Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/03/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 1996 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 9:04 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Barbara B. Berry ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll call the county commission meeting to order on the third of December, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, could you lead us in an invocation and a pledge to the flag, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this morning. We -- we give thanks and praise to you for the opportunities that we had to spend time with friends and family over the just-completed Thanksgiving holiday. And, Father, as always, it's our prayer that your hand guide the deliberations of the commission this morning. We pray for the safety and prosperity of our community and its people, and we pray, especially during the holiday season, for opportunities to reach out within our community and -- and lift up those who are at need. Father, we thank you in advance for your having blessed us in life and today especially and that you would bless our meeting and time together here. And we pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see we have a couple of changes to our agenda this morning. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning. I have two items that are add-on items and then one item that we're asking to be withdrawn. The first add-on item is under community development. It's Item 8(A)(2). It is a routine utilities facilities acceptance agreement for Naples Heritage, Phase 1. The other add-on item is Item 8(C)(1), which would be under public services, which is a recommendation -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just curious why we're adding on 8(A)(2). I don't have any objection, but we don't usually add those on. They're part of a standard -- MR. DORRILL: Sometimes we will with the sole condition that the paperwork has been received and approved by the attorney's office in order to effectuate a closing on a piece of property, and typically it's a multifamily parcel. I -- I can get that confirmed, if -- if necessary, but that's the only way that we add those on is to assist someone who's got a property closing. 8(C)(1) is a recommendation to authorize an amendment to an existing lease between the board and Collier Health Services, Incorporated. And then the one item to be withdrawn from the agenda is a lien resolution for a code enforcement case, 60506-057, which is Item 16(A)(6)(b), as in boy, on the consent agenda; and that would be rescheduled, if necessary. And that's all that I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you. I have one item I'd like to withdraw, and that is Item 9(A), a resolution concerning a preliminary official statement for bonds. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that a permanent withdrawal? MR. WEIGEL: That's a permanent withdrawal. We'll be changing the mechanism. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Berry, anything further? COHMISSIONER BERRY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I have no further changes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion, please. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #5A PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING COLLIER COUNTY'S SUPPORT OF ENTERPRISE FLORIDA, INC., AS AN INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATION TO LEAD THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN AGGRESSIVE, COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We don't have any minutes to approve today; so we'll go right into our proclamation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if we have anyone from the EDC here with us. Ellie, do you want to come up? The -- this is in concert with our Economic Development Council. We have a proclamation that reads: Whereas, Enterprise Florida, Incorporated, is designed to be a world-class service provider for economic development programs and services; and Whereas, Enterprise Florida, Inc., is ready to promote Florida nationally and internationally; and Whereas, Enterprise Florida, Inc., provides expertise and business resources that support high-wage job creation; and Whereas, Enterprise Florida promotes sound and diversified business (telephone is ringing) growth and expansion throughout the State of Florida -- there's a business call coming in now -- and Whereas, Enterprise Florida, Inc., has chosen Naples, Florida, as the site of the December 1996 Economic Summit. Now, therefore, the Board of Collier County Commissioners do hereby proclaim Collier County's support of Enterprise Florida, Inc., as an innovative organization to lead the implementation of an aggressive, comprehensive program of economic development. Done and ordered this 3rd day of December 1996, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, John C. Norris, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this proclamation. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) (Applause) MS. KRIER: For the record I'm Ellie Krier with the Chamber EDC Coalition for Government and Community Affairs, and as always, we would like to thank the commission for their support. This is a unique opportunity, and I think we're very excited that it is the first ever decided here in Collier County, regardless of what the press may have said this morning. It is an opportunity to find some -- some unique and wonderful ways to do this in a public-private partnership, which is -- the Economic Development Council's primary goal in job creation is to look at how to do that by flexing private experience into the -- the equation. And we thank you for your support. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The closest I got to the paper was running over it this morning. What -- COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I tripped over it on the way out, saw the headline, and threw it inside. Item #7A TERRANCE L. KEPPLE REGARDING A WAIVER OF A SPECIAL EVENTS FEE - WAIVER OF FEES APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a public petition here today, do we? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. We have a public petition today on behalf of some local Boy Scouts, and Mr. Terry Kepple is going to present that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Kepple, are you familiar with the rules of our public petition? I give you 10 minutes -- MR. KEPPLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And -- okay. MR. KEPPLE: Thank you. Hopefully I'll be done before that. Good morning. For the record my name is Terrance Kepple. I am assistant scoutmaster of Troop 274, who meets at Vanderbilt Presbyterian Church on Immokalee Road. We're holding our Sixth Annual Antique and Classic Car Show this year; and for the second year in a row, we're holding it at Sam's Club on December 14th. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Terry, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but it seems to me we've done this from time to time in the past, and if -- MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, we have. And -- and if you'd just give us some encouragement, if that's what you're inclined to do, then we'll process the minor budget amendment, and we'll pay those fees. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm only one commissioner, but I'd give you some encouragement. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's two. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Three. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think it's unanimous. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great presentation. MR. KEPPLE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Extremely persuasive. MR. KEPPLE: Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, it's too late, though. I just sold my Mustang a few months back. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To an 82-year-old lady. MR. KEPPLE: Perhaps you can buy it back and bring it up to the car show. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I'd like to, yeah. MR. KEPPLE: But you're all invited to the -- to the car show on December 14th, and we hope to have another good show this year. We had about 60 participants last year, cars, and hope to have better participation this year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is a fund-raiser for the Boy Scouts? MR. KEPPLE: Fund-raiser for the Boy Scouts, yes, sir. Last year we bought camping -- camping equipment, which had gone into a great disrepair, and we bought eight tents and stoves and things of that nature with the proceeds last year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Super. Good luck. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do you have any plans for the proceeds this year? MR. KEPPLE: At this point, no. Some -- some years it's -- it's a fair amount of money; sometimes it's a hundred or two hundred dollars in -- in proceeds. And depending on the proceeds -- normally it's divvied between the scouts and the troop, half of it going to the scouts for camp during the summer or special events that they need money to go and the rest of it going to buy equipment for the -- the troop itself. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. KEPPLE: Thank you. Item #8A1 RESOLUTION 96-568 KNOWN AS THE LAWHETKA PUD EXTENDING THE PUD FOR TWO YEARS AND PUD AMENDMENT TO BE BROUGHT BACK - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is 8(A)(1), staff review and recommendations relative to Ordinance PUD-90-26. MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record, planning services department. The Lawmetka PUD is one of those PUDs that is now five years old and is, therefore, subject to the sunsetting provisions of the Land Development Code. Lawmetka was adopted in 1990, and I think it's important to point out that those PUDs that were adopted from '90 on are generally reflective of contemporary formats that follow a -- a sample PUD document that our office put out in the late '80s, in '89 and '90. And that -- that that document contained boilerplate language which, nonetheless, from a legal point of view, is very important in that it defers to the Land Development Code whenever the provisions of the PUD are not clear or are absent. So for purposes of the -- the Lawmetka PUD, all of the recent amendments to the Land Development Code relative to architectural styles and enhanced landscaping and uniform signage and increases in some parking standards would all apply to the Lawmetka PUD. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we just pause for a second? So -- so there's not -- there are no issues with regard to development standards? MR. NINO: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It absolutely has to comport with the current standards? MR. NINO: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. And then you're going to tell us about density and -- MR. NINO: The Lawmetka PUD is consistent with the Future Land Use Element because it is located within an activity center. And I apologize. I should have started out by saying the Lawmetka PUD is located on the northwest corner of Wiggins Pass Road and U.S. 41; and completely surrounding the Lawmetka PUD is the Tarpon Cove development, which is currently under development -- development as a residential community. By virtue of its location within an activity center, it's reasonable to expect that that would have been zoned to a commercial classification. The -- the Future Land Use Element allows the full range of commercial activities. This PUD embodies within it land uses that are generally found in the C-1 through C-4 zoning districts. It's, therefore, consistent with the Future Land Use Element and the Growth Management Plan, and it remains consistence with -- consistent with other applicable elements of the Growth Management Plan by virtue of -- of, again, a recent review by jurisdictional staff relative to transportation, levels of service, utilities, open space, conservation practices. All of those regulations are adequately covered in the PUD to ensure that -- that prior to any building permit, issues of conservation and open space would be assured as a function of either a preliminary subdivision plat approval process or a -- or a site development plan process. The petitioner has asked that the PUD be extended another two years. I believe representatives are here to discuss with you or explain why at this point of time they actually haven't gotten into the physical development. Staff recommends that the PUD be extended by two years. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And the -- and the staff has not recommended that any amendment whatsoever be taken to this PUD? MR. NINO: We didn't find any reason to recommend an amendment because it is consistent, and we're confident that all of the most recent amendments to the Land Development Code, which addresses the things that we would normally have addressed, at this point in time will take place. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Including landscape buffers? MR. NINO: Including landscape buffers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would the petitioner like to say a few words here? MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the property owner. We are requesting a two-year extension based on the fact that the project is presently undergoing wetland permitting with the Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District. We would commit to initiate a PUD amendment within the two-year period when the -- the environmental permits have been issued. We feel that a PUD amendment is probably going to be necessary as a result of the permitting that we're undergoing at the present time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So you -- you want a two-year extension, but you will commit to some sort of PUD amendment within that two-year period? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to at least put out there that one concern I have in looking through the PUD is the height of 50 feet for structures. Tarpon Cove, which is immediately adjacent -- there doesn't appear to be any transitional height or additional buffering to smooth that transition between the two; so at time of amendment, I would ask the petitioner to -- you know, if I'm still sitting here, I'm probably going to ask those same questions. I'm going to look for more of a transitional approach to the adjacent properties. If you still wish to maintain a 50-foot height, if you come down to 35, I think that would be consistent with Tarpon Cove, but either way just somehow affecting the perimeter transition of the project. That was not really done in 1990 as much as we're doing it today. I'd like to see that done. That's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Any other questions for the petitioner? Any other public speakers? MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move that we, I guess -- actually, I'm looking for the proper word here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Extend for two years? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, extend for two years under the -- taking into account the statements by the petitioner that they will initiate a PUD amendment within that time frame. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #8A2 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR NAPLES HERITAGE, PHASE 1A - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is the add-on, 8(A)(2). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As routine as -- as this is, I assume our -- our staff goes through and, in essence, does a feasibility study on all of these to make sure we're not getting a bum -- I've just never looked into these; so rather than holding this conversation up on these facilities acceptance, can I get a -- just a staff briefing on these on how we accept them and what condition rating we give them to do so? MR. DORRILL: I -- I've been advised that this one was actually on the agenda last week and was continued to resolve a particular matter. We can provide you the information on whatever the issue was, how it was resolved, but these are normally scheduled at the convenience of the petitioner. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. I don't have a problem with that. I don't want to hold the item up. I just wanted to take the opportunity to ask staff if I could meet with them on these items and just understand the process a little bit better. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. We have a motion and a second on this one. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #SB1 PROPOSED CAXAMBAS PASS INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REQUEST REVIEW BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - APPROVED; STAFF TO MOVE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 8(B)(1). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have public speakers? MR. DORRILL: We have one who I presume is in support. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this on the Caxambas Pass? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I mean, it just seems to me we've had this discussion a number of times. We've had -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have, but there's one -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a lot of detail here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's one thing I think we need -- we do need to discuss today. Mr. Huber. MR. HUBER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Harry Huber with the office of capital projects management. This item is a request to approve in concept the proposed Caxambas Pass inlet management plan to authorize the staff to submit it to the State Department of Environmental Protection for review and consideration for adoption. This plan was prepared by Coastal Engineering Consultants pursuant to an agreement approved by the board in April -- Hay of 1994. On April 22nd of this year, a public workshop was conducted on Marco Island to present and discuss recommended inlet management alternatives. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Huber, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I think we're -- we're all comfortable with the plan. But one of the things that I'm concerned with is the implementation schedule. I understand that -- that we're being recommended to hold this until after turtle nesting season; is that correct? MR. HUBER: Well, just sort of based on the things that have to be accomplished prior to us doing some dredging, I didn't think a five-month period -- not that it's impossible, but I felt that, you know, to go on a routine schedule, that would be the -- the proper time, after the sea turtle season in -- next November, but -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So you're saying that you don't feel -- that you think the schedule would be too tight to get the -- the initial dredge work done before turtle nesting season? MR. HUBER: Well, I -- we can certainly make a wholehearted attempt to -- just to give you an idea of some of the things that need to be accomplished prior to that. Naturally, we would have to prepare the construction plans and put it out to bid, which that could take the better part of three months to do that; award the contract; and then just assuming it's going to take, probably, 30 days to do -- to mobilize and do the dredging, you know. So you've taken up four months there. And -- and then, you know, we also need to do a minor modification to the -- the permit and have that in place before, you know -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, the reason I ask and that causes me a little concern is that we have committed to the boaters in that area that we would go as rapidly as possible to make sure that they continue to have a good, clear access through Caxambas Pass. And rather than try to delay it until after turtle nesting season, if we could possibly go forward, I think that's the commitment that we made to the -- to the boaters down there. MR. HUBER: And just one other item that I just thought of in that regard, possibly, since there's -- you know, I'd have to confirm that, but the area where we would be disposing of the -- the dredge material, more than likely, because of the erosion down in that area, there's probably not any sea turtle nesting right now anyway until the -- the beach fill would be placed. Possibly we could get an extension into the sea turtle season. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So -- so it would actually be better for sea turtle nesting if we -- if we did go forward quickly because we would provide them with a -- with an additional area to nest. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Be careful using logic. This is the DEP we're talking about. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock, I think you had a question. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did. And likewise, Mr. Huber, I understand that you're not a magician, but if you have any wizard skills, you might want to pull those out, because we did make a commitment to those boaters to do everything possible; and I -- even though Caxambas has never shoaled in, we made that commitment. And -- and I think if we can hold it to as tight a schedule as possible, I -- I'm supportive of that. My question is, how many inlet management plans have we transmitted to the state as a county so far? MR. HUBER: Just one: Wiggins Pass. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So this would be the second one? MR. HUBER: Correct. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Have we transmitted Clam Pass yet? MR. HUBER: No. We've applied -- we submitted an application for a long-term permit, but we -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And how many have been approved? MR. HUBER: None. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So -- MR. HUBER: I mean, it -- you know, but we've -- we've already started the process to implement Wiggins Pass. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, in essence, we're transmitting these to the state, which allows us to go ahead and do the dredging that's necessary, even though we're not getting approved plans back from the state. Has that more or less been the process? MR. HUBER: That's -- that's correct. That's the way I've been proceeding. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions? Public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Blanchard, only in the event that you have specific questions of him. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any specific questions for Mr. Blanchard? Do we have a motion then? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move approval of the -- the conceptual Caxambas Pass inlet management plan to request review by the DEP. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you -- could I ask you to also add to your motion that -- that we direct staff to -- to go posthaste with the -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you can ask. Yeah. I'll -- I'll include in my motion direction to staff to move as quickly as possible toward the implementation of the dredge portion of the project to maintain an open pass for the boaters in that area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second amends. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Anything further, Mr. Huber? MR. HUBER: One thing, and I might have Michael Poff from Coastal Engineering to address it. We had sev -- when our natural resources department reviewed the plan, they had several concerns. I just wanted to get them on the record, and I think we -- you know, I think Michael Poff can explain it and address it -- their concerns. I just wanted to make them part of the record, if that's -- if that's appropriate. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. MR. POFF: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record my name is Michael Poff. I'm an associate engineer with Coastal Engineering Consultants. As Harry stated, the natural resources department had several concerns about the plan. The first one was the design, vessel size, and draft that we selected to design the depth of the maintenance dredge channel. We chose a 6-foot-draft vessel to accommodate the sailboats that do utilize Caxambas Pass. We do know that they do use the pass. They've been identified in the natural resources boating study that was conducted several years ago, and we feel that that's an appropriate size. There are deeper channels in the Caxambas Pass system as opposed to their comment being, why don't we look at Wiggins Pass and stick with the same draft size used for Wiggins Pass. And we feel that's inappropriate because Caxambas Pass does have deeper water, and we do know sailboats utilize it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: When you say "the natural resources department," you're referring the county's natural resources -- MR. POFF: Correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. POFF: The second concern was the shore bird utilization on the emerging shoals in the past system. The emerging shoals form, deform, and reform depending on the processes of the inlets. Our plan is to normalize these processes by maintaining a navigation channel and controlling the balance of wave energy and tidal hydraulics. We hope the normalization of those processes will be able to normalize the shoal formation and possibly enhance the shoal formation and increase the shore bird utilization of the area. Also by placing the dredge spoil on the beach that's critically eroded on the south end of Marco, we will probably enhance and restore some shore bird utilization area on that beach segment. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's good, because we would certainly want to leave no turn unstoned. (Laughter) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've been waiting three years to use that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I almost withdrew there. (Laughter) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. I don't want to be a part of that. MR. HUBER: Thank you. Item #882 REPORT ON THE LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NON-BINDING STRAW VOTE AND REQUEST FOR DIRECTION ON FUTURE PLAN-OF-ACTION - STAFF TO CONCENTRATE ON SPREADER SWALE SYSTEMS WHILE REVIEWING OTHER ALTERNATIVES CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Next item is the report on the Lely area stormwater improvement project. MR. CONRECODE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Tom Conrecode from public works. The item before you is a report back on the results of the straw poll, the nonbinding straw vote that occurred on November 5th regarding the Lely project. The -- the results of the vote give an indication of a couple things: One, the success of it in that it has fairly positive, strong support of response from the voters; secondly, negative in that the total number of no votes exceeded the total number of aye votes. What we'd like the board to do is give some consideration to a number of factors today and then, finally, give board -- or give staff direction on how they'd like us to proceed with the project, either as a complete, uniform project as it was originally proposed or some modifications to that based on the analysis of the precinct-by-precinct vote counts. An important thing for the board to consider today is the issue of landowners versus voters. The landowners will be assessed for the improvements within the district. And not in every case, though, is a voter necessarily a landowner; and not in every case is a landowner registered to vote, necessarily, in the precincts in which they own the land. So it's an important consideration when you look at what the balance of the numbers are and the makeup of the voters. Unfortunately, we don't know, and we have no way of determining what that variable is; but there is a -- a large population of condominiums down there and, as a result, probably a substantial number of tenters who are also registered voters in those precincts. I'm going to turn it over to John to talk to you about the precinct-by-precinct analysis and some modifications that we can make to the project or, if the board decides, to go forward with it in its entirety. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume prior to actually doing the straw vote that we were aware that there was a difference between landowners and voters. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. I just wanted to bring that up. MR. BOLDT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John Boldt, your stormwater management director. On the handout I give is the -- is the same map you're seeing there, just a little easier to see. As you get an idea, there's a fairly wide variation of response from the -- the voters in the area. However, there's a tendency in those areas, particularly southwesterly of U.S. 41 and the Naples Manor area and also Riviera for less support than the -- the other parts of the project; and I put those in yellow to indicate those areas are -- had less than 40 percent -- 40 percent support levels. You can draw some conclusions from that; however, the -- the numbers are very little. You take the Naples Manor project, for instance. The subdivision itself has several thousand residents, and yet we only had, what; a little over 200 voters express an interest in that area. There's a lot of tenters there. There are a lot of working people that aren't registered to vote, and so there was a 40/60 ballot split there; but that's a very poor response. So it's not a real good indication. The other areas southwesterly of -- of U.S. 41, also very small numbers, very few people live down in that area. I was quite surprised that the area along Bayshore, which is along the westerly portion of the project, for instance, has a -- a chronic flooding problem down there, has for a number of years, and yet we only had, what; 66 people indicate a response; and there was 39 percent for and 61 percent against. There might be some logic in using the results of the -- of the straw vote to determine where the interest is as far as construction purposes goes. However, it's pretty obvious that we can't eliminate everything, say, southwesterly of U.S. 41, because that is the outlet for both the -- the Lely system and the Naples Manor system. So that's the -- the heart of the outlet, and obviously we can't eliminate it. What could be done, perhaps, if it would -- want to be your option would be scale back the scope of the project as it might impact Naples Manor and the southern portions of the -- the Lely subdivision itself. It didn't show so much on the map I handed out, but on the map there, you can see the blue line that separates the -- the Lely basin and the Naples Manor system that runs through the Lely subdivision, although, all those swales and lakes pretty much within that subdivision are interconnected. So if we were to make improvements to the Lely main, which runs along the south side of -- of Rattlesnake Hammock, there's going to be some positive impact, even to the southern fringes of the Lely subdivision, because the water in that area can also drain north or kind of up grade if there's a much better outlet down there than there would be to the south. Since they are interconnected, there could be crossflow across that basin line. The table I provided you in the -- the executive summary gives you a -- a rough idea of how the cost of the project is broken down between the Lely main and branch system and the Lely Manor. Our estimated cost is 16 million dollars. It's split out about 11 million in the main system and about 5 million in the Manor system. A real quick computation of property values in the whole area is about 758 million dollars for the total, and again, that's split out. About 84 percent is in the Lely main, and a hundred -- or 16 percent was in the Manor system; so it's rather disportionate (phonetic). And if you were to apply that on through, apply it to a property tax, a millage rate, you can see the millage rates vary for the main at 8.6, the Manor, 20. If you put the whole system together as we originally had proposed, that's around 10 mills. And that's the figures that we used when we originally worked up some of the original cost estimates on a per-property basis. So -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me. Did you say 10 mills? MR. BOLDT: Yes. That would be for the total. Then depending how you would split it out -- if you were to split it over a five-year period, for instance, that would be 2 mills per year; and if you were to bond it, of course, over a 15- to 20-year period, you'll have -- minimizes the cost per year. I gave you a total here. Do it all in one year, for instance. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I understand. MR. BOLDT: That's obviously, you know, not that doable. So our conclusion was, just because the historic difficulty in getting widespread support for creating assessments or taxing districts for drainage, we felt that the 46 percent support figure represents a real significant show of interest in the project; and we're recommending full implementation of the total project, and then -- with all the various options we'd like to have you consider. I guess that would be the first question. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. BOLDT: If you want to proceed with the project, we would like to go through some of the options that we -- we reviewed and alternatives so we can get some direction. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. BOLDT: But if there's no interest in the project, that would be that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, there's definitely an interest in the project. As you -- as you mentioned, however, it wasn't full support. So let me ask you a question: What is the permitting status of our spreader soil system? MR. BOLDT: At this point in time, we -- we have our South Florida Water Management District permit to put the full project -- everything that we've conceived. We've had great difficulty getting it from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. A recent legislation change has delegated that authority for dredge and fill construction to the water management district; so our strategy at this point in time is, we're going to withdraw applications for both those agencies and reapply under the new permitting system that South Florida Water Management District has called the Environmental Resource Permit, the ERP. And we've been given encouragement that that's doable. There are a few unresolved issues up in the area north of Royal Wood and the Naples Heritage project that you considered earlier. There's some wetlands up there that need to be worked out, how we can provide some flood drainage control without overdraining the wetlands, but the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. My question is -- is directed specifically at just the -- the spreader soil system itself and not the total project for the moment, but just -- MR. BOLDT: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- just that spreader soil, because I know we've had a holdup in the past on getting those permits. So you feel that -- that by withdrawing and reapplying that we can go forward with permitting on that? MR. BOLDT: Yes, we do, right. Everybody seems to give us encouragement on that area. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize there's a need to do some improvements in the area, but if 46 percent were enough for something to move forward, we'd have either additional or different faces sitting up in many of these seats right now. The unfortunate reality is, a majority of the people didn't want to move forward with this plan. There is an 8-point differential there. I just can't, in good conscience, ignore what they said and go ahead full bore. I -- I think we do need to address some issues down there, and -- and I guess what I'd prefer -- and I don't know if the rest of the board agrees, but what I'd prefer to do is -- is look at what some scaled-back versions of dealing with the problem might be, because I'm not comfortable with moving forward with what the majority of the people have said they don't want to do. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is there any chance of phasing the project? MR. BOLDT: Yeah, very definitely. It could be phased over a number of years putting both projects together, but obviously you've got to have an outlet to do it; so we'd have to start at the lower end and work our way upstream, even though some of our bigger problems are in the upper reaches. We'd have to phase it in that direction. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, any public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, I have two. Mr. Carpenter, if you would, please, sir; and then, Miss Slebodnik, if you'd stand by. MR. CARPENTER: Hi. Dave Carpenter. I'm president of East Naples Civic. I did some checking on stormwater management, looked in a couple books on it, and I discovered that the first stormwater management project that I could find, it got far less than 46 percent of the vote, but Noah went ahead and built it. The other situation with this straw -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. Took a minute. Took a minute, but I got it. Noah, ark. MR. CARPENTER: We asked people to vote in a straw ballot, which means it's nonbinding on either party, to impose a tax upon themselves when, number one, they weren't certain of the total cost; and number two, they werenwt certain how that tax was going to be applied. That makes for a difficult vote at best. The timing of the vote in its ballot position did not allow for the time to get full, final figures on the project together and out to the voters; it was placed at the end of a ballot that was, in some cases, 21 pages long, which accounts for tremendous drop-off; and it followed a -- a theme of people voting no, no, no to new taxes. So I think on that basis, I think 46 percent was actually pretty good. You also have a problem, though, that exists with every stormwater management project that you look at anywhere in this country or anywhere in this county; and that is, you have people whose houses flooded during Jerry, whose streets were constantly under water; but then you have -- upstream you have people whose houses didnwt flood, whose streets were relatively dry. Now, obviously, the guy whose house is flooded is very much encouraged to vote for any stormwater project, but the person whose house didnwt flood, the odds are hews going to say, why should I impose this tax upon myself, even though his water eventually is going to go downstream and may very well be contributing to the flooding lower down in the system. Therews a natural tendency in a system like this for people upstream to vote against it, where people that get down closer to the outfall into the areas where the flooding is more to vote for it. And thatws something -- thatws why we have county commissioners to make the tough decisions on that. Thatws why that every issue before this commission isnwt put out to a straw ballot and isnwt put out to public vote, because if it were, probably very little would ever be accomplished. My recommendation would be to take -- Iwd say take a look at this system. There may be some modifications made to it. You know, I donlt think it was written in stone, but I certainly think the process should proceed on it. I think, under the circumstances, 46 percent shows a hell of a show of support, particularly when you couldnlt tell these people how the tax would even be applied. And I think itls -- itls time to take a look at the problem in a regional sense and say, hey, welve got to improve, particularly, the outflow, either that or welre -- this countyls going to be stuck for years with an inadequate system thatls going to have more use as development comes on line in that area, and welre going to have a real problem on -- on our hands, and itls going to -- and itls eventually going to affect the tax structure of that entire end of the county. Thank you. Any questions? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. MR. DORRILL: Miss Slebodnik. MS. SLEBODNIK: Good morning. Iim Kathleen Slebodnik, president of the League of Women Voters of Collier County, and I also served on the EAR Public Facilities Committee, and stormwater management was the -- one of the six subelements that we took a look at. Iim speaking today in favor of the leaguels position for water and land use combination. What this area needs very seriously is the basin study, the master plan. However you phase in the development work, please take a very serious look at considering the -- the basin studies that need to be done. Yes, they are expensive, and what you get back, I suppose, is a -- is a stack of paper. But this area has experienced a lot of growth and very precious little management. We have an area that has grown in a very mixed kind of way. We have what used to be low-income housing. Now it is surrounded by very high-element housing in terms of Eagle Creek or Lely Resort. We have areas that are residential across the street from where you pick strawberries and cattle still graze. We have an area that is very flat, and it is a -- an area that is going to experience a lot of growth in the area, but it's not -- it's not -- and this -- these approvals and permitting should be done on the basis of basin studies where we can take a look at the -- the results and see exactly what it is that we need. And I cannot as a -- as a league representative urge you strong -- more strongly that land use and water use are so terribly important to be interrelated that whatever plans that you have, please start with a basin study. Responsibility has to start somewhere. The Master Plan that was done in 1990 -- the commissioners at that time simply did nothing. Nobody wanted to take on the responsibility and say this is something that has to be done. The county said, well, we'll let the south water management district do it. South water management district said that's a local problem. Big Cypress Basin said we don't want to raise taxes and add to the millage. Consequently, nothing was done. I think this is an opportunity that we have to start, and what we need to start with is the study. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: And that's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Boldt, if you revise your permitting strategy, withdraw, and reapply, I -- I would -- it would be my opinion that if we presented this spreader soil project to the DEP as an environmental project as well as drainage, more environmental -- which it is actually -- do -- do you, in your professional opinion, feel that they would be more inclined to help us fund that project? MR. BOLDT: Actually fund it? Yeah. They've given some encouragement to us because the impact it has on the intercoastal area, Dollar Bay and Rookery Bay, which are sensitive areas for them, that there could be some funding. The permitting down there was really never any issue. They've encouraged us to restore the historical flow by that spreader facility. We even -- we even think that's part of our mitigation for the project that might offset some impacts upstream in some wetlands. So that's -- that's never been the real issue with them. That's the total project that's kind of overwhelmed them. They're used to looking at small developments, you know, eighty acres or a hundred and twenty acres. Well, when you put something this large -- we have some, what; 11 -- 18 square miles or whatever it was. It just overwhelmed them, and they couldn't grasp the total magnitude of the project, and so they drug their feet through it. But now with the delegation, they've even taken all their records that were up in Tallahassee and shipped them down to Fort Myers to the local office; so they don't even -- aren't in the process anymore. So it really makes sense to go back to the South Florida Water Management District under that ERP process to start that process over. So whether or not you scale the project back or not is -- is -- I think, is the question and even what they would allow. They've been permitting projects out here for a number of years in the upstream reaches with the anticipation that this project was going to be completed according to the Master Plan that the water management district did back in 1985, and they're very anxious to see that whole thing put together. If we start to break it apart, I'm not sure how they're going to react. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, the -- what is the current status of the basin board's basin study? MR. BOLDT: They're doing a complete countywide study. There's still a process of engaging consultants to do various phases of it. From what I see, it's going to be a -- you know, a year or two off before they bring the whole thing together. This particular area, though, this -- this so-called Water Management District No. 6, they did the Master Plan update on that in 1985, and that initiated the process that we're in, which is the next step to go to permitting and then, perhaps, into the construction phase. So this has had a basin study done. We know what the total project looks like. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So the basin studies that Miss Slebodnik was asking for are underway -- MR. BOLDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- by the basin board? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and were completed in '85 as to this project area, which is real important that -- to acknowledge that we're not pursuing action here without having -- frankly, what we're slow on is the action. We've had this study for this section since 1985. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What I would like to propose is that we -- we have some funding available that -- that's already been set into these accounts. I would like to propose that we -- we concentrate our efforts for the moment on getting the spreader soil project underway and -- because we can't really do -- as you've mentioned, we can't do anything else upstream until we get this portion of the project. In the interim as a parallel activity, I'd like to see a -- maybe, perhaps, some new ideas, new strategy formulated to go ahead and -- and begin the process of the -- of more of the entire project, maybe not all of it. As you say, there might be parts that -- that could be eliminated, but I'd like to see us concentrate on that spreader soil system for the moment and -- and see if we can't get that thing underway and -- while we -- while we formulate plans to -- to address the rest of the basin there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You see us doing that with the existing funding? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: For the moment, yes. I think we -- we can go a long ways with the existing funding towards getting ready. We won't -- we don't have enough funding available to actually do the construction, but we can certainly have it ready to go. And Mr. Boldt would be more than happy to bring it back to us here when he gets a little farther along and tell us how we're going to fund it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, you certainly know the area better than any of us, and I think if that's an appropriate first step in the process while we look at what the other alternatives are, I'm willing to support that, and I'll go ahead and make a motion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. MR. BOLDT: Can I inquire as to -- you're talking about both spreaders for both systems? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. MR. BOLDT: These are critical outlets for both projects. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The -- what -- on the Manor basin spreader, is that going to be functional without some work upstream, or is there -- is there not enough flowage into it to make it a worthwhile project at this point? Could you tell us -- tell us a little bit about that. MR. BOLDT: The present flow that comes out of the -- the Manor area, a lot of it goes west along the so-called Lely Lakes project, through a wetland, and comes down through a ditch that comes up to the very end of the spreader facility; so this could be directed into the spreader and restored that way. But otherwise, there's a series of ditches that go all the way through this whole area out in here (indicating) that were, under the Lely Lakes project, to be interrupted and rerouted through an existing cypress area down through here (indicating) to restore the historical flow. If we're just -- construct the -- the spreader down here, it would pick up all the flow that comes around this way (indicating) and could be going out; so it could provide -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. BOLDT: -- part of the function. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well then, yes, I think that would be the thing to do, especially since the -- the reasoning for the spreader soils is to -- to restore that historical sheet flow to the largest degree possible and -- and be environmentally sensitive down in that area. So since we do have good flowage coming in from that north canal that you've pointed out there, then it makes sense to go ahead and -- and include that as part of the -- the whole spreader project. MR. BOLDT: Okay. One other thing that I need to point out. On the -- on the main canal itself, in order for this spreader to function, it needs a water level control structure at that location to split the flow and divert it in both directions; so it would be -- that's kind of an integral part of the spreader itself. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then the direction is, yes, as I understand it, Mr. Motion Maker, to -- to do them both or to work on both of them? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- by saying aye. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Do you have a speaker? MR. DORRILL: Well, I had -- I had one after the fact. Miss -- Miss Leinwebber, do you still wish to speak in light of the motion? MS. LEINWEBBER: Hi. I'm Judy Leinwebber, and I am kind of fighting the flu this morning. I ask our county commissioners to really look at this man and that map over there (indicating), because whatever we do and wherever we put the money, just remember this is going to handle a 25-year storm only. Glenn Simpson from the Big Cypress Basin Board said it seems like we are having hundred-year storms more and more often. You put in this system, and when we get another storm like we had from Jerry, or if we get a hurricane, a direct hit like Andrew, thousands of people are going to lose their lives, because this is only up to a 25-year storm. It's not going to take care of our hundred-year storms, and we get them. We get hurricanes. We get tropical storms. This is a sham on this county. We need to get the water out of here when we have a storm. When we had the flooding from Jerry and Opal, there's a couple of our county commissioners that are in print in the newspaper: They couldn't get those damn weirs open because they were either rusted, welded. They couldn't get them open for four days. And, yes, we would have had flooding, which normally happens down here. It did not have to be as bad as it was, because they (indicating) are not doing their job. I expect our county commissioners to take responsibility and to do the right job, and that's to get the water open. It's to get the weirs open. It's not being done, and I think our county commissioners realize this; so we're going to invest our tax dollars in a 25-year storm facility. What happens with the 100-year storms? And even Glenn Simpson from the Big Cypress Basin Board admitted it; it failed. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Due to a lack of information, I'm afraid that Miss Leinwebber doesn't understand that if you design the water management system for a hundred-year storm and your house foundation is built at 25-year, guess what happens; your house floods faster, quicker, more frequently. Until all the homes and buildings in this community are raised to a hundred-year-storm elevation, designing a system for that is -- is money down the tubes. MS. LEINWEBBER: But we can't -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, Miss Leinwebber, you had your time at the microphone. We cannot go back and retrofit every home and every office building at a hundred-year-storm elevation. It's unrealistic. It can't happen. But we can certainly provide better protection than what is there now. And if a hurricane hits, guess what, folks; we're going to flood. This is Florida. It's flat. This is not rocket science. So we can do a lot better job, and I think that's exactly what the motion entailed. So, you know, Miss Leinwebber, I'd encourage you to talk to a professional engineer about bringing the county up to a hundred-year storm because I have, and it's just not practical. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, in any case, I called the question, and we did vote on that. The vote was 5 to 0, I believe. Item #8C1 AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND COLLIER HEALTH SERVICES, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT - APPROVED The next item is an add-on, 8(C)(1), the Collier Health Services lease amendment. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff, your public services administrator. The -- the add-on item, 8(C)(1), is a follow-up from an item two weeks ago where the board gave its approval of a privatized contract between the Collier Health Department and Collier Health Services, Inc. What the health department has -- has determined is that based on some additions to what they are going to privatize, there actually needs to be some minor changes to the leases that the county has with both of those entities. The total square footage being leased by the county won't change. The terms won't change. It's simply changing which entity has what square footage, and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just, actually, who has what space on the floor plan. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm happy to move approval of that. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #9A - Withdrawn Item #9B RESOLUTION 96-569, APPROVING A PROPOSED SPECIAL ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 89-449, LAWS OF FLORIDA, TO EMPOWER COUNTY PARK ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS (PARK RANGERS) TO ISSUE CITATIONS TO ENFORCE ANY COUNTY ORDINANCE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF ANY COLLIER COUNTY PARK, COLLIER COUNTY OPERATED PRAKING FACILITIES, PUBLIC BEACHES, BEACH ACCESS AREAS LOCATED IHMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO ANY COLLIER COUNTY PARK AND PUBLIC AREAS ADJACENT TO COUNTY PARKS - ADOPTED Next item, 9(B). Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Thank you. I think Mr. Olliff is going to start the presentation followed by Mr. Hanalich. MR. OLLIFF: Item 9(B) is -- is being presented by me only because it is an item being driven by the parks department. I'm still the public services administrator. The -- the item here is -- is requesting some additional enforcement duties and powers be bestowed upon your park rangers. There's -- there's two primary issues that we're trying to address, and what's required is a special act, which we are requesting that you approve for presentation to the legislative delegation. One of the items is recognition that park rangers are actually a -- a county commission arm as opposed to working for the sheriff's department. That's just an issue that wasn't clear before and needs to be clarified. The second item is -- is one where the -- the current arrangement only allows the park rangers to be able to enforce county ordinances within the boundaries of your existing park system. What happens in some cases is there may be a special county event at a library, and -- and you would like to have your park rangers to be able to coordinate some parking -- parking enforcement and enforcement of other county ordinances at a special event outside of a park, and we don't have that ability today. And the second issue is -- is for some of those areas adjacent to county parks -- and I'll give you a -- good example is the -- the Bayview boat launch area where you have a lot of parking violations where people will end up parking in the front yards of people who live adjacent to the county park. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, you know the last thing I want to do is interrupt staff presentation, but this sounds like a really great idea. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great idea. Why has it taken us so long? Let's do it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's have our public -- MR. DORRILL: I presume Mr. Blanchard is here in support. MR. BLANCHARD: For the record my name is Frank Blanchard from Marco Island. I don't intend to stop your positive vote, far be it from that. The Marco Beach Committee did discuss with the parks department several years ago the possibility of doing just this, and we would very strongly support this motion for two reasons. We -- we were discussing control of beach vendor violations. We have that, I think, under control under a voluntary compliance system. But once you have the -- the park ranger in place, there are many other useful benefits, such as simply responding to citizen need on the beaches. When you're on the beach, you're by yourself. There is -- it's very difficult to get assistance, and so we'd like to strongly support this. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Blanchard. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we pass a resolution approving a proposed special act to amend Chapter 89-449, laws of Florida. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well done. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #10A RESOLUTION 96-570 APPOINTING JACK WILLIAMS, JR. TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COHMISSION - ADOPTED Next item, 10(A), appointment of member to the Affordable Housing Commission. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One opening, one applicant. I'd like to make a motion we approve Jack Williams, Jr., architect. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #10B RESOLUTION 96-571 APPOINTING LOUIS J. TRAINA TO THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The next one won't be quite so simple. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We actually have a choice. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a choice to make. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Imagine that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's one -- I believe one vacancy; is that correct, Miss Filson? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, it's a -- it's a -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- remainder of a term. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What category was Miss Huff on the Council of Economic Advisors in? MS. FILSON: Investment advisor. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would note that the Council of Economic Advisors has recommended the appointment of Lou Traina, and it seems to me as long as this group -- God bless them -- has been working together, they're going to know better than we what the needs are. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that a motion? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a motion for Lou Traina. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: God bless them, I'll second that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: God bless them. I thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to appoint Louis J. Traina to fill the vacant term. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #10C RESOLUTION 96-572 APPOINTING VICKI A. CLAVELO AND CHERYLE L. NEWMAN TO THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next one is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, two openings, two applicants. I'd like to make a motion we approve Vicki Clavelo and Cheryle Newman. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public comment, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: None. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 96-78, AMENDING ORDINANCE 92-80, THE "COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ORDINANCE - ADOPTED AND TO BE REVIEWED IN ONE YEAR CHAIRKLAN NORRIS: Then we'll move to our afternoon portion of our agenda and go to 12(C)(1). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is ratifying the action we requested three weeks ago? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. MS. HcEACHERN: Good morning. I'm Shirley Jean HcEachern for the record, assistant county attorney, and with me is William Bolgar. I'm here on behalf of Linda Sullivan and Vince Cautero, who could not be here today. The item is the ordinance amendment or Code Enforcement Ordinance. If you recall, I think it was November 5 that the board directed staff to prepare this ordinance amendment in order to provide for an additional Code Enforcement Board and also to provide for two alternate members for each board. And in order to do that, we also took the opportunity in providing for a holdover term in the event we have -- we have a -- a present -- a pending case and any of the members' terms is about to expire, then they can hold over until final conclusion for that particular hearing. We've also updated the fines to reflect the changes in Chapter 162, which is the enabling statute governing our Code Enforcement Board Ordinance. And -- and what -- we've also lengthened the time for the life of the lien to 20 years from the 5 years, which is also another reflection of what is in the statute. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Other than the updating in accordance with Florida statutes, does this vary in any way with what the board requested four weeks ago? MS. HcEACHERN: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- what current backlog exists for code enforcement? MR. BOLGAR: Currently, we have approximately a 22-case backlog, which would be about an eight- or ten-month delay in getting these cases to the board with a single board. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Move approval. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is your name, sir? MR. BOLGAR: Bill Bolgar from code enforcement. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'd like to ask is we're looking at a 12 to 14 thousand dollar potential fiscal impact for the creation of a second board plus, you know, pulling the community resources, which is not always easy for these types of well-paid positions, zero, that is. So what I'd like to see is a very tentative approach. We do it for one year and bring this back 12 months from now. If we can get the backlog resolved and save 12 or 14 thousand dollars next year, I'd like to see us do that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no objection to that at all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm going to move approval. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I already did, but I -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll move approval on the item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second with Commissioner Hancock's one-year -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- relook. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second, then. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #14A BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS COHMUNICATIONS - LELY STORMWATER ISSUE DISCUSSED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Berry, do you have anything further today? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Not a thing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quickly. We -- the discussion on the Lely stormwater issue, I thought I might want to bring you up to speed on a meeting I had with Clarence Tears of the South Florida Water Management District. It's been a concern of mine for a while that we have adequate public facilities or an APF ordinance that talks about before you can build, you have to have the capacity available for roads, water, sewer, and so forth. There is no APF application for stormwater management. We have certain outfalls throughout the county that have a known capacity of flow at a 25-year storm event; yet we never check if capacity exists. I'll give you an example: Cocohatchee Canal. Three weirs have been put up obviously changing the capacity of that canal. When someone comes in for a permit, South Florida looks at the project itself, looks at its outfall, but doesn't make a downstream calculation of whether or not they have capacity to handle that stormwater. So what I've asked Mr. Tears to do is to work with me on creating, if you will, a report format that every time a project comes in that is to be permitted by South Florida Water Management District, we at least understand the capacity of the conveyance system downstream to handle that water in a 25-year storm event and get a report on that before we approve zoning that can be -- you know -- or, you know, just so that we have that information. Obviously, if we have a -- a capacity problem, we don't want to go approving a development that is going to feed into that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But currently if we were -- I mean, I think this is a good idea, but the current status is if we were to approve zoning, they can't pull permit, then, unless South Florida approves -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. But they're not checking. South Florida does not have a procedure by which they say, well, downstream capacity is insufficient in Cocohatchee Canal for this project. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They only check the -- whether or not it flows off the site. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. Now, if there's an obvious problem like there is not a sufficient discharge system that -- I mean, in other words, it's either obvious or it's not. I'm having those discussions with Mr. Tears now, and they're very preliminary. I have a lot to learn in this area, but it just concerns me that we aren't looking at the capacity of our stormwater management system when new development comes on line. We've got to do a better job with that. So I'm at least having those discussions. I wanted you to know because of the -- the Lely discussion we had this morning. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing. Item #14B BCC COHMUNICATIONS - FAREWELL TO TOM CONRECODE CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just an item. Today is Tom Conrecode's last day with us, and I want to say thank you very much for a job well done. I think it needs to be pointed out that we have -- I think the number is still 98 percent of our projects are done on time and on budget or early and under budget, and you play no small part in that, and I certainly wish you the very best in your new endeavor. MR. CONRECODE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good luck. MR. CONRECODE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: Just -- just one item in -- in addition to the thanks for -- for Mr. Conrecode, again. We welcome Ray Miller, who we were able to obtain just to make Mr. Ochs feel better about his increasing amount of white hair. You all notice that Mr. Miller has a little more white hair than Mr. Ochs. Item #15 STAFF'S COHMUNICATIONS RE CLEVELAND CLINIC PUBLIC HEARING And the other issue, Mr. Chairman, was there is an -- an important hearing that will be held tomorrow concerning the certificate of need and public necessity for the Cleveland Clinic. I want to encourage the board members to be aware of that. It has some important ramifications. I also didn't know whether it would behoove us to either have staff present for the obvious implications, and if so, whether there's any interest on the part of the board in expressing some position. For purposes of the record, you'll recall we asked them to come here in order to have a local hearing for purposes of establishing their record and then receive testimony. I didn't know whether you wanted to give us some direction in that regard or not. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That's a -- that's a good idea maybe to -- to have a board-directed statement tomorrow. I -- I sort of was instrumental in setting this meeting up for tomorrow and intend to give a brief comment during the -- the public hearing. So if the board desires me to convey a message at that point directly from the board, I'd be glad to do so. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I have one dominant thought on this subject, and whether it's -- it's, obviously, you know, Cleveland Clinic or Columbia or ABC Hospital that comes to Collier County, if and when they come, my concern is that if they come in and take the insurance-paying customer without providing indigent care, many of these facilities will refer to themselves as a clinic instead of a hospital thereby getting around the Hedicare-Hedicaid reimbursement indigent care responsibility. If they're going to take the cream of the crop for local business, they should -- they should burden themselves with a fair share of indigent care. And unless that's addressed in the application, I think what we're doing is we are placing an unfair burden on the existing provider in the long term. We don't want to go protecting anyone. I just ask that when they come in, they look at the total package, not just the insurance-paying or well-to-do. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess part of your point at the beginning is we -- we need to be careful regardless of who it is. I think as we continue to grow, it's a fair bet that whether it's now or at some point in the future, there is going to be an additional provider in our community. As we get bigger and bigger, there will -- there will have to be someone. The question comes down to, do you want a for-profit hospital with the obvious implications, or do you want someone, in this case the Cleveland Clinic, with a good reputation? Each place they have gone, they've met the hurdle that you've just said. And I know in their discussions here they've talked about contributing to the Help the Kids Program and doing the indigent care-type thing. I think that's a very fair request. I think they -- they are meeting that request, and I think we need to be careful that anyone that comes in, whether this goes forward now or whether it's two years down the road or four years down the road, meets that hurdle, because particularly some of the private for-profits simply don't do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I also ask if it's -- there's an obvious situation. We have buses and vans picking up people and taking them to the Cleveland Clinic on the East Coast every day in this county. I'm not aware of any bus that picks up people and takes them to a Columbia facility or any other facility, for that fact. So I think there is a distinction here in the applications that we have a -- a provider that is a hundred miles away that is being used by our residents already, and that -- that that distinction is enough for me to say we believe that at least Cleveland Clinic already has a presence in our community. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I'm comfortable -- particularly considering your comments, I'm comfortable, Commissioner Norris, conveying some level of support from this board. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As long as it's conveyed with the comments about indigent care. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that -- that was going to be the general thrust of my comments in any case; so I'll just relay those as official -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- comments of the board. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Is that hearing going to be broadcast tomorrow? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't know if it -- do you know that -- if that will be on 54? MR. DORRILL: That's a good point. If it's not, we'll make arrangements to have it -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The lady behind the camera, Miss Arnold, is saying she hasn't been scheduled for it. So if -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now she has. MR. DORRILL: We'll work on that and see whether or not we can arrange that. My preference would be on Channel 10, but we'll -- we'll need to explore that with -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Because I really think that's important for people to meet and let -- let our legal media know that this is going to happen, because I do think that people are interested and possibly can't get down there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Even if we can do a tape delay on 54. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yep. Something. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That is planned. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thanks. County attorney and his staff certainly have enjoyed working with Hr. Conrecode and wish him well, reserving the right to give him a call or two as necessary, and our hello and greeting to Mr. Miller. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, with that we are adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 APPROVAL OF A CONSENT TO USE EASEMENT AREA AGREEMENT - WITH STIPULATIONS Item #16A2 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL HARBOR BOARD Item #16A3 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR SAXON MANOR ISLES APARTMENTS - WITH STIPULATIONS O.R. Book Pages Item #16A4 ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER FACILITIES FOR NAPLES RV RESORT - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CASHIERS CHECK AS SECURITY O.R. Book Pages Item #16A5 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR FIDDLER'S CREEK, PHASE 1-A - WITH STIPULATIONS O.R. Book Pages Item #16A6a RESOLUTION 96-534 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60325-056; OWNER OF RECORD - LLOYD G. SHEEHAN, TR. Item #16A6b - This item has been deleted Item #16A6c RESOLUTION 96-535 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60617-056; OWNER OF RECORD - BETTY HORLEN Item #16A6d RESOLUTION 96-536 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60717-157; OWNER OF RECORD - STUART O. KAYE, TR. Item #16A6e RESOLUTION 96-537 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60621-035; OWNER OF RECORD - AUSLANDISCHE CAPITOLS Item #16A6f RESOLUTION 96-538 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60701-104; OWNER OF RECORD - GEORGES VERBERT EST Item #16A6g RESOLUTION 96-539 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60318-027; OWNER OF RECORD - REGINA FERNBACH Item #16A6h RESOLUTION 96-540 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60401-146; OWNER OF RECORD - ERNESTO LARRARTE Item #16A6i RESOLUTION 96-541 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60424-058; OWNER OF RECORD - WILLIAM J. CAVIN AND JANET K. CAVIN Item #16A6j RESOLUTION 96-542 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60502-126; OWNER OF RECORD - JOHN A. SIHEONE Item #16A6k RESOLUTION 96-543 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60530-033; OWNER OF RECORD - JAMES J. BRODERICK, ROSE MARIE BRODERICK Item #16A61 RESOLUTION 96-544 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60610-024; OWNER OF RECORD - EUESTOLIO LEAL, SOCORRO SANTILLS Item #16A6m RESOLUTION 96-545 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60408-005; OWNER OF RECORD - JESUS AYALA Item #16A6n RESOLUTION 96-546 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60529-064; OWNER OF RECORD - RONALD R. STRONG AND CAROL A. STRONG Item #16A6o RESOLUTION 96-547 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60606-002; OWNER OF RECORD - PATRICK S. VIGUIE, HARTINE VIGUIE Item #16A6p RESOLUTION 96-548 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60610-089; OWNER OF RECORD - HAURICE R. SKIFFEY AND KAREN C. SKIFFEY Item #16A6q RESOLUTION 96-549 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60619-035; OWNER OF RECORD - BRIAN MILLER Item #16A6r RESOLUTION 96-550 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60621-010; OWNER OF RECORD - LOUIS CA_MBRUZZI AND LORETTA CA_MBRUZZI Item #16A6s RESOLUTION 96-551 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60621-012; OWNER OF RECORD - HARIETA ALONSO Item #16A6t RESOLUTION 96-552 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60724-095; OWNER OF RECORD - PHILLIP PIERRE, MATTHEW HENDRICK Item #16A6u RESOLUTION 96-553 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60729-006; OWNER OF RECORD - NOEL H. WILLIA_MS Item #16A6v RESOLUTION 96-554 RE A LIEN RESOLUTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 60730-085; OWNER OF RECORD - JOSEPH CLEHENTE AND ROSE CLEHENTE Item #16A7 APPROVE THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK, PHASE 1A" - WITH STIPULATIONS, LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Item #16B1 - This item has been deleted Item #1682 APPROVAL OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS AT JUNCTIONS HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE AND U.S. 41, CIE PROJECT NO. 023 - IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $254,000 Item #1683 RESOLUTION 96-555 EXTENSION OF THE LANDFILL CITIZENS ADVISORY COHMITTEE THROUGH JUNE 30, 1997 Item #1684 AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PURCHASE MULCH FROHAACTION MULCH, INC., FOR SPECIAL LANDSCAPE PROJECTS Item #1685 REPORT OF COMPLETED GAC ROAD IMPROVEMENTS IN FY 1995-96 AND RECOHMENDATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE GAC PROGRAM FOR FY 1996-97 Item #1686 APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SERVICES NECESSARY IN PERFORMANCE OF ANNUAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHHENT PROJECT Item #1687 AMENDMENT TO WORK ORDER ABB-95-3 FOR REPAIR OF THREE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS TANKS Item #16B8 - This item has been deleted Item #16B9 - This item has been continued to the meeting of 12/10/96 Item #16C1 APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE EQUIPMENT FOR TIGERTAIL BEACH COUNTY PARK BY UTILIZING AN ANNUAL STATE CONTRACT AND AWARD SAID PURCHASE TO GAME TIME, INC., IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $85,000.00 Item #16C2 - This item has been deleted Item #16C3 RESOLUTION 96-556 AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR AREAS LICENSE AND FEE POLICY NO. 96-364 Item #16D1 RESOLUTION 96-557 APPROVING THE 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 Item #16D2 RESOLUTION 96-558 APPROVING THE 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 Item #16D3 RESOLUTION 96-559 APPROVING THE 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 Item #16D4 RESOLUTION 96-560 APPROVING THE 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 Item #16D5 RESOLUTION 96-561 APPROVING THE 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 Item #16D6 RESOLUTION 96-562 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Item #16D7 RESOLUTION 96-563 APPROVING THE 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 Item #16D8 RESOLUTION 96-564 APPROVING THE 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 Item #16D9 RESOLUTION 96-565 APPROVING THE 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 Item #16D10 RESOLUTION 96-566 APPROVING THE 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 Item #16Dll RESOLUTION 96-567 APPROVING THE 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 Item #16D12 DECLARE COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY AS SURPLUS AND ACCEPT THE OFFER RECEIVED FROM DRNJ GROUP, FOR THE SALE SURPLUS TERMINALS AND KEYBOARDS UNDER BID #596-2589, IN THE AMOUNT OF $207.60 Item #16D13 AWARD BID #96-2609 TO JAMESON SUPPLY INCORPORATED, FOR THE PURCHASE OF PLUMBING PARTS AND SUPPLIES Item #16D14 - This item has been deleted Item #16D15 APPROVE AGREEMENTS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM (RFP 96-2470) TO PERSONAL DATA SYSTEMS, INC. Item #16G1 CERTIFICATE FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1995 Real Property No. Dated 263 11/19/96 1996 Real Property 49, 50, 52, 53, 56 11/15 - 11/19/96 1996 Tangible Personal Property 34 11/21/96 Item #1662 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #1611 AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AND RELEASES FOR NON-EMPLOYEES AND PLAINTIFFS IN THE AMOUNT OF $42,770.33 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:13 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara Drescher