Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/25/1995 R REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 25, 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 9:00 a.m. IN REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRPERSON: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Timothy L. Hancock W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney Item #2A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to call to order the Board of County Commission meeting for Collier County for April 25th, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge? MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, this morning we thank you for the much needed rain for our community and we thank you for the renourishment that that brings. Father, we continue to pray for our colleagues and the families of the officials and public servants in Oklahoma and it's our prayer that the rescue workers would be diligent about finishing their work and reclaiming the bodies of those individuals, but our hearts go out to the people who are most directly affected as a result of that tragedy. We pray for our nation, especially our elected officials here close to home this morning. We ask as always that you guide the deliberations and decisions of this County Commission today as they make the important decisions that affect Collier County. And we ask that you bless our time together here. We pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, we have a few changes? MR. DORRILL: Just two and I have a reminder for myself at the end of the meeting concerning an issue that's supposed to be on the agenda next week that we have a proposal for. Just two items. First is an add-on item. It would be Item 4 (A) (3) under Proclamation as it pertains to designating this week, the week of April the 23rd to the 29th, as Professional Secretaries' Week in Collier County. And then I have one item under the Board of County Commissioners. It would be 10 (B), a request -- and I've also received some correspondence for the agent for the Carlton Lakes PUD requesting a reconsideration. And that would be 10 (B) and that's all that I have this morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Norris, do you have anything that you want to change or add? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I have none either. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve the agenda and the consent agenda. All those in favor, please say aye. Motion passes 4 to 0, Commissioner Hancock being absent. Item #3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1995, SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1995, AND CITY/COUNTY JOINT MEETING OF APRIL 6, 1995 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 4, 1995, special meeting of April 5, 1995 and the joint city-county meeting of April 6th, 1995. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to approve the minutes as directed. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 4 to 0. Item #4A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF APRIL 24 - 30, 1995, AS MARCH OF DIMES "WALK AMERICA" WEEK - ADOPTED The next item is a Proclamation and service awards. We have a Proclamation for Walk America Week. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's see. Is Russ Mullet here? Could we get the phone? Ah, all right. Decked out. Let me read this Proclamation, please. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's got a KANDU on there, too, doesn't it? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: "Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes the goals of the March of Dimes in their efforts to prevent birth defects through the support of research, medical service, and professional and public education projects; and, Whereas, Collier County is fortunate to have numerous individuals and organizations who give generously of their time and talent to support the March of Dimes; and, Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners lend support and encouragement to all Collier County employees interested in the community effort to eradicate the nation's number one child health problem, birth defects; and, Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes the positive effects of its employees' participation in Walk America helping to fight birth defects and promoting community support for the March of Dimes. "Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of April 24th through 30th, 1995 be designated as March of Dimes Walk America Week. "Done and ordered this 25th day of April 1995, Board of County Commissioners, Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman." I'd like to move approval of this Proclamation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second that motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and second to approve the Proclamation. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 4 to 0. Are you going to walk far this time? MR. MULLER: I don't know. I've got the baby. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've got the baby? We'll put one of those carryalls on your back and take the baby for a walk. MR. MULLER: I regret that I haven't been able this year to get as involved with the walk as I have in the past. I'm not the team captain this year. I had prior commitments with other child welfare things that I'm involved with. I'm a PTA president. I'm the vice-president of the Collier County Counsel of the PTA and I'm on the Superintendent of Schools Parents Advisory Committee and DUI Victims Impact. I work with Pathways Advisory Committee, Scouts, Ronald McDonald House. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like you're doing your share. MR. MULLER: Yeah. People ask, "Why do you get so involved?" And I ask them why they don't. The walk is appropriate for government. I feel that -- that the role of government is to provide services and protection for all and that includes children. We do throughout the county. I know our department and child welfare is -- is -- we have to look at it for everything we do. Children in traffic and parents, they all need consideration. It's challenging and rewarding. I've never been more rewarded in a job then seeing two little girls riding down a newly constructed bike path and waved at the county truck. It's kind of neat. By the way, we just completed three miles of new pathway in Golden Gate City yesterday. I've never been prouder as a county employee than the 1992 Walk America. It was -- it was sensational. We had 468 team members who raised $15,700. We got Neil in a turkey suit out on Airport Road. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I remember that. MR. MULLER: And it took a lot of commitment and I actually neglected my job for a couple of months and George bailed me out. And we had several people that made personal sacrifices. Three people raised more than $1000 each that year. We had competitions, contests, prizes. The reason I did it was to pump up the employee morale. At the time we just canceled our Christmas -- our Christmas party and employees were kind of down for other reasons. And I learned -- I learned from it what the March of Dimes does. You know, the Oklahoma tragedy brought all the attention because of children. And there's been 80 found dead so far, I guess. But birth defects take -- in the United States take a hundred babies per day before their first birthday. When I was a kid, a long time ago, my mother's worst fear was polio. And March of Dimes has literally wiped it out. We don't have to worry about that anymore. Now the birth defects are low birth weight, AIDS, drugs, alcohol and the mom's are too young. In yesterday's paper it said -- there was a child health welfare issue. It said that Florida ranked 47th in the United States: 57 percent increase in violent crimes of 10 to 17 year olds; 43 percent increase in unwed mothers 15 to 19. There was some good news; efforts like ours in Walk America. There has been a 22 percent improvement in infant mortality, but still about one out of every hundred babies die in Florida before their first birthday. The hundredth has a mother that realizes the unspeakable grief of losing a baby. We can still make a difference. The team started late but you can join our team or buy a tee shirt, then make it the fourth year that we're the largest team at the walk. This is their 25th Anniversary of -- of March of Dimes Walk America and their theme is walk for someone you love. I'll be walking with two of my healthy babies that I love. They walked every year of their life. It's at Cambier Park, eight o'clock Saturday morning, Saturday the 29th. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. (Applause.) Some very touching statistics, Mr. Mullet. Thank you. Item #4A2 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 26, 1995 AS JENNIFER LANG AND NICKELODEON DAY - ADOPTED Next on the agenda is another proclamation that I'm going to read, and is Mr. Fuchs from Colony Cable here? It's good to see you. Allow me to read this Proclamation. "Whereas, children are the most precious" -- we're talking about children again. "Whereas, children are the most precious of resource of our society and encouraging them to imagine, interact with their environment, and explore is a valuable accomplishment; and, Whereas, Colony Cablevision provides Nickelodeon the only network for children with science programs, cartoons, educational offerings and fun for all ages; and, Whereas, Jennifer Lang, a 13-year-old student of Pine Ridge Middle School is the winner of Nickelodeon Takes Over Your School Contest, winning a day of fun and information filled activities and a Mr. Wizard Science Library for her school; and, Whereas, included in the festivities is a concert, a visit with Nickelodeon personalities, and a pizza party. "Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the day of April 26th, 1995, be designated as Jennifer Lang and Nickelodeon Day. "Done and ordered this 25th day of April 1995, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman." I move that this Proclamation be approved. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the proclamation. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 4 to 0. Mr. Fuchs, allow me to give this to you with pleasure. (Applause.) Do you have a few words to say about the events tomorrow? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My kids wanted to see Seagate. MR. FUCHS: Jennifer Lang, a 13-year-old student at Pine Ridge Middle was one young person in North America that was selected out of well over 100,000 entries for this particular contest. And Jennifer couldn't be here today. She had a math test this morning and could not break away; therefore, I'm pleased to be here on her behalf. Nickelodeon provides clean, fun, entertainment television for the youth of North America. It's a channel that we can all tune to and feel comfortable that our children are tuning to to get wholesome, clean fun and on many occasions educational programming. It also includes several hundred hours a month of commercial free programming specifically for -- to be used in our public schools, commercial-free and copyright-free programming. This Nickelodeon event that's taking place at Pine Ridge Middle is the largest field trip event that Nickelodeon studios takes on all year long. There will be somewhere in the vicinity of 12 tractor-trailers of entertainment and events taking place on campus on Wednesday, and I would like to thank the chairman and the commission for recognizing Miss Lang, Pine Ridge Middle. Pine Ridge Middle School will be receiving from Nickelodeon and Colony Cablevision a check for $5,000 tomorrow as well as Miss Lang is receiving a check for $1,000 for all of their efforts. All of those dollars with the exception of the thousand dollars going to Miss Lang will be used for continuing the educational process of our youth in our community. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Fuchs. Item #4A3 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 23-29, 1995 AS "PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIES' WEEK" - ADOPTED The next item on the agenda is another proclamation for Secretaries Week. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to have Miss Filson come forward and accept this proclamation on behalf of the professional secretaries in our organization. Miss Filson, would you? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think she's trying to nominate somebody else to -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: "Whereas, professional secretaries are committed to upholding the highest ethical standards; and, Whereas, professional secretaries are willing to go the extra mile; and, Whereas, professional secretaries are the unheralded members of the management team; and, Whereas, the week of April 23rd to the 29th has been designated Professional Secretaries' Week by Professional Secretaries International, its originator and sponsor. "And, now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of April 23rd to the 29th be designated as Professional Secretaries' Week and ask that management everywhere join in recognizing the outstanding professional in their employ, especially on Wednesday, April 26th, Professional Secretaries Day. "Done and ordered this 25th day of April, 1995 by the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida." Miss Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COHMISSIONER HAC'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, motion passes 4 to 0. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sue, are you going to say anything? MS. FILSON: I'm actually going to give this to Barbara Pedone. I think she has a prepared speech. And thank all of you. You're the great -- you're absolutely the best bosses in the world. MS. PEDONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Yearly we have this proclamation that's presented by Professional Secretaries International, and I wish to thank you for your continuing support and for the special recognition. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're quite welcome. Item #4B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED The next item on the agenda are service awards. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have two service awards this morning, both for five years service with the county. and bridge, first we have Frank Petito. (Applause.) Frank, we have the certificate and the coveted five-year pin. Congratulations. MR. PETITO: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And currently serving with real property, we have Michael Dowling also with us for five years. (Applause.) Sir, we're real proud of you. Congratulations. From road Item #5A BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-235, 243, 254/255 - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next on the agenda are budget amendments. Mr. Smykowski. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Michael Smykowski, acting budget director. There are four budget amendments on the budget amendment. There are four that require your approval this morning. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion and a second to approve the budget amendments. Is there a discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 4 to 0. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #SA1 REQUEST BY ANDREW QUEST HANCE, SR., TO REINSTATE BUILDING PERMIT NUMBERS 92-13516, 92-13515, 92-13512 AND 92-13514 - REQUEST DENIED; CREDIT FOR IMPACT FEES AND COMPLETED INSPECTIONS TO BE APPLIED TO NEW PERMITS; NEW PERMITS TO BE PULLED WITHIN TWO WEEKS AND SCHEDULE OF CONSTRUCTION TO BE PRESENTED The next item on the agenda under the county manager's report, Item 8 (A) (1), a request from Andrew Quest Hance to reinstate building permits. MR. MAGRI: Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the board. For the record, I'm Joe Hagri, the acting building permitting director. We have a Mr. Andrew Quest, St. making a request to reinstate some building permits that he received to complete some homes. If I recall right Mr. Quest purchased these homes back in 1992 and they were not completed homes and, so he got a -- he received a permit at that time. He didn't start any activity -- although he had received the permits in 1992, he didn't start activity until 1993. The last activity on the permits was in 1994, July. He is requesting that we reinstate the building permits. It is the staff's recommendation that you do not reinstate them. One other thing I might point out here is that we have an ordinance that requires that you complete a building permit within 18 months. Should you not complete that building permit, you need to provide us prior to the expiration of that building permit with a -- a program, you know, showing us how soon you will -- how soon you will finish your activity on the building. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions for staff? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the permits at this point have expired? MR. MAGRI: Yes, they have. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, we've gone through this on a couple of occasions. I specifically remember Commissioner Saunders inquiring of you if we have the authority to reinstate expired permits. I do not specifically remember your response. MR. CUYLER: The ordinance provides that the application for extension even to the board, and in this case there was no extension as I understand -- MR. MAGRI: That's correct. MR. CUYLER: -- it, requested of the administrator at the staff level. The request for extension to the board comes before the permits expire. It's the way the board has always handled it. That's the way they were entrenched. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So from a legal standpoint, there's some question whether we even have the option at this point? MR. CUYLER: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Magri? MR. MAGRI: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: These permits were originally issued in 19927 MR. MAGRI: '92, that's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: '92. Has there been any change in impact fee schedules in the interim? MR. MAGRI: Impact fees, I don't think there would have been too much of a change. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Have there been -- MR. MAGRI: There has been some change in -- in building code requirements, though, since that time. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: second question. MR. MAGRI: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MR. DORRILL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That was going to be my The fees went up in '92. We need to verify that. We would -- we would need to be certain that there's been no change in impact fee schedules -- MR. HAGRI: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- in any case here. I think I'd like to hear from the petitioner to see why we're not going forward. MR. DORRILL: He's here and registered. MR. HAGRI: If I may, I would suggest that they receive new building permits and at that time they provide us with something showing when they would be completed -- you know, give us an activity schedule showing when those building permits are going to be completed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. The petitioner here? MR. HANCE: Yes. You heard one side -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Excuse me. You have to be at the microphone. MR. HANCE: A. Q. Hance, Andrew Quest Hance, St., a good friend of mine over here and speaking on behalf of the building but I'm the one involved here and I'd appreciate you listening to my part. I employed a gentleman to see that these -- you know, this job was done. And, of course, I found out that in the latter part of '94 that his building permit -- I mean his license were not renewed so, therefore, there was no more work could be done on the building. So, therefore, I have employed the Vetta Corporation, Richard Vetta, to see that this project is carried on to its completion within the 12 -- within 12 months. And, so, it was asking that these building permits to be extended and we'd certainly appreciate this. And, of course, this is something that I didn't know that this builder that I had is licensed. He didn't even renew his license and he was not long in business. And I appreciate you-all's consideration and, of course, I can understand my friend's, you know, interest here by all means. But please take my interests at heart. I appreciate this right -- you know, for you all to make a decision for me. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate the situation you find yourself in; however, it's not a simple matter of extending the permits, I guess, because they have expired. There is a question, a legal question, of whether -- it's one thing to extend. It's a whole different thing to reinstate permits -- MR. HANCE: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that have already expired. So we may not have the legal ability to do that. I think that's what I heard you say, Mr. Cuyler, but I -- one more time just for clarification. MR. CUYLER: That's correct. We have some information -- the codes I assume have changed since '92? MR. MAGRI: That's right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: When -- Mr. Hagri, when did these -- these permits expire? What was the date that they actually expired? MR. MAGRI: Actually, the last activity he had was in 1993, on April of '93, and that was the last activity. So naturally it would be six months after that date which would be probably October, I guess, of '93 that it would have expired. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But he has 18 -- MR. HAGRI: In other words, you can keep a permit alive by maintaining the six months' inspections. MR. HANCE: Okay. It was -- could I interrupt? I believe that was '94, sir. Please check. MR. HAGRI: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So those would have expired October of '94? MR. HANCE: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I presume, Mr. Hance, that you were not aware that you could have gotten an administrative extension prior to the -- MR. HANCE: No, I wasn't. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- expiration? MR. HANCE: I was not aware, Madam. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: live here in town? But -- Well -- -- I -- Yeah. The question I have is -- do you HR. HANCE: No, I do not. Powhatan, Virginia. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And, so you weren't keeping very close supervision on these -- MR. HANCE: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- four houses? MR. HANCE: I was depending on the contractor to -- you know, and his license totally. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And did you not receive any regular reporting or anything from -- MR. HANCE: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- your employees? MR. HANCE: Everything was by phone and I wasn't made aware of. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He didn't send you any bills, I assume. MR. HANCE: Everything was paid. That's -- that was the main thing and then, of course, I came down to check to see why, you know, no activity. And then that's when all this was uncovered. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. These are six separate houses? MR. HANCE: Yes. These are four houses, yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Four houses. I'm sorry. MR. HANCE: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion based on the advice from our attorney that we cannot legally extend them, that we deny the request to extend them because they have expired. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion and a second on discussion. I'm wondering if the motion maker will consider advancing credits to the new permits for impact fees that have been paid and for unused permit fees? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, can we do that? MR. CUYLER: You can for the impact fees. Those run with the -- if they were paid for these -- MR. HANCE: Yes, sir. MR. CUYLER: -- then they would run with the land, so that will take care of itself. With regard to the waiver of the inspection fees, you can do that if you make a determination that monies were paid and not used. You don't have to, but you can do that if you wish to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd only like to see the unused portion applied as some sort of credit. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. MAgri, do you know if -- how much we have expended? I assume we've expended some money on inspections? MR. MAGRI: How much -- could you repeat that, please? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume we've had some inspections on site to get to the point where we are? MR. MAGRI: Yes, we have. We've had an inspection, yes, sir. MR. CUYLER: The board is trying to determine -- there's a set amount paid for the building permit for inspections, review, plan review. The board is trying to get some feel for what's been spent and what hasn't been spent out of that sum of money. MR. MAGRI: I believe you have to still require an inspection to do anything. You still have to complete most of your interior of that home. MR. HANCE: The plumbing rough end, the electrical rough end and two of the houses are at the point where the insulation is in the side walls ready for inspection. That's -- that's the point they are in. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So, they're -- MR. MAGRI: All four -- all four homes in that -- MR. HANCE: Two have not -- haven't got the installation of the sidewalls. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend my motion to carry over the impact fees or credit those toward whatever is necessary here as well as credit any inspections that have been completed to date. MR. MAGRI: We can charge them accordingly. We've done that before -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also -- MR. MAGRI: -- depending on how much is completed in the home. We'll take a look at it then. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'll also add that -- assuming that you've laid out a calendar, I think you said 12 months you can complete this? MR. HANCE: Yes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So all that will be contingent upon completion within 12 months. MR. HANCE: Sure. Sure. We're -- that will -- We're -- MR. MAGRI: We'd like a working schedule, though, of when this -- these buildings would be completed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one more amendment that I would like the motion maker to consider and that is that the new building permits be pulled within two weeks. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. What did you -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That the new permits be pulled within two weeks, so we don't have this thing hanging out. MR. HANCE: Sure. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. I'll amend the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Discussion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, just one more potential amendment. I want to be sure that what Mr. MAgri is asking for is incorporated into the motion, if you will, that in effect a schedule of construction be provided. Isn't that what you're requesting, Mr. Magri? MR. MAGRI: That's right. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: More than just a, I'll be done in a year. MR. MAGRI: That's right. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend the motion to include that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the second accept all the amendments? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The second does. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we have a motion -- let me see if I can restate it -- to deny the request for extending the existing permits, but we are going to allow you to pull new permits and apply existing impact fee credits to the new permits. Any building permit fees that are unused will be applied to the new permits. MR. MAGRI: That's right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You will pull these new permits within two weeks and you will give our building department a schedule of completion that will show ongoing work and complete it within 12 months. Is that what we -- MR. MAGRI: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's the motion. If there's no further discussion, call the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Being none, motion passes 4 to 0. MR. HANCE: I think I'm supposed to say thank you. Item #8A2 PRESENTATION OF AN UPDATE TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMHISSIONERS ON THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY COMHUNITY RATING SYSTEM PROGRAM - STAFF RECOMHENDATION APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The next item on the agenda is Item 8 (A) (2), presentation of an update to the Board of County Commissioners on the FEMA Community Rating System. MS. EDWARDS: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Edwards. MS. EDWARDS: For the record, my name is Jennifer Edwards. I'm wearing the hat today of the Acting Community Development Services Administrator. This is a good-news item. It's an update of the county's participation in FEMA's Customer Rating System Program. In 1992, you will recall we received a five percent reduction in new or renewed flood insurance due to the good job that our staff did in handling flood protection. Now, our staff has brought us to another level and they've improved our emergency responses and earned our property owners a 15 percent discount on insurance rates. Some of the activities that have brought us to this level include flood elevation. That's information that's provided to customers. Ken Pineau has worked hard on flood warning systems to the news and radio stations and talked to, of course, many groups about how to prepare for these situations. George Archibald's group worked hard with keeping our ditches and culverts clean. John Boldt, of course, is responsible for our water management, and Tom HcDaniel has been very actively preparing the mapping that is required. And, of course, Joe Hagri, who has been the coordinator of this successful mission. I'd like to inform you that only four municipalities in the state have received this and we are the first county to have achieved this level. We also have been informed that there is a new program that is upcoming that could possibly change or decrease the homeowner's insurance rate and that is a CRS rating for our building department. And that will depend on continued education and certification of our inspectors, so we can look forward to that information coming to you. My recommendation is that you accept this update to our CRS rating or rating program and that you recognize our staff for doing a super good job. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the staff recommendation. If there's discussion -- I have one question. I read a report about six weeks ago, I guess, that Mr. Clark initiated, I believe, related to the community rating system, and there was some discussion about variances that had been granted that dealt with the floodplain and FEMA's concern about the '- MS. EDWARDS: Joe Hagri may be able to answer that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just want to verify that we've satisfied their questions and concerns about the variances that we did approve. MR. CUYLER: My -- you may want to get a memo from staff. My assumption is you have as a result of the program and the discount that you've gotten. But one thing that FEMA does take a look at is the types of variances that the board grants with regard to flood elevation, whether you look at your criteria real seriously or whether you do those haphazardly. And I think the county's always been very good about being conservative in its granting of variances. Mr. Hagri may have something else to say. MR. MAGRI: I believe the planning department -- MR. CUYLER: You need to move -- Joe -- Joe, you need to get on the record. MR. MAGRI: I believe the Planning Department addressed the variances and may have talked to the board about it. It was some concern. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. There -- that's what the memo indicated -- MR. MAGRI: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and that there was ongoing questioning. I just wanted to verify that indeed all of that's been resolved and I presume because this came forward it has been. MR. MAGRI: At this point we presume that it has been -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're happy? MR. MAGRI: -- taken care of. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I just want to make sure HR. MAGRI: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- there's nothing hanging out there. MS. EDWARDS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the recommendation of staff. Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 4 to 0. Item #8A3 EHERGENCY DECLARED; ORDINANCE 95-32, AMENDING ORDINANCE 93-19, RELATING TO THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM AND RESOLUTION 95-300 APPROVING THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVE PLAN - ADOPTED The next item on the agenda is an emergency ordinance amending Ordinance 93-19 relating to the State Housing Initiatives Partnership. Mr. MAhalic. MR. MAHALIC: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Greg MAhalic, the affordable housing director for the county. And basically we have an emergency ordinance but this is essentially housekeeping measures under the SHIP affordable housing program. Basically, we're asking the commission to modify the housing incentive plan that we issued last July to the state. It talks about the kind of incentives that we should be participating in to encourage affordable housing in the state. The commission approved that and the state has been in discussion with us since then to modify this housing incentive plan, because it did not designate in one section who would be responsible for evaluating the kind of policies and procedures that come forward as they relate to affordable housing. We felt we could handle it administratively, and we've had discussions back and forth using the board's actions on their impact fee and financial impact statements. However, the board adopted that by motion and not by resolution and, so the state was reluctant to accept that because there was no resolution adopting it. So we are asking this to be declared an emergency because the state is threatening to cut off our SHIP funding if we don't pass this and make this change. And that's the declaration of emergency that we'd like to make today. On Page 4 of your packet -- and, again, we have only two small changes here. In the middle of the page, we were also designated that the annual report under the SHIP program shall be submitted to the state by the affordable housing director. And that was under a technical amendment that the state has sent out to all recipients of the SHIP funds. And a little bit lower on Page 4, you'll see that we're now adopting the housing incentive plans by resolution and not by ordinance. So from now on if we need to make a change in these plans, it will be by resolution and not by ordinance. We were the only place in the state that had adopted it by ordinance and that is not a requirement of the state at all. The only additional change and really the substantive changes is on Page 28 of your packet. I know you have a thick volume. On Page 28, under Section 8 (4), it says that "the Housing and Urban Improvement Department will be responsible for receiving before adoption policies, procedures, ordinances, regulations, or plan provisions to determine if there may be a significant impact on the cost of housing and submit the findings to the Board of County Commissioners." And, again, we were doing this now but under the ESFIS policies that was not adopted by resolution by the board, and that's why we have to make this change to define it, the State Department of Housing Finance Agencies. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? MR. MAHALIC: Any questions? MR. CUYLER: MAdam Chairman, this is one of those situations because it is an emergency ordinance, we haven't gone through our normal advertising procedure that you need to take an initial vote to declare it an emergency by at least a four-fifths majority of the board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to declare it an emergency. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to declare an emergency. Is there a discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. An emergency has been declared. Is -- are there questions on the recommendation of staff? Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion in favor of staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion and a second to approve this recommendation in amending Ordinance 93-19. Is there further discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please say aye. MR. MAHALIC: Thank you very much, Commission. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes 4 to 0. MR. CUYLER: Why don't you take a vote to adopt that resolution that's in your agenda? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Isn't it part of staff's recommendation? MR. CUYLER: I think that it is. MR. MAHALIC: Yeah. It's in our recommendation to adopt the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you want a separate motion on that, Mr. Cuyler, just to even up the record? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can go through the exercise. I'm just curious why if we -- if we passed staff's recommendation and staff's recommendation includes passing that resolution, isn't that redundant? MR. MAHALIC: Staff Recommendation 2 is passing the resolution approving the housing incentive plan. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It seems doubly redundant. MR. CUYLER: As long as your motion included that. I didn't hear whether -- when you said staff recommendation, I didn't hear whether the Chairman said pass the ordinance or staff recommended. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I said staff recommendation to amend the ordinance. MR. CUYLER: Okay. Then we probably need to make sure the record is clear and the resolution is adopted too. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to adopt the resolution. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to adopt the resolution included in the package. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 4 to 0. MR. MAHALIC: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Mahalic. Item #SB1 RESOLUTION 95-301, LOWERING THE SPEED LIHIT FROH FORTY-FIVE HILES PER HOUR TO FORTY MILES PER HOUR ALONG C.R. 92 (SAN MARCO ROAD) FROM S.R. 951 (COLLIER BOULEVARD) TO FLORAL STREET - ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENTS The next item on the agenda, 8 (B) (1) under transportation. Recommendation to lower the speed limit to 40 miles per hour on Marco Island, a section of. Mr. Archibald. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald, before you start -- Commissioner Norris, I'm going to assume you know the transportation and safety issues on Marco better than any of us. If you're familiar with this, maybe you can give us some sort of recommendation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are there any public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There are? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to get a short presentation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is in response to some unfortunate incidents that have happened down there. Perhaps the public speakers are going to allude to it. We'll see. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think it might not be bad if Mr. Archibald gave us a really short overview of what is requested. MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, the resolution before you recommends a reduction in speed from 45 miles per hour to 40 miles an hour for an area extending approximately 2.5 miles to the east of Collier Boulevard and 951. We're requesting that the board consider the resolution. If, in fact, the board does, they need to confirm that that distance would be, in fact, the distance between Collier on the west and Floral Street on the east. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm going to assume that the board has no particular objection to that and I'll ask the -- or just let the public speakers know that if you're in favor of it -- if you want to come speak, that's fine. If not, that's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, would you call their names? And if you are in favor of this, I don't see any reason why we wouldn't do it you could waive your right to speak if you choose. MR. DORRILL: Miss Melville. MS. MELVILLE: No, not really. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: She waives her right. MR. DORRILL: Okay. Mr. Klein? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Klein. MR. KLEIN: Yeah. I'm in favor of it but -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. KLEIN: -- there's some other things I think that need to be brought up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Klein stated he's in favor of it. HR. DORRILL: Hiss Berg? HS. BERG: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Berg -- MR. DORRILL: Followed by Mr. Spano. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- wishes to speak. MS. BERG: I wish to speak. I'm Virginia Berg. at 1950 San Marco Road and I'm a Collier resident. I live San Marco Road is a residential area compared to years ago. There are many houses on San Marco Road for which the majority of driveways need to back into the road. In addition, San Marco Road has a substantial number of bicycles, walkers and roller bladers. I want to remind you there are not continuous sidewalks so pedestrians need to walk along the road, both children and the elderly. We appreciate the transportation department performing an engineering study. I would like to note an important error on the report. I refer to my copy of the agenda, item number 8 (B) (1) for today, Page 4, last paragraph, bottom two lines which states, quote, and there is a, quote, no passing, end quote, zone in effect the length of State Road 92 from State Road 951 to Dogwood Drive, end quote. That is incorrect. It certainly should be no passing but it's not. I would like to note for you to look at the map which I have noted the current passing areas with green dots. To repeat myself, they are in direct conflict to your report. I also provide photos showing dangerous passing zones at bends and I will refer to those photos later. Now, I refer back to Page 4 on the agenda item. Note the same bottom paragraph mentioned too, quote, the sidewalk is ten feet or greater from the edge of the pavement on both sides of the roadway, end quote. However, it lacks mentioning the sidewalks are not continuous which leads children and walkers to the edge of the road. And working on that page -- working up that page as shown on Page 4, I want to point out the study's result of the location on SR-92 just west of Anchor Court, 85 percent speed is at 49 miles per hour. That is one block from my house and my neighbor's which need to back out of their driveways into that traffic especially dangerous when commercial vehicles such as fully loaded cement trucks, et cetera, view San Marco Road for entry onto Marco Island. The two other locations on the study confirm high speeds for residential areas with 85 percent speed at 43 miles per hour. The location on study at Sandhill Street is also a major concern of ours. Between Sandhill and Heathwood, we have a hub of civic activity locations. Within a couple of blocks, we have the YHCA, Tommy Barfield Elementary School, Hackle Park, the county library, a tennis court -- or tennis club, excuse me. There is a lot of activity in that area, a lot of kids and adults walking and on bicycles. Myself and a large consensus of the population of Marco feel the agenda reports of recommendation of 40 miles per hour is still too high. We realize it's an arterial road; however, we feel since it is residential, 35 miles per hour is more appropriate. For the record, I present the petitions, primarily signatures of residents on Marco Island, 101 signatures collected just this past weekend. We feel the maximum speeds should be 35 miles per hour. I would like to note that I had a telephone conversation last Thursday, April 20th with Dan Burden, a traffic specialist with the Florida Department of Transportation. He was involved in a recent workshop of the Marco division planning. He advised and I made -- I made note for you our conversation. And he confirmed a conclusion of the Marco Island vision is striving for speeds not more than 35 miles per hour. He agrees with the maximum speed of 35 miles per hour on San Marco Road even though it is designed and capable for higher. I realize cost is a major concern. I submit two ideas for traffic calming which would be low cost and Dan Burden would agree -- agree, excuse me, could be effective. I asked Dan Burden about the user-friendly shoulder which so many people use for biking, roller blading and walking. He advised if it is four feet, then the state would allow it to be marked. It is not marked now. I measured in four areas. It is exactly 48 inches. In some areas you need to kick back the grass but the pavement is there. As a traffic calming feature, why doesn't the department mark the whole side or essential to the bicycle every two thousand feet all the way down on the road both sides where there is a four-foot shoulder. This would allow tens of thousands of visitors what that area is on the road and also would give local residents a reminder to slow down. The second traffic calming feature I suggest is similar to what was done on State Road 951 as the road widened. It is a patch of raised grooves in the roadway for drivers to wake up and pay attention. I suggest on San Marco Road heading west from 41 where the speed limit will be reduced have a patch a raised grooves and a sign on the side such as "residential, caution, driveways" and a new speed limit sign placed there also. There is a bend in the road and many drivers might not realize it's turning from rural to residential. Back to the Sandhill area, we should have a patch of raised grooves on each side of the four-block hub area. The patches approaching the area should be just east of the -- east of the Sandhill Street and just west of Heathwood. At this mid-block crossing, Dan Burden suggested a refuge island in the middle of the road. It would help change the character of the road and the cost could be about five to ten thousand dollars. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you wrap it up? Your time is MS. BERG: Oh, sure. I'm almost done. I also want to point out there are two bends in the road which especially do not make sense for passing. We do not -- we do need to correct this. I provide those photos in the map. I -- these bends are both in two areas of my main concern. This is a small map and it does not accurately show the bends. That's why I provided the photos. The first bend is the Sandhill Street. The first photo shows the bend facing east and you may note the passing zone on both sides painted in the road. It says school. Okay. I provide a photo of each direction of that bend show -- clearly showing the passing zone. The second bend is heading east before Sunset with a passing zone clearly showing number -- on photo number four. The third -- photo number three is in the same section of the road. You can see the street sign, San Marco Road and Anchor Court. To repeat myself, this is where your study showed 85 percent of the speed is at 49 miles per hour. In your photo you should notice the walkers on the shoulder and the house has kids' equipment behind up on the hill. There are several houses with kids in that section of the road. I would like to compare our road to Bald Eagle Drive on Marco. They have a high volume in traffic and it seems they have less houses on Bald Eagle Drive, yet there -- at Bald Eagle has 35 miles an hour speed and it seems to work there. To summarize, I want a reduced speed limit. I request 35 miles an hour and a no passing zone especially for bends in the road. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald, how did you arrive -- your recommendations for 40 -- I'm just curious, why at 40 and not 35 or not 45? I know it's -- MR. ARCHIBALD: I think a lot of us would like to see 35, but we've got to be realistic. You may be creating a much more dangerous condition by just arbitrarily lowering the speed limit from 45 to 35, and our approach was a more progressive approach. What we wanted to do is, one, recognize that the speed limit in there is 45 now. We've got to recognize that everybody is comfortable in driving between 40 and 50 miles per hour. And the first effort we want to try and do is get people to recognize, as has been pointed out, that the area is residential, that, in fact, there is an increased usage and change of the character. So our proposal here is to go ahead and make an attempt to reduce it from 45 to 40, see if we can get some level of compliance, and then come back probably a year from now and see whether we can be successful in reducing it from 40 to 35. But just to go out there, arbitrarily reduce it from 40 to 35 and recognizing that those drivers out there may not end up respecting that, may not end up creating a condition that's conducive to the use of both the roadway or vehicles and also the paved shoulder for pedestrians. The other issue that was very important to us is the issue that we have not marked the paved shoulder out there. And the very simple reason is that we've got a school route in place. We don't want to encourage the school children; very, very young school children -- of getting out there and using the paved shoulder. We want the children to stay on the sidewalk. We want the children to use the mid-block signal crossings that have been provided. So, again, until we can gradually get some control of the speed and get some recognition by the residents that the speed should be lowered, we may be not only fooling ourselves, but we may be creating a much less safe condition, because we've all experienced drivers driving too slow on roadways and that, in fact, will create a hazard both to the driver and to those that are along the roadway or adjacent to it. In regards to the sidewalk, we have, in fact, interconnected many of the missing links along there. I think the only areas that remain, so-called yet to be interconnected, are a very short segment to the west of Heathwood and a very -- a longer segment to the east of Barfield. And as we have money to interconnect those, we will. But your staff feels like the first step is the proposed recognition of the area. And, in fact, we're looking in creating no passing zones coming into that area and providing the appropriate warning signs to try and get people's attention that as it's just been outlined, that that area is changing. Although there is a lot of commercial on the east end, it is, in fact, all residential on the west end. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question for George, if you could just translate for me plainly. Are there -- are there items in what you were proposing that were identified by the last speaker in some of those wake-up speed bump kind of signs and some of the things that she described? I mean are there similarities or are there -- are there points of mutuality there? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. In terms of concern, with the way we have approached those would be signing and going ahead and creating added no passing zones particularly in some of the intersections. So I believe many of the points that she addressed are, in fact, included in activities under way or have been completed. But, no, we have not included any calming activities as of yet. I think your calming task force is still going through the analysis of determining what are the appropriate measures for different roadways. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a general question about that calming task force. Do we have the -- like ETA on that committee? Do we what date we might expect a report from them? There are so many people concerned with those recommendations. And it seems like a lot of things are sort of halted until we get them. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. And I would like to think for good reason. A lot of effort and a lot of public input is being put into that. And right now they're reviewing some draft documents that ultimately will come before the board. I can't give you a time frame right now. I would like to think sometime in the summer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. I just would like to point out, too, that the Marco visioning process is well under way. The recent -- a couple weeks back, they had a surette and they talked about a number of traffic changes that they may want to implement down on Marco. So before we get too carried away with making sweeping changes, I think we should involve them in the process. I spoke to some of those members last night and they're very excited about some of the bike path improvements, sidewalk improvements and the -- the traffic calming measures that they want to implement down on Marco. But, of course that -- that needs to come to a final decision which they're getting close to agreement on. And so, I think we -- we want to do what we can for the moment but keep in mind that those people have worked very hard, and we don't want to do something contrary to what they have in mind either. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, are there additional speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Spano. Following he, Mr. Stinchcomb. MR. SPANO: Good morning, Commissioners. Bob Spano, principal at Tommy Barfield Elementary School on Marco Island. I'm not only in favor of reducing the speed limit on County Road 92 from 45 to 40 but would also recommend changing it to 35. I've driven the roads on Marco for the past nine months and I do not believe there are any roads that need to be 45 miles per hour on Marco Island, especially not County Road 92. We have an elementary school with 500 children, the YHCA and Hackle Park all within a short walking distance to County Road 92. Children are crossing the street daily. The studies by Nancy Frye, engineering technician, showed that 85 percent of the cars traveling County Road 92 are traveling within a posted -- within the posted speed limits. This tells me that the Sheriff's Department is doing their job and speed limits are clearly posted. It does not tell me that the speed is appropriate. Considering the number of accidents and location of the school, the Y, and the park, I'm asking that you will consider reducing the speed on County Road 92 from 45 to 35 miles per hour. Thank you for considering this request. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: I have one question just for Mr. Spano. Are you aware that the school board has a safety committee? MR. SPANO: Yes. I am aware of that, and every year we submit those requests to the transportation department. MR. DORRILL: Are you also aware of the fact that the school board is not currently spending any of its own money on school safety-related issues whether they pertain to crossings or school crossing guards or signals? My only point being that as increasingly school issues -- whether it's the Poinciana Elementary School or Tommy Barfield, I think it is -- while certain roadways are maintained and our responsibility, it would certainly help us a little bit if the school board would recognize and put a little higher priority on school safety-related issues as well, if for no other reason than school crossing guards because they're being solely funded by the Board of County Commissioners. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Although I may agree with you, Mr. Dotrill, I don't think Mr. Spano is here to answer for the school board. MR. DORRILL: I wouldn't intend for him to. I'm just saying there's another vehicle through the superintendent's advisory committee process that increasingly we're being inundated with school safety-related issues and we can certainly appreciate some help there at least as a professional to advise the superintendent that this might need a little higher priority would help you, the County Commissioners, fund these types of things. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My guess is that Mr. Spano has been working his back end off to get the school board to do something on that roadway for a number of years. Would that be correct, Mr. Spano? MR. SPANO: I've been there just this year, and we have submitted those requests through the school board, and we do have monies for school safety although the roads is not a school issue. And this is more than just a school issue. This is a child issue with -- mentioning Tommy Barfield Elementary, the YHCA, and the park. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll take your comments and talk to the school board and see if we can't work out something that's a little more amenable. I think it's a good point. I just didn't want Mr. Spano to bear the brunt of -- MR. DORRILL: I'm not holding him responsible for that. I'm just saying we need to try and increase the awareness and get the school board to work with us on some of these. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll make a note of that and talk to -- MR. DORRILL: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Mr. Faerber about it. MR. SPANO: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, you had a comment? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just for what it's worth, I didn't know that about the school board's budget, so I appreciate you bringing it up. And to the extent it bolsters your communication with people at the school board, for my vote, I'm going to be looking for some school board money to help with the school issues whether they be located on roads or not. I'm surprised by that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have another speaker? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Stinchcomb. Following he, Miss Beck. MR. STINCHCOHB: Commissioners, my name's Tim Stinchcomb and I live at 1935 San Marco Road. It's picture three on that piece of paper. I've lived there for about six years now and about three years ago, I pulled six kids out of a head-on collision right in front of my house when the trucks were on fire because they were going exceedingly past the speed limit, close to about 75-85 miles an hour. I pulled them out just before the two trucks burned. Just recently in January, I lost a little kid, 12 years old, from a traffic accident because one of the lights is -- that's sitting right in front of the fire department is blocked by a tree and you can't see the light. Also, the school section -- I've traveled around Collier County for 26 years and the school section, our school section, has got to be the fastest school section in this city. It's 45 miles an hour and there's only a hundred feet before you can stop for the school crossing, which Mr. Spano has brought police cars into the crossing area where they sit there with their lights on. The people -- the cross-guard goes across the street and the cars still go by the cross-guard because they don't -- they just don't pay attention. And I think the speed limit should be 35 miles an hour. And that's all I can say. I hope we can reduce the speed. MR. DORRILL: Miss Beck. And, Mr. Beck, if I could have you stand by, please, sir. MS. BECK: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Beth Beck. I'm the mother of Tyler Beck who was the child who was killed in January on Marco Island. I completely, a hundred percent, support a 35-mile-an-hour speed limit on that road. And in support of a no passing area, since Tyler's death, I have become very aware of children, bicycles, pedestrians, safety on Marco Island. I'm always looking. And I must tell you that just within the last couple months, I have seen so many near misses with children crossing from the Y across San Marco Road trying to gauge what's a safe time to go. They look. They see the automobiles, but they do not realize it's a passing zone. So they're seeing cars coming. They make their cross, and, meanwhile, a car comes out to pass. And I've seen a couple near misses so I fully support a no passing zone. There are a lot of children crossing to the Y, a lot of children crossing from the school over. They go to Hackle Park. They go to the library. And 35 miles an hour is what I consider to be a good speed for that road. 40 is still too high. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Beck. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: First of all, is there a no passing zone in that area part of your proposal? MR. ARCHIBALD: It's already signed for no passing. What hasn't been done as part of the state contract was to go ahead and provide the double yellow. Keep in mind the county has provided the most safe crossing you can have. We've constructed and has operated and has been out there historically a mid-block pedestrian crossing signal. And what happens is children hit that signal and it doesn't slow cars down. It brings them to a stop. So you have a stopped condition on 92 for the children to cross. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that in the area that this lady was just describing where the children are trying to cross from the Y and -- and are trying to judge, you know, the passing of cars, that issue? That's -- that's what I was addressing. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, it is. Just to the west of there, again we have a mid-block signal. It's been put in there for the simple reason to provide that ultimate level of protection to bring those cars to a stop. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How far is -- MR. ARCHIBALD: Now, if children don't elect to use that COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How far away is it? You say just to the west of the area she was describing. I mean how far away would a kid have to walk? MR. ARCHIBALD: The YHCA is, I believe, about a block away, probably a few hundred feet. And, again, the county has spent dollars in assuring that there is a sidewalk that's separated from the roadway. And, again, we don't want to encourage the young children to use the edge of the roadway. But, in fact, on that roadway, we feel that the most positive thing that could be done has been done and is to provide a signal that brings that traffic to a stop. And the problems that we obviously have and that exists throughout the island and exists throughout the county is that if children for one reason or another at one time or another choose to cross at other locations, then that's a condition that I don't think we can address. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question was you mentioned about the double yellow lines. That's something that the state would do as opposed to us? Is that what I understood? MR. ARCHIBALD: No. We can do that. There's other locations where we will be doing it this year. But, in fact, in most school zones, what we have is signing to advise people of no passing. We can reinforce that again by pavement markings. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It seems to me that people drive by signage all the time and just don't even see it. I know when I'm driving, the center lane markings tell me a lot more about what the driving situation is than necessarily signs posted. MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, keep in mind part of the concern and part of what we had to analyze in the studies that are dictated by state law is, in fact, the condition you have out there now versus the condition that will be created after some action is taken. And keep in mind the concern we have is not making it more safe, making it less safe. And you can increase the people passing whether it's marked or not by arbitrarily slowing down the speed. I think ultimately we want to see a speed limit of 35 miles per hour but we don't feel that that's going to be accomplished overnight. And I think that you don't accomplish it by putting up a sign and enforcing it two hours of the day. You accomplish that by making sure the public knows why you're doing it and gradually get them to respect that slower speed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That may be true, Mr. Archibald. With that in mind, would it be reasonable to set a time frame to step it back so that -- and I'm making this up. You need to help me. But for three months or six months or whatever time frame it takes to get the motoring public used to -- that's a separate thing. And then we have a set calendar date which we can take the next step to 35. MR. ARCHIBALD: I think a period of time, four to six months, possibly even sooner, what your staff can do is after -- if -- if, in fact, the board approves the 40 -- the speed zone, we can go in there after three months and after six months and do a study and see whether or not we're getting results. And if we are, come back to the board with the recommendation to lower it down to 35 because I think that's our goal. It's how do we get there. What's the safest way of doing it so that, in fact, we don't create a less safe condition, nor do we create a liability for any of us. MR. DORRILL: This is Mr. Beck and then he will be followed by Miss Sweetland. Mr. Beck. MR. BECK: Ed Beck, Marco Island resident. First off, Commissioner Norris, you may remember my daughter wrote a letter to you concerning this and you sent condolences to her and us, and we thank you very much for that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're welcome. MR. BECK: I don't have your response with me, but I believe you implied you were going to forward that to Tallahassee with the implication being that this is a state road and thereby a state problem. I got the impression that you really didn't feel you even had the jurisdiction. We should be talking to them. Now, I'm wondering today if, in fact, you can change the speed limit. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, we can. MR. BECK: Okay. Okay. I'm sure, Mr. Archibald, you're aware of the fact that as you approach Marco westbound from the Goodland area, the speed limit drops to 35 miles an hour prior to Barfield. That's the Publix shopping center. It's -- there's a white 35-mile-per-hour speed limit sign. There's no question about it. It stays at 35 as you head westbound just until you approach the YHCA, then it rises back up to 45. Are you aware of that, sir? MR. ARCHIBALD: No. What you're talking about are advisory signing -- MR. BECK: This is -- MR. ARCHIBALD: -- and what we've installed there is, in fact, advisory signing. MR. BECK: No, sir. This is a white legal speed limit sign, just like the 45-mile-per-hour sign. It's not an amber sign. It doesn't say warning, caution. The speed limit is 35 miles per hour. MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, I'm not aware of it. I wish that zone was in place and had been in place. And keep in mind that road has just been subject to a state contract improvement. So the state was out there undertaking improvements but to my knowledge, they did not install any signs like that. MR. BECK: Yes, there is. I've been there for four years. I believe that 35-mile-per-hour sign has been there the whole time. Regardless of that -- we can go out there now and look at it, but it's -- your proposal now is actually going to raise the limit there to 40, believe it or not, which is -- I can't even imagine that. But it is 35 miles per hour as you approach Marco Island. Then it goes back to 45 miles an hour westbound. Now, eastbound, it's 45 the whole way. So, you've got a stretch there of a half a mile or so where it's 35 going one way and 45 going the other way. These are the legal speed limits. I'm not making this up. The signs are there. MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, somebody may have installed those signs. I can't fathom the state doing that nor the county because, in fact, if somebody has installed the 35-mile-per-hour sign or a 25-mile-per-hour sign, that doesn't make it legal or correct. And what we're trying to do today is, in fact, establish the appropriate zoning. We know how fast people are driving through there no matter what it's posted. MR. BECK: What do you mean -- MR. ARCHIBALD: So obviously -- MR. BECK: In other words, the 35-mile-per-hour sign is not a legal -- that doesn't make it legally binding? MR. ARCHIBALD: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Beck, could you -- could you comment to us? I mean you're carrying on a dialogue here that -- MR. BECK: Okay. Well, this is what it is. It's 35 miles per hour as you approach the Publix shopping center, then it goes back to 45 just before the YMCA. Now, you -- you go by the YMCA, you go by the school crossing, you come up to the fire station. There's some serious signage problems there. There's a -- okay. The fire station has no warning signs out in front of it. Those fire trucks have to pull out into that traffic where the legal speed limit is 45 miles per hour unlike on 951 where they have the flashing yellow lights which they can turn on during an emergency. Our fire station doesn't have that. The fire station has a warning sign with a fire truck in front of it. Right in front of that they have placed a big green street sign, Heathwood, which -- so you can barely see the fire station sign. There is a yellow amber sign right there, too, 25 miles per hour. I've been told that's not legally binding. That's a caution. But as you approach the fire station and immediately back beyond that it's Heathwood and 62 feet beyond that is where my child was hit. The legal speed limit I've been told by some people is 45 miles per hour. Nonetheless, there is a 25-mile-per-hour warning sign there which apparently has no legal binding, so why put it there? It's just a recommendation but if somebody wants to ignore it, I suppose they can do so. The tree was already mentioned. I've mentioned that tree as well a couple of times. It was mentioned in my daughter's letter. I know nobody's trimmed that tree. If you're in a mini van or a vehicle with a high seat, you do not see the traffic light just beyond that tree and the fire station, the traffic light just beyond which my son was hit, so there were more problems. 35 miles per hour -- for one thing, since it's already in place on a stretch of road, it's not going to be a drastic change. It's -- really, in that stretch it's not doing anything. You want to raise it there, I presume. So we need it to be 35. That's fine. There's speed bumps and other things are essential. There's just one other point I would like to make. Crossing at the crosswalks can be very dangerous on Marco because there are cars making right on red. Legal stop, make a right turn on red and a guy could be crossing right there. When you stop, you look to your left for traffic. You start in and then you can see pedestrians there. Sometimes it's safer to cross in the middle of the street because you only have to worry about traffic from two directions, left and right. In a crosswalk, you got to be looking four different directions even in the crosswalks, sir. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Beck. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, Mr. Beck, I thank you for bringing up a problem that I'm sure Mr. Archibald has now made a note about regarding consistent signage in that area and an overall review of what is down there. I think we're trying to get to the same place. I don't think anyone up here is trying to hold it 45 or wants it to stay at 40. Your comments sound reasonable. Mr. Archibald has stated that he feels there is a safer method by which to get there then just placing the signs up today. I think we all can agree that that's where we'd like to go, and I think we can adequately direct staff to proceed in that in the safest manner possible and in the most timely manner possible and get most of these things achieved including the double-lane stripings. So, again, I don't think there's a difference in where we want to go. But with the experience Mr. Archibald has, I would like to incorporate what he feels is the safest way for that part of the community to get there as a part of this decision. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, is there another speaker? MS. MELVILLE: I've changed my mind. MR. KLEIN: Yes. Me, too. MR. DORRILL: Miss Sweetland? I'll call them in the order and then we'll go back to the start. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make a suggestion for efficiency here. Perhaps as we have questions of Mr. Archibald, we can jot them down and ask them after all the speakers have had an opportunity to speak rather than every time. MS. SWEETLAND: I just have a few points I'd like to say. My name is Mary Sweetland. I live at 1564 Buccaneer Court. I'm a Marco resident. A few points I'd like to make first of all. Mr. Archibald had commented that it's comfortable for people to drive at 40 miles an hour and I totally disagree with that. I have two children and they need to cross over San Marco Road twice every day to get to the bus stop. And it terrifies me every time they go on to San Marco Road. My son was hit by a car in early March on San Marco Road right by the YMCA doing what he was supposed to be doing on the shoulder of the road that people are calling a bike path which it is not. I do believe that reducing the speed limit will ensure some safety in these kids. It is an extremely congested area. There's the YMCA. There's Mackle Park. There's the public library. There's a racquetball club. There's Tommy Barfield Elementary. And there are 500 children at the elementary school. I think for the safety of our kids it is essential to reduce the speed limit. I do not believe that it should be held off any longer. It's going to kill another child. And I think that we all need to consider that it's up to us. It's our responsibility to ensure safety on our kids. And I do not believe that it needs to be held up any longer. That's all I need to say. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Sweetland. And then we'll go back to Miss Melville. MR. SWEETLAND: Good morning. MR. DORRILL: Good morning. MR. SWEETLAND: My name is Randy Sweetland. I have a few comments to Mr. Archibald. I've been in law enforcement for 23 years and I consider -- expertise in safety. He's -- I can't believe what I've been hearing this morning. I mean when he was saying not -- that we could bring the speed limit down to 35. There's a major enforcement problem on Marco. I'm very nervous up here just because my son was just hit on that road. Very luckily he wasn't killed. It took the front of his bicycle right off. He was in the sidewalk; the nonsidewalk, which they consider a bike path which it is not. You're very incorrect on some of your information on -- for my son to get to the Y, to go to school, he has to ride on the shoulder of the road or go a half mile out of his way through a congested back street route to get to that so-called center light which is there for Tommy Barfield crossing in the morning. He's in middle school at Hanatee. When he comes home, there is no enforcement there at that light. He, again, is required by the county school system to catch the bus there. I went around and around with my daughter. The county school system is telling our kids they cross -- they're putting my bus stops further towards Goodland area, so that means they would have to go one mile down which would be heading towards Collier Boulevard, cross at the light and head back up where there is no sidewalks. I think a lot of times that the school system and the county doesn't realize it's easy to look at a map, but if you don't understand that there is no sidewalks there, there may be construction going on where they're blocked, and you have to go on a road that's 45 miles an hour. That's ludicrous. It can't happen. The speed limit can be dropped to 35 miles an hour and it can be very easily done. You post it in the newspaper and you do some enforcement -- enforcement on Marco Island, and I can guarantee -- I've traveled throughout the world in law enforcement. Police enforcement on Marco is unbelievably poor when it comes to traffic violations. In my four years on Marco, I've probably seen radar set up twice. In your study, you -- you -- it came out 49 miles an hour. Why is that? It's an enforcement problem. It ends right here. This issue is not -- it's a safety issue for our children. It's going to save lives. We have to get with this program. We are the only ones. We are the parents and the grown-ups and we can change it. That's the only way it will happen. ll-year-old kids, 12-year-old kids and under, they're going to do crazy stuff. It may have been my son's fault when he turned to look to cross to get to the Y to go to a bike safety seminar which he was almost killed. When he turned to look, he -- his handle bar was one foot over that line. He was tagged. Luckily he wasn't killed. If the speed limit was 30, that car probably could -- in my experience could have avoided that collision. If the speed limit was 30 in that intersection, Tyler Beck may be here today. And we're talking about saving lives here, not inconvenience somebody. This morning before I came here -- if you cut your speed limit from where we're talking about on that two-and-a-half-mile stretch, you only lose three minutes of time, three minutes here. Who's got to be there that fast? Nobody. Nobody. Save lives. I don't care about inconvenience to people. They inconvenience me. I live there. The tourists, they're not going to know. They come down the island. They respond like I would if I went to Maine. If I see a speed limit sign, I adhere to it. Eventually you're not going to adhere to signs if there is no enforcement. We have two issues here. Enforcement of speed limit signs. Mr. Beck brought a point up that 35-mile-an-hour speed limit sign has been here, been at that point ever since I've been on the island. I take note of that kind of things. I just hope that we can put it down to 35. It's a major school area. The principal of Tommy Barfield, he knows it more than ever. I would imagine probably over -- almost half his kids that come to that school don't ride buses. Host of my son's friends now, their parents don't let them ride bikes because they're afraid. I don't blame them. We have to make a stand here. Lower the speed limit. It's a start. 40 is not acceptable. We all know that. I'm sure the thing at 40 is not acceptable. Your reaction time at 40 miles an hour on a two-lane road in a residential area is very -- how many feet do you go in 40 -- when you try to slam on your brake? Drop it down to 35 and enforce it. That's the whole point. One question I may have for Mr. Archibald. Why -- why do you think that it's going to -- that it would be a danger? You never told me what danger are we imposing on anybody by dropping it down to 35? From 45 to 35 starting tomorrow, what danger is that going to impose on anyone? MR. ARCHIBALD: Should I respond? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. You can respond. Mr. Sweetland, your time is expired. MR. SWEETLAND: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you respond to that, Mr. Archibald? MR. ARCHIBALD: Just I think that the -- the concern that we have has been brought out today. The area that they're indicating has the 35-mile-per-hour warning signs, our study revealed that that's the area where the 85 percentile speed is 49 miles per hour. So what we have to recognize is there's not always a direct relationship between the numbers on the sign and the numbers on the speedometer. And that's the concern that we have is that I don't want children to be expecting vehicles to travel at 35 miles per hour when I know that the likelihood is that there are going to be traveling at a much higher rate of speed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It seems to me right now they're expecting them to travel at 45 and they're traveling higher than that. I'm not sure I see a whole lot of difference. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: George, in -- when there were some new stop signs put in on Vanderbilt Drive, the Sheriff's Office was good enough to sit someone out there as much as they could to, you know, make people aware of the new signage. I'm confident we could probably get the Sheriff's Office to help us out here for a couple days, too, should we reduce the speed limit, that they would help us with that immediate notification of drivers. It's amazing. You put a police car beneath a sign and people see it so much easier. I can't figure that one out. But I really think that if we make a nice polite request that the Sheriff's Office will be more than happy to help us out in the immediate stages. Do you think that would have a significant impact on the transition that you're talking about? MR. ARCHIBALD: It could for a very short period of time. And I'd like to take us back very quickly to what we did at Vanderbilt Drive. A very narrow corridor, there's not much right of way there. Even with police cars at the stops, even with cones at the intersection, guess what? People drove by the cones, drove by the police officers. So we've got to recognize that whenever a change is made, it takes time to -- for people to not only recognize the change but also to adjust to it. And that's what we're attempting to do here is ultimately gain the same control but possibly over a period of time. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, any other -- MR. DORRILL: Miss Melville. Mr. Klein, you'll be next if you now wish to speak. MS. MELVILLE: I live on a street that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have to identify yourself. MS. MELVILLE: Oh, Jacqueline Melville, 51 Gulfport Court. Regarding the 35-mile-an-hour speed limit, I understand that was put in -- that sign was put in because a preschool petitioned to have it there. So that was why it was put right there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, ma'am. I'm sorry. MS. MELVILLE: I live on a street that ends at San Marco Road. During the season in order to make a left-hand or right-hand turn, I have to be able to turn and go from zero to 50 miles an hour at the count of five because there's always the chance the way those people speed on that street that I'll get hit. When I went around getting petitions signed, there was a man that lives right opposite Gulfport and he said that -- he was going to build -- he was renting -- and that he would like to buy the lot next to the house because it has a wide water view. He said nobody in their right mind would buy a lot on this street with traffic the way it speeds. And I really think that 35 miles an hour is not going to hurt anybody. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Klein and then, I believe, we were back to Miss Berg. And I think, Miss Berg, you spoke first that so that would conclude the speakers. MR. KLEIN: Yes, I'm Anthony Klein. I live at 980 San Marco Road. I'm also in favor of the 35-mile-an-hour speed limit. Mr. Archibald referred to adjustments. My feeling is let's do it one time. Why should we go through adjustments two times? I came from Chicago and I have to tell you that 45-mile-an-hour speed limit in that area in Chicago would never be allowed in a street similar to the one on San Marco. You can go on the outer drive which is eight lanes across and go 45 but not on a two-lane residential street. Also, the 45-mile-an-hour speed limit is not just not consistent with the rest of Marco. I don't know of any other street on Marco that allows 45 miles an hour. The 35-mile-an-hour speed limit sign that's referred to, and I think Mr. Archibald referred to it as an advisory sign or something of that nature. It's not. It's an official 35-mile-an-hour speed limit sign. I looked at it before I came to this meeting today. Also, in the accident reviews, in '94, there were 24 accidents on that road. Out of that a third of those were rear-end accidents which tells me somebody's going too fast and not able to stop fast enough when the car in front of them does. If we disregarded the ten single car accidents in the report, over half of the accidents then were rear-end accidents. I firmly believe that we should lower that 35 -- speed limit to 35 miles an hour and it should be done now. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. That's the last speaker? MR. DORRILL: I believe so. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Archibald, does county have the ability to trim that tree there by the fire station that we've heard mention that is blocking that light? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, we do. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And do we -- do we have some additional signage that we could place on this roadway that might be helpful in referencing children activity and that sort of thing that perhaps would alert people to use a little more caution? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, there is. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. In that case, I'll make a motion that for this road segment we set the speed limit at 35 miles an hour, we take action to trim this tree so that that fire station -- that light at -- that's the one at Heathwood, I assume, right? Yeah. That light is plainly visible and that we install some appropriate cautionary signage referencing children on that road segment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Will the motion maker amend to include no passing striping in the section closest to the school? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I understood that we were going to -- we already had that planned. Did we already have that plan? If not, I'll put that in the motion that we go ahead and put the no passing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to see it done sooner rather than later. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I'll add that into the motion and that we go ahead and paint that striping on the road indicating no passing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got one other amendment that I'd like the motion maker to entertain. And that is that we post warning signs -- I've seen this done in different places -- warning signs for the next six months prior to the speed limit change with maybe flags or something on it to note that there is a speed limit change to bring attention to the fact that there has been a change. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean concurrent with the speed limit change? You said prior to. I want to make sure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Concurrent to. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That there -- prior to the physical limit, you know, distance of the sign. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We change the signs and put up the warnings? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. When you change speed limit sign, put up a warning sign, I don't know, 200 feet before the first speed limit change that there has been a speed limit change. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to point out, if I'm correct, that Collier Boulevard, Bald Eagle, and Barfield all are 35 miles an hour at this time, aren't they? MR. ARCHIBALD: I believe so. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe so. So, this is really the only 45-mile-an-hour speed limit left on Marco Island in the first place, I think, so -- MR. ARCHIBALD: It is. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- if we change it to 35, it's really just being consistent with the rest of the island. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I just want the drivers to note -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: that, too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: amendments? Sure. -- that the traffic is reduced. That's fine. I'll amend to do Will the second accept the COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Let me see if I can clear up the motion and get it on the record. That would be the speed limit would be 35 miles per hour, that double striping for no passing occur as soon as possible, that warning signs of children at play or, et cetera, be posted as well, that for the next six months warning signs of speed limit change be instituted and that the tree blocking the fire station signage be trimmed. Is that the essence of the motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. It's actually a traffic light at Heathwood and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a traffic light. I'm sorry. A traffic light -- the tree is blocking a traffic light and that it be trimmed. Is that -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- the motion? We have a motion and a second. Mr. Archibald, do you have a comment? MR. ARCHIBALD: I'll assume that we'll amend the resolution and that this speed zone will be in place from Collier on the west to Floral Street on the east? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe that's what we're talking about. MR. ARCHIBALD: Roughly, two and a half miles. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One final thought. Commissioner Norris or Commissioner Matthews, as chairwoman, you may want to contact the Sheriff's Department in conjunction with this and ask for a cooperative effort in enforcing that as well. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I just think a letter referencing our action today and asking for some additional supervision there at that roadway from the chair would be appropriate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you. We'll take a break for 15 minutes. We'll get back at ten minutes of. (A recess was had from 10:35 a.m. until 10:55 a.m.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County Commission meeting for April 25th, 1995. Item #SG1 RECOHMENDATION THAT STAFF BE AUTHORIZED TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MATERIALS RECLAMATION FACILITY WITH FCR, INC. PURSUANT TO RFP-94-2265 FOR SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES - APPROVED The next item on the agenda is Item 8 (G) (1). It's a recommendation of the Board of County Commissioners to look at reclamation facility. MR. RUSSELL: Good morning. For the record, David Russell, Solid Waste Department. This executive summary seeks to authorize staff to further investigate a material reclamation facility in a joint effort with Collier and Lee Counties. We bring this to you as a result of -- Hay 26th, 1994, the board awarded and qualified seven of ten firms replying -- responding to a request for qualifications for alternative technologies. And of those seven, three made responses to an RFP and those three companies were BWT Waste Solutions that offered a composting and sorting technology, a Bedminister bioconversion that offered a composting and sorting technology, and FCR, Inc. that offered a materials reclamation facility. A key factor in this recommendation relates to the siting of such facilities. The RFP required that the -- and identified that the site would be located at our current landfill facility. Since that time the board has indicated that the continued landfilling activity is no longer appropriate at our current site. So it seems that particularly in the case of the composting facilities, that the siting of such a facility is -- is key and that the county needs to identify the future landfill site for such activities and that these kinds of technologies really hinge on that identification and that process is going to take some time. At the time the county gets to that point, then proposals could be circulated and we could take another look at these composting technologies and we would have -- site specific information and get good numbers based on a newly identified site. The materials reclamation facility proposal has some merits for the county. Fundamentally, what they're offering is a site to be located near the county line where recyclables from both Collier County and Lee County could come to a common location and the counties would be paid for the recyclables that they deliver to that facility. There would be no up-front cost incurred by the county. The proposal would build something on the order of a four million dollar facility and put that site together and incur that cost themselves. The counties for their part would have to guarantee a certain level of recyclables or there would be a -- this proposal identified a $10 a ton penalty if you fell below a certain threshold of recyclables. The numbers indicate that even without the City of Naples recyclables that given growth and increasing recycling activity in this community, that we could meet those thresholds. However, I think quite possibly we could work something out with the City of Naples and also include that tonnage. So there's great potential here to -- to get a facility that's close by. Transportation is always the item that puts a wet blanket on recycling activity. It's always a key component. And I feel that if we can get a facility like this close by that people that want to get into the recycling game, particularly in the commercial area, will be afforded a good opportunity. And it's -- it's a way to get our tonnage, particularly in the commercial area of recycling, to get that way up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have a second. MR. RUSSELL: There are some -- some key items that need to be addressed before we would consider entering into negotiations. And the three items are; number one, we need the cooperation of Lee County; number two, right now our franchisees have the right to the recyclables. They take possession of those recyclables, so obviously we would have to work something out to gain back the recyclables out of those agreements right now. And as I had just stated, the City of Naples is also key here. I think we would need to work with them and create a situation where we get the guarantee of their recyclables so we wouldn't be exposed to this not meeting these thresholds. Additionally, when this proposal was put together, their offering of $5 a ton was based on the market at that time. More recently as the recycling infrastructure grows and the markets get stronger, the prices are going up and I think that there's some room there for some negotiations that's going to be somewhat based on that recycling market. I don't think ultimately that we should discount composting. I think ideally the perfect plan for Collier County may be to -- to keep the people involved because they want to be involved in recycling. We could maximize our curb side efforts and clean up the waste stream as much as possible and then what's left would go to a composting facility and appropriate site in the county where we could then reduce our waste stream even further and we may be looking at landfilling on the order of only 25 percent of our waste stream. I mean that's the approach that I see that would make sense for the county, but it's going to take a little time and, there again, I think the landfill siting is a key component. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a few questions. Currently the commingled recyclables that we have do not go to the landfill in any way, so this does not affect the volume that is currently going to the landfill; correct? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Secondly, you've mentioned -- kind of alluded to this and it doesn't sound like a very easy process. My question is if we were to venture into this clean HRF process, how does it affect our current recyclable hauler which is, I believe, a branch of Waste Management? Are we going to end up in a nasty contract negotiation dispute? I mean could you elaborate on that a little bit more because that seems to be one of the biggest catches I see here. MR. RUSSELL: That's a major component in this formula, because they do have right to the recyclables and the county did get a very -- a good deal when we renegotiated our franchise agreement. We got curb side recycling added at no additional cost. And a lot of communities are paying on the order of a hundred and -- or a dollar fifty to two dollars per unit per month for that kind of service. However, our franchise agreement is up for renegotiation in 1998, and there are a couple renewal years in that agreement. But I think the county is in a rather good position to negotiate here given that not too far down the road we're going to have to be taking a look at that franchise agreement, so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there a financial penalty to exit that at any of those option years, to exit the contract? You said there are a couple of renegotiation years? MR. DORRILL: The answer is no. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The answer is no? MR. RUSSELL: Yeah. They are renewal years. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DORRILL: But without financial penalty to the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Without financial penalty. That's important. Next, I notice by our numbers, the first year if we're required to do 15,000 tons in this clean HRF, we're just barely over the top. Is there the ability to negotiate a lower initial annual tonnage for the county to make sure we don't end up paying instead of actually receiving dollars? MR. RUSSELL: I think there is room to negotiate that. In fact if -- even if Lee County would -- I've heard some discussions that they may have some other plans. We might be able to negotiate something for a Collier County stand-alone facility. I think there's a -- there's a wide open area here for negotiations here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And obviously with a $60 million capital outlay by the company that's doing this, this would be a long-term contract? Do I -- do we have any idea of the terms and the length of -- that they're asking for? MR. RUSSELL: Well, actually this facility would only be a $4 million capital outlay, and the vendor would build his facility and site this facility themselves. The $60 million -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the composting -- MR. RUSSELL: That's for a composting facility. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My apologies. That was my -- my mistake. The last thing I have that does go to the composting, as you go through this one of the biggest complaints about composting has always been the odor, the -- and obviously the cost. It's much more expensive than landfilling. But the odor's always been a problem. Do we know anything about the two respondents that we looked at as far as how they've addressed that problem successfully at other sites? MR. RUSSELL: They have addressed those problems. The specifics of those sites are such that they don't -- they don't compare directly with what we would need in this county for our waste stream. They are smaller applications and in different kinds of settings so you don't get a good one-to-one comparison there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Different scale? MR. RUSSELL: There's a couple of horror stories over on the east coast of Florida where -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm very aware. MR. RUSSELL: -- facilities were built and were shut down. I think maybe with this technology a couple years down the road we're going to be in a much better position to look at facilities with a ton-per-day rate closer to Collier County's. I know there was a facility that was built up in the Baltimore area that was 750 tons a day. That was supposed to be coming on line. I think it's on line now. And we've got the opportunity to take a look at what they do and how successful they are so we can make an assessment about the success because odor and traffic are there just like they are for landfilling and -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just don't want to go out of the frying pan into the fire when I -- MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. I think we've got an opportunity to kind of wait and see here. We can get a new site. I think we're in a real good position to get to some sort of a 75 percent redirection of our waste stream. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Just to follow up on the composting, it is -- I think the price that was quoted in here was some two and a half times higher than our -- or more than our current rates. So it is expensive and it does smell to high heaven. I've visited some of these facilities and had the odor in my nose for a couple of days after we left. It is not an enjoyable experience. A couple of quick questions, preliminary questions. On May 26th, 1994, the board qualified seven of ten firms and three of those firms turned in their proposal October 28th of 1994. I'm wondering why it took 11 months for this to get back to us and why it took six months after the information was turned in before it came back. And this goes back to the question as -- particularly if now we find ourselves with a contract conflict when we talk about renewables. And I'm wondering what took six months? What took 11 months to get back to us? MR. RUSSELL: Well, the -- this whole process has been a parallel process of privatization and alternative technologies we're looking at at the same time. The alternative technologies got put on the back burner in deference to working our way through the privatization issue. So it was a shell so we could answer that first question and then get to the next question. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The last full year, 1993-'94, we had 80 -- almost 8,300 tons. Can you -- in the executive summary, you indicate you foresee a 72 percent increase. I need a little help. You have a vague outline here of how that's going to happen. But I need a little help explaining how we're going to see that. And the number I see here still projects 14,233 and then you include 25 percent increase from new items. I'm not sure what that is. I just need a little explanation how we're going to get from 8,200 tons to 16,000. MR. RUSSELL: Okay. With the increases, we put multifamily residential on line and we've seen a marked increase in our recycling activity and that's what that 72 percent is all about. The 25 percent increase from new items, that's part of the reason why looking at a clean MRF facility is a good idea because we have the opportunity to add items and components at curb side that we don't have now. Such things as chipboard, the junk mail, magazines, office paper, more plastics -- now, there are a lot of different kinds of plastics right now. We're only doing ones and twos. There's an opportunity for everything just to put more in those bins at curb side. And that's where that 25 percent component comes from, this ability to draw more out of the waste stream then we are now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you've indicated here that the vendor will absorb all capital costs of -- MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- creating this facility? But what will the cost be involved in delivering to the site? We've talked about a site on the northern boundary of our county. What kind of cost in -- I assume -- I don't know how you envision this, whether it will be picked up at curb side and driven straight there or whether it will be sorted out at some other facility and taken there or -- MR. RUSSELL: That's another key component to work out with our franchisee. I mean right now he's the hauler, so if we're going to develop some new kind of arrangement, we're going to have to get them involved in those details, because I think we're going to be asking our hauler to deliver these items to that facility. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly don't have any objection to exploring this further, but I think that question as well as the transportation costs themselves and so on -- five bucks isn't a lot. You could eat that up quickly -- MR. RUSSELL: That's true. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and still end up costing us money per tonnage. So I don't have any objection to exploring it further but I -- I'm just questioning whether or not we'll actually end up collecting anything financially when all is said and done. MR. RUSSELL: I think we'd still be in a good position if we have no cost input and we can somehow break even with these recyclables. That's still good for the county. We'll still reducing our landfill. MR. RUSSELL: I agree wholeheartedly. I just don't want to -- MR. RUSSELL: There are a lot of pieces to the puzzle. I mean I think that's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to see a surprise expense on our end, that's all. MR. RUSSELL: That's true. No. I don't think we're going to have to do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine spawned my math skills and at 15,000 tons at $5 a ton, that's $75,000. At -- currently. If we put in 15,000 tons, we're going to get $75,000 from them. Is that correct? MR. RUSSELL: That would be correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Do you anticipate a hauling contract coming in under $75,000? I mean this is a -- I know it's a ball-park question but that -- that goes right to the heart of are we actually going to pay for doing something that right now we're paying nothing. MR. RUSSELL: Right. That -- I mean that's -- that's part of the equation and obviously right now we have a contract hauler. He owns the recyclables. If we could get him to agree tomorrow to haul them there, he would get the $5, not the county because he owns the recyclable to defray his costs of collection. And I believe at this point it still costs more to pick all these items up at curb side by far than the value of these items that you get at curb side. So it's a kind of a cost minimization factor as much as anything. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Do we have public speakers? MR. WEIGEL: There are. The first public speaker is Brad Cornell followed by A1 Perkins. MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Brad Cornell and I want to tell you that I did read the FCR proposal that the Solid Waste Department has and was very excited about a lot of aspects of it. Dave Russell has given you a good outline of it, I think, that is very worthwhile exploring. And, if I may, I have four points that I wanted to emphasize that I -- I saw in this. The -- one of the best opportunities here is that we can increase our recyclable tonnage and I think this has been demonstrated that our citizens in Collier County really want to do this. This is -- there's great enthusiasm. There were recent reports in the paper that, I think, perhaps you all saw that we're collecting even more than we anticipated and that's because of that enthusiasm and the addition of units from the multifamily dwellings. People want to do this. A clean HRF is -- is definitely a good next step to do this because we can add junk mail, cardboard, chipboard and plastics. And, so this is not to be ignored. Second, the state is likely to increase the percentage goal. Currently it's about -- it's 30 percent, and we're doing really well with that and much better than we thought we would two years ago. But so is the rest of the state and the state is likely to consider in the next year or two increasing that goal. This is a perfect way to help -- help us meet the increased goal percentage. Third, as Mr. Russell pointed out, markets are really good now. And this is just in the last year since the beginning of 1994. The industry has retooled. Things are set up now so that there is a demand for these items. No more are we going to see newspaper piling up in warehouses. The industry needs this material and they're paying for it. The prices have skyrocketed and while they may not stay in a -- in an ever expanding rate -- there's bound to be some more downs. The downs are not going to be as low as they have been in the past because there's -- there's been a steadying of the whole market force because of the retooling of the industry. I talked to Ray Morrow and Ron Hendrix in Tallahassee who are involved with recycling issues there, and they both verify that this is going to be the case. We don't need to worry about incredible lows in the markets anymore. I think that now is the time to take advantage of these high markets and not only for the county but for the businesses that will be involved; FCR, Waste Management, and the citizens. And, also, finally I think that here we have a great opportunity if -- if Lee County is willing to work with Lee (sic) County on a mutually beneficial project. I think that we all would like to see more cooperation between the two counties and this is a perfect issue to do that cooperation. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins and then Mr. Delate. MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. A1 Perkins, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights, Belle Heade Groups. Well, finally we're starting to make some points. For the last two years I think I've been yelling at you people about recycle, recycle, recycle. Let's fix it. Let's not just move it. I go along with this whole thing with the exception of where it's going to be put. A recycling is going to be -- like the gentleman before me just said, the government is going to take and up the ante and we're going to go to what their numbers are, an 80 percent live reduction. I tried to find out when we were going to be mandated to go to 80 percent and the statement was, with an election year coming up, nothing is going to be said about that because that costs money. So needless to say, youwre not going to get an answer when thatws going to take place, but just like the gentleman said before me, it will take place on the thing. The technology is out there. The ability is out there. The interest is out there. Now, all wewve got to do is come down to where wewre going to do it and who are wewre going to do it with. Now, at the present time, you have a contract with the people who are doing the recycling. We can expand that quite a bit. We can actually -- if we can get it to a break-even point, just like the gentleman said, wewll be way ahead because of the amount of fill that would go into any landfill. But at the same time, too, the figures are out there that we can recycle up to 97 percent if we take and go this direction. Now, this is not going to be over night. Itws going to be over a period of ten years or more. The University of Gainesville is right actively involved in this at the present time along with half a dozen other agencies throughout this country. Now, what are we going to do about it as far as the Collier County people? Are we going to take and ship it up to Lee County? Are we going to make transportation -- already? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I donlt think that was five minutes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As much as I would like to say, yes, A1, no. MR. PERKINS: I know Iim windy but my goodness. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that even surprises us. MR. PERKINS: Iim sorry, John. I apologize. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We know you try to pack a lot of words in five minutes but even that I think was still short. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we were just trying to invoke the new A1 Perkins two-minute rule. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead, A1. MR. PERKINS: Okay. Itls hard to come back now. MR. DORRILL: Rosa, you did that exactly like I told you to. Thank you very much. MR. PERKINS: Not to make light of it. This is a serious problem thatls not going to go away and the people of Collier County have to fix this problem, not move it, not hide it, not try to cover it up. We have to fix this problem, and the burden is going to be on us to do it. Now, how are we going to fix the thing right because thatls where welre coming at. I have advocated waste recovery facility in the Belle Meade area on College properties over and over and over again because we have the opportunity to come out of the ground correctly, come out of the ground correctly. This has never been done. Itls always a patch, a fix me up after the fact. We can come out of the ground correctly and then we could preserve the environment and actually take and fix what welve screwed up over the period of time. One other thing thatls very important to the College properties is the effluent problem that welre going to have that we already have at Lely. And itls going to get worse. To compost you need effluent and you need the sludge to fix the problem. Now, when you get down to the dollars, I donlt know because Iim not an expert on that what welre going to spend or what itls going to cost us, but we need to fix the problem, not move it and not hide it. We have to fix the problem. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. HR. DORRILL: Hr. Delate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Perkins. Mr. Delate. MR. DORRILL: Then Mr. Krasowski. MR. DELATE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John Delate. I must say that it does sadden me that this issue of wide scale recycling was buried while the board approved a contract they all have said is an economic disincentive of waste stream reduction. As many residents have recommended throughout this process, recycling should have been directly connected to the landfill operation. It is unfortunate for everyone that this discussion is occurring so late. So while the board considers a reclamation facility, let us do it in conjunction with a new waste disposal facility. It's interesting to note that as the Naples Daily News pointed out, that staff's predictions for percentage of materials to be recycled has been woefully low in the past. So I think we can anticipate even more recycling from people because as many of the speakers have mentioned, the population does want to help with this situation to help the world to be safer for all of us. So I urge you put this entire future of solid waste disposal and recycling into one enlightened plan. Do not as you have done in the past lock yourself into a contract that limits flexibility and ultimately charges the user more fees than are warranted. I just want to add that as been pointed out by Mr. Russell, new items to reduce the waste stream, including cardboard, junk mail, magazines, expanded plastic recyclables -- those little numbers under your plastic containers that are above number two, we'll soon be able to recycle. And I think it's important to realize that's going to -- it could severely limit the amount of items we're sending to the landfill which is great, which is also going to have an impact on the length of the life of that landfill there. So, again, please let us look at this as one entire package. They are not separate issues. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Krasowski. And then we'll have Hiss Nichols-Lucy following Mr. Krasowski. MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. I'll -- Bob Krasowski. I, as usual, agree with much of what Mr. Delate said. I -- as a citizen of Collier County with an interest in the recycling issue, I would suggest that you do pursue this as the staff is asking you to allow them to continue to evaluate the -- some of these options raised. It's amazing to me how the staff's position has changed over the years. I remember in the late '80s citizens were coming up here talking about clean HRFs and dirty HRFs and all sorts of other potential methods of dealing with solid waste and it fell pretty much on deaf ears. You know, I think the staff, the county manager were very unenthusiastic as far as ultimate technology as to handling solid waste stream. I think this clean HRF which myself and many citizens have been -- have had positive attitude towards for a long time is something worth looking into. I remember years back when Mr. Lorenz told us here and on the radio station, it would cost from 8 to 11 million dollars to have the county build a clean HRF, and how it would be a very expensive way to handle alternatives, the recyclables. Now, somebody else is going to do it for -- on their own and that there's some money to come back as a displacement -- expense displacement. It's all very interesting. I think you have to be very vigilant in identifying exactly what the components are here, how they compare to each other in combination, how they play against each other. And we have to be very cautious that we just don't set up some kind of windfall for waste management again, and that we don't get locked into a contract like we so foolishly did with this landfill management situation we just went through. I have a question of Mr. Russell. Did you say that the waste management collection of recyclables contract was expired in 19987 That's our first opportunity to get out of that? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. It was an eight-year agreement that started in 1990 and there's two one-year renewal periods. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. So I would suggest that we look very closely at putting that back out to bid and that we can negotiate with them. There's no reason for them to own the materials that they collect. I think the county can own its own recyclables and they can just be a hauler. In conclusion -- I still have a lot of questions. What has been done here has just brought up some of the questions and you've brought some of them up. As far as, you know, how -- what impact this will have on the waste stream that's going to the landfill, this would obviously if it's successful reduce the volume going to the landfill and that along with my recent understanding that we're probably going to be putting a cover over daily materials at the landfill or at least an immediate cover might impact the -- our expense there. I'm very interested in knowing how this is all going to be play out after we see the operation plan. But I would like to see a workshop on this. I'd like to see an opportunity for us to ask questions, to get into detail on this, for the commissioners to put forth their questions and for the citizens to be able to digest this over a period of time so that, yeah, let's move ahead with it but how about some kind of workshop where we can kind of kick back and really get into this because it's a very complicated issue. Good speaking with you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Bad word you used there; kickback. MR. KRASOWSKI: No suggestion implied at all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. Thank you. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bob, I appreciate your comments on the waste stream because as you may remember during the waste management contract -- and, Mr. Russell, correct me if I'm wrong, the question was asked what if we even see a doubling of recyclables, will that in fact cost us money? And if I remember correctly, the increase -- the projected increase just due to increased residents from the waste stream, even if the recyclables were to double, we're still not going to be at a level below the contract amount that we would have to begin paying. So I remember that question being asked and I hope it holds true because I'd like to see something like this happen. MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I just do remember that. MR. KRASOWSKI: I remember that myself, yeah. But whether I put much faith in that as -- as much as some other people did, it was, you know, a matter of perception. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: To be seen, but I just did want __ MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to point out that I -- my memory was that we at least talked about that and had it addressed, but like you said, will it hold true? I certainly hope so. MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah. It's certainly something to consider as we move on, you know -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Great. MR. KRASOWSKI: -- with this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Nichols-Lucy. As your final speaker is coming forward, Mr. Cook, would you mind just raising your hand? From time to time, it's good for us to recognize -- one of the reasons, I think, for improved success in the recycling side of your solid waste department is -- is the enthusiasm and the creativity that Jerome Cook has brought especially to our public service announcements. I'm sure all of you have heard some of the spots on WNOG and have seen some of the television commercials that we're doing in conjunction with Lee and Collier County. Jeremy is a good sample of youthful creativity in marketing and I think that government does not have a particularly good track record of marketing itself. But I'd say probably one of the best exceptions are recycling efforts and they've been quite good since the time that he's come with us. And I just wanted to tout his efforts and that of Solid Waste Department as well. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They are good advertisements. They're even fun to listen to. MS. NICHOLES LUCY: Good morning. My name is Sue Nichols-Lucy and I represent the Conservancy. And I would just like to reiterate some of the other points that have been brought up again. I would like to encourage the county to further investigation FCR's proposal. I believe there's a number of questions that need to be answered, but I believe that we should put all efforts into increasing the recycling. As Brad Cornell has pointed out, our figures are way up above what we projected. I mean I believe that most people that are moving into this area are used to recycling. Many of us come from areas where it's mandated and we don't have any choice. But not only is it mandated, but we're also interested and concerned. I would also like to reiterate that the Solid Waste Department, I believe, has done an excellent job. I have not seen the TV ads or heard the radio but I've been in a number of public presentations and public outreach efforts that they've done. And they have done an excellent job, but I think they along with us would say that there's a lot more to be done and that there's room to grow. I would also like to say I believe that this directly reflects on our need of the size and immediate need for our landfill so that both items should be looked together. But I would reiterate that we need to consider this further. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Russell, I'd like to ask -- for the two composting proposals, obviously everything that goes into a composting mix can not be used. There are some noncomposables other than ferrous metals and other items. Did their prices include the landfilling of those materials or is that an additional item? In other words, we still have to operate some form of a landfill for those. Is that correct? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So on top of the 60 to 70 dollars per ton, we also have to operate a minimalist landfill operation for those things that cannot be composted? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. The prices in this summary include the landfilling of the residue. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, they do include. MR. RUSSELL: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. RUSSELL: So you're in that $60 ball park and that includes that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That was my question, whether it was included or not. MR. RUSSELL: 20 percent of landfilling. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's better than I expected. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have no other speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there further questions of staff? Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve staff recommendation to further investigate development of a HRF with FCR and initiate discussions with Lee County and the City of Naples. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And our current hauler? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And our current hauler. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there further decision? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have a second? I'll second that. We have a motion and a second. I wanted to ask -- Mr. Hancock. -- the motion maker if he felt that -- obviously we're asking staff to go on a fact finding mission and bring back the questions to the answers. I'm sorry. Answers to questions. Thank you. Do we want to go ahead and incorporate some idea of a workshop at this point to get that out to the public before it comes here or do you think this forum would be an acceptable one to discuss those items? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think this forum would be the logical first step. Let's see what they come back with and then if we decide, yes, we're going to pursue that, then perhaps that's the time to have a public workshop. But if we come back with answers that aren't workable, there's no sense to schedule a workshop now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you, Mr. Russell. Item #8G2 UPDATE AND CLARIFICATION OF LANDFILL SITING PROCESS - STAFF DIRECTED TO PROCEED WITH RFP PROCESS AND AMEND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN; ADVISORY COHMITTEE TO BE FORMED The next item on the agenda is 8 (G) (2). These are the landfill siting process and update and clarification on the process. MR. LORENZ: Yes. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Lorenz. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator. What I'd like to be able to do today is there are a number of issues that were brought up back in February 14th when we received direction to go out and look at RFPs for a consultant for helping us in our selection process and some several questions. And I'd like to be able to walk the board through some of these issues, and at the end if there's any different direction, the staff can take the direction or we can always -- there's always opportunity for -- for the board to provide more explicit direction as we go through the process through the RFPs and get consultants on board. But at least this gives you some up-front time to consider some of the issues that are involved. One was the question about the willing seller of the four sites that the board identified for staff to pursue further. There's only one property owner that has indicated that they have a willing seller. That's the Oberlin College site, reference number 21 on your figure. Two other sites, 16 and 18, the owners indicated they had no interest at all in selling. However, site number 17, which was Pacific Land Company, indicated they're not interested in selling, that their land -- excuse me. That site 16 and 18, unless the county is willing to pay a price in excess of it's market value, they have no interest in selling. Site number 17 indicated that no interest in selling at any price. Which leads us to look at some strategy that I'll get involved with later on that you may want to go back and look at some of these property owners and determine what type of conditions they may be willing to sell under and whether the board would be interested in that. The second item was that -- the cost of the property -- that the assessed value does not include the business use of the property. But Florida Statutes would allow the county to factor in existing business uses to account for loss of business revenues. That's a point possibly of -- of conditions in terms of the sale of the property. Recognize however that for the county to pursue that particular -- that information, we would have to engage the services of an independent appraisal service using a CPA to help come up and formulate that information. That could be done ahead of the consultants RFP, or it could be part of the consultants RFP, if the board were to indicate that they were willing to pay more than just simply assessed value if there was some business use on the properties which some of the active farming operations obviously that there is. The other concern was the cost of fill to develop a low site. In the executive summary, I did provide you some information just to show how we would step through an analysis of that, and did conclude that the -- for instance, the Oberlin site, that if you had to raise an additional one or one and a half feet above elevation, you're kind of trading off about a 28 miles to 42 miles away for a site to be cost competitive everything else being equal. I would -- I would offer to the board that I responded to the request in developing that analysis; however, I think that there's -- I wouldn't take this as being too significant at this particular point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Mr. Keller, we can hear you all the way here, if you could quiet down, please. I'm sorry. MR. LORENZ: That's significant at this particular point. We really need to go through a more comprehensive analysis and look at all the sites because they're obviously -- there are going to be a lot of trade-offs, and that's just going to be a factor in an economic analysis of the site. And as we go through a -- potentially go through an additional screening process, a consultant could give us better information to either accept or reject the site to go for a further step. So, I did provide the information for you but I would provide that condition to it. We have put out an RFP for consulting services. The responses are due on Hay 12th. We should be able to get back to the board probably within four weeks of those responses that that would be due. And apparently there seems to be a lot of interests with consultants to be part of this process. We also drafted the RFP with a little bit broader direction than the board gave us back in February just to provide us with some additional flexibility if we need it if the board wants to look at some additional information through the process. As we were discussing this with some of the consultants, with some of the permitting agencies, some issues that have come up that I'll cover here shortly that we felt a little bit that we needed to broaden the scope of the RFP. Of course, we can -- that allows us to qualify firms with a very broad understanding and as we get to writing the scope of services we can narrow that down or we can use the ability of that flexibility at that particular point. One of the concerns that I have a little bit is that when we discussed some of the -- our staff's analysis to date with some of the consultants, they indicated that our elimination criteria of eliminating sites that are within one mile of urban and designated estates land use on a future land use map would have lost or dropped out a couple of sites, some potential sites that could be viable in the permitting process. Since we -- we applied that as strict elimination criteria, of course, we did not look at that in the ranking process. So there's -- there's a little question. I'm raising a little bit of a flag here for the board to basically say if you feel comfortable with absolutely never even looking at a site within one mile of these areas, than we -- this can stand and that can be the direction to the consultant during his work as well. If on the other hand you may want to feel that that may broaden your look at some -- some lands that would be considered for another step in the process, that's -- that's an area that -- that we may want to give you a little bit more details as we develop the scope of the services with the consultant. So I'm kind of using this to raise a little bit of a yellow flag. The -- we did sit down with personnel from Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the panther refuge and just got some preliminary information from them with regard to the sites that we were looking at. The site that the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission have the most concerns about would be the Oberlin site because of the extensive hydric soils and the red-cockaded woodpecker habitat surrounds the site and would most probably be found in the wooded sections of the site. So there's some concerns there that they have with regard to the site. Also that I think the board would have to understand that the access to that site would have to be from a southern approach which would be from 41 through Six-Ls Farms which would be fairly extensive. And this may -- may not be that big of a problem but there has been a parathion spill on the site, a chemical pesticide that the state has been investigating. I -- there is evidence of it -- of a spill. At this particular point there is no evidence of significant groundwater contamination. There is some -- potentially some soils contamination there, but I think one of the things that we have to look at this is known on this site but any of the sites that we look at that have been on ag lands, this would obviously be something that we need to be concerned about. But having knowledge of this, I wanted to bring this to your attention. These other sites that are basically 16, 17 and 18 that are closer to the Immokalee area on Oil Well Road, panther impacts are going to be a concern. The nature of the concern there that the agencies have indicated is less about habitat destruction because these sites are already cleared fields but are concerns over the increased road traffic, truck traffic, out to the sites, especially during dawn and dusk hours with regard to crossing -- panthers crossing the road and being at more risk to be hit. These are -- these are concerns that have been brought up and I wanted to brief the board emphasizes on preliminary information that have been gotten. They're not -- I don't think they consider them to be a fatal flaw type of condition but they are things that would have to mitigate for and then would -- obviously looking at one site compared to another site could increase the cost or the degree of permitting difficulty. And, again, this is something that -- that will come out as the consultants does the work for us. The board also was concerned about the site size. We looked at two sections of land. We did take a look at quickly another analysis of looking at just typically what sites out there are one section of land and, of course, that would duplicate some of our two sections of land as well. But the analysis that we find that although we may have five additional sites with reasonable road access, their site characterizations are generally comparable to our site 16 and 17, which from a staff perspective were the ones that we felt were one of the best possibilities for a landfill site. Just for comparison purposes, Lee -- Hendry County site is three square miles and Highlands County site is 1.6 miles, square miles, and those are, of course, looked as multipurpose sites. And I think staff would still recommend that you look at two sections of land for a long term recommend -- long-term planning arising plus just the discussion we had previously about composting and any type of reclamation facility that -- if you're looking at two sections of land, you're going to be able to site those types of processes there as well. So cost of land is -- is in -- percentage-wise in terms of the cost of construction of the new landfill is still -- is fairly low and so we would still recommend that you simply look at two sections of land. As I noted before, the RFP has been issued to provide us with a little bit more flexibility and the flexibility is -- comes with regard to should we second guess our current strategy and it comes in a couple different areas. One is -- and I wanted to get some clarification from the board as -- of course we only have one site that actually said they are willing sellers and gave us a price. Of course, the board has condemnation authority if it desires to exercise it. And the question is is the board willing to look at condemnation authority as a matter of policy. Do you want to simply work with the existing sites that we have some opportunities to get back with the landowners to find out what general terms and conditions that we could have such as a lease purchase option because some of this land is not going to be used for quite sometime out in the future. Or does the board simply want to pursue a willing seller? Some county -- one county is actually doing that. So, that's -- that's one of the concerns that I have. If the board were to go to condemnation -- and one point I missed when I briefed you on the environmental impacts is that if we do go to condemnation, we're going to have to be very careful with regard to showing the public purpose and what our alternatives are for a site. And one of the places that I just have to bring up to the board's attention is that your existing landfill, although there is a desire from the public and the staff understands this is to get out of that site as early as possible. One of the things that we're always pressed with so it will be whether you go with the condemnation proceedings or an agency permitting, the first question they're going to ask us is what is your alternatives, what's your capacity of the existing site, and why do you need to move? From an environmental perspective when we start looking at wetlands impacts or endangered species impacts, they have to make the argument to the agencies that our current alternative is just not viable and we need to go someplace else, but at the same time recognize we do have capacity on our existing site. The same -- the same argument can be made to some degree in condemnation proceedings and that is when are you going to take my land, when do you need the site when you have X number of years capacity at the existing site. So I think there's a little bit of a hurdle that we have to just understand, and as we go through the process, we have to build our case appropriately. And that's one of the places where I think that the consultants can help us in terms of the alternative sites analyses. And also, as I said, it factors into whether the board wants to consider just willing sellers or condemnation proceedings. The other point I want to -- again, I wanted to make sure the board is comfortable with is that would we want to revisit -- revisit our elimination criteria and our ranking process? Staff did put together that fairly quickly. It was -- we had one public hearing agenda item with the board. My concern a little bit is -- we may have some additional speakers today -- is that the process of going through a site selection does one of two things. One, it helps us with environmental permitting and secondly, maybe more importantly is that the -- the -- the residents of Collier County get involved with helping to establish the criteria to develop a ranking system for considerations of the board, because this is obviously going to be a politically charged issue. I think if we weren't -- learned one thing from the prior expansion is that the public just was not involved in some of the initial discussions and then all of a sudden it was out there and we changed direction. I think it would behoove us to put a process in place using the consultant to establish some type of citizens' input to evaluate the criteria, work through that process. That makes it a little bit longer and makes it a little bit more difficult early on, but I would have the board consider that and then that may -- may go back and revisit some of our criteria that staff put together that we felt comfortable with. And, therefore, we may be looking at different foresights to evaluate whether we go through that process than with the sites that the board gave us direction on. And, again, I think that's a consideration which the board should -- should seriously have to -- know, too, that the -- a year ago when I brought that to the board, the board was not interested in establishing a separate committee, so I'm coming back to you again with -- asking the question again, but I feel that I have to kind of raise my hand on it in terms of the process. So with that if the board would like to provide any further clarification or a different direction, staff can run with that. The -- the core -- the critical time is when we come back to you after the consultants come back with the -- with the proposals and we write the scope of services for the contract. Then of course those scope of services would reflect any type of selection process that the board wants to go through. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it would be in error for us to put any absolute limits on ourselves as far as trying to site the next location. Be that the siting criteria if there is one home and none others to be in the area, we always have the alternative of pursuing something with that individual. So I hope we will not put an absolute in either the siting criteria or willing-seller condemnation. I think we need to look and see what the situation is on any individual site that we select. I have tried to push this along calendar-wise as quickly as we could do from day one of it. I would ask for a little bit of time concurrent with the RFP and consultant information that Mr. Lorenz is going to bring back to do the following. I'd like in the next six or eight weeks to gather not only some citizens from the area but Dr. Stallings from the wildlife foundation -- help me with the name there -- Florida Wildlife Federation, and Dave Addison from the Conservancy, and a couple of others who are aware of some of the environmental hurdles we are going to have to clear in this process. And I think it would make the most sense to include them on the front end of our site selection and look at not only these sites we have here -- Mr. Lorenz has mentioned there are some other sites that if we are not absolute in our siting criteria may be eligible -- look at those sites and, frankly, not limit ourselves to the original list which actually comes out of the '91 Post Buckley report. And I know we have extended a little beyond that but the point just being I think if we gather all the various groups of citizens groups, the environmental groups and everyone in the next six or eight weeks and look at all the various sites, I think we can come up with the most viable from all angles. And by the time we have our person who will help us in this process come back, perhaps we can be at a site that all parties are agreeing on. So I just ask you to keep that in mind as we move forward today. Perhaps in the next eight weeks we can do that, have it all come back at the same time and hopefully everyone be on the same page. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate your comments, Commissioner Constantine, and I'm in agreement that -- I think I even corresponded with Dr. Stallings, asking for his involvement and others for the simple reason that if we can't get on that same page, it makes it easier for everyone. We do have at this point a willing seller that apparently is -- for environmental reasons is not really being considered seriously. Is that a fair assumption, Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: Oh, I think -- I think that's for environmental reasons. It's got the most environmental strikes against it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, because what I've read so far on that particular property, the reference has been to hydric soils, and I understand that, but in addition to hydric soils, it requires a combination of existing vegetation, water table and other things to actually physical determine a wetland. Is that correct? MR. LORENZ: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And those -- that obviously hasn't been done. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So there's a flag but not a definite on that issue. And, again, I don't want to throw out the only willing seller as Commissioner Constantine said until we have those things answered. And if there are that many environmental impacts, then, yes, we have a serious problem to address. The current access to the Oberlin property, you said that it would have to come through Six-L Farms? Aren't they currently using Sabal Palm Road for an excavation operation in that area? MR. LORENZ: I'm not sure if they are. I'm just saying what the agency personnel indicated, that they would -- would severely limit -- or they would allow the permitting to come from the south but from the north would be pretty tough to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I think I have -- we'll probably hear from Mr. Bramberg on that, I'm sure, but my understanding is Sabal Palm is being used but, again, to be mentioned later. And, Commissioner Constantine, the two questions that we went down that Mr. Lorenz is looking for some help on, the idea -- the question of whether we should pursue property where they're not willing sellers, I think we can see that when there's a viable business on those properties, the cost of that land is going to be astronomical. So those lands that are not necessarily willing sellers but do not have an agricultural operation may be much more attractive, and I would see those pushed up on the list. So I don't want to limit it to willing sellers only either. In addition to that, the second question of should we start considering sites within one mile of the estates and future land use designated areas, my gut reaction to that is no. To spend tens of millions of dollars to move the landfill a mile or a mile further out to me is not a wise expenditure and just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And I admit I don't have a lot of information on that, but it seems like a big expenditure to get a mile further away when we can look at the growth pattern and see that that's not going to buy us much time. MR. DORRILL: Can I get Mr. Lorenz just to elaborate on that one point -- excuse me -- because one of the areas that I think may have been overlooked as part of this would be areas to the north and east of the county fairgrounds. And there are -- because if you think about it, the whole -- there's a very small section of platted estates immediately maybe like one street north of the fairgrounds. As you proceed north from there though, those are fallow or old farm fields that have been out of production for years. And I think the intent there is that we may want to look at areas, because a fringe area might be within one mile of an existing house or that small portion of the estates that is west of 846. But I think that that area north of the fairgrounds and then east of the Corkscrew community outside of the Crew Trust watershed can be a very viable area. And so I think what we're saying is we don't want to eliminate any area and we would like to maybe go back and reevaluate some areas like that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to -- going to bring that up because I -- when the expansion evaluation was done in 1992 or 1991, the Post Buckley and Shuh report, it seems to me that there was a site that was on their list that was up at the bend of 846 up in the Corkscrew area and the six section -- six sections of land in there that's currently fallow farmland that has been for sale for a number of years for a relatively low price. MR. DORRILL: As you're headed to the big curve once you leave the fairgrounds, you know, there's that whole area off to the right. It's an area, I think, that needs to be reevaluated as part of a committee assessment along the lines that Mr. Constantine has outlined. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that what we're really talking about here? Because, again, I'm picturing that urban boundary running up parallel with 951 and moving a mile away from that and I'm not comfortable with that. MR. LORENZ: Well, we're talking about a mile from estates designated areas. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. LORENZ: So that's -- so that elimination criteria would eliminate those properties out there and that -- in fact that was -- that particular set of properties was a concern of staff that we have eliminated it. It may well be in a selection process and it may rank very low because of that reason. But if we eliminate it from any further consideration, we wouldn't look at it at all. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. It helps me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? I've got a couple of questions before we get -- I'm sure we've got public speakers. But I had asked you to find out -- and I sent a letter off to the DEP myself because I think it's so important. Have we received information from the DEP yet on what permitable landfill property in the last ten years has looked like? MR. LORENZ: There were, I think, five sites that we looked at within this South Florida District, and for the most part, they were pasture or agricultural land. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And DEP did permit them -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- for landfill sites? MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And do -- and we do have property in Collier County that's comparable to what they permitted? MR. LORENZ: Yes. It's already been permitted. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the Oberlin property fit that description? MR. LORENZ: I would say -- I would say it's -- it's cleared and it's old pasture so it fits that general category. However, depending upon what exactly is on site, I can't go that far. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did there -- the parameters that you received from the DEP, did it talk about hydric soils and wetland vegetation? MR. LORENZ: There's a list of prohibitions that the DEP has. And one of the prohibitions -- for instance, in a floodplain and the other one is in a wetland, a particular wetland system. As Commissioner Hancock says this is -- this is not necessarily a -- a wet -- well, we don't know whether it's going to be a jurisdictional wetland until you actually get on site and make that determination. So it's -- it's hard for me to answer you with a -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So in your estimation then, the Oberlin property and the parameters that the DEP has given you of what they've permitted in the past, that property is still in -- in the loose confines of that? MR. LORENZ: In terms of saying that it's old agriculture and pasture, yes, I can say that. But when you get involved with some of the other questions you asked, I can't -- I can't answer the question definitive for you. I think -- I think it's going to have -- it's going to be very constrained because there are areas on the site that -- that may well be a wetland systems and basically just the -- just the reaction from the regulatory agencies indicate this is a really tough one for -- for you to look at. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was just commenting that I may -- that I'm even pleased to hear that they have permitted landfill sites in the last ten years. MR. LORENZ: Oh, yeah. Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So that adds to my comfort. MR. LORENZ: In fact, if I may add, it's -- DEP is not going to be the toughest agency to work through. Their rules and criteria are fairly black and white. And even if you're talking about smaller wetland systems on site, you always have the mitigation option and, in fact, even in Collier County and maybe -- this is one area that -- I know Capital Projects is looking at off-site mitigation, large sites even in the Belle Heade area for purposes of road -- road transportation impacts. This is an advantage that we'd have with the landfill for wetlands. Where are you going to have most problems is with the Game and Fish Commission and other U.S. Fish and wildlife with regard to endangered species as they -- as they come into the permitting process through the Army Corps permit for wetlands. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now, the last question I'm going to ask you is an opinion of yours based on your expertise, because I certainly don't have that expertise, but I do have concern. And that is in your opinion -- and you've kind of brushed on this -- do you feel that the DEP or the Corps or the EPA or whoever else is going to involve themselves in our search because we have property already north of the existing landfill which is kind of already impacted? In your opinion, do you feel that they are going to ultimately force us to expand in that direction? It's a bad question but I need to know. MR. LORENZ: It's going to be -- it's going to be a major issue. The question continually comes up with -- with regard to why can't you expand the landfill, use up your capacity or expand off-site because that's their preference. All agencies have indicated to us, not formally but informally, in terms of staff review that their preference is to see the existing site be used as fully as possible and expand it off-site. Now, to the degree that they will hold up a permit for that, I'm not that expert in terms of permitting, but I know that that is the question that they continued to ask us. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To follow up to that very question, the land to the north was purchased particularly because there's a requirement that we have a minimum inventory of land for future years and that is seven years? Is that right? MR. LORENZ: Ten. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ten years. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ten years? It seems to me under the contract we've entered into with Waste Management the existing footprint, the existing landfill, has 22 years. So we can sell or liquidate that 300-acre property to the north and still be meeting the guidelines required and I think take that question away from those agencies. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what I'm beginning to think about. MR. LORENZ: To be a little bit more accurate, what we really need to do is we need to amend the Growth Management Plan and staff would recommend this. And as part of EAR process, this could be a recommendation or we can do it sooner is to -- the raw land has always been difficult to deal with as a level of service standard. Really -- what we really want to look at is what our future capacity is in terms of permitted capacity and indeed we have 20-some years of permitted capacity or -- it's not permitted yet, but that's the type of level service standard I think is more appropriate to use and we get away from that raw land inventory. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because it seems to me our only requirement is to meet that time frame and that we have at least that amount of time. MR. LORENZ: That's why we caution not to sell the property to meet that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if we can do it as you have suggested through amending our own plan, meet that according to the contract we have under our current thing, liquidate the property, surely no one can fault us for looking for a future site doing planning. Hopefully that's in ten years, but if that drags out over years, we still have to have that site at some point. So I don't think we can be faulted for looking for -- at another site at that point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Mr. Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Constantine had asked me to be prepared for that line of questioning yesterday as part of a discussion in advance of this. And I was going to suggest that as part of any motion that you give us today that you should include direction to amend the Growth Management Plan for the reasons stated, that we've gone from a modified high-rise landfill concept to an on-site intensification concept, but a new landfill to be outside the urban area and to declare that property surplus for purposes of an evaluation of land use and/or rezoning that you may want to contemplate to dispose of that property. But it probably would be good to have a parallel track here that we would be getting out of the land banking business as part of proceeding to explore these alternative sites. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Haven't we already asked our facilities management people and the Sheriff's Office to look at part of that tract of land for -- MR. DORRILL: A very small part but my suggestion to you would be to let some of the creative minds in the Real Property Department determine how we might best position ourselves to sell that as a tract. And if we want to keep a small portion of it for a future county barn and Sheriff maintenance facility, I think that's fine. But I think we ought to look at the tract as a whole and see whether or not it could have a residential-type use and that we could entice a private developer-buyer who would acquire it as a result of some sale. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there additional questions before we go to public speakers? I'm going to have to leave here about twenty after 12 because I have a 12:30 luncheon. MR. DORRILL: We've got about a dozen it looks like. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'll be turning it over then to Mr. Norris. MR. DORRILL: First speaker is Dr. Shirley. Following Dr. Shirley, I have Mr. Bramberg. DR. SHIRLEY: Good morning. I thank the commissioners for this opportunity to speak to them. My name is Dr. Mike Shirley. I represent the Department of Environment Protection as the resource management coordinator at the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Rookery Bay, as you're probably aware, is one of 23 sites recognized nationally for its importance for research and for education. The department has serious environmental and economic concerns about placing a landfill within the immediate watershed of the Rookery Bay and the Ten Thousand Islands area at the proposed landfill site number 21. That's the one referred to the Belle Meade site, the Oberlin College property. Environmentally it's not just the immediate impact. It's the fact that this watershed would be with -- or this landfill would be within that watershed. It's -- it's in the watershed of the Rookery Bay and Cape Romano Ten Thousand Island Aquatic Preserve. Activities within that watershed will have direct effect on the water quality of those areas. No matter how carefully planned, there's always a potential for a landfill to overflow and to pollute coastal waters. So we're concerned about that site just because of its location. Due to the location of the site, it's also a site that we have looked at in terms of a watershed restoration or a management plan for Rookery Bay and the site has been recommended as an -- Oberlin site as an ideal location for a mitigation bank but certainly not for a landfill. According to reports by the Florida Game and Fish Commission, the site serves as a strategic habitat area for a number of -- several listed species which is another one of their environmental concern. And also in terms of landfill siting guidelines, they require that when possible the landfill -- the site selected must minimize the impact on wetlands. And looking at the county's reports, it looks as though of the 21 sites initially considered, this site has the most amount of hydric soils which may translate to more wetlands than other sites so that will have to be worked out. Economically, it's important to realize that the Rookery Bay and the Ten Thousand Islands area are important to the economy of this area, and that reduction in coastal water quality will have an impact far-reaching on the economic areas as far as tourism and real estate industry. So you can't just look at the site itself. You've got to look at the long-term impact and where the site is being located. Also, the cost of mitigation associated with this site is likely to be fairly high if you place the landfill there just because of the fact that county staff has indicated that there's greater than 90 percent hydric soils on the site. And to put all this in writing, I have a letter from the reserve's manager representing the department for the -- for the commissioners. MR. DORRILL: You can leave that here, sir, and we'll make it also a part of the record. DR. SHIRLEY: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mentioned that this area is within the watershed for Rookery Bay. If this were being proposed as a single-family development, would you be here making the same comments? DR. SHIRLEY: I would probably not be. The landfill is an incredibly larger type of an impact than the watershed. The area's immediately south of the -- the Belle Heade-Carl area, as you probably are aware, and it is an area that we're concerned about restoring wetland habitats as far as the flow of the water to the Rookery Bay and Ten Thousand Islands area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And are you prepared to compensate the property owner for that restoration project? DR. SHIRLEY: The restoration project is a management plan that can be used in terms of -- in terms of looking at uses in the area not denying folks an ability to use the area but otherwise looking at a way to guide the management of the area in an economically and environmentally sound way. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: By guide, you mean significantly limit? DR. SHIRLEY: By guiding the management of the area, it proposes suggestions that will -- that will guide the development in the area in such a way that the -- that areas such as the Rookery Bay area and the Ten Thousand Islands area would -- would benefit from the changes in flow patterns and such that occur there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd just like to hear an answer to his question. So, by guide, you do mean limit? DR. SHIRLEY: By guiding the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a yes or no question. Does guide mean limit? Are you limiting the use of that property? DR. SHIRLEY: You can still use the property. You have to use it according with whatever -- which -- you have to use it in according with whatever would allow the flow-ways and the environmental impacts to meet whatever current regulations affect it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the answer is yes, it would be limited. DR. SHIRLEY: In that respect, yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To put it in a nutshell, I really -- I don't have any problems with what you're talking about. It's just that when one state agency stands up and says we think this is the wrong use of the property, it needs to be used for another purpose, fine. Open your checkbook, buy the property and use it for that purpose. Otherwise, we're standing in a sense saying we're going to be a hurdle right now because we aren't ready to do with it what we want to do with it. And I would like to limit this to factual information regarding the property, regarding environmental surveys that have or have not been done that do or do not need to be done, and not necessarily what someone would like some day to use the property for. Because I think we can throw those hurdles up for whatever site may exist in the county. And we're seeing that at every single site. There's some hurdle there. We know we're going to have to get over some type of environmental hurdle because landfill is not a clean use. We understand that. But I would just like to limit the discussion to what factual information applies to the specific sites and not necessarily what a particular agency or group would like to do with the property some day, because I don't think we can really reasonably use that as a part of our decisions. DR. SHIRLEY: One of the -- I guess one of the points I would like to make though is that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dr. Shirley, can you wrap it up? DR. SHIRLEY: Yes, I will. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We do limit our comments. DR. SHIRLEY: One of the points I would like to make is that the selection of the site should not be limited to just on-site impact because it does sit in a watershed and it is a scientific fact that the development within a watershed does influence the coastal areas. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We understand. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Bramberg and then Mr. Hart. MR. BRAMBERG: Can I Give you these? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. MR. BRAMBERG: And one for me, please. I'm sorry. Thank you. I don't know where to display this for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're on your time, so -- MR. BRAMBERG: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- I would say it as quickly and close as you can. MR. BRAMBERG: Okay. Thank you. I'll be brief. I will attempt to be brief. I'm Bill Bramberg. I represent College Properties. And what I've provided for you today is duplications of photographs of Sabal Palm to show essentially that Sabal Palm is very active. In point of fact, one day last month we had over 520 trucks going up and down Sabal Palm. Of course, finally I've made a list that's hopefully going to be handed out to you in miniature in reference to where we stand with reference to other properties, the other four specifically. The fact that we are a willing seller, the fact that I believe we have offered a fair price, the fact that we are located centrally, the fact that we are -- have -- we are remote and have a little population nearby and courtesy of the Carl list that the doctor was just discussing, it's not likely that there will be any really significant population over the next few years. The fact that we're not on the -- in the panther zone, the fact that something that we are very much advocating in reference to what you were discussing earlier today and that's the reclamation movement. We would like to be -- this site to be considered for recycling or composting or converting methane to electricity, all of those goods things that will benefit the county. Further, we believe that our site is much more economical to run in reference to the other three sites being discussed. We are shorter driving distances. There's less impact on Collier's roads, less insurance costs. The whole milieu is laid out here. One other point, and then I'll let Mr. Hart speak. I hope we're not losing perspective of the fact that this is eight to ten years away. The point here is that the sciences of waste management is changing so -- with such rapidity in such a revolutionary and beneficial way that I don't think that you're going to need a lot of the things that may be needed today. And I hope that -- we would like to participate in any workshop that you have. We would like to work with anybody you would suggest, because we are your only willing seller. That's all I have and my associate, Mr. Hart, would like to talk to you as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Is Mr. Hart a registered speaker? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hart. MR. HART: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Tom Hart. I'm an attorney with Humphrey and Knott. I've represented Oberlin College and its subsidiary in Collier County for four or five years. And yesterday I got to see the staff report that's been presented to you. I just want to make three comments about actually some questions that you've raised in your discussion a little earlier. The first one is that this site has not been determined to be 80 percent wetlands. As a matter of fact, I saw a jurisdictional survey about 1988-'89 done by the Corps of Engineers which showed that the old farm fields -- and there were about 550 acres of them -- were not jurisdictional. The lines were actually drawn on the map. Now, we're trying to locate that and we're going to get that to Mr. Lorenz, but I understand that this wetland issue is a big concern and, frankly, it could have been reclaimed now. But we don't know and we don't know exactly what that means. What we know is on a -- on a worst-case scenario some of those farm fields might be now reclaimed wetlands but those are the least valuable, the least desirable types of wetlands. And they're the kinds of things that you can more easily mitigate for. So if you think about 500 or 550 acres of easily mitigated farmlands, assuming they're wetlands, plus 150 acres of uplands that -- that I was aware used to be on this site, you would have 700 acres out of the 960 acre site that would be developable. Moreover, their -- Oberlin owns six or eight hundred more acres right nearby and just adjacent other sections. So that land which in fact is environmentally sensitive could be available for mitigation. I think you already have a price for that from Oberlin. They're willing to sell and we could work with you. There's an intriguing little statement in the staff report. This site has -- is known to be a parathion spill area. I just needed to clear that up for you. Because it was a farm site, a farmer left some insecticide there. Apparently the container rusted. About a year ago some calves got into the liquid and ate the insecticide and died. As soon as we found out about it, we got a consultant down there. We got it up. We have checked the ground. We have checked the soil. The level of parathion in the soil is less than the state and federal guidelines. I spoke to the DEP regional office yesterday. As soon as I get their letter confirming all of that, I'm going to submit that to the county as well. We just want to put an end to this concern about it being a -- some sort of a hazardous site. The third issue, very briefly, we've discussed access. The traditional access to the site, the Oberlin site, is via Sabal Palm Road and then through Section 29. That road is there. This year it's been a problem because this year it was too wet. In past years, that has been the traditional access. We also believe there is an easement along the western boundary of Section 29 which might be available. And I don't say that with any knowledge except that if there's an easement there and I think there is, that that might be the proper access to -- to this particular site rather than the existing access that's been used traditionally, rather than the Six-L Farms access. So in summary if you think about the Oberlin site with all of its benefits, it's relatively close to your population center and yet it doesn't really impact any neighbors. The cost is available to you. It's a willing seller. And if you can resolve these -- these environmental impacts and I'm suggesting that you really can resolve them based on what we knew a few years back -- it's a great site and it works. And we're available for questions. We would just ask you to include us in your discussions when you get your environmental consultant on board. We'd like to work with them. We will submit our analysis. We'll let our environmentalist and let our engineers work with your staff and we want to work with you and we appreciate it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, just because I had a previous conversation with our reporter, I need to know so she can make arrangements to have another court reporter here, I've got about nine more speakers and I want to know whether you want to try to finish this but she may also need to arrange to have someone replace her for the afternoon and don't know what your intentions are for lunch. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Bramberg, could I get you to remove your prop for us, please? Thank you. We have nine more? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Forty-five minutes. We should probably consider taking a short break shortly. That would allow Commissioner Matthews to be back for the decision-making process on this item. Let's -- let's hear a couple more speakers and then break. Will that satisfy the needs of the court reporter? MR. DORRILL: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Go ahead, please. MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. Of course, you've already put the staff on notice that you want them to find a selection of this spot. That was before we're starting to get all of these alternative methods and really getting at them. And I was just wondering whether we're not putting the cart before the horse for political purposes to make sure the people that are in the Golden Gate area note that the landfill is not going to be there for 50 years instead of 22, whether we should be picking the site now when we don't know exactly how much area we need or what we're going to use the site for. It's very possible with the turn of methods that the amount of fill -- the stuff that's going into a landfill will be very small and some of it will be highly toxic and need to be taken up to North Carolina someplace. So we don't really know what the end results of this whole process is going to be. So why are we jumping to find a place to put something we don't know what we're going to have? That's a real problem and I'll tell you it's -- we should -- this is one big problem, waste, and we're going to have to settle it and solve it as a unit. And if we do it piecemeal, what we're doing is wasting a lot of time and money. But I would suggest one thing. If you're going to start buying some property, instead of buying it, why don't you take a five-year option and be willing to give somebody a couple hundred thousand dollars even for the purpose of the option so that you know eventually what you're going to need and what you're going to use it for. It would be a hell a lot better to spend a smaller amount of money on an option than it would be to go out and make an investment like we did on those 300 acres by the present landfill because we thought we were going to expand there. So basically, please, do not be in a big rush to do anything until we go and really find out what our total waste problem is and how we're going to solve that waste problem and what the end results are going to be, what we're going to have to put in the landfill. The stuff that we get finished with maybe so darned good that instead of digging all these holes that we're doing in Collier County to get filled so we can put the elevation of houses up to its proper level that we may be able to use it for that. That's all. Fine. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Cornell. MR. CORNELL: I'm here now representing the Collier County Audubon Society and I have -- my name is Brad Cornell. I'm the secretary for the Collier County Audubon Society and I have here a letter which I'd like to read into the record which I'll give to you. It's from our president, Jim HcGinity. "The board of directors for the Collier County Audubon Society have been closely following the county's efforts to find a site for a new landfill in recent months. We have kept our 1300 members informed as well. And now I want to share some of the concerns which we have heard and discussed. "Our primary concern is that the board of commissioners keep environmental value factors as a top priority for any site consideration. Collier County has an abundance of unique natural resources. At stake almost anywhere you look witness the strength of ecotourism and conservation activities throughout our region. "While the siting process does take these factors into account, there could easily arise a circumstance where expediency might recommend a poor environmental choice. Imagine being approached by a willing seller whose property would otherwise be excluded by strict environmental criteria. I believe all county citizens want errors to be made on the side of caution when a landfill is at issue. Please consider the following three suggestions and comments I hope you will find constructive. One, understanding that one of local government's most important responsibilities is solid waste and recycling. We wonder why there is no formal mechanism for the Board of County Commissioners to obtain informed citizen input on this subject. There have been several instances in the recent past where such input might have saved the county a great deal of time and money such as the aborted attempt to expand the landfill north at its present site or the slow implementation of curb side, commercial, and school recycling. Please consider establishing initially for help with landfill siting some sort of solid waste and recycling citizens advisory board. "Two, Collier County Audubon Society is particularly distressed to see such strong consideration of site number 21 which is, of course, the Oberlin site in the Belle Heade area. We hope that the environmental importance of this region and not the owner's willing seller status will dictate any action here." COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cornell, you're aware it's not in the Belle Heade area? MR. CORNELL: That's the Belle Heade region. I mean it's the entire -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a matter of semantics, I guess, but it's not in Belle Heade. MR. CORNELL: It's still two thousand acres. It's not in the Belle Heade Carl if that's what you're talking about. It's not in the Carl project but Belle Heade doesn't refer just to the Carl project. I believe it refers to about 32,000 acres bounded by 75, 951 and 41. As I said, we hope that the environmental importance of this region and not the owner's willing seller status will dictate any action here. And, third, there are alternatives to all the present sites under condition -- under consideration -- excuse me. "One that cannot be ignored is the use of the full term of the Waste Management contract at the present site. Under such a choice, no expense should be spared in implementing the gas management system plus reconsideration should be given to disallowing the practice of daily cover with a tarp. "Another and perhaps more important alternative is to work more closely with permitting agencies, landowners, consultants, and citizens' organizations to screen the possibilities. It should be possible to find a good solution if the process is more solicitous of help. "Thank you for your consideration of our input here and we invite you to contact us to pursue any of these ideas further. Thank you." COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Cornell. It's 12:30. In order to give Miss Matthews a chance to vote on this item, I suggest we take a lunch hour until 1:30. Hopeful she'll be back by that time. (A recess was had from 12:30 p.m. until 1:30 p.m.) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're reconvening the County Commission meeting today. And we're in the middle of the public speakers on the issue. Mr. Weigel, who is next, please? MR. WEIGEL: I'll try to determine quickly here. Okay. Bob Krasowski followed by Fran Stallings. MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I get two opportunities to talk to you in one day. It's incredibly wonderful. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can tell by the excitement in your voice, Bob. MR. KRASOWSKI: It's not that bad. I'm Bob Krasowski. I don't have a whole lot to say on this. I just would like to encourage you to pursue every opportunity to compare and contrast and evaluate all the different sites that are available like Commissioner Hancock earlier suggested that we continue to look at -- at even some of the sites that we might take by eminent domain and I -- I think that's a good idea. Of course, we have to be fair about whatever we do but -- but that sounds fine to me. I like the idea of a purchase with option to buy the rest of the land, you know, and maybe selling that land around the Golden Gate site to pull in some money. You know, I had a chuckle. In the executive summary, it lists Lamar Gable as one of the owners of the property, one of the -- that we might look to pull eminent domain on. And I just couldn't see that happening, you know, being one of the Collier families, you know. But I hope the other properties are maybe more accessible as far as, you know, in reality. But I'11, you know, see you next time we talk about this. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When you mentioned eminent domain, there were some boos and hisses to my left. And what I said then is that not necessarily they all have to be willing sellers but those that don't have businesses on them at least are moved up in the list than those that do. But we may have to look at -- at an unwilling seller based on the dollars, but it's not my preferred choice, but yet I can keep that in the mix, yes. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. I heard that and understand. Yeah. It's just that it's -- it's on there, the placing on the list and preferably the ones that don't have businesses going on there, sure. I catch it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks. MR. DORRILL: Dr. Stallings and then Mr. Jenkins. DR. STALLINGS: Fran Stallings of Florida Wildlife Federation. I just basically wanted to reiterate my offer to work with you all in trying to move forward in this process in a constructive and positive manner. I had indicated to Commissioner Constantine earlier that, you know, it's pretty simple and easy to be against a lot of things but that we were willing to go further. And if we could all sit down and work together and come up with a site that looks like it's the best one, that we would continue our support on into the permitting process. And I do think that's important because I've been involved with the landfill up in Sarasota. I worked up there for awhile and the landfill was put into an area where it should not have gone from the environmental perspective and the court actually already issued a permit when the suit was filed and the permit was yanked and they had just gotten into all kinds of problems. And I think that we can do it a lot better and that we can avoid those kinds of things and have a much smoother process. I do think we ought to keep all of our options open and go about it in an expeditious manner and, you know, try to find a site that's acceptable both for the critters and for the people. And we're certainly willing to, you know, go the extra mile and work with you on that. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's nice for somebody to point out that it's easy to be against stuff. It's nice to have somebody volunteer to help solve a problem. DR. STALLINGS: And I think that's a very critical difference, too. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Perkins. MR. JENKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Dale Jenkins and as the county manager stated before about site five, that's the only site that we looked at previously on the Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan report and that really is a good site. And, you know, I just wanted to make -- to bring that up again. That was on the original list before. And the way it was, it was in relationship as far as numbers as far as the importance or the value of it, and it was as far down as a five, yet somewhat -- houses were -- there were places where there were streets of houses was up as high as 15, I believe. So anyways, what I'd -- I'd like to ask Mr. Lorenz a question if I could, please. On the site 17, what would be the fair market price on that land? MR. LORENZ: I don't have that with me now. I can get that for you. I think, if we've got that information, you know, in a previous executive summary. MR. JENKINS: Okay. Do you know what the assessed value is on it though? MR. LORENZ: Not now. I can get it to you. MR. JENKINS: Okay. All right. That's -- if they were asking more than fair market value, I think, for the land that was north of the landfill, I believe, that they would bring quite a bit more than fair -- than a difference in price. I believe it would be worth a lot more. And about the red-cockaded woodpeckers again that were at the Oberlin site. They were supposed to be around the Oberlin site, well, the site that's north of the landfill has the woodpeckers in that section. So I guess that would rule that land out also. And -- excuse me -- one of the problems that we had -- that I see if we go into this recycling is we were talking before about the life of the landfill and if we're only putting 25 percent into the landfill, then I would say it would be probably four times longer, that it would be there 40 years which is probably going to be past my time. And I don't know if anyone caught it or not but on the news the other day -- there's another problem, too. There was a fire in Buffalo, New York at the landfill there and they had to evacuate the people out of there. And, you know, the reason we need to get away from that where we're at. So I -- that's just my opinion. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins and then Hiss Nichols-Lucy. MR. PERKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. A1 Perkins, Belle Heade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rates. Before the break I was on a roll and now I forgot where I was. Now, that just goes to show you I'm getting order. But let me go back on some of this stuff pertaining to this because I don't want to see what I want to see. I want to see a big sign at the -- at the toll booth and it says see the golden side of Golden Gate, gateway to Southwest Florida. But what I don't want to see is, welcome to the gasping garbage side of the gate, gateway to wealthy Naples, Pelican Bay and Marco Island. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Should we stop the order for that sign now, Ai? MR. PERKINS: Wait until we get the funds. Okay. Over the last two years, I've heard all kinds of statements. I've read all kinds of stuff in all kinds of magazines and papers and all the rest of it. Most of the stuff is all distorted truths. There's no fact to it. It's opinions from some other people that shouldn't even be using it for a propaganda-type thing. But looking at the special interest on this thing and let's look at what is really needed, what's necessary and what's intelligent. The fact is that we're being dictated to us about the recycling factor so you can't ignore that. We're 30 percent this year and according to the executive summary as of February the 9th, 1995, they mention on here that an 80 percent volume in reduction could reduce the amount of area needed by 2,050 feet or zero point six square miles. Now, that number is on your executive summary and that number came from someplace, and I was trying to find out who brought that number up. And I was told out of Tallahassee that nobody will take and stand accountable for that number, not coming into an election year. I can tell you about the water. Now, everybody wants to talk about the recharge. Well, the existing landfill and the problems under it is upstream from the Oberlin College properties. So, basically, if we have a leak upstream wouldn't be any different in that we have a leak downstream with the exception of one thing. In between the two, we would not be affecting the wells and all of the water supply between the two. To the adjacent site south of it we have the options -- which is all farmland -- to put test wells in there. We have a time frame before it would hit any place at Rookery Bay. I made so many notes, I don't even know where I'm at. The transportation into this thing, trucks over the road, time over the road, impacts to the road, impacts to the people, insurance, liability. Now, we're talking about 65 miles from Marco Island to any site that would be in the Immokalee area. And by the way, the Immokalee Federation out there -- Foundation, rather, has told me they're not too happy with anybody even considering putting another landfill in their area and they don't want the one that they got out there expanded. But if we take and go into the recycling and composting, we can actually go to 97 percent and the debris that's left over can be used in an asphalt under the ground or on top of the ground, imbedded in the asphalt or it can be put into building materials. This is one way that we can get rid of this material. To condemn any of the farmland, we're looking at lawsuits that will be unreal, and I understand that the farms out there are the most productive farmland dirt in the country. So you're going to have to buy them up, so we'll have lawsuits. But, now, what about the people who work the land? You're going to put them out of business also. You're going to put the farmer out of business and our gross product coming into this -- into this -- all ready? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All ready. I think this time is it five minutes? MR. CUYLER: Full time this time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've got your full five. Do you want to wrap it up real quick? MR. PERKINS: Yeah. Just the one other item that I would -- the ten cents per mile per ton of hauling distance. I think you'd better take a real good look into that because you can't do it for ten cents a mile. Thank you for your consideration and I hope you keep an open mind on the whole thing and use intelligence on this one because this problem won't go away unless you people fix it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Addison appears to be representing Ms. Nichols-Lucy and then Mr. Delate. MR. ADDISON: For the record, my name is Dave Addison. I'm a biologist with the Conservancy. Unfortunately, Susan had a meeting she had to go to so she couldn't be here so I'm just kind of standing in, so I'm a bit of a ne'er-do-well as far as what's transpired beforehand. But I get the impression that the commission has decided to slow this process down a little bit and take a pretty hard look at where you want to try to site a landfill in this county. And I think that's a very judicious move because if there was ever a nimby issue, this is one of them. I don't think anybody wants a landfill in their backyard. I'm sure I don't. I'm sure none of the commissioners here would like to have one that's within sight of their home. So you've got a very difficult problem to solve and it's just another outgrowth of the continuing growth down here, another one of the costs that we have to deal with. But I would encourage the commission to go slowly. I agree to a great extent with what Fran said about trying to take a real hard look at this thing and find out what you're doing, and, believe it or not, I agree with what Mr. Perkins said in using some intelligence about trying to come to grips with where we want to try to site one of these things. There's just really no good place to set one of these things. The other thing that crosses my mind and maybe you should try to look at something like this as an opportunity. It's a chance to try to be a little bit innovative and utilize some of the newer things that have come on as far as dealing with the waste that we produce. So from that respect, that may help you out a little bit too. And if you can look it as a -- look at something like that as a -- as an opportunity, it may make it easier for you. I've just kind of rambled on here, but anything that we can do to -- from the Conservancy standpoint to help you make a decision that obviously not everybody's going to like, but to get a site for something like this is not something that you should take lightly. That's about all I can say. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Delate. MR. DELATE: Good afternoon again, Commissioners. For the record, John Delate. Just a couple points of fact I'd like to make out. One is the current landfill was opened in the mid 1970s at a time when the material was used for construction of cells were not state of the art for environmental protection. In fact, several of the cells were and continue to be completely unlined. In addition, there were not any amnesty days back then, therefore, an overabundance of toxic materials including carcinogenic pesticides and radioactive wastes have been buried at the current site. And I must add, which others have said, that landfill sits over a drinking water aquifer. The stormwater runoff from that landfill goes into Henderson Creek and directly into Rookery Bay. Let's keep these in mind. In the last few days, I've heard the county manager state on the radio or at least through Mr. Loveday that he does not want to, quote, spread out the risk, end quote. And some conservation groups have also voiced in recommending that the landfill will ultimately have to be expanded to the north. Well, in light of the aforementioned reality of the toxic nature of the current site, such suggestions in my opinion are not in the best interest of county residents and the environment. Despite desires to the contrary, the 300 acres to the north of the landfill will not be permitted to be used for expansion. In addition to a previous vote on this matter by the county board, the land is, as many have noted including Mr. Lorenz, inhabited by red-cockaded woodpeckers, which are, I believe, a protected species. I've had a professional field biologist out at the site recently. There are more red-cockaded woodpeckers presently there than even county staff had estimated. There are many more. The woodpeckers are there and we have to take that into account when we consider that as a site. More importantly than the woodpeckers, there are 10,000-plus endangered species in the Golden Gate area. They're called human beings. No, they're not residents of an upscale community like some of those nearby who don't want to be lumped in or didn't want to be lumped in with Golden Gate in the new political divisions -- excuse me, the districts. And their political voice in my opinion is all but muted. However, they will not be treated with disdain and their health, welfare, and quality of life must be a major consideration in this matter. It's important that Mr. Jenkins just pointed out about the landfill fire in Buffalo, New York. There were tires there. Those tires burned. That toxic material caused an evacuation of the area. Those that have been mentioned are extremely dangerous and I know this board took care of that and I appreciate that. The Golden Gate community does not believe that the staff's assertion which was written in the Naples Daily News that the county's, quote, not falling below minimum standards of safety at the landfill, end quote, is satisfactory. We think we deserve better. In closing, I think we need a new vision for a futuristic landfill alternative. Instead of seeking a site whereby we can continue to bury trash in an anachronistic sanitary landfill such as let's say we don't want it in our backyard, let's bury it somewhere else. No one wants that. Let's have the foresight to construct an environmentally friendly facility that will reduce toxic materials and recycle up to, I believe, in the future 70 percent of the waste stream. That way no area will have to put up with a smelly dump. A new site will be safer and it will be better for all. And one final note. It's interesting that we have some farm lands as possible sites. I believe we can make a landfill as safe as farm lands are considering the pesticides and fertilizers that they currently dump on the land. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Dotrill, are there others? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I conclude the public speakers on this issue. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's see if I can put together a motion taking into account a number of the things we talked about. I make a motion that we continue -- that we direct staff to continue in the RFP process that during that we make no absolutes as far as denials or rejections for willing sellers and the condemnation issue, or the one mile rule and so on. Obviously those will be mitigating factors. Those will weigh on the process but not an absolute on any of those. I'd also, as part of this, like to ask the board's permission to put together a working committee with representatives from Audubon, Conservancy, and the Florida Wildlife Federation, from -- also from the Golden Gate area -- perhaps the Chamber, the Civic Association, the Estate Civic and a couple of at large members and meet over the next several weeks in concurrence with staff continuing to pursue the RFP process to look at alternative sites in an attempt to reach some consensus. I think it was Dave Addison who just mentioned the likelihood of pleasing everyone is small, but I think we can come to a general consensus hopefully on a site that meets both the needs of those 10,000 species Mr. Delate mentioned and meets the environmental concerns. Also, I'd like to see us go ahead as Mr. Lorenz had mentioned earlier and amend the Growth Management Plan to reflect the changed intent in use of lands and declare the surplus property out there. And I'd like to try to set a time frame of maybe eight weeks so we can have a report prior to our summer recess on the landfill siting. I think if we have a group as small as I indicated, we can probably get that group together four or five times as necessary between now and the end of June and come back with at least some preliminary indication. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that motion if you can repeat it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've been trying to write it down. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He has notes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have notes so you don't have to write it down, I guess. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, did you mention a board representative on that committee, because if not, I -- from what I've heard today -- apparently you've had discussions with Dr. Stallings. And I think it would be appropriate to at least have a board representative and maybe you would be the most appropriate person for that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd be happy to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I would -- assuming it's amenable, I would ask the motion be amended to include a board representative and that would be Mr. Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you accepting the amendment? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I will. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You went a little too fast for me over the composition of the committee. I want to be sure as important as this issue is to Golden Gate, it's important to everybody, all of our districts and I won't want it to be a Golden Gate committee with all due respect. So would you go back over it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. I had mentioned the Audubon, Conservancy, and Florida Wildlife Federation, the Golden Gate Chamber, Golden Gate Civic and Estates Civic and then I said three at large because I know there are a number of people from outside the Golden Gate area who have been involved in this as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you think it might make more sense instead of those -- instead of three designated Golden Gate representatives to have one Golden Gate and maybe one from each of the other districts and three at large if that's what you want? It seems to me it's getting awfully -- I mean people in all of our districts pay these rates and the potential move has a serious impact on the rates that may be -- it may affect all the -- everybody's pocketbook. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This isn't an issue as to whether or not we're going to move. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The purpose of this committee as I see it is solely to determine the best future site. And if it's -- if the motion is going to live or die by whether or not we have a member from each district, then I'll amend that. My preference is not to because when we have had the public hearings and the public workshops, I would say there certainly have been people interested from other parts of the community but the -- 90 percent of the public who was turned out when we had 150 people in this room or 200 people at our workshop, at least 90 percent of those are from the Golden Gate area. I'm not suggesting other parts of the county shouldn't have a role in that. I'm just saying that those who have shown interest and who have continually stayed with this over the last two and a half years should probably be those who we ask to participate in this process. Obviously, whatever this committee does is simply a recommendation that the Board of Commissioners needs to decide upon anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My thought is I think the reason for that 90 percent level of participation is obvious to all of us. It's presently in their backyard. That's the reason for their -- for the level of that participation. That doesn't indicate a lack of interest on the part of other people in the county. And I think that it's likely that we're going to pay a great deal of attention to this recommendation considering that we have environmentalists on the board and that we're trying to make it community wide. I would -- I would very much like to see -- if you want the board to grow, I don't mind if you have, you know, 20 people on it. I guess that becomes insufficient but I wish that -- I'm not going to support it unless we see a broader base of representation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If you let me comment on this, if you don't mind, because I -- all the sites that we're looking at currently and all of the proposed sites that are coming -- that probably will come out of whatever it is we do are not in Golden Gate. They're in Big Corkscrew, they're outside of Immokalee, they're in the Belle Meade, everywhere except Golden Gate. And I think it's important to have people on this committee if we're going to form it who represent these varies areas so that we have input from the neighborhoods in which we are going to impact no matter where this goes, whether it's one family or two families. And we avoid each site if we don't want to impact 10,000 people. But I'm sure that there are going to be families who are going to be impacted by this somewhere. And we made a decision to move it from Golden Gate so I'm not sure that I see a reason for Golden Gate citizens to be involved in a large capacity in where the new location is. I can appreciate the Audubon, the Florida Wildlife, the Conservancy, the Golden Gate Chamber, even the Golden Gate Estate Civic Association because these are broad and all encompassing. But I think I'd like to see more citizens from other areas of district five because that's where it's going to wind up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, that was the intent of the three at large and perhaps I didn't enunciate that clearly but that was the intent of the three at large. Following your logic, which I happen to agree with, the City of Naples, the impact is going to be minimal -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Financially. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as far as siting. Right, but this committee has absolutely nothing to do with financial. It's trying to find a site that we're going to locate this at. Financial impacts of that is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The sense of hauling and cost associated with. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And that's something for this -- these five people in a public forum with the public input to decide. But I mean I don't care if the intent here was to try to get some consensus. If you all think that's not a good idea and we shouldn't do it, that's certainly your prerogative. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think instead of turning the idea down, everyone is trying to tweak it in the direction they find appropriate. Instead of three at large members, I would ask that you increase to five at large members with no delineation on where they must come from. Those at large members are going to have to be appointed by this board; is that correct? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And, again, let me explain. The intent was just to gather up people who had been involved in this process from day one. And if there are others, great. But I didn't foresee us having to advertise this. I mean it defeats the purchase. If we advertise it, come back in four weeks or six weeks and then try to pick people and get those people together and that's what this sounds like it's turning into. My intent was just to get people who had been involved, get the environmental people all together at the same table and sit down. I don't care if there's seven people there or if there's 15 people there if we're all talking the same lingo. But if you want to go through a formal process of picking and choosing who they are, then that's fine. I think it kind of spoils the intent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm trying to find a positive slant to put on this because I supported everything else in your motion except for the composition of the committee. I think it's inappropriate for the people who have been involved for a long time and some environmentalists to make this important recommendation to us and I'm disappointed that having -- having represented the district who has been -- seen what a serious effect this has on the community, that -- that you're not willing to help us move along towards something more reasonable that's broader based and, you know, if we head on -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try one more time. It's not that I'm not willing. I just -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me. You hate it when I interrupt you, so this one time, let me finish, please. We've had people speak to us for a great amount of time today about the importance of this from a county planning perspective overall, to please get perspective, to please be careful and go forward thoughtfully. And all I'm suggesting is that I agree with the composition with regard to the environmentalists. I would appreciate your serving as the board representative. And I think that we need a broader community base for -- to make this recommendation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, first I take offense that you suggest I'm not willing to adjust the composition since I just completed saying I don't care how many people are on or where they're from 30 seconds before you began your comments. A suggestion then is, Commissioner Matthews, you said the Chamber and the Golden Gate Estate Civic were both -- made sense to you. Why don't we have those two, have the three environmental groups we mentioned and have each one of us choose a person of our -- from our respective districts or not but each one of us choose a person to serve on that. And just pass that name on to me in the next week or so we could start to get the group together. MR. KRASOWSKI: Madam Chairman, could I help here? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. We're discussing this and -- MR. KRASOWSKI: I just want to make the point that I'm in Commissioner Hac'Kie's district, so you can put me on the committee and serve her needs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Krasowski, we're trying to discuss this. Mr. Weigel, I've got a legal question. If we form this committee as board appointees, the Sunshine Law is going to come into effect on it? Are we going to have to form it with a resolution creating an ad hoc committee or what have you? What's the format? MR. WEIGEL: Well, we'll work our way through the question. It would be an ad hoc committee with a life of less than one year. The Sunshine Law requirements will apply to it, I believe. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So the committee -- I've lost my word. The people who are going to serve on this committee right now, the recommendation is representatives from Audubon, Florida Wildlife, Conservancy, the Golden Gate Chamber, the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association and then five residents recommended one from each -- or one by each commissioner not necessarily from their district. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just hope it's not lost on the board that the net effect of that will be three from Golden Gate just like we started. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I don't support that weight for that area, that particular district -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, could I ask you to propose something? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I propose is that we have the three environmentalists and one representative appointed -- each of us appoint one person. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that amenable to the motion maker? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'm not the motion maker so COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just -- you know, let's just get through this and get a committee appointed and start working. I actually like the idea of either the Golden Gate Civic Association or the Chamber because I think they go beyond Golden Gate. I think they extend out into the estates a little more. And I would like to see one or both of those on there in addition to this but, you know, let's -- let's at least move ahead and establish something credible. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to talk about a clarification. There are two civic associations, one is the Golden Gate Civic Association and one is the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, two civic associations. My suggestion would be that since the probable site we're going to have this in is -- deals more with the estates area, that I would like to see that representative come from that one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the association I was trying to refer to and I apologize for misnaming it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's okay. That's fine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why you would want to limit input from the people who have participated all along doesn't make sense to me. My motion, and it will pass or it won't, that I amended stands as follows: The three environmental organizations we mentioned, an appointee from each of the commissioners, a representative of the Golden Gate Chamber and a representative of the Golden Gate Estates Civic. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: The second accepts those modifications and ask that you call the question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a request to call the question. We have three other portions to this motion which I'd like to restate; that is, that staff continue the RFP process, that there be no absolutes contained within the process regarding condemnation or the one mile rule and that we have staff move forward with the Growth Management Plan amendment to alter the ten-year raw land inventory. Is that the other substance of the motion? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm addressing that property as surplus as part of that process. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I guess what we have to do is to say evaluate it as to being surplus because there's some portion of it we're going to need. All right. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes 4 to 1, Commissioner Mac'Kie in the opposition. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have a question. I want to clarify this for the record if I may. I am assuming we are excluding from this advisory group all those property owners that would be interested parties. Sorry, Mr. Bramberg, I had to ask this one. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Mr. Weigel's indicated that it's an open meeting so obviously anyone can be there. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: They can be there but I'm saying our individual appointments. I said that I assume that we should avoid property owners that may be affected or representatives of -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think anybody that's got an interest in it. Anybody's that got a conflict, we should avoid. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just want to clarify that for the record. MR. KRASOWSKI: One word. Immokalee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm very much aware of that one. Item #SH1 COUNTY MANAGER'S WORK PLAN - PRESENTED The next item on the agenda -- MR. DORRILL: This will be a short item. The board has previously received under separate cover the end of the first quarter's work plan. And what I intended to do was to give you perhaps the top five elements that occurred during the first quarter and then just see if you had questions and I'll be happy to answer them. You may recall as part of the orientation of the two new commissioners shortly after they were sworn into office, there was an expression of interest on their part to develop some type of goals and objectives on the part of the board, but in the absence of that, at least know what the staff was contemplating for the coming year in terms of a work plan for the county manager's staff. And as a result with just some different issues on goals and objectives, we did develop and submit a workshop and then asked you to adopt at the beginning right after the holidays a work plan for the staff. And we have this throughout the entire calendar year is the way that we have proposed it and we have submitted to the board the first quarter's work plan. You'll recall that it was in five particular areas. I'm very pleased to say that the work plan is about 98 percent on schedule and complete, and I'll show you just the two exceptions that we have. Highlights: In the month of January, I indicated that I thought the -- the opening of the first satellite library in a number of years in Golden Gate Estates would have certainly have been a highlight in January was completed on time under budget. A decision under community and public relations to appear monthly on the radio journal show and to have a different division or department as part of that every month was an important distinction that we've committed to for each of the 12 months of the year. Also, something that was important to me was the adoption of a pilot program under fiscal management to monitor Worker's Compensation claims more aggressively and to put Worker's Comp candidates into a managed health care plan in order to reduce costs because we're self-insured there. In February the staff presented for the board's consideration the first natural resource protection area for Clam Pass which was a milestone within our environmental element of the Comprehensive Plan. Under fiscal management we had a number of successes that month that I would -- would show not only the completion of the 800 megahertz project and the associated financing but also the completion and presentation by Mr. Smykowski the three years fiscal analysis that has resulted in -- in I think some progressive efforts as a result of that. The adoption of this year's budget policies and also a cash flow analysis done in conjunction with the finance director to improve on investment strategies but not impact capital improvements construction. We also completed the helicopter hangar and aircraft hangar in conjunction with the Sheriff's Department, and we completed the County Commission's sixth community park side at The Vineyards. We completed the renovation of the Clam Pass boardwalk and the installation of utilities and also completed the construction of the south beach parking and access facility on Marco Island. Then in March, we undertook -- interestingly enough we activated a court security and campus security committee in conjunction with Chief Judge. At that time it was Judge Blackwell. And we also reached substantial completion for both the six laning of Airport Road north all the way to Cougar Drive as well as the substantial completion of Logan Boulevard. I also thought it would be interesting -- those are the highlights, I think, from the past quarter although there are over a hundred issues that are being tracked and reported to the board. There were several unanticipated events that I thought would at least be interested in noting for purpose because I think how your staff responds to unanticipated events is always interesting from the board's perspective, because there's nothing that we can do to always plan for those types of things. But I think the way that we respond to them certainly either aids or abets you in your decision-making process. At the top of my list, I had the effort to propose and undertake an evaluation of the Lake Avalon purchase on -- and as part of that, the proposal to do the initial evaluation under the TDC eligibility of the HEGA music concert that had been proposed and also the -- the unanticipated initial exploration of utility privatization. And at the same time the -- and also -- and I also had the completion of Building F renovations and, again, the only point being that those were unanticipated but I think the staff initially or to the extent directed by the board responded very favorably to those. That concludes my brief highlights of those salient issues for the first quarter. I'd be happy to answer questions if you have them. Otherwise, this was intended just to be informational and a highlight of your staff's efforts with respect to the work plan. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? There don't seem to be any, Mr. Dorrill. I want to thank you very much for a good work plan and moving ahead with the completion of it. Item #10B CARLTON LAKES PUD-87-36(2) REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - APPROVED I'm going to ask this board if they will take an item out of order because time is little bit of the essence on this. It is the add-on item dealing with Carlton Lakes. Last -- last week we listened to a PUD amendment to increase the density at Carlton Lakes and that -- that petition was denied on a vote of two to -- two to -- I'm sorry -- three to two. It required four votes and I was one of the dissenting votes. I am going -- I'm asking this board to consider a teevaluation of that. I believe the petitioner has some additional offerings to the board as far as reducing some of the impacts of the density increases. And in light of that I'm asking this board to rehear that and would like to make a motion in that direction. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we rehear that today or next week? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. It would be -- the schedule -- he has to advertise it which is what the time sensitivity is. He needs to get the advertisement to the Daily News by 5:00 p.m. today. The issue would be heard on Hay 16th. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only question was for you, Ken, about this business about our future discussions won't be a part of a record of any appeal. What's your recommendation to us about that? MR. CUYLER: The recommendation is that if they were to file a petition now, you would be -- you would have the record that you had as a result of your hearing last time. I talked to Mr. Pickworth about that. I told him I didn't object if the board agreed that -- his concern is you don't bolster the record and then he files his petition and we've made a case the second time that we didn't make the first time. But I'm not saying that we didn't make it the first time. We have a disagreement on that. But I've agreed with him that if the board's willing to do that, that I'm willing to say that the record will be based on the hearing and that the reconsideration will be for the purpose of him discussing the matter with you and you reconsidering the decision, not for purposes of making a new record. 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 5 to 0. Item #8H2 DISCUSSION RE MANAGERIAL POSITIONS AND ORGANIZATION - PRESENTED The next item on the agenda is Item 8 (H) (2), is the discussion of managerial positions and organization. Hr. Dorrill. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: MR. DORRILL: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MR. DORRILL: Nope. Drum roll, please. Cameras are ready. Is that a new suit, Neil? New tie, isn't it? Old tie. It's been an issue that I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with the board. And one of the things as part of this discussion that I wanted to undertake today was to pick up on some suggestions that have occurred really over the last year or so and updates you on a series of efforts that have been ongoing in our office for a number of months but have only recently have crystallized in terms of some opportunities that are there. I want to let you know right up at the top of the presentation, the goals that I had as part of proposing to you reorganization were to combine functional areas under the county manager to improve on the efficiency of our operations. As part of that I want to create some equally-sized divisions to bring some continuity to the various work units that are being managed. It is important as part of creating then those equal work units. The third area is to improve on the county manager's span of control. And I want to just digress for just a second and show you what the current table of organization looks like in Collier County. The original table of organization -- I'll apologize to those of you in the audience but I'll turn this around when I move to the next one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, can you move that just a little closer for those of us who are visually impaired? MR. DORRILL: Is that okay? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. MR. DORRILL: The original table of organization in the divisional concept for this county was created by Bill Norman in 1978 when he became the county's first what I would say real professional manager having come from a municipal background. Prior to that, some 40 different departments all reported to the county manager -- we'll persevere on. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we back on? MR. DORRILL: I think so. The organization at that time was created and as you'll see -- I want you to focus on the very bottom of the chart. Currently there are eight line divisions that the county manager is responsible for. They include what I would say is the -- the least intensive for my time, and historically what we've done, which is the court's area was the subject of a separate discussion last Tuesday all the way to perhaps our most important divisions in the transportation, utilities, and community development area. I'll also tell you that there's sort of two wild cards organizationally from my perspective. One of them is the airport authority. The other one is the Pelican Bay Services District. And the only reason I mentioned that and I'll come back to it is because they're not in one of our divisional alignments. I will tell you -- and I think management theory will tell you in particular that in this particular case in giving two assistants in some executive offices for both O & B and also capital projects and my immediate secretary, there are almost 15 different people who I'm directly responsible for in terms of trying to direct and supervise. And most anyone would take anything over ten direct supervisions is a little unwieldy. And, so one of my major goals is to try and tighten the county manager's span of control and involvement in a couple of areas. Now, I'll get to that. The final area, and I think that it's -- it was not the driving force behind the reorganization but I've mentioned to the board a number of times recently that we do have some cash flow and cash carry forward issues that I think that we need to contend with and always in the back of my mind are issues concerning the costs. And, so cost is one of the benefits but it's probably third or fourth on my list of things that I want to touch on. In responding to this then, what I have proposed -- and if you look across the top of the chart here, you will see those functional consolidations that I have alluded to. The first ones that I'm talking about would be to combine both the community development and the environmental services division into a single consolidated division. Both of those departments would -- within those divisions would still have equal status. The renamed division is not oddly enough Community and Environmental Services. The second one will be the Division of Support Services which will include those former divisions of administrative services and also emergency services. The third one is -- is to get us more realigned with traditionally the public works concept and will combine both transportation and utilities, water and waste water and also to bring solid waste over because solid waste historically is a traditional public works function. And the final area is Public Services. And Public Services is currently our largest division. I'm not proposing any changes in that division, again, for the sake of continuity and also the sake of the size of the management structure that is there. And this was the second area that I alluded to which I'm trying to get divisions of somewhat equal size for the purpose of making them more manageable units and to focus in divisions of fairly equal size. And you'll see with just one exception the new consolidated divisions have approximately 200 employees each. Those are current numbers and the one exception being the public works division. And that's skewed a little bit because the largest department in county government is the road and bridge department. It's very labor intensive and they're going to be a little higher. They end up being almost 320 in terms of that size. So we're going from eight divisions to four. And I agree that -- then I'll go back and start again with courts which is all the way on the right-hand side of the chart. I think we're in the throws of some changes there and I think the two options at this point in order to satisfy the concerns of the Chief Judge of the circuit is either going to be some type of management agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Chief Judge of the circuit where you maintain certain controls and you reserve the right to keep those employees on your payroll or you have some type of arrangement where they're going to transfer and become employees of the court and the judicial side of the state government. And they would go off of your payroll and become state employees but they're personnel checks would be cut off a separate account that would be administered by the Clerk of Courts here. But I think that is in the throws of change as I spoke to you all yesterday. I think the one issue that is pertinent there, Judge Reese has already made the decision to replace the Court Administrator with a state employee from his state funds. I think that we need to capture the savings associated with the former Court Administrator's position and take credit for that either as you see fit to return it to reserves or make it available to some new court program, but I think the discretion of that is solely yours. Moving across then for Community and Environmental Services -- as a result of transferring the authority for water management to the Big Cypress Basin Board and also by privatizing your solid waste activities, your landfill activities, the Environmental Services Division should be combined with Community Development Division I think for the sake of continuity. So many of our development issues also entail and include environmental issues that I want to keep environmental issues at a division alignment and not a department alignment. But one of the recommendations that I would have is that the administrator's position be eliminated and combined with Community Development. Mr. Lorenz will take what is a technical demotion and will become a department director in Natural Resources. I'm pleased to announce -- and one of the surprising things I intended to announce today was that one of the former top candidates for a community development administrator has reconsidered and has accepted my tentative offer to him to be nominated to you next Tuesday. That individual's name is Vincent Cautero who has been the Community Development Director for Citrus County, Florida for the past six years. I like Mr. Cautero for two reasons in particular. He has stability in office in a county that is almost a mirror image of ours. It is a coastal county. It is a rapidly urbanizing fast growth county that is north of Tampa and north of Pasco but on the west coast of Florida. He has eminent knowledge of our development services one stop shop concept, because they in their environmental and veteran contractors associations came here last year to view our system and are copying it and putting it in place in Citrus County because of, frankly, how well it has worked here and the reputation that it has at a state level. They heard about our system. They came here and they're putting our system into place in Citrus County. The other reason that I like him, and I shared this briefly with Commissioner Hancock, is he's decisive. He's not what I call a theorist or a theoretical planner or an academician. He is and has been a hands-on administrator in a county with a lot of similar characteristics to ours. Commissioner Constantine had asked to receive -- and all of you will receive later today a copy of his -- his resume and biographical sketch and a copy of my tentative letter of offering to him telling him that his successful candidacy here would be subject to a preliminary health and drug screening, a background and security check not only of references that he has but other references that we're checking in a security check with the assistance of the Sheriff's Department, and also the fact that I must get the confirmation of his nomination. I intend to do that next Tuesday. But I consider him to be a very good candidate. I was glad, frankly, that we were able to attract him and get him to reconsider as opposed to having to go all the way back to square one given the lengthy advertising and recruitment process that is there. On the public work side of the house, we've also got some good news. I think you tentatively are aware of the fact that beginning this Friday we will begin interviewing our four finalists for that position. Originally conceived was to replace the utilities administrator, but now we're broadening that and looking for a little more comprehensive public works background. And two of our candidates appear to have excellent civil engineering and public works background in addition to water and wastewater operations. So I should know within two weeks of this Friday which of those individuals can be a successful candidate and actually be back here two weeks from today hopefully with a nomination for you to consider in that important spot as well. Having said that though, another person that I -- I want to touch on because I want to maintain, again, a department level focus is transportation. And I'm recommending that we eliminate the transportation division administrator's position but that we downgrade that position into a transportation director's position. And it would be my intent to keep Mr. Archibald because of his excellent knowledge and background of issues of a transportation nature county-wide. But that would also be similar to the position associated with Mr. Lorenz. The third area and the one that I pointed to was Public Services. I think, frankly, Public Services is one of our better managed divisions. It does happen to be the current largest division of county government and its particular mission is unique enough that I'm proposing for the moment and given the size of that division that we not make any changes or attempt to consolidate it with one of the remaining three divisions because then we'd have a division with four or five hundred people in it, and I think for our purposes that's a little unwieldy. So in summary -- and I prepared a summary organizational chart. You can see that I have taken this matter I think fairly seriously and by eliminating -- going from eight to four divisions, I think that I reached the goals that I've had for myself for several months. I'll quickly reiterate those again, which was to attempt to combine operational functions to improve on the efficiency of those operations, to create more equally-sized divisions in order to more effectively utilize the management abilities that we have. And I want to stop there and digress again just for a second. One of the issues that we have determined for ourselves within the senior management class is to increase our own professional development and training. For a number of years I think we put that on the back burner and as a result of some budget cutbacks a number of years ago, we frankly have not done much for ourselves as senior management group. And I intend to impose immediately, beginning in May, quarterly personal and professional development for the senior management team here and their assistants; in this particular case, their executive secretaries. I think that is something that has been long overlooked. I think that, frankly, is an area where you're cutting your nose off to spite your face, and what little bit of money that we will spend on personal and professional development will go a long way towards improving not only the motivation and the morale of your senior management team but also some of their capabilities and their techniques. I have preliminarily identified three areas that we're going to start on beginning in May. They include motivation. I think all of us need to be motivated in the performance of our jobs. They include team building and trying to develop more of a team concept so the division administrators are just as sensitive and are just as caring of issues that are happening in another division as they are their own. I think all of us have been a little too prone to have tunnel vision and only be worried about our immediate area of responsibility. Now, the third one is going to be what I consider to be personal development and an emphasize on better time management and efficiency techniques in order to make these remaining four people very efficient in -- as well myself in trying to focus and spend more time on those issues. And, so I wanted to underscore the -- what I'm calling personal and professional development need. And, finally -- I think in that order of importance, the summary revisions to your budget will be a decrease of $391,000 and the vast majority of that is in the general fund. And I have estimated that in excess of $300,000 will accrue back to the benefit in the bottom line and improve our cash carry forward position effective 10/1 which is when I would like to have all of this in place. So, within 15 minutes or so, that's what my proposal is to you today and has been well developed over a series of a couple of months. And I would be happy to answer questions on any individual area that I posed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, Mr. Dotrill, I think if I were trying to write the recipe for what I was looking for in a restructuring, you've hit just about all the buttons. I'm very pleased with the streamlining, the fact that you're going from eight or nine areas reporting to you to four. I think it's going to allow you to be much more effective. I have a question regarding the position of assistant to the county manager. Am I to assume that Miss Edwards will return to that position once the Community and Environmental Services Position is filled? MR. DORRILL: That's correct. I would anticipate -- in anticipating the successful confirmation of Mr. Cautero next week that he has already indicated that he could be here within four weeks which I think is very good. I would probably choose to leave Miss Edwards there for several additional weeks in order to provide for a smooth transition. And then she would be returning to the county manager's office unless she is teassigned or obviously looks for a little better career path for her. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would also just like to take the time to applaud you on your focus of personnel policies and management training. There are some past recommendations that have been made by the productivity committee in the personnel department. I think a vast improvement in that area can be found by reviewing that particular document. And I would ask you to incorporate that into your program, but, I, for one, am very much in support of this and it looks good to me. MR. DORRILL: The one area that I probably need to touch on briefly because I've got some other recommendations there is, frankly, the airport authority. I believe based on my observations and comments with board members privately that the airport authority thus far has met your expectations for coming up out of the ground. But I put the airport authority in the same organizational dilemma as I do the courts, and it's an organizational structure that is difficult for me. It is difficult for Mr. Drury. I think it is frustrating to the airport authority board members and I'm going to suggest to you as part of this with your direction that we begin to formalize a transition plan for you to understand at what point you might be receiving your initial investment back, but also at what point we would undertake cutting some of the strings further to give them a little more independence, because I think they're frustrated by it. And both Mr. Drury and I are frustrated over the organizational issues and the command and structure issues there. So that was the only other area that I wanted to touch on. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned cost savings. I know that you also mentioned that's only third or fourth on your list of importance but cost savings of close to $400,000. What I noticed in particular is with utilities and transportation being together now where Mr. Archibald has moved his department on probably seven occasions in the last seven years. Will there be physical movement as some of those are combined and, if so, what kind of expense do we look at incurring as we move, shuffle the offices around our various buildings? MR. DORRILL: There are no immediate changes that are contemplated as part of this and specifically with respect to transportation. Transportation is now in a freestanding building where they are the only occupant and they appear to have adequate room for their cumbersome files and plan racks and that type of thing. And it would not be my intent that they must all be under one roof with utilities. The one area over the long term that I would like to reserve to come back and evaluate would be to move some of the existing nondevelopment service departments out of our Horseshoe Drive complex in order to put some of our natural resource people under the same roof for the reason that I mentioned, which was I'd like to put a little more emphasis on natural resource, review of preliminary site development plans and subdivision master plans. And, so I -- that would be the one area in the one department that I might come back and -- there's no construction associated with that but I might like to swap some people out of one building to the another. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also in that close to $400,000, I assume that is not only the cuts in pay some of the those positions we'll see but the elimination of some positions. Do we have a plan to deal with those employees? MR. DORRILL: They go beyond the division administrators that I alluded to and would also include their secretarial or support staff in those three divisions that I'm proposing the administrator to be eliminated. One of the reasons I wanted to give myself until October is that some of our very best secretarial talent, not oddly enough, exist at the division administrator level. Those are executive class secretaries in county government. And I would like to have the next six months to be able to place those individuals in similar positions but the point being and my bottom line, I would hate that we would lose any of those support-related positions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So as other positions became vacant, we can try our best to take care of them? MR. DORRILL: Which is the same that we've done in solid waste which is reserving positions through attrition for transfer for those individuals that need to find a new home. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The answer to my question just being then we are going to do our best to take care of those employees? MR. DORRILL: It would be my intent to place all of those employees prior to October 1st. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mrs. Chairman. Mr. Dotrill, I have echoed the sentiments of Mr. Hancock on this. This is pretty much what I was hoping for in a reorganization plan and I like the additional moves you're going to take towards motivation and cooperation between the new divisions that you've mentioned. My question was going to be to get a little more detail on the cost savings, but Commissioner Constantine has already had that one answered, so I really don't have another question at this point. MR. DORRILL: I do have an itemized handout. I only have one copy of it but I will make a copy so that you can see by line and by department or division the exact salary and benefit costs that will be eliminated as part of the budget that you're going to see in two months. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask one more thing. Tell me again by what date you plan to have this implemented? MR. DORRILL: I intended to start immediately or next Tuesday as I hoped to get confirmation of Mr. Cautero, and I may make some other plans as early as next Tuesday. Over the long haul, though, in particular in the case of Norris Iams (phonetic), Norris Iams had made plans and filled his original obligation to me. And his plans were to retire on or about October 1st. And then I picked October the 1st as the date by which I want to be finished because I will not budget any of these affected salaries in the new budget that begins on October 1st. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just add my commendation to the ones you've already heard. I know you have the authority to make these changes without our approval but for -- for what it's worth, it is exactly what I was hoping you'd come up with, so great job. MR. DORRILL: Thank you. And I'm particularly gratified to hear your support behind the personal and professional development issues because, frankly, if we're spending no more than a thousand or two thousand dollars per quarter for the top ten and now what will be the top six people that are running your county, I honestly believe that's money well spent and probably a real bargain in order to do that level of training here and in Collier County without having to send people and their secretaries away at a greater expense. But it's a start and I'm particularly gratified to have your concurrence on that. There may be some budget amendments and whatnot that you'll see through the balance of this year, but I want to thank you on behalf of the organization and the people who agreed to make a sacrifice and the division administrators who continue to be very supportive of me personally, but in order to have the respect of the County Commission to see that the job is done in a manner that you want it done. And I appreciate the opportunity to share with you this today and be that next Tuesday. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, I want to thank you very much for spending your time to streamline the organization of Collier County government. What I see here I think is an excellent proposal and I don't see any reason why it won't succeed. I know we've talked in the past about this very thing and I'm very, very pleased to see it and pleased to see the training and the motivational workshops that you have planned. To me, that is money that while it may cost us eight or ten thousand dollars a year, it's going to save us several hundred thousands over the years to come as efficiency increases. I just -- I like what I see. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I don't comment -- and I think Commissioner Hac'Kie and I both addressed this in our all too recent campaign and that is that it has been in my intention not to hamstring the county manager. I think this is the first step in a series of sink or swim and I'm putting it all on your shoulders, Mr. Dotrill. I like what I see here, and I'm looking for big things in the next 12 months, and I just hope they all prove to be good for the taxpayer and good for the county. I have confidence that they will. MR. DORRILL: I think -- in conclusion -- that's why we bring a team approach and maybe a new commitment to the team that we have there. I don't intend to let this board down. It's just -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's always a good policy for the county manager, isn't it? MR. DORRILL: -- plain and simple as that. Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity and the support. I will apologize for waiting until the last minute to be able to unveil this entire plan but only ask that you appreciate when you're dealing with trying to attract people to come back here who were in a process and get them to reconsider their candidacy in the case of Mr. Cautero, deal with the impending retirement plans of Mr. Iams, and the necessary loss of position or what are technical demotions for people who are going to be become department directors. It's very logistically hard to do that without being second guessed by the media and I appreciate the patience that you've shown over the -- what have really been probably two or three months worth of effort to make it all happen and be able to stand here today and present it at one time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. We have one item left on the morning agenda that I think we probably ought to finish up before we -- and then we'll take a 15-minute break. Item #10A RESOLUTION 95-302 APPOINTING WILLIAM SEABURY TO THE FOREST LAKES ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, it's the appointment of one member and there's only one applicant. I'll make a motion we approve William Sebri (phonetic). COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve William Sebri to the Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee. If there's no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Let's take a 15-minute break and come back at five after three. (A recess was had from 2:52 p.m. until 3:10 p.m.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To reconvene the Board of County Commission meeting for April 25th, 1995, we are -- are moving through the public comment on general topics. Mr. Cuyler, I presume we do not have any since I haven't had any -- MR. CUYLER: No, ma'am, and the time is expired for turning in slips, so we'll proceed. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 95-33, RE PETITION PUD-75-44(3), ROBERT DUANE OF HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING HCALPINE PARK LANE, INC., REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE BRIARWOOD PUD, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RADIO ROAD AND ONE-HALF MILE EAST OF C.R. 31 - ADOPTED WITH CONDITIONS AS AMENDED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We'll move on to the afternoon agenda which is our advertised public hearings. First item is 12 (B) (1), Petition PUD, 75-44, Third Amendment. That's a mouthful. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, my name is Ray Bellows of current planning and I'm presenting petition, PUD 75-44, patens, three. Mr. Robert Duane of Hole, Hontes and Associates is requesting to amend the Briarwood PUD document to add a golf course driving range and -- to the list of permitted commercial uses in the 16-acre commercial tract within the Briarwood PUD. The subject commercial tract is located on the northeast corner of Radio Road in the future Livingston Road right of way. Some of the other approved community and commercial uses within the Briarwood PUD include restaurants, beauty shops, laundry-dry cleaning, retail shops, shopping centers, medical offices, retail bakeries. The PUD is designated mixed-use on the future land use element which allows for commercial and residential uses. This district also allows for the proposed golf driving range. This amendment does not change the number of residential units or increase the size of the already improved commercial tract. The proposed driving range will provide for more open space than could be provided by any of the other commercial uses. It also provides a smooth transition from the industrial park to the west with the mixed residential developments to the north, south, and east. In addition, 76.8 of the PUD document indicates that the golf driving range is proposed to operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Petitioner proposes for aesthetic reasons a 100-foot setback along the northwest property line for which no structures shall be placed or play area conducted. Furthermore, all golf driving range lighting shall be shielded away from adjacent residential areas. The project landscaping and buffering is in conformance with the Land Development Code. And the actual height and location of the safety netting will be determined during the site development plan review. The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this petition on April 5th and they recommended approval by an 8 to 0 vote. Any questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You just mentioned the actual height of the netting. The probable height of the netting is what? MR. BELLOWS: It's recommended by the Transportation Department along the roadway to be at least 50 feet but if they redesign their project, they can work with the Transportation Department and have a lower fence or netting. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm trying to picture a 50-foot netting being compatible with the rest of the structure along Radio Road. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Doesn't it exist now along 951 going to Marco along the driving range there? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I think that is 50 feet. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a 50 footer also? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Those are a requirement for that One. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would just suggest though on 951 where you've got four lanes or six lanes and commercial outlet strip centers and so on is a little different than having Foxfire and Tanglewood and Briarwood. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That's why I discussed this issue with Mr. Duane and it's his opinion that they may be able to shift the design a bit and maybe come up with a design that would not require the 50-foot height of netting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Along the same lines, I wish there was a kind of a better site plan of the driving range because that one is a little tough to see from here. Let me see if I understand this correctly. When you say a 50-foot net along the northwest, that's the portion adjacent to the future Livingston Road corridor? MR. BELLOWS: There's a one-hundred-foot buffer area you're referring to? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Maybe, Mr. Duane -- and to avoid a big presentation -- Bob, what I'm concerned about is a 50-foot high net is, as Commissioner Constantine said, kind of uncharacteristic with the residential area. You've mentioned a potential increase setback. What I'm looking for is the visual effect, whether increased landscaping will be employed also. I'm just looking for a clearer picture than I have now and where this net is going to be and its visual impact is. MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane from Hole, Hontes and Associates. The netting will be provided along Radio Road. We're by no means married to the 50 feet. I think we've got some language in the ordinance that it's to the extent that public safety requires and I can assure you that my client would like to see that, you know, as low as possible. So as to whatever extent we can satisfy the county staff at the time we come in with our site development plan approval. They're also -- in the eventuality that Livingston Road is constructed while this use is in operation we would be required to put some netting along Livingston Road. It would obviously be of less height because the driving is actually going to be from this portion of the property going from east to west. We're hitting in that direction right there. I'm open to any suggestions that you may have how we can reduce the impact of the netting on Radio Road. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could I ask Mr. Duane what is the distance from the tee off area back to Livingston Road area? MR. DUANE: It's 250 yards to this point. It's 275 yards to future Livingston Road. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: So if Commissioner Hancock or I came out there to hit golf balls, we'd be limited to short irons? MR. DUANE: Well, this is all that we can provide within 16 acres. I just reiterate the staff position. I think this is a, you know -- a good use although it may be an interim use for some time to come in the future. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I notice on the southern property line that borders Radio Road and the one where we're talking about the first net being located, you have the parking area down there, and it looks like you have a line just to the north of it. Obviously I guess it wouldn't make sense to have a net that is on the north side of the parking area that then jots down to Radio Road. So do you anticipate the net being set back that far from the roadway? MR. DUANE: No. Again, I was going to locate the netting to wherever extent I could satisfy county staff. If we can pull that, you know, in from the Radio Road frontage, I don't believe we have any objection to that. I mean our actual play area is going to be -- we hope that there won't be any balls, you know, hit towards Radio Road obviously. To the extent we can pull the netting in, we're certainly going to work with staff on that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a big sign says, no duck hooks allowed. Two concerns. I like the idea of moving the net away from Radio Road obviously. Secondly is that kind of leaves a sweeping kind of a green area there and the minimum code landscaping there is what, Mr. Bellows? Is that a type-B 15-foot buffer? MR. BELLOWS: That is 15 feet, 15-foot buffer. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because the net would obviously be an aesthetic negative, can we get a commitment to increase the height of that landscaping, some type of Ficus hedge that may go up as high as 15 or so feet just to get a little more vertical relief and reduce the aesthetics of the range itself? MR. DUANE: Yes, we can. Actually the 15 feet would be the perimeter buffering adjacent to the residential. If I'm not mistaken the buffer along the road frontage, I believe it's -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Type D, 20 foot? MR. DUANE: I think it's trees with a 30-foot separation. I would defer to staff. I have no objection to, you know, increasing the height of those. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'd like to ask is to get on -- and, again, this is not in the form of a motion. I guess I'm just testing the waters with my colleagues -- with along Radio Road and at such time that the Livingston Road corridor is put in, I would like to see some form of a hedge that reaches an equivalent height of around 15 feet within, say, 18 months to two years from time of planting to be installed so that it acts as a visual buffer from the netting and so forth. MR. DUANE: Would that be a hedge in conformance with the requirements as I understand them which are one tree every -- the code, I believe, is one tree every 30 feet for those kinds of buffers. I don't see us getting a -- you know, a visual screen along the length of Radio Road. We have -- we've probably got six or eight hundred feet of frontage along this roadway. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I'm not so concerned about the parking area as I am the area to the west of it. But there are other areas in the county where continual hedges of that height have been achieved and maintained, and I know it's asking above and beyond code, but my opinion the net along Radio Road is -- would be kind of ugly and there are a lot of residences in the immediate area. So I'm looking for a way to kind of mitigate the aesthetic effect there. MR. DUANE: Well, I would like to leave here with a standard today. Could I ask staff a question, please? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead. MR. DUANE: Am I correct about the one tree every 30 feet along the -- the Radio Road frontage? MR. BELLOWS: I think -- let's ask -- yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But that's only in a Type A buffer; isn't that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. That's 15 -- one tree for every 30 feet. I think that's Type A. MR. DUANE: That's my understanding, Commissioner, of what the standard is. Are you suggesting we increase that on the order of, say, one tree per 20 feet? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My suggestion is that trees aren't going to cut it. It would also be prohibitive for you to have to do that with trees. I'm suggesting a plant type along the lines of a Ficus-type hedge that grows in and there's some that grow in very quickly and can reach significant height at a fairly low cost. You can plant at one or three gallons. I just want to see more of a visual buffer there than a tree every 30 feet, and I guess I'm looking for what's amenable on your part to do that. And I'm looking for it both on Radio Road and at such time that Livingston Road corridor comes in. You can either do it now or you can do it later. But I want those roadways somewhat protected from just having a tree, an oak tree every 30 feet and a net behind them. I'm looking for a little more, and I guess I'm just asking you to give me some suggestions as to what your client might be willing to do. MR. DUANE: Well, I would suggest something on the order of one tree per 20 feet and something that reaches that 15 heighth in, say, a two-year period unless you have an alternate standard to suggest. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately I'm not a landscape architect so as far as plant types and so forth, I'm a little lost there. MR. DUANE: But that would be a significant enhancement over the present standard. I would just like to point out that ultimately there's going to be another use on this property and I don't want that hedge to remain in such a way that would ever impede the visibility of the shopping center which I think we're going to have here at a future date. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DUANE: But I certainly would exceed the minimum standard with that caveat that it could be brought back to code if we come in with a new site development plan. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have a solution on the required buffer? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. It's -- for developments 15 acres or more within an activity center shall provide a perimeter landscape buffer of 20 feet in width regardless of the width right of way. So wewre looking at least 20 feet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At least 20 feet. And the materials on that? MR. BELLOWS: Trees, one per 30 like I said; a hedge, at least 24 inches in height shall be required, 24 inches. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There is a hedge required. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. At least 24 inches in height. And Mr. Duanews suggestion of one tree every 20 feet, I think thatws a step in the right direction. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we do not do this, what is the property zoned for right now, this particular parcel? MR. DUANE: Itws zoned for commercial. It has a broad range of uses -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Among those uses are? MR. DUANE: A shopping center, neighborhood C-3 type uses. MR. BELLOWS: I'd like to make a clarification. That hedge was just around the vehicle parking areas. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Not adjacent to the roadway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: ANd C-3, you and I know what that is but for public consumption, a C-3 is -- MR. DUANE: Neighborhood-type commercial uses. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I have a worry from a couple of things and, in fact, one of them is mentioned in here. The existing land-use pattern you got. The properties surrounding it are primarily residential. MR. DUANE: We have met with those property owners, the residential developments along the perimeter of the property. They were very happy with the hundred foot setback and we had no objections from the people within Briarwood. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You have met with property owners from surrounding -- MR. DUANE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From Foxfire, from -- MR. DUANE: No. I have not met beyond the perimeter of the property. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you met with Briarwood people? MR. DUANE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But no one outside Briarwood. MR. DUANE: That is correct, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm just concerned that there is a comment on here on the application is that this is a temporary use until market conditions warrant or allow something else which means to me right now market conditions don't warrant something else. So perhaps long term I'm looking at traffic impact here and it says, no greater than C-3 would have been. Apparently C-3 is not -- market conditions aren't there for C-3 right now? Reality is there will be an increase in traffic until such time that you think you can sell C-3 and at that point, you'll change it. MR. DUANE: Well -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: ANd I see this a little bit similar -- a week ago, two weeks ago, Commissioner Norris was concerned that coming back and amending a PUD with intensified use. And, in essence, I think that's what we're doing here. We're intensifying it until said time we can find a better use for it and then we'll change it again for that. MR. DUANE: In all due respect, I would disagree with that. The amount of -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought perhaps you would. MR. DUANE: The amount of trips that would be generated from this I would guess would be in the order of two or three hundred trips per day. I would compare that with the ten trips a day for a single-family house. It's not dissimilar than a 30-unit subdivision. Were a neighborhood center to be constructed on the property, I would guess that the trip rate would be closer to 3,000 trips per day. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But you just told me it's not zoned for single family. MR. DUANE: No. It's zoned for commercial use. That is correct. I think until actually Livingston Road is constructed and we get a north-south artery that -- you know, the property is going to remain, you know, presently vacant today unless we can find some palatable interim use. We think we meet that standard. Mostly open space, relatively low intensity uses and it would provide some recreation area for people in the immediate vicinity. We also complied, of course, with the plan and the provisions of your Land Development Code. In fact, now we're exceeding those with regard to landscaping and buffering. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I understood what you said correctly. You said that until Livingston Road goes through, you don't really have a use for the property under the current C-37 MR. DUANE: I do not believe that the market is there for a shopping center today or else we would seek some kind of a proposal like that before you. Had I or others had the foresight when this zoning was accrued several years ago, we might have put this use in but we didn't anticipate it at that time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because, I guess -- I mean that goes right back to my question. Is it greater intensity in transportation or is it not? You just acknowledged you won't being using it for several years except for this use. So over those several years you will certainly have an increase as to what otherwise would be there which you've said on the record is nothing. MR. DUANE: Unless the parcel -- and I'm not trying to be -- I'm trying to answer your question directly as I can. There are other uses that could be put to that property other than a shopping center. Out parcels, for example, could be created. I'm not aware that my client has any present plans to do that, but there's a broad range of uses that could be placed on the property, albeit a shopping center is probably premature at the present time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, any public speakers on this? MR. DORRILL: Not this one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm listening to Commissioner Constantine's concerns. I follow what you're saying and by the same token Mr. Duane has a point; that is, the property being approved for C-3 can be built as such at any time whether the market conditions currently hold for that or not. And this particular use for that amount of acreage is much less intensive traffic-wise than is C-3, so I understand his point. My only real concern here is that the roadways again are -- particularly Radio Road. I think Mr. Archibald has a plan in the works to designate keynote roadways in Collier County. I'm very concerned about the aesthetic application of what we do in this county to those roadways because many folks who come here and live here, that's how we -- you know, if you drive by ugly eight hours a day, you're not going to have a real sharp perception of what Collier County is all about. So if this is to move forward, I would like to see for the time period that the driving range is in place an increase in landscaping requirement that requires the -- a minimum, I guess, whatever the code for the trees are to -- to increase that from instead of one every 30 feet -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- One every 20 feet. In addition, along Radio Road and Livingston Road, I would ask that a single-row hedge be planted, again, in accordance with the requirements listed in the code for just that same purpose. I can't properly state those right now. I don't have them written down. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That being a 24 inch? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Twenty-four inch, to achieve that height of 24 inches. And I notice in the hours of operation, it goes to 9 p.m.? MR. DUANE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just knowing how close the condominiums in Foxfire are, that there's a small driveway and a wall before you get to Radio Road, would you be amenable to reducing that to 8 p.m.? A lot of those folks go to bed early. MR. DUANE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. With those concessions, I would like to make a motion to approve this petition with the -- the points that I've stated here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could you just clarify a little bit? Earlier in the discussion you had mentioned some specific types of trees which I think fill what we're trying to achieve here the aesthetic positives. That wasn't mentioned in the motion and I just want to make sure -- I think I can support the motion on a legal basis assuming we get those aesthetic concerns. I just need you to help me there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But that's where unfortunately my landscape architect skills aren't there. I'm looking for one or the other. I'm either looking for some trees that when planted have a crown height that gets pretty close to each other within a couple of years and creates a nice visual tunnel so that the net becomes secondary. MR. BELLOWS: There are several trees or vegetation that achieve that, and we'll just work with the developer and our landscaper. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know that black olive for one tends to grow a pretty significant crown, and there's some others out there. That's what I'm trying to achieve. MR. BELLOWS: We can work that out with the landscape architect, but we'll achieve your goal. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And I'd like the hedge because it fills in the lower portion of that and that's why I requested that be added. And this is for the life of the golf course or the driving range. At such time that that range is -- that use is deleted and another is in place, whatever code requirements exist at that time I understand will be adhered to. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you can reflect that in some enforceable way in your motion or if we can get them on the record to acknowledge that in some enforceable way so that three years from now if the trees are still skinny little scrawny nothings that aren't meeting one another, we have some way of enforcing that, then I can support the motion. I'm not sure how we do that verbally. MR. BELLOWS: Well, we put it in the landscape section of the PUD document, size and height by a certain time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you agreeable to that? MR. DUANE: Yes. I'm amenable. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And you'll also agree to have it inserted in the landscaping portion of the document? MR. DUANE: Yes, Madam Chairman. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and second -- I have one question. Mr. Bellows, is a driving range C-3 or less intensity? MR. BELLOWS: That's conditional use. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Conditional use. MR. BELLOWS: Agriculture and I believe it's also C-3, too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And C-37 Okay. We have a motion and a second. If there's no further questions, all those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 95-34 REPEALING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 89-88 AND PROVIDING FOR DISSOLUTION OF THE CHOKOLOSKEE ISLAND MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT - ADOPTED AND STAFF DIRECTED TO PROVIDE FULL ACCOUNTING OF HSTU FUNDS Next item on the agenda is 12 (C) (1), a public hearing to consider adoption of ordinance -- of an ordinance repealing Ordinance 89-88. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While this is getting started, can I ask a question? Just -- I don't know who, maybe the attorney, or maybe Neil, but Collier County had to hire an outside consultant to help us process these petitions. Isn't it something we could have done in house? MR. CUYLER: To process what? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Am I looking at -- is this Petition CU-94-21, Michael Kellogg of Hole, Montes representing the -- MR. CUYLER: That's the next one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's the next one. COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I got bumped around. I was jumping ahead. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Conrecode. MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode from your capital projects office. Commissioners, Item 12 (C) (1), in essence dissolves the Chokoloskee Island municipal service taxing unit which was established a number of years ago to investigate the feasibility of running above-the-water for consumption and fire protection to Chokoloskee Island. We have completed a preliminary hearing study to evaluate what the cost of that proposal would be and the impact on the property owners. We then surveyed the property owners to find out if they were continued -- they had a continued interest in going forward with the project. And the answer to that came back with a resounding no. A certain percent of the property owners said, no, they weren't interested because it's mostly trailers down there, small houses, and RV sites. So they weren't interested in the assessment method of getting water down there. So staff recommends that you adopt the ordinance to dissolve the MSTU. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question on this, Mr. Dotrill. I guess maybe Mr. Olliff and Mr. Baoamtchian know a little bit more about it. But there's quite a bit of discussion going on right now on Chokoloskee Island about taking that area that is west of MR. DORRILL: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- State Route 29 and creating a park out of it? MR. DORRILL: Immediately west of the Outdoor Resorts TTRB Park along the causeway. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm just wondering if this may be the method by which Chokoloskee Island winds up funding the creation of that. MR. CONRECODE: Well, the original ordinance that set this up specifically describes what could be done of the MSTU, so you would have to modify the MSTU in order to expand it to include a park. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So, you -- we've got to do something with the ordinance either way. MR. DORRILL: It could be. I think one of the problems we've had with the boat launching facility there on the causeway to Chokoloskee is the immediate community seems to be split as to whether or not they want that facility there and whether they want it to be a county facility or somehow controlled by both the condominium that's on the west side of the causeway and the TTRB park that's the east side of the causeway. And I don't know that we've get a very good handle on that or there's any real consensus as to what they'd prefer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you finished with your presentation, Mr. Conrecode? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. Staff recommends that you adopt the ordinance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, are there public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, there is on this one. Miss Tifft? MS. TIFFT: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Fran Tifft, vice-president of the Chokoloskee Property Owners Association. Since this Ordinance 89-88 went into effect, we have had so many questions on it and we have never been able to get any answers from Mr. Huber's office. The original ordinance said that we would be taxed at six-tenths of one mill. We were taxed four mills. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Four mills? MS. TIFFT: Four mills. We have asked for an accounting of these monies. We know that 29,000 was spent on this feasibility study. The feasibility study came back in that it would cost two and a half million dollars, and the cost was prohibitive to us since we are small homeowners. The water is now on Chokoloskee for under one million dollars so we feel even more taken that that was the -- the way it was done. We feel we have a right to know how much money was collected and what happened to it. The ordinance that came out says the funds have been expended and I feel that we have a right to know what they were expended for. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I agree with you. MR. CONRECODE: We can provide that. I didn't -- it comes as a little surprise to me. It was point six mills versus four mills? MS. TIFFT: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we ask at this point, Mr. Cuyler, without closing the public hearing that this item be continued until such an accounting is made? MR. CUYLER: You can do that. I'm not sure if the lady is placing an objection to the closing of the HSTU. I'm not sure anything you would do with regard to leaving the HSTU ordinance alone would help you one way or another. MS. TIFFT: No. I don't object to you doing away with it, but I feel that we are entitled to an accounting of it. MR. CUYLER: You may want to go ahead and close -- subject to your discretion close the public hearing, take care of the ordinance, and have Mr. Conrecode provide whatever information she wants. I don't see any relief in leaving the HSTU open. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we repeal the ordinance creating that special taxing district and discover that there really is money remaining in the taxing district, we don't have any problem refunding that money, do we? MR. CUYLER: We shouldn't, and I don't think there's any money. Staff, I assume, has already checked that there's no money in the HSTU. MS. TIFFT: So, where did the money go? MR. CUYLER: But you can -- if you want to continue it for staff to get some information, that's no problem either. You just continue your public hearing to whichever day you would like to. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't have any desire to continue it. I think it's very clear there's no money there. There's no point in having the -- certainly the lady's entitled to an accounting of where the money went to. That's not the problem, but that doesn't preclude us from going ahead and closing out the ordinance. MR. CONRECODE: And we will complete obviously the accounting and provide that to you all and to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As long as we get the accounting of what happened to the money, what it was spent for, I don't truly object to going forward. Mr. Dotrill, are there other public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No. And I'm making a note for us to contact this lady in particular and make sure that that information is coordinated with her. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mrs. Tifft. MS. TIFFT: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll handle it. If there are no other public speakers, I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, motion to approve staff's recommendation to -- to adopt the ordinance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to adopt an ordinance repealing Ordinance 89-88. If there's no discussion, all those in favor, please say aye. Motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you, Mr. Conrecode. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 95-303 RE PETITION V-95-1 ROBERT DUANE OF HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC. REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COHMISSIONERS REQUESTING A 9 FOOT 2 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 75 FEET TO 65 FEET 10 INCHES FOR A BUILDING ADDITION AND A 4 FOOT 8 INCH HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 FOOT 8 INCH ACOUSTICAL WALL IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY AT THE TERMINUS OF 7TH STREET S.W. SOUTH OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, in addition for the record, I would like it to show the board directed staff to provide full accounting to the previous speaker and to this board regarding the information brought to date. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So directed. The next item on the agenda is Item 13 (A) (1), Petition B-95-1. This is as companion item with Item 13 (A) (2)? MR. MILK: That's correct. MR. DORRILL: The answer to the question we do normally process our own petitions where we are seeking in this case the necessary conditional use. I think with all due respect to the capabilities of the Hole-Montes firm, we certainly could have -- and I'd be interested in finding out what the cost as part of a larger contract -- and I can tell you what I think has occurred here. Hole-Montes is under contract for two different utility division projects; one to build a building addition to control building and acoustical wall; and the other to develop a telemetry radio tower to send lift and pump station signals back to the main plant. And they're probably, I'm sure, under contract to do the civil engineering design associated with that. And because our Land Development Code requires us to get our own conditional uses for these facilities, it's been incorporated as part of the general services agreement. My question is should or could we have coordinated that ourselves for no other reason than we've got a building full of capable planners and what were the costs associated with that? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will you let us know what the costs -- MR. DORRILL: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- associated -- and then we could make a policy decision about whether or not we want to include that in our -- MR. DORRILL: For these types of things, because otherwise we do routinely process our own conditional uses for the reason that I mentioned. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hate to be spending money -- MR. DORRILL: I agree. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: wanted with it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- as a result of to do what we Okay. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 95-304 RE PETITION CU-94-21 HICHAEL KELLOGG OF HOLE, HONTES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE 2.6.35.6.3. IN THE ESTATES ZONING FOR A 45 FOOT SELF-SUPPORTING TELEHETRY TOWER FOR PROPERTY AT THE TERMINUS OF 7TH STREET S.W. SOUTH OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD - ADOPTED MR. MILK: For the record, Brian Milk. I am presenting Petitions CU-94-21 and B-95-1. They are companion items. In 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved an essential service for a well water booster pump station on 2.25 acres at the end of 7th Street Southwest. That facility now needs to be enlarged because of pumping capabilities at the north and south water treatment plant. We currently have 27 potable water wells in the geographic area of the booster pump station and there is an increasing demand for the north and south geographical areas for the raw water pumping stations. Therefore, the building itself needs to be enlarged, both the control room and the generating room. But the problem here and what's arised is there's a 75-foot setback requirement for the front yard. When constructed, the existing building sits exactly at the 75-foot setback line. The generator room and the control room are all forward towards 7th Street Southwest. The pumps and all the internal piping that work is towards the rear of the property. It would take a large expense and a large redesign to do anything but to increase the building for the subject nine foot two inch variance that's before you today to enlarge the generator room. And the acoustical wall is as to provide sound attenuation for the exhaust that would at certain times be provided for the exercising of the generator room and actual generator work itself. That would be increased from six feet to ten feet eight inches in height. The wall would be set back approximately 59 feet from the front yard setback. The building addition itself would be set back 65 feet ten inches. The other companion item for the conditional use is that in Golden Gate Estates you cannot have a communication tower whatsoever. You can only have a Ham Radio tower or a 20-foot antenna so to speak. Therefore, the county has to request conditional use for the self-supporting tower in which it would put the telemetry antenna on the top because this facility is unmanned and through radio communications with the well filled sites and the booster pump station and the north and south treatment plans, that communication network would be better situated if situated and mounted on a permanent tower. Currently there is a roof-mounted antenna. It doesn't meet the wind loads. It doesn't always work accurately. We looked at erecting a new guide tower up there but logistics-wise and engineering-wise, they decided to go to a 45-foot tower. That would be the minimum height they would need to communicate with these remote wells over tree tops and back to the north and south treatment plants. The Planning Commission reviewed this on April 6th and approved it 8 to 0. I did receive since then one letter of opposition from a lady from Phoenix, Arizona who has a five-acre tract on 9th Street Southwest which is the five acres to the north and directly west of this particular site, so it is not adjacent at all. All the property adjacent to this subject site is undeveloped; however, the immediate area surrounding is primarily developed with single-family houses. The two-and-a-half acre site back in 1990 was basically platted from a five-acre parcel and it sets right at the canal. It abuts 7th Street Southwest. It abuts the Warren Brothers PUD. So there's actually -- the remainder of the five acres that at this point is undeveloped as is the remaining two-and-a-half acre tracts around there. There's one clarification I'd like to make for the record, is that the owner of this particular facility is not Collier County Board of Commissioners. It's the Collier County Water Sewage Treatment. I made that correction in the resolution of adoption. I just wanted to point that out for the board's attention. If I can answer any other questions at this time, I'd be happy to do so. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, is there water on both sides of this piece of property? I see a canal drainage easement on one side. I notice there's no homes adjacent to it. MR. MILK: At this point, no, sir. There's a canal to the south. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MILK: There's a retention pond in the back of the building. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MILK: Everything north of the Golden Gate canal is Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Are there currently pine trees and so forth between 7th Street Southwest and the existing facility? Is there vegetation in there or is it cleared? MR. MILK: It's basically landscaped. The entire site is basically cleared, period. They have a county landscaping code. There's actually landscaping out there. As a part of the approval of this in going through the site development plan, we're going to put additional buffering along the northern property line because most of that vegetation if ever developed over there is exotics. We recognize that and we're going to put a buffer of vegetation there. We're going to buffer the acoustical wall and anything that died since 1990, we're going to bring that up to standard. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You were saying that it's buffered. And I've been out there to look at that facility and it's not terribly buffered right now. MR. MILK: No. It's not buffered, no. But there is that vegetation to the north which is primarily exotics and pine trees. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Miss Edwards, do we have any public speakers on this? MS. EDWARDS: No, we don't. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion to approve staff recommendation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, do we need two separate motions on this? MR. CUYLER: Yes, for each petition. Have you gone through the presentation on the CU? MR. MILK: Yeah. I basically presented both of them at the same time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. CUYLER: Yeah. Can you take two motions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In that case, Madam Chairman, I make a motion to approve Petition B-95-1. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion and a second to approve Petition B-95-1. All in favor, please say aye. Motion passes 5 to 0. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'll make an additional motion to approve Petition CU-94-21. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve Petition CU-94-21. If there's no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you, Mr. Milk. Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 95-305 RE PETITION SV-95-1 STEVE SPAHRAND BOB WALTERS OF PENINSULAR SIGN COMPANY, INC., REPRESENTING PICK KWIK FOODS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE SETBACK ESTABLISHED FOR SIGNS OF 15 FEET TO 4 FEET FOR A POLE SIGN LOCATED ON 6300 DAVIS BOULEVARD - ADOPTED The next item on the agenda is Item 13 (A) (3), Petition SV-95-1. MR. BAOAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon. Charam Baoamtchian, current planning. This is a minor sign variance. Pick Kwik on Davis Boulevard, they want to replace the existing pole sign. This sign is four feet from the site property line and they want to have the new sign on the same footprint. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're looking at pretty much the same sized sign, same place -- MR. BAOAMTCHIAN: Exact same size sign. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- they're just changing their logo. MR. BAOAMTCHIAN: Except for concept. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there public speakers on this, Miss Edwards? MS. EDWARDS: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion and a second to approve Petition SV-95-1. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Item #13A4 PETITION A-95-1, ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR., OF WOODWARD, PIRES, ANDERSON & LOHBARDO REQUESTING APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION RENDERED BY THE PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR ON 2/27/95 RE BUILDING SIGNAGE FOR A STRUCTURE LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 184, MARCO BEACH UNIT 7, A/K/A 581 SOUTH COLLIER BOULEVARD, MARCO ISLAND - ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL UPHELD The next item on the agenda is 12 (A) (4), Petition A-95-1. MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. For the record, Wayne Arnold of your community development staff presenting this petition. This is an appeal to an administrative interpretation that I rendered back in February this past year regarding the sign in which we essentially said that a wall on a building became a sign in itself because of the unique design, the coloring and the neon lighting that was proposed for that sign. The owner of the property subsequently modified their building permit to get through the process. They're back and requesting an interpretation of the finding related to my finding that this was a sign. And we have rendered that interpretation that not only did the parapet wave action wall design constitute a sign but with its attendant neon sign that's lighting that, too, would constitute a sign and also exceed the maximum 250 square feet allowable under our code. I do have a colored Xerox of a comparable building that they have constructed in Sarasota. You might like to see that for the record. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While you're passing that out, may I ask a question? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Certainly, Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm troubled. I have difficulty comprehending. You're saying that this little squiggly line that looks like a wave -- MR. ARNOLD: Right. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that goes across, that in itself is a sign. That's your interpretation? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. The interpretation is that the wave action parapet wall in itself meets the county's definition of a sign which admittedly as the petitioners pointed out is quite broad. But I might add that that is used as an advertising device because the name of the business is Wings. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have to say one comment one thought as I went through this, no offense, but one of your -- one of your -- one of the elements of your decision appears to be that the nature of that sign is advertising because it makes it clear what it is that they sell. And I have to say I don't think it makes it clear what they sell. I don't even think their name makes it clear what they sell. I don't know what Wings sells. I mean I'm sorry. I'm not a marketing person but -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought it was now a restaurant selling buffalo wings. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought it was a restaurant. I thought what, chicken, you know, chicken wings. I can't imagine that that reflects the marketing plan of the -- so I'm having trouble at this point and I wanted to be sure that we were talking about that squiggly line was a sign. MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. We are talking about that portion of the wall, the parapet wall. Again, the owner subsequently modified that plan and they have put in a completely horizontal building wall to date and the building is under construction and they're proceeding toward a CO. Again, the applicant has brought up other examples in the community such as Checkers, Miami Subs, Juicy Lucy's and the Crabby Lady on Goodland as other examples of what they believe should also constitute a sign if this does. And my argument, again, is based on what Commissioner Mac'Kie was just discussing, and that is that in none of those cases does their architectural feature, awning, or colors, imply what they sell within the premises. But in the staff's opinion, the wave action wall is to the beachwear where the dolphin scene does tell you what type of merchandise and its intent is to attract the public and the motoring public to that business. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold -- and we'll hear from the petitioner -- I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't know about the rest of you but when I drive by Checkers at night, it's not just the Checkers' sign that advertises the building's location but the fact that the place is lit up like a lunar landing. I mean it's just unbelievable when you drive by that thing, everything from their exterior, their use of tile, their bright lights, their proliferation of neon barks attention. I don't want to perpetuate that type of building in Collier County. And if we need to make an ordinance change to do it, so be it. I don't know if we can apply our existing codes specifically to this. I think there is a difference between this and a line of neon going around your building just because of the shape and so forth. I'm inclined to -- we'll hear from the petitioner I'm sure. I'm inclined to take a harder line on this because I see this type of thing being proliferated and I'm not happy about it. So, you know, that's for my two cents at this point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you have more, Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: If I might add another comment, recently the county's undertakes its Marco master planning effort and during the Marco surette that was held a couple of weekends ago, one of the key issues that came out on the citizens community is an issue related to signage and control of signage. And they proposed a consultant study the county look at adopting a new set of sign regulations especially for Marco Island to address the community standards for Marco Island. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, let me mention one thing. I'll do this before Mr. Pires stands up and says it, and that is the proceeding that we have right now is an interpretation, specifically Mr. Arnold's interpretation as to the code and ordinance as it exists right now. In terms of whether it's appropriate, whether you want to make future changes, obviously those are things that you can do and can direct but the issue before you today is whether Mr. Arnold's interpretation is correct or whether the petitioner will show you by competent substantial evidence that his interpretation is incorrect. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I guess, please, the petitioner. MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, members of the board. My name for the record, Anthony P. Pires, Jr. of the lawfirm of Woodward, Pires, Anderson and Lombardo. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Pires, before you get started, can I ask you how long -- it's getting late in the day -- that you anticipate your presentation to take? MR. PIRES: I figure -- anticipate no longer than 30 minutes in the entirety. In the entirety. That's going back and forth, I guess, with staff. And I have one -- all I have is one witness and a brief presentation. I can approximately make it in about 15 or 20. I think 20. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 15 or 20? MR. PIRES: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But you can get in that time everything on the record that you need to get on there? MR. PIRES: I believe I can. If I could then ask the board's indulgence if it appears that I won't be able to at that time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Before you start, I just want to ask one question. MR. PIRES: Sure. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What do you sell in this store? MR. PIRES: My client sells sport-related items, tee shirts. There are some beach related items but sells tee shirts, shoes, sneakers, those kind of items. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Thank you very kindly. This is an interpretation and it's two parts, the way Mr. Arnold has provided his interpretation. And first of all, it's a wave design, not a wave action design. If I may inquire -- make some inquiries of Mr. Arnold if that's the appropriate process. I'm not sure, Madam Chairman. MR. CUYLER: What you may want to do is I'll let you handle your presentation the way you want to, Tony. You may want to present what your side is and then if you want to inquire anything as to Mr. Arnold, you may give the board a better feel for exactly what you're '- MR. PIRES: Okay. Because I do have a few questions of Mr. Arnold then I'll reserve at the end of the presentation. Our position is that this is a design and not a sign. We have, and I'll introduce them -- if I could make a part of the record all of the items that I have and present before the board today -- make them part of the record. I have extra copies to provide for Mr. Cuyler if I can do so at this time. For the board, I'll be doing a presentation with some other panel boards. The one -- the first item we have was submitted in reduced format as part of the notice of appeal. It's the elevation for the parapet design for the Wings store in Marco Island. This indicates the parapet design. That's Exhibit E in the reduced package that -- in reduced form that was part of the notice of appeal. Also as part of the record -- and we had submitted previously in reference the Checkers. This is a Checkers located at Tollgate Plaza. It was approved pursuant to SDP 93-71. And this is exhibit supplement number two. And I have also attached a color photograph of the Checkers. This was approved by the county. This is one of the facilities that Mr. Arnold says does not constitute a sign. He says that the design elements of this particular building -- as cited in his executive summary, that the MR. PIRES: MR. CUYLER: MR. PIRES: building design. MR. CUYLER: business does not rely on the building design to advertise the type of product sold within the premises. Mr. Arnold also has opined that this Juicy Lucy's which was approved pursuant to SDP Number 94-7 (D) (17) which is exhibit supplement dash three in the notice of appeal as evidenced by the photographs which I have introduced also. And these are photographs for the hearing, providing copies. These were taken three days ago or four days ago, that that particular design -- that that business does not rely on the building design to advertise the type of product sold. Furthermore, the Crabby Lady crab house, this is Exhibit I, STP 92-116. Once again, his differentiation between these facilities, permit approved by Collier County is at the design, that the businesses do not rely on the building design to advertise the type of product sold. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In fact, from that sketch, it sort of looks like a crab MR. PIRES: That's our contention. Our expert will testify in his opinion as an architect that it does appear to be a crab and it appears to be a restaurant. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tony, we have an expert here to tell us that looks like a crab? MR. PIRES: It's always a concern when you have quasi-judicial proceedings, Mr. Hancock. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Just one at a time, please, for the benefit of the court reporter. MR. PIRES: And, lastly, this was not part of the package but it was something I just recently observed. This is Shiraz Oriental Rug Gallery on North Tamiami Trail and it was STP -- it's a building permit, building permit 93-8864, and this was recently finished. It's Exhibit G for purposes of these particular proceedings. And once again, I'm sure -- I don't believe Mr. Arnold's seen it, but I'm sure he would also say that the business does not rely on the design of the building to attract attention although you can see it has the oriental eastern sort of appearance. What I'd like to do at this time is I would have Mr. Jeffrey Gross -- I'd like to have him come forward, qualified as an expert, and then make some inquires of him utilizing these various items that have been brought before the board today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, do we need to accept Mr. Gross as an expert? MR. CUYLER: Is he being proffered as an expert, Tony? Yes, he is. In what? In the field of architecture and signage and You can inquire if you wish as to his background or you can take Mr. Pires' word that -- or, Mr. Pires, you can give a quick proffer of his background. MR. PIRES: I'd like Mr. Gross to provide his background. I think that would be a little bit -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've seen it obviously -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to accept Mr. Gross as an expert. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. MR. PIRES: Just one other question about that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll stipulate that he is an expert. MR. PIRES: In architectural design and signage for the record? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Architecture. I don't know about signage. MR. PIRES: I'd like to have him qualified as an expert in signage also. MR. CUYLER: Does he have specific training in signage? MR. PIRES: Yes, he does. I believe we could make a proffer of that to the board, Mr. Gross could. Mr. Gross, if you could describe to the board your specific experiences with regards to signage and architectural design or signage specifically. MR. GROSS: Yeah. Good afternoon. I was a former president of the Bear County Chapter of the American Institute of Architects and also a former board director of the State Association of American Institute of Architects. In addition, I'm currently on the City of Hollywood Planning and Zoning Board and we just -- we fewrote our code section on signage. And I was the planning and zoning board member on the sign committee. Also, for seven years I served on the cycling committee at the town Davey, where I reviewed signage and also for four years I served on the downtown redevelopment authorities design and review committee for downtown Hollywood and also reviewed signage at that time. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Each of those last two, did you exclusively review signage or was that part of the greater -- MR. GROSS: The Planning and Zoning Board, I was on the code committee that exclusively wrote the sign ordinance that fewrote the sign ordinance. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How is your -- MR. GROSS: The DRC -- that was just one of our issues, yeah. We did the exterior design to make sure that they were in conformance with downtown redevelopment rules and signage. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: With all due respect to Mr. Gross and his qualifications, as a member of this board, I've been called upon to review and revise our sign ordinances and sign codes as well as our Growth Management Plan, but I don't consider myself an expert in either one of those fields. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, I'm not willing based on a review position to stipulate as expert testimony regarding signs on Mr. Gross' part. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't feel comfortable with it either. I accept the fact that you're an architect, and that you've got a registration and the State of Florida has said that you're an architect. But in signage, I don't know. I'm not entirely comfortable with that one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, tell us where we are. MR. CUYLER: I think that you can recognize him as an expert in architecture. That doesn't preclude him from giving opinions on the signage in the event we would go anywhere else and that will just carry the weight that it carries, the weight that the board wants to give it to him. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. PIRES: Mr. Gross, have you had a chance to familiarize yourself with the definition of signage contained within the Collier County Land Development Code? MR. GROSS: Yes, I have. MR. PIRES: Have you had a chance to familiarize yourself with the various interpretation and the notice of appeal on this matter? MR. GROSS: Yes, I have. MR. PIRES: Have you had a chance to review the elevation for the Wings store that is the subject matter of this appeal? MR. GROSS: Yes, I have. MR. PIRES: And do you have an opinion as to whether or not this wave design at the parapet wall constitute a sign under the Collier County Land Development Code definition of signs? MR. GROSS: It's not a sign. MR. PIRES: And nowhere -- in the materials that Mr. Arnold, I believe, has referenced it as being wave action. Do you see any action in that wave? MR. GROSS: There's no animation or movement of any of the lighting or the object itself, so, therefore, it would have no action. MR. PIRES: Mr. Gross, do you have an opinion as to whether or not that wave parapet design is a visual representation identifying the type of product sold within the premises? MR. GROSS: No, it's not. MR. PIRES: That is your opinion that it is not? MR. GROSS: That's correct. MR. PIRES: Do you have an opinion as to whether or not that wave design is designed primarily -- principally to advertise the type of merchandise or products for sale within the premises? MR. GROSS: No, it doesn't advertise the products. MR. PIRES: In your opinion, what does that wave design constitute? MR. GROSS: The wave design is an abstract representation of the seaside and water community that it's in. It's an embellishment of the building. Without the top of the band, the building would be very dull and box like. MR. PIRES: Have you had a chance to review the elevations and photographs of the various other structures that were permitted, including the Checkers and Juicy Lucy's, the Crabby Lady that were made part of this appeal? MR. GROSS: Yes, I have. MR. PIRES: And your opinion is -- do you have an opinion as to whether or not this wave design for the Wings elevation is similar to the design of these particular structures? MR. GROSS: The wave design is a style just as you would have a Mexican restaurant might have an adobe or Spanish type of look, a Chinese restaurant might have a pagoda type of thing to give it a style. I feel that the other buildings have a corporate style. The Checkers was considered by Florida Architect, the magazine of American Institute of Architects in the State of Florida as being a fifties juke box. It was supposed to give the allusion of driving through a diner restaurant. A lot of buildings have a particular style so that as someone approaches the building, they would then recognize the style of the building. MR. PIRES: How about with regards to Juicy Lucy's and the Crabby Lady? MR. GROSS: The same condition. I think the commissioner already recognized that the Crabby Lady looks like a crab. I don't think I have to come from out of town to tell you all that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not an expert but -- MR. PIRES: Do you have an opinion as to whether or not those -- the proposed designs for Wings are any different than the other designs on these other buildings that were approved by Collier County? MR. GROSS: It's the same concept. The only difference is that the Wings store is consistent with the context of its location. The other examples you gave do not meet the context of a location. The Checkers is designed for anywhere in the United States. It doesn't represent the seaside or waterfront location that it's in. MR. PIRES: Can you expand upon what you mean by the Wings design being specific for its location? MR. GROSS: It -- it gives that -- that function that looks like a waterside or a water-oriented location for a store. MR. PIRES: Well, based -- you've had a chance to review the interpretation. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not with the logical extension of the interpretation would be as it would apply to stained glass windows in a church? MR. GROSS: Yes. I feel that the same interpretation was made in the stained glass window in a church or even the spire and the height of the church and the steeple could then be construed as being a sign. MR. PIRES: I have no further questions of Mr. Gross subject to any other inquires the board may have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Gross, is the wave design a neon treatment intended to attract attention? MR. GROSS: It's an architectural element that's intended to invoke a style to the building just as -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That doesn't answer my question. Are they intended to attract attention; yes or no? MR. GROSS: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So they're not necessary then? MR. GROSS: They are necessary in events -- again, because they're an embellishment in the building, that without them the building would just be a square box. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So they don't attract attention, but you want them anyway. If they don't attract attention, sir let's just remove them. MR. GROSS: I -- a building -- you know, again architectural style is just that. It's whatever the style is the building to -- obviously any kind of architectural style attracts attention. You know, I'll go back on what I said. If you paint a building pink or you paint a building yellow, you're going, you know, to attract attention to it with certain people. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're talking about more than paint, sir. We are talking about lighting. And you're telling me it's not designed to attract attention and that's your answer. Is that correct? MR. GROSS: I would say that -- that any -- again, any architectural element could attract attention to the right person that is interested in that item. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My second question is does the proposed neon treatment border and illuminate the establishment? MR. GROSS: It goes along the top as a pediment along the topping. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I interpret that as a border. I'm asking you, sir. Does it border and illuminate the establishment? MR. GROSS: I would not say it borders it. It's a pediment feature that would go around the top of the building just like any other pediment around any other building. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, sir. It goes around the top of the building but you're saying it does not border it? MR. GROSS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you're saying it does not further illuminate the building? MR. GROSS: Oh, it illuminates the building. There's neon on it so that would give some light to it, yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The last statement I have is regarding your statements pertaining to the intent of Checkers to emulate a '50s-style juke box. Are you speaking as a designer or as a representative of the Checkers corporation? MR. GROSS: No. I'm talking as a designer and I'm quoting out of an article from the Florida Association of American Institute of Architects. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So, it's not from personal experience. That's what you have apparently read. MR. GROSS: Oh, I agree with it, too. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You agree with it but I'm just saying you are not speaking for Checkers corporation or as the designer of that building? MR. GROSS: That's correct. I'm not the designer of the building nor am I with Checkers corporation. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned -- and I'm paraphrasing -- you may need to correct my wording here -- but something to the effect of you see this as a representation of the wave and water-oriented sense of our community. I'm wording that differently. MR. GROSS: That's correct. The water intention of the COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What part of this design is it that represents water-oriented community? MR. GROSS: The top of the building that gives a movement and an abstraction of water, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A movement of water? Earlier you said that you saw no motion in answer to Mr. Pires here. Are you changing your testimony now? MR. GROSS: There's no motion in that there's no action in that the wave itself moves. Like if you had chasing neon where the wave would actually move or there would be some type of animation where you'd move from section to section and from wave to wave. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's just representative of motion? MR. GROSS: No. It's, again, an abstraction of a wave -- of a wave of the ocean in the sea front location. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. So the representation is the top order where the waves are. Where -- help me with the Checkers example. The examples you handed out here, I want to run through them one at a time. You already talked about Checkers. Let's go to one of the others. Juicy Lucy's. What is the representation here in your opinion and how is that message conveyed? MR. GROSS: I have -- I have no idea what this building represents. It's just that a lot of them were built exactly the same way and the representation is the corporate look of the building itself. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the corporate look -- and how is it -- I'm guessing through the awnings and through the neon border? MR. GROSS: I would agree because on the construction drawings that were submitted for the -- for the development approval, the awning says that the awnings will be provided by the sign contractor. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. And the Shiraz Oriental Rug Gallery, this building is what -- what's -- what is the message here and how is that message being sent? MR. GROSS: The windows and then the top parapet action give an oriental look to the building. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it's just the top parapet. I'm not sure. I need a dictionary. What's a parapet? MR. GROSS: The section over the front doors. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. So you don't -- the coloring itself, the marbling, the doors -- it is strictly the windows and the parapet are all that send a message or -- MR. GROSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The color in the doorway, the borders do not provide -- the little gold ornaments, they don't provide any of that message? MR. GROSS: No. The top ornaments would provide the same message, too, the top gold ornaments. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the doorway emphasize that message at all? MR. GROSS: Well, the glass -- yeah, the arch would be similar to southern Spain, northern Africa. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the black -- I don't know what the black material is by this but I know from driving by there, it appears to be a squared tile or slate or some sort of out-of-the-ordinary material. It is not one painted black wall. MR. GROSS: I couldn't tell you that. I've never seen the building in person. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. The point I'm just trying to make is these -- you've said it's a corporate message or a message being sent. In each of these, it's the entire structure that is unique; Shiraz Oriental Rug Gallery? That entire structure is obviously unique. It's not just the parapet. It's not just one thing. On Juicy Lucy's, you got the awnings. You've got the border lights. You've got virtually the entire building design. On Checkers, you have -- you said yourself it's like driving through a juke box. MR. GROSS: It's a fifties styles juke box. And it's like driving through a diner. And that's what the Florida American Institute of Architects magazine quoted. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The point there is that the entire building sends that message. If you were to remove -- I'm trying to think what portion of this you would have to remove to have an impact. But the difference is -- I mean if you change the Checkers sign up top, it's still Checkers. It's still -- the message is still clearly there. It differs with Shiraz. If you take off the word Shiraz Oriental Rug Gallery, it would still have the appearance of an oriental style building even though the words don't say that. If you take off the waves, the motionless waves, then it does take away that. It does not leave that feeling. So they are clearly expressing -- they are the sole thing as far as I can tell on this building expressing that message. So it appears to me that they differ very much in that regard from the other three examples. MR. GROSS: Again, the Wings corporate look is the front roof with the glass and the top parapet feature. You're probably more familiar with Checkers and maybe Juicy Lucy. You've probably never seen a Wing store, but they have other stores that are like this. So there are -- there are elements here that are similar to it. They have 60 stores right now including one in New York City. And they do sell things other than just towels and -- they sell towels. No question about it. They sell towels and bathing suits and those kind of things. But they also sell Adidas sneakers, they sell sport shorts, they sell tee shirts, they sell other items that are in the sporting field. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I see on the sign here it says swimsuit sale and sunglasses, so they are, I'm guessing, beach and water oriented. MR. GROSS: They have those items and, of course, in that location those are sundries that will sell and they will carry themselves. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also help wanted on there, I see. MR. GROSS: They will higher local Collier County residents to work in the store. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point in all of that I'm not sure I agree with the correlation that these waves to the top are identical to the corporate image being sent out by Checkers or by Shiraz or by Juicy Lucy's. There appears to be a very strong difference. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there other questions of the petitioners? Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No further questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Edwards, are there speakers? MS. EDWARDS: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Pires, do you have more to get on the record? MR. PIRES: I have a few questions -- if I may ask a few questions of Mr. Arnold. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I actually did have a couple questions. I didn't realize we're completing winding that up. It doesn't -- it seemed to me being an architect's question. I'm just wondering if you have any information like what percentage of the company's business is water related. Is it a majority? Is it 90 percent? Is it 30 percent? MR. GROSS: Eighty-five percent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Just a few questions for Mr. Gross, if I may. Based upon the interpretation by Mr. Arnold, if Wings was a book store, that this wave parapet design would not be a sign? MR. GROSS: That's correct. Because it was said that the products in the store are related to the top parapet item and that's the reason that the top parapet item is a sign. MR. PIRES: Okay. Furthermore, I'd like to provide you -- this is an article out of Florida Architect. I have provided a copy for the record regarding the Checkers restaurant. Is this the article you were referring to when you were discussing the Checkers' look? MR. GROSS: Yes, it is. MR. PIRES: And once again, if I may, your opinion is -- do you have an opinion as to whether or not the wave design of the Wings store as outlined in Exhibit E is any different in intent and in fact of the exterior designs and elevations of the Checkers, Juicy Lucy's, Crabby Lady and Shiraz that have been introduced as part of this record? MR. GROSS: Excuse me. Could you -- MR. PIRES: Are they any different as far as their intent? MR. GROSS: They are all the same architectural style in that they're corporate architectural style. MR. PIRES: And none of them constitute a sign in your opinion; is that correct? MR. GROSS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One other. MR. PIRES: Hiss Hac'Kie may have some other questions. MR. GROSS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are either of you aware of other jurisdictions -- if this is the corporate look for this building, has this problem arisen in other jurisdictions? Have other county or local governments interpreted this is a sign? MR. GROSS: No. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are we sure of that or is it just that you haven't heard of any? MR. PIRES: The owner is here. He's represented to us that, no, of the 60 stores and the 15 stores that have this design, there have been no difficulties and no questions as to whether or not COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of all 50? MR. PIRES: Fifteen. I'm sorry. Fifteen with this design, including Sarasota. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Including who? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sarasota. MR. PIRES: Sarasota. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Pires, you had questions of Mr. Arnold? MR. PIRES: Yes, ma'am, if I may. Thank you. Mr. Arnold, isn't it correct that pursuant to the Land Development Code accent lighting is allowed? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. PIRES: And isn't it correct also that accent lighting can constitute a border on top of a building? MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. MR. PIRES: And that is permissible and allowable under the Land Development Code? MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. MR. PIRES: It can be used to border and illuminate the top of a building? MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. MR. PIRES: Okay. The particular design elevation for the Wings store that's the subject matter of this appeal, does it have any animated or moving aspects to it, Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. The neon wave action design does not move in itself. It does not animate. MR. PIRES: Getting back to accent lighting, your opinion is that if it was not the wave design that the illumination would be appropriate and legal, an illuminated border? MR. ARNOLD: An illuminated horizontal border to the ground? MR. PIRES: MR. ARNOLD: MR. PIRES: MR. ARNOLD: HR. PIRES: Along the top parapet. Without the wave action? Yes. Yes, it would be. Is it your opinion that the accent lighting has to only be horizontal and can't be curved or changed in any direction, Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: Excuse me. Would you repeat the first part of the question? MR. PIRES: Is it your opinion that the accent lighting cannot -- must only be horizontal and can't change and be curved or have any other shape to it? MR. ARNOLD: The code that was changed with the last amendment provides specific provisions for accent lighting. It talks about outlining vertical-horizontal portions of the building. It does not indicate whether or not that can be curved, et cetera. I would say that at some point along your line, you cannot have a horizontal neon light. MR. PIRES: Can you point out to me in the Land Development Code the section on accent lighting where it precludes or requires only horizontal elements? MR. ARNOLD: Also, I'd like to point out under that same section, that it also requires development and service administrative permission to use accent lighting. MR. PIRES: But is there any requirement? This is section 2.5.8.1.5.2 of the Land Development Code, Page LDC 2:159 and over to 2:160. I have an extra copy if -- MR. ARNOLD: I was looking back under the prohibited section of the code. Your question was does it specifically state horizontal? MR. PIRES: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: No, it does not. MR. PIRES: In fact, the Juicy Lucy's that's indicated here has lighting that curves over the front canopy; is that not correct? MR. ARNOLD: Which Juicy Lucy's is that? MR. PIRES: On Pine Ridge Road Approved pursuant to SDP 94-17. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Excuse me a second. Are we discussing an interpretation on Juicy Lucy's here today or are we discussing Wings? MR. PIRES: Wings, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Juicy Lucy's has a curved neon sign. It's totally immaterial in my opinion. I don't think it's pertinent to this discussion at all. We're discussing Wings not Juicy Lucy's. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. The only reason why was when Commissioner Hancock was making inquires about illuminations -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't matter how many people rob a bank. If you go in and rob one, I'm going to have you arrested. MR. PIRES: I understand, Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you nearing completion, Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: I have no further questions of Mr. Arnold but I believe that it's been evidenced by the testimony of Mr. Gross who is an architect and qualified in the field that the wave design does not constitute a sign, that the wave design pattern of Wings is exactly similar to the exterior appearance of the other products that have been approved by Collier County, that Mr. Arnold in his opinion -- in his interpretation in his executive summary, Page 2 of his executive summary, that says that Juicy Lucy's, Crabby Lady, Checkers, and Miami Subs do not rely on the building designed to advertise the type of product sold within the premises. And I believe Mr. Gross testified and his opinion was that the Wings business has a design that does not rely on the building design to advertise the type of products sold within the premises similar to the interpretation rendered by a county staff. So it is our request that the Board of Zoning Appeals find that the -- it not substantial and competent evidence to support the staff's interpretation that the elevation of the Wings store in this instance in a nonilluminated fashion by itself is not a sign, and that when you apply the accent lighting ability under the Land Development Code that the illuminated wave design is not a sign. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Arnold, you've alluded a few moments ago to the requirement of the community services director to use accent lighting at all. Would you expand on that? MR. ARNOLD: The code specifically states that -- if you'll allow me to find that section, I'll read it. It says accent lighting must have the approval of the Community Development Services Administrator or designated except as prohibited in Section 2.5.6 of this code. And installation of accent lighting shall require a building permit. And that 2.5.6 of the code is the section dealing with prohibited signage which says that it's prohibited to have accent lighting that outlines doors, windows, or attached to columns, vertical corners of the structure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just two questions. One is do I understand then that the shape of the top of this building, does it cause a problem but adding the lighting to it is what sends you over the edge on your interpretation? MR. ARNOLD: My interpretation is two part; one, that the wave action wall in itself constitutes a visual attraction, and, two, that with the accessory lighting attached to it further implies that that is a sign and then would violate the county's sign code in terms of its size. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If it didn't have the lighting, would you interpret that as a sign? MR. ARNOLD: I would. I think that is not an architectural style. I don't know what a corporate architectural style is. I had a course working on my masters degree in planning on signage and architecture. Never once did I hear the term corporate architectural style used as one of the major architectural styles. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My last question was just a response to what you just read to Commissioner Matthews. Did I hear that lighting is prohibited? Could you read the second section? One is that we would have to get your permission, but the second one is a direct prohibition that seems to me to apply to these circumstances. MR. ARNOLD: It says that accent lighting as defined in this code outlining the doors and windows or attached to columns and vertical corners of structures. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The fact that this is horizontal as opposed to vertical is what exempts it from -- MR. ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know if that was an intentional omission, that horizontal is somewhat less offensive or was it determined to be when that code was adopted? I wonder why that was left out or it was bad. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what accent lighting does if it is horizontal. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, am I to understand that there are still no public speakers? MR. DORRILL: There are none. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, before you do that, is there anything else staff wants to get on with regard to qualifications? The board hasn't specifically accepted staff as experts in any field. MR. ARNOLD: If need be, I have Mr. Robert Mulhere of our staff who's also an AICP certified planner. His section specifically deals with signed permitting. If need be, I can have Mr. Mulhere come up and answer questions related to how we view signage, other signs of similar styles that we may have prohibited or rejected in the past. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that might be a good idea. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Mulhere. MR. CUYLER: And then the board generally recognizes its staff as experts in the field that they are engaged in and hired for and present material to you. You may want to get that on the record if that is the case. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to accept Mr. Hulhere as an expert regarding the permitting of signs historically in Collier County for the time period in which he's been with the county. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Bob Hulhere is with the current planning staff. MR. HULHERE: We do review all signage that is permitted in Collier County -- or I or my staff, and we expressly preclude any approval of signs during site development process. We reserve the right to review them at the permitting stage. Oftentimes we get site development plans that depict signage and we may make a comment and we try to make a comment at that point in time and, in fact, that's what happened in this case. However, we always put a statement in the site development plan approval which reserves the right, you know, that indicates that signs would be permitted at the permitting -- building permit stage reviewed. I can give you a couple of examples of some somewhat similar situations, albeit a little bit more, I think, visible. There was a building in Collier County on Airport Road that wished to construct a parapet wall in the shape of a shoe. And that request was denied and the denial was based on the fact that that would constitute a sign, albeit a little bit more visible in that example but I think a similar situation. There have been some other examples there. There's the example of an individual who wanted to have permitted a fast food, I guess a -- a hot dog stand that was in the shape of a frankfurter, a hot dog. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The stand? MR. MULHERE: No. Actually a structure. Again, that example, it never went forward. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did it stand on its head or its side? MR. MULHERE: I think you may be familiar with the Twisty Treat as another example. None of those exist in Collier County. The difference being that those do not constitute, at least in my opinion, an architectural theme or an architectural style. They certainly do promote the business that's being proffered at the location. So if you have any questions other than that those, those are just some of the examples that I have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one thing on the record, you're probably going to get to this but I know that none of us said anything after Mr. Hancock suggested that Mr. Hulhere's an expert because we still firmly agree with that but just a review of the written record might indicate that might be interpreted as a lack of support. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There was no second. MR. CUYLER: I think both Mr. Hulhere and Mr. Arnold are requesting that they be recognized as experts in planning. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that Mr. Arnold and Mr. Hulhere both be recognized as experts. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we identify the fields? MR. CUYLER: Planning, zoning and Mr. Hulhere's gone through the fact that he deals with signs on a regular basis. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe both of you are registered AICP? Is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. HULHERE: That's correct. MR. CUYLER: And again, you may want to take that motion and pass that motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a second. We have a motion and a second. Mr. Hulhere, how long have you been dealing in signage as a regular part of your job? MR. HULHERE: About six years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Six years. Okay. We have a motion and a second to recognize Mr. Hulhere and Mr. Arnold as experts in the planning -- planning field with sign MR. CUYLER: That would be planning and zoning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Planning and zoning. MR. HULHERE: Planning and zoning, you know, that's really is what I do in my section is the planning and zoning. And we do as part of that -- and I think that's the important thing we do as part of that is review sign permits. We also -- for what it's worth, we've also been involved in the amendments of the sign code as well as the writing of the sign code that currently exists in Collier County. MR. CUYLER: You specifically were, Mr. Mulhere, involved in that function? MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. MR. PIRES: Ma'am Chairman, may I just for the record interpose an objection to Mr. Mulhere being qualified as an expert in signage for the record. MR. CUYLER: And I think Mr. Pires had a short rebuttal to Mr. Arnold's statements about -- or Mr. Mulhere's statements about the other ones and then that's going to be a wrap up, I guess, and I'll inform you what the burden is and we'll be able to make a decision. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, do we need any specific reasons for Mr. Pires while he objects or do we have to make any finding on his objection? MR. CUYLER: No. I would let that go and just let it go on the record. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The motion I made originally was to recognize Mr. Mulhere as an expert in the permitting and review of signs. So -- and additionally recognize Mr. Arnold and Mr. Mulhere as experts in planning and zoning matters. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to recognize Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Arnold as experts in their fields of endeavor. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor, please say aye. Motion passes 5 to 0. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One comical little note. Maybe I'm mistaken, but it appears in the area of signage anyway, Mr. Mulhere has more experience than Mr. Gross and yet Mr. Pires is objecting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The public hearing is closed. MR. CUYLER: I think you wanted to make a quick rebuttal at the Chair's discretion. MR. PIRES: If I may, Madam Chairman. Mr. Gross for just about two more minutes -- if I could have Mr. Gross come forward again. Mr. Gross, how long have you been practicing architecture? Since 1974. Have you had the opportunity to design signs MR. GROSS: MR. PIRES: since that time? MR. GROSS: MR. PIRES: Numerous signs. And how many projects have you had where you had to design signs as well as other architectural features? MR. GROSS: Almost every project we've done. We do about 60 projects per year. MR. PIRES: Are you familiar with the concept differentiating between signs that have a specific representation and those that have abstract representations? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Pires, the board has already said they've not recognized him as an expert in signs. If you have more to present us as far as this individual case, that's great but if you're just trying to sell us that he's an expert or here to sell on the record that he's an expert, I don't know if that's necessary. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to permit him to make his record. I'd like to permit Mr. Pires to make his record. I think that's appropriate. MR. PIRES: If I could at least proffer if the Chair or if the board decides not to hear the testimony, he'll proffer the testimony for the record? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's easy. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we allowed to do that, whether he had a hearing or talk about whether or not he's an expert? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Yes, we had that. You had that opportunity earlier and we elected not to recognize Mr. Gross as an expert in signs though we did recognize him as an expert architect and for no other reason than he's licensed by the State of Florida. Commissioner Hancock, did you have a question on this? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. My comment was just that we've gone through that episode. At one point you were supposed to proffer him as an expert in the fields in which you chose -- you felt he was an expert. You attempted to do that. The board did not accept it, so I think further testimony in that regard is a waste of time. MR. PIRES: I'd like to proffer though he is an expert in the field of architecture and provide an opinion on that same issue with regard to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You already said that. We accepted him as an expert in architect and that he was going to provide an opinion. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not necessarily an expert opinion. You did that earlier today. MR. PIRES: But I'd like to proffer another opinion on the part of Mr. Gross as to abstract representations and specific representations. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this a written proffer you're proposing to make? MR. PIRES: No. It's a verbal proffer. Mr. Hulhere testified that he had previously reviewed and rejected specific representations in the form of shoes, hot dogs and Twisty Freeze which look like an ice cream cone, which represents specific products. And I believe he said that's what they represent; the shoe was a shoe warehouse, the hot dog was a hog dog establishment, and the Twisty Freeze was an ice cream place as opposed to what we have in this situation, a wave. We don't sell waves. And I'd like to have that on the record in the form of testimony if I could. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, tell me I'm not an attorney or a judge. Where are we? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll accept the fact they're not selling waves and then go ahead and close the public hearing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's where we are. MR. PIRES: I'd still like to make a proffer. Apparently, the board wishes not to and I would like to preserve that objection for the record. MR. CUYLER: Can you ask one question and get it on the record? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. MR. CUYLER: Okay. Go ahead and do that. Let him ask the one question and then let's close the public hearing. MR. PIRES: Mr. Gross, the references that Mr. Hulhere made to the shoes, the hot dog, and the ice cream stand, Twisty Freeze, are they different type of signage than the sign -- the design on the waves on the Wings building? MR. GROSS: Yes. MR. PIRES: And how are they different? MR. GROSS: The three that he mentioned are exact representations of the items. I'm very familiar with the Twisty Freeze. The entire building looks like one gigantic ice cream cone. These are again an abstract design as you would have on the top of any building where it may have a different design other than just a straight boring top and being embellished. MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman and members of the board, thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I'll close the public hearing. We have a question from staff? Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hulhere, you mentioned the shoe. The type of business that was proposed to be operated there was what? MR. HULHERE: Was retail footwear. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't think they would have been selling shoelaces or -- MR. HULHERE: They certainly could have been selling shoelaces and socks. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dr. Scholl's? MR. HULHERE: But the reason -- and that's why I said albeit those were fairly extreme examples but I think the reason that I indicated -- that wasn't a parapet wall. The proposal was a parapet wall shaped like a shoe. And although that's a little bit more specific, I think there's a similarity here that I wanted to bring out in that we have a parapet wall shaped like a wave to demonstrate water and beach. And they sell beach wear. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's Beach apparel. Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree, because, you know, whether it's tee shirts or whether it's swimsuits or sunglasses that are both on the sign here, advertised on the sign. It's the same thing. I mean a shoe store, you're going to have things that aren't literally shoes but are still -- while they may not be specifically beach wear, they are beach related as you would have shoe related. I have to just for the record indicate that I agree wholeheartedly with you that is a parallel example. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, if I could get on to the record what your burden is and then you can continue with your questions. This is the section dealing with appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeal. The Board of Zoning Appeals -- and I'm trying to leave out the nonapplicable language -- the Board of Zoning Appeals shall adopt the development service director's interpretation with or without modifications or conditions or reject his interpretation. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall not be authorized to modify or reject the development services director's interpretation unless such board finds that the determination is not supported by substantial competent evidence or that the interpretation is contrary to the Growth Management Plan, the future land use map, the code or the official zoning atlas, whichever is applicable. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I'd be glad to make a motion, Ms. Chairman. Looking at the excerpt from the Land Development Code that's in our executive summary, I think it's very, very clear that Mr. Arnold has made the correct interpretation. I would like to enter that in as findings and I would like to make a motion that the Board of Zoning Appeals uphold the interpretation by the zoning director. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I would like to second the motion if the motion maker will include additional findings such as Mr. Gross' testimony is the wave design in neon are not designed to attract attention to the building yet the petitioner's here to argue substantially to being allowed to maintain them. In addition, Mr. Pires submitted for the record a fast finish article which states, quote, lots of neon lighting make Checkers especially eye-catching after dark, end quote. It's obvious that the neon application in this in which he submitted for the record is designed to draw attention and I would say so is the Wings application. In addition, Mr. Gross further stated the neon treatment is designed to illuminate the building but does not border it even though it frames the upper edge and visible portion of the building. I find his statements inconsistent and further clarifies why he was not proffered or accepted -- or why he was proffered but not accepted as an expert in signage. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cuyler, would those amendments be appropriate to my motion? MR. CUYLER: You can incorporate those findings as part of the findings of the board. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Constantine. I will incorporate those then into Then we have a second? We have a second. Further discussion? Commissioner COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll just say I support the motion because I think the interpretation is supported by substantial and competent evidence and that it is indeed consistent with the Land Development Code. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just this. I don't think I'm going to persuade any of you but I think that this is an issue that needs to be addressed in our lighting regulations that we all don't like the neon. We all don't like what we see as a proliferation of these kinds of problems in the county, and that we need to address them in the lighting regulations, that this is -- it's unreasonable to interpret this as a sign and I'm not going to support the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No further discussion? I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Okay. Opposed? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes 4 to 1. Item #14 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS That concludes today's advertised agenda. We're to the Board of County Commissioners communications. Commissioner Norris, do you have anything? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A quick report on the school board reef project that Mr. Constantine started before. The school logistically will not be able to get students out of the classrooms and into other areas in order to complete a full demolishment. So in cooperation with the county manager, two things are happening. The school board is going to participate to what extent they can stockpile existing materials. In addition, we're working at the landfill on stockpiling the same types of materials so the reef project can go ahead with what level of involvement the school board can physically do. So I just wanted to bring that back to the board that they're doing the best they can, but it's a logistic problem and not one of them not willing to cooperate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one item. If you'll be all be so kind as to let me know by next Tuesday at this time who your preferred selections are for the ad hoc committee for landfill siting, and then we can gather those troops shortly thereafter and get moving on that issue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I had just prepared a memo to the BC -- BCC. I believe we have to get a resolution back to create the ad hoc committee; is that correct? MR. CUYLER: Would you like that for an add-on for next week? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would like it on quickly, yeah. MR. CUYLER: We can do that for next week and you may want everyone to turn them in to Chris. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry? MR. CUYLER: You may want to turn all your names in to Chris. Item #15 STAFF' COMMUNICATIONS CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Turn our names in to Chris. All right. Communications with staff. Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: Nothing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: Two quick. I need to alert you to a potential problem on next Tuesday's agenda and I have a solution. We have another appeal of an administrative decision as it pertains to the situation involving the homes at Hideaway Beach on the north end of Marco Island. It is problematic for no other reason than it appears that the two largest legal firms in the state will be vying against one another and at least two firms from New York and at least three local law firms in addition to the State of Florida who has some jurisdiction there. And, so, as this thing has taken on O. J. Simpson type proportions, I'm going to suggest that we continue that appeal for one additional week and perhaps reserve it for the entire afternoon for the following Tuesday's agenda, and I will attempt not to have anything else on that afternoon. Otherwise next week's agenda is going to be a complete mess. Unless you tell me otherwise, that's how I would propose to solve that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, are you sure one week would be sufficient or should you go out to the 16th? MR. DORRILL: I can determine that I know that one of the parties in the case, Mr. Anderson, has brought this to my attention. He will be out of country the week after that, and I'll need to determine whether one or two weeks and notify all the parties, the two local representatives of Quarles and Brady and also Mr. Casassa's firm. I'm not sure of the full name of that firm but they're the two local attorneys for that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think it might be good if we schedule it by itself on a Tuesday afternoon. It sounds like we'll be listening to it for awhile. MR. DORRILL: The other item, just a small item but it helps for you to know. There was an item on the consent agenda today asking for the authorization to occasionally send flowers and/or cards. We had an odd situation about two weeks ago where we had two employees on back-to-back days suffer heart attacks; one in the line of duty as a paramedic, who unfortunately passed away. I sent flowers on your behalf through an account that I have with the local flower shop, put my name on it as well, and that gives me an opportunity to represent us and get the costs for the flowers reimbursed. And the other employee had a heart attack the next day and was hospitalized in Fort Myers, but he's home and doing well. And I sent a card again on both your and my behalf. And it's just -- I appreciate your support to be able to do those things for those types of circumstances. That's all that I have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. With that, I presume -- do you have anything, Miss Filson? MS. Filson: I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hac'Kie and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Hancock out), that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 ACCEPTANCE OF FIRE HYDRANTS FOR HIRA LAGOS SALES TRAILER - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A2 ACCEPTANCE OF FIRE HYDRANTS FOR QUAIL WEST, UNIT ONE, PHASE I - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND LETTER OF CREDIT See Pages Item #16A3 SATISFACTION OF HORTGAGE FOR A NOTE IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,835 FOR LOT 13, BLOCK 5, NAPLES MANOR LAKES See Pages Item #16A4 RESOLUTION 95-292, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE REAPIR OR DEMOLITION OF A DANGEROUS OR HAZARDOUS BUILDING; OWNER OF RECORD: WILLIE HAE POSTELLE See Pages Item #16A5 ACCEPTANCE OF IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT TO GUARANTEE COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.514, "MAPLEWOOD UNIT TWO" See Pages Item #16A6 ACCETPANCE OF MAINTENANCE SECURITY FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN "SOUTHAMPTON UNIT ONE" AND SUPPLEMENTAL CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER See Pages Item #16A7 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR FALCON RIDGE - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16B1 RESOLUTION 95-293, ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE WITHIN THE PLATTED ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF MAINSAIL DRIVE BEGINNING AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SR-951 AND EXTENDING THREE TENTHS (3/10) OF A MILE EASTWARD See Pages Item #1682 CHANGE ORDER TO THE EMERGENCY CONTRACT FOR MEDIAN AND SELECTED PUBLIC AREA GROUNDS FOR MARCO ISLAND (HI) AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY (GGP) BEAUTIFICATION HSTU DISTRICTS See Pages Item #16D1 SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATERAND/OR SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR FLOYD AND VERONA ARNOLD See Pages Item #16D2 SATISFACTION OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR LEONA PILSON WONICKER, ESTATE See Pages Item #16D3 WORK ORDER UNDER THE CURRENT ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, FOR UPDATING THE FIVE DISTRICTS WITHIN THE EAST AND SOUTH NAPLES ASSESSMENT ROLLS See Pages Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS WITHIN THE FACILITIES NLA/~AGEHENT DEPARTMENT FOR LIFE SAFETY CERTIFICATION AND REJECTION OF BID #94-2279 Item #16E2 AGREEMENTS BETWEEN LASALLE PARTNERS AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE OPEN HOUSE TO BE HELD AT COASTLAND CENTER HALL See Pages Item #16G1 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS TO NAPLES PRODUCTION PARK H.S.T.U. BUDGET (FUND 141) - IN A NET INCREASE OF $9,100.00 Item #1662 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS TO NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE H.S.T.U. BUDGET (FUND 139) - IN A NET INCREASE OF $200.00 Item #1663 HID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS TO HAWKSRIDGE STORMWATER PUMPING STATION H.S.T.U. BUDGET (FUND 154) - IN A NET INCREASE OF $1,700.00 Item #1664 HID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS TO WATER NLA/~AGEHENT CIP BUDGET (FUND 325) - IN A NET INCREASE OF $18,900.00 Item #1665 REJECTION OF BID #94-2275, #95-2312 AND #95-2313 FOR LANDFILL EQUIPMENT Item #16H1 AWARD OF BIDS #95-2353, #95-2354, #95-2355 AND #95-2356 - TO VARIOUS VENDORS AS INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16H2 RECOHMENDATION TO REIMBURSE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS $152,400 FOR ACTUAL COST TO CONSTRUCT THE NLA/~ATEE ROAD 16 INCH WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN Item #16H3 SUPPLEMENTAL WORK ORDER AGREEMENT WITH BARANY, SCHHITT, WEAVER AND PARTNERS, INC. FOR THE GULF COAST LITTLE LEAGUE SITE See Pages Item #16H4 INCREASES TO THE ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT LIMITS WITHIN BID #92-1949 Item #16H5 AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE ESTIMATED COST ($404,352) NOT TO EXCEED THE BUDGETED AMOUNT TO ACQUIRE BY GIFT OR PURCHASE ALL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY WHICH ARE REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PORTION OF C.R. 864 (RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD ) FROM U.S. 41 TO POLLY AVENUE Item #16H6 RESOLUTION 95-294 AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR OFFICE EXPESES TO COVER THE PURCHASE OF FLOWERS OR OTHER ITEMS SENT BY THE COUNTY HANAGER'S OFFICE FOR SPECIAL OCCASIONS See Pages Item #16J MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been refererred to the various departments as indicated: Item #16J1 CERTIFICATES FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE No. 277 1991 Dated 1992 194 04/07/95 1993 213 04/07/95 04/07/95 149/150 Item #16L1 1994 04/07 &04/10/95 RESOLUTION 95-295, RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS See Pages Item #16L2 RESOLUTION 95-296, RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS See Pages Item #16L3 RESOLUTION 95-297, RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS See Pages Item #16L4 RESOLUTION 95-298/CWS-95-4/MWS-95-1/GWD-95-1, DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO INSTITUTE FORECLOSURE ACTIONS ON DELINQUENT WATER AND/OR SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS See Pages Item #16L5 RESOLUTION 95-299, RE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO. 178 FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACED AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR See Pages There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 4:47 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON 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: Rose Witt