Monterey would be 35 foot maximum? MR. NINO: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What is the current built height of the Monterey units adjacent? MR. NINO: They're -- They tend to be one-story structures; however, it should be appreciated that their view is really a rear view and that they're looking at a street, a ten-foot buffer and a six-foot masonry wall looking west from Monterey. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we don't have any homes backing right up to that wall -- MR. NINO: No, we don't. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- In Monterey? MR. NINO: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So they have to look out a side window basically to see what's going on? MR. NINO: Exactly or a rear -- or a rear window. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The second question is that I know there are accesses on Orange Blossom Drive at a point where there's a reverse curve. MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What kind of efforts have we made to address sufficient acceleration and deceleration lanes? Because that's kind of a tight view area. And I'm sure Mr. Archibald has pointed that out and addressed it, but I'm a little concerned. I've come around that corner, and a slow moving car can surprise you. I'm certainly concerned about traffic movements in that area. MR. NINO: We're of the opinion that the -- There are development commitments that will provide us an opportunity to improve the geometry of that entire segment of Orange Blossom Road, and there are indeed provisions for acceleration/deceleration lanes in that area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that, I'll let the petitioner go ahead and make their -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the petitioner have anything to add to it or are you just here to answer questions? MR. PICKWORTH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Don Pickworth representing Peninsula Improvement Corporation. We don't have much to add, but there are a few things I think we need to do to make sure the file is complete on this if that's all right. It will be very brief. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. PICKWORTH: Our presentation will be made by Barbara Cawley from Wilson, Miller. I do have Mrs. Cawley's resume. She's certainly been before you many times in the past and would suggest she would qualify as an expert on the matter she's going to testify to, but I would like that to make the file complete and if -- would give one to Mr. Cuyler for the record and the other to the court reporter. With that, I'll let Ms. Cawley make her presentation which will be brief, and then we'll be able to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Ms. Cawley. MS. CAWLEY: Good afternoon. I know it's a late afternoon. Barbara Cawley with Wilson, Miller, for the record, representing Peninsula Improvement Corporation. First of all, I'd like to say that we do agree with the staff report. We appreciate all their hard work and effort on this project. I just have a few things I'd like to emphasize for the record since this is our opportunity to get things on the record. The property is currently owned by the Collier Development Corporation, and it's being rezoned by the Peninsula Improvement Corporation as part of the Arizona exchange. So it makes it sort of an interesting piece of property. One of the issues that we'd like to emphasize is the in-fill nature of this property because it is located in an area that's very suitable for the intensity and density that we're requesting for the project. I've put together an exhibit that would help show that. You want to help me put that up? Mr. Pickworth will give copies to the clerk and also to the court reporter. What we've done on this exhibit is we've taken the densities of the projects about two and a half miles north of the project and about a mile and a half south of the project all the way to the Livingston Road extension to the east and to the Gulf of Mexico on the west. This -- We've broken down the densities on the legend to cover agricultural which is the green, zero to three units per acre which is the yellow, 3.1 to six which is the more reddish color, the industrial property which is the gray, and the purple which is commercial, and just miscellaneous-type properties which are the rust colors which are like Baron Collier High School and the various school facilities. Please note that the Goodlette Road project fits very well within the densities that have been set aside for the -- into the Growth Management Plan for this and that there are some projects that are pre-Growth Management Plan such as Naples Park and Pelican Bay that do have higher densities. This -- For example, just to give you some ideas, Pelican Bay is at 4.7 units per acre. Pelican Marsh is at 2.7 units per acre. So this fits right in with the densities. Monterey is at 4.7. The Crossings is at 1.7. We have the industrial park that's located on the southern part of the property there. So this is more just as an information item to let you see the densities adjacent to the property. This project, as Mr. Nino said, will not cause any traffic congestion in the area. All the road segments are currently running at the acceptable levels of service and none of the -- none of the segments will drop below their adopted level of service within a year or at any time when this project is constructed. Our conclusions and our traffic analysis showed that by the year 2003 in the county's roadway transportation plan that the traffic volumes for the project site and background traffic can be accommodated by this project. That's with the recommended improvements that will be made in our traffic plan for the county. All the project access points have been worked out with the county staff, and they are in compliance with the county access management policies. We have turn lanes and stacking lanes which will maintain the safety of the project. We are, of course, going to be paying the applicable impact fees as all projects will, but this is a typical kind of project that was looked at in terms of what kind of -- how the impact fee schedule was set. It obviously is -- it fits right in with the character of the area. And, of course, we've handled the height and the setback problems. Those are just things I wanted to get on the record, and I'm sorry to take your time. And if there are any questions, we -- Oh. We'd like to do one other thing. We'd like to correct a statement in the staff report that Mr. Nino agrees that we can -- we can request that it be amended. It's on page 14, the findings of fact for the PUD. It's on page 14 of your agenda package. And the staff is required to do a pro and con for the various parts of the project, and there's a statement that traffic trips associated with this development will lower the level of service on Goodlette Road, and that's an incorrect statement. It will not lower the level of service on Goodlette-Frank Road. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's not going to increase it either, is it? MS. CAWLEY: Well, when you lower it -- It's not going to improve it, no. That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you -- MS. CAWLEY: Any questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Ms. Cawley. Have you got everything on the record that you need to get on the record? MS. CAWLEY: Yes, I do. I appreciate your time in listening. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hargett -- MR. HARGETT: There are no speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. Let me close the public hearing. Commissioner Constantine -- Commissioner Hancock here has a question. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a clarification for my benefit, Barbara. MS. CAWLEY: Yeah. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, the -- although the number of units is comparable, did you do a net density on the area north of Orange Blossom for that acreage? Do you have an idea of what the net density is just in that area? MS. CAWLEY: Well, it's hard to say because the unit counts haven't been allocated necessarily north and south. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So -- MS. CAWLEY: We have 900 units that can be spread throughout the project. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Obviously somebody at Monterey could have a concern that -- that, you know, that -- that area sprouts up tremendously while the area south of Orange Blossom does not. MS. CAWLEY: We have a five-story height limit on any of the units out there, and physically you can't put that many -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand probably no more than six units per acre would physically be able to go on that site. MS. CAWLEY: Probably that's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct me if I'm wrong. It's a 35-foot height limit on the north section in the areas closest to -- MS. CAWLEY: Let me explain that a little bit. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Please do. MS. CAWLEY: We've agreed to a 35-foot height limit adjacent to any properties that are zoned single-family both north and south of the property. So any units, like, along here within this boundary of the property that's adjacent to any single-family home will be no higher than 35 feet plus the setback that it's required to have which is 35 feet from the wall or fence or whatever is there. So there will be no units adjacent to Monterey, any of the single-family homes in Monterey, that are any higher than 35 feet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. CAWLEY: And that will limit the density obviously as well. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- And the reason I ask that is typically the multi-family looks like it will go north of Orange Blossom, and the property that's south is more appropriate for single-family. I'm just anticipating that could happen, and that's why I asked the question. Okay. The second point I have is your project entrance, the one -- the main one south of Orange Blossom, it obviously doesn't show in the aerial but it's -- it doesn't line up with any streets in Pine Ridge; correct? MR. NINO: Correct. MS. CAWLEY: That's correct. We have specifically worked with the residents of Pine Ridge and with the staff not to align an access point with Pine Ridge. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do the opposite of what we're doing everywhere else in the county. Okay. But as long as everyone's happy, that's fine. The one question I have on that one is that -- the volume of exiting cars. There are some homes across the street that may not have fences and so forth, and I'm thinking nighttime a lot of traffic at a single point of access. There's homes right across the street. Was there any discussions with Pine Ridge residents regarding fencing and so forth? MS. CAWLEY: No. We've -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Any request for buffering from them? MS. CAWLEY: Remember, we've got probably about a 40-foot canal. We've got a 100-foot right-of-way for Goodlette Road. We've got a 100-foot right-of-way for the FP and L easement. Then we have our buffer to the project. So we've got 250 feet that's there and it's -- we're pretty far away. And the lighting I don't -- I don't -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm certainly aware of this. I was just asking you, had you received requests from '- MS. CAWLEY: No, we haven't. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Pine Ridge residents regarding buffering across from the entrance to the project. MS. CAWLEY: We personally have not, no. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Nino, nothing to you? HR. NINO: (No audible response.) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The public hearing is closed. Is there a motion? MR. NINO: Madam Chairman, might I bring your attention -- I neglected to do it earlier. There are three very minor changes to the PUD document '- MS. CAWLEY: Yes. That's correct. MR. NINO: -- That I'd like to enter onto the record. One was an incorrect reference to a section, and the other had to do with -- with a -- with putting -- placing provisions in the PUD document that dictated the timing of improvements, and in all cases the change is -- states as follows: That the improvement will be made at the time of approval of the final subdivision plat. Otherwise, there wasn't any timing relationship in here as to when the improvements were to be made. MS. CAWLEY: That's on page 6-1 of the PUD, 6.6(A), (B) and (I). MR. NINO: That affected three -- three pages of the PUD document, and they were relatively minor things. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: platting, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The same was prior to Okay. Motion to approve. We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve PUD-94-10. I forgot where I was. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Before we get to this next item, would anybody be interested in taking a dinner break for a couple of hours? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Surely -- Surely you're speaking in jest. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 8 p.m. Sounds good to me. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We'll be back at 8. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Somehow I think Mr. Thomas has waited all day. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 95-9, RE PETITION R-94-5, GEORGE L. VARNADOE AND R. BRUCE ANDERSON OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP AND VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY LAND ACQUISITION NEW DEVELOPMENT, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE A-HHO TO RHF-6 ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF SR-29 AMD ABUTTING FARM WORKER VILLAGE, IHMOKALEE (COMPANION TO ITEM #13A3) - ADOPTED Hr. Cuyler, the next item 12B(2) has a companion item, 13A(3). Can we take them together? MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am, with separate votes -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Separate votes? MR. CUYLER: -- But you can hold the hearings together. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. The next item is 12B(2), petition R-94-5. We're going to take that in companion with item 13A. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Item 13A(3). CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 13A(3). 13A(3). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we need to do a full-blown hearing? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't -- I don't know that we need to do a full-blown hearing, but I'm sure there's some things that we need to get on the public record. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I'm Ray Bellows with the Current Planning staff presenting petition R-94-5 and companion item CU-94-17. George Varnadoe is representing the Collier County Housing Authority. Requesting to fezone the subject 18-acre parcel from A-HHO to RHF-6 in a conditional use for cjuster housing and a day care facility. The subject property is located on the east side of State Route 29 and adjacent to the existing Farm Worker Village complex. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Bellows, would you excuse me for a second? MR. BELLOWS: Sure. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Varnadoe, is there anything you need to enter in the public record on this item? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. I've got about five pages of single-spaced notes that I want to go through with you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll tell you what. We'll take that two-hour dinner break while you read it into the record. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. VARNADOE: And then Mr. Thomas has got about a half an hour little talk that he wants to give, but other than that, that would be all we have. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this an extension of the Farm Workers Village? MR. VARNADOE: This is phase five of Farm Workers Village. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is what -- We've spoken about this project a couple of times in the past, have we not? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Several times, yeah. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it's the right thing to do so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there any -- MR. VARNADOE: And the conditional uses are for a child care center -- day care center. Excuse me. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Also the right thing to do. MR. VARNADOE: And to -- for cjuster housing which will give us the right to put the buildings closer together to preserve some of the mature oak trees out there. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Also the right thing to do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the question is, is there any additional information we need to get on the record in order to satisfy your needs? MR. VARNADOE: Not to satisfy my needs, no, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One question, Mr. Bellows. Any correspondence to the negative on this project? MR. BELLOWS: No letters for it or against. MR. HARGETT: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. No speakers. I will close the public hearing. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We are first going to take petition R-94-5. Motion to approve and a second. There being no further discussion, call the question. All those in favor. Motion passes 5-0. Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 95-154 RE PETITION CU-94-17, GEORGE L. VARNADOE AND R. BRUCE ANDERSON OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP AND VARNADOE, P.A. REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY LAND ACQUISITION NEW DEVELOPMENT, INC., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "3" AND "8" OF THE RHF-6 ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF S.R 29 AND ABUTTING FARM WORKERS VILLAGE, IHMOKALEE (COMPANION TO ITEM #1282) - ADOPTED We have a motion for petition CU-94-17. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you'll close the public hearing, I'll be happy to make that motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The public hearing was closed. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry. We had them both at the same time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In that case, I did -- I will make that motion to approve. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll second it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Got you beat. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For a change. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a race. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve conditional use 94-17. Is there any further discussion on the item? I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. MR. THOMAS: Madam Chairman, could I have 30 seconds? I want to put on the record -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. THOMAS: I want to thank George Varnadoe for the outstanding work he's done pro bono for us, and I don't understand -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What? MR. THOMAS: -- Why he didn't get an award for this, you know, because he's done all of our work pro bono. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: George, great. MR. THOMAS: And I want to thank you, Commissioners, for your expeditious handling of this, and I'll try to plan my schedule a little bit better next time. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Unfortunately it's been a long day. MR. THOMAS: For the record, my name is Fred N. Thomas, Junior, Executive Director of Collier County Housing Authority. Item #1283 ORDINANCE 95-10 RE PETITION PUD-94-3(1) BILL HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING SHOPPE, REPRESENTING ALAN D. AND INES E. HONIZ, SALVATORE CINA, DARRYL J. AND BREADLEY T. DAMICO AND THOMAS L. GRANT, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PARKWAY CENTER PUD THROUGH THE PROCESS OF REZONING FROM PUD AND RHF-12 TO PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item, item 12B(3), petition PUD-94-3. MR. MILK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bryan Milk. I am presenting petition PUD-94-3 companion to petition AV-94-21. The subject property is located at the southeast intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Last July the commissioners approved a 2.1-acre PUD for professional office and commercial at this location. The petitioner today seeks to amend the Parkway Center PUD by vacating the existing 20-foot unimproved alley easement located south of the subject property. The alley extends from Santa Barbara Boulevard eastward to 53rd Street Southwest. This petition seeks to fezone the northern ten feet of the alley from RHF-12 to PUD which would bring about a boundary adjustment and increase the size of the PUD by approximately two-tenths of one acre. The southern ten feet of the alley would remain residential and be incorporated into the residential lots to the south. The petitioner also proposes to modify the stipulation in the PUD document which asked to remove the existing structures on lots one and five within 18 months of the commercial building permit being issued on the site. The petitioner proposes to extend the 18-month time frame to five years. He also wishes to be able to have the flexibility of converting those structures -- one of the structures -- there's two duplexes on lot one, and there's a triplex on lot five. They'd like to convert the buildings to a commercial use and/or have the five-year window to do that in. They also as an incentive to providing that flexibility are going to repaint the buildings and landscape accordingly to our Land Development Code within 18 months of the issuance of a brand new building permit for the new commercial building. They are also going to construct the front and rear pedestrian pockets. They are going to provide street lighting in the front and the rear and the rear along the vacated alley easement. They are going to construct an architectural designed fence with landscaping and irrigation on both sides of that buffer so that people to the rear in the residential properties have security. People won't -- will not be cutting to and from those properties. The petitioner has also made some minor revisions to the PUD per staff's request in regards to the signage. There was some gray area on that. And what we've basically provided is for a 20-foot identification project sign with a maximum height of six feet from the project entrance set back 15 feet from the right-of-way, and each building shall have an identification sign not to exceed 20 percent of the building facade. We also, more importantly, provided two exhibits, Exhibits G and H, which is an architectural style. This style is what this PUD will look like when new and converted structures are to come on line, but basically all stucco buildings with tile roofs. If they don't have a tile roof, they're going to have a decorative parapet wall on top. Staff's in favor of this type of standard. We've talked about this at the original meeting, and it means they've come in for the minute. We've tightened up the architectural standards to include pastel colors and the actual rendering itself of G and H. This petition went before the Planning Commission on January the 19th. They recommended 8-0 to approve this, and basically the underlying in the PUD document -- we massaged some of the language to provide the petitioner with the flexibility to extend the 18 months to the five-year window with the added architectural theme and styles, renderings, and that they would, in fact, bring those properties up to a more aesthetic appearance, paint them, landscape them accordingly in conjunction with the new development of the site. With that, staff will answer any questions at this time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The vacation is great. One of the concerns here has been the depth of the property and how much could be done with that. So the vacation is a great idea. I do have a question, and maybe we need to get to the petitioner for this, but what the purpose of the extension of 18 months to five years is. One of the selling points of the PUD initially was the change so soon, the multi-family that exists there right now, and that is what's considered Golden Gate City. That is literally the gateway to the city, and that is a horrible looking building right now. And the single most appealing factor of the PUD as it was originally approved was the fact that we were told commercial development was going to begin post haste and that 18 months from then either this building would be razed or would be changed to commercial and be upgraded accordingly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was very appealing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was very, very appealing and was a strong selling point of that PUD. So I'm concerned if we -- even with the paint and shrubberies, we'll still have what has been a consistent eyesore. And if it's still used for multi-family, I suspect even with paint and a few shrubs, it will still be an eyesore as the very first impression as you come into the city. That part I'm not real excited about and I'm going to need a little convincing on. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm looking at the entrance. That's a very short distance from Santa Barbara to the first entrance; is that correct, Mr. Milk? MR. MILK: That should be approximately 450 feet from the intersection of Santa Barbara to the actual project entrance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's the proposed PUD; correct? MR. MILK: That's the proposed PUD. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But what is there currently is -- MR. MILK: Currently it's a duplex on that corner, two duplexes. So you've got a 125-foot lot. There's probably 50 feet between the intersection and that first driveway. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The time frame we're looking at from getting rid of people making turning movements within 50 feet of a major intersection into that duplex and getting something 400 feet from that intersection is now extended to what? MR. MILK: It depends on if the first -- Let's say somebody comes up for a building permit. They have to construct a decel lane into the project, and that project would then provide internal circulation and internal access. But whether that driveway goes away, that's not a stipulation of this PUD document. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So that -- And I wasn't a part of the board that made this decision. I appreciate the information on that, but I have to believe that that access is dangerous, and it was part of the consideration of getting this thing moving and -- and eliminating those turning movements. So I -- I'd throw that on the heap with Commissioner Constantine of things that I'm truly concerned about that should be on a time-line. MR. MILK: I think it was a part of your commission, and the Growth Management Plan itself establishes access point at 450 feet. So that was a dual consideration. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HOOVER: Bill Hoover with Hoover Planning. I can address those two issues now, or if you want to, you can listen to Russ Mullet with the companion item, and then we can discuss them all at once here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would just as soon hear the issues now I guess. MR. HOOVER: Okay. In regards to the -- the turn movements at the intersection on lot one, the intention we have -- and maybe there's a way to take care of this so that you're happy with that. Right now we've got to put in water and sewer before anything can happen, and so we sort of have to do that in a joint group of property owners to make the numbers work on that. And what we've talked about doing was while we're doing that and everybody has got to pull their money and get into some kind of an agreement is to also put in the decel lane and the driveway at that time. So to me that would make -- logically to take care of your concern is to go ahead and we've already got a cross access easement legally tied into the county right now and recorded from our attorney. So we could go ahead and just construct that cross access all the way over to lot one and access those duplexes that way which should get rid of the turning movements. Now, as far as the -- Commissioner Constantine's concern there, when we originally came in for here, it was -- we were expecting to -- we were in the afternoon and a bunch of petitions that were in front of us were continued, and we were not expecting to be up at -- it was like about ten o'clock in the morning, and we were under the impression we were going to be up sometime after lunch, and Bryan called me and told us that we were up much earlier. So we came down here right away but the petitioners were not here, and they were intending to relocate the buildings on vacant duplex or triplex lots close by there, but because they were -- they went out and talked to some people to move these things and they said CBS buildings were really not feasible to move because if the tie beam snaps, you lose the whole building, and so youwre looking at a rather large expense to move the buildings, but therews a very good chance that they would not hold up to the move and the -- both of the buildings that we have -- the ones on lot one and the ones on lot five both have mortgages on them in the neighborhood of about $75,000, and so the rental income sort of takes care of that. And the person that -- Mr. Moniz that owns the corner building, hews here today. He works as a mail carrier. He would like to sell the building. Hews not a developer. Hews a mail carrier, and he really doesnwt -- he would like to get out of the rental business. But what he would like to do is move the building as soon as possible, but he would like to have some cash flow so that he can maintain the mortgage in the meantime, but the intention there on that building is not to really convert the buildings on lot one. Itws to probably raze the buildings as soon as he can find a potential buyer there for that lot. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Iwm having a little trouble following you. When you said -- I donwt understand what the fact that it was morning instead of afternoon has to do with -- MR. HOOVER: Okay. The petitioners -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just finish. MR. HOOVER: The petitioner -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me finish my question. MR. HOOVER: Iim sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Therels a couple of weeks between the Planning Commission and our meetings, and there are I donlt know how many weeks from the time you start your paper work before you ever get to the Planning Commission. So three hours difference at the end of it, Iim not sure what difference that made in your decision of 18 months or five years back in November or whenever this was that this came to us. And, secondly, Iim just trying to understand what the benefit is to the community to lengthen that to five years. Youlye got me. I still donlt have an question to my question, my original question. MR. HOOVER: Okay. The -- What happened was that issue never came up until the board -- until we were at the board meeting, and the petitioners were not here for me to ask, and so I was the one that suggested 18 months rather than having, you know, the buildings taken down immediately. And after they checked into finding out if -- going ahead and talking to a guy that moved buildings, thatls when we found out the buildings were really not that feasible to move. And what -- what welre trying to do is just -- welre agreeing to develop the project in a better quality aesthetically, and welre just trying to in return for buying a little time on -- so that we can sell the property. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, you've said a reference to move those buildings, but you've said it's not viable. Maybe I'm just not getting -- MR. HOOVER: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- What you're saying here. MR. HOOVER: The buildings are not viable to be moved. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's not viable, what is it that you need to wait five years for then? If you can't move the building anyway -- I'm missing something. MR. HOOVER: We're just -- We're trying to have some time to sell the building, to sell the vacant land, and whoever buys it will just go ahead and take those buildings down then. We're asking for more than 18 -- What we're asking for is more than 18 months so we have -- you know, it's feasible the property could sell in six months. On the other hand, commercial activity is pretty good right now, but no one really knows how long it's going to take to sell that property. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. The property that you're talking about, the duplexes that are on the corner there where it says Parkway Center PUD? MR. HOOVER: Yes. It's at the very west corner there of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway on lot one there. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Lot one. Just only on lot one? MR. HOOVER: Yeah. There's also a triplex on lot five which would be the fifth lot from the corner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not -- Not the same ownership? MR. HOOVER: No. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: All of these property owners have gotten together and are making a PUD out of their joint properties? MR. HOOVER: Yes. On all -- The ones labeled on there Parkway Center PUD, they've all agreed to put in, you know, extra landscaping and pedestrian pockets and put up first-class buildings and also to have architectural standards similar to -- Basically most -- or two of those pictures are taken from Third Street South. One's off of Seagate, and the other one's off of the west side of U.S. 41. So everyone's agreed to try to make this the show piece of Golden Gate City, and what we're asking for is a little bit of flexibility on the time there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, let me see if I can get this straight here. You've got multiple owners. Five owners? Six owners? MR. HOOVER: Let's see. Mr. Moniz owns lot one, and then there's three vacant lots, two, three and four. They're owned from somebody that's not here today. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. But to sell this to a developer who's going to develop it commercially, all of the lots will have to sell together? MR. HOOVER: Not necessarily. I'm expecting lot one and probably lots two or maybe lots one, two, and three to sell together at the corner there, and they're agreeable to do that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. This is a bit unusual to have separate owners in one PUD. MR. HOOVER: Well, the county's the one that's -- Basically in their Growth Management Plan, they're requesting you to have -- we've got to have at least three lots in a row to turn in for a PUD. MR. CUYLER: This is something that has been -- The general concept is something that was proposed by the county to form up larger projects so that they weren't all developed individually. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was an effort, Commissioner Norris, not to have a hodgepodge along there because they are not very deep. What are they? 125 deep? MR. HOOVER: That's correct. MR. CUYLER: That way you get the common architectural theme. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I remember when we did this not too terribly long ago, and what was appealing to me is the same thing Commissioner Constantine has said was appealing to him, and that is the cleaning up and the improvement of these lots in 18 months, and I just thought that was great. It needed to be done, and I'm not real encouraged about putting that off now to five years. Also, you know, I'm -- I work with businesses all the time who are developing business plans of a development and what it is that they plan to do, and I'm, frankly, having a little bit of difficulty understanding that you didn't realize that moving a CBC building was difficult at best. MR. HOOVER: Well, I'm a land planner. I'm not a contractor. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I mean, that -- to me, that's a question that in the process of the planning -- you knew you -- you knew you wanted to move the buildings. It would seem to me in putting together your financial perspective of what it was going to cost to improve the property, that you would have talked with somebody about what is it going to cost to move these buildings, and they would have said, oh, CBC buildings, maybe the price of the whole building and -- and -- I mean, I'm really having trouble that you didn't know or didn't understand that moving the building could be the destruction of the building. So, I mean, I'm just having some difficulty with it. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In a nutshell what we have here apparently is a spec zoning situation. You're specking it out to commercial hoping to sell. In other words, no one involved is going to be involved in the development of the project. MR. HOOVER: No. No. That's -- That's not true, but I can say that the owners of lots one through four are not going to develop. The person that owns lot five is Capital Homes, and they are putting up a commercial building on 951, and also the person that owns lot six would like to put up an office building. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But we don't have a unified development plan per se for these lots. MR. HOOVER: Well, we do in the PUD. I mean, if we went further -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it provides -- it provides the mechanism for it, but I'm saying you don't have people standing around saying we're -- you know, we're going to go ahead with this project per this PUD. It's not a unified approach -- MR. HOOVER: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- To construction. MR. HOOVER: We aren't selling -- We don't have a buyer for lots one through six. At this time it's coming in to put one big building in there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So basically what you're asking for is an extension. In exchange, you're giving additional architectural controls? Is that -- Is that really the crux of this? I mean, if we're going to boil it down to the basics, that's what we're talking about? You've offered -- MR. HOOVER: Right. We've -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Additional architectural controls in exchange for -- MR. HOOVER: We've done two things here. One is we've improved buffers and some things like this. We've also agreed to these architectural standards that would make the whole district nicer. And we've also talked to all of the lot owners in the other three PUD's. So they've also agreed to provide pedestrian pockets and buildings that would look similar to this. And what we're asking for -- And we also are agreeing to improve the aesthetics of the rental units. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. What happens if it doesn't sell in five years, if it's not developed in the next five years? What happens then? MR. HOOVER: Well, then that person would need to take the building down and that would be -- we talked about that. The PUD monitoring report -- each year the county sends out a report, and it comes to the planner with the county as well as the planner that did that, and those kind of things are checked and a violation -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd want to put a big tub of bath water on this because I think -- obviously if this can come to fruition, it's the way in which you want these parcels to develop, but maybe five years I'm -- I'm hearing five years may be a little excessive for my cohorts up here. So I'd be open to suggestions on that, but it just seems that we're asking for a trade-off here. You're saying, well, we can't get it done in the time we want it to so here's some additional things we'll be willing to grant and accept and do in exchange for an additional time frame. I guess the question is, is the time frame reasonable? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner -- "Commissioner." Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: Never, Madam Chairman. I will go a little outside what my scope of my normal job is and just ask you -- and I'm -- I'm not proposing this. I don't know anything about this project. But one thing we saw early on that -- one of the difficulties would be getting all the property owners together to throw into the same kind of project. So you may want to keep that in mind. There's going to be some trade-offs, but one of the benefits for the county is at least you found four or five people that are willing to work together. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of questions. Golden Gate put together an Architectural Review Committee. I assume you'd be meeting the requirements as laid out by them regardless of whether or not this passes? MR. HOOVER: Well, correct, if -- MR. MILK: The more stricter would apply in that case. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Repeat that, please. MR. MILK: The more stricter the ordinance would apply. So if there is such a thing as a Golden Gate Architectural Review Committee and they had stricter standards than the PUD, that would prevail. MR. HOOVER: I would think, Commissioner, that what we're proposing and guaranteeing in the PUD document that would -- I would have a hard time believing that they wouldn't like what we're proposing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tom, did you want to add -- MR. GRANT: Well, I think -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need you to come to the microphone, and I need you to state who you are for our court reporter. Sorry. MR. GRANT: My name is Tom Grant, and I'm one of the original people that started on this ten years ago. And one of the only problems that we're having is that we're trying to keep a group together. We've got to have sewer and water. We've got to have a lot of things that you all say we have to have before we start. Now, I'm an individual owner sitting right in the middle of the street or the five lots this way, six lots this way or five this way and four this way. The problem is, is we're trying to keep this together and keep everybody agreeable. If I want to go build, let's say hopefully I would like to try to build as soon as possible. If I'm going to build, that forces Alan in 18 months to get rid of his buildings. Now, what is he going to go tell his mortgage people? How is he going to support that type of mortgage? Now, what we're trying to say is it's giving -- the market's going to basically dictate the time. Probably Alan's property might sell before I even start building on mine. But I just feel that market is going to dictate what's going to happen on building a lot quicker than we all sitting up here trying to surmise what's going to happen. I'm just -- We're just trying to ask you to give us a little fudge room on that because it's pretty scary for Alan that's got a building there and a mortgage on it and I've convinced him to go to commercial because it's better for the community and it's going to be aesthetically more pleasing to the area. You've got to at least try to work with him a little bit longer because he's got a large mortgage. I don't. So I can sit here and smile. And that's all that we're trying to bring up. You only have just a couple of little -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's Alan going to tell his mortgage company five years from now if it hasn't sold? MR. GRANT: Well, but -- again, it's giving -- If I start my building today, it gives Alan -- he knows. It gives Alan five years to get his finances in order to get that building either tore down or -- or he could actually possibly convert it which is going to look exactly like what I'm going to put up anyways. I mean -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. Just help me here. That duplex that is on the corner right now -- no offense, Alan, but that doesn't look anything like Exhibit G or Exhibit H. MR. GRANT: Right. But it doesn't have a tile roof. It's got just a straight drive into it. It's got -- You know, I mean, it's a -- it's a rental piece of property. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tom, even with a tile roof, that ain't going to look anything like any of these four pictures. MR. GRANT: Well, but again -- but, again, you have to look at it -- if I can get you to look at it and say -- it's giving him a little bit more time, maybe five years. Maybe that is, but I don't think three years or -- or -- that is an unreasonable amount of time for Alan to get his financial orders in place. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand that it's a situation you're in. I'll throw something out as a compromise because I realize 18 months is a fairly short amount of time, and I don't want to prohibit the development of the first couple of properties because of that situation. I think five years is too long but if -- I'd be willing to double the amount of time that the current PUD has right now. And I don't know what the rest of the board thinks, but that would make it three years, and I would think that would be a reasonable amount of time to work with the market as it exists. MR. HONIZ: Thank you. For the record, my name is Alan Honiz, and I do own those units on the corner. One of the reasons we started ten years ago to get this rezoned was to get those duplexes off of the Parkway. That was our goal. And what we wanted was something aesthetically pleasing for the community, and that's why we worked so hard to upgrade this plan to where we are now, something beautiful. My -- What gets me a little nervous is we've been talking about is the 18 months' deadline for me where I'm going to have to evict people and tear down buildings and so forth, and that gets me a little uneasy. So I'm saying, look, I do want to put up a nice building there and I do -- If someone comes and purchases the lot before the 18th month which will probably happen and they put in all these things that should be in there, then that's fine for the community and that's fine for me. But all I'm asking for is some time, not to lock me into this -- those 18 months or immediate -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How does three years work for you? MR. HONIZ: It's a lot better than 18 months. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Twice as good. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's better than 18 months but not as good as five years. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as you're willing to accept three years, I -- speaking just for myself, I'm willing to do that because three years -- If that means we can get that project started and get the ball rolling and get that gateway to the community improved, then I think everybody benefits in the long run. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That also means at least two of us on this board would be here if this should have to come back in three years and have the history of it so -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll probably still be here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, five years may put it beyond any of us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Collective history is interesting. Any other questions? Mr. Cuyler, are there any public speakers on this? MR. CUYLER: No, ma'am, not on this item. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Probably a question for staff, maybe for Commissioner Constantine. If we -- If we do not approve this change, then this property would be subject to the Golden Gate Architectural Committee's standards anyway and would have the 18 months in place; true? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And does anybody know the comparison to Golden Gate Architectural standards, are they more or less restrictive than what's proposed before us today? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think they're finished yet, are they? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, they are. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are they finished? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are they more or less restrictive? Are they better or would they make a prettier building or not as pretty? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They are -- I don't want to say more restrictive in a sense you might think of in say, Pelican Bay; however, they're -- they have some specific requirements for uniformity and otherwise that may be slightly more restrictive than what the county has in very general terms. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But as far as what these exhibits -- would they require that level of architecture? MR. CUYLER: Do we actually have anything in place from the Architectural Committee? I don't think there are binding documents. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They've turned it back. I don't know that they've had it approved formally by the board. They've finished their work so to speak. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think it's been finished. MR. CUYLER: I don't think they have. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They finished it months ago. MR. CUYLER: I think that may also require the accumulation of properties under their -- under their request too. So you're still going to be dealing with people up against the other to develop. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Milk, is that in place yet, that architectural -- MR. MILK: I'm not sure. I can't answer that. MR. HULHERE: I don't think it is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hulhere. MR. HULHERE: There's nothing in the LEC that reflects the recommendations of the Golden Gate Architectural Review Committee at this time. I will have to check with staff I believe in reviewing their recommendations and proposing to bring them back, but they probably will not make it in this cycle. It will probably be the following cycle. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would be in the fall? MR. HULHERE: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hope they come soon because they finished meeting back about October. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. They've been disbanded, but I don't know the history behind it, but I will check on it for you and I'll report back to you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we would not be able to get -- to require something that's architecturally restrictive without the amendment? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I mean, if we -- It seems to me that if we approve the amendment today, we can require them to submit to the review if it is passed. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, if we approve the amendment today, they have showed us pictures of what it's going to look like, and that's an exhibit to the PUD. If we don't approve the amendment today, they will have to comply with the Golden Gate standards whenever they are adopted, and we don't know if they are better or worse than -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's been offered. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- The exhibits. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think Commissioner Constantine -- MR. HULHERE: But they would have to comply with those at a minimum and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anyway. MR. MULHERE: Right. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think Commissioner Constantine is ready to make a motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we make it, I'll finish. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I am. I'll make a motion to approve the item with just the one change being rather than five years, make that three years, and a couple of reasons in mind. One being I think we can economically move forward faster than if we leave it 18 months. And, secondly, I think we can be more sure as far as architectural visual issues. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second that motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve PUD -- What is it? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 94-3(1). CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- 94-3(1). MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I'm going to go -- go ahead and take your motion on this. Technically there's a vacation that needs to happen, but I'm assuming that will happen. So I'll go ahead and -- why don't you go ahead and take this motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you want to make your motion subject to the vacation? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MR. CUYLER: You're about to do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. The motion to approve is subject to the vacation which we will address next. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 95-155, RE PETITION AV 94-021 TO VACATE A 20 FOOT ALLEYWAY AND PORTIONS OF 6 PERIMETER DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move approval of the vacation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. We need to close the public hearing. Are there speakers in the public hearing? MR. HARGETT: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'll close the public hearing. Motion. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to approve the vacation. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which item is this? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's C(2). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 12C(2). COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The companion item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. We have a motion and a second to approve the vacation of the alley. Is there something we need to get on the public record that you -- Okay. Because you looked like you wanted to say something. Okay. No. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. We will take our ten-minute break now so that we can change reporters. (A short break was held.) Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 95-156, RE PETITION AV-94-019, COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., AS AGENT FOR OWNERS, DANIEL L. GEORGE AND SUZANNE G. GEORGE, REQUESTING VACATION OF A PORTION OF A TEN FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT LOCATED ON A PORTION OF LOTS 5-6, BLOCK E, ON THE PLAT OF LELY BAREFOOT BEACH UNIT I (COMPANION ITEM TO THE PLAT OF BAREFOOT ESTATES) - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the board of county commission meeting for February 28, 1995. We are at, I believe, item 12-C-1; is that correct? MR. HULLER: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Petition AV94019. MR. HULLER: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Russ Mullet, and I'm an engineer with your transportation services department. Item 12-C-1 is a public hearing to consider petition AV94019 for the vacation of a ten-foot access easement on the common line of lots 5 and 6, block E, Lely Barefoot Beach, unit 1. This vacation is to accommodate replat previously approved but subject to this vacation which takes the number of lots from 7 -- or from 11 lots to 7. Letters of no objection have been received from project plan review, North Naples Fire Control Rescue District. A resolution was prepared and approved by the county attorney's office in accordance with Florida Statutes 177101. And based on the letters of no objection from authorized users and the proposed replat, staff recommends approval. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I've got one question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Does this have anything at all to do with the guard house? MR. HULLER: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any other questions? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have to -- we have to handle public speakers. MR. HARGETT: There are no speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there speakers? MR. HARGETT: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: approve petition AV94-019. There are no speakers. I'll Is there a motion? Hotion to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second to If there's no further discussion, call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? None, motion passes five-zero. Item #12C3 ORDINANCE 95-11, AMENDING ORDINANCE 90-105, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD ORDINANCE - ADOPTED Next item is 12-C-3, ordinance amending Collier County ordinance number 90-105. MR. CLARK: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Clark. MR. CLARK: -- Dick Clark, acting community development administrator. This -- this request before you and this matter is a request to -- it's kind of a housecleaning type thing. About a year ago, an ordinance was amended to require the -- providing for applicants for contractor licenses to provide the experience requirements and affidavits prior to taking the test. They have since -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Clark -- MR. CLARK: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as much as I'm confident in your ability to explain this in a wonderful manner, I'm going to see if I can summarize it. MR. CLARK: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know that you've met with some members of the board on this already. Basically we're collecting career experience information. And if they're not passing the test, we have to keep that information; is that correct? MR. CLARK: For seven years. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For seven years. So we have this big file, this stack of files, that has no valid use whatsoever. MR. CLARK: That's exactly right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what you're wanting to do is amend this so that we only have to collect that information if they pass the test and then keep that for seven years; is that correct? MR. CLARK: That's correct. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that the only thing this -- this amendment involves? MR. CLARK: That's exactly right, very concise. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Close the public hearing? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there speakers? MR. HARGETT: I have two registered. I think Mr. L'Esperance and Mr. Ryan, I'm not sure either are here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. L'Esperance passed out a memorandum the last -- when he was here for the public comment. Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I just wanted to point out one other thing. You'll notice that the shall has been changed to may with regard to appointments by city of Naples. That is not in any way to exclude them. They've had a little bit of a problem in the past finding people to serve. If they do find people, I assume the board will appoint whoever the city wants you to appoint. But they've had some trouble finding people, so we wanted to change that so we didn't get a challenge to the board because the right membership wasn't there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. So the public speakers are not present? MR. HARGETT: Mr. Ryan? I don't think either are here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Ryan's not here either? I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. MR. HANALICH: Excuse me, Commissioner. I just wanted to clarify for the record that the amendment has two purposes -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would you identify yourself for the -- MR. HANALICH: Yes, Ramiro Hanalich, assistant county attorney. The amendment has the purpose that Commissioner Hancock mentioned plus also what Mr. Cuyler alluded to which is clarifying the appointments from the city, so it's a dual amendment purpose. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Filson. MS. FILSON: On the current vacancy on this board, I've already contacted the city to do a press release for an applicant representing the city. And if they are not successful, then I will do the press release soliciting resumes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. FILSON: But -- but I have given them that opportunity before. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I can't hear you. MS. FILSON: I did give them the opportunity. I didn't know this was coming before the board. MR. CUYLER: No, you should continue to do that. That's the point I made. We still need to contact the city. If they have someone, I think the board wants to appoint the person from the city. This is only to make sure if they don't have someone nobody challenges because we don't have anything. MS. FILSON: Okay. MR. CUYLER: Nothing else. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. There is no -- there are no public speakers. The public -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I made a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hearing is closed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Public hearing is closed. We have a motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a second. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One more question, one quick one. Mr. Clark, this is not connected in any way with the on-site supervision requirement question. MR. CLARK: No, it is not. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no -- no further discussion, do you have the names of the people who motioned and seconded? THE REPORTER: Yes, ma'am, thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Item #12C4 - Continued to 3/28/95 Item #12C5 RESOLUTION 95-157, RE PETITION SNR-95-01, JAMES HARVEY OF TAYLOR WOODROW COHMUNITIES REQUESTING STREET NAME CHANGES FROM SIENNA DRIVE TO ABERDEEN LANE, LUCAYA DRIVE TO CHESTERBROOK COURT, SOUTHAMPTON BOULEVARD TO BENT TREE LANE, SOUTHAMPTON DRIVE TO WINDING OAKS WAY, THORNEBROOK CIRCLE TO WYNHURST CIRCLE, BENT TREE LANE TO WEXFORD COURT, AND WINDING OAKS COURT TO ESSEX CIRCLE IN THE SOUTHAMPTON PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - ADOPTED Next item is petition SNR95-01. MR. REISCHL: Good evening, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning and technical services. The petition is a request to rename streets within the Southhampton PUD for marketing purposes. The developer is the sole affected party, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No questions? Mr. Hargett, are there speakers? MR. HARGETT: Two registered, the same two, and they're not here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And they are not here? I'll Is there a motion? Hove approval. Second. We have a motion and a second to approval SNR95-01. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 95-158, RE PETITION V-94-18, RICHARD HC CORHICK OF WILKISON & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING UNITED CHURCH HOMES, INC., REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 71 PARKING SPACES TO 30 PARKING SPACES RESERVING LAND FOR THE REMAINING 41 SPACES - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS Next item on the agenda is item 13-A-l, petition V94-18. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good evening. Chahran Badamtchian from current planning staff. Mr. Richard McCormick representing United Church Homes is requesting a variance from the required 71 parking spaces to 30 parking spaces by reserving land for the remaining 41 spaces. All reserved spaces will be built when deemed necessary by the county. This is an affordable housing project intended to elderly low income female residents basically for the widows of foreign war vets in Immokalee, the average income being 11,000 yearly and average age being 72. More than 50 percent of them do not have a car. Therefore, in order to bring the costs down, the developer's proposing to build only 30 spaces instead of 41. There is an agreement that is required to be signed by the county and the applicant. The applicant has already signed the agreement. And if this one is approved, this variance is approved, then that agreement need to be signed by the chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? Are you here to answer questions, or do you need to get anything more on the public record? MR. MCCORMICK: No, I don't. For the record, I'm Richard McCormick representing Wilkison and Associates and United Church Homes. I can answer any of your questions, though, you might have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hargett, are there public speakers? MR. HARGETT: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to approve and a second. Is there further discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There were some stipulations. Are those included in the motion? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Attachment B I believe. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the motion includes all the stipulation within the staff report. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Okay. And the second? So -- Yeah. So amended. I will call the question then. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. you. Thank Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 95-159, RE PETITION V-94-19, BEAU KEENE, P.E., OF TE OFFICE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGEMENT, REPRESENTING THE NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT, REQUESTING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 30 FEET TO 15 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,400 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE EXISTING NORTH NAPLES FIRE STATION LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IHOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda, I believe, Chief Jones, we're finally there. Petition V94-19. MR. SAADEH: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Sam Saadeh of current planning for petition V94-19. I'm going to skip the presentation, just remind you that this petition was in front of you on December 20 when you signed the lease agreement with the -- to house the EHS medic 10 in the North Naples fire station. The planning commission heard and approved unanimously this petition on February 2, and there were no public speakers and no letters. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there public speakers, Mr. Hargett? MR. HARGETT: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have two motions, so one is a motion, one is a second. Thank you. If there's no further questions, I will call -- call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. MR. SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I believe that concludes the agenda, and we are at staff communications and board communications. Mr. Constantine, you had an item regarding the TDC. Item #14 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had actually three items. One, just something I want to run by you all. The Lee Port Authority is interested in doing some things just by the nature of the business at the airport in concert with their TDC. Some of those things may be beneficial to do as a region. And if proposed or we are proposing -- one of the members of the port authority management committee and myself are proposing a joint meeting between TDCs and the port authority probably sometime in May. And I just wanted to run that past and let you all know. And particularly you, since you're chairing that, put that on the back burner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And as we get more details, see if we can make that a reality. Couple other things. Need some help from the county manager on this. A couple of weeks ago, maybe three weeks ago, we had a public comment from a newspaper publisher, Tuff Publications, in regards to the bids for advertisements for the delinquent tax bills. We are required to bid that out by law. They had expressed an interest in doing that. I need to know where we're at because Guy Carlton called today and asked if that was on today's agenda. He indicated next week really is his cut-off. I don't know what we do if we haven't advertised it, how we give it to someone, particularly when it's been expressed interest from more than one place. And I'd like to know what happened in the last three weeks on that since that discussion first came up. MR. HARGETT: We'll do that. MR. CUYLER: Are you looking for an answer right now, or do you want us to check that? I know Steve Camell has been working with my office. We gave a memo to Steve. I also heard today -- as a matter of fact, Miss Cousineau, one of the legal assistants in the office, I think may have called Guy to find out exactly what was going on with regard to the agenda and such. I didn't hear what the final answer was. We may need to add it to next week's agenda. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. That was my comment is he said he's on a deadline and next week is really the final time. So we need to have -- I don't know how you get bids back in a week time if Steve hasn't already issued them. But we need to have some sort of answer for Mr. Carlton next week, and I don't think we can just arbitrarily give it to one -- to the Tuffs or to Naples or to anybody else without having bids, so I'm not sure how we respond to that. And the final item, I don't know what the timing is on this, and I want -- want to make sure we don't miss a deadline. When we renewed or when we fewrote Mr. Dorrill's contract year and a half ago, it was for two years with an extension for -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a third year if we opted to do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There was a time frame in there with which we needed to notify that we'd want to look at the terms of that contract. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. I believe that's four months. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just wanted to make sure we met that. I'm interested in looking at the terms of that this year and wanted to make sure we notify in whatever time period -- maybe, Mr. Cuyler, you can help us with that and make sure that notification is made in a timely fashion. MR. CUYLER: I will send a copy to all the commissioners of -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I have been through that and, in fact, put in my particular file to address it in Hay because I believe the first or second meeting in Hay is within the four months previous to the expiration. So if we -- it was my intention to have it on the agenda one of those two weeks. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ken, will you make sure we meet whatever that deadline is? MR. CUYLER: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd hate to have us do it the first week of Hay and find out we were supposed to do it in April. MR. CUYLER: I'll take a look at it and get with the chairman. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Hargett, will you be negotiating Mr. Dorrill's contract for him? MR. HARGETT: Probably not. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No? Okay. Just checking. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any other communication items? I noted that there's a staff communication that Sam Pool, the executive director from South Florida Water Management, and Valetie Boyd will be attending our meeting on March the 28th. And I guess there's no further communication? Done? MS. FILSON: No, I'm finished. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned. (Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.) ***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda, with the exception of Item #16A4, be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 ACCEPTANCE OF AN AMENDHENT TO LETTER OF CREDIT NO. SH-45323-094, WHICH SERVES AS THE SUBDIVISION MAINTENANCE SECURITY FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS "COVENTRY SQUARE" See Pages Item #16A2 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR WEDGEWOOD AT THE VINEYARDS - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A3 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR CURT'S MOBIL AT THE CROSSROADS - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A4 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR L'AMBIANCE AT PELICAN BAY - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item was approved by a vote of 4/0 (Commissioner Mac'kie abstained, due to a conflict). See Pages Item #16B1 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PROCESSING REIMBURSEMENT OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ROAD IMPACT FEE OVERPAYMENTS FOR THE BERKSHIRE PROJECT - IN THE AMOUNT OF #32,000 Item #16B2 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PROCESSING AND REIMBURSEMENT OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ROAD IMPACT FEE CREDITS/OVER-PAYMENTS BY WAL-MART Item #16B3 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PROCESSING AND REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERPAYMENT OF ROAD IMPACT FEES BY SEACREST SCHOOL - IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,300 Item #16C1 GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER SUPERVISOR CANDIDATE - JOHN M. DUNNUCK III APPROVED Item #16El RESOLUTION 95-147, RECOMMENDATION TO CANCEL CURRENT TAXES UPON LAND ACQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE ON A PORTION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS NAPLES NATIONAL GOLF CLUB PUD, CONTAINING 1.52 ACRES, MORE OR LESS See Pages Item #16E2 CONTRACT WITH WILLIS CORROON ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CORPORATION FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION See Pages Item #16E3 BID #2332 FOR A FULL SERVICE PROFESSIONAL HOVER - AWARDED TO CHARLES WOLFE & SON AND ADKINS TRANSFER Item #16F1 AWARD OF BID NUMBER 94-2286 TO EVERGLADES COHMUNICATIONS FOR RADIO MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR - ALTERNATE ITEMS OF LABOR COST AND PARTS PRICING ACCEPTED; ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOUR SERVICE REJECTED Item #16F2 CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT See Pages Item #16G1 AWARD OF BID #95-2328 FOR COUNTY-WIDE DITCH BANK CLEARING PROJECT - PHASE III TO "MONROE TREE SERVICE" IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,620 FOR WORK SITES 17, 26, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 AND THE SOUTHERN 300 FEET OF WORK SITE NO. 10 Item #16H1 - Deleted Item #16H2 - Deleted Item #16H3 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR HYDROGEOLOGIC AND ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO DEEP WELL INJECTIONS AT THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY Item #16H4 DESIGN CHANGE FOR SANITARY SEWER RELOCATION ASSOCIATED WITH BONITA BEACH ROAD WIDENING, A JOINT COLLIER COUNTY/LEE COUNTY PROJECT Item #16H5 - Deleted Item #16H6 - Moved to Item #8H6 Item #16J MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16J1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1990 No's. Dated 356/357 01/24 & 01/25/95 1991 272/273 01/25/95 1992 187/188 01/25/95 1993 206 01/25/95 1994 124 02/13/95 Item #16K1 SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUHENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENTS See Pages There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 6:30 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRWOMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara Donovan, Christine Whitfield, and Shelly Semmler